What are your hopes for some units with the new FW indices being released?
Having recently finished a Gargantuan Squiggoth I hope the big guy gets lots of love so he can stomp on stuff.
Would like if some of the flyer stuff got changes/tweaks to their rules too - Eldar Nightwings, Chaos flyers, Xiphon etc (some need buffs, some need nerfs).
Is the IG Griffon totally gone btw? I still have my old 2nd ed one around.
Honestly I think the biggest hope is that no models that are currently sold are dropped. That's got to be the biggest and most important hope.
I think most expect to see anything that isn't currently sold to be lost/moved to legends.
After that I'd say the next biggest is to have FW stuff that is comparable to central 40K still and which is balanced and fun to use so that you've a reason to put it on the table and not feel like you're taking a "nerf" in doing so (assuming you put it into a proper list that compliments it rather than just random models of course).
One thing I hope for is for the Macharius and Malcador tanks to be made into real alternatives for Leman Russ and Baneblade. My dream would be that both would bring some kind of tactical gimmick instead of just intermediate firepower for intermediate price. Like a command Macharius or something like that.
I hope for pts price drops of shadow specters. I think they are cool with rules mostly spot on but just too pricey.
Irylthi phoenix lord.. this guy just needs a serious pts reduction and some sort of invuln like all other PL models.
A change in the wraithseer loadout options allowing him to have two shoulder mounted heavy weapons as he can be modelled with two, just like the wraithlord... hopefuly not too much of a pts hike. Alternatively give him the same character protection SM dreads enjoy.
I know it ain't going to happen, but getting Tyrants Legion back would be nice.
Yes it wasn't the best most OP thing evah, and yes it can be easily recreated by just playing guard and marines or r&h and csm together but still, it was nice thematic piece of fluff translated to the tabletop for us to experience.
Chaos FW units have a lot of options that aren't for sale actually, I hope these don't get erased. Also bringing FW units on the Level of GW units, as most of them missed 3 rounds of points adjustments. Many of the FW units also have rules that are unique, but don't really add to the game, like some vehicles having pistol weapons, or -1AP on a 6. A little bit of streamlining for these to bring them on par with their Codizes would be nice.
p5freak wrote: Its done by the GW rules team, i have no hopes. It will be as bad as any GW codex.
Considering that many lament the increased (perceived or actual) imbalance of FW models then, in theory, the GW rules team will "do better". So its actually an improvement if you consider GW and FW rules writing to be bottom of the barrel already.
I almost don't want to see the Wraithseer take two heavy weapons if just because that moves it closer to just being a weapons platform instead of a marked different kind of wraithlord model. Wraithlords already take two heavy weapons, let them have the option of being a gun platform whilst the seer holds its own unique role.
The role of a slightly more durable platform but with less dakka?
Its unique in that it has psychic and is a HQ slot. It already can take a d canmon. I see no reason why it couldint take two bright lances.
Anyway the more important thing imo is it gives buffs to wraiths and better psychic. I would like it have its current psychic powers turn to auras as well as get acess to smite and maybe runes of fate. Hes essentialy a necromancered farseer..
Im fairly certain it will drop the wraithcanon as it currently doesnt come with the kit.
p5freak wrote: Its done by the GW rules team, i have no hopes. It will be as bad as any GW codex.
Considering that many lament the increased (perceived or actual) imbalance of FW models then, in theory, the GW rules team will "do better". So its actually an improvement if you consider GW and FW rules writing to be bottom of the barrel already.
Which means that, in theory, you should be happy.
When rules are made by team who have vested interest in making sure these don't sell to gamers expecting them to actually be useful is optimistic. You are depending on them being incompetent enough to not nerf them to death.
p5freak wrote: Its done by the GW rules team, i have no hopes. It will be as bad as any GW codex.
Considering that many lament the increased (perceived or actual) imbalance of FW models then, in theory, the GW rules team will "do better". So its actually an improvement if you consider GW and FW rules writing to be bottom of the barrel already.
Which means that, in theory, you should be happy.
Right, it will be one inch above bottom of the barrel
I'd love for my Hierodules to be cheaper, and somewhat more durable (make 'em T9 with 28-30 wounds or something - be bold!). And put the Malanthrope down to sub-90 points. The sudden 30 point increase he got is insane. Either that or push his bubble out to 6".
Most FW ork stuff being made useable would be great. I like the mecha dread for instance but you’d be crazy to field one over a mork or gork. And those aren’t even good.
Only thing I’ve gotten use of is the big trakk with super flamer. It’s the best even if it’s overcosted.
Tyranids - get the super heavies to a somewhat playable standard. They shouldn't be amazing, but right now they're just sad.
Marines - I know, we dont deserve it, but I'd love so much for a few more of the HH options to get 40k rules. As a DA player, the plasma flame guys and the new Terminators especially.
TSons - Osiron Dread, 40k rules please. If any army should have psychic dreadnoughts, its TSons!
I would love some of the army specific 30k units get rules making them usable in 40k. Some Osiron dreadnaughts and Castellax-Achea Battle Automata would be nice!
Lance845 wrote: Its very obvious that all the old marine stuff is on its way out to be replaced by primaris. 30k options getting updates is a massive waste of time.
Not for csm it isn't.
On that note: fixing the points on the hellforged super heavys. A fellblade isn't worth more than two baneblades, for the billionth time .
Give dreadclaws a form of the loyalist marines drop pod rule that lets them ignore the tactical reserve rules. No reason our drop pods should be inferior.
Bringing r&h, dkok, and all the other fw armies up to the level of other 8th edition armies. Strategems, warlord traits, etc. And new rules for Carcharadons would be nice.
Lance845 wrote: Its very obvious that all the old marine stuff is on its way out to be replaced by primaris. 30k options getting updates is a massive waste of time.
It's not happening overnight. If it helps sell extra 30k kits it probably is worth their time.
I want my DKoK to be priced equally with their codex Counterparts. In literally every edition of the game, all of their units have been both more points than their codex equivalents (e.g. Infantry Squads are always 1ppm more for DKoK, pretty much always have been going back to 4th) and usually have fewer capabilities and options to boot (wooo WS3+ in exchange for no option to take heavy weapons in Infantry Squads, no option for quad specials in max sized Grenadier squad the way Scions get and no Deep Strike option, etc).
Likewise, I'd like my Hades Breaching Drill to actually be able to be paired with the unit they were released to be paired with, DKoK Engineers, which currently don't have the option to actually take one because whoever wrote the index books was dumb.
Just...make the DKoK able to operate on par with even a mediocre Codex list, not just be outright worse in every way as has generally been the case since the release of IA5 in 2006 under 4th edition.
Honestly, at this point in 8th, its so out of control in damage i'd rather just wait for a soft reset of everything. I have FW units, and not really caring if i play them as they just die turn 1 or are super OP. WOW so fun.
Stux wrote: TSons - Osiron Dread, 40k rules please. If any army should have psychic dreadnoughts, its TSons!
The only issue with this is that GW changed TS Dreadnought fluff and they don't actually contain Sons anymore.
Also, I kind of hope R&H don't get an update and instead we get a full Traitoris Militarum book.
Why would you prefer a Traitor Guard codex to updating r&h? Honest question.
Don't know,probably because he didn't habe ia13?
Because i take that list with it 's various Styles over guard but spikey any day
The IA13 list was broken as hell, there's no way they'd do anything near that again. Try actually reading my response to the question above maybe?
Lol what response above? The statement that you just want traitor guard and let everything else let rot?
Also what was that broken about IA13?
Because the only thing remotely broken that R&H had was thanks to the later Vraks updates and formations. Not the book in itself but alas.
A lot of stuff needs point re-evaluations. Carriage artillery are an especially notable example...
They also need to go through and fix all the errors, typos, and lack of proper keywords. As much as Vigilus detachments were a half-assed mistake, they're around and there's no reason why FW stuff should be excluded from them. Actually, I'd be even more in favour of FW specific detachments. "Legacy Tank Company" of Malcadors? Sure. "Static Artillery Detachment"? "Imperial Navy Air Wing?" Hell yeah.
Hades breaching drills need to be given back to DKoK engineers, and the "Veterans" that come with it for normal guard need to be made into actual "Veterans."
I want more R&H. They're the pervasive, persistent form of Chaos that has kept the Imperium the fascist, hard-line, militant-religious society that it is. They deserve a bloody rulebook and some upgrade sprues more than the sodding Genestealer cult ever did.
Tau Barracuda weapon profiles being brought up to their codex equivalents. I just love that model but I cannot bring myself to spend €100+ on something that I cannot reasonably field without massively gimping myself.
So if gw is updating all the fw armies (or at least the ones they don't squat) that means new rules for the fw space marine chapters. So will they get a combined supplement? Will they get parent chapters? Do we finally find out who the parent chapters of chapters like the Carcharadons and Minotaurs are?
Gadzilla666 wrote: So if gw is updating all the fw armies (or at least the ones they don't squat) that means new rules for the fw space marine chapters. So will they get a combined supplement? Will they get parent chapters? Do we finally find out who the parent chapters of chapters like the Carcharadons and Minotaurs are?
We already have all but official confirmation Carchaodons are Raven Guard successors (do Stealthy and one of the melee Tactics for how they operate. They're surprisingly stealthy in fluff). I imagine for unconfirmed Chapters they'll give the Tactics to use and which Chapter to treat them as for Successor benefits, despite not officially designating them as a Successor. If that makes sense. I dunno.
I just want more Marines Errant rules. They're really unique and stuff.
Gadzilla666 wrote: So if gw is updating all the fw armies (or at least the ones they don't squat) that means new rules for the fw space marine chapters. So will they get a combined supplement? Will they get parent chapters? Do we finally find out who the parent chapters of chapters like the Carcharadons and Minotaurs are?
We already have all but official confirmation Carchaodons are Raven Guard successors (do Stealthy and one of the melee Tactics for how they operate. They're surprisingly stealthy in fluff). I imagine for unconfirmed Chapters they'll give the Tactics to use and which Chapter to treat them as for Successor benefits, despite not officially designating them as a Successor. If that makes sense. I dunno.
I just want more Marines Errant rules. They're really unique and stuff.
Carcharadons have chimeric geneseed. So stealthy and fearsome aspect for their "other" parent legion .
I just wish they'd do Ashen Claws as besides Carcharadons and Black Dragons they're the only loyalists I'd ever consider playing.
Mostly I'm hoping they don't go overboard on the rules like they did for some of the other chapters.
Marines - I know, we dont deserve it, but I'd love so much for a few more of the HH options to get 40k rules. As a DA player, the plasma flame guys and the new Terminators especially.
Same here, why cant I have firedrakes & pyroclasts?
Marines - I know, we dont deserve it, but I'd love so much for a few more of the HH options to get 40k rules. As a DA player, the plasma flame guys and the new Terminators especially.
Same here, why cant I have firedrakes & pyroclasts?
Sounds great as long as I get terror squads and Night Raptors. Give me that "onslaught " rule. And Nostroman chainglaives of course.
it makes sense that the legions would still have these in their chapter armouries/"chapter tactics".
I mean, firedrakes are Cataphractii thundernaters. give them something like attacks made with flame/melta are -2 to wound or something thematic like that.
Pyroclasts could have 9" flamers with +1 to wound with normal statline otherwise would be cool.
all of legions should have a variation on their own special rules. just make them appropriately costed(not that they have a great track record), but maybe with GW doin 'em they might be right (yeah right).
I'm still amused that, after recent evidence *cough*Iron Hands*cough* people are so convinced that the GW rules team will automatically do a better (and/or more balanced) job than the FW team did.
Admittedly, they'll have had more time, and the system itself now has some better guides on things like keyword usage, but still...
I want the barbed hierodule down to 290 pts and the scythed down to 275. No other changes nessecary for them.
Malanthrope should be 105 pts.
Dymachaeron should be 150pts.
Aquilon terminators should drop to same base price as allarus or they should gain some other ability (something like a deep strike flare that grants them -1 to hit them for one turn after they deep strike).
People have infinite hope in this company to do something they've proven to be infinitely hopeless with. Makes perfect sense when you think about it. A tale of two extremes.
Pandabeer wrote: Tau Barracuda weapon profiles being brought up to their codex equivalents. I just love that model but I cannot bring myself to spend €100+ on something that I cannot reasonably field without massively gimping myself.
Speaking of Tau: Kel'Shan sept trait and point reduction for R'varna/Y'vahra
Dysartes wrote: I'm still amused that, after recent evidence *cough*Iron Hands*cough* people are so convinced that the GW rules team will automatically do a better (and/or more balanced) job than the FW team did.
Maybe it's because some of us cannot see GW doing a worse job with certain units.
Dysartes wrote: I'm still amused that, after recent evidence *cough*Iron Hands*cough* people are so convinced that the GW rules team will automatically do a better (and/or more balanced) job than the FW team did.
Maybe it's because some of us cannot see GW doing a worse job with certain units.
GW has proven before that they can always do a worse job.
Dysartes wrote: I'm still amused that, after recent evidence *cough*Iron Hands*cough* people are so convinced that the GW rules team will automatically do a better (and/or more balanced) job than the FW team did.
Maybe it's because some of us cannot see GW doing a worse job with certain units.
Racerguy180 wrote: it makes sense that the legions would still have these in their chapter armouries/"chapter tactics".
I mean, firedrakes are Cataphractii thundernaters. give them something like attacks made with flame/melta are -2 to wound or something thematic like that.
Pyroclasts could have 9" flamers with +1 to wound with normal statline otherwise would be cool.
all of legions should have a variation on their own special rules. just make them appropriately costed(not that they have a great track record), but maybe with GW doin 'em they might be right (yeah right).
No good explanation for why Night Lords raptors stopped being the best raptors. Or why they stopped using chainglaives. It's a chainblade on a longer handle for feths sake. I don't think the technology could be "lost ".
Racerguy180 wrote: it makes sense that the legions would still have these in their chapter armouries/"chapter tactics".
I mean, firedrakes are Cataphractii thundernaters. give them something like attacks made with flame/melta are -2 to wound or something thematic like that.
Pyroclasts could have 9" flamers with +1 to wound with normal statline otherwise would be cool.
all of legions should have a variation on their own special rules. just make them appropriately costed(not that they have a great track record), but maybe with GW doin 'em they might be right (yeah right).
No good explanation for why Night Lords raptors stopped being the best raptors. Or why they stopped using chainglaives. It's a chainblade on a longer handle for feths sake. I don't think the technology could be "lost ".
I sound like a broken record but part of the issue with CSM is they're not treated like they're Legions. They're treated like super underequipped Renegades that lost technology.
Dysartes wrote: I'm still amused that, after recent evidence *cough*Iron Hands*cough* people are so convinced that the GW rules team will automatically do a better (and/or more balanced) job than the FW team did.
Maybe it's because some of us cannot see GW doing a worse job with certain units.
Racerguy180 wrote: it makes sense that the legions would still have these in their chapter armouries/"chapter tactics".
I mean, firedrakes are Cataphractii thundernaters. give them something like attacks made with flame/melta are -2 to wound or something thematic like that.
Pyroclasts could have 9" flamers with +1 to wound with normal statline otherwise would be cool.
all of legions should have a variation on their own special rules. just make them appropriately costed(not that they have a great track record), but maybe with GW doin 'em they might be right (yeah right).
No good explanation for why Night Lords raptors stopped being the best raptors. Or why they stopped using chainglaives. It's a chainblade on a longer handle for feths sake. I don't think the technology could be "lost ".
I sound like a broken record but part of the issue with CSM is they're not treated like they're Legions. They're treated like super underequipped Renegades that lost technology.
Yeah, ever since the 4E CSM codex, GW really has muddled what they wanted CSM's to be.
Legions should be veteran, expensive forces with some specialized focus and HH era remnant gear with daemon engines and Dark Mechanicus stuff thrown in.
Renegades should generally be equipped and organized around Loyalist lines with some marks/daemon engines thrown in and a piratical nature.
As is, for the last decade and multiple editions, GW has been content for these forces to basically be the same thing, without really explaining why the Tyrant of Badab's forces have Heresy era Reaper Autocannons and Havoc Launchers but can't find a Land Speeder, Assault Cannon or a Drop Pod...
Racerguy180 wrote: it makes sense that the legions would still have these in their chapter armouries/"chapter tactics".
I mean, firedrakes are Cataphractii thundernaters. give them something like attacks made with flame/melta are -2 to wound or something thematic like that.
Pyroclasts could have 9" flamers with +1 to wound with normal statline otherwise would be cool.
all of legions should have a variation on their own special rules. just make them appropriately costed(not that they have a great track record), but maybe with GW doin 'em they might be right (yeah right).
No good explanation for why Night Lords raptors stopped being the best raptors. Or why they stopped using chainglaives. It's a chainblade on a longer handle for feths sake. I don't think the technology could be "lost ".
I sound like a broken record but part of the issue with CSM is they're not treated like they're Legions. They're treated like super underequipped Renegades that lost technology.
Yeah, ever since the 4E CSM codex, GW really has muddled what they wanted CSM's to be.
Legions should be veteran, expensive forces with some specialized focus and HH era remnant gear with daemon engines and Dark Mechanicus stuff thrown in.
Renegades should generally be equipped and organized around Loyalist lines with some marks/daemon engines thrown in and a piratical nature.
As is, for the last decade and multiple editions, GW has been content for these forces to basically be the same thing, without really explaining why the Tyrant of Badab's forces have Heresy era Reaper Autocannons and Havoc Launchers but can't find a Land Speeder, Assault Cannon or a Drop Pod...
And Night Lords should be a combination of the two. Nix the daemons add the piratical nature.
There's also politics to consider within GW. A lot of the AoSFW models had the GW team writing rules for them and the Exalted Greater Demons (the FW model versions) all seem a bit "lesser" than their plastic GW counterparts. Meanwhile they hid a huge load of monsters in Destruction (you know that one alliance that had nothing for the longest time). In fact I think the only AoS army that got any real marketing of its AoS models was Gloomspite Gitz.
For some reason the FW arm of AoS just wasn't treated nice. There's every possibility that the FW stuff balanced by the GW team could come up "lesser".
Of course balance is a minefield - I've seen people argue that the same model is both over and underpowered to the extreme with both throwing maths and arguments at each other in theory.
Racerguy180 wrote: it makes sense that the legions would still have these in their chapter armouries/"chapter tactics".
I mean, firedrakes are Cataphractii thundernaters. give them something like attacks made with flame/melta are -2 to wound or something thematic like that.
Pyroclasts could have 9" flamers with +1 to wound with normal statline otherwise would be cool.
all of legions should have a variation on their own special rules. just make them appropriately costed(not that they have a great track record), but maybe with GW doin 'em they might be right (yeah right).
No good explanation for why Night Lords raptors stopped being the best raptors. Or why they stopped using chainglaives. It's a chainblade on a longer handle for feths sake. I don't think the technology could be "lost ".
I sound like a broken record but part of the issue with CSM is they're not treated like they're Legions. They're treated like super underequipped Renegades that lost technology.
Yeah, ever since the 4E CSM codex, GW really has muddled what they wanted CSM's to be.
Legions should be veteran, expensive forces with some specialized focus and HH era remnant gear with daemon engines and Dark Mechanicus stuff thrown in.
Renegades should generally be equipped and organized around Loyalist lines with some marks/daemon engines thrown in and a piratical nature.
As is, for the last decade and multiple editions, GW has been content for these forces to basically be the same thing, without really explaining why the Tyrant of Badab's forces have Heresy era Reaper Autocannons and Havoc Launchers but can't find a Land Speeder, Assault Cannon or a Drop Pod...
And Night Lords should be a combination of the two. Nix the daemons add the piratical nature.
I'm fine with Alpha Legion and Night Lords getting access to Marks. I mean it DOES happen, and they aren't flat stat boosts. However, the strats they're based around (and the Relics) need fixing.
Apply a keyword system for the bulk of FW products that allows them to be in a given list without breaking Battle Forged or <keyword> but not be able to benefit from Faction rules/strats. So an Iron Hands list could have a Leviathan without losing Battle Forged or the Iron Hands super doctrine but the Leviathan itself would just be a Leviathan from the datasheet with no buffs, bonuses or ability to use stratagems. This would allow the game developers to balance Codexes based on the main product line without a few FW models breaking the meta through unforeseen interactions. A less extreme hope would be to just make FW models ineligible for faction based Stratagems.
Apply a keyword system for the bulk of FW products that allows them to be in a given list without breaking Battle Forged or <keyword> but not be able to benefit from Faction rules/strats. So an Iron Hands list could have a Leviathan without losing Battle Forged or the Iron Hands super doctrine but the Leviathan itself would just be a Leviathan from the datasheet with no buffs, bonuses or ability to use stratagems. This would allow the game developers to balance Codexes based on the main product line without a few FW models breaking the meta through unforeseen interactions. A less extreme hope would be to just make FW models ineligible for faction based Stratagems.
What "unforeseen interactions"? I'm tired of this whole "gw can't balance fw units along with the main line" concept. If the gw team is writing these books then they should be able to balance them according to the main faction rules and units. And if they release new rules the only reason they can't balance them with fw in mind is laziness. They'll have the rules they wrote themselves to go by.
Apply a keyword system for the bulk of FW products that allows them to be in a given list without breaking Battle Forged or <keyword> but not be able to benefit from Faction rules/strats. So an Iron Hands list could have a Leviathan without losing Battle Forged or the Iron Hands super doctrine but the Leviathan itself would just be a Leviathan from the datasheet with no buffs, bonuses or ability to use stratagems. This would allow the game developers to balance Codexes based on the main product line without a few FW models breaking the meta through unforeseen interactions. A less extreme hope would be to just make FW models ineligible for faction based Stratagems.
You should keep your day job & leave game design to the pros at GW.
Guess I struck a nerve with some of you. I know that some of you are quite precious about your FW, but something needs to be done. It's clear that FW is not considered when they design Codexes.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Guess I struck a nerve with some of you. I know that some of you are quite precious about your FW, but something needs to be done. It's clear that FW is not considered when they design Codexes.
Totally. Remember all those broken lists with Iron Hands that used a bunch of FW and not just Repulsors and codex vehicles to do the heavy lifting?
My biggest wish is that GW starts printing everything that needs to be paid for in the equipment section and don't expect people to read the Abilities section and understand that means you need to pay for your abilities. So teleportation matrix should be listed under Gauss Pylon wargear.
I don't like the macro rule, I'd like the Gauss Pylon's main weapon to become heavy instead and for its alternate profiles to become a lot more useful. It's too arbitrary whether Magnus, a Knight, a Monolith, a Land Raider and a Shadowsword is Titanic for a weapon to suddenly deal 2x damage. Maybe re-roll failed wounds vs Titanic would be less swingy.
Toholk the Blinded's seize the initiative bonus should be replaced with something different. Free Prepared Positions would be great.
New unique Maynarkh Dynasty Code, Warlord Trait, Relic and Stratagem which is positive for melee and Flayed Ones in particular is a wish of mine.
Tomb Citadel needs rules so it can replace terrain so it becomes usable on a table with terrain and then a less insanely high PL and pts cost.
Tomb Stalker should have RF 2 instead RF D3 weapons, how am I supposed to resolve this if it's in RF range? Is it 2d3 or D3*2? (It's a S4 AP-1 weapon for anyone that wonders, it having a low but variable output is just silly for a monster).
Sentry Pylon's focussed death ray needs a rework, even if it became 35 pts cheaper it'd still be a largely immobile vehicle with a single multi-melta. It's a waste of real life money to buy a model that expensive with so little impact on the board.
I feel like most of the Necron FW units need buffs, but GW gonna GW so I'm not even going to wish for anything good or for GW to not overcorrect something. Whatever happens is going to happen. I did play against CSMFW Dreads the other day and found out they have a 1CP shoot twice Strat, joy and balance.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Guess I struck a nerve with some of you. I know that some of you are quite precious about your FW, but something needs to be done. It's clear that FW is not considered when they design Codexes.
That just means they should start considering fw when they write the codexes. Time to stop with the laziness and inter company politics.
FW models should not be in separate Codexes anymore. They should be brought into the main Codexes (presumably if/when 9th edition drops [or an equivalent re-release like 8.5 or whatever]). This may require substantial re-tuning (nerfs/buffs) and thereafter they should be just part of the Munitorum.
NEW Forgeworld releases should be treated like any other GW model release and (in principle, anyway) be balanced/tested/tuned by the main rules team process. No more of this FW v. GW dueling rule-writing teams.
Due to the depth of the FW catalogue for certain factions this may require shipping a few older units to Legends (this would affect a fair chunk of my collection, to be fair). But if this allows us to get rid of this unhealthy schism between FW and the main GW line, it’s worth it.
The only other realistic, fool proof alternative, if they’re going to insist on returning to a two-team rules writing process (after this release, I guess), would HAVE to be what Tango suggested. They have proven a full on ‘one hand ignorant of the other hand’ mentality on both sides whereby rules come out that either totally break a unit in certain combos (e.g., IH Levis) or are dead on arrival because they don’t actually work as FW intended (CSM Dread Claws).
For my part, I hope they keep Repressors in normal play and not Legends. Sisters need more vehicles, not less.
Agreed. I still want to see them get a super heavy. A baneblade chassis with an inferno cannon would be awesome.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sieGermans wrote: FW models should not be in separate Codexes anymore. They should be brought into the main Codexes (presumably if/when 9th edition drops [or an equivalent re-release like 8.5 or whatever]). This may require substantial re-tuning (nerfs/buffs) and thereafter they should be just part of the Munitorum.
NEW Forgeworld releases should be treated like any other GW model release and (in principle, anyway) be balanced/tested/tuned by the main rules team process. No more of this FW v. GW dueling rule-writing teams.
Due to the depth of the FW catalogue for certain factions this may require shipping a few older units to Legends (this would affect a fair chunk of my collection, to be fair). But if this allows us to get rid of this unhealthy schism between FW and the main GW line, it’s worth it.
The only other realistic, fool proof alternative, if they’re going to insist on returning to a two-team rules writing process (after this release, I guess), would HAVE to be what Tango suggested. They have proven a full on ‘one hand ignorant of the other hand’ mentality on both sides whereby rules come out that either totally break a unit in certain combos (e.g., IH Levis) or are dead on arrival because they don’t actually work as FW intended (CSM Dread Claws).
I feel like most of the Necron FW units need buffs, but GW gonna GW so I'm not even going to wish for anything good or for GW to not overcorrect something. Whatever happens is going to happen. I did play against CSMFW Dreads the other day and found out they have a 1CP shoot twice Strat, joy and balance.
Ok wrong.
Either
A your opponent cheated due to the firefrenzy stratagem explicitly mentioning hellbrutes not the <hellbrute> keyword, making all fw dreads illegible for stratagems for hellbrutes.
B you both didn't know or read the faq to the actual ruleset,which tbh is a gakshow anyways thanks to gw having to throw out 100+ rulessources includong faq.
I feel like most of the Necron FW units need buffs, but GW gonna GW so I'm not even going to wish for anything good or for GW to not overcorrect something. Whatever happens is going to happen. I did play against CSMFW Dreads the other day and found out they have a 1CP shoot twice Strat, joy and balance.
Ok wrong.
Either
A your opponent cheated due to the firefrenzy stratagem explicitly mentioning hellbrutes not the <hellbrute> keyword, making all fw dreads illegible for stratagems for hellbrutes.
B you both didn't know or read the faq to the actual ruleset,which tbh is a gakshow anyways thanks to gw having to throw out 100+ rulessources includong faq.
A I knew it didn't work but forgot why My opponent convinced me it changed.
Q: Can a Hellforged Contemptor Dreadnought, Hellforged
Deredeo Dreadnought or a Hellforged Leviathan Dreadnought
use the Fire Frenzy Stratagem from e.g. Codex: Chaos
Space Marines?
A: No
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Guess I struck a nerve with some of you. I know that some of you are quite precious about your FW, but something needs to be done. It's clear that FW is not considered when they design Codexes.
Totally. Remember all those broken lists with Iron Hands that used a bunch of FW and not just Repulsors and codex vehicles to do the heavy lifting?
Oh, wait.
I bet you'd be hard pressed to find actual codex vehicles in any current lists. I'd much prefer to fight repulsors.
LVOIH
#1:
Chaplain Ven Dread
Chaplain Ven Dread
Chaplain Ven Dread
Levi
No codex vehicles
#4:
Chaplain Ven Dread
Chaplain Ven Dread
Chaplain Ven Dread
Levi
No codex vehicles
#5:
Relic Contemptor
Scorpius
Mortis
No codex vehicles
#10:
Chaplain Ven Dread
Chaplain Ven Dread
Chaplain Ven Dread
Levi
No codex vehicles
#22:
Chaplain Ven Dread
Chaplain Ven Dread
Chaplain Ven Dread
Levi
No codex vehicles
Ok good point. Question is, how heavily represented is fw in lists that aren'tih? And if fw was removed do you think that ih would suddenly stop being the hands down dominating faction? What do you think Daedalus, is the problem fw or ih?
Id be happy if its charge power was 3d6 total and not 3d6 discarding the lowest, and the FNP to be a 5++ rather than a 6+++ (means I don't have to bother with firtune), its LD power can just go all together lol.
I think the wraithseer is in a good place otherwise.
I have a nasty idea for a list with two of the ones that I own.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Ok good point. Question is, how heavily represented is fw in lists that aren'tih? And if fw was removed do you think that ih would suddenly stop being the hands down dominating faction? What do you think Daedalus, is the problem fw or ih?
I know what I think. The problems ih, notfw.
Why not both?
Do we believe that IH would be harder if they were doing Ironstone and DE on T8 W8 3+/6+++ or T8 W14 2+/4++/6+++?
Clearly RG has no real interest in FW, because they don't have a lot of stratagems that benefit those models - at least not that have been discovered, but you'll still find Relic Contemptors and Mortis Dreads (when they're not all out Cent spam or Flyer spam for IH).
The top IF player:
Chap Ven Dread
Chap Ven Dread
Scorpius
Rapier
Rapier
Impulsor
Impusor
You'd have a hard time not finding the Scorpius And Rapiers for them it seems by looking at other lists.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Ok good point. Question is, how heavily represented is fw in lists that aren'tih? And if fw was removed do you think that ih would suddenly stop being the hands down dominating faction? What do you think Daedalus, is the problem fw or ih?
I know what I think. The problems ih, notfw.
Why not both?
Do we believe that IH would be harder if they were doing Ironstone and DE on T8 W8 3+/6+++ or T8 W14 2+/4++/6+++?
Clearly RG has no real interest in FW, because they don't have a lot of stratagems that benefit those models - at least not that have been discovered, but you'll still find Relic Contemptors and Mortis Dreads (when they're not all out Cent spam or Flyer spam for IH).
The top IF player:
Chap Ven Dread
Chap Ven Dread
Scorpius
Rapier
Rapier
Impulsor
Impusor
You'd have a hard time not finding the Scorpius And Rapiers for them it seems by looking at other lists.
What about the faction second most represented in fwcsm? Do you think fw is a problem there. Although fw may be represented in many lists I don't think that means it's a problem. Plenty of codex units are auto takes as well. What about tfc, centurions, disco lords and the like?
Some fw units need balancing but a full ban isn't needed.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Ok good point. Question is, how heavily represented is fw in lists that aren'tih? And if fw was removed do you think that ih would suddenly stop being the hands down dominating faction? What do you think Daedalus, is the problem fw or ih?
I know what I think. The problems ih, notfw.
Why not both?
Do we believe that IH would be harder if they were doing Ironstone and DE on T8 W8 3+/6+++ or T8 W14 2+/4++/6+++?
Clearly RG has no real interest in FW, because they don't have a lot of stratagems that benefit those models - at least not that have been discovered, but you'll still find Relic Contemptors and Mortis Dreads (when they're not all out Cent spam or Flyer spam for IH).
The top IF player:
Chap Ven Dread
Chap Ven Dread
Scorpius
Rapier
Rapier
Impulsor
Impusor
You'd have a hard time not finding the Scorpius And Rapiers for them it seems by looking at other lists.
What about the faction second most represented in fwcsm? Do you think fw is a problem there. Although fw may be represented in many lists I don't think that means it's a problem. Plenty of codex units are auto takes as well. What about tfc, centurions, disco lords and the like?
Some fw units need balancing but a full ban isn't needed.
I don't think TTB's intent was to ban FW, but to remove interaction.
I don't have good solutions for you, but I can tell you that the Chaos side of FW units aren't seen as whacky, because they don't interact. I can't heal contemptors or double shoot them, but marines can get them half damage, -1 damage, repair, and character status along with traits. It still doesn't stop me from using contemptors on occasion.
You may see the Brohammer list change with the new ITC missions, but I doubt it will be drastic and FW will still feature.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Ok good point. Question is, how heavily represented is fw in lists that aren'tih? And if fw was removed do you think that ih would suddenly stop being the hands down dominating faction? What do you think Daedalus, is the problem fw or ih?
I know what I think. The problems ih, notfw.
Why not both?
Do we believe that IH would be harder if they were doing Ironstone and DE on T8 W8 3+/6+++ or T8 W14 2+/4++/6+++?
Clearly RG has no real interest in FW, because they don't have a lot of stratagems that benefit those models - at least not that have been discovered, but you'll still find Relic Contemptors and Mortis Dreads (when they're not all out Cent spam or Flyer spam for IH).
The top IF player:
Chap Ven Dread
Chap Ven Dread
Scorpius
Rapier
Rapier
Impulsor
Impusor
You'd have a hard time not finding the Scorpius And Rapiers for them it seems by looking at other lists.
What about the faction second most represented in fwcsm? Do you think fw is a problem there. Although fw may be represented in many lists I don't think that means it's a problem. Plenty of codex units are auto takes as well. What about tfc, centurions, disco lords and the like?
Some fw units need balancing but a full ban isn't needed.
I don't think TTB's intent was to ban FW, but to remove interaction.
I don't have good solutions for you, but I can tell you that the Chaos side of FW units aren't seen as whacky, because they don't interact. I can't heal contemptors or double shoot them, but marines can get them half damage, -1 damage, repair, and character status along with traits. It still doesn't stop me from using contemptors on occasion.
You may see the Brohammer list change with the new ITC missions, but I doubt it will be drastic and FW will still feature.
But doesn't that mean the problem is space marines and not fw? Limiting interaction in the way suggested would nerf fw units for chaos and xenos factions as well. Most of those units aren't remotely useful. Why should all factions be punished because of one?
Some solutions are simple. Make de more expensive or change the wording on either it or the leviathan so they don't interact. Send ven chappie dreads to legends. It's oop after all. And errata some of the most egregious sm rules.
CSM don't have a complete line without FW- I suspect a design decision around 2012 or so.
SMs have the Storm raven, talon, and hawk.
CSMs have the Heldrake.
SMs have the Whirlwind, TFC, Stalker, and Hunter for artillery/anti air.
Chaos has crickets.
Now, there are other advantages Chaos has- Oblits are better than DevCents, though comparable.
This post is nit a whinefest! But a lot of FW is *alternatives* for SMs, but *singular options* for CSMs.
Add that there aren't the chapter tactic synergies, and I too worry. The closest answer Chaos has to a Dread is a Helbrute, to the Ven Dread is the same Helbrute, to an Ironclad is a melee Helbrute, and to a Redemptor is...a Contemptor.
EDIT: To be clear, the scorpius, the sicaran, the xiphon, helblade, heltalon, fire raptor, stormeagle, dreadclaw, termite, and contemptors fill holes in the CSM range. Anti-air/skimmer, flying transport, artillery (indirect fire), drop pod, and ven dread/upgraded dread. Other items are nice, but not gaps.
But doesn't that mean the problem is space marines and not fw? Limiting interaction in the way suggested would nerf fw units for chaos and xenos factions as well. Most of those units aren't remotely useful. Why should all factions be punished because of one?
Some solutions are simple. Make de more expensive or change the wording on either it or the leviathan so they don't interact. Send ven chappie dreads to legends. It's oop after all. And errata some of the most egregious sm rules.
Yes. And no. I agree with both sides here, but I'm trying to be pragmatic about the situation.
Based on the games I've played the SM roll lots of CP and will gladly pay increased costs to still run those abilities.
I'm tempering my expectations on what will actually come out of these FW re-writes. A lot of people seem to expect datasheet changes when likely there will be few of those. Mostly it will be points and hopefully properly formatted sheets. And points won't solve Levis et al without hurting other factions using them.
All Vortimer patterned vehicles for Grey Knights are way overcosted. 1 psycannon for infantry costs 7 points. The heavy psycannon costs 24 points. So how does the Twin-psycannon mounted guns cost a straight up 50 points!?
FW needs to upgrade all the twin-psycannons to Twin- HEAVY Psycannons. That way they can actually have an impressive use on the table. What's the point of mounting twin guns on unique GK vehicles that can be already delivered by PA infantry for only 28% of the cost ( 14 points vs 50 points)..?!
BrainFireBob wrote: CSM don't have a complete line without FW- I suspect a design decision around 2012 or so.
SMs have the Storm raven, talon, and hawk.
CSMs have the Heldrake.
SMs have the Whirlwind, TFC, Stalker, and Hunter for artillery/anti air.
Chaos has crickets.
Now, there are other advantages Chaos has- Oblits are better than DevCents, though comparable.
This post is nit a whinefest! But a lot of FW is *alternatives* for SMs, but *singular options* for CSMs.
Add that there aren't the chapter tactic synergies, and I too worry. The closest answer Chaos has to a Dread is a Helbrute, to the Ven Dread is the same Helbrute, to an Ironclad is a melee Helbrute, and to a Redemptor is...a Contemptor.
EDIT: To be clear, the scorpius, the sicaran, the xiphon, helblade, heltalon, fire raptor, stormeagle, dreadclaw, termite, and contemptors fill holes in the CSM range. Anti-air/skimmer, flying transport, artillery (indirect fire), drop pod, and ven dread/upgraded dread. Other items are nice, but not gaps.
But doesn't that mean the problem is space marines and not fw? Limiting interaction in the way suggested would nerf fw units for chaos and xenos factions as well. Most of those units aren't remotely useful. Why should all factions be punished because of one?
Some solutions are simple. Make de more expensive or change the wording on either it or the leviathan so they don't interact. Send ven chappie dreads to legends. It's oop after all. And errata some of the most egregious sm rules.
Yes. And no. I agree with both sides here, but I'm trying to be pragmatic about the situation.
Based on the games I've played the SM roll lots of CP and will gladly pay increased costs to still run those abilities.
I'm tempering my expectations on what will actually come out of these FW re-writes. A lot of people seem to expect datasheet changes when likely there will be few of those. Mostly it will be points and hopefully properly formatted sheets. And points won't solve Levis et al without hurting other factions using them.
I agree that's probably what we'll get. And it won't slow down sm. The spring faq is the only way gw is slowing them down.
Argive wrote: I think you guys are forgetting decimators
It'd be great if it was BS2 and had any reasonable weapons (i'm not suggesting they change it). 210 with two Petards. Or 140 with 2 Butcher cannons that are only 36" and suffer move penalties. I don't know why I'd pay 90 for it instead of a contempter that is 2 points less with BS2 and 2 extra wounds.
And it still wouldn't have any strong interactions with codexes -- though a small case for Iron Warriors WL Traits could be made, but nothing like marines.
The SM line more than any other is completely bloated with options. Not just in the number of units but in the options those units can bring. They need a VAST culling of units and wargear. Not just trimming the fat off FW units but codex units and wargear as well.
Retiring all old marines for primaris only can't come soon enough.
Argive wrote: I think you guys are forgetting decimators
It'd be great if it was BS2 and had any reasonable weapons (i'm not suggesting they change it). 210 with two Petards. Or 140 with 2 Butcher cannons that are only 36" and suffer move penalties. I don't know why I'd pay 90 for it instead of a contempter that is 2 points less with BS2 and 2 extra wounds.
And it still wouldn't have any strong interactions with codexes -- though a small case for Iron Warriors WL Traits could be made, but nothing like marines.
Depends on the legion. Mine can charge after falling back (hit and run), get +1 to hit anything with lower leadership (prey on the weak), or, best of all, shut down auras (vox scream). Flay them alive works too, but that's super situational.
Losing vox scream on any unit, especially hell blades would hurt against marines. Anything within 18 of a chapter master needs to scream that fether down.
Not Online!!! wrote: The issue is with the decimator that it lost it's Reanimation rule.
But still pays for it.
Same with the hellforged. Originally they could be repaired as long as they hadn't gained back wounds with machine malifica on the same turn. It was errated because that was apparently OP.
Not Online!!! wrote: The issue is with the decimator that it lost it's Reanimation rule.
But still pays for it.
Same with the hellforged. Originally they could be repaired as long as they hadn't gained back wounds with machine malifica on the same turn. It was errated because that was apparently OP.
Meh, the old decimator could come back from the dead.
Also the petard is overpriced for a pieces of Equipment that is able to destroy the decimator within 5 turns itself and it is huge for it's Profile making hiding more or less an absolute nope Option for it.
Also it lost it's marks for the daemon within aswell,which were necessary to Make it work propperly.
It can't get traits because of course and it's weaponry is overpriced in general ( all say how good the butchers are, they aren't, they are 5 pts more for less range and a morale gimmick over the hades autocannon on regular daemonengines, the reason the butcher is ok is because it is in General on units that actually can discern where the End of the Barells points. But gw couldn't be bothered to realize this and when they finnally did their attempt at fixing it in Form of the Lord discordant adding 1+ for daemonengines they failed to realize, that they created just another forward daemonengine and not the shooting Support it should've been.)
Lance845 wrote: The SM line more than any other is completely bloated with options. Not just in the number of units but in the options those units can bring. They need a VAST culling of units and wargear. Not just trimming the fat off FW units but codex units and wargear as well.
Retiring all old marines for primaris only can't come soon enough.
2) The rest becomes so overpriced you can only play it in narrative games.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrainFireBob wrote: CSM don't have a complete line without FW- I suspect a design decision around 2012 or so.
SMs have the Storm raven, talon, and hawk.
CSMs have the Heldrake.
SMs have the Whirlwind, TFC, Stalker, and Hunter for artillery/anti air.
Chaos has crickets.
Now, there are other advantages Chaos has- Oblits are better than DevCents, though comparable.
This post is nit a whinefest! But a lot of FW is *alternatives* for SMs, but *singular options* for CSMs.
Add that there aren't the chapter tactic synergies, and I too worry. The closest answer Chaos has to a Dread is a Helbrute, to the Ven Dread is the same Helbrute, to an Ironclad is a melee Helbrute, and to a Redemptor is...a Contemptor.
EDIT: To be clear, the scorpius, the sicaran, the xiphon, helblade, heltalon, fire raptor, stormeagle, dreadclaw, termite, and contemptors fill holes in the CSM range. Anti-air/skimmer, flying transport, artillery (indirect fire), drop pod, and ven dread/upgraded dread. Other items are nice, but not gaps.
-Actual Doctrines, Currently not having any isn't the end of the world now with PA out but still would be nice to have some Krieg Specific ones.
-Krieg Engineers being able to take the Hades Breaching Drill, FW screwed up big time and I hope GW doesn't follow suit
-Some minor tweaks such as letting our Tank Commanders being able to take the Mars Alpha Pattern Hull
-Points fix to match current IG but I don't know if that will happen what with the recent Point fixes.
Now what I wish would happen but I don't see it happening:
-Krieg Specific Stratagems and Relics, would be awesome to be able to use a Stratagem to boost a Bayonet Charge and have a Relic Shovel
-Death Riders can be taken as Troops
2) The rest becomes so overpriced you can only play it in narrative games.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrainFireBob wrote: CSM don't have a complete line without FW- I suspect a design decision around 2012 or so.
SMs have the Storm raven, talon, and hawk.
CSMs have the Heldrake.
SMs have the Whirlwind, TFC, Stalker, and Hunter for artillery/anti air.
Chaos has crickets.
Now, there are other advantages Chaos has- Oblits are better than DevCents, though comparable.
This post is nit a whinefest! But a lot of FW is *alternatives* for SMs, but *singular options* for CSMs.
Add that there aren't the chapter tactic synergies, and I too worry. The closest answer Chaos has to a Dread is a Helbrute, to the Ven Dread is the same Helbrute, to an Ironclad is a melee Helbrute, and to a Redemptor is...a Contemptor.
EDIT: To be clear, the scorpius, the sicaran, the xiphon, helblade, heltalon, fire raptor, stormeagle, dreadclaw, termite, and contemptors fill holes in the CSM range. Anti-air/skimmer, flying transport, artillery (indirect fire), drop pod, and ven dread/upgraded dread. Other items are nice, but not gaps.
Let me translate your message :
"I want to play loyalist SM but with spikes !"
Yeah, well, whatever your army is, I want it to become overpriced as well, Troll.
Lance845 wrote: The SM line more than any other is completely bloated with options. Not just in the number of units but in the options those units can bring. They need a VAST culling of units and wargear. Not just trimming the fat off FW units but codex units and wargear as well.
Retiring all old marines for primaris only can't come soon enough.
The Forge World SM line though?
All the various types of dread are gone once it's all primaris. Making it a librarian in a dread or a chaplain in a dread or whatever should be a small points upgrade to a regular dread on the same single datasheet as the regular dread. And that is going to be a redemptor dread. The sheer volume of weapon options that come from FW are a problem. It's not like SM don't already have more weapon options then just about everybody else. But hey, lets start churring out even more of them so that despite having 6 different options for this one model per arm there are only 2 worth taking.
Yes, the FW line AND the codex line needs massive cut backs.
gmaleron wrote: -Some minor tweaks such as letting our Tank Commanders being able to take the Mars Alpha Pattern Hull
-Points fix to match current IG but I don't know if that will happen what with the recent Point fixes.
I also want them to fix the Leman Russ problem. Tank commanders should be able to take all variants, including Mars Alpha, and all of the costs should be right.
I'd also love the old Vanquisher rules to return, where it could choose what shell to fire.
Lastly, reduce the Vulture cost. 205 points is just too much for it. 185 was expensive but not stupid-expensive. The punisher russ gets so much more with doctrines, buffs, and tank commanders. Yet it is significantly cheaper.
The Vanquisher needs a functional weapon in general, when the dedicated tank hunter is about as effective at killing tanks as the dedicated anti infantry variant, something is clearly wrong.
Vaktathi wrote: The Vanquisher needs a functional weapon in general, when the dedicated tank hunter is about as effective at killing tanks as the dedicated anti infantry variant, something is clearly wrong.
But for a short, glorious time we had beast-hunter shells. I remember a game of armoured battle group vs tyranids where all of the big bugs just tried to hide from my command tank.
It sounds reasonable. What the hell is the point in having 40 options if only 2 of them are viable?
Exactly. Options only matter when they make sense. Can you honestly say you'd use a Power Maul for any reason? If they just disappeared as an option you'd just use them as Power Axes. Hell, who cried upon the loss of Power Lance's? Nobody!
2) The rest becomes so overpriced you can only play it in narrative games.
Let me translate your message :
"I want to play loyalist SM but with spikes !"
I can understand wanting OOP stuff to go to Legends. I can also understand you saying "There's no way GW will price them right, so they should err on too expensive rather than too cheap."
But why wouldn't you want balanced units? Why would you WANT overpriced units?
And no, I believe they just want to have an army that can cover all forms of warfare-like SM are supposed to be able to do. Hell, CSM don't have any sniper units! You can make a decent sniper with a Warlord Trait and Relic, and while the Relic is technically not required, the Warlord trait literally is. Whereas Space Marines get the arguably best snipers in the game, Eliminators, and can even take snipers as troops!
Argive wrote: I think you guys are forgetting decimators
Which are just Contemptors with worse stats and the Daemon keyword.
And no different wargear options?
Thought they had those soulblight MW cannons.
Contemptors can take Soul Burners too.
Do they also benefit from new powers and disco lords ?
DiscoLords benefit Maulerfiends a bit more with how much both units cost.
Maybe. But maulerfiends and the other dinobots are fething eyesores. Same with the klos. Why would you prefer it over the hellforged super heavys if they had sane prices?
2) The rest becomes so overpriced you can only play it in narrative games.
Let me translate your message :
"I want to play loyalist SM but with spikes !"
I can understand wanting OOP stuff to go to Legends. I can also understand you saying "There's no way GW will price them right, so they should err on too expensive rather than too cheap."
But why wouldn't you want balanced units? Why would you WANT overpriced units?
And no, I believe they just want to have an army that can cover all forms of warfare-like SM are supposed to be able to do. Hell, CSM don't have any sniper units! You can make a decent sniper with a Warlord Trait and Relic, and while the Relic is technically not required, the Warlord trait literally is. Whereas Space Marines get the arguably best snipers in the game, Eliminators, and can even take snipers as troops!
Exactly. Loyalists have the most diverse and complete selection of units of any codex. The legions aren't even close. We need fw units to even the playing field.
It sounds reasonable. What the hell is the point in having 40 options if only 2 of them are viable?
$$ for GW. Coolness factor for my models. Continued use of models I've all ready got.
Look, if I'm willing to pay for options you consider useless & GW/FW is willing to make, stock, and sell them to me? What's your beef in that process?
It sounds reasonable. What the hell is the point in having 40 options if only 2 of them are viable?
$$ for GW. Coolness factor for my models. Continued use of models I've all ready got.
Look, if I'm willing to pay for options you consider useless & GW/FW is willing to make, stock, and sell them to me? What's your beef in that process?
Mostly that they don't need to be listed as separate options. I mean, do you honestly care that the Power Maul and Lance have rules when the Power Sword and Axe rules basically cover all your bases? If anything, that helps save your conversions from being useless at some point.
Maybe. But maulerfiends and the other dinobots are fething eyesores. Same with the klos. Why would you prefer it over the hellforged super heavys if they had sane prices?
I kind of like them. There's something about the KLoS, too, that just makes me want one. Just the over top top primal nature of it, I guess.
Maybe. But maulerfiends and the other dinobots are fething eyesores. Same with the klos. Why would you prefer it over the hellforged super heavys if they had sane prices?
I kind of like them. There's something about the KLoS, too, that just makes me want one. Just the over top top primal nature of it, I guess.
Maybe. But maulerfiends and the other dinobots are fething eyesores. Same with the klos. Why would you prefer it over the hellforged super heavys if they had sane prices?
I kind of like them. There's something about the KLoS, too, that just makes me want one. Just the over top top primal nature of it, I guess.
Primal ain't the word.
It is about as Warhammer as you can get. The whole concept has existed since like... 3rd?
It sounds reasonable. What the hell is the point in having 40 options if only 2 of them are viable?
$$ for GW. Coolness factor for my models. Continued use of models I've all ready got. Look, if I'm willing to pay for options you consider useless & GW/FW is willing to make, stock, and sell them to me? What's your beef in that process?
The neat bit you already have becomes a counts as BLANK. You don't need 5 different power weapon stats. You need a single power weapon profile and then you can model whatever the hell you want on your dudes to look however you want.
My beef is this bloat of units and options is what makes the game impossible to balance and causes disruptions from the rules like people bitch about all the time because the devs can't reference every rule for every crap thing that has ever existed for over 30 years every time they make new stuff. Trim the fat. Make the game functional with a concise good list of options that have a clear design goal and clear direction and synergy instead of cramming every crap thing onto a pile and hoping it looks like anything. Everyones game gets better, including yours, when it's made into a good concise and directed well designed set of units and options with strengths and weaknesses. Not 9 different dread with 2 of them making the other 7 obsolete.
All of which is moot to argue. OBVIOUSLY Primaris are going to, at some point, completely replace old marines. Again, all the old marine bloat will be gone in a single fell swoop when that happens. You have a couple more units (primaris flyer and bikes and melee) and some more chapter specific characters and then the old marines are ripe to get the axe. All those options go straight to legends when it's done. Good riddance.
Maybe. But maulerfiends and the other dinobots are fething eyesores. Same with the klos. Why would you prefer it over the hellforged super heavys if they had sane prices?
I kind of like them. There's something about the KLoS, too, that just makes me want one. Just the over top top primal nature of it, I guess.
Primal ain't the word.
It is about as Warhammer as you can get. The whole concept has existed since like... 3rd?
I am talking about the KLoS, and not the bots, they are okay, but the KLoS, no just no.
Id really like better titan rules in general and specifically for the Eldar. They've designed to their dollar cost so warlords are way better than phantoms, despite them being much closer in ability.
Id like the Eldar to get more super heavies. How hard is it to make a new turret for the scorpion? Theyve got more dreadnoughts with more complexity than that...
It sounds reasonable. What the hell is the point in having 40 options if only 2 of them are viable?
$$ for GW. Coolness factor for my models. Continued use of models I've all ready got.
Look, if I'm willing to pay for options you consider useless & GW/FW is willing to make, stock, and sell them to me? What's your beef in that process?
The neat bit you already have becomes a counts as BLANK. You don't need 5 different power weapon stats. You need a single power weapon profile and then you can model whatever the hell you want on your dudes to look however you want.
Just like you Primaris players don't need every Primaris unit having some different version of a bolt weapon. But yet you have it. And while I think that's pointless I'm not begrudging you all your new bolt-whatsitz.
Lance845 wrote: My beef is this bloat of units and options is what makes the game impossible to balance and causes disruptions from the rules like people bitch about all the time because they can't reference every rule for every crap thing that has ever existed for over 30 years every time they make new stuff. Trim the fat. Make the game functional with a concise good list of options have have a clear design goal and clear direction and synergy instead of cramming every crap thing onto a pile and hoping it looks like anything.
I've got bad news for you. They will not manage to achieve this mythical "Balance" you go on about by deleting options that apparently have so little actual play difference that you've decided that there's only 2 viable options out of x.
And, being GW, they won't stop introducing more new things to fill thier pages.
Lance845 wrote: game gets better, including yours, when it's made into a good concise and directed well designed set of units and options with strengths and weaknesses.
Including mine huh? Let me consider that for a moment.... Nope. It has never been my experience that my games improved by removing options/units/even whole armies
Lance845 wrote: Not 9 different dread with 2 of them making the other 7 obsolete.
Don't know what you're talking about. I got 9 types of Dreads? Great, I've got plenty of options (all of them perfectly viable), my all dread army is functional, AND I don't have to field it the same way each time I run it.
So yeah, I need Chaplain dreads, Character dreads, regular dreads, Venerables, an Ironclad now & then, some contemptor varients, a few Furiosos, some Mortis, Deredeos, my leviathan, even that Primaris one. And soon I'll have a Tellemon. (that's 10 dread types by the way) Just depends upon the day & mood I'm in what I field.
Lance845 wrote: All of which is moot to argue. OBVIOUSLY Primaris are going to, at some point, completely replace old marines. Again, all the old marine bloat will be gone in a single fell swoop when that happens. You have a couple more units (primaris flyer and bikes and melee) and some more chapter specific characters and then the old marines are ripe to get the axe. All those options go straight to legends when it's done. Good riddance.
Well that's a good ways off. By the time that happens I'm willing to bet that neither of us will care. I'll likely be dead & you won't be in the game anymore (the never ending imbalance will cause you to quit)
It sounds reasonable. What the hell is the point in having 40 options if only 2 of them are viable?
Exactly. Options only matter when they make sense. Can you honestly say you'd use a Power Maul for any reason? If they just disappeared as an option you'd just use them as Power Axes. Hell, who cried upon the loss of Power Lance's? Nobody!
*looks at power mauls in sisters* Yep. Still taking them over axes.
Maybe. But maulerfiends and the other dinobots are fething eyesores. Same with the klos. Why would you prefer it over the hellforged super heavys if they had sane prices?
I kind of like them. There's something about the KLoS, too, that just makes me want one. Just the over top top primal nature of it, I guess.
To each their own I guess. To me it looks like something from the album cover of some boring South American Sodom wannabe thrash band. And it's khorne specific so it doesn't match up well with legions that aren't khorne worshippers or that don't worship chaos period.
Why does gw think everything traitors get needs to be a fething daemon engine? The legions fielding millennia old currupted engines of war sounds so much more scary to me.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Can you honestly say you'd use a Power Maul for any reason?
Bloody Rose sister superiors love them-- 3+ S5 AP-2 attacks on the charge is pretty good against most targets. Or are you only referring to Marines? Yeah not much of a point for Marines, but for S3 characters they're really damn useful.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Can you honestly say you'd use a Power Maul for any reason?
Bloody Rose sister superiors love them-- 3+ S5 AP-2 attacks on the charge is pretty good against most targets. Or are you only referring to Marines? Yeah not much of a point for Marines, but for S3 characters they're really damn useful.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Can you honestly say you'd use a Power Maul for any reason?
Bloody Rose sister superiors love them-- 3+ S5 AP-2 attacks on the charge is pretty good against most targets. Or are you only referring to Marines? Yeah not much of a point for Marines, but for S3 characters they're really damn useful.
Jup any s3 units Profits from them massively.
Well the Sisters get their own Relic Blade equivalent, with Legends offering the Eviscerator. Plus not sure why you'd buy a weapon for a Sergeant in the first place. That's like buying Infantry Sergeants a Power Weapon. It doesn't work with the squad anyway.
So that's not an argument I buy, especially when you come up with a specific scenario that's not used.
What's that? Sorry, I must've imagined things, I thought you said "for any reason", but I must have misheard you due to the screeching sound from those goalposts.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Can you honestly say you'd use a Power Maul for any reason?
Bloody Rose sister superiors love them-- 3+ S5 AP-2 attacks on the charge is pretty good against most targets. Or are you only referring to Marines? Yeah not much of a point for Marines, but for S3 characters they're really damn useful.
Jup any s3 units Profits from them massively.
Well the Sisters get their own Relic Blade equivalent, with Legends offering the Eviscerator. Plus not sure why you'd buy a weapon for a Sergeant in the first place. That's like buying Infantry Sergeants a Power Weapon. It doesn't work with the squad anyway.
So that's not an argument I buy, especially when you come up with a specific scenario that's not used.
Tell that my mates archon that got beaten into a pulp by a r&h commander with maul.
Only on Canonesses, who don't get access to Power Mauls anyway. But I actually tend to equip my main battle canoness with a chainsword, because Beneficence is absurdly and hilariously powerful.
(edit: just to be clear, a Beneficence Canoness has a melee statline of WS2+, S4, AP-3, D2, with 7 attacks and 8 on the charge, rerolling 1s to hit (so essentially rerolling all to-hit rolls), double hits on to-hit rolls of 6, rerolling a charge die and also rerolling to-wound rolls on the charge, and additional ablative wounds from nearby Celestians. if I'm going Bloody Rose, there's no reason I wouldn't take this)
Even ignoring the Legends issue, superiors can't equip eviscerators.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Plus not sure why you'd buy a weapon for a Sergeant in the first place.
Bloody Rose sisters gain ap-1 for all attacks in the assault phase, and an additional attack when charged/on the charge. This means those four points nets you 3 S5 AP-2 attacks hitting on WS4+ for Battle Sisters, Dominions, and Retributors. Celestians have all of that, plus they gain an additional attack and their attacks hit on 3+ and all of their to-hit rolls get rerolled if they're near a canoness. This can be further enhanced by strategems, an Imagifier with Tale of the Warrior raising Strength even further, an additional attack from a nearby Missionary or Preacher, additional hits on to-hit rolls of 6 from The Passion, and so on and so forth. And all of this is assisted in damage output by each member of the squad having +1 attack on the charge and -1ap in melee. So they actually do hit a lot harder than guardsmen.
So it's very, very worth it to give Bloody Rose superiors that expect to be up close to the enemy a power maul or power axe, but power mauls are usually better as they provide that crucial S5 against marines. Other Sororitas orders are less likely to equip it, of course, but power mauls are really beneficial to S3 imperial armies.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: What's that? Sorry, I must've imagined things, I thought you said "for any reason", but I must have misheard you due to the screeching sound from those goalposts.
I never moved a goalpost. The entire justification was one particular subfaction for one faction. In their case, the Axe getting AP-3 is still just as good for a S3 model, as nobody is tackling T8 with them anyway.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Can you honestly say you'd use a Power Maul for any reason?
Bloody Rose sister superiors love them-- 3+ S5 AP-2 attacks on the charge is pretty good against most targets. Or are you only referring to Marines? Yeah not much of a point for Marines, but for S3 characters they're really damn useful.
Jup any s3 units Profits from them massively.
Well the Sisters get their own Relic Blade equivalent, with Legends offering the Eviscerator. Plus not sure why you'd buy a weapon for a Sergeant in the first place. That's like buying Infantry Sergeants a Power Weapon. It doesn't work with the squad anyway.
So that's not an argument I buy, especially when you come up with a specific scenario that's not used.
Tell that my mates archon that got beaten into a pulp by a r&h commander with maul.
The axe will literally wound a T3 2++ model at the same rate.
Only on Canonesses, who don't get access to Power Mauls anyway. But I actually tend to equip my main battle canoness with a chainsword, because Beneficence is absurdly and hilariously powerful.
(edit: just to be clear, a Beneficence Canoness has a melee statline of WS2+, S4, AP-3, D2, with 7 attacks and 8 on the charge, rerolling 1s to hit (so essentially rerolling all to-hit rolls), double hits on to-hit rolls of 6, rerolling a charge die and also rerolling to-wound rolls on the charge, and additional ablative wounds from nearby Celestians. if I'm going Bloody Rose, there's no reason I wouldn't take this)
Even ignoring the Legends issue, superiors can't equip eviscerators.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Plus not sure why you'd buy a weapon for a Sergeant in the first place.
Bloody Rose sisters gain ap-1 for all attacks in the assault phase, and an additional attack when charged/on the charge. This means those four points nets you 3 S5 AP-2 attacks hitting on WS4+ for Battle Sisters, Dominions, and Retributors. Celestians have all of that, plus they gain an additional attack and their attacks hit on 3+ and all of their to-hit rolls get rerolled if they're near a canoness. This can be further enhanced by strategems, an Imagifier with Tale of the Warrior raising Strength even further, an additional attack from a nearby Missionary or Preacher, additional hits on to-hit rolls of 6 from The Passion, and so on and so forth. And all of this is assisted in damage output by each member of the squad having +1 attack on the charge and -1ap in melee. So they actually do hit a lot harder than guardsmen.
So it's very, very worth it to give Bloody Rose superiors that expect to be up close to the enemy a power maul or power axe, but power mauls are usually better as they provide that crucial S5 against marines. Other Sororitas orders are less likely to equip it, of course, but power mauls are really beneficial to S3 imperial armies.
Imagine thinking buying melee weapons for an 8 point model that hits on a 4+ is a good idea in any fashion to begin with.
Maybe. But maulerfiends and the other dinobots are fething eyesores. Same with the klos. Why would you prefer it over the hellforged super heavys if they had sane prices?
I kind of like them. There's something about the KLoS, too, that just makes me want one. Just the over top top primal nature of it, I guess.
Absolutely, I gleefully use my horrendous looking Defiler. I'm perfectly fine with my CSM being ripped from a heavy metal album cover, it's what Chaos has always been aiming to be.
Maybe. But maulerfiends and the other dinobots are fething eyesores. Same with the klos. Why would you prefer it over the hellforged super heavys if they had sane prices?
I kind of like them. There's something about the KLoS, too, that just makes me want one. Just the over top top primal nature of it, I guess.
Absolutely, I gleefully use my horrendous looking Defiler. I'm perfectly fine with my CSM being ripped from a heavy metal album cover, it's what Chaos has always been aiming to be.
Depends on what you consider heavy metal. Some of us prefer something on the order of Cause of Death, Lawless Darkness, or Altars of Madness to the cover of random German power metal album number 1457.
Look everyone has their own opinion on how a model looks. But daemonic units don't fit some legion's fluff, Night Lords and Alpha Legion in particular, so it's nice for those of us who care about that to have options. Right now fw is the only option for that because gw have been pushing daemon engines in their plastic line for a while now. So it would be nice if the fw units were at least kept useable.
Ok, having actually looked at the R&H rules now (since my Daemons of Slannesh army could use some cheap objective holders) that set of rules really needs adjusted. That gak makes the pre-PAGK rules look good.
The Newman wrote: Ok, having actually looked at the R&H rules now (since my Daemons of Slannesh army could use some cheap objective holders) that set of rules really needs adjusted. That gak makes the pre-PAGK rules look good.
Now you know why r&h players are always complaining about gw ignoring us. It's even worse if you see how good the old rules were.
Excommunicatus wrote: I don't think there's even a slight hope of getting an update to the R&H rules.
No models, no rules.
I hope you're wrong. I just spent $100 on cultists and blood pact heads before I heard the news. Oh well, I guess plan B will be some cultist mobs for my chaos marines.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Imagine thinking buying melee weapons for an 8 point model that hits on a 4+ is a good idea in any fashion to begin with.
Imagine being so arrogant as to think that your theory outweighs other people's practical experience with their army...
Seeing as Power Weapons haven't been practical on the Sergeants of other armies that like melee even more, I'm more than right to say that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Trickstick wrote: You can buy power weapons for 4pt Guardsmen, and it can be quite effective.
No it's not effective. It's that same mentality that went to the arguments that Guard had one of the most effective melee death stars in 7th. Spoiler Alert: they don't!
Excommunicatus wrote: I don't think there's even a slight hope of getting an update to the R&H rules.
No models, no rules.
I hope you're wrong. I just spent $100 on cultists and blood pact heads before I heard the news. Oh well, I guess plan B will be some cultist mobs for my chaos marines.
Well r&h will either get fully revised or dies again and will be reincarnated into renegade guard or traitor guard like it allready did once.
Also , you can still Run R&H kinda, by running AL and heavily modifying kitbashing and count as.
Would even reflect rather well on the guerilla tactics employed by the bloodpact.
Excommunicatus wrote: I don't think there's even a slight hope of getting an update to the R&H rules.
No models, no rules.
I hope you're wrong. I just spent $100 on cultists and blood pact heads before I heard the news. Oh well, I guess plan B will be some cultist mobs for my chaos marines.
Well r&h will either get fully revised or dies again and will be reincarnated into renegade guard or traitor guard like it allready did once.
Also , you can still Run R&H kinda, by running AL and heavily modifying kitbashing and count as.
Would even reflect rather well on the guerilla tactics employed by the bloodpact.
I'm hoping they get revised in the fw books. Don't want to lose my marauders.
Also was just looking at the old IA13. Damn it gw, how'd you feth things up in the transition to 8th so bad.
It sounds reasonable. What the hell is the point in having 40 options if only 2 of them are viable?
$$ for GW. Coolness factor for my models. Continued use of models I've all ready got.
Look, if I'm willing to pay for options you consider useless & GW/FW is willing to make, stock, and sell them to me? What's your beef in that process?
Mostly that they don't need to be listed as separate options. I mean, do you honestly care that the Power Maul and Lance have rules when the Power Sword and Axe rules basically cover all your bases? If anything, that helps save your conversions from being useless at some point.
Dysartes wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Imagine thinking buying melee weapons for an 8 point model that hits on a 4+ is a good idea in any fashion to begin with.
Imagine being so arrogant as to think that your theory outweighs other people's practical experience with their army...
I'm pretty sure the different power weapons each have specific pros/cons....that's why I have which model armed with which weapon. My Bloody Rose benefit waaay more from mauls than swords, plus it looks fething badass. I wish I could field Zeraphim armed with them instead of swords. they would look even more pissed off than they already are!
I get it Slayer, you want minimal options so you can have this mythical "balance" that it so desperately needs. But you are forgetting one thing, GW isnt interested in your version of balance, if they were, your golden utopia of balance would happen. All the while removing things from the game that most players(I've met) want.
Why can't you understand that not every player is identical to you and emperor forbid someone have a differing opinion...operative word opinion. I can understand that you would like the game boiled down to a math problem and the more variables you have the harder it is to balance the equation, but not everyone wants that. GW will do and continue to do what hits the most bullet points for the most players.
Once again GW needs to come out with a stupid "pared down" tourney list where all of the psyker powers are same rules, all weapon types are the same rules and all of the stratagems are the same for all armies, then & only then can GW even come close to achieving your version of "balance".
Seriously man, power Mauls may not be great on Marines, but they're awesome outside of Marines.
Marines aren't the end-all be-all of balance, and the game should not be exclusively balanced around everyone playing Marines.
Those "4 points on an 8 point model" (nine points, actually) on Bloody Rose superiors change them from 4 S3 attacks at AP-1, to 3 S5 attacks at AP-2. This makes the attack go from wounding marines on a 5+ to wounding marines on a 3+, goes from marine armor being 4+ to marine armor being 5+. And probably also gains additional hits on to-hit rolls of 6.
On Celestians, at's 4 points on a 10 point model, with all of the above being true, plus 3+ to-hit with rerolls.
Power Mauls are legit useful.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In fact, let's math it out.
Spoiler:
Squad of 5 Celestians with two storm bolters and a superior with maul, bolt pistol, boltgun, shooting, charging, and fighting an MEQ squad. Assume they're near a Canoness, but without miracle dice or the passion (which would greatly enhance performance, but would make me need to put more effort in to mathhammering).
Shooting before the charge: 14 shots, 9.33 hits, additional 3.11 hits on the reroll for 12.44 hits average. 6.22 wounds average. 2.07 failed armor saves.
They charge. Overwatch might take out one celestian, but probably not.
In the assault phase, 12 attacks from the normal celestians, 8 hits, 2.67 additional on the reroll for 10.67 hits. 3.56 wounds. 1.78 failed saves.
4 attacks from the superior, 2.67 hits, 0.89 from the reroll for 3.56 net hits. 2.37 wounds, 1.58 failed save.
Total of 5.43 average failed saves from the MEQ before they get anything other than overwatch.
In other words, BEFORE things like The Passion or miracle dice or strategems are taking in to account, this squad will kill a 5-man MEQ squad with shooting+charge on average every single turn with the power maul and two storm bolters. Not bad for a 58 point setup. With The Passion and miracle dice and so on, they'll put a serious dent even on primaris squads.
Power Mauls are legit useful, just not necessarily within YOUR army.
Fun fact, WB can make even more funy things happen.
Exalted possession + Power maul equals 5 S7 attacks. Fun to add in the curzed corzious, (because why not,) would make for e a pretty badass smash Lord.
Not Online!!! wrote: Fun fact, WB can make even more funy things happen.
Exalted possession + Power maul equals 5 S7 attacks. Fun to add in the curzed corzious, (because why not,) would make for e a pretty badass smash Lord.
You're bringing in Relics to the equation. We are talking about the Maul itself. By your logic Bolt Pistols are awesome because they can be S5 AP-2 D2.
That's not what's being done.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: Seriously man, power Mauls may not be great on Marines, but they're awesome outside of Marines.
Marines aren't the end-all be-all of balance, and the game should not be exclusively balanced around everyone playing Marines.
Those "4 points on an 8 point model" (nine points, actually) on Bloody Rose superiors change them from 4 S3 attacks at AP-1, to 3 S5 attacks at AP-2. This makes the attack go from wounding marines on a 5+ to wounding marines on a 3+, goes from marine armor being 4+ to marine armor being 5+. And probably also gains additional hits on to-hit rolls of 6.
On Celestians, at's 4 points on a 10 point model, with all of the above being true, plus 3+ to-hit with rerolls.
Power Mauls are legit useful.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In fact, let's math it out.
Spoiler:
Squad of 5 Celestians with two storm bolters and a superior with maul, bolt pistol, boltgun, shooting, charging, and fighting an MEQ squad. Assume they're near a Canoness, but without miracle dice or the passion (which would greatly enhance performance, but would make me need to put more effort in to mathhammering).
Shooting before the charge:
14 shots, 9.33 hits, additional 3.11 hits on the reroll for 12.44 hits average.
6.22 wounds average.
2.07 failed armor saves.
They charge. Overwatch might take out one celestian, but probably not.
In the assault phase, 12 attacks from the normal celestians, 8 hits, 2.67 additional on the reroll for 10.67 hits. 3.56 wounds. 1.78 failed saves.
4 attacks from the superior, 2.67 hits, 0.89 from the reroll for 3.56 net hits. 2.37 wounds, 1.58 failed save.
Total of 5.43 average failed saves from the MEQ before they get anything other than overwatch.
In other words, BEFORE things like The Passion or miracle dice or strategems are taking in to account, this squad will kill a 5-man MEQ squad with shooting+charge on average every single turn with the power maul and two storm bolters. Not bad for a 58 point setup. With The Passion and miracle dice and so on, they'll put a serious dent even on primaris squads.
Power Mauls are legit useful, just not necessarily within YOUR army.
What you fail to take into account is Axes are putting out the same number of wounds (AKA one Marine) in what is a specific trait for one army. That doesn't justify the existence of another Power Weapon stat just because you want it. Under your logic we need to bring back the Power Lance.
Quite frankly we don't need that nor do we need more bloat and false choices in the game.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: That doesn't justify the existence of another Power Weapon stat just because you want it
Just because you don't want it doesn't mean it doesn't deserve to exist.
I don't want Chaos Marines, therefor they don't deserve to exist.
That's an absurd comparison. Chaos Marines fulfill a specific and distinct role in the CSM army. Power mauls are one of about nineteen different flavors of 'better melee weapon' that are all functionally interchangeable, aside from minor statistical variations based on intended target.
A Guard character can take a power maul, power axe, or power sword. Against a Marine, a single hit averages 0.33, 0.33, or 0.28 wounds respectively. Against a Guardsman, it's 0.56, 0.67, or 0.5. You don't start seeing meaningful differences between the weapons until you start looking at really extreme outliers, like models with high toughness and no save.
Instead of prior editions' easy-to-remember special rule for power weapons (ignores armor saves) that conveys an intuitive role and gives you freedom in modeling, you have three different melee statlines that ultimately do the same thing in most circumstances and are all less specialized than that one, generic profile was. Meanwhile GW has three times as many weapon profiles to balance, and since one of them (power maul) is ever-so-slightly better than the others it becomes the competitive standard.
So, yeah, I don't have any particular vendetta against power mauls, but I think they're a microcosm of where the design philosophy has gone wrong. I'd rather go back to a generic 'power weapon' profile if it meant power weapons did something beyond 'hit harder' and the game was better balanced as a result.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: That doesn't justify the existence of another Power Weapon stat just because you want it
Just because you don't want it doesn't mean it doesn't deserve to exist.
I don't want Chaos Marines, therefor they don't deserve to exist.
Your crusade against the power maul is absurd and ridiculous.
Also, we SHOULD get access back to the Power Lance. Good point.
What was wrong with having one "power weapon" statline and not being punished for modeling your power weapons "wrong" and/or not swapping them out with edition changes/Codex changes and/or not having Codexes that don't have access to all the power weapons because the kit doesn't come with a sword, a spear, an axe, and a mace?
Are these going to be true codexes for FW? Will they have stratagems and special rules that incorporate them into their army? More points changes? Will FW actually be competitive for once?
-Bring Back Beast Hunter Shells or give it the option to Fire 2 Variants
-Make it flat Damage 4
Unfortunately, to make the Vanquisher cannon viable as a single shot weapon, it's going to need to basically be made into a mini-Shadowsword methinks.
A basic doubleshot Battlecannon averages 3.11 wounds against a T7 3+sv target and 2.33 against a T8 3+sv target with BS4+
For comparison, a theoretical S16 AP-4 Damage D6 weapon, utilizing Russ doubleshots, is averaging 2.91 wounds against either target. That's the level the weapon would need buffing to just to get somewhere in between the average damage of the *generalist* weapon. To make it stand out in an AT role, without adding any special rules, maybe change damage to D3+3 to give it an average damage output of 4.16 wounds (or flat damage 6 if you want to be spicy and go for average 5 damage). I think at that point it should feel hilariously broken, and in many respects it is, but that's also just where the game is at
Eipi10 wrote: Are these going to be true codexes for FW? Will they have stratagems and special rules that incorporate them into their army? More points changes? Will FW actually be competitive for once?
At this point, the only people who know work in the Design Studio - and they ain't talkin'.
Or, if you have a hard time competing with the generalist on average, go for reliability and make it a true "vehicle sniper".
+2BS, wounds on 2+, ignores armor and invulnerability saves, flat 3 damage. All against vehicles. These bonuses representing a high AP shell with integrated tracking.
You would get 2 x 5/6 x5/6 x 3 = 4.166 damage vs all vehicles without a FNP and with very little variance. The BC would still have the higher potential damage and the upper hand when you can ensure a high number of shots, but the Vanquisher would be the reliable option.
I expect that by the time these books come out, even more of Forge World's 40k line will have been retired, and only whatever is still being produced will get any attention at all. Heck, it might be we'll only need one volume at that point. And that volume will mostly be full of scarcely-distinguishable Contemptor variants.
catbarf wrote: Chaos Marines fulfill a specific and distinct role in the CSM army
Of course the Chaos Space Marine army fills a specific role in the Chaos Space Marine army, that's tautological. And that doesn't mean I like it. And since I don't like it, it doesn't deserve to exist, as the argument against the power maul goes.
Because not all power weapon statlines benefit all armies equally, and the game shouldn't be balanced around "only what Space Marine players like to take" no matter how often my fellow Space Marine players whine bitch and moan about other people also getting stuff useful to them.
So, which statline should be used for power weapons? +2s, -1ap, which benefits your average S3 armies the most but people angrily argue is useless to S4 armies? +1s, -2ap, which benefits your average S4 armies the most? +0s, -3ap, which is primarily useful against heavy armor like power and terminator armor, but is vastly overpriced for most S3 armies? Something else?
Eipi10 wrote: Are these going to be true codexes for FW? Will they have stratagems and special rules that incorporate them into their army? More points changes? Will FW actually be competitive for once?
In most cases, there won't need to be strategems in these indexes because pretty much every model in the book belongs to a fully developed army that already has strategems. If some of the fringe "Armies" like SoS or R&H appear in these books, hopefully there will be strategems for them, as they don't already have strats.
Now I know that there are some strats that are unit specific, and you could argue that there's a place for those, even when the unit in question belongs to a fully developed range. But I would doubt it; FW models, while cool, tend not to be the work horses of the army- though the SoB Repressor once had that status.
catbarf wrote: Chaos Marines fulfill a specific and distinct role in the CSM army
Of course the Chaos Space Marine army fills a specific role in the Chaos Space Marine army, that's tautological. And that doesn't mean I like it. And since I don't like it, it doesn't deserve to exist, as the argument against the power maul goes.
Because not all power weapon statlines benefit all armies equally, and the game shouldn't be balanced around "only what Space Marine players like to take" no matter how often my fellow Space Marine players whine bitch and moan about other people also getting stuff useful to them.
So, which statline should be used for power weapons? +2s, -1ap, which benefits your average S3 armies the most but people angrily argue is useless to S4 armies? +1s, -2ap, which benefits your average S4 armies the most? +0s, -3ap, which is primarily useful against heavy armor like power and terminator armor, but is vastly overpriced for most S3 armies? Something else?
+0 AP-3. The price is irrelevant to what is best for which army, the fact that power swords are bad on S3 at 4pts does not mean that you need a better alternative in the form of a power maul at 4 pts, the power sword just needs to come down in pts. I don't really care if we have a bazillion options as long as they are all very closely linked in balance such that I never get recommended to rip my models apart and such that I don't have to tell someone they'd be better off in games of 40k if they ripped their models apart. Ripping models apart is not part of the hobby, great if they're all so balanced that they do slightly different things and people want to magnetize or buy enough models to play with different wargear in different games, but if it's power maul all the time on a faction then something has gone wrong.
Because not all power weapon statlines benefit all armies equally, and the game shouldn't be balanced around "only what Space Marine players like to take" no matter how often my fellow Space Marine players whine bitch and moan about other people also getting stuff useful to them.
So, which statline should be used for power weapons? +2s, -1ap, which benefits your average S3 armies the most but people angrily argue is useless to S4 armies? +1s, -2ap, which benefits your average S4 armies the most? +0s, -3ap, which is primarily useful against heavy armor like power and terminator armor, but is vastly overpriced for most S3 armies? Something else?
Not all gun statlines benefit all armies equally, Space Marines can get more use out of meltaguns than Battle Sisters because Drop Pods exist. Does this mean Battle Sisters' meltaguns should have different statlines from Marines'? Or is there a point at which giving people unique statlines just for the sake of uniqueness is just more bloat? Maybe if you were to, I don't know, lift the whole differential pricing thing where Guardsmen can get their guns more cheaply because their BS is worse? Or factor the fact that Space Marines have S4 into the cost of the Space Marine body? Not all armies pay the same for the platforms that can take power weapons.
Ah, so basically "the statline my army likes the best is the only statline that matters", got it.
I disagree. If we're going to cram every single power weapon in to one statline, we should use S+1, AP-2, which is just generally more useful all around for everyone.
And therefor we must get rid of all of them except for one, right?
Because that's the argument being presented here. "All power weapons should be the exact same, and should be the statline that only really benefits Marines".
So you think it is fair that lets say GK got their dreadnoughts nerfed, because of a dreadnought type they don't even hace access to or the ability to make dreadnoughts characters, which they again can't do?
Stuff should be pointed for each codex based on testing and how it performs in the army, and not based on how good the stuff is in armies with different rules.
Melissia wrote:Of course the Chaos Space Marine army fills a specific role in the Chaos Space Marine army, that's tautological. And that doesn't mean I like it. And since I don't like it, it doesn't deserve to exist, as the argument against the power maul goes.
I said Chaos Marines fill a distinct role in the CSM army list, which isn't tautological. They're basic infantry with better resilience, better firepower at range, and smaller footprint than Cultists. They're not a carbon-copy of another CSM Troops choice with -1WS and +1S, which would make them redundant.
And I don't think you understand what the argument is here, like at all, if you actually seriously think it's 'I don't like it therefore it shouldn't exist'. Redundancy, unnecessary complexity, false choices, and lack of specialization are not 'I don't like it'.
Melissia wrote: Ah, so basically "the statline my army likes the best is the only statline that matters", got it.
I disagree. If we're going to cram every single power weapon in to one statline, we should use S+1, AP-2, which is just generally more useful all around for everyone.
They chose the profile that most closely matches what power weapons did in earlier editions, and gives them more of a distinct role than 'hurt everything better'.
You're also just ignoring where they said that if this isn't as useful for one faction, it should be cheaper for them, just like how it works for guns...?
And therefor we must get rid of all of them except for one, right?
Because that's the argument being presented here. "All power weapons should be the exact same, and should be the statline that only really benefits Marines".
If we have three or four guns that all DO THE SAME THING then yes, we should be consolidating them. A meltagun, grenade launcher, and autocannon do not all do the same thing; the differences in range, type, and damage add more variety and define roles better than just exchanging S for AP.
There's only one 'Plasma gun'. There aren't three different versions of plasma gun that Imperials can take, with incremental variations in S and AP but otherwise exactly the same, used the same way, with statistically near-equivalent results against 90% of targets.
If someone were arguing that chainswords, power swords, and power fists should all be the same profile, then you'd have a valid point, because that's the kind of variation we have with ranged weapons. They're not. You don't.
JNAProductions wrote: Hellblasters have three different plasma guns, which are different from regular plasma guns.
Great example. You have the shortest-ranged, Assault type, which can move and fire at full effectiveness, but is the weakest. Then the standard, which is Rapid Fire and has longer range in addition to higher strength. And then the heavy variant, which is Heavy, only gets one shot, and has the longest range and highest strength.
So the variables that are adjusted are type, rate of fire, range, and strength, none of which are redundant to one another, and all impact the role of the guns. You do not want to stay back at maximum range or shoot high-Toughness targets with the Assault variant, nor do you want to be on the move or shooting medium infantry with the Heavy variant. I can write out a bunch of scenarios where the three variants will have markedly different performance from one another. If I'm building an army list, I can weigh the pros and cons and pick the gun that is best suited for how I want the Hellblasters to operate. That's a meaningful choice.
If the option were just to trade a point of S for a point of AP, it wouldn't be a meaningful choice, because both of those directly affect lethality and ultimately come out as a wash against most targets. That's all the different power weapons do, and that's why they're redundant to one another. When I'm picking a power weapon, I don't think at all about the role I expect it to perform, since they all do the same thing. I just take the power maul because I'm Guard and it's the best.
Power axes and power mauls are none of those things. They're all useful in different situations, reasons, and units.
catbarf wrote: They chose the profile that most closely matches what power weapons did in earlier editions
I disagree, and would assert that if they claim that they're lying.
catbarf wrote: If we have three or four guns that all DO THE SAME THING
Good thing Power Mauls and Power Axes don't do the exact same thing. And, thus, your argument is as invalid as it is asinine.
Power Mauls, Power Axes, and Power Swords serve three different purposes, just the same as a krak missile, autocannon, and lascannon all have different purposes. Might as well say "these are all anti-tank choices therefor get rid of all of them and just have lascannons".
Melissia wrote: And I was saying the entire Chaos Marine army I don't like, therefor by the logic presented here of "I don't like it, therefor it shouldn't exist"
'by the logic presented here'
Nah. Nobody's said or implied that, you're just deliberately refusing to address the actual argument. You can keep going 'NO UR DUMB' if random insults make you feel better.
Melissia wrote: Power axes and power mauls are none of those things. They're all useful in different situations, reasons, and units.
The stats say otherwise. I already compared the three power weapons available to S3 characters against both MEQs and GEQs, and they're virtually identical. You need to get into extreme edge cases to start seeing differences of more than 17%.
But please. Show some examples where power mauls, power axes, and power swords do drastically different things. I'd genuinely love to see a niche for each of them.
Melissia wrote: I disagree, and would assert that if they claim that they're lying.
Okay, so you're accusing someone of lying because you don't know what you're talking about. Power weapons used to ignore armor saves altogether and didn't affect your S. The current power sword profile (no change to S, AP-3) is closest to that.
catbarf wrote: Power weapons used to ignore armor saves altogether and didn't affect your S
I've been playing 40k for longer than you have, I already know this. That's not how they work in this edition, and the addition of power axes and power mauls still, no matter how much you try to get around it, do different things than power swords.
catbarf wrote: I already compared the three power weapons available to S3 characters against both MEQs and GEQs, and they're virtually identical.
And I and others have already demonstrated situations where they are in fact useful, which you completely ignored because it destroys the nonsense that you call an argument.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
catbarf wrote: Then what on earth was this supposed to mean?
That previous editions are irrelevant and they are choosing the profile they like the most / that matches their army's strengths the most.
Quite obviously, given that I explicitly said that on the same page.
Power swords, mauls, and axes were all different weapons with different rules, until they were merged into a single entry in 3rd edition. So splitting them back up was more of a return to how they used to be.
Melissia wrote: And I and others have already demonstrated situations where they are in fact useful, which you completely ignored because it destroys the nonsense that you call an argument.
You, and others, gave examples of units where the power maul is objectively the best choice. Not where it occupies a particular tactical niche distinct from the others. That's the problem here: You haven't demonstrated any reason to take a power sword or power axe on a S3 character; you've demonstrated reasons to take power mauls, and the others aren't worth taking.
I haven't ignored anything. Do you get something out of peppering your posts with those obnoxious quips about how you're DESTROYING your opponents with facts and logic?
catbarf wrote: You, and others, gave examples of units where the power maul is objectively the best choice, Not where it occupies a particular tactical niche distinct from the others.
Your argument is getting desperate, here.
That something is objectively better in a specific situation explicitly means that is its tactical niche. Your argument is the equivalent of "just because assault marines are objectively better in assault than tactical marines doesn't mean they have a tactical niche!"
Lascannons are objectively better against tough, heavily armored tanks. Doing damage to them is the tactical niche of lascannons.
Just like power mauls have a niche use in armies that can best utilize them, same with power swords and power axes.
Melissia wrote: That something is objectively better in a specific situation explicitly means that is its tactical niche. Your argument is the equivalent of "just because assault marines are objectively better in assault than tactical marines doesn't mean they have a tactical niche!"
Lascannons are objectively better against tough, heavily armored tanks. Doing damage to them is the tactical niche of lascannons.
Just like power mauls have a niche use in armies that can best utilize them, same with power swords and power axes.
Again, this is a false equivalence, because you're comparing weapons having different utility within the same army to weapons that have different utility in different armies.
Meltaguns and lascannons have different tactical niches within any army that can take both: You take meltaguns for close-range, mobile, anti-tank, and you take lascannons for long-range, static anti-tank.
Power mauls and power swords do not have different tactical niches in a S3 army: You take power mauls, and simply don't take power swords.
Having a different tactical niche means having several equally valid choices. Do I take meltaguns and try to get up close, or do I take lascannons and try to stay at range? That's a meaningful choice that shapes how your army plays.
Having one good choice, and a couple of choices that do the same thing but worse, is not a 'tactical niche'. Do I take a power maul and be effective, or do I take a power sword and be less effective? That's not a meaningful choice.
Give me a reason why you'd willingly take a power sword over a power maul in a Sisters army. What is the tactical niche in your army that the power sword fills?
catbarf wrote: Again, this is a false equivalence, because you're comparing weapons having different utility within the same army to weapons that have different utility in different armies.
Plenty of people would say you should never, ever take missile launchers because lascannons are flat out better for all things tank-hunting, and that frag missiles are bad. And plenty of weapons are more useful in some armies and less useful in others. Ironically enough, many Sisters players abhor using flamers and view them as objectively inferior, even though they're quite popular among the Tau, and even have a non-insignificant use among space marines or guard.
Melissia wrote: I disagree, and would assert that if they claim that they're lying.
Okay, so you're accusing someone of lying because you don't know what you're talking about. Power weapons used to ignore armor saves altogether and didn't affect your S. The current power sword profile (no change to S, AP-3) is closest to that.
Only for certain editions - 3 through 5, I believe? I seem to recall the split back to sword/axe/maul/lance happened in 6th edition.
They have worked differently for at least as long as they have worked the way you claim they have.
If we're going to shift how they work, I'd actually advocate going to how they worked in 1st/2nd edition over 3rd/4th/5th edition - a fixed S, that doesn't rely on the user. Off the top of my head, a power sword was S5, for example - and with that one change, you start the process of making units such as Howling Banshees usable again. It also meant you had options such as using a power axe with one or two hands, with a different profile for each.
I'd accept a slight tweak to that approach - use the weapon's S or the user's, whichever was higher, but keep the weapon's save modifier - but trying to claim the game has only used one approach for power weapons prior to the current one is a claim made in bad faith (or ignorance).
This argument is pointless because the roots of contention stem from a fundamental disagreement in game theory. Which is to say that if your priority is having a streamlined game with balanced choices and clear cut rules you will favor simple concepts like grouping all generic special weapons into a single category called "power weapon" and calling you today, where as if you're someone who's in it for the role playing in the flavor you will appreciate the extra granularity that comes with individual weapons having special rules and diferring statistics and whatnot. This debate is no different from the debate regarding whether or not armor facings and templates should have been removed from the game or not.
I will agree though that ultimately the deferring rules among power weapons provide merely the illusion of choice rather than any actual tactical decision. Because 40K is a math-based game you end up in a situation where one of the three weapons is going to always be statistically better than the rest depending on the unit. Power mauls are going to ALWAYS be better on strength 3 and strength 4 models then claws and swords, so ultimately what tactical decision are you actually making by taking the maul? Why even bother giving you the option? The counter argument will be that taking other weapons might look cool or fit the fluff of your army better, to which my counter to that would be that if all power weapons shared the same rules you could put literally any weapon you want on the model and say that for rules purposes it is a power weapon.
Tactical decisions aren't really tactical decisions when one choice is flat out better than the rest.
Dysartes wrote: Off the top of my head, a power sword was S5, for example - and with that one change, you start the process of making units such as Howling Banshees usable again.
They should get something like "banshee blades" anyway. The Eldar sharing Imperial weapons is weird, should have gone when they switched to starcannons and stuff.
catbarf wrote: Again, this is a false equivalence, because you're comparing weapons having different utility within the same army to weapons that have different utility in different armies.
Plenty of people would say you should never, ever take missile launchers because lascannons are flat out better for all things tank-hunting, and that frag missiles are bad. And plenty of weapons are more useful in some armies and less useful in others. Ironically enough, many Sisters players abhor using flamers and view them as objectively inferior, even though they're quite popular among the Tau, and even have a non-insignificant use among space marines or guard.
Missile launchers have the tactical niche of flexibility. Historically they've overpaid for that flexibility, and their anti-infantry ability hasn't usually been worth the trade-off, but they can do things that lascannons don't. There's a balance issue for sure, but there is still a distinction inherent to their design. I can make an argument for when you'd rather use a missile launcher over a lascannon, because one is not simply more powerful than the other in all circumstances.
What's the tactical niche of a power sword in a Sisters army? Why would you take one over a power maul?
Melissia wrote: I disagree, and would assert that if they claim that they're lying.
Okay, so you're accusing someone of lying because you don't know what you're talking about. Power weapons used to ignore armor saves altogether and didn't affect your S. The current power sword profile (no change to S, AP-3) is closest to that.
Only for certain editions - 3 through 5, I believe? I seem to recall the split back to sword/axe/maul/lance happened in 6th edition.
They have worked differently for at least as long as they have worked the way you claim they have.
If we're going to shift how they work, I'd actually advocate going to how they worked in 1st/2nd edition over 3rd/4th/5th edition - a fixed S, that doesn't rely on the user. Off the top of my head, a power sword was S5, for example - and with that one change, you start the process of making units such as Howling Banshees usable again. It also meant you had options such as using a power axe with one or two hands, with a different profile for each.
I'd accept a slight tweak to that approach - use the weapon's S or the user's, whichever was higher, but keep the weapon's save modifier - but trying to claim the game has only used one approach for power weapons prior to the current one is a claim made in bad faith (or ignorance).
That's all completely fair. My bewilderment was at the vague accusation that seemed to imply that saying S-/AP-3 is closest to the pre-distinct-profiles rules (which would be 3rd-5th) would be lying.
I'm completely fine with power weapons having different profiles, if those profiles give you real choice. The current ones don't; you're either using what you have modeled or you're taking the clear optimal choice for your army. Melissia keeps bringing up weird analogies to CSM, or between different kinds of ranged weapon that have vastly different profiles, that aren't analogous at all.
Ah, so basically "the statline my army likes the best is the only statline that matters", got it.
I disagree. If we're going to cram every single power weapon in to one statline, we should use S+1, AP-2, which is just generally more useful all around for everyone.
What do you mean better for my army? My "power weapons" are both AP-3 one is +1 S and the other is +1 A. Removing the option of power mauls and power axes is good for Nids and Orks that rely foremost on toughness and little on save. I don't really care which one is the one that remains, as long as nobody has to rip their models apart I'm happy. Now you seem firm in your support of power mauls, would you then agree that it would be a good suggestion to someone that they rip apart their S3 models armed with power swords and instead arm them with power mauls? Would you then not also agree that this is an unfortunate part of wanting the best rules clashing with constructing the models how you like? A really tight balance mostly removes the issue, unfortunately GW has chosen to reduce the internal balance of Necron wargear options in CA19 and I don't believe they have endevoured to improve this balance for other factions have they? This means I can no longer say "they're good for different things, take whichever one suits you army more" instead it's "take voidblade or voidscythe, the extra price is almost always worth paying compared to the hyperphase sword or warscythe".
And therefore we must get rid of all of them except for one, right?
Because that's the argument being presented here. "All power weapons should be the exact same, and should be the statline that only really benefits Marines".
No, it benefits Orks and has historically been the way power weapons have worked, only improving armour penetration, not strength. They are all more or less the same and I think people should have freedom in terms of what power weapon they give their unit without it impacting rules. I don't think that same freedom should extend to special weapons, maybe that's because I started in an edition where it didn't matter and then suddenly everybody had to rip their models apart or proxy. Maybe people that buy kits today build the right power weapon options, maybe GW will eventually get around to internally balancing power weapons for every faction.
Looking at an 10 succesful hits from S3 model (like for example IG Commanders or Commissars) for power sword/ power axe/power maul
vs. Cultists/Hormagaunts (T3, 6+): 5/6.67/6.67 => Axe/Maul
vs. Guard (T3/5+): 5/6.67/5.56 => Axe
vs. Tau Firewarriors(T3/4+): 5/5.56/4.44 => Axe
vs. Sisters (T3/3+/6++): 4.17/4.44/3.33 => Axe
vs. Boyz (T4/6+): 3.33/5/6.67 => Maul
vs. Necron Warriors (T4/4+): 3.33/4.17/4.44 => Maul
vs. Marines (T4/3+): 2.78/3.33/3.33 => Axe/Maul
The same if you play Catachan:
vs. Cultists/Hormagaunts (T3, 6+): 6.67/6.67/8.33 => Maul
vs. Guard (T3/5+): 6.67/6.67/6.94 => Maul
vs. Tau Firewarriors(T3/4+): 6.67/5.56/5.56 => Sword
vs. Sisters (T3/3+/6++): 5.56/4.44/4.17 => Sword
vs. Boyz (T4/6+): 5/6.67/6.67 => Axe/Maul
vs. Necron Warriors (T4/4+): 5/5.67/4.44 => Axe
vs. Marines (T4/3+): 4.17/4.44/3.33 => Axe
Now what do I want to say with that? It shows me that each of the power weapons has a niche, depending on the armies I want to fight or better: against the type of units I expect my power weapon wielding dudes to get into CC with. Also if I have some Catachans in my army (and a lot of people have), another weapon might be better suited for the task. For mere mortals it is roughly the Axe vs. T3, the Maul vs. T4, for Catachans the Maul vs. T3 with bad saves, the Sword vs. T3 with good saves and the Axe vs. T4.
Also while weaker in all categories on normal guardsmen, the sword allows to use the Heirlooms of conquest (and look cooler). Also note that for the T3 models: it is more likely that the sisters will want to get into melee than the Cultists, Guardsmen or Cultist, so for Catachans the maul might actually be the inferior choice.
EDIT: Niche reading here: it might differ WHICH units I want my dudes get into melee with or WHICH units I expect want to get into melee with my dudes.
Power Mauls, Power Axes, and Power Swords serve three different purposes, just the same as a krak missile, autocannon, and lascannon all have different purposes. Might as well say "these are all anti-tank choices therefor get rid of all of them and just have lascannons".
Hrm, I'd argue the differences between these melee weapons are substantially less relevant, and the instances in which the differences make significant difference are far more niche. The lack of any difference in Range/RoF/Damage means that it's pretty much entirely dictated by the underying statlines, and in most instances you'll find two or all three are nearly identical in terms of damage output, or that there's one clear option that's significantly worse than the other nearly identical options. There is a reason that the thought given to the type of power weapon unit leader is equipped with is generally given far less concern (and far more often left to rule of cool) than what heavy weapon they're toting.
Looking at say, MEQ vs MEQ fighting, the Mace is clearly the worst option, while the Axe and Sword are within 10% of each others damage output. In GEQ vs GEQ fighting, the Sword is clearly the worst option while the Mace and Axe are within about 5% of each other. For MEQ vs GEQ fighting, the Axe and Sword have identical damage output with the mace being about 5% better. It's only when we look at GEQ vs MEQ that we see real meaningful differences, with the Axe being the highest performer ahead of the Sword by about 20% and the Mace by 33%, but this is also by far the worst situation with the lowest damage output of all 4 scenarios.
At least in this set of scenarios, of infantry fighting other infantry, we see that in general, there's two identical or nearly identical options and one clearly inferior option, and one choice that's solid in every single matchup (the axe) and one that's generally suboptimal across the board (the Mace).
if we want to look at anti-tank/monster matchups, with regards to MEQ's, the Axe will give you the best average output. The sword will be better against T6/7 but appallingly bad against T8/9, and there's no situation where you'd take the Mace over the axe. With regards to GEQ's, the Axe is your best bet unless engaging T8/9 where the Mace comes into its own, but at that point, if you're fighting T8/9 with GEQs in melee, none of these options are terribly capable or intended for that sort of role.
Are there differences? Yes. Do they matter? Not a whole lot most of the time (particularly next to the above listed ranged weapons), and the differences are most pronounced only where they are at their least effective. If they were all just merged to use the Axe profile would anything be substantially hurt/lost? Not really.
That said, I'd also argue the Missile Launcher has been a redundant weapon for several editions, doing no job particularly as well as other weapons, but costing more towards Lascannon pricing, and their general lack of presence on tables when other options are available speaks volumes
Looking at an 10 succesful hits from S3 model (like for example IG Commanders or Commissars) for power sword/ power axe/power maul
vs. Cultists/Hormagaunts (T3, 6+): 5/6.67/6.67 => Axe/Maul
vs. Guard (T3/5+): 5/6.67/5.56 => Axe
vs. Tau Firewarriors(T3/4+): 5/5.56/4.44 => Axe
vs. Sisters (T3/3+/6++): 4.17/4.44/3.33 => Axe
vs. Boyz (T4/6+): 3.33/5/6.67 => Maul
vs. Necron Warriors (T4/4+): 3.33/4.17/4.44 => Maul
vs. Marines (T4/3+): 2.78/3.33/3.33 => Axe/Maul
The same if you play Catachan:
vs. Cultists/Hormagaunts (T3, 6+): 6.67/6.67/8.33 => Maul
vs. Guard (T3/5+): 6.67/6.67/6.94 => Maul
vs. Tau Firewarriors(T3/4+): 6.67/5.56/5.56 => Sword
vs. Sisters (T3/3+/6++): 5.56/4.44/4.17 => Sword
vs. Boyz (T4/6+): 5/6.67/6.67 => Axe/Maul
vs. Necron Warriors (T4/4+): 5/5.67/4.44 => Axe
vs. Marines (T4/3+): 4.17/4.44/3.33 => Axe
Now what do I want to say with that? It shows me that each of the power weapons has a niche, depending on the armies I want to fight or better: against the type of units I expect my power weapon wielding dudes to get into CC with. Also if I have some Catachans in my army (and a lot of people have), another weapon might be better suited for the task. For mere mortals it is roughly the Axe vs. T3, the Maul vs. T4, for Catachans the Maul vs. T3 with bad saves, the Sword vs. T3 with good saves and the Axe vs. T4.
Also while weaker in all categories on normal guardsmen, the sword allows to use the Heirlooms of conquest (and look cooler). Also note that for the T3 models: it is more likely that the sisters will want to get into melee than the Cultists, Guardsmen or Cultist, so for Catachans the maul might actually be the inferior choice.
EDIT: Niche reading here: it might differ WHICH units I want my dudes get into melee with or WHICH units I expect want to get into melee with my dudes.
Getting into this analysis, I think generally it tracks with what I've said above. Most of the time, either all 3 will perform very similarly or there will be two identical or nearly identically performing options (rounding to the same wound value or near ~10% damage variance), with one that clearly does not perform as well, with the Axe generally showing the best across the board. Not in every case, but most. Enough that it seems kinda silly to differentiate these weapons most of the time in a game where the far more cogent concern should be the gunline across the board is capable of blowing 50 dudes off the table turn 1
Looking at an 10 succesful hits from S3 model (like for example IG Commanders or Commissars) for power sword/ power axe/power maul
vs. Cultists/Hormagaunts (T3, 6+): 5/6.67/6.67 => Axe/Maul
vs. Guard (T3/5+): 5/6.67/5.56 => Axe
vs. Tau Firewarriors(T3/4+): 5/5.56/4.44 => Axe
vs. Sisters (T3/3+/6++): 4.17/4.44/3.33 => Axe
vs. Boyz (T4/6+): 3.33/5/6.67 => Maul
vs. Necron Warriors (T4/4+): 3.33/4.17/4.44 => Maul
vs. Marines (T4/3+): 2.78/3.33/3.33 => Axe/Maul
The same if you play Catachan:
vs. Cultists/Hormagaunts (T3, 6+): 6.67/6.67/8.33 => Maul
vs. Guard (T3/5+): 6.67/6.67/6.94 => Maul
vs. Tau Firewarriors(T3/4+): 6.67/5.56/5.56 => Sword
vs. Sisters (T3/3+/6++): 5.56/4.44/4.17 => Sword
vs. Boyz (T4/6+): 5/6.67/6.67 => Axe/Maul
vs. Necron Warriors (T4/4+): 5/5.67/4.44 => Axe
vs. Marines (T4/3+): 4.17/4.44/3.33 => Axe
Now what do I want to say with that? It shows me that each of the power weapons has a niche, depending on the armies I want to fight or better: against the type of units I expect my power weapon wielding dudes to get into CC with. Also if I have some Catachans in my army (and a lot of people have), another weapon might be better suited for the task. For mere mortals it is roughly the Axe vs. T3, the Maul vs. T4, for Catachans the Maul vs. T3 with bad saves, the Sword vs. T3 with good saves and the Axe vs. T4.
Also while weaker in all categories on normal guardsmen, the sword allows to use the Heirlooms of conquest (and look cooler). Also note that for the T3 models: it is more likely that the sisters will want to get into melee than the Cultists, Guardsmen or Cultist, so for Catachans the maul might actually be the inferior choice.
EDIT: Niche reading here: it might differ WHICH units I want my dudes get into melee with or WHICH units I expect want to get into melee with my dudes.
Thank you for taking the time to do the math on that.
My point is that while there is a difference between them, it's negligibly small in most cases, and not something you can reasonably take into consideration when assembling your models, given how sensitive it is to the target profile of each army.
Consider a power fist: Investing the points to take a power fist on an officer is a significant decision, especially for Catachans. It's expensive, but it's a substantial upgrade to killing power in close combat. I can start to think about how I'm going to get him into melee, and what I'm going to target to take most advantage of his high (well, higher) strength, high AP, and multiple damage. I don't know exactly what army I'll be going up against, but most every army has some high-T, multi-wound vehicles, monsters, or heavy infantry that it can beat up. Worst case, it's great for walloping T3/T4 characters. I can plan around this.
But I am never going to hash out the numbers and conclude- while assembling the models- that I need a power axe rather than a power maul to take advantage of a 20% improvement against Guard and a 33% improvement against Sisters. I don't know what army I'll be playing against, so I can't take advantage of their differing optimal targets, nor would it really matter given how minor those differences are. The maul is typically on par with the axe and costs a point less, so that's the winner and that's what I give to everybody.
In practice, if you're low on points or building a non-combat character you stick with the default CCW. If you want to invest a few points to make him a lot better at fighting, you take a power maul. If you have points to blow and want a real slugger, you take a power fist. That's the meaningful choice you have in melee weapon selection, with clear trade-offs at each level that you know at the model-building/listbuilding stage. The subdivision within the 'power weapon' category is generally only about finding which of the three is optimal for whoever's taking it.
If power swords, mauls, and axes were rolled into a single profile, it wouldn't change anything about how I build my armies. That's what I'm getting at. It's not an impactful choice, even if it does have minor statistical consequences.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
alextroy wrote: Give the subject of this thread is FW indexes hopes, can we move the theoretical discussion on the merits of different power weapons somewhere else?
I know it looks off-track, but the original context for this discussion is the preservation of legacy options in the indices. Some feel strongly that FW should retain the variety of melee weapon types available, while others feel it should be condensed to a smaller set that match what the models are typically equipped with.
Now I know that there are some strats that are unit specific, and you could argue that there's a place for those, even when the unit in question belongs to a fully developed range. But I would doubt it; FW models, while cool, tend not to be the work horses of the army- though the SoB Repressor once had that status.
That’s the thing, the lack of unit specific stratagems hurts FW almost as much as generally poor base stats for price (with many exceptions, admittedly). At the very least, do you think all the LR specific stratagems would apply to the malcador, and all the BB ones apply to the marcharius, for example. But that’s the thing, will this make FW units viable competitive choices to build a force around? Or will the stay mediocre casual options.
Now I know that there are some strats that are unit specific, and you could argue that there's a place for those, even when the unit in question belongs to a fully developed range. But I would doubt it; FW models, while cool, tend not to be the work horses of the army- though the SoB Repressor once had that status.
That’s the thing, the lack of unit specific stratagems hurts FW almost as much as generally poor base stats for price (with many exceptions, admittedly). At the very least, do you think all the LR specific stratagems would apply to the malcador, and all the BB ones apply to the marcharius, for example. But that’s the thing, will this make FW units viable competitive choices to build a force around? Or will the stay mediocre casual options.
I'm not sure it's the lack of stratagems that really make them suffer so much as the lack of special rules. All the Guard tanks were pretty mediocre until the Leman Russ got Grinding Advance, and suddenly that propelled it to a much more usable state.
The Malcador effectively has half the output of a Russ, so it can't keep up. The Macharius is actually in a better place, oddly, as it has two guns and each one does D6 damage instead of D3, so it still has almost twice the damage output as a Russ, but it's still too expensive for what it provides.
With the 40K team now handling the rules entirely, and hopefully putting more effort into them, I could see these units start to hold their own. They might not be quite as competitively optimal if they don't benefit from all the same stratagems as their codex counterparts, but they'd at least be fine for casual play.
Since we're talking strength and ap, I'd like to see the ae profile of the fellblade accelerator cannon increased to str16 from the current str14. It would make it more effective against t8 (read: knights) without affecting effectiveness against other targets. Accelerator cannon is imperial for rail gun and a rail gun of that size should be able to tear through heavy armour.
A return of legacies of ruin would be nice as well, I particularly miss "Veteran of the Scouring ". Would be great against marines.
@ Vaktathi & catbarf: looking at my last post a second time and reading your comments I have to say you convinced me that the difference in output between the power weapons is small enough that the relevance of three different profiles is questionable. Especially since most units that really want to go into CC have usually better options (power fist or whatever SM have like thunderhammers etc.) and those that are typically fitted with power weapons will likely not do a lot in CC either (due to low survivability, strength and number of attacks). So I agree that one could as well skip the different profiles and let everyone use whatever powerweapon he likes with the same. Finally the Death Korps can get their Power shovel!
I think what buggers me more (and I assume I'm not alone with that) is what profile would be fair for a generalized power weapon. As others have said: what is a good power weapon profile for a marine is not a good profile for others like IG, Sisters and other S3 models. And the same goes for the targets.
Back to the Index hopes:
I'm not sure I mentioned this here already, but a while back I had a threat on possible ways to make Malcador/Macharius worthwile between LR and Baneblades. And like back than I would really wish for at least one of them to have a tactical Gimmick instead of only turning the firepower and price screws.
Potential Gimmicks being:
- unconventional weaponry (like the Carnodon which can take Volkites or 5 Multilasers... I don't say the latter is useful, but it's funny). Volkites, Gravguns, Inferno Guns, whatever. Something the LR/BB just can't have
- command abbility (a Macharius ordering arround Malcadors could be funny. Or a commander for your infantry that is much harder to remove than your flimsy T3 dudes, even if he's a massive investment)
- transport capacity, small, but unconventional (like transporting a single cyclops, or something like 5 man, but without the AM restriction)
- ramming ability (no clue how to reflect that. maybe mortal wounds on a successful charge? The Baneblade would still be superior in CC, but you could at least finish off that almost dead sqad with your Malcador)
- something like a forcefield, 6++ for infantry withing 3''
=> I don't think anything of that would make them superior to the LR/BB, who would still be the more effective Price/Power combination, but it would give you some reason to take them other than "the model looks cool!"
Yeah, would be nice too... but the LR is soooo versatile already. Besides the weak spot in my heart for the Malcador and Macharius, if they bring the LR Incinerator into 40k they hopefully really have a look, that it does not make the Hellhound inferior.
catbarf wrote: I'm not sure it's the lack of stratagems that really make them suffer so much as the lack of special rules. All the Guard tanks were pretty mediocre until the Leman Russ got Grinding Advance, and suddenly that propelled it to a much more usable state.
The Malcador effectively has half the output of a Russ, so it can't keep up. The Macharius is actually in a better place, oddly, as it has two guns and each one does D6 damage instead of D3, so it still has almost twice the damage output as a Russ, but it's still too expensive for what it provides.
With the 40K team now handling the rules entirely, and hopefully putting more effort into them, I could see these units start to hold their own. They might not be quite as competitively optimal if they don't benefit from all the same stratagems as their codex counterparts, but they'd at least be fine for casual play.
Guard artillery gets a big boost from its specialist detachments and stratagems if you have the CP, FW artillery has no such help. Also the Macharius is twice the cost of a russ and has few secondary weapons, I wouldn't say it's in a better place at all.
Either way, you think that FW will get special rules and maybe points changes to put them inline with their GW counterparts, except for stratagem support to keep them from having that competitive edge? That would be fair, stratagems add a lot of bloat to the game and there are already too many imo. It's just that these are supposed to be true codices, and stratagems are the big thing that separates codex from non-codex armies. I would almost think it more likely that they give FW stratagems sooner than they give them special rules.
Not Online!!! wrote: I am more surprised that we haven't heard anything in regards to rumors yet.
Which probably means they either aren't working on it yet or keep a lid on it.
Being Forge World lowers the chance of leaks a bit. They do not produce nearly the same numbers, and there is no where near the same distribution. So by the simple fact that less people see it before it comes out, there is less chance that a leaker with find it. Also, with less people seeing it a leaker would be less likely to leak, as there is a higher chance of being found out.
Not saying it can't happen, just that the chances are lower.
Not Online!!! wrote: I am more surprised that we haven't heard anything in regards to rumors yet.
Which probably means they either aren't working on it yet or keep a lid on it.
Being Forge World lowers the chance of leaks a bit. They do not produce nearly the same numbers, and there is no where near the same distribution. So by the simple fact that less people see it before it comes out, there is less chance that a leaker with find it. Also, with less people seeing it a leaker would be less likely to leak, as there is a higher chance of being found out.
Not saying it can't happen, just that the chances are lower.
The rules are done by GW mainteam Which is why i am surpried in the first place.
Then again the next big even is around the corner, so maybee GW is using that for more stuff.
Not Online!!! wrote: The rules are done by GW mainteam Which is why i am surpried in the first place.
Is anyone even sure what that means? How large is the team, and who is on it? Plus, is the whole team working on this or did they give it to the new guy to work on part time? Did they just fold the FW team into the main team?
Not Online!!! wrote: The rules are done by GW mainteam Which is why i am surpried in the first place.
Is anyone even sure what that means? How large is the team, and who is on it? Plus, is the whole team working on this or did they give it to the new guy to work on part time? Did they just fold the FW team into the main team?
Considering GW don't even name the author of the books anymore to protect form criticism, we have no idea but we can clearly see that not all books are done by a team but rather multiple people which don't even propperly seem to communicate with each other ( CSM 2.0 SM 2.0 f.e. or the massive difference between supplements, or PA, for that matter......)
I also don't expect an improvement in the internal balance. If anything i am fully prepared to be the butt of the joke of a R&H update again, most likely beeing completly underperfoming again or potentially just beeing IH but with chaff.
Not Online!!! wrote: The rules are done by GW mainteam Which is why i am surpried in the first place.
Is anyone even sure what that means? How large is the team, and who is on it? Plus, is the whole team working on this or did they give it to the new guy to work on part time? Did they just fold the FW team into the main team?
Considering GW don't even name the author of the books anymore to protect form criticism, we have no idea but we can clearly see that not all books are done by a team but rather multiple people which don't even propperly seem to communicate with each other ( CSM 2.0 SM 2.0 f.e. or the massive difference between supplements, or PA, for that matter......)
I also don't expect an improvement in the internal balance. If anything i am fully prepared to be the butt of the joke of a R&H update again, most likely beeing completly underperfoming again or potentially just beeing IH but with chaff.
I'd be thrilled if they just fixed all the points for most stuff. R&h needs more than that though.
Gadzilla666 wrote: I'd be thrilled if they just fixed all the points for most stuff. R&h needs more than that though.
Could R&H work as a few pages of rules modifying the Guard list? Like a general "replace AM keyword with renegade", lists of disallowed units like creed, new set of doctrines/traits/relics/stratagems/powers and then maybe a few datasheets for things like enforcers? I know that an entire new list would be better but what would be the "minimal viable product"? Or a better question is probably what is the least that you could find acceptable?
Plus, setting R&H up as alternate-guard would increase sales to Chaos players. Maybe FW could release a simple conversion kit for Cadians, with spikes!
Gadzilla666 wrote: I'd be thrilled if they just fixed all the points for most stuff. R&h needs more than that though.
Could R&H work as a few pages of rules modifying the Guard list? Like a general "replace AM keyword with renegade", lists of disallowed units like creed, new set of doctrines/traits/relics/stratagems/powers and then maybe a few datasheets for things like enforcers? I know that an entire new list would be better but what would be the "minimal viable product"? Or a better question is probably what is the least that you could find acceptable?
Plus, setting R&H up as alternate-guard would increase sales to Chaos players. Maybe FW could release a simple conversion kit for Cadians, with spikes!
Well that could work as far as "least acceptable " goes, as long as r&h gets datasheets for their unique units. Most stuff is shared with guard already.
But feth "cadians with spikes". We should at least get unique troops sculpts. A multi part kit of the bsf traitor guard would be great. I love those models.
Gadzilla666 wrote: I'd be thrilled if they just fixed all the points for most stuff. R&h needs more than that though.
Could R&H work as a few pages of rules modifying the Guard list? Like a general "replace AM keyword with renegade", lists of disallowed units like creed, new set of doctrines/traits/relics/stratagems/powers and then maybe a few datasheets for things like enforcers? I know that an entire new list would be better but what would be the "minimal viable product"? Or a better question is probably what is the least that you could find acceptable?
Plus, setting R&H up as alternate-guard would increase sales to Chaos players. Maybe FW could release a simple conversion kit for Cadians, with spikes!
Yesn't, the core issue is that R&H is not "just guard with spikes".
R&H were all types of mortal followers of chaos, aswell as not chaos.
IA 13 represented this by demagogue devotions, think of them as prototrait system that actually cost points for specific limits and unlocks.
Conceptually it also used an adaptable troop unit to represent anything from PDF, Lobotomized techno servants to propper traitor guard formations, done via upgrade to them that were unlocked or mandatory depending on your demagogue.
Basically, the list included, Darkmech with daemonengine support and mass lobotimized skitari, radical ideologica / religious rebelions, Hiveworld revolts , traitor guard formations, mutant uprisings, Military coup style lists, and vraks style (whatever that was) etc. and could so well.
And that is not even going into if you chose a chaos god, or not, which also gave you specific units or denied them.
Gadzilla666 wrote: But feth "cadians with spikes". We should at least get unique troops sculpts. A multi part kit of the bsf traitor guard would be great. I love those models.
I would guess that plastics are just not feasible. You really do need to sell a lot of them to cover the costs. Like, an insane amount. Injection mould development is expensive, and you have to take into account the opportunity cost. They could be making something that would sell far better than renegades.
Now FW resin is a bit more likely. Especially if it is a conversion kit.
Gadzilla666 wrote: But feth "cadians with spikes". We should at least get unique troops sculpts. A multi part kit of the bsf traitor guard would be great. I love those models.
I would guess that plastics are just not feasible. You really do need to sell a lot of them to cover the costs. Like, an insane amount. Injection mould development is expensive, and you have to take into account the opportunity cost. They could be making something that would sell far better than renegades.
Now FW resin is a bit more likely. Especially if it is a conversion kit.
Gadzilla666 wrote: But feth "cadians with spikes". We should at least get unique troops sculpts. A multi part kit of the bsf traitor guard would be great. I love those models.
I would guess that plastics are just not feasible. You really do need to sell a lot of them to cover the costs. Like, an insane amount. Injection mould development is expensive, and you have to take into account the opportunity cost. They could be making something that would sell far better than renegades.
Now FW resin is a bit more likely. Especially if it is a conversion kit.
Bsf traitor guard are plastic.
It's also not like every traitor guard army would need 3+ boxes minimum to even be remotely useful.
Historically speaking R&H Militia ( even traitor guard nievau Upgrade ones cost slighlty less because of bulk buy upgrades) could be fielded cheaper then conscripts and were very much a troop centric horde army.
Heck even my mechanized force uses 70 infantry models without even going into tanks and HQ and that force isn't even 2000pts strong.
That is like 14 push-fit miniatures. That is not a range.
( 1hq, 3 elites, 3troops, )
That's pretty close
And as you said, they have the CAD, wouldn't be that hard to make a multi part kit with some options. If they can recoup the costs for a zoat they could do it for traitor guard.
Gadzilla666 wrote: And as you said, they have the CAD, wouldn't be that hard to make a multi part kit with some options. If they can recoup the costs for a zoat they could do it for traitor guard.
You are vastly underestimating the amount of work needed to accomplish that.
Gadzilla666 wrote: And as you said, they have the CAD, wouldn't be that hard to make a multi part kit with some options. If they can recoup the costs for a zoat they could do it for traitor guard.
You are vastly underestimating the amount of work needed to accomplish that.
Compared to the amount already dedicated to the current kit created for a niche specialist game? And similar kits designed for similar specialist games?
Gadzilla666 wrote: Compared to the amount already dedicated to the current kit created for a niche specialist game? And similar kits designed for similar specialist games?
Yes. You are talking about taking the designs for a limited amount of models in a boxed game, and using them to produce multipart kits in a full production run. That is a lot of work. New weapons need designing, new models, new sprue layouts. Then you need to think about production times, marketing, box art, instructions, logistics. Then you have to think about deciding how they are going to fit into the release schedule the best, and not crowd out similar products.
People get paid a lot of money to make sure all of this works. They get it because it isn't a simple task.
Going back to the issue at hand, is there something specific they can do to stop the dominance of Leviathans and Chaplain Dreadnoughts in current tournament lists? Is nerfing the price enough or would the core stats need to change? Is a dreadnought that's also a character just simply always going to be very good thanks to 8th ed's targeting rules?
Agamemnon2 wrote: Going back to the issue at hand, is there something specific they can do to stop the dominance of Leviathans and Chaplain Dreadnoughts in current tournament lists? Is nerfing the price enough or would the core stats need to change? Is a dreadnought that's also a character just simply always going to be very good thanks to 8th ed's targeting rules?
The chaplain dread will probably go to legends because it's oop. Targeting rules weren't the problem with leviathans because it has more than 10 wounds. It was super survivable because of duty eternal and the ih bodyguard strategem. The sm FAQ nerfed those. But I could definitely see a possible points increase. Giving the loyalist version a 5++ against shooting like the chaos version would also help.
Agamemnon2 wrote: Going back to the issue at hand, is there something specific they can do to stop the dominance of Leviathans and Chaplain Dreadnoughts in current tournament lists? Is nerfing the price enough or would the core stats need to change? Is a dreadnought that's also a character just simply always going to be very good thanks to 8th ed's targeting rules?
Dominance, through what.
Consider the following, they weren't picked, even the superior SM ones, when there were no supplements, do you seriously consider these two an issue or the supplement rules?
Honest question, also nerfing the leviathan, one of the few FW models actually decently priced and not overpriced garbage would just again hurt everyone else beyond for the outlier. Which is not fun.
Agamemnon2 wrote: Going back to the issue at hand, is there something specific they can do to stop the dominance of Leviathans and Chaplain Dreadnoughts in current tournament lists? Is nerfing the price enough or would the core stats need to change? Is a dreadnought that's also a character just simply always going to be very good thanks to 8th ed's targeting rules?
The chaplain dread will probably go to legends because it's oop.
Ah, good point. I thought that was still up for sale, but looks like they've pulled the entire Mk IV chassis range, apart from Bray'arth Ashmantle for whatever godforsaken reason. I would be surprised if OOP Forgeworld models will even merit inclusion among Legends. The FW way has always been to discontinue models at short notice and without a trace, I doubt these rules will be much different.
At this point I would just like sone actually vaguely playable rules that means taking some of my cool FW models doesn't automatically feel like I could be picking better units for less points out of the codex.
GW's approach has too often been to buff the crap out of poorly writen units and leave FW models with the same weapons or abilities playing with the old unbuffed rules.
Likr seriously why does a shadowsword have almost the same avarage shots as a falcion which has 2 volcano cannons?
3D3 (potentially rerollable) vrs 2D6 like really it's should clealry be 6D3 if that's how they gona rule it but nah stuck with an avarage of 7 shots vrs 6 shots for a twin volcanon cannon GG for balance there.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Compared to the amount already dedicated to the current kit created for a niche specialist game? And similar kits designed for similar specialist games?
Yes. You are talking about taking the designs for a limited amount of models in a boxed game, and using them to produce multipart kits in a full production run. That is a lot of work. New weapons need designing, new models, new sprue layouts. Then you need to think about production times, marketing, box art, instructions, logistics. Then you have to think about deciding how they are going to fit into the release schedule the best, and not crowd out similar products.
People get paid a lot of money to make sure all of this works. They get it because it isn't a simple task.
Yeah, I get that. The point is why would it be such a greater burden to do that compared to any other unit? Every unit has the same logistical issues. And considering the existence of the bsf kit there's a pretty good chance it could already be in the works.
What, gw can produce an entire armies worth of space marine lieutenants but not one box of guardsmen?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ice_can wrote: At this point I would just like sone actually vaguely playable rules that means taking some of my cool FW models doesn't automatically feel like I could be picking better units for less points out of the codex.
GW's approach has too often been to buff the crap out of poorly writen units and leave FW models with the same weapons or abilities playing with the old unbuffed rules.
Likr seriously why does a shadowsword have almost the same avarage shots as a falcion which has 2 volcano cannons?
3D3 (potentially rerollable) vrs 2D6 like really it's should clealry be 6D3 if that's how they gona rule it but nah stuck with an avarage of 7 shots vrs 6 shots for a twin volcanon cannon GG for balance there.
Gadzilla666 wrote: I'd be thrilled if they just fixed all the points for most stuff. R&h needs more than that though.
Could R&H work as a few pages of rules modifying the Guard list? Like a general "replace AM keyword with renegade", lists of disallowed units like creed, new set of doctrines/traits/relics/stratagems/powers and then maybe a few datasheets for things like enforcers? I know that an entire new list would be better but what would be the "minimal viable product"? Or a better question is probably what is the least that you could find acceptable?
Plus, setting R&H up as alternate-guard would increase sales to Chaos players. Maybe FW could release a simple conversion kit for Cadians, with spikes!
The very first incarnation of R&H was exactly that. It was a variant Guard list with access to a lot of static emplacements, off-board artillery, minefields, Tarantulas, and the like.
Over the years it evolved into a replacement for the old Lost And The Damned list. There were a bunch of army-wide upgrades that shaped their abilities, so you could run anything from the original Vraksian traitor guard to mutant hordes to disgruntled miners to mercenaries.
Bringing it back to a variant AM list might work as a stopgap, but would certainly hurt the players who used the list for its 'catch-all' nature.
Nerfing the Leviathan would be a horrific mistake.
The issue with the Levi was its interaction with the Iron Hands rules. They've fixed that. Further punishing non-IH players who like fielding Levis would just seem unfair.
Chaplain Dreads? They're not even going to be in the book, so they're not worth worrying about.
I fear for Repressors. Having seen what they can do last weekend it's going to be a shame to see them go Legends.
Imperial Armour: Index Xenos is officially sold out on the U.S. fw site. One down, three to go. Does this mean we're getting closer to hearing something about the new books? The upcoming announcements originally meant for Adepticon perhaps?
Gadzilla666 wrote: Imperial Armour: Index Xenos is officially sold out on the U.S. fw site. One down, three to go. Does this mean we're getting closer to hearing something about the new books? The upcoming announcements originally meant for Adepticon perhaps?
Gadzilla666 wrote: Imperial Armour: Index Xenos is officially sold out on the U.S. fw site. One down, three to go. Does this mean we're getting closer to hearing something about the new books? The upcoming announcements originally meant for Adepticon perhaps?
Maybee ,if we get lucky?
The 28th marks another year that I didn't die so here's hoping.
I'd be happy if we just get the index back up to the old book, with the missing pseudo relic options and such..
With errata built in and a working versions of rapiers that should work more like the lord discordant and adding the missing units.
Gadzilla666 wrote: But feth "cadians with spikes". We should at least get unique troops sculpts. A multi part kit of the bsf traitor guard would be great. I love those models.
I would guess that plastics are just not feasible. You really do need to sell a lot of them to cover the costs. Like, an insane amount. Injection mould development is expensive, and you have to take into account the opportunity cost. They could be making something that would sell far better than renegades.
Now FW resin is a bit more likely. Especially if it is a conversion kit.
Plastics have come down in price recently. Wargames Atlantic for example, is doing a line of Spaniards vs Aztecs based solely on a less than 200 person poll's choice.....if they can afford to throw money away like that, GW can afford to do whatever it wants.
General Hobbs wrote: Plastics have come down in price recently. Wargames Atlantic for example, is doing a line of Spaniards vs Aztecs based solely on a less than 200 person poll's choice.....if they can afford to throw money away like that, GW can afford to do whatever it wants.
Maybe a few months ago, although I am always wary of underestimating the cost of things. Now though? They just shut down their entire distribution and production system. They are not going to be taking any risks for the forseeable future. At least GW has pretty solid financials, so it will be better off than a lot of businesses.
Crazyterran wrote: I hope they add the Sisters of Silence tank to the Talons list that GW is making with PA.
Yeah that thing is awesome. But they won't add a fw unit in a pa. They'll do it in the new fw books if they do. Hope they do, even though I don't play sos, I'd still love to see it on the table.
All the indexes are gone from the fw sight, including ebooks. I know this could be due to the current situation, but all the other ebooks are still up and physical books are listed as "temporarily out of stock".
Am I reading too much into this? Or are the current books gone?
Gw was basically running them down on stock to nothing. It makes sense to pull the ebooks as well because its all outdated and the last thing they want is to have to process refunds for ebooks purchased so close to the release of the new book.
Of course the current situation might well have resulted in a delay to these plans, however as the withdrawl costs them nothing and can be done from home etc.... then they've gone ahead with it.
Overread wrote: Gw was basically running them down on stock to nothing. It makes sense to pull the ebooks as well because its all outdated and the last thing they want is to have to process refunds for ebooks purchased so close to the release of the new book.
Of course the current situation might well have resulted in a delay to these plans, however as the withdrawl costs them nothing and can be done from home etc.... then they've gone ahead with it.
But if they've gone ahead and pulled the ebooks doesn't that mean the new books are close to release? Maybe a preview this weekend? That's what I was hoping.
And orks, daemons, etc. So you think pulling the books means we're close to hearing something? It would fit the recent pattern of pulling something before news (Ghaz, Mephiston, Ragnar, etc).
Yes but pulling the ebooks seems to be a sign. Gw doesn't give up free money just for anything and they continuing to sell other ebooks during the crisis.
What they do in the new Indexes could make or break some armies, csm and Custodes in particular.
What is the general opinion on whether we think new rules will provided in addition to a re-write of the old rules?
As someone with a reasonable Mechanicum collection, I was gutted when Fires of Cyraxus got canned (which was meant to include 40k rules for many 30k Mechanicum units).
I personally think we might... But at the same time, really do not want to get my hopes up too much.
FW seems in a weird place at the moment. Do we also get updated rules for OOP units? DKK Grenadiers got blammed a while back, do we expect them (and other blammed units) to still crop up in the new FW rules?
Wigum211 wrote: What is the general opinion on whether we think new rules will provided in addition to a re-write of the old rules?
As someone with a reasonable Mechanicum collection, I was gutted when Fires of Cyraxus got canned (which was meant to include 40k rules for many 30k Mechanicum units).
I personally think we might... But at the same time, really do not want to get my hopes up too much.
FW seems in a weird place at the moment. Do we also get updated rules for OOP units? DKK Grenadiers got blammed a while back, do we expect them (and other blammed units) to still crop up in the new FW rules?
Grenadiers might get a pass since the rest of the DKoK line still exists. They could bring them back at any time like they did with the Gorgon.
I'm more inclined to suspect that a new book won't have rules for Renegades & Heretics or Elysians, given the 'no model, no rules' policy. If they also don't repeat rules for the various FW units that no longer have models, that would free up a lot of space for Mechanicum stuff.
I just hope they actually update all the unit's and don't just leave certain models that have been give pdf rules hanging as most of them like a lot of FW models arw over paying in points when compaired to codex options.
Ice_can wrote: I just hope they actually update all the unit's and don't just leave certain models that have been give pdf rules hanging as most of them like a lot of FW models arw over paying in points when compaired to codex options.
Points costs are the biggest concern imho. My fellblade's and dreadclaw's rules are fine, they're just too fething expensive.
Ice_can wrote: I just hope they actually update all the unit's and don't just leave certain models that have been give pdf rules hanging as most of them like a lot of FW models arw over paying in points when compaired to codex options.
Points costs are the biggest concern imho. My fellblade's and dreadclaw's rules are fine, they're just too fething expensive.
This is true. Most of the datasheets are FINE when it comes to RAI, and maybe some just need some adjusting with wording. What isn't fine is the point costs. At most we just need rules for various Chapters, Craftworlds, and Septs that popped up in their books, and then price adjustments.
Wigum211 wrote: What is the general opinion on whether we think new rules will provided in addition to a re-write of the old rules?
As someone with a reasonable Mechanicum collection, I was gutted when Fires of Cyraxus got canned (which was meant to include 40k rules for many 30k Mechanicum units).
I personally think we might... But at the same time, really do not want to get my hopes up too much.
FW seems in a weird place at the moment. Do we also get updated rules for OOP units? DKK Grenadiers got blammed a while back, do we expect them (and other blammed units) to still crop up in the new FW rules?
Grenadiers might get a pass since the rest of the DKoK line still exists. They could bring them back at any time like they did with the Gorgon.
I'm more inclined to suspect that a new book won't have rules for Renegades & Heretics or Elysians, given the 'no model, no rules' policy. If they also don't repeat rules for the various FW units that no longer have models, that would free up a lot of space for Mechanicum stuff.
I doubt.
If anything the mechanicum stuff will be in another book, because more booksales.
As for R&H and Elysians. I don't know. i sure hope not. I don't want to get squatted or corsair'ed and recent releases make that a bit iffy atleast in regards to R&H.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dysartes wrote: Let's hope that Step 1 was a keyword sweep...
In what context?
Missing keywords? Interactions?
There have been a lot of missing ones for those IA indexes i had but that was hardly the worst of the problems i have seen within the IA books.
What I expect to see is pretty simple:
1. Everything on the Forgeworld website will bet in the various books if not already in the Codexes, divided in a way to make the books roughly even in size.
2. Anything not on the Forgeworld website will be in an accompanying Legends release.
3. Rules, such as Chapter Traits and Stratagems for the various Forgeworld forces. Might include Death Corp of Kreig and Eylsians (or they might be in Legends).
4. Cleaned up rules for everything. If the rules is very out of line with Codex units for the army, expect it to change to be closer to those for units in the Codex. Don't expect many overlapping keywords, because they just might have learned how bad those can be by now.
Not Online!!! wrote: I doubt.
If anything the mechanicum stuff will be in another book, because more booksales.
As for R&H and Elysians. I don't know. i sure hope not. I don't want to get squatted or corsair'ed and recent releases make that a bit iffy atleast in regards to R&H.
Maybe the R&H list will get a final Legends list- or the old list will be declared to be Legends without modification- in preparation for a wider Lost and the Damned re-release. I know this is being wildly optimistic, and Codex:LatD will probably release the day after plastic greatcoat Guardsmen and the day before a return of the Squats, but the renegades in Blackstone Fortress are at least something.
But with GW being GW I can't see them releasing active rules for armies they no longer sell, like Elysians, where the entire range is gone. R&H have a better chance of sticking around because they were heavily based on conversion to begin with, but after seeing what GW did with Corsairs I'm prepared to be disappointed.
Sorry if that sounds overly negative- I have FW R&H so I fully understand the situation it puts you in if GW decides to squat them.
alextroy wrote: 3. Rules, such as Chapter Traits and Stratagems for the various Forgeworld forces. Might include Death Corp of Kreig and Eylsians (or they might be in Legends).
Both Elysians and DKoK have some very substantial differences from the codex army lists, not least of which are unique units that don't have codex equivalents, such as DKoK Engineers or Elysian sniper teams. There are also subtle differences, like both DKoK and Elysian sergeants having lasguns as standard rather than laspistol+CCW. They'd need more than just army traits/stratagems- unless they're gutted into a poor imitation of what they currently are.
alextroy wrote: 3. Rules, such as Chapter Traits and Stratagems for the various Forgeworld forces. Might include Death Corp of Kreig and Eylsians (or they might be in Legends).
Both Elysians and DKoK have some very substantial differences from the codex army lists, not least of which are unique units that don't have codex equivalents, such as DKoK Engineers or Elysian sniper teams. There are also subtle differences, like both DKoK and Elysian sergeants having lasguns as standard rather than laspistol+CCW. They'd need more than just army traits/stratagems- unless they're gutted into a poor imitation of what they currently are.
Optimistically, I'd expect the units to be Legends while the traits might make it into the book. They could easily ignore or add in options like DKoK sergeants with Lasguns. With OOP models, they really don't have to do anything they don't want to.
alextroy wrote: 3. Rules, such as Chapter Traits and Stratagems for the various Forgeworld forces. Might include Death Corp of Kreig and Eylsians (or they might be in Legends).
Both Elysians and DKoK have some very substantial differences from the codex army lists, not least of which are unique units that don't have codex equivalents, such as DKoK Engineers or Elysian sniper teams. There are also subtle differences, like both DKoK and Elysian sergeants having lasguns as standard rather than laspistol+CCW. They'd need more than just army traits/stratagems- unless they're gutted into a poor imitation of what they currently are.
Optimistically, I'd expect the units to be Legends while the traits might make it into the book.
That would be a good way to handle it, which means I cynically doubt that will be the case
Dysartes wrote: Let's hope that Step 1 was a keyword sweep...
In what context?
Missing keywords? Interactions?
There have been a lot of missing ones for those IA indexes i had but that was hardly the worst of the problems i have seen within the IA books.
Six of one, half-a-dozen of the other - make sure that units are consistent with keywords and abilities. Last I checked, for example, an IA Leman Russ didn't get Grinding Advance, while Codex ones did. I'm sure there are keywords missing from IA units which are present on Codex versions when they should be consistent.
Equally, review abilities which call out keywords (outside of [FACTION], anyway), and make sure they're affecting the FW units they're intended to. If not, do something about it.
And, frankly, when developing "core" material moving forwards, they should be looking for interactions with FW units at the time when they're writing rules. In theory, this is where you'd have such things in a database - "I want an ability to affect [DREADNOUGHT] units - which units would this currently affect?" *runs search* "Hmm, having it affect Leviathans would be too powerful, I'd best write this so the W cap rules that out..."
Dysartes wrote: Let's hope that Step 1 was a keyword sweep...
In what context?
Missing keywords? Interactions?
There have been a lot of missing ones for those IA indexes i had but that was hardly the worst of the problems i have seen within the IA books.
Six of one, half-a-dozen of the other - make sure that units are consistent with keywords and abilities. Last I checked, for example, an IA Leman Russ didn't get Grinding Advance, while Codex ones did. I'm sure there are keywords missing from IA units which are present on Codex versions when they should be consistent.
Equally, review abilities which call out keywords (outside of [FACTION], anyway), and make sure they're affecting the FW units they're intended to. If not, do something about it.
And, frankly, when developing "core" material moving forwards, they should be looking for interactions with FW units at the time when they're writing rules. In theory, this is where you'd have such things in a database - "I want an ability to affect [DREADNOUGHT] units - which units would this currently affect?" *runs search* "Hmm, having it affect Leviathans would be too powerful, I'd best write this so the W cap rules that out..."
GW can't even br bothered to not nerf Forgeworld Imperial Knights because of strategums and abilities only in the Choas Knights codex. And they still haven't adjusted the points for the models despite losing about 1/4 of their actual playability through these rules rewrites.
What your talking about is so far beyond the capability of any of the codex writer's, it's no even funny, heck GW has now got two different wordings of the same rule with an FAQ declairing them both valid.
At a certain point you have to hope they can manage to just update the weapons to match their codex versions or atleast be better than them where they should be and fix the points. Without making any more units unplayable trash.
What "unforeseen interactions"? I'm tired of this whole "
