Before the inevitable flood of "What where they thinking?! My unit X went up Y points, the faction is trash tier now and Warhammer is doomed anyway" comments, please keep in mind that it is not just your army or your unit.
Everybody is getting adjustments and we have to look at the whole picture.
a_typical_hero wrote: Everybody is getting adjustments and we have to look at the whole picture.
Nah. We already know that cultists are six points each while guardsmen are only five. That alone justifies a good half dozen pages or so of vicious frothing.
There will be a lot of justifiable anger and annoyance at the lack of balancing, as people line up like Groundhog Day hoping this will be the time when they will finally get it right. This time. After 30 years.
And when they see the game will still be as imbalanced and busted as ever... will still fork over the cash so that it can put the lotion on its skin. Or else it gets the nerf again.
I'm against the assumption that equal points means equal capability among different armies.
Orks use Grots in a completely different way than AM uses their Guardsmen. Too many variables in wargear, stratagems, army choices and army tactic approach in general, to compare these two.
Yes, in a vacuum Guardsmen are better. Better profile and equipment. But it is not Guardsmen against Grots.
I'm not saying that the points are (un)balanced, yet.
I want to get some games in before judging for myself.
a_typical_hero wrote: I'm against the assumption that equal points means equal capability among different armies.
Orks use Grots in a completely different way than AM uses their Guardsmen. Too many variables in wargear, stratagems, army choices and army tactic approach in general, to compare these two.
Yes, in a vacuum Guardsmen are better. Better profile and equipment. But it is not Guardsmen against Grots.
I'm not saying that the points are (un)balanced, yet.
I want to get some games in before judging for myself.
So being so reasonable, you're barely even frothing at the mouth.
Guardsman 5 was a given. I honestly wonder why they didn't adjust this last year, seeing how they had already done it in Kill Team the year prior.
At least Conscripts make some sense again now...
Platuan4th wrote: Anyone else annoyed that dam is misspelled in the title?
you just posted cringe.
- - - -
I'm doing the calculations for death guard now. so far I did get hit too bad, with the notable exception of plague burst crawlers and Leviathan dreadnoughts. Butcher array Levi's are all but unusable in my 1500 point lists now going forward me thinks.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Btw I just thought I would point out: the source for these are the SS82 videos right? I would not be suprised if there were a couple of errors in there. Reading numbers off for over an hour, with no mistakes, is pretty difficult. Now I'm not saying that there are mistakes, just that I wouldn't be shocked if like 2% of things are wrong.
In my limited experience grots are really good at holding objectives. As will any such chaff. IS require CC.
I think we may see some more platoon commanders too, as slots are more limited now. A brigade has only 5 HQ slots after all, you can't bring 3 CCs and 3 TCs any more without spending CP.
Esmer wrote: Okay, forget what I said about Conscripts. They are still the same cost as infantry squads.
Syka Blyat, GW! *Curses in Valhallan*
This is and will always continue to be the issue with Conscripts' mere existence continuing to be "Infantry Squads Lite".
This is and will always continue to be why I've argued why Guard need a complete redesign.
MinscS2 wrote: And the 'nonsensical comparisons in a vacuum' began immediately...
Didn't expect anything else from Warsee...I mean Dakkadakka.
Personally I'm "glad" that units across the board, including those in my own armies are getting a point increase.
What was 1750 pts in 8th will now (roughly) be 2000 pts in 9th, and I'm absolutely fine with it.
Pts going higher is fine but saying that comparing pts cross army in a vacuum is nonsensical is a low blow.
Overall i'll wait to play my models before judging the effect the new pts will have, but seeing the pts difference between a chaos leviathan and a loyalist leviathan is one of the changes i just cant get behind
In my limited experience grots are really good at holding objectives. As will any such chaff. IS require CC.
I think we may see some more platoon commanders too, as slots are more limited now. A brigade has only 5 HQ slots after all, you can't bring 3 CCs and 3 TCs any more without spending CP.
I mean, what else are you going to use Elite choices on right now?
I have to agree with goonhammer this does feel very much like someones taken an excel file written a formula and applied it to everything blanket and then gone through to touch a few units randomly selected.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Any leakes for Forge World? Did the hellforged super heavys go up again?
StrikingScorpion has a video with the new forgeworld pts but i havn't found a transcript yet, feel free to listen to the 45 min videos to see the prices, I'm also hoping some of the more egregiously expensive models get some well needed pts drop
a_typical_hero wrote: Before the inevitable flood of "What where they thinking?! My unit X went up Y points, the faction is trash tier now and Warhammer is doomed anyway" comments, please keep in mind that it is not just your army or your unit.
Everybody is getting adjustments and we have to look at the whole picture.
Accept Custodes stayed the same, an already popular army with moderate success in competitive 8th, that's a hugely unfair advantage.
a_typical_hero wrote: Before the inevitable flood of "What where they thinking?! My unit X went up Y points, the faction is trash tier now and Warhammer is doomed anyway" comments, please keep in mind that it is not just your army or your unit.
Everybody is getting adjustments and we have to look at the whole picture.
Accept Custodes stayed the same, an already popular army with moderate success in competitive 8th, that's a hugely unfair advantage.
i was actually thinking about getting myself some custodes since the core rules of 9th help them so much already, with these new pts they just became the next army in my workflow
Kanluwen wrote: I mean, what else are you going to use Elite choices on right now?
Astropaths are still great. They were broken cost before, now they are just cheap. Bullgryn are still useful. With more expensive vehicles, Techpriests may bet worth considering, as the pt/wound increased.
In my limited experience grots are really good at holding objectives. As will any such chaff. IS require CC.
I think we may see some more platoon commanders too, as slots are more limited now. A brigade has only 5 HQ slots after all, you can't bring 3 CCs and 3 TCs any more without spending CP.
Might also make Vox Casters marginally more useful. I've never bothered with them in the past, since I might just as well invest the points in a couple more Commanders placed between squads instead.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Any leakes for Forge World? Did the hellforged super heavys go up again?
StrikingScorpion has a video with the new forgeworld pts but i havn't found a transcript yet, feel free to listen to the 45 min videos to see the prices, I'm also hoping some of the more egregiously expensive models get some well needed pts drop
45 minutes? Guess it'll have to wait until I get home tonight.
I don't know what the Infantry special weapons are about. 5pts for flamer/grenade/melta/plasma? It just makes the grenade launcher kind of useless. I can see metla getting some use, but its just going to be plasma all the time. I like the idea of flamers but they are so niche why would I not just take a plasma?
Well as others have said there is no point getting to up in arms until we play it out and see. Its just too many changes all at once to properly digest.
Still within the same codex some of the point costs look a little fishy.
Wraith blades with swords 50. With axes 40.
Wraith guard with flamers 48. With cannons 38.
I think the swords are easily the worst load out, and yet they are way more expensive.
auticus wrote: There will be a lot of justifiable anger and annoyance at the lack of balancing, as people line up like Groundhog Day hoping this will be the time when they will finally get it right. This time. After 30 years.
And when they see the game will still be as imbalanced and busted as ever... will still fork over the cash so that it can put the lotion on its skin. Or else it gets the nerf again.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Any leakes for Forge World? Did the hellforged super heavys go up again?
StrikingScorpion has a video with the new forgeworld pts but i havn't found a transcript yet, feel free to listen to the 45 min videos to see the prices, I'm also hoping some of the more egregiously expensive models get some well needed pts drop
45 minutes? Guess it'll have to wait until I get home tonight.
What do you want to know? I'll find it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Trickstick wrote: I don't know what the Infantry special weapons are about. 5pts for flamer/grenade/melta/plasma? It just makes the grenade launcher kind of useless. I can see metla getting some use, but its just going to be plasma all the time. I like the idea of flamers but they are so niche why would I not just take a plasma?
5 points for BS4 melta? Crazy cheap.
Flamer if you don't want to kill your own guy and want to hurt softer units? It's not fabulous, I know.
Hahahaha, the Exalted Greater Daemons (the ones that are actually exalted, not the ones you spend a CP for a tiny bonus) are still at their meme points values.
Daedalus81 wrote: Flamer if you don't want to kill your own guy and want to hurt softer units? It's not fabulous, I know.
I play Guard, killing my own men for a slight advantage is what I do! I have stopped using officer plasma in recent years though, as losing them is painful. Let the enlisted men take the risk.
Do you play grots? I'd have never guessed from the last 50 posts you've made.
IG took a bit of a hit, but plasma and melta only being 5pts is crazy good. I'm not sure I can justify a flamer or grenade launcher now unless they get a boost somehow.
Trickstick wrote: I don't know what the Infantry special weapons are about. 5pts for flamer/grenade/melta/plasma? It just makes the grenade launcher kind of useless. I can see metla getting some use, but its just going to be plasma all the time. I like the idea of flamers but they are so niche why would I not just take a plasma?
Yeah, GW just gave up balancing anything cheap. Too hard. Gotta make more space marines stuff.
Harlequins
S4 Ap-3 D3 damage pistol with a special ability that makes it 1d vs vehicles: 5pts
S8 AP-4 Dd6 damage pistol with a special ability that is...it's melta, it does reroll damage if you're wihin half range: 5pts.
GSC
S4 AP- D1 18" range single shot - 5pts
S4 AP- D1 8" range d6 shots - 5pts
Was your competitive list made of only exalted sorcerers? As that's the only thing that went down (and they were terrible for the points, might see play now)
Just taking a quick look Guard point changes, I'm somewhat shocked at how much they increased pricing on the Exterminator Autocannon, Heavy Bolters & Twin Heavy Bolters, Missile Launcher, Grenade Launcher, Heavy Stubber, etc all went wayyyyyyyy up, most of which were not very good. Those took the biggest hits of just about anything in the army, and I'm not sure...why?
Meanwhile the Battlecannon got even...cheaper?
I'm hoping this means that some changes went into the Exterminator Battlecannon and Missile Launcher and the like to make them more attractive, but I'm more guessing this is GW being bad at things again.
Missile Launcher and Grenade Launcher went up likely in response to getting 'Blast' added to the Frag modes.
Exterminator Autocannons, Heavy Bolters+Twin Heavy Bolters, Heavy Stubber went up likely in response to being able to fire them while locked in CC.
Was your competitive list made of only exalted sorcerers? As that's the only thing that went down (and they were terrible for the points, might see play now)
Running it thru again, I missed adding in the one cultist squad - only went down 40 points.
Vaktathi wrote: Just taking a quick look Guard point changes, I'm somewhat shocked at how much they increased pricing on the Exterminator Autocannon, Heavy Bolters & Twin Heavy Bolters, Missile Launcher, Grenade Launcher, Heavy Stubber, etc all went wayyyyyyyy up, most of which were not very good. Those took the biggest hits of just about anything in the army, and I'm not sure...why?
Meanwhile the Battlecannon got even...cheaper?
I'm hoping this means that some changes went into the Exterminator Battlecannon and Missile Launcher and the like to make them more attractive, but I'm more guessing this is GW being bad at things again.
Yeah, the points changes for IG weapons were surprising. It seems like the duds from before have just had increases, while what was competitive has been largely left alone.
The Battlecannon going down, and Demolisher cannon not changing is great, but why is the Vanquisher still 20? And why did the Exterminator go up?
Basilisks and Manticores have escaped without too much of a hit either.
Although IG as a whole went up 16% or so, it feels like a lot of the big increases were on things that weren't really used as it was.
Orks seem to have got off light. Boyz are 8. Weapons are mostly the same or down. Some vehicles/flyers up, but the weapons went to 0. TBs to 9, but rokkits to 10 - so a wash. Kanz, Nobs, Nobs on bikes, and bikes got hit the most aside from grots. Smasha got away with only up 2. SAG is up ~40.
Yeah, the points changes for IG weapons were surprising. It seems like the duds from before have just had increases, while what was competitive has been largely left alone.
The Battlecannon going down, and Demolisher cannon not changing is great, but why is the Vanquisher still 20? And why did the Exterminator go up?
Basilisks and Manticores have escaped without too much of a hit either.
Although IG as a whole went up 16% or so, it feels like a lot of the big increases were on things that weren't really used as it was.
Part of this feels like stuff we would get answered whenever the FAQ drops. Biggest guess is Battle Cannon, Demolisher Cannon, Basilisk, Manticores, Wyverns, etc are going to get the "Blast" profiles. Same goes for Grenade and Missile Launchers with their Frag mode.
Vanquishers and Exterminators likely are not getting Blast...which means unlike the Battle, Demolisher, Basilisk, Manticore, and Wyvern cannons they can fire at what they are locked in CC with.
I'm trying to stick to "hm let's wait and see how it all shakes out" but some of these are, on initial inspection, completely mad. Sure, both Grots and Cultists have their uses, but to suggest they're on an equal footing with / 20% better than Guardsmen is nonsense.
Were I feeling cynical I might wonder if this is an exercise in building anticipation for the new Codices. In the meantime, the game's just going to be awash with even more Imperial armies. Yawn.
You know, I was just thinking the other day "boy, I really want to see yet more Space Marines in 9th, there aren't enough of those around". And thanks to this, we will! In fact, first impressions are that SM, Custodes and Guard have absolutely made out like bandits. I'm willing to wait and see but this stuff looks like they've done xenos real dirty.
Eyjio wrote: You know, I was just thinking the other day "boy, I really want to see yet more Space Marines in 9th, there aren't enough of those around". And thanks to this, we will! In fact, first impressions are that SM, Custodes and Guard have absolutely made out like bandits. I'm willing to wait and see but this stuff looks like they've done xenos real dirty.
Sasori wrote: Don't worry, they fixed Necrons... The most game breaking model in the game... The Obelisk went up 40 points.
No, but It looks like Necrons got off pretty well here, though these are likely going to be relevant for about a month and a half.
Thousand Sons got off very good, I'm pretty happy.
lol nids.
I feel like the obelisk is a meme joke at this point and increasing it adding to the comedy. It must be a joke because no human who plays this game could think the unit the community voted worst unit in the game could deserve to go UP in points.
Trickstick wrote: I don't know what the Infantry special weapons are about. 5pts for flamer/grenade/melta/plasma? It just makes the grenade launcher kind of useless. I can see metla getting some use, but its just going to be plasma all the time. I like the idea of flamers but they are so niche why would I not just take a plasma?
Yeah, the points changes for IG weapons were surprising. It seems like the duds from before have just had increases, while what was competitive has been largely left alone.
The Battlecannon going down, and Demolisher cannon not changing is great, but why is the Vanquisher still 20? And why did the Exterminator go up?
Basilisks and Manticores have escaped without too much of a hit either.
Although IG as a whole went up 16% or so, it feels like a lot of the big increases were on things that weren't really used as it was.
Part of this feels like stuff we would get answered whenever the FAQ drops. Biggest guess is Battle Cannon, Demolisher Cannon, Basilisk, Manticores, Wyverns, etc are going to get the "Blast" profiles. Same goes for Grenade and Missile Launchers with their Frag mode.
Vanquishers and Exterminators likely are not getting Blast...which means unlike the Battle, Demolisher, Basilisk, Manticore, and Wyvern cannons they can't fire at what they are locked in CC with.
I think in that last sentence it should be a can, Kan, not a can't.
Nazrak wrote: I'm trying to stick to "hm let's wait and see how it all shakes out" but some of these are, on initial inspection, completely mad. Sure, both Grots and Cultists have their uses, but to suggest they're on an equal footing with / 20% better than Guardsmen is nonsense.
Were I feeling cynical I might wonder if this is an exercise in building anticipation for the new Codices. In the meantime, the game's just going to be awash with even more Imperial armies. Yawn.
Think about detachments. You need to boost IS with CC. CC take HQ slots. It isn't easy to fit 3 CC without murdering your HQs. So now you're going platoon and getting fewer orders. There's more to consider than what is in front of your face.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gadzilla666 wrote: Any leakes for Forge World? Did the hellforged super heavys go up again?
Fireball punishers could make fun screening tanks. The flamer=bolter cost on tanks is going to take some getting used to.
Honestly, the last piece of the puzzle are the FAQs. Will be interesting to see what they do with things like Tallarn traits. Makes it hard to kit out russes if you are not sure which regiment to pick.
Nazrak wrote: I'm trying to stick to "hm let's wait and see how it all shakes out" but some of these are, on initial inspection, completely mad. Sure, both Grots and Cultists have their uses, but to suggest they're on an equal footing with / 20% better than Guardsmen is nonsense.
Were I feeling cynical I might wonder if this is an exercise in building anticipation for the new Codices. In the meantime, the game's just going to be awash with even more Imperial armies. Yawn.
Think about detachments. You need to boost IS with CC. CC take HQ slots. It isn't easy to fit 3 CC without murdering your HQs. So now you're going platoon and getting fewer orders. There's more to consider than what is in front of your face.
And you also pay points for the CC. Even if you don't do that, they're *still* better than Grots or Cultists.
Nazrak wrote: I'm trying to stick to "hm let's wait and see how it all shakes out" but some of these are, on initial inspection, completely mad. Sure, both Grots and Cultists have their uses, but to suggest they're on an equal footing with / 20% better than Guardsmen is nonsense.
Were I feeling cynical I might wonder if this is an exercise in building anticipation for the new Codices. In the meantime, the game's just going to be awash with even more Imperial armies. Yawn.
Think about detachments. You need to boost IS with CC. CC take HQ slots. It isn't easy to fit 3 CC without murdering your HQs. So now you're going platoon and getting fewer orders. There's more to consider than what is in front of your face.
And you also pay points for the CC. Even if you don't do that, they're *still* better than Grots or Cultists.
Yes, because your examples given are cannon fodder units.
You might not want to hear that, but it's the truth. It's why I keep advocating for trash tier Conscripts to be made and Guard Infantry Squads to be bumped up on par with Skitarii/Fire Warriors/Scions.
Until we get a rework of the Guard book? This nonsense is going to be the case.
Sasori wrote: Don't worry, they fixed Necrons... The most game breaking model in the game... The Obelisk went up 40 points.
No, but It looks like Necrons got off pretty well here, though these are likely going to be relevant for about a month and a half.
Thousand Sons got off very good, I'm pretty happy.
lol nids.
I feel like the obelisk is a meme joke at this point and increasing it adding to the comedy. It must be a joke because no human who plays this game could think the unit the community voted worst unit in the game could deserve to go UP in pints.
I thought the Pyrovore was the worst unit in the game. Or am I thinking out of date here?
Eyjio wrote: You know, I was just thinking the other day "boy, I really want to see yet more Space Marines in 9th, there aren't enough of those around". And thanks to this, we will! In fact, first impressions are that SM, Custodes and Guard have absolutely made out like bandits. I'm willing to wait and see but this stuff looks like they've done xenos real dirty.
Guard did pretty mediocre, honestly. I kind of agree with Goonhammer that it seems to be split basically into 4 categories: Big Winners, Kinda Winners, So-So, and Losers. If you're so-so and above you're probably fine. RIP nids and GSC.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: What did they do to my Noise Marines! Why did they increase by 3 per model, why did sonic blasters go up, why did the Doom Siren go up too?
Did someone on the team genuinely fear the noise marine of all things?
A lot of stuff simply went up, which gives them more room to adjust points in relation to other units.
Looking over more of the changes from other factions, increasingly this looks to be pretty classic GW, lots of nonsensical changes, and mostly just seems to be reverting to something more akin to earlier 8th before they lowered all the prices so much. Basically they rewound the clock to 2017, rejiggered the spreads a bit to account for some rules changes (but not consistently or clearly), and called it good. Thus far, I'm singularly unimpressed.
Eyjio wrote: You know, I was just thinking the other day "boy, I really want to see yet more Space Marines in 9th, there aren't enough of those around". And thanks to this, we will! In fact, first impressions are that SM, Custodes and Guard have absolutely made out like bandits. I'm willing to wait and see but this stuff looks like they've done xenos real dirty.
Guard did pretty mediocre, honestly. I kind of agree with Goonhammer that it seems to be split basically into 4 categories: Big Winners, Kinda Winners, So-So, and Losers. If you're so-so and above you're probably fine. RIP nids and GSC.
I'm reading through that article at the moment.
I largely agree with them... except about Craftworld eldar. They make a big deal about twin shuriken catapults, waves serpents and for some reason falcons being good things, but that doesn't balance out the absolute stomping that the core troops and other signature units got.
Except for clowns, eldar (craft and dark) got splatted by this update.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: What did they do to my Noise Marines! Why did they increase by 3 per model, why did sonic blasters go up, why did the Doom Siren go up too?
Did someone on the team genuinely fear the noise marine of all things?
A lot of stuff simply went up, which gives them more room to adjust points in relation to other units.
Yeah I'm not buying that of all things the Noise Marines somehow needed to jump up to 2 less points then a Plague Marine while their gear gets even more costly at the same time. Noise Marines of all things did not need this, not many people took them before.
ERJAK wrote: Guard did pretty mediocre, honestly. I kind of agree with Goonhammer that it seems to be split basically into 4 categories: Big Winners, Kinda Winners, So-So, and Losers. If you're so-so and above you're probably fine. RIP nids and GSC.
In terms of point increases, sure. In terms of rules benefits, I think they're in a fantastic position, especially with the vehicle change and extremely weird special weapons costs. I'd be as bold as to say that they'll be one of the top tier armies for a while; not quite SM busted, but viable in tournaments because of how well they can play the new misisons.
And you also pay points for the CC. Even if you don't do that, they're *still* better than Grots or Cultists.
And will only ever come in blocks of 10. Cultists can get stronger force multipliers. Grots can be shields.
And I'm not saying it is the right price, but as stated before - there's a lot more to consider
This is one of those things that people seem to constantly ignore and was a big sticking point during the Great FRFSRF Wars of the past few years.
A Guard Infantry Squad is 10 models.
It cannot add more models except by utilizing the Combined Squads Stratagem.
It does not start with 10 models utilizing Lasguns. The Sergeant always has just the Laspistol and Frag Grenades.
If you take a Special Weapon? That's a Lasgun down when FRFSRF comes up.
If you take a Heavy Weapons Team? That's another Lasgun down.
Not to mention that Scions can't receive Orders from a <Regiment> Officer, so if you take Scions you needed to take a Prime unless you weren't going to issue them Orders.
Phew, the world was spared the scourge of my super-competitive "3 squads of storm guardians+Avatar of Khaine+one squad of each type of aspect warriors on foot" list.
Up to 2,350 points. XD GJGW! A dire avenger now = a chaos space marine. Yep, those models sure are the same level of usefulness.
the_scotsman wrote: Phew, the world was spared the scourge of my super-competitive "3 squads of storm guardians+Avatar of Khaine+one squad of each type of aspect warriors on foot" list.
Up to 2,350 points. XD GJGW! A dire avenger now = a chaos space marine. Yep, those models sure are the same level of usefulness.
But... but.... different stratagems and rules! Different interactions!
the_scotsman wrote: Phew, the world was spared the scourge of my super-competitive "3 squads of storm guardians+Avatar of Khaine+one squad of each type of aspect warriors on foot" list.
Up to 2,350 points. XD GJGW! A dire avenger now = a chaos space marine. Yep, those models sure are the same level of usefulness.
But... but.... different stratagems and rules! Different interactions!
The thing I think amuses me most is the nerf to both howling banshees and incubi. It feels like GW is a petulant child pouting at us because we didn't buy enough Blood of the Pheonix boxes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
harlokin wrote: On the plus side, I have quite a few more points worth of Drukhari now that I didn't have to pay a penny for. Thanks GW
yeah, my whole collection of drukhari went up almost 1,000 points.
....I have a lot of kabalite and wych models. And Hellions and scourges. i went kind of bonkers on that 35$ for 4 40$ kits Gangs of Comorragh box.
the_scotsman wrote: Phew, the world was spared the scourge of my super-competitive "3 squads of storm guardians+Avatar of Khaine+one squad of each type of aspect warriors on foot" list.
Up to 2,350 points. XD GJGW! A dire avenger now = a chaos space marine. Yep, those models sure are the same level of usefulness.
Have ypu tried compairing Firedragons at their 8th edition pojnts to the Indomitaous spacemarines, that should be LoL worthy.
the_scotsman wrote: The thing I think amuses me most is the nerf to both howling banshees and incubi. It feels like GW is a petulant child pouting at us because we didn't buy enough Blood of the Pheonix boxes.
That would certainly go some way to explaining the costing of Eldar and DE troop choices.
Vaktathi wrote: Looking over more of the changes from other factions, increasingly this looks to be pretty classic GW, lots of nonsensical changes, and mostly just seems to be reverting to something more akin to earlier 8th before they lowered all the prices so much. Basically they rewound the clock to 2017, rejiggered the spreads a bit to account for some rules changes (but not consistently or clearly), and called it good. Thus far, I'm singularly unimpressed.
This is where I'm at, too.
Rulewise, I'm thoroughly unimpressed by what I've seen thus far regarding 9th edition.
It seems that the vast majority of problems with 8th's ruleset were simply ported over wholesale, and even the few problems that were addressed were just the usual 'one step forward, another step backwards and to the side'. All the clumsy holeovers from past editions are still with us, hence why there's no such thing as an 'ordinary' weapon and why 'Heavy', 'Assault' etc. haven't been made into actual keywords.
And now we have the joy of point changes using GW's favourite method - a dart board.
All in all, 9th edition looks more like a glorified errata than a new ruleset.
BlaxicanX wrote: There are multiple sources at this point. Goonhammer has put up an article as well although I don't know if he has the explicit point costs listed.
Nope. They got a preview copy to do analysis about (which leans negative, to be honest), but they aren't going to screw up their relationship with GW by posting points.
Vaktathi wrote:Looking over more of the changes from other factions, increasingly this looks to be pretty classic GW, lots of nonsensical changes, and mostly just seems to be reverting to something more akin to earlier 8th before they lowered all the prices so much. Basically they rewound the clock to 2017, rejiggered the spreads a bit to account for some rules changes (but not consistently or clearly), and called it good. Thus far, I'm singularly unimpressed.
My take: the people doing the mechanics and the points are not talking to one another.
Case in point: Raptors are 18ppm. CSM are 14ppm. 4 points more for 6" extra movement on a basic melee unit.
That's not nonsense, the points say movement is about 25% more important this edition.
But I don't think the charge mechanics favor these kinds of units.
Vaktathi wrote:Looking over more of the changes from other factions, increasingly this looks to be pretty classic GW, lots of nonsensical changes, and mostly just seems to be reverting to something more akin to earlier 8th before they lowered all the prices so much. Basically they rewound the clock to 2017, rejiggered the spreads a bit to account for some rules changes (but not consistently or clearly), and called it good. Thus far, I'm singularly unimpressed.
My take: the people doing the mechanics and the points are not talking to one another.
Case in point: Raptors are 18ppm. CSM are 14ppm. 4 points more for 6" extra movement on a basic melee unit.
That's not nonsense, the points say movement is about 25% more important this edition.
But I don't think the charge mechanics favor these kinds of units.
4 points for trading a boltgun for a chainsword in addition to the movement.
I played raptors for the first time yesterday in my night lords, they spent 3 turns tickling a squad of regular csm, the game ended and they were still fighting, absolutely terrible
ZebioLizard2 wrote: What did they do to my Noise Marines! Why did they increase by 3 per model, why did sonic blasters go up, why did the Doom Siren go up too?
Did someone on the team genuinely fear the noise marine of all things?
A lot of stuff simply went up, which gives them more room to adjust points in relation to other units.
Yeah I'm not buying that of all things the Noise Marines somehow needed to jump up to 2 less points then a Plague Marine while their gear gets even more costly at the same time. Noise Marines of all things did not need this, not many people took them before.
I find it particularly weird for Noise Marines (and Warp Talons). A lot of units got their equipment zeroed out, and their base points went up. Sometimes its a net increase (immortals), sometimes its a wash and sometimes its actually a drop.
For these two units, they got hit twice, which makes them stand out.
the_scotsman wrote: Phew, the world was spared the scourge of my super-competitive "3 squads of storm guardians+Avatar of Khaine+one squad of each type of aspect warriors on foot" list.
Up to 2,350 points. XD GJGW! A dire avenger now = a chaos space marine. Yep, those models sure are the same level of usefulness.
Dire Avenger previously - 8 + 3.
Dire Avenger now - 13 + 0
ZebioLizard2 wrote: What did they do to my Noise Marines! Why did they increase by 3 per model, why did sonic blasters go up, why did the Doom Siren go up too?
Did someone on the team genuinely fear the noise marine of all things?
A lot of stuff simply went up, which gives them more room to adjust points in relation to other units.
Yeah I'm not buying that of all things the Noise Marines somehow needed to jump up to 2 less points then a Plague Marine while their gear gets even more costly at the same time. Noise Marines of all things did not need this, not many people took them before.
I find it particularly weird for Noise Marines (and Warp Talons). A lot of units got their equipment zeroed out, and their base points went up. Sometimes its a net increase (immortals), sometimes its a wash and sometimes its actually a drop.
For these two units, they got hit twice, which makes them stand out.
Yeah. Of all the things people are going to try and sell me. The idea that a Noise Marine with a Sonic Blaster is more expensive then an Intercessor is not anything close to something I can accept.
Well as others have said there is no point getting to up in arms until we play it out and see. Its just too many changes all at once to properly digest.
This. We have the points now - many of which do appear completely rediculous, haphazard and wrong, but what we are missing is any changes in the units and strats themselves. Right now, it looks like GW is trying to devalue Cultists so that CSM players run more marines, but, at the current stat line and abilities, CSM are now WAY over-priced. So I'm hoping maybe we get a day 1 FAQ that says adjust your CSM stat line like "this" and here are your new kick-a@@ strats.
And you also pay points for the CC. Even if you don't do that, they're *still* better than Grots or Cultists.
And will only ever come in blocks of 10. Cultists can get stronger force multipliers. Grots can be shields.
And I'm not saying it is the right price, but as stated before - there's a lot more to consider
I mean yeah, you're never going to be comparing things purely in a vacuum, but really, when the only thing Grots do that Guardmen don't do vastly better is a stratagem that you're paying CPs for on top of the points, I just can't see how this is justifiable. I mean, Grots don't even get Clan bonuses.
Eyjio wrote: You know, I was just thinking the other day "boy, I really want to see yet more Space Marines in 9th, there aren't enough of those around". And thanks to this, we will! In fact, first impressions are that SM, Custodes and Guard have absolutely made out like bandits. I'm willing to wait and see but this stuff looks like they've done xenos real dirty.
Guard did pretty mediocre, honestly. I kind of agree with Goonhammer that it seems to be split basically into 4 categories: Big Winners, Kinda Winners, So-So, and Losers. If you're so-so and above you're probably fine. RIP nids and GSC.
I'm reading through that article at the moment.
I largely agree with them... except about Craftworld eldar. They make a big deal about twin shuriken catapults, waves serpents and for some reason falcons being good things, but that doesn't balance out the absolute stomping that the core troops and other signature units got.
Except for clowns, eldar (craft and dark) got splatted by this update.
Goonhammer generally writes from a competitive point of view and if viewed in that way, CWE did actually get off relatively lightly. Weirdly, all of their good competitive units saw relatively low increases and some of the most improved units in 9th (War Walkers) saw practically nothing. Meanwhile all of their irrelevant, sub-optimal or niche units stayed that way or have gotten EVEN WORSE. I had been trying out Storm Guardians in my test games as cheap objective holders, but now that they're more expensive than an Ork Boy they're going back on the shelf.
Well as others have said there is no point getting to up in arms until we play it out and see. Its just too many changes all at once to properly digest.
This. We have the points now - many of which do appear completely rediculous, haphazard and wrong, but what we are missing is any changes in the units and strats themselves. Right now, it looks like GW is trying to devalue Cultists so that CSM players run more marines, but, at the current stat line and abilities, CSM are now WAY over-priced. So I'm hoping maybe we get a day 1 FAQ that says adjust your CSM stat line like "this" and here are your new kick-a@@ strats.
Faqs are not going to do things like stat lines and strats. They will be limited fixes to get things that 9th broke working in some way.
a_typical_hero wrote: Before the inevitable flood of "What where they thinking?! My unit X went up Y points, the faction is trash tier now and Warhammer is doomed anyway" comments, please keep in mind that it is not just your army or your unit.
Everybody is getting adjustments and we have to look at the whole picture.
Doesn't change plenty of ridiculous stuff there.
Stompa going up. It's not worth even 800 let alone 850.
Grots 5. Same as guardsmen. Gw developers must be using drugs if they think that makes sense.
Immortals same price regardless of weapon when 1 is obviously better against anything but 2+ save when within 12".
Sob walker melee weapons same price. Lol. One is simply inferior version.
Well as others have said there is no point getting to up in arms until we play it out and see. Its just too many changes all at once to properly digest.
This. We have the points now - many of which do appear completely rediculous, haphazard and wrong, but what we are missing is any changes in the units and strats themselves. Right now, it looks like GW is trying to devalue Cultists so that CSM players run more marines, but, at the current stat line and abilities, CSM are now WAY over-priced. So I'm hoping maybe we get a day 1 FAQ that says adjust your CSM stat line like "this" and here are your new kick-a@@ strats.
Don't bank on changes like that. Maybe traits, but that is unlikely, too.
a_typical_hero wrote: I'm against the assumption that equal points means equal capability among different armies.
Orks use Grots in a completely different way than AM uses their Guardsmen. Too many variables in wargear, stratagems, army choices and army tactic approach in general, to compare these two.
Yes, in a vacuum Guardsmen are better. Better profile and equipment. But it is not Guardsmen against Grots.
I'm not saying that the points are (un)balanced, yet.
I want to get some games in before judging for myself.
Guardmen does same roles grot do and then some more.
As is biggest reason to take grots(fill bat's for cp) died in 9th already. Evee had they stayed same they would have been hit by nerfbat
Well as others have said there is no point getting to up in arms until we play it out and see. Its just too many changes all at once to properly digest.
This. We have the points now - many of which do appear completely rediculous, haphazard and wrong, but what we are missing is any changes in the units and strats themselves. Right now, it looks like GW is trying to devalue Cultists so that CSM players run more marines, but, at the current stat line and abilities, CSM are now WAY over-priced. So I'm hoping maybe we get a day 1 FAQ that says adjust your CSM stat line like "this" and here are your new kick-a@@ strats.
Faqs are not going to do things like stat lines and strats. They will be limited fixes to get things that 9th broke working in some way.
Considering a twin multimelta is somehow 10 points more expensive than the far superior twin lascannon, I would consider that "broke"
Well as others have said there is no point getting to up in arms until we play it out and see. Its just too many changes all at once to properly digest.
This. We have the points now - many of which do appear completely rediculous, haphazard and wrong, but what we are missing is any changes in the units and strats themselves. Right now, it looks like GW is trying to devalue Cultists so that CSM players run more marines, but, at the current stat line and abilities, CSM are now WAY over-priced. So I'm hoping maybe we get a day 1 FAQ that says adjust your CSM stat line like "this" and here are your new kick-a@@ strats.
On the plus side - it's very useful to see the points changes all at once. I was able to get a good idea how my current lists match up against others.
I don't know anything about Psychic Actions, new Stratagems, other changes that might be coming to justify some of these points changes.
The one thing that really stands out is that anything with a Jump Pack is a lot more expensive. Taking this to mean mobility is more important than any other factor.
The one thing that really stands out is that anything with a Jump Pack is a lot more expensive. Taking this to mean mobility is more important than any other factor.
Oh and condemptor boltgun(the basic non primaris bolter with d3 dam vs psyker) nobody took except as random point filler with no 1pts upgrades left besides that) got 400p%-price hike.
Imagine if incessor marines costed now 85 pts per model. That's how sensible hike it was
Well as others have said there is no point getting to up in arms until we play it out and see. Its just too many changes all at once to properly digest.
This. We have the points now - many of which do appear completely rediculous, haphazard and wrong, but what we are missing is any changes in the units and strats themselves. Right now, it looks like GW is trying to devalue Cultists so that CSM players run more marines, but, at the current stat line and abilities, CSM are now WAY over-priced. So I'm hoping maybe we get a day 1 FAQ that says adjust your CSM stat line like "this" and here are your new kick-a@@ strats.
just yesterday, using old point values, I played my grot stuff against a daemon engines army and got thoroughly destroyed.
The new rules penalized me an enormous amount. my opponent was able to hand me -1 to hit on pretty much everything on the board turn 1, thanks to a piece of Dense Cover terrain, warptimed in a suicide piece to trigger a chain explosion off one of my deff dreads, which I could not CP reroll. Dealt ~30MW to my army for spending a single CP. Then was able to basically effortlessly deny me every point I tried to score by shooting whatever squads I put onto objectives with min CSM squads sitting in cover with reaper chaincannons. the game ended 4pts to I think 11 or 12 turn 5.
The one thing I'll give 9th is that there were models on the board at the end of turn 5, an appreciable amount, the new cover and removal of overwatch definitely made the game somewhat less deadly.
But you'll just see no light infantry until the point nerfs are reverted. There's zero reason at all to field any.lists are going to be nothing but elites and tanks with min troops for a single battalion or brigade until the next CA unless they FAQ it.
The one thing that really stands out is that anything with a Jump Pack is a lot more expensive. Taking this to mean mobility is more important than any other factor.
Same feeling as Daedalous81- played a ton of test games this weekend. The ability to either move fast or the ability to reposition (via psychic powers, artifacts, or strats) are all looking to be REALLY strong.
Based on the weekend, my foot slogging Death Guard are getting retooled to be a Rhino Rush army ...
But you'll just see no light infantry until the point nerfs are reverted. There's zero reason at all to field any.lists are going to be nothing but elites and tanks with min troops for a single battalion or brigade until the next CA unless they FAQ it.
I think most of us were assuming that based just on the previous rules leaks. This had nothing to do with points and was more based on the rules themselves. Having played a lot of "9th" games myself over the weekend, I will agree that most armies aren't going to deploy a ton of light infantry. However, our resident Guard player found a lot of good uses for them (we were all genuinely surprised by it) so it may be a case-by-case thing?
Well my (in progress) Guard list went from 1996 to 2330. Hadn't finished buying all that I had intended yet, so I may just stop now and see what I have adds up to. No need to buy more.
Well as others have said there is no point getting to up in arms until we play it out and see. Its just too many changes all at once to properly digest.
This. We have the points now - many of which do appear completely rediculous, haphazard and wrong, but what we are missing is any changes in the units and strats themselves. Right now, it looks like GW is trying to devalue Cultists so that CSM players run more marines, but, at the current stat line and abilities, CSM are now WAY over-priced. So I'm hoping maybe we get a day 1 FAQ that says adjust your CSM stat line like "this" and here are your new kick-a@@ strats.
On the plus side - it's very useful to see the points changes all at once. I was able to get a good idea how my current lists match up against others.
I don't know anything about Psychic Actions, new Stratagems, other changes that might be coming to justify some of these points changes.
The one thing that really stands out is that anything with a Jump Pack is a lot more expensive. Taking this to mean mobility is more important than any other factor.
Are you sure about the 'a lot more expensive part?' The jump pack units I've seen- raptors, praetorians, wraiths- aren't particularly (it helps that a lot of weapons went to 0)
Their points makes ZERO SENSE, all weapons are basically 5 points now, even tho some are 2x as strong as others, but yet they are both 5pts on the same model.
Cronos went up almost twice as much as the Talos when no one plays it anyways.
Hellions went up 3pts when their ONLY change to be playable was to stay the same points.
All Troupes +3pts so that means no one will take more than the 3 from raiding force.
Dis cannon went up, which is ok, but went up 10pts over 5pts.
Flyers went up when all DE players testing 9th basically said they are not worht it at current points, meaning new points are even worst.
My list will now look like everyone else something like this.
Raiding Force
Drazhar
Kabal
Ravager
Venom
Sob walker melee weapons same price. Lol. One is simply inferior version.
And which one is that?
The one that makes 5 S8 AP3 D2?
Or the one that makes 15 S6 AP2 D1?
Because those serve two different purposes.
Even going against an ideal target(rhino) the buzzblades only do 1.5 more wounds on average Against a Knight it's .5, against an intercessor it's .2; against any other toughness level outside of 12 the Flail does more, also on any single wound models and on most models with Invuls greater than 6++ or no invul and a save worse than 4++.
Basically the flail is the better weapon unless you're SURE you're up against a ton of rhinos.
Well as others have said there is no point getting to up in arms until we play it out and see. Its just too many changes all at once to properly digest.
This. We have the points now - many of which do appear completely rediculous, haphazard and wrong, but what we are missing is any changes in the units and strats themselves. Right now, it looks like GW is trying to devalue Cultists so that CSM players run more marines, but, at the current stat line and abilities, CSM are now WAY over-priced. So I'm hoping maybe we get a day 1 FAQ that says adjust your CSM stat line like "this" and here are your new kick-a@@ strats.
Lol. This is sooo familiar. It's always "but but but". What'" next after faq fails? Points make sense with new codex?
Faq will sort out things that make no sense mechanically. Not change datasheets or balance
Their points makes ZERO SENSE, all weapons are basically 5 points now, even tho some are 2x as strong as others, but yet they are both 5pts on the same model.
Cronos went up almost twice as much as the Talos when no one plays it anyways.
Hellions went up 3pts when their ONLY change to be playable was to stay the same points.
All Troupes +3pts so that means no one will take more than the 3 from raiding force.
Dis cannon went up, which is ok, but went up 10pts over 5pts.
Flyers went up when all DE players testing 9th basically said they are not worht it at current points, meaning new points are even worst.
My list will now look like everyone else something like this.
Raiding Force
Drazhar
Kabal
Ravager
Venom
Archon
Kabal
Ravager x2
Venom
Haemon x2
Wrack x2
Talos x6
On the plus side...Blast Pistols went down to 5 points
@Amishprn86- been feeling it for a while, but the points really reinforce the idea that the only way to salvage eldar is new books and a massive overhaul.
Pricey paper tiger suicide units just aren't workable for 9th.
Just a general statement here: GW uses points to encourage armies to be built in certain ways. The reason Grots are the same price as Guardsman despite being inferior means that GW would rather you take Guardsman in an IG army than take a Grot in an Ork army. Same with 6 point Cultists. They're intentionally overcosted to encourage you to take CSM instead (though not so overcosted as to be completely useless if you do want to take them). Some of the other changes are . . . odd to say the least (who took Obelisks anyway?), but Grots and Guardsman being the same price has a simple explanation.
Goonhammer generally writes from a competitive point of view and if viewed in that way, CWE did actually get off relatively lightly. Weirdly, all of their good competitive units saw relatively low increases and some of the most improved units in 9th (War Walkers) saw practically nothing. Meanwhile all of their irrelevant, sub-optimal or niche units stayed that way or have gotten EVEN WORSE. I had been trying out Storm Guardians in my test games as cheap objective holders, but now that they're more expensive than an Ork Boy they're going back on the shelf.
Wanna bet what kind of armies eldar playtester likes to run?
Sob walker melee weapons same price. Lol. One is simply inferior version.
And which one is that?
The one that makes 5 S8 AP3 D2?
Or the one that makes 15 S6 AP2 D1?
Because those serve two different purposes.
Even going against an ideal target(rhino) the buzzblades only do 1.5 more wounds on average Against a Knight it's .5, against an intercessor it's .2; against any other toughness level outside of 12 the Flail does more, also on any single wound models and on most models with Invuls greater than 6++ or no invul and a save worse than 4++.
Basically the flail is the better weapon unless you're SURE you're up against a ton of rhinos.
That doesn't seem like a distinction worthy of a notable point difference does it though? You drop the buzzblades and suddenly they're much better against the targets they're good at and equal to the flails - why then take the flails?
EnTyme wrote: Just a general statement here: GW uses points to encourage armies to be built in certain ways. The reason Grots are the same price as Guardsman despite being inferior means that GW would rather you take Guardsman in an IG army than take a Grot in an Ork army. Same with 6 point Cultists. They're intentionally overcosted to encourage you to take CSM instead (though not so overcosted as to be completely useless if you do want to take them). Some of the other changes are . . . odd to say the least (who took Obelisks anyway?), but Grots and Guardsman being the same price has a simple explanation.
If gw really did that then they are idiots who missed whole meaning of points
EnTyme wrote: Just a general statement here: GW uses points to encourage armies to be built in certain ways. The reason Grots are the same price as Guardsman despite being inferior means that GW would rather you take Guardsman in an IG army than take a Grot in an Ork army. Same with 6 point Cultists. They're intentionally overcosted to encourage you to take CSM instead (though not so overcosted as to be completely useless if you do want to take them). Some of the other changes are . . . odd to say the least (who took Obelisks anyway?), but Grots and Guardsman being the same price has a simple explanation.
Post proofs. People say this all the time and it's conjecture.
You can say whatever you want but you'll never outcut Hanlon's Razor.
Goonhammer generally writes from a competitive point of view and if viewed in that way, CWE did actually get off relatively lightly. Weirdly, all of their good competitive units saw relatively low increases and some of the most improved units in 9th (War Walkers) saw practically nothing. Meanwhile all of their irrelevant, sub-optimal or niche units stayed that way or have gotten EVEN WORSE. I had been trying out Storm Guardians in my test games as cheap objective holders, but now that they're more expensive than an Ork Boy they're going back on the shelf.
Wanna bet what kind of armies eldar playtester likes to run?
I still don't get how anyone can justify 5ppm guard when Firewarriors, Admech etc all went to 9ppm, they are 1ppm short of 2 guardsmen FFS.
Someone is just breaking the game intentionally at this point as so far Marines and Guard seem to be coming out on top while their army lists change the least.
EnTyme wrote: Just a general statement here: GW uses points to encourage armies to be built in certain ways. The reason Grots are the same price as Guardsman despite being inferior means that GW would rather you take Guardsman in an IG army than take a Grot in an Ork army. Same with 6 point Cultists. They're intentionally overcosted to encourage you to take CSM instead (though not so overcosted as to be completely useless if you do want to take them). Some of the other changes are . . . odd to say the least (who took Obelisks anyway?), but Grots and Guardsman being the same price has a simple explanation.
That makes sense. So the increase to all three of the Drukhari troops options was just a nudge to play Harlequins instead.
Trickstick wrote: You know, I'm beginning to think that this is a quick and dirty placeholder job until codexes come. Not a good look really, but what can you do?
Basically. It's them trying to do a points reset like the Indexes without wholly invalidating the existing books. This is just their baseline so they have room to adjust as new Codexes and CA2021 are released after actual event data comes in. I have a feeling a lot of the units people are complaining about going up too much drop when the next adjustment comes.
Their points makes ZERO SENSE, all weapons are basically 5 points now, even tho some are 2x as strong as others, but yet they are both 5pts on the same model.
Cronos went up almost twice as much as the Talos when no one plays it anyways.
Hellions went up 3pts when their ONLY change to be playable was to stay the same points.
All Troupes +3pts so that means no one will take more than the 3 from raiding force.
Dis cannon went up, which is ok, but went up 10pts over 5pts.
Flyers went up when all DE players testing 9th basically said they are not worht it at current points, meaning new points are even worst.
My list will now look like everyone else something like this.
Raiding Force
Drazhar
Kabal
Ravager
Venom
Archon
Kabal
Ravager x2
Venom
Haemon x2
Wrack x2
Talos x6
Honestly, It's getting to the point where I doubt I'll even play my DE in 9th. GW has already spent a great deal of time and effort systematically stripping them of anything remotely fun or flavourful. The only thing they had left was that they were at least functional. Now it seems even that has gone down the toilet.
Trickstick wrote: You know, I'm beginning to think that this is a quick and dirty placeholder job until codexes come. Not a good look really, but what can you do?
Just an idea but one thing you could do is not discard everything you learned in 8th.
What is the point of gradually adjusting costs so that a lot of poor wargear is cheap enough to finally see some play, only to then throw all of those lessons in the bin and make said wargear the exact same cost as alternatives that are vastly better?
Now points being fethed in the start of the edition is not exactly surprising. It is probably really difficult to accurately gauge the power of units only via playtesting.
However, there are some systematic and completely intentional changes that are not explained by this. One is no model costing less than five points. This obviously causes issues with super crappy things like the gretchin, which probably should cost less than that.
Another that really bugs me personally is rounding the equipment cost to nearest five points. This destroys the granularity that existed in the 8th. Now some options are just flat out better for their points. Whilst balancing under the previous paradigm wasn't perfect, at least it tried to price the weapons for what they were worth. This is simply a step backwards.
I guess there is less reason to use points over PL now... The upside of points if the increased accuracy afforded by the granularity, but if that granularity is not utilised the that benefit is gone.
So this was quick. Here's a very simplified shooting match between "equal" points of CSM and Intercessors. Everybody's in rapid fire range all the time, no morale, no stratagems, no doctrines.
Sob walker melee weapons same price. Lol. One is simply inferior version.
And which one is that?
The one that makes 5 S8 AP3 D2?
Or the one that makes 15 S6 AP2 D1?
Because those serve two different purposes.
Even going against an ideal target(rhino) the buzzblades only do 1.5 more wounds on average Against a Knight it's .5, against an intercessor it's .2; against any other toughness level outside of 12 the Flail does more, also on any single wound models and on most models with Invuls greater than 6++ or no invul and a save worse than 4++.
Basically the flail is the better weapon unless you're SURE you're up against a ton of rhinos.
That doesn't seem like a distinction worthy of a notable point difference does it though? You drop the buzzblades and suddenly they're much better against the targets they're good at and equal to the flails - why then take the flails?
Even if the Buzzblades are better against the targets they're good at taking out, there honestly aren't a lot of those targets kicking around. Most armies don't use many T7, no invul vehicles and the only T8 no invul things that see play are knights and repulsors.
It's not worth a huge difference but if Buzzblades were 5pts cheaper it might be worth taking one pair on the Anchorite just in case, as opposed to just praying whatever T8 thing they have is a psyker.
Crimson wrote: Now points being fethed in the start of the edition is not exactly surprising. It is probably really difficult to accurately gauge the power of units only via playtesting.
However, there are some systematic and completely intentional changes that are not explained by this. One is no model costing less than five points. This obviously causes issues with super crappy things like the gretchin, which probably should cost less than that.
Another that really bugs me personally is rounding the equipment cost to nearest five points. This destroys the granularity that existed in the 8th. Now some options are just flat out better for their points. Whilst balancing under the previous paradigm wasn't perfect, at least it tried to price the weapons for what they were worth. This is simply a step backwards.
I guess there is less reason to use points over PL now... The upside of points if the increased accuracy afforded by the granularity, but if that granularity is not utilised the that benefit is gone.
Which would be true if 3 years of not updating the PL didn't result in that being totally batgak fething insane at this point.
A lot of these points are way off, not nearly as bad as PL has gotten though.
Crimson wrote: Now points being fethed in the start of the edition is not exactly surprising. It is probably really difficult to accurately gauge the power of units only via playtesting.
However, there are some systematic and completely intentional changes that are not explained by this. One is no model costing less than five points. This obviously causes issues with super crappy things like the gretchin, which probably should cost less than that.
Another that really bugs me personally is rounding the equipment cost to nearest five points. This destroys the granularity that existed in the 8th. Now some options are just flat out better for their points. Whilst balancing under the previous paradigm wasn't perfect, at least it tried to price the weapons for what they were worth. This is simply a step backwards.
I guess there is less reason to use points over PL now... The upside of points if the increased accuracy afforded by the granularity, but if that granularity is not utilised the that benefit is gone.
This all seems pretty reasonable to me. Particularly – if you're going to say "right, nothing can go below 5 pts", then you set the crappiest model in the game (a gretchin) at 5 points and adjust anything better upwards from there. You don't arbitrarily whack a massive points boost on it relative to other units.
Tbh, I think I'll just be sticking to PL and the Open War deck for the forseeable future.
Goonhammer generally writes from a competitive point of view and if viewed in that way, CWE did actually get off relatively lightly. Weirdly, all of their good competitive units saw relatively low increases and some of the most improved units in 9th (War Walkers) saw practically nothing. Meanwhile all of their irrelevant, sub-optimal or niche units stayed that way or have gotten EVEN WORSE. I had been trying out Storm Guardians in my test games as cheap objective holders, but now that they're more expensive than an Ork Boy they're going back on the shelf.
Wanna bet what kind of armies eldar playtester likes to run?
I still don't get how anyone can justify 5ppm guard when Firewarriors, Admech etc all went to 9ppm, they are 1ppm short of 2 guardsmen FFS.
Someone is just breaking the game intentionally at this point as so far Marines and Guard seem to be coming out on top while their army lists change the least.
Don't really agree with the intentionally part, but looking at xenos and AdMech, I would agree that the guardsmen are the problem, not grots or brimstones. Especially with orders on top of regiment bonuses. They should 6 or maybe even 7 given their non-stat line bonuses.
Crimson wrote: Now points being fethed in the start of the edition is not exactly surprising. It is probably really difficult to accurately gauge the power of units only via playtesting.
I mean, that would make more sense if it actually was a new edition, rather than just being '8th edition but with a new coat of paint'.
However, there are some systematic and completely intentional changes that are not explained by this. One is no model costing less than five points. This obviously causes issues with super crappy things like the gretchin, which probably should cost less than that.
IMO they should have just doubled the points of everything. This would have given them far more wriggle-room than this mess of 'Er... well, we'll increase stuff by... er... I don't know... a bit, maybe? And then w'll round up to the nearest 5. Or maybe we'll round down to the nearest 5. Depends which way the wind is blowing, I guess. Unless it's raining, of course, then we'll leave the cost as not being a multiple of 5.'
Martel732 wrote: Based on these points, guardsmen should be 7 ppm. That's inbetween FW and grots. Done.
Should probably be more than 7 ppm to be honest.
But then again 40PPM with an assualt 2 MM made it past GW's 9th edition rebalance so complaining about guard is redundant Marines, GK, TS are probably going to be stomping everyone anyway.
You've been almost bluntly told by GW that you shouldn't use skew lists and the game is designed for more balanced lists across the board for years, decades even.
Don't get salty now they have actually pushed to ensure that.
If grots were designed to be a full army, they'd have their own codex.
Time to suck it up and stop whinging and start playing the game in the way its intended, the time of unfluffy spam and skew is over.
You want ultra competitive specificity? Go play sports guys, this isn't that.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: You've been almost bluntly told by GW that you shouldn't use skew lists and the game is designed for more balanced lists across the board for years, decades even.
Don't get salty now they have actually pushed to ensure that.
If grots were designed to be a full army, they'd have their own codex.
Time to suck it up and stop whinging and start playing the game in the way its intended, the time of unfluffy spam and skew is over.
You want ultra competitive specificity? Go play sports guys, this isn't that.
Yes, and their own systems and points values DON'T EVER ENCOURAGE THIS. Again, GW doesn't understand how their own game is played.
Martel732 wrote: Based on these points, guardsmen should be 7 ppm. That's inbetween FW and grots. Done.
Should probably be more than 7 ppm to be honest.
But then again 40PPM with an assualt 2 MM made it past GW's 9th edition rebalance so complaining about guard is redundant Marines, GK, TS are probably going to be stomping everyone anyway.
I'll leave that for you and Kanluwen, but I think 7 ppm is a good starting place given the other units.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: You've been almost bluntly told by GW that you shouldn't use skew lists and the game is designed for more balanced lists across the board for years, decades even.
Don't get salty now they have actually pushed to ensure that.
If grots were designed to be a full army, they'd have their own codex.
Time to suck it up and stop whinging and start playing the game in the way its intended, the time of unfluffy spam and skew is over.
You want ultra competitive specificity? Go play sports guys, this isn't that.
Does GW pay you by the comment, or by the hour? I'm really trying to not ad hom here, since you know exactly what GW wants games to look like, you must work for them. But on the off chance you don't work for them, can you show me where they've told us what lists need to look like? And what's the party line on DE, where all their troops went up in points?
You have always been wrong about this, will continue to be wrong about this, and will never be right except in the eyes of anyone who wants to see Guard nerfed because of a wild lack of understanding as to how the units function.
You want 7ppm Guardsmen(which is a trash statement, by the by, because it could mean Conscripts or Infantry Squads or Veteran Squads)? You're buffing them first. There is no way, shape, or form where a 9 model lasgun squad(because like we went over at the start of 8th and back in 7th and probably back before then: the squad only starts with 9 lasguns. Sergeant can't get one. End of story.) needs a points hike because you're bad at this game.
There is a reason why I have continually harped upon the infantry squads needing to get redesigned from the ground up. There is a reason why I have continually harped upon Conscript Squads needing a redesign from the ground up. There is a reason why I have continually harped upon the Guard book needing a redesign from the ground up.
And it's not because "OMG THESE THINGS ARE BROKEN!". It's because there is functionally no design space within the book to make any kind of meaningful change for one unit without it affecting the other two that are effectively built off of it.
Infantry Squads never should have started 8th edition as a catch-all for everything from the flak vest wearing Catachans to the effectively carapace armored Cadians.
Conscripts never should have started life with the same statlines as regular Guardsmen.
Does GW pay you by the comment, or by the hour? I'm really trying to not ad hom here, since you know exactly what GW wants games to look like, you must work for them. But on the off chance you don't work for them, can you show me where they've told us what lists need to look like? And what's the party line on DE, where all their troops went up in points?
You didn't try very hard then, because you did this in two threads.
If you cannot engage without resorting to calling people white knights or ad homs, then stop posting here.
You have always been wrong about this, will continue to be wrong about this, and will never be right except in the eyes of anyone who wants to see Guard nerfed because of a wild lack of understanding as to how the units function.
You want 7ppm Guardsmen(which is a trash statement, by the by, because it could mean Conscripts or Infantry Squads or Veteran Squads)? You're buffing them first. There is no way, shape, or form where a 9 model lasgun squad(because like we went over at the start of 8th and back in 7th and probably back before then: the squad only starts with 9 lasguns. Sergeant can't get one. End of story.) needs a points hike because you're bad at this game.
There is a reason why I have continually harped upon the infantry squads needing to get redesigned from the ground up. There is a reason why I have continually harped upon Conscript Squads needing a redesign from the ground up. There is a reason why I have continually harped upon the Guard book needing a redesign from the ground up.
And it's not because "OMG THESE THINGS ARE BROKEN!". It's because there is functionally no design space within the book to make any kind of meaningful change for one unit without it affecting the other two that are effectively built off of it.
Infantry Squads never should have started 8th edition as a catch-all for everything from the flak vest wearing Catachans to the effectively carapace armored Cadians.
Conscripts never should have started life with the same statlines as regular Guardsmen.
Tell it to the Drukhari players. You're spoiled and high on cheap, undercosted units. You're the one who has always been in denial about the effectiveness of guardsmen at their 8th ed price point. Redesigns aren't coming. Points values are. And they got it wrong. Again.
They need a points hike because of how GW pointed OTHER units in the game, not because of my games. I was using guardsment for most of 8th in my lists. Specifically, because they were nonsense.
Crimson wrote: [snip]
Another that really bugs me personally is rounding the equipment cost to nearest five points. This destroys the granularity that existed in the 8th. Now some options are just flat out better for their points. Whilst balancing under the previous paradigm wasn't perfect, at least it tried to price the weapons for what they were worth. This is simply a step backwards.
This would bother me more if a lot of the point values hadn't been complete nonsense to begin with.
Tell it to the Drukhari players. You're spoiled and high on cheap, undercosted units. You're the one who has always been in denial about the effectiveness of guardsmen at their 8th ed price point. Redesigns aren't coming. Points values are. And they got it wrong. Again.
And you're the one who continually argued that it was the Guardsmen that were the problem, not the Command Point spammage or easy access to allies.
Looks like you're wrong on that front too, given that they fixed that before Guard points. Funny how wrong you can be in one day, huh Martel?
Looks like I'm going to be using alot of chosen over berzerkers. Now it's just an issue of gluing the bolters to the models. At least Kharn got a decrease.
Crimson wrote: [snip]
Another that really bugs me personally is rounding the equipment cost to nearest five points. This destroys the granularity that existed in the 8th. Now some options are just flat out better for their points. Whilst balancing under the previous paradigm wasn't perfect, at least it tried to price the weapons for what they were worth. This is simply a step backwards.
This would bother me more if a lot of the point values hadn't been complete nonsense to begin with.
Point values are and will always continue to be nonsense.
One of the problem 40k really has trouble with is a problem that plagues sigmar too:
Some of the units are just too gakky to balance.
If a units output is below a certain threshhold, then by the time you lower the points cost to where he output is fair for what you're paying, the body itself becomes worth the cost and the output becomes secondary. If the body is too gakky then you have to lower the points to a degree that now it all becomes about the fact that it's a wound on the table.
Look at guardsman. If all they have is a lasgun and some mediocre BS4+ Heavy weapons then you have to drop their points until the body is really what you're paying for for them to be useful.
Tell it to the Drukhari players. You're spoiled and high on cheap, undercosted units. You're the one who has always been in denial about the effectiveness of guardsmen at their 8th ed price point. Redesigns aren't coming. Points values are. And they got it wrong. Again.
And you're the one who continually argued that it was the Guardsmen that were the problem, not the Command Point spammage or easy access to allies.
Looks like you're wrong on that front too, given that they fixed that before Guard points. Funny how wrong you can be in one day, huh Martel?
I don't think I'm wrong at all. Those other issues were problems, too. But 4ppm models with 5+ armor? Please. You're completely delusional. Look what they had to do to marines to make them able to effectively remove guardsmen.
And again, look at Drukhari changes and get back to me.
Vaktathi wrote: Just taking a quick look Guard point changes, I'm somewhat shocked at how much they increased pricing on the Exterminator Autocannon, Heavy Bolters & Twin Heavy Bolters, Missile Launcher, Grenade Launcher, Heavy Stubber, etc all went wayyyyyyyy up, most of which were not very good. Those took the biggest hits of just about anything in the army, and I'm not sure...why?
Meanwhile the Battlecannon got even...cheaper?
I'm hoping this means that some changes went into the Exterminator Battlecannon and Missile Launcher and the like to make them more attractive, but I'm more guessing this is GW being bad at things again.
Looking for logic in 40k points is like looking for robust structure in a Salvador Dali painting.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: You've been almost bluntly told by GW that you shouldn't use skew lists and the game is designed for more balanced lists across the board for years, decades even.
Don't get salty now they have actually pushed to ensure that.
If grots were designed to be a full army, they'd have their own codex.
Time to suck it up and stop whinging and start playing the game in the way its intended, the time of unfluffy spam and skew is over.
You want ultra competitive specificity? Go play sports guys, this isn't that.
Lol. If you think 5 pts grot is fine or grots were issue then you are a" newbie b) bad player.
We aren't even talking about skew list. 60 junk cannon fodder isn't skew. Whole point of junk models is there's lot to compensate for being bad. Now that non skew is hosed.
9th ed rules already nerfed grots so had they stayed same cost stljl worse than before.
You know the real reason? Gw has sold enough grots so wants to force players to buy new models
I don't think I'm wrong at all. Those other issues were problems, too. But 4ppm models with 5+ armor? Please. You're completely delusional. Look what they had to do to marines to make them able to effectively remove guardsmen.
riiiiiiiiiiiiiight, because all of the changes were "to make them able to effectively remove guardsmen".
Lol. If you think 5 pts grot is fine or grots were issue then you are a" newbie b) bad player.
We aren't even talking about skew list. 60 junk cannon fodder isn't skew. Whole point of junk models is there's lot to compensate for being bad. Now that non skew is hosed.
9th ed rules already nerfed grots so had they stayed same cost stljl worse than before.
You know the real reason? Gw has sold enough grots so wants to force players to buy new models
Sorry, but yes "60 junk cannon fodder" is skew.
That's the whole frigging reason Conscripts were knocked down to 30 models tops from their ability to be taken in 50s.
Tell it to the Drukhari players. You're spoiled and high on cheap, undercosted units. You're the one who has always been in denial about the effectiveness of guardsmen at their 8th ed price point. Redesigns aren't coming. Points values are. And they got it wrong. Again.
And you're the one who continually argued that it was the Guardsmen that were the problem, not the Command Point spammage or easy access to allies.
Looks like you're wrong on that front too, given that they fixed that before Guard points. Funny how wrong you can be in one day, huh Martel?
And you're trusting GW's fixes to help prove your point? When they made Grots cost the same? Yeah no.
Grots costing the same as guardsmen is prima facie absurd. The burden lies with the guard players who support this to prove that these units are equivalent across many games.
You are the one who has continually argued that Guardsmen aren't taken for their offensive abilities but rather their ability to simply be a body on the board.
By your logic, they priced them the same as the Grots--another unit taken "to simply be a body on the board".
OOF--the Astraeus got absolutely dunked on. I'm almost thinking it's a mistake it went up so much. Maybe the Twin Macro Accelerator Cannon is supposed to be free? (there's a similar inconsistency with the Castellan/Chaos Equivalent Knight)
And heavy bolters being so expensive now--anyone have insight as to why HBs went up so much?
It must feel funny to be one of the people who were like "we need to increase points to increase granularity" seeing that they increased points AND decreased granularity AT THE SAME TIME.
I don't think even those of us who have a more skeptical view of GW's competence would have expected that.
These values are just a total mess. You look at something like the CWE section and you just have to shake your head. Most of their best units (except spinners, but even those didn't get as much of a nerf as they probably needed) got LOWER % increases than their worst units. Not even the rosy-tinted GW fanboi can make what they did to CWE points make any sort of sense.
Quasistellar wrote: OOF--the Astraeus got absolutely dunked on. I'm almost thinking it's a mistake it went up so much. Maybe the Twin Macro Accelerator Cannon is supposed to be free? (there's a similar inconsistency with the Castellan/Chaos Equivalent Knight)
And heavy bolters being so expensive now--anyone have insight as to why HBs went up so much?
Grots have some very distinct advantages over guardsmen.
Firstly, the obvious being that they can turn into Tau drones. Protecting your real hard hitting units. 3pts per model and 1CP to be able to do this for just 1 turn was very very very useful to the point of broken, especially with how hard Orks can hit in the shooting phase.
Second, and with the way objectives work firstly, and how terrain works, they can be used in quite a niche way under the new rules, where on dense terrain boards, they can capture/raise banners etc without getting hit at all due to their height... Lack of LOS.
I'd say that balances out enough for them to be justified at 5pts.
In regards to DE Kabalites, 9pts may seem steep, but I wonder if this is also a reaction to the new direct transport rules, they are discouraging MSU spam of kabalites so DE don't use them to spam DT's. Just a suggestion, not saying this is why. You may want to look into the point costs of units and then all the options to see if synergy was too powerful with those to determine the point cost reasoning.
Firstly, the obvious being that they can turn into Tau drones. Protecting your real hard hitting units. 3pts per model and 1CP to be able to do this for just 1 turn was very very very useful to the point of broken, especially with how hard Orks can hit in the shooting phase.
Second, and with the way objectives work firstly, and how terrain works, they can be used in quite a niche way under the new rules, where on dense terrain boards, they can capture/raise banners etc without getting hit at all due to their height... Lack of LOS.
I'd say that balances out enough for them to be justified at 5pts.
In regards to DE Kabalites, 9pts may seem steep, but I wonder if this is also a reaction to the new direct transport rules, they are discouraging MSU spam of kabalites so DE don't use them to spam DT's. Just a suggestion, not saying this is why. You may want to look into the point costs of units and then all the options to see if synergy was too powerful with those to determine the point cost reasoning.
You are assuming any kind of thought or logic here, when probably the GW intern just made some gak up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: It must feel funny to be one of the people who were like "we need to increase points to increase granularity" seeing that they increased points AND decreased granularity AT THE SAME TIME.
I don't think even those of us who have a more skeptical view of GW's competence would have expected that.
These values are just a total mess. You look at something like the CWE section and you just have to shake your head. Most of their best units (except spinners, but even those didn't get as much of a nerf as they probably needed) got LOWER % increases than their worst units. Not even the rosy-tinted GW fanboi can make what they did to CWE points make any sort of sense.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: You've been almost bluntly told by GW that you shouldn't use skew lists and the game is designed for more balanced lists across the board for years, decades even.
Don't get salty now they have actually pushed to ensure that.
If grots were designed to be a full army, they'd have their own codex.
Time to suck it up and stop whinging and start playing the game in the way its intended, the time of unfluffy spam and skew is over.
You want ultra competitive specificity? Go play sports guys, this isn't that.
LOL.
TIL that my list with 360 points of light infantry, 600 points of melee/shooting vehicles, 600 points of shooting vehicles, and 440 points of a mixture of shooting, support and melee HQs was "A cRaZy SkEw LiSt!!!!"
Quasistellar wrote: OOF--the Astraeus got absolutely dunked on. I'm almost thinking it's a mistake it went up so much. Maybe the Twin Macro Accelerator Cannon is supposed to be free? (there's a similar inconsistency with the Castellan/Chaos Equivalent Knight)
And heavy bolters being so expensive now--anyone have insight as to why HBs went up so much?
Well, -1AP is the most valuable point of AP.
Except vs. Salamanders, Steel Legion, etc.
My issue (at least from a Marine PoV) is that 15 pts Heavy Bolters (on vehicles) makes little sense when an Assault Cannon is 20 pts.
GW sticking to weapons/wargear costing 0/5/10/15/20(etc) pts for the most part is hopefully just some sort of transition period-thing due to 9th, and once we start getting new codexes, wargear and weapons will revert to cost for instance 2, 6, 8, 12(etc) pts.
Might be slightly off topic, but it seems to me that whenever GW screws something up (like indomitus or these new point values) the people in the 40k community are even more on each others throats arguing than actually being mad at GW. Or is it just this site?
Well as others have said there is no point getting to up in arms until we play it out and see. Its just too many changes all at once to properly digest.
This. We have the points now - many of which do appear completely rediculous, haphazard and wrong, but what we are missing is any changes in the units and strats themselves. Right now, it looks like GW is trying to devalue Cultists so that CSM players run more marines, but, at the current stat line and abilities, CSM are now WAY over-priced. So I'm hoping maybe we get a day 1 FAQ that says adjust your CSM stat line like "this" and here are your new kick-a@@ strats.
just yesterday, using old point values, I played my grot stuff against a daemon engines army and got thoroughly destroyed.
The new rules penalized me an enormous amount. my opponent was able to hand me -1 to hit on pretty much everything on the board turn 1, thanks to a piece of Dense Cover terrain, warptimed in a suicide piece to trigger a chain explosion off one of my deff dreads, which I could not CP reroll. Dealt ~30MW to my army for spending a single CP. Then was able to basically effortlessly deny me every point I tried to score by shooting whatever squads I put onto objectives with min CSM squads sitting in cover with reaper chaincannons. the game ended 4pts to I think 11 or 12 turn 5.
The one thing I'll give 9th is that there were models on the board at the end of turn 5, an appreciable amount, the new cover and removal of overwatch definitely made the game somewhat less deadly.
But you'll just see no light infantry until the point nerfs are reverted. There's zero reason at all to field any.lists are going to be nothing but elites and tanks with min troops for a single battalion or brigade until the next CA unless they FAQ it.
I honestly don't know if you're joking there. All of that seems so plausible yet exaggerated to the point of absurdity, but because it's modern 40k I'm leaning towards the former and that level of stupid is par for the course...
I'm blown away by some of these point costs, especially in guard, 28 point increase to the basic Leman Russ, 15 points for a single heavy bolter? 40 points for plasma sponsons?! 235 points for a fully kitted out Tank Comander (BC, plasma sponsons, hull Lascannon) seems way too expensive.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: You've been almost bluntly told by GW that you shouldn't use skew lists and the game is designed for more balanced lists across the board for years, decades even.
Don't get salty now they have actually pushed to ensure that.
If grots were designed to be a full army, they'd have their own codex.
Time to suck it up and stop whinging and start playing the game in the way its intended, the time of unfluffy spam and skew is over.
You want ultra competitive specificity? Go play sports guys, this isn't that.
Yes, and their own systems and points values DON'T EVER ENCOURAGE THIS. Again, GW doesn't understand how their own game is played.
No, but they do understand how their game is SOLD.
Kanluwen wrote: Vehicles can fire them while engaged in close combat now.
But it's the classic GW approach to "balance".
"Item X isn't performing at its points cost." "So let's make it better?" "Yeah!" "Oh no! It's better! Put it's points up!"
I know you think points are stupid because you've somehow missed the fact that they're a core part of the game almost since its inception, but this is how GW does things. They find something that isn't working, make it work, then panic that something is now too powerful, and put its points up. And thus the process begins anew!
Martel732 wrote: Grots costing the same as guardsmen is prima facie absurd. The burden lies with the guard players who support this to prove that these units are equivalent across many games.
And heavy bolters being so expensive now--anyone have insight as to why HBs went up so much?
Shooting into combat (very minor) plus probably move+shoot. Which isn't something the Astraeus had to gain, but it still essentially pays for the privelege.
Martel732 wrote: Grots costing the same as guardsmen is prima facie absurd. The burden lies with the guard players who support this to prove that these units are equivalent across many games.
Not everything is about killing power.
No? So is it about durability? Mobility? Access to weapon options? Access to support units?
Or do you not have a scenario in which unit A is better than unit B at anything so you'll just say "nuh uh" and gesture vaguely?
God, I can't believe I ever used to respect your opinion as someone to listen to on this hellsite.
Spartan089 wrote: I'm blown away by some of these point costs, especially in guard, 28 point increase to the basic Leman Russ, 15 points for a single heavy bolter? 40 points for plasma sponsons?! 235 points for a fully kitted out Tank Comander (BC, plasma sponsons, hull Lascannon) seems way too expensive.
Some of the new weapon costs make no sense without a rules change.
So perhaps the rules for those weapons are changing.
Or perhaps they just make no sense.
You might have a point if GW didn't just end up reducing granularity (the opposite of what certain people said when it came to the across-the-board points cost rise) and put the min unit cost to 5 points.
Unit A being Guardsmen, assumably,:
-Durability is only slightly better. T3 with a 5+ save ain't going all that far these days.
-Mobility: Assuming this is a snarky remark about "M^3", that Order locks you out of other Orders.
-Access to weapon options: Guard Infantry Squads have access to weapon options. So do Ork Boyz Squads--which is what you arguably should be comparing them to, not Grots.
Also, every Lasgun taken away diminishes the effectiveness of FRFSRF by an equivalent percentage(remember: squad starts at 90% effectiveness for FRFSRF anyways thanks to Sergeants getting their Lasguns stripped away thanks to the Crudd book).
-Support Units: like what?
Orders are the Big Support Units here. And they're 1 per unit, without certain gimmicks in effect.
You might have a point if GW didn't just end up reducing granularity (the opposite of what certain people said when it came to the across-the-board points cost rise) and put the min unit cost to 5 points.
Would I love it if they doubled points and gave some actual granularity at the bottom? Sure. Do I think it drastically change the game? No, I don't.
Do I think CSM are worth 14? When I look at Primaris, no. Do I think CSM at 14 with access to cheaper heavy weapons are worthwhile? They might be. (Not much really changed here except the cost of weapons)
Spartan089 wrote: I'm blown away by some of these point costs, especially in guard, 28 point increase to the basic Leman Russ, 15 points for a single heavy bolter? 40 points for plasma sponsons?! 235 points for a fully kitted out Tank Comander (BC, plasma sponsons, hull Lascannon) seems way too expensive.
Some of the new weapon costs make no sense without a rules change.
So perhaps the rules for those weapons are changing.
Or perhaps they just make no sense.
They no longer suffer a -1 for moving and shooting, and they can always shoot even when engaged in combat. I.E. you will fire all the weapons on that vehicle every turn.
As opposed to the past where you could easily shut down a tank by charging it, now that just means your being shot at point blank range.
Phenatix wrote: So this was quick. Here's a very simplified shooting match between "equal" points of CSM and Intercessors. Everybody's in rapid fire range all the time, no morale, no stratagems, no doctrines.
How many points do you need to drop chaos marines by in order to make the fight even?
We could just try to rebalance the points for it to make sense for casual games. One of my groups removed smite from killteam (barring commanders) and it seems to have worked fine.
Kanluwen wrote: Unit A being Guardsmen, assumably,:
-Durability is only slightly better. T3 with a 5+ save ain't going all that far these days.
-Mobility: Assuming this is a snarky remark about "M^3", that Order locks you out of other Orders.
-Access to weapon options: Guard Infantry Squads have access to weapon options. So do Ork Boyz Squads--which is what you arguably should be comparing them to, not Grots.
Also, every Lasgun taken away diminishes the effectiveness of FRFSRF by an equivalent percentage(remember: squad starts at 90% effectiveness for FRFSRF anyways thanks to Sergeants getting their Lasguns stripped away thanks to the Crudd book).
-Support Units: like what?
Orders are the Big Support Units here. And they're 1 per unit, without certain gimmicks in effect.
Every S3, S4 and S5 weapon in the game gets +1 wound vs grots compared to guardsmen. So, basically everything people point at chaff. And +2sv is nothing...lol. OK.
Even without orders, guardsmen move 1" farther than grots.
I'll take that as a concession.
You're arguing that the sergeant being forced to take a laspistol is a handicap for the guardsmen....compared to a unit that has to take laspistols and no chainswords on every model. LOL.
Support units available to guardsmen: Priests (double their melee attacks for ~40ish points, I haven't seen the new values for guard in full so could be slightly off there) officers (orders), a few named characters for random stuff, and commissars for reroll morale at the cost of 1 casualty and +1LD.
Support units available to gretchin: Runtherds (reroll 1s in melee or D3 casualties to ignore morale for 40pts), painboy (6++ if within 3" for 55pts) and KFF (5++ for I think 80-ish points now?)
Add in the fact that grots get no traits or strats as well, and honestly the only explanation that makes sense is "grots are bad on purpose. GW doesn't want Ork players to field grots. GW does want guard players to play guardsmen."
Which sucks. I'm sorry, it just fething sucks. what is the purpose of having a matched play system if you're not using points to make the game more balanced? it's like if GW decided to give players who like playing pure scion armies their new traits in PA, then a bunch of people went and bought scion armies, and then GW decided "feth you people, scions are 20ppm now, guard armies are supposed to be guardsmen and leman russ tanks!!! Scions are a sometimes food!"
How many points do you need to drop chaos marines by in order to make the fight even?
That's .... worse than I thought ...
Pretty bleak if that's how it comes out. Hopefully CSM DO get some additional buffs ...
Yeah, they're pretty bad in every incarnation of that model it seems...
I got completely tabled in Kill team twice in a row with an all chaos marine team the last time I played. Gonna have to count some dudes as possessed or Berzerkers or something.
Martel732 wrote: Grots costing the same as guardsmen is prima facie absurd. The burden lies with the guard players who support this to prove that these units are equivalent across many games.
Not everything is about killing power.
No? So is it about durability? Mobility? Access to weapon options? Access to support units?
Or do you not have a scenario in which unit A is better than unit B at anything so you'll just say "nuh uh" and gesture vaguely?
God, I can't believe I ever used to respect your opinion as someone to listen to on this hellsite.
I have no personal part in your quarrel with Daedalus81, but I had to chime in after reading this last bit;
I have been away from dakkadakka for quite some time (partly because low interest in 40k during the last year, but also because I got tired of the general mentality of a lot of forum members here. I blame Warseer shutting down on that last part. Seems most of the whiners found their way here.) so I have no distinct knowledge or remembrance of most of the users here, but you have in the short time I've been back established yourself as "that guy who feels compelled to whine about how bad his gretchin has become, over and over", and now I see you type this.
Have you ever considered that this forum is a "hellsite" due to the rampart negativity and pessimism spread by its own members; negativity and pessimism that you yourself help to spread right now in this very thread?
Anyway, this topic is essentially a circlejerk in complaints about 9th, an edition which I actually already like and consider a step-up from 8th in almost every way.
I thoroughly enjoyed the 4 test-games I had this weekend, but just reading this topic caused me to doubt myself whether I like 9th or not...
So I'm basically gonna scoot before I get dragged down in the cesspool of negativity where (sadly, genuinely so) so many forum members who have decided that they hate 9th before it's even officially released already are.
You might have a point if GW didn't just end up reducing granularity (the opposite of what certain people said when it came to the across-the-board points cost rise) and put the min unit cost to 5 points.
Would I love it if they doubled points and gave some actual granularity at the bottom? Sure. Do I think it drastically change the game? No, I don't.
Do I think CSM are worth 14? When I look at Primaris, no. Do I think CSM at 14 with access to cheaper heavy weapons are worthwhile? They might be. (Not much really changed here except the cost of weapons)
We really need the codexes to go back to individual points costs for individual datasheets. It blindingly obvious that having the same gun on a unit that can only take one of them with no special abilities isn't as effective as one that can do something like infiltrate or that has a greater movement speed.
Also apologies for double posting, the mobile site isn't letting me copy/paste this quote into my previous post.
How many points do you need to drop chaos marines by in order to make the fight even?
That's .... worse than I thought ...
Pretty bleak if that's how it comes out. Hopefully CSM DO get some additional buffs ...
Not happening. Not until a codex. What GW does between now and then I have no idea. Are they going to point CSM down again later and then back up when (if) they get traits? I think that would be viewed by the forum as a move to "get people to buy more CSM and then to nerf them after they meet the sales target". It seems more likely that we'll just have to run them as-is and find their niche.
Martel732 wrote: Grots costing the same as guardsmen is prima facie absurd. The burden lies with the guard players who support this to prove that these units are equivalent across many games.
Not everything is about killing power.
No? So is it about durability? Mobility? Access to weapon options? Access to support units?
Or do you not have a scenario in which unit A is better than unit B at anything so you'll just say "nuh uh" and gesture vaguely?
God, I can't believe I ever used to respect your opinion as someone to listen to on this hellsite.
I have no personal part in your quarrel with Daedalus81, but I had to chime in after reading this last bit;
I have been away from dakkadakka for quite some time (partly because low interest in 40k during the last year, but also because I got tired of the general mentality of a lot of forum members here. I blame Warseer shutting down on that last part. Seems most of the whiners found their way here.) so I have no distinct knowledge or remembrance of most of the users here, but you have in the short time I've been back established yourself as "that guy who feels compelled to whine about how bad his gretchin has become, over and over", and now I see you type this.
Have you ever considered that this forum is a "hellsite" due to the rampart negativity and pessimism spread by its own members; negativity and pessimism that you yourself help to spread right now in this very thread?
Anyway, this topic is essentially a circlejerk in complaints about 9th, an edition which I actually already like and consider a step-up from 8th in almost every way.
I thoroughly enjoyed the 4 test-games I had this weekend, but just reading this topic caused me to doubt myself whether I like 9th or not...
So I'm basically gonna scoot before I get dragged down in the cesspool of negativity where (sadly, genuinely so) so many forum members who have decided that they hate 9th before it's even officially released already are.
I have definitely seen Scotsman saying positive things about 9th, it's not all whining, all the time. He, like others, has identified 9th as being the MSU/anti-horde edition, and that's not really that controversial of a thing to say.
The frustration that you're seeing today is a result of these new points/FAQs that seem wildly out of whack with the actual state of the game. Unless in your 9th practicing, you used the new points (which I'm sure you didn't unless you're a reviewer/playtester), your point is moot. The points craziness is really where the wheels are falling off here. I was pretty optimistic about 9th too until I woke up to this crazy state of things. I don't blame anybody getting angry about it today.
You are the one who has continually argued that Guardsmen aren't taken for their offensive abilities but rather their ability to simply be a body on the board.
By your logic, they priced them the same as the Grots--another unit taken "to simply be a body on the board".
RIght off th bat, a huge difference. Bolters wound Guardsmen on a 3+ but Grots on a 2+. 1/3rd of Guard survive those hits, 1/6ths of grots.
So that's a pretty big difference off the bat. If this, and only this, was different, Guardsmen should be more expensive than a Grot by a bit.
Offense:
GROTS: BS 4+, Str 3, AP -, Range 12"
GUARD: BS 4+, Str 3, AP -, Range 24" (2 shots at 12")
Offensively, at the very least you see effectively double the shot count (10 Grotshots at 12" vs 19 Guardshot at 12") (no Grotshot at 13-24, 9 Guardshot at 13-24)
So Guard should be more expensive by a fair amount.
Heck, Guard are even better in *melee* than a Grot!
You also have better leadership on Guard, which makes them more survivable, and more movement, which is vital for taking objectives, perhaps the most important aspect of bodies on the field.
For now, we're setting aside other factors, like Orders (guard only) or faction bonuses (Guard get them, Grots don't) or Strategems, which have their own cost.
It's impossible to say that Guard and Grots should be the same cost when measured fairly. They just aren't.
I'm not saying that grots are overpriced, but I *am* saying that, comparatively, Guardsmen are criminally undercosted. A fair run would see them closer to 8 points a model, on par with Boys, while Conscripts would be more aligned with Grots in terms of ability and points, while veterans would be lined up with the more specialized boys, like Kommandos or Tankbustas. (That one's more open-ended, so would need a whole comparison in and of itself.)
But to put ten Grots and ten Guardsmen, side by side, and say that they're of equal value is just madness. Guardsmen need to at least be 8 to get parity with boys.
Lines up MUCH better then. T 4 and SV 6+ vs T 3 and SV 5+ gives you similar resiliency, firepower between Shootaboys (2 shots at 8", BS 5+ and Guardsmen (2 shots at 1-12", 1 shot at 13-18", BS 4+) is comparable in that a 5+ hit and 4+ wound (v Marine) is the same as a 4+hit 5+ wound, with the small difference at 13-18 and 19-24 being roughly equal. Guardsmen are faster, essential in a game about objectives, but Shootaboys are better in melee, so there's a tradeoff there.
But you just can't say that Grots are equal to Guard with a straight face. They're simply not on the same level.
I cannot believe, and I am being genuine here, that a grown man is complaining at point increases to a unit, that he decided to build an army out of, knowing full well it would be trash from the beginning.... That's your self created problem, not many other peoples, wear it.
I think the problem is, if this had just been a quick point update included in either the core rules or a free FAQ that was less concerned about balancing the factions and more about simply updating the points for 9th and realise the idea of smaller armies, there would be a lot less salt.
But since this is the new Chapter Approved, with which we'll be stuck with for another year, and it has done little to help problem factions back up (and in some instances has made things WORSE) it just serves to rub salt in the wound even more.
ccs wrote: Just relax, they'll fix all the pt values in CA 2021.
So everyone else gets to enjoy getting tabled by indomitous marines and Custodes, GK and TS for the next year.
Why will TS be tabling people?
Smite spam for days, as apparently they can cast it as many times per caster as they want.
Also they apparently took lighter points increases than many other armies.
Martel732 wrote: Grots costing the same as guardsmen is prima facie absurd. The burden lies with the guard players who support this to prove that these units are equivalent across many games.
Not everything is about killing power.
No? So is it about durability? Mobility? Access to weapon options? Access to support units?
Or do you not have a scenario in which unit A is better than unit B at anything so you'll just say "nuh uh" and gesture vaguely?
God, I can't believe I ever used to respect your opinion as someone to listen to on this hellsite.
I have no personal part in your quarrel with Daedalus81, but I had to chime in after reading this last bit;
I have been away from dakkadakka for quite some time (partly because low interest in 40k during the last year, but also because I got tired of the general mentality of a lot of forum members here. I blame Warseer shutting down on that last part. Seems most of the whiners found their way here.) so I have no distinct knowledge or remembrance of most of the users here, but you have in the short time I've been back established yourself as "that guy who feels compelled to whine about how bad his gretchin has become, over and over", and now I see you type this.
Have you ever considered that this forum is a "hellsite" due to the rampart negativity and pessimism spread by its own members; negativity and pessimism that you yourself help to spread right now in this very thread?
Anyway, this topic is essentially a circlejerk in complaints about 9th, an edition which I actually already like and consider a step-up from 8th in almost every way.
I thoroughly enjoyed the 4 test-games I had this weekend, but just reading this topic caused me to doubt myself whether I like 9th or not...
So I'm basically gonna scoot before I get dragged down in the cesspool of negativity where (sadly, genuinely so) so many forum members who have decided that they hate 9th before it's even officially released already are.
I have definitely seen Scotsman saying positive things about 9th, it's not all whining, all the time. He, like others, has identified 9th as being the MSU/anti-horde edition, and that's not really that controversial of a thing to say.
The frustration that you're seeing today is a result of these new points/FAQs that seem wildly out of whack with the actual state of the game. Unless in your 9th practicing, you used the new points (which I'm sure you didn't unless you're a reviewer/playtester), your point is moot. The points craziness is really where the wheels are falling off here. I was pretty optimistic about 9th too until I woke up to this crazy state of things. I don't blame anybody getting angry about it today.
MSU? Anti-Horde? Neither of those things are true. As far as I can tell. Where is the thread for this?
Martel732 wrote: Grots costing the same as guardsmen is prima facie absurd. The burden lies with the guard players who support this to prove that these units are equivalent across many games.
Not everything is about killing power.
No? So is it about durability? Mobility? Access to weapon options? Access to support units?
Or do you not have a scenario in which unit A is better than unit B at anything so you'll just say "nuh uh" and gesture vaguely?
God, I can't believe I ever used to respect your opinion as someone to listen to on this hellsite.
I have no personal part in your quarrel with Daedalus81, but I had to chime in after reading this last bit;
I have been away from dakkadakka for quite some time (partly because low interest in 40k during the last year, but also because I got tired of the general mentality of a lot of forum members here. I blame Warseer shutting down on that last part. Seems most of the whiners found their way here.) so I have no distinct knowledge or remembrance of most of the users here, but you have in the short time I've been back established yourself as "that guy who feels compelled to whine about how bad his gretchin has become, over and over", and now I see you type this.
Have you ever considered that this forum is a "hellsite" due to the rampart negativity and pessimism spread by its own members; negativity and pessimism that you yourself help to spread right now in this very thread?
Anyway, this topic is essentially a circlejerk in complaints about 9th, an edition which I actually already like and consider a step-up from 8th in almost every way.
I thoroughly enjoyed the 4 test-games I had this weekend, but just reading this topic caused me to doubt myself whether I like 9th or not...
So I'm basically gonna scoot before I get dragged down in the cesspool of negativity where (sadly, genuinely so) so many forum members who have decided that they hate 9th before it's even officially released already are.
I have definitely seen Scotsman saying positive things about 9th, it's not all whining, all the time. He, like others, has identified 9th as being the MSU/anti-horde edition, and that's not really that controversial of a thing to say.
The frustration that you're seeing today is a result of these new points/FAQs that seem wildly out of whack with the actual state of the game. Unless in your 9th practicing, you used the new points (which I'm sure you didn't unless you're a reviewer/playtester), your point is moot. The points craziness is really where the wheels are falling off here. I was pretty optimistic about 9th too until I woke up to this crazy state of things. I don't blame anybody getting angry about it today.
MSU? Anti-Horde? Neither of those things are true. As far as I can tell. Where is the thread for this?
Ah, I can see by your oblivious nature to this statement that you have not been visiting the 9th edition thread in news and rumours. You are a wise man.
Smite spam for days, as apparently they can cast it as many times per caster as they want.
Also they apparently took lighter points increases than many other armies.
I do quite enjoy the smiting, but it will be harder than it was before to get big smites into a list. Shamans might become quite popular again, but then it is a lot harder to keep characters safe.
Martel732 wrote: Grots costing the same as guardsmen is prima facie absurd. The burden lies with the guard players who support this to prove that these units are equivalent across many games.
Not everything is about killing power.
No? So is it about durability? Mobility? Access to weapon options? Access to support units?
Or do you not have a scenario in which unit A is better than unit B at anything so you'll just say "nuh uh" and gesture vaguely?
God, I can't believe I ever used to respect your opinion as someone to listen to on this hellsite.
I have no personal part in your quarrel with Daedalus81, but I had to chime in after reading this last bit;
I have been away from dakkadakka for quite some time (partly because low interest in 40k during the last year, but also because I got tired of the general mentality of a lot of forum members here. I blame Warseer shutting down on that last part. Seems most of the whiners found their way here.) so I have no distinct knowledge or remembrance of most of the users here, but you have in the short time I've been back established yourself as "that guy who feels compelled to whine about how bad his gretchin has become, over and over", and now I see you type this.
Have you ever considered that this forum is a "hellsite" due to the rampart negativity and pessimism spread by its own members; negativity and pessimism that you yourself help to spread right now in this very thread?
Anyway, this topic is essentially a circlejerk in complaints about 9th, an edition which I actually already like and consider a step-up from 8th in almost every way.
I thoroughly enjoyed the 4 test-games I had this weekend, but just reading this topic caused me to doubt myself whether I like 9th or not...
So I'm basically gonna scoot before I get dragged down in the cesspool of negativity where (sadly, genuinely so) so many forum members who have decided that they hate 9th before it's even officially released already are.
I have definitely seen Scotsman saying positive things about 9th, it's not all whining, all the time. He, like others, has identified 9th as being the MSU/anti-horde edition, and that's not really that controversial of a thing to say.
The frustration that you're seeing today is a result of these new points/FAQs that seem wildly out of whack with the actual state of the game. Unless in your 9th practicing, you used the new points (which I'm sure you didn't unless you're a reviewer/playtester), your point is moot. The points craziness is really where the wheels are falling off here. I was pretty optimistic about 9th too until I woke up to this crazy state of things. I don't blame anybody getting angry about it today.
MSU? Anti-Horde? Neither of those things are true. As far as I can tell. Where is the thread for this?
Ah, I can see by your oblivious nature to this statement that you have not been visiting the 9th edition thread in news and rumours. You are a wise man.
What? You mean it's not a well reasoned, rational, civil discussion on dakka? First time for everything I guess.
Martel732 wrote: Grots costing the same as guardsmen is prima facie absurd. The burden lies with the guard players who support this to prove that these units are equivalent across many games.
Not everything is about killing power.
No? So is it about durability? Mobility? Access to weapon options? Access to support units?
Or do you not have a scenario in which unit A is better than unit B at anything so you'll just say "nuh uh" and gesture vaguely?
God, I can't believe I ever used to respect your opinion as someone to listen to on this hellsite.
I have no personal part in your quarrel with Daedalus81, but I had to chime in after reading this last bit;
I have been away from dakkadakka for quite some time (partly because low interest in 40k during the last year, but also because I got tired of the general mentality of a lot of forum members here. I blame Warseer shutting down on that last part. Seems most of the whiners found their way here.) so I have no distinct knowledge or remembrance of most of the users here, but you have in the short time I've been back established yourself as "that guy who feels compelled to whine about how bad his gretchin has become, over and over", and now I see you type this.
Have you ever considered that this forum is a "hellsite" due to the rampart negativity and pessimism spread by its own members; negativity and pessimism that you yourself help to spread right now in this very thread?
Anyway, this topic is essentially a circlejerk in complaints about 9th, an edition which I actually already like and consider a step-up from 8th in almost every way.
I thoroughly enjoyed the 4 test-games I had this weekend, but just reading this topic caused me to doubt myself whether I like 9th or not...
So I'm basically gonna scoot before I get dragged down in the cesspool of negativity where (sadly, genuinely so) so many forum members who have decided that they hate 9th before it's even officially released already are.
I have definitely seen Scotsman saying positive things about 9th, it's not all whining, all the time. He, like others, has identified 9th as being the MSU/anti-horde edition, and that's not really that controversial of a thing to say.
The frustration that you're seeing today is a result of these new points/FAQs that seem wildly out of whack with the actual state of the game. Unless in your 9th practicing, you used the new points (which I'm sure you didn't unless you're a reviewer/playtester), your point is moot. The points craziness is really where the wheels are falling off here. I was pretty optimistic about 9th too until I woke up to this crazy state of things. I don't blame anybody getting angry about it today.
Yeah, honestly, if points were unchanged I would think 9th was my favorite edition yet. from the games I've played of it, I like
1) more involved missions, while not being as kill-focused as ITC missions were.
2) miles better terrain system, even if like in all editions many of the terrain traits are kinda silly/low impact. If you make sure you've got a lot of the best ones (Defensible, Obscuring, Dense Cover, Light Cover) and you kind of ignore the weird ones (Heavy Cover, Difficult Ground, Exposed Positions, the non-rules for Hills) then the terrain system is quite nice and varied. Also, I greatly appreciate the engagement range and new coherency rules for making it not a nightmare as soon as you get up into the upper levels of any given terrain piece.
3) Tanks are no longer encouraged to be stationary gun turrets sitting as far away from the enemy as possible, and are no longer required to have mooks standing in front of them.
4) you at least get to use 1-2 stratagems in the later turns thanks to 1CP in the command phase.
I believe I am allowed to be positive on those aspects of the game that I like, while also being incredibly frustrated that I'm looking at some 70% of my model collection being shelfwarmers until the next CA rolls around and GW notices that every army that's not space marines is only fielding vehicles and flyers.
I look at my armies and it's like:
Orks: Buggies look good! Tankbustas in Trukks look good! Maybe some MANz in a BW?
GSC: Buggies look good! neophytes with heavy weapons in Goliaths look good! Naked bikers look like they're my objective holders.
Drukhari: Big ball of talos/grotesques looks good! Wych cult flyers with Test of Skill look good! black heart ravagers look good!
Thousand Sons: Big ball of double shooting rubrics looks good! Mobile psykers looks good!
Everything that was currently competitive before, is competitive now, possibly more so with stuff gaining the ability to shoot into melee. I take admech and I bring mars dakka bots: Good fething luck, dude, they're gonna sit there and murder you all day long. Everything that was casual/just for fun games where I know my opponent is bringing a fluffy silly list, I basically need to approach with like a Christian Gray contract now.
Martel732 wrote: Grots costing the same as guardsmen is prima facie absurd. The burden lies with the guard players who support this to prove that these units are equivalent across many games.
Not everything is about killing power.
No? So is it about durability? Mobility? Access to weapon options? Access to support units?
Or do you not have a scenario in which unit A is better than unit B at anything so you'll just say "nuh uh" and gesture vaguely?
God, I can't believe I ever used to respect your opinion as someone to listen to on this hellsite.
I have no personal part in your quarrel with Daedalus81, but I had to chime in after reading this last bit;
I have been away from dakkadakka for quite some time (partly because low interest in 40k during the last year, but also because I got tired of the general mentality of a lot of forum members here. I blame Warseer shutting down on that last part. Seems most of the whiners found their way here.) so I have no distinct knowledge or remembrance of most of the users here, but you have in the short time I've been back established yourself as "that guy who feels compelled to whine about how bad his gretchin has become, over and over", and now I see you type this.
Have you ever considered that this forum is a "hellsite" due to the rampart negativity and pessimism spread by its own members; negativity and pessimism that you yourself help to spread right now in this very thread?
Anyway, this topic is essentially a circlejerk in complaints about 9th, an edition which I actually already like and consider a step-up from 8th in almost every way.
I thoroughly enjoyed the 4 test-games I had this weekend, but just reading this topic caused me to doubt myself whether I like 9th or not...
So I'm basically gonna scoot before I get dragged down in the cesspool of negativity where (sadly, genuinely so) so many forum members who have decided that they hate 9th before it's even officially released already are.
I have definitely seen Scotsman saying positive things about 9th, it's not all whining, all the time. He, like others, has identified 9th as being the MSU/anti-horde edition, and that's not really that controversial of a thing to say.
The frustration that you're seeing today is a result of these new points/FAQs that seem wildly out of whack with the actual state of the game. Unless in your 9th practicing, you used the new points (which I'm sure you didn't unless you're a reviewer/playtester), your point is moot. The points craziness is really where the wheels are falling off here. I was pretty optimistic about 9th too until I woke up to this crazy state of things. I don't blame anybody getting angry about it today.
MSU? Anti-Horde? Neither of those things are true. As far as I can tell. Where is the thread for this?
Ah, I can see by your oblivious nature to this statement that you have not been visiting the 9th edition thread in news and rumours. You are a wise man.
What? You mean it's not a well reasoned, rational, civil discussion on dakka? First time for everything I guess.
Are you two REALLY claiming the rules are friendly for hordes?
I don't think they're really claiming anything, other than endlesswaltz saying "you deserve to get stomped horribly if you play a grot list, stop complaining." That seems to be "the game isn't supposed to be balanced" more than any actual argument about balance.
Everybody's entitled to their opinion, but "don't complain about balance if you army is bad because it's bad so you deserve to lose if you play it" doesn't seem like a particularly convincing argument about why the new points values make sense.
"As soon as you get to 30pts or higher (or are dealing with equipment at any cost), there’s a big drive to have things cost round numbers of points (multiples of 5), and increases are almost always in 5-point chunks (or are 5-point chunks plus whatever it takes to round their old cost up to the nearest 5)."
I found this particularly interesting. Just spitballing based on nothing here, but I wonder if this is being done as a way to start making points roll into PL more cleanly?
"As soon as you get to 30pts or higher (or are dealing with equipment at any cost), there’s a big drive to have things cost round numbers of points (multiples of 5), and increases are almost always in 5-point chunks (or are 5-point chunks plus whatever it takes to round their old cost up to the nearest 5)."
I found this particularly interesting. Just spitballing based on nothing here, but I wonder if this is being done as a way to start making points roll into PL more cleanly?
It is a great article btw.
Which would be GW totally missing why PL never went anywhere in 8th the balance with PL was terrible.
Rounding things to multiples of 5 points is the same idiots having PL is good if we make points match PL everyone will Love PL thoughts.
No PL sucks because it can not and will not provide the granularity required to balance the armies.
Stop trying to be lazy and do what your payed to do dang it.
"As soon as you get to 30pts or higher (or are dealing with equipment at any cost), there’s a big drive to have things cost round numbers of points (multiples of 5), and increases are almost always in 5-point chunks (or are 5-point chunks plus whatever it takes to round their old cost up to the nearest 5)."
I found this particularly interesting. Just spitballing based on nothing here, but I wonder if this is being done as a way to start making points roll into PL more cleanly?
It is a great article btw.
What I find so odd about the principle is that there are many 1pt/2pt options that seemingly got hit by that.
Some examples:
Sisters of battle Hand Flamer: Went from 1pt to 5pts
GSC hand flamer: went from 1pt to 2pts
GSC Webber: went from 1pt to 5pts
now you have a S4 Ap- d1 weapon that gets 1 autohit at 18" range....right next to a S4 Ap- D1 weapon that gets D6 hits at 8" range. very interesting. much choice.
Harlequin pistols too
5pts: S4 Ap-3 d3, d1 vs vehicles, 12" range
also 5pts, on exact same models: S8 Ap-4 Dd6, 6" range, gets the melta rule.
So, are we just throwing our hands up and saying " i dunno, balance too hard at small points!" or are we not? Why have ALMOST everything rounded to 5s while having, in the same faction, stuff that costs 2s and 3s?
The normalization of weapons is very hard to understand. Why was it a problem that things cost points relative to their worth? Why was it a good idea to make a power fist cost the same as a chain fist, despite being simply worse? Why does it make any sense that power swords went up in cost but embraces - literally just a power sword with +1 STR, went down and now cost the same 5 points? How does this add to the game?
And it isn't even uniform, because you still do have stuff like 6 point harlequin weapons.
the_scotsman wrote: Quick and dirty "how to make yourself a competitive 9th list"
step 1: Take your competitive 8th list.
Step 2: Drop anything that was for killing infantry until you're down to 2k.
That's it! you're done!
Oh so it isn't the anti-horde edition now?
I think it still is. Just that you don't have to kill the hordes yourself when the edition does it for you.
Yep. At least until CA2021 anyway. My 9th ed lists are going to include some elements that can be used against light infantry if needed, but nothing that only works on light infantry and does not also efficiently work vs elite infantry or tanks.
For example:
Slashing Impact+test of Skill for all my wych cult stuff, with maximum number of blasters and Grav Talons on Reavers and a 5-man grotesque squad with PoF to go get on objectives and be tough turn 1.
If my opponent brings light infantry, I can shred them with those things incidentally, but you won't see me including a blast weapon in my list anticipating seeing 11+ model hordes.
Kanluwen wrote: Point values are and will always continue to be nonsense.
Thank heavens for Power Level instead.
Power Level really needs to be open to amendment in CA or start-of-edition errata, though.
Quasistellar wrote: OOF--the Astraeus got absolutely dunked on. I'm almost thinking it's a mistake it went up so much. Maybe the Twin Macro Accelerator Cannon is supposed to be free? (there's a similar inconsistency with the Castellan/Chaos Equivalent Knight)
It's a tax to cover the cost of repairing people's sight after they have to look at it...
Quasistellar wrote: And heavy bolters being so expensive now--anyone have insight as to why HBs went up so much?
It is a weird one.
Kanluwen wrote: Vehicles can fire them while engaged in close combat now.
True, but are 3xS5 AP-1 D1 shots (per gun) really enough of a threat to warrant a hike? I can kinda understand it for Heavy Flamers, given the auto-hit, but not HB.
Spartan089 wrote: I'm blown away by some of these point costs, especially in guard, 28 point increase to the basic Leman Russ, 15 points for a single heavy bolter? 40 points for plasma sponsons?! 235 points for a fully kitted out Tank Comander (BC, plasma sponsons, hull Lascannon) seems way too expensive.
Some of the new weapon costs make no sense without a rules change.
So perhaps the rules for those weapons are changing.
Or perhaps they just make no sense.
They no longer suffer a -1 for moving and shooting, and they can always shoot even when engaged in combat. I.E. you will fire all the weapons on that vehicle every turn.
As opposed to the past where you could easily shut down a tank by charging it, now that just means your being shot at point blank range.
Eh, on that specific build the only weapon you fire every turn is the hull lascannon - the Battle Cannon and both Plasma Cannon have Blast, so won't be firing if the tank gets tied up in melee.
Spoletta wrote: Rounding to 5 works as long as you do that when the rounding is a small percentage of the total value. After 30 you can do it, you are below 10%.
Fortunately they didn't do it at lower point levels and we still have wargear costs that range from 1 to 5 points.
Well, sometimes anyway.
Looks at Condemnor Boltguns that went up from 1pt to 5pts, despite the fact that all the do is kill multi-wound psykers ever so slightly better than a regular boltgun.
What I find so odd about the principle is that there are many 1pt/2pt options that seemingly got hit by that.
Some examples:
Sisters of battle Hand Flamer: Went from 1pt to 5pts
GSC hand flamer: went from 1pt to 2pts
GSC Webber: went from 1pt to 5pts
now you have a S4 Ap- d1 weapon that gets 1 autohit at 18" range....right next to a S4 Ap- D1 weapon that gets D6 hits at 8" range. very interesting. much choice.
Harlequin pistols too
5pts: S4 Ap-3 d3, d1 vs vehicles, 12" range
also 5pts, on exact same models: S8 Ap-4 Dd6, 6" range, gets the melta rule.
So, are we just throwing our hands up and saying " i dunno, balance too hard at small points!" or are we not? Why have ALMOST everything rounded to 5s while having, in the same faction, stuff that costs 2s and 3s?
I feel your pain on some of this. From our test games this weekend, I can tell you that GSC already had a tough road ahead. Seeing these points hikes makes it even trickier for them. I think the article did a pretty good job of pointing out that it didn't seem like the question of "Should this be raised in points" was ever really asked and that's where I think GW fell down a bit here. Prior to today, I was also one of the more vocal in saying that this wasn't necessarily going to make games smaller or faster. The article and the test games I played all seem to be agreeing with that. So if this was the desired effect (smaller, faster games) it missed the mark. 9th takes about as long as 8th, or just slightly longer if you have a few particularly rough morale phases, and you can shift your list to still be fairly "big".
The added issue is that (as the article also points out) a lot of things are going to go back to never seeing play now. It just feels like they needed one more step in the process and they'd have been fine (the step being to ask that question of "does this REALLY need an increase). Over-all though, I don't feel like this was nearly as bad as I was bracing for, and I'm sure most of it will be corrected in a December CA. Unfortunate that it has to be that way, and also unfortunate that the "Summer" CA isn't just free, but it is what it is. My group is talking about sticking to 8th until December to see if they release another CA that corrects some of the issues (or to see if what we're concerned about even is really an issue). Guess we'll see.
I doubt you'll see a CA untill summer next year at the earliest opportunity. With lockdowns and limitations of large gatherings and most clubs etc still down and the lead time of CA I could see these being the points untill CA 2021 in November next year.
We may get some FAQ and errata in 6 months.
The other issue will be Codex releases moving the goal posts from whats broken vrs 8th edition codex to whats just balanced against the other 9th edition codex's to what's actually broken compaired to 9th edition codex's.
Ice_can wrote: I doubt you'll see a CA untill summer next year at the earliest opportunity. With lockdowns and limitations of large gatherings and most clubs etc still down and the lead time of CA I could see these being the points untill CA 2021 in November next year.
We may get some FAQ and errata in 6 months.
The other issue will be Codex releases moving the goal posts from whats broken vrs 8th edition codex to whats just balanced against the other 9th edition codex's to what's actually broken compaired to 9th edition codex's.
They have no choice but to do a CA equiv December. This whole editions wacked points wise. The rules are better, all they need to do is redo these once and it's the best edition since probably 5th.
So looks like my current collection went from 2,484 points to 2,791. That's fine but I won't lie, Russes got hit hard. I can't think of a reason to take sponsons on a Russ now. Maybe a single TC or Pask?
Ice_can wrote: I doubt you'll see a CA untill summer next year at the earliest opportunity. With lockdowns and limitations of large gatherings and most clubs etc still down and the lead time of CA I could see these being the points untill CA 2021 in November next year.
We may get some FAQ and errata in 6 months.
The other issue will be Codex releases moving the goal posts from whats broken vrs 8th edition codex to whats just balanced against the other 9th edition codex's to what's actually broken compaired to 9th edition codex's.
They have no choice but to do a CA equiv December. This whole editions wacked points wise. The rules are better, all they need to do is redo these once and it's the best edition since probably 5th.
They do have a choice. They can wait- its far too late in the year to start at CA2020 version 2- I'm not even sure they could make the printing deadlines if they started literally right now (keeping in mind the time for printing and distribution). Even if they could, it'd be a rushed and fairly crap job.
Good data is going to be down due to the pandemic anyway.
Personally, one of the biggest flaws of 8th was the rush from Indexes to Codexes without pause and then into the two 2.0 Codexes and PA books. They dragged a lot of systemic problems along for the ride that the codex have nipped in the bud had they let the indexes ride for a year.
I honestly want them to wait until December for CA 2021.
These points aren't great, but there's no point doing another rush job and mucking it up again.
It's very clear from looking at this that the points values were done using a formula, not unit-by-unit or army-by-army.
Grots and brimstones went up to 5 points because that was the minimum value, not because of some kind of careful consideration of their value. It's the same reason that aspect warriors got totally screwed - they fell into the points bracket that got kicked up 15%, whether they needed to be or not, so they got kicked up.
This wasn't balance-based pointing, it was just spread-sheet based, aside from a very small handful of stuff that got targeted nerfs (assault centurions, TFCs, that kind of thing).
Martel732 wrote: Grots costing the same as guardsmen is prima facie absurd. The burden lies with the guard players who support this to prove that these units are equivalent across many games.
Not everything is about killing power.
No? So is it about durability? Mobility? Access to weapon options? Access to support units?
Or do you not have a scenario in which unit A is better than unit B at anything so you'll just say "nuh uh" and gesture vaguely?
God, I can't believe I ever used to respect your opinion as someone to listen to on this hellsite.
I have no personal part in your quarrel with Daedalus81, but I had to chime in after reading this last bit;
I have been away from dakkadakka for quite some time (partly because low interest in 40k during the last year, but also because I got tired of the general mentality of a lot of forum members here. I blame Warseer shutting down on that last part. Seems most of the whiners found their way here.) so I have no distinct knowledge or remembrance of most of the users here, but you have in the short time I've been back established yourself as "that guy who feels compelled to whine about how bad his gretchin has become, over and over", and now I see you type this.
Have you ever considered that this forum is a "hellsite" due to the rampart negativity and pessimism spread by its own members; negativity and pessimism that you yourself help to spread right now in this very thread?
Anyway, this topic is essentially a circlejerk in complaints about 9th, an edition which I actually already like and consider a step-up from 8th in almost every way.
I thoroughly enjoyed the 4 test-games I had this weekend, but just reading this topic caused me to doubt myself whether I like 9th or not...
So I'm basically gonna scoot before I get dragged down in the cesspool of negativity where (sadly, genuinely so) so many forum members who have decided that they hate 9th before it's even officially released already are.
Yes, people could be more civil when discussing gamers, and the bickering can get out of hand.
And yes, there is a lot of negativity. But that is largely of GW's own making. GW sets the absurd prices. GW misinforms their different teams and allows miscommunication to be commonplace. GW. The people responsible for the rules are GW employees. The larger problem is that despite all of GW's many failings, people continue to expect them, to change, and continue to spend there hobby dollars on GW minis, despite their dissatisfaction with the rules or GW's other practices, which means GW has zero incentive to change. Therefore, there are many negative things to express There are constructive ways to express it, and others that are not. It doesn't help that oftentimes people become upset, angry, by the mere existence of another's criticism or negative opinion- then the complaints about complaints begin, and the thread disintegrates.
It's great 9th is appealing to you. Could you provide some detail as to why that is?
I quit 40k partly because of the poor balance, which hasn't improved, and because gameplay is little more than listbulding, placing minis on the table, then your and your opponent make each other remove said minis until the game ends. This hasn't changed from 9th. I want more depth, tactics, and by the Lion, more movement! There are plenty of other minis games with more depth than GW's, and they're simple as well, so I'm building up forces for those instead.
GW refuses to allow 40k and WHFB/AOS to reach their full potential. At minimum, 40k would become a much more engaging and tactical game with AA, comparative values for shooting and melee, like an Evasion stat that would also help Eldar/LandSpeeders/any fast-but-fragile unit, utilizing Area Terrain and more intuitive LOS rules, and a morale/suppression system. They've left so much on the table it would be funny- if it weren't so sad and frustrating.
yukishiro1 wrote: It's very clear from looking at this that the points values were done using a formula, not unit-by-unit or army-by-army.
Grots and brimstones went up to 5 points because that was the minimum value, not because of some kind of careful consideration of their value. It's the same reason that aspect warriors got totally screwed - they fell into the points bracket that got kicked up 15%, whether they needed to be or not, so they got kicked up.
This wasn't balance-based pointing, it was just spread-sheet based, aside from a very small handful of stuff that got targeted nerfs (assault centurions, TFCs, that kind of thing).
Precisely. Competitive play is going to be a mess until we get a few cycles of points adjustments from these values.
They have no choice but to do a CA equiv December. This whole editions wacked points wise. The rules are better, all they need to do is redo these once and it's the best edition since probably 5th.
They need to make the armybuilder part of their new app free. Then they can adjust the points via that whenever needed. Printing books for points changes is an outdated concept.
yukishiro1 wrote: The normalization of weapons is very hard to understand. Why was it a problem that things cost points relative to their worth? Why was it a good idea to make a power fist cost the same as a chain fist, despite being simply worse? Why does it make any sense that power swords went up in cost but embraces - literally just a power sword with +1 STR, went down and now cost the same 5 points? How does this add to the game?
And it isn't even uniform, because you still do have stuff like 6 point harlequin weapons.
My guess is this way makes PL more viable. The big rip I heard on PL was that you can kit out your units with all the bells and whistles you want and it doesn’t change PL. if all the weapons are uniform no one can make that complaint anymore.
Not the greatest reason but maybe an explanation. I really like the idea of PL and hope it can work.
yukishiro1 wrote: The normalization of weapons is very hard to understand. Why was it a problem that things cost points relative to their worth? Why was it a good idea to make a power fist cost the same as a chain fist, despite being simply worse? Why does it make any sense that power swords went up in cost but embraces - literally just a power sword with +1 STR, went down and now cost the same 5 points? How does this add to the game?
And it isn't even uniform, because you still do have stuff like 6 point harlequin weapons.
My guess is this way makes PL more viable. The big rip I heard on PL was that you can kit out your units with all the bells and whistles you want and it doesn’t change PL. if all the weapons are uniform no one can make that complaint anymore.
Not the greatest reason but maybe an explanation. I really like the idea of PL and hope it can work.
Not everything will change PL...but PL tends to be priced with the highest items possible in mind. Usually PL will be affect the number of models in the unit. To use an example, Conscripts and a Guard Infantry Squad are both 3 Power. One of those is 10 models with the option to add a Heavy Weapons Team and a Special Weapon and a Vox-Caster and the Sergeant can take items from the Ranged Weapons list and a Chainsword or Power Sword...the other is 20 models with a +1 Power Rating option to bump it to 30.
The "big rip" on it was that "I DON'T LIKE IT BECAUSE IT'S NOT POINTS!!!11!". It's the same trash argument that was used against points-less AoS, where some theoretical boogeyman is taking the most powerful thing every single time and that we had to protect the narrative players from these curbstomping jerks...never minding that those people would have zero interest in narrative playstyles to start with.
My guess is this way makes PL more viable. The big rip I heard on PL was that you can kit out your units with all the bells and whistles you want and it doesn’t change PL. if all the weapons are uniform no one can make that complaint anymore.
Not the greatest reason but maybe an explanation. I really like the idea of PL and hope it can work.
Yes, making the points intentionally worse makes the PL relatively better. It still doesn't actually improve the PL though. It just means that we have two inaccurate and non-granular armybuilding systems. I don't think sabotaging the points to promote PL is a great tactic.
Blastaar wrote: I quit 40k partly because of the poor balance, which hasn't improved, and because gameplay is little more than listbulding, placing minis on the table, then your and your opponent make each other remove said minis until the game ends. This hasn't changed from 9th. I want more depth, tactics, and by the Lion, more movement!There are plenty of other minis games with more depth than GW's, and they're simple as well, so I'm building up forces for those instead.
I think one should play something before they judge it, because what you talked about is what 9th seems to be from my perspective. To dismiss it whole cloth is one thing. To dismiss it and then claim how GW is doing nothing is a little bit of the blind leading the blind.
yukishiro1 wrote: It's very clear from looking at this that the points values were done using a formula, not unit-by-unit or army-by-army.
Grots and brimstones went up to 5 points because that was the minimum value, not because of some kind of careful consideration of their value. It's the same reason that aspect warriors got totally screwed - they fell into the points bracket that got kicked up 15%, whether they needed to be or not, so they got kicked up.
This wasn't balance-based pointing, it was just spread-sheet based, aside from a very small handful of stuff that got targeted nerfs (assault centurions, TFCs, that kind of thing).
Precisely. Competitive play is going to be a mess until we get a few cycles of points adjustments from these values.
At least a year before we see tournaments again I'd wager.
I'm surprised people are at all arguing with Kan about Guard.
Everyone should know by now that they could have 1 point guard with space marine stats and he'd argue that they'd be balanced because of reasons... Or more likely that they still are too weak.
Honestly i've had much more fun playing since i stopped minmaxing all my lists and started bringing the models i like, garagehammer is a win in my books.
Still, for many people that are more competitive and not in the US, having competitive be a mess will be annoying since smaller tournaments might start firing for them.
Honestly i've had much more fun playing since i stopped minmaxing all my lists and started bringing the models i like, garagehammer is a win in my books.
Nice and balanced. Finaly the weaker units have proper cost, while stuff that was good was not made unplayable by a gigantic points hike. First FAQ/errata GW puts out that I actualy like, not couting the PA book.
Karol wrote: Nice and balanced. Finaly the weaker units have proper cost, while stuff that was good was not made unplayable by a gigantic points hike. First FAQ/errata GW puts out that I actualy like, not couting the PA book.
And Karol out of left field.
Though potential bad news. Seems like GK and TS lost the smite exception.
Karol wrote: Nice and balanced. Finaly the weaker units have proper cost, while stuff that was good was not made unplayable by a gigantic points hike. First FAQ/errata GW puts out that I actualy like, not couting the PA book.
...which one was this? Not the one with 5 point hf right?
ZebioLizard2 wrote: I'm surprised people are at all arguing with Kan about Guard.
Everyone should know by now that they could have 1 point guard with space marine stats and he'd argue that they'd be balanced because of reasons... Or more likely that they still are too weak.
Meh. Everyone should know by now that balancing Guard isn't going to be done by points, it will be done by actually making the book have choices.
Karol wrote: Nice and balanced. Finaly the weaker units have proper cost, while stuff that was good was not made unplayable by a gigantic points hike. First FAQ/errata GW puts out that I actualy like, not couting the PA book.
And Karol out of left field.
Though potential bad news. Seems like GK and TS lost the smite exception.
thank god.
Smite spam was an blight upon the meta in 8th at the start, only fair that it get's curbed this instant.
Karol wrote: Nice and balanced. Finaly the weaker units have proper cost, while stuff that was good was not made unplayable by a gigantic points hike. First FAQ/errata GW puts out that I actualy like, not couting the PA book.
And Karol out of left field.
Though potential bad news. Seems like GK and TS lost the smite exception.
thank god.
Smite spam was an blight upon the meta in 8th at the start, only fair that it get's curbed this instant.
Karol wrote: Nice and balanced. Finaly the weaker units have proper cost, while stuff that was good was not made unplayable by a gigantic points hike. First FAQ/errata GW puts out that I actualy like, not couting the PA book.
And Karol out of left field.
Though potential bad news. Seems like GK and TS lost the smite exception.
thank god.
Smite spam was an blight upon the meta in 8th at the start, only fair that it get's curbed this instant.
Nobody lost anything. Brotherhood of sorcerers/psykers is a fixed rule in the Ritual of the damned. And it includes the smite tax evasion.
Honestly i've had much more fun playing since i stopped minmaxing all my lists and started bringing the models i like, garagehammer is a win in my books.
Still, for many people that are more competitive and not in the US, having competitive be a mess will be annoying since smaller tournaments might start firing for them.
I so, soon badly want to snark off about the US being garage-hammer-only until November 2024, but there's no way I start that and don't wind up running afoul of the ban on politics.
I have to admit Garage Hammer has it's advantages. I've never indulged in it before this.
Karol wrote: Nice and balanced. Finaly the weaker units have proper cost, while stuff that was good was not made unplayable by a gigantic points hike. First FAQ/errata GW puts out that I actualy like, not couting the PA book.
And Karol out of left field.
Though potential bad news. Seems like GK and TS lost the smite exception.
Well I like it. Hikes were suppose to happen to everyone, and of course GW is bad at doing points, because they fix them around some idea of armies being playtested by them with certain rules in the future, but between that future and what we get we play with different rules, plus on top of everything GW may have changed the design focus in those 6 months, so armies may end up totaly out of wack with their point costs vs the game rules they have to be played with.
But for me personaly, this is all good. I never run psycanons on termintors or strikes, only on paladins. I use termintors and they actualy went down in point costs. I never had units armed with, 4pts per model now, falchions, only with swords and halabards and those are now both free. Strikes aren't over costed, paladins werent' made unplayable with some crazy hike. We don't have jump packs, so no fly tax happened. And interceptors with their pseudo flight are still good.
the smite change, if it is real, is not fun. But I had worse times in 8th, plus I think we can still pull of 2-3 smites easily, maybe other damage spells are going to get used now. before taking them with smite, even a baby one, was foolish. And gate is a great spell now. So all in all the changes seem great, comparing to what they could have been.
Thanks Daed. 50 actually, but didn't twin heavy bolters go up? So not quite that. Maybe there's something in the new fw books that explains why it didn't go down more. I'll wait and see before getting salty.
Honestly, this whole 'all points go up' thing I don't think should have happened. I don't see it having a massive income on sales, and just strikes me as a way to rile up the fanbase.
ArcaneHorror wrote: Honestly, this whole 'all points go up' thing I don't think should have happened. I don't see it having a massive income on sales, and just strikes me as a way to rile up the fanbase.
We now got grots at the place of guardsmen.
Scout priced CStacs.
Elysians and R&H yeeted.
Not sure , and i really liked the idea of a general hike.
Or some of the new rules, like the reserves, to a degree.
ArcaneHorror wrote: Honestly, this whole 'all points go up' thing I don't think should have happened. I don't see it having a massive income on sales, and just strikes me as a way to rile up the fanbase.
Don't agree, It needed to happen, as too much was smooshed into the low end.
Unfortunately introducing a floor of 5 points sets up some obvious problems for people to yell about.
And there needed to be more individual judgement and less formulas.
And GW is still hung up on the elf statline for some bizarre reason. The only time they ever got it even close to right was when the errata'd the entire Dark Elf armybook away from the Always-Strike-First High Elf point values.
But the lethality of 8th/9th edition 40k just doesn't care about elf stats. In terms of dying, they're exactly the same as guard, admech or sister's stats, depending on the armor save.
ArcaneHorror wrote: Honestly, this whole 'all points go up' thing I don't think should have happened. I don't see it having a massive income on sales, and just strikes me as a way to rile up the fanbase.
Don't agree, It needed to happen, as too much was smooshed into the low end.
Unfortunately introducing a floor of 5 points sets up some obvious problems for people to yell about.
And there needed to be more individual judgement and less formulas.
And GW is still hung up on the elf statline for some bizarre reason. The only time they ever got it even close to right was when the errata'd the entire Dark Elf armybook away from the Always-Strike-First High Elf point values.
But the lethality of 8th/9th edition 40k just doesn't care about elf stats. In terms of dying, they're exactly the same as guard, admech or sister's stats, depending on the armor save.
Yes, but that marked bit is expensive, because they'd need someone to actually do it, or their team, can't have that.
ArcaneHorror wrote: Honestly, this whole 'all points go up' thing I don't think should have happened. I don't see it having a massive income on sales, and just strikes me as a way to rile up the fanbase.
But not all point costs went up. Custodes didn't get substential point hikes, neither did the GK. So GW clearly noticed that those armies did not need them. And what ever people stay with 8th 1800pts lists , or move on to playing 9th with 2200pts to get their full 2000pts 8th ed ones is to be seen. Tournaments more or less will decide. If they go with 9th 2000pts /8th 1800, people will play that. In 8th ed it ended like that. What ever local tournament pack was used by people, it turned in to the core way to be played , be it ITC, ETC or those crazy rules from UK or scandinavia. I don't think many people, aside for big tournament orgs can say what is going to be the point cost range in 9th.
I so, soon badly want to snark off about the US being garage-hammer-only until November 2024, but there's no way I start that and don't wind up running afoul of the ban on politics.
I have to admit Garage Hammer has it's advantages. I've never indulged in it before this.
I feel fortunate to live in a sane state. A group of my friends might quarantine for a week and then run a tournament. Wives permitting.
Thanks Daed. 50 actually, but didn't twin heavy bolters go up? So not quite that. Maybe there's something in the new fw books that explains why it didn't go down more. I'll wait and see before getting salty.
Yea there's the whole FW re-write, but I wouldn't expect too much for units like the Fellblade.
Martel732 wrote: Grots costing the same as guardsmen is prima facie absurd. The burden lies with the guard players who support this to prove that these units are equivalent across many games.
Not everything is about killing power.
No? So is it about durability? Mobility? Access to weapon options? Access to support units?
Or do you not have a scenario in which unit A is better than unit B at anything so you'll just say "nuh uh" and gesture vaguely?
God, I can't believe I ever used to respect your opinion as someone to listen to on this hellsite.
I have no personal part in your quarrel with Daedalus81, but I had to chime in after reading this last bit;
I have been away from dakkadakka for quite some time (partly because low interest in 40k during the last year, but also because I got tired of the general mentality of a lot of forum members here. I blame Warseer shutting down on that last part. Seems most of the whiners found their way here.) so I have no distinct knowledge or remembrance of most of the users here, but you have in the short time I've been back established yourself as "that guy who feels compelled to whine about how bad his gretchin has become, over and over", and now I see you type this.
Have you ever considered that this forum is a "hellsite" due to the rampart negativity and pessimism spread by its own members; negativity and pessimism that you yourself help to spread right now in this very thread?
Anyway, this topic is essentially a circlejerk in complaints about 9th, an edition which I actually already like and consider a step-up from 8th in almost every way.
I thoroughly enjoyed the 4 test-games I had this weekend, but just reading this topic caused me to doubt myself whether I like 9th or not...
So I'm basically gonna scoot before I get dragged down in the cesspool of negativity where (sadly, genuinely so) so many forum members who have decided that they hate 9th before it's even officially released already are.
I have definitely seen Scotsman saying positive things about 9th, it's not all whining, all the time. He, like others, has identified 9th as being the MSU/anti-horde edition, and that's not really that controversial of a thing to say.
The frustration that you're seeing today is a result of these new points/FAQs that seem wildly out of whack with the actual state of the game. Unless in your 9th practicing, you used the new points (which I'm sure you didn't unless you're a reviewer/playtester), your point is moot. The points craziness is really where the wheels are falling off here. I was pretty optimistic about 9th too until I woke up to this crazy state of things. I don't blame anybody getting angry about it today.
MSU? Anti-Horde? Neither of those things are true. As far as I can tell. Where is the thread for this?
Ah, I can see by your oblivious nature to this statement that you have not been visiting the 9th edition thread in news and rumours. You are a wise man.
What? You mean it's not a well reasoned, rational, civil discussion on dakka? First time for everything I guess.
Are you two REALLY claiming the rules are friendly for hordes?
Are you really going to argue that the new morale rules aren't wildly beneficial for hordes?
Horde players agree going to go from losing a third of thier army to morale to losing maybe 15-20%.
Meanwhile, Elite armies are going to lose way more to morale if they bring large squads, and even if they bring MSU they wont have the firepower needed to shoot horde armies off the board.
Are you really going to argue that the new morale rules aren't wildly beneficial for hordes?
Horde players agree going to go from losing a third of thier army to morale to losing maybe 15-20%.
It depends on the unit. Boyz with a warboss or another large unit nearby bypassed the moral issue anyway, while gretchins got a significant benefit from the new morale rule.... except they are now 5ppm and combined with a plethora of new rules that badly affect large squads (blasts, coherency, cover...) it means that they were way better before.
The coherency / engagement range rules hurt big units more than anything, both for existing on the board and for trying to fight in combat. Most horde stuff was immune to morale already, but it's a big buff for, say, daemons - though not enough to outweigh the coherency and engagement nerfs.
Martel732 wrote: Grots costing the same as guardsmen is prima facie absurd. The burden lies with the guard players who support this to prove that these units are equivalent across many games.
Not everything is about killing power.
No? So is it about durability? Mobility? Access to weapon options? Access to support units?
Or do you not have a scenario in which unit A is better than unit B at anything so you'll just say "nuh uh" and gesture vaguely?
God, I can't believe I ever used to respect your opinion as someone to listen to on this hellsite.
I have no personal part in your quarrel with Daedalus81, but I had to chime in after reading this last bit;
I have been away from dakkadakka for quite some time (partly because low interest in 40k during the last year, but also because I got tired of the general mentality of a lot of forum members here. I blame Warseer shutting down on that last part. Seems most of the whiners found their way here.) so I have no distinct knowledge or remembrance of most of the users here, but you have in the short time I've been back established yourself as "that guy who feels compelled to whine about how bad his gretchin has become, over and over", and now I see you type this.
Have you ever considered that this forum is a "hellsite" due to the rampart negativity and pessimism spread by its own members; negativity and pessimism that you yourself help to spread right now in this very thread?
Anyway, this topic is essentially a circlejerk in complaints about 9th, an edition which I actually already like and consider a step-up from 8th in almost every way.
I thoroughly enjoyed the 4 test-games I had this weekend, but just reading this topic caused me to doubt myself whether I like 9th or not...
So I'm basically gonna scoot before I get dragged down in the cesspool of negativity where (sadly, genuinely so) so many forum members who have decided that they hate 9th before it's even officially released already are.
I have definitely seen Scotsman saying positive things about 9th, it's not all whining, all the time. He, like others, has identified 9th as being the MSU/anti-horde edition, and that's not really that controversial of a thing to say.
The frustration that you're seeing today is a result of these new points/FAQs that seem wildly out of whack with the actual state of the game. Unless in your 9th practicing, you used the new points (which I'm sure you didn't unless you're a reviewer/playtester), your point is moot. The points craziness is really where the wheels are falling off here. I was pretty optimistic about 9th too until I woke up to this crazy state of things. I don't blame anybody getting angry about it today.
MSU? Anti-Horde? Neither of those things are true. As far as I can tell. Where is the thread for this?
Ah, I can see by your oblivious nature to this statement that you have not been visiting the 9th edition thread in news and rumours. You are a wise man.
What? You mean it's not a well reasoned, rational, civil discussion on dakka? First time for everything I guess.
Are you two REALLY claiming the rules are friendly for hordes?
Are you really going to argue that the new morale rules aren't wildly beneficial for hordes?
Horde players agree going to go from losing a third of thier army to morale to losing maybe 15-20%.
Meanwhile, Elite armies are going to lose way more to morale if they bring large squads, and even if they bring MSU they wont have the firepower needed to shoot horde armies off the board.
MSU's won't protect characters for long either. And I don't buy the argument of putting a vehicle or MC next to the character, as that will be targeted very quickly for deletion.
Also in some armies (space marines for example) you absolutely won't get the benefit of the character if they are only near 1 vehicle, there's hardly any point taking them if you aren't going to try and boost as much of your firepower as possible, which means next to your troops. And then if those are MSU's, kill 3 models in each unit and the character can be targeted.
The only way this will work is if you go vehicle heavy, but they can't do your secondaries, and LOS is limited in the new edition if you do terrain correctly.
Are you really going to argue that the new morale rules aren't wildly beneficial for hordes?
Horde players agree going to go from losing a third of thier army to morale to losing maybe 15-20%.
It depends on the unit. Boyz with a warboss or another large unit nearby bypassed the moral issue anyway, while gretchins got a significant benefit from the new morale rule.... except they are now 5ppm and combined with a plethora of new rules that badly affect large squads (blasts, coherency, cover...) it means that they were way better before.
A 10 man grot unit is a good middle ground.
No one is shooting BCs at them or if they do... you're winning. A TFC gets no extra shots and kills half a unit. Previously that mean 10 grits dead. Now it means 1 dead and maybe some more.
No one is shooting BCs at them or if they do... you're winning. A TFC gets no extra shots and kills half a unit. Previously that mean 10 grits dead. Now it means 1 dead and maybe some more.
For 50 points you could take a deffkopta though, which is more durable, faster, fly and is better in CC and shooting. At 80 you could have 10 boyz. I suspect this is the age of extinction for the little fellas
Not a great time to buy into Imperial Fists. Guess who just picked up six Centurion Devastators.
On the other hand, I did get most of my new models through Dark Imperium/Know No Fear, and Death Guard is looking pretty fun. I had been building them up a bit to make two even armies. I’ve only picked up extra Plague Marines, Blightlords, and Blight Haulers for that. It’s looking like those were good purchases. I think I’m building DG as my primary force now.
MSU's won't protect characters for long either. And I don't buy the argument of putting a vehicle or MC next to the character, as that will be targeted very quickly for deletion.
Also in some armies (space marines for example) you absolutely won't get the benefit of the character if they are only near 1 vehicle, there's hardly any point taking them if you aren't going to try and boost as much of your firepower as possible, which means next to your troops. And then if those are MSU's, kill 3 models in each unit and the character can be targeted.
The only way this will work is if you go vehicle heavy, but they can't do your secondaries, and LOS is limited in the new edition if you do terrain correctly.
MSU's aren't the way forward imo.
You say that like it's trivial to remove 3 IH agressors or the new melta boys as they can go to 5 man units and still be blast immune, but you need to kill 3 to stop them screening charictors.
Funnily enough it looks like marines with bikes, gravis etc in 3-5 man units will do just fine in 9th.
I’ve only picked up extra Plague Marines, Blightlords, and Blight Haulers for that. It’s looking like those were good purchases. I think I’m building DG as my primary force now.
DG is my primary. Based on the 9th ed games I played this weekend (and all the "official" ones I've seen online form playtesters), GET RHINOS. They will be essential to your Plague Marines. Essential.
I’ve only picked up extra Plague Marines, Blightlords, and Blight Haulers for that. It’s looking like those were good purchases. I think I’m building DG as my primary force now.
DG is my primary. Based on the 9th ed games I played this weekend (and all the "official" ones I've seen online form playtesters), GET RHINOS. They will be essential to your Plague Marines. Essential.
I think, at least from looking at other people games, that having transports is going to be important to many armies, not just DG.
The issue with how silly the points changes to grots are is really played up when you notice that nurglings got no points increase at all, something that is so mind-boggling that you almost think they just missed them in their spreadsheet because they're swarms not infantry.
54 points of nurglings: 12 T2 wounds, 5++/5+++ (for D1).
55 points of grots: 11 T2 wounds, 6+ save.
Nurglings also get infiltrate, which is straight-up fire in the new missions.
yukishiro1 wrote: The issue with how silly the points changes to grots are is really played up when you notice that nurglings got no points increase at all, something that is so mind-boggling that you almost think they just missed them in their spreadsheet because they're swarms not infantry.
54 points of nurglings: 12 T2 wounds, 5++/5+++ (for D1).
55 points of grots: 11 T2 wounds, 6+ save.
Nurglings also get infiltrate, which is straight-up fire in the new missions.
Swarms in general didn't see significant point increases, since they cannot interact with a lot of scoring stuff.
Games may matter - but intuitively this seems profoundly negative.
As I think a lot of people have said, this feels like they hurriedly gave this to an intern, GW said "our basic principles are X, Y and Z" and so they just pointed stuff accordingly and then it was thrown out.
There seems to be almost no serious thought towards creating a balanced game, so yes, considerations of units are all over the shop.
Perhaps the most disappointing is that, as people have said, the good stuff seems to have got better, and the bad stuff seems to have got worse. Not universally perhaps, but in so many cases to show this was a job lot decision.
Tyel wrote: Games may matter - but intuitively this seems profoundly negative.
As I think a lot of people have said, this feels like they hurriedly gave this to an intern, GW said "our basic principles are X, Y and Z" and so they just pointed stuff accordingly and then it was thrown out.
There seems to be almost no serious thought towards creating a balanced game, so yes, considerations of units are all over the shop.
Perhaps the most disappointing is that, as people have said, the good stuff seems to have got better, and the bad stuff seems to have got worse. Not universally perhaps, but in so many cases to show this was a job lot decision.
May also point to playtesters sticking to their bubble and only providing feedback on the units they already 'know' are good.
Other stuff getting a cursory 'yeah, that's fine' to GW and a private muttered 'who even cares, anyway?'
GW introduced most of the Faction Focus articles by providing a 'playtester and tournament player' who's an expert in 'such and such' army. In my experience, army experts will fight tooth and nail to keep their favorites from being nerfed, even (or especially) if they need it. Anything else gets a pass.
yukishiro1 wrote: The issue with how silly the points changes to grots are is really played up when you notice that nurglings got no points increase at all, something that is so mind-boggling that you almost think they just missed them in their spreadsheet because they're swarms not infantry.
54 points of nurglings: 12 T2 wounds, 5++/5+++ (for D1).
55 points of grots: 11 T2 wounds, 6+ save.
Nurglings also get infiltrate, which is straight-up fire in the new missions.
Swarms in general didn't see significant point increases, since they cannot interact with a lot of scoring stuff.
Oh, that's a good point I guess: nurglings can't do actions.
No one is shooting BCs at them or if they do... you're winning. A TFC gets no extra shots and kills half a unit. Previously that mean 10 grits dead. Now it means 1 dead and maybe some more.
For 50 points you could take a deffkopta though, which is more durable, faster, fly and is better in CC and shooting. At 80 you could have 10 boyz. I suspect this is the age of extinction for the little fellas
As you should take deffkoptas if you want something for that particular role, but that really depends on the rest of your list. Not taking boyz and need to fill troop slots? FA full up with buggies? Need grot shields?
So, to the fellas who were like "you can't draw any conclusions yet, maybe the FAQs have changed things!" The FAQs are now out. Am I allowed to have a opinion on all these changes now, or do I have to wait until 10th edition?
Essentially no changes in the DG and CSMfaqs, just a couple changes to game phrases ie Kharn's Betrayer rule effects friendly models in "engagement range".
Voss wrote: May also point to playtesters sticking to their bubble and only providing feedback on the units they already 'know' are good.
Other stuff getting a cursory 'yeah, that's fine' to GW and a private muttered 'who even cares, anyway?'
Its possible, but this feels very much like a GW gonna do what GW want to do job.
To some extent - I can see the old agonies.
Like okay, lets say Grots are overcosted at 5 points. I can see that. Lets say they should be 4. (Argue the toss to get down to 3 etc - but go with it).
If you were bringing say 30... that's still only 30 points lost. In a 2k list, its not all that. If you were bringing 90 okay its more significant, but arguably by bringing 90 (or whatever) you are making your opponent's list ask some questions.
I never really liked this argument, because... maths is maths and everything should be balanced - but at the same time those 30 points is only 30 points, its probably not making or breaking a game.
But lets look at the Guardsman.
I can now take a flamer, a grenade launcher or a plasma gun for the same 5 points. Now okay, maybe you apply the same logic above and go "well lets say we are off, its only a few points".
But... I'm not convinced by that at all. There is no evidence of trying to balance these different options. The idea these are worth the same is faintly laughable.
Now I can see playtesters going "it doesn't seem that broken" - and indeed it might not be - but I feel safe in saying you won't see guard without plasma, if indeed they bother with the special weapon. Because I think the maths will come out that way except perhaps if you knew your opponent was only running Ork Boyz, and enjoyed being mopped up by so many armies in the game.
BlaxicanX wrote: So, to the fellas who were like "you can't draw any conclusions yet, maybe the FAQs have changed things!" The FAQs are now out. Am I allowed to have a opinion on all these changes now, or do I have to wait until 10th edition?
Nah, still plenty of things we could wait for. Maybe the BRBfaq will change some key thing? Then you have to wait for the meta to settle. Then it will probably be a new codex or something.
Jokes aside, I think as long as you keep in mind that it is hard to be 100% certain about your conclusions it should be fine.
BlaxicanX wrote: So, to the fellas who were like "you can't draw any conclusions yet, maybe the FAQs have changed things!" The FAQs are now out. Am I allowed to have a opinion on all these changes now, or do I have to wait until 10th edition?
Nah, still plenty of things we could wait for. Maybe the BRBfaq will change some key thing? Then you have to wait for the meta to settle. Then it will probably be a new codex or something.
Jokes aside, I think as long as you keep in mind that it is hard to be 100% certain about your conclusions it should be fine.
What I'm confused about is that they didn't update the chainswords for all Astartes. It seemed like they were certainly set to do that for all marines, but I see it nowhere in the FAQ. I imagine they'll do it in the codex then, but will CSM get them, too?
Minimarines don't get the better bolters, so why would they get the better chainswords?
Primaris just do everything better. That's always been GW's approach, presumably in order to get all the space marine players to replace their collections with new Primaris collections.
@Karol - yes, fast dedicated transports are key for everyone. The reason it’s so much more important for DG is because the way that codex is structured, combined with the way 9th ed missions seem to play, means your standard foot-sloghing DG no have ZERO chance to win even in a “friendly” game. For some factions, transports will be extremely helpful - for DG- as things currently sit, they will be borderline unplayable in most cases w/out those Rhinos.
yukishiro1 wrote: Minimarines don't get the better bolters, so why would they get the better chainswords?
Primaris just do everything better. That's always been GW's approach, presumably in order to get all the space marine players to replace their collections with new Primaris collections.
There was an article on, but cant recall which. The new storm shields aren't named differently, which implies crossover.
That's a nice Land Raider you got there... Here, let me fix that for you *drops an 80pt Meltagun Scion Command Squad 5" away for 1CP*, and a 40pt Tempestor Prime 9" away... Total cost: 120pts, Land Raider: 180+weapons...
BUT WAIT!
THERE'S MORE!
Now you can Deep Strike your Lambdan Lions Tempestus Plasmagun Command Squads with their own dedicated Primes and still have additional Primes to hand out orders on the frontlines, since the Ro3 is gone!
Slayer6 wrote: That's a nice Land Raider you got there... Here, let me fix that for you *drops an 80pt Meltagun Scion Command Squad 5" away for 1CP*, and a 40pt Tempestor Prime 9" away... Total cost: 120pts, Land Raider: 180+weapons...
BUT WAIT!
THERE'S MORE!
Now you can Deep Strike your Lambdan Lions Tempestus Plasmagun Command Squads with their own dedicated Primes and still have additional Primes to hand out orders on the frontlines, since the Ro3 is gone!
Daedalus81 wrote: What I'm confused about is that they didn't update the chainswords for all Astartes. It seemed like they were certainly set to do that for all marines, but I see it nowhere in the FAQ. I imagine they'll do it in the codex then, but will CSM get them, too?
Can't see the woods for the trees. I'd bet good money that if you asked them that question they'd answer with something along the lines of "But don't people play them that way already?". GW is a very "we play this way and we assume everyone else does too" place. If it was't updated it was probably because they assume it didn't need to be updated.
BlaxicanX wrote: So, to the fellas who were like "you can't draw any conclusions yet, maybe the FAQs have changed things!" The FAQs are now out. Am I allowed to have a opinion on all these changes now, or do I have to wait until 10th edition?
Well people here are already saying "We need to play games first!", so no, you're not allowed to have an opinion.
They should definitely errata all marine chainswords and stormshields to work the same way. It will just be confusing if there are several different versions of the same item in one army.
Slayer6 wrote: That's a nice Land Raider you got there... Here, let me fix that for you *drops an 80pt Meltagun Scion Command Squad 5" away for 1CP*, and a 40pt Tempestor Prime 9" away... Total cost: 120pts, Land Raider: 180+weapons...
BUT WAIT!
THERE'S MORE!
Now you can Deep Strike your Lambdan Lions Tempestus Plasmagun Command Squads with their own dedicated Primes and still have additional Primes to hand out orders on the frontlines, since the Ro3 is gone!
GG GW ya morons...
Ro3 is a mission restriction now.
But no longer a core rule, which means if the specific missions aren't being used, then it can be abused and ignored. It's @#$%ups like this which make new iterations of 40k, less than amazing...
Tyel wrote: Games may matter - but intuitively this seems profoundly negative.
As I think a lot of people have said, this feels like they hurriedly gave this to an intern, GW said "our basic principles are X, Y and Z" and so they just pointed stuff accordingly and then it was thrown out.
There seems to be almost no serious thought towards creating a balanced game, so yes, considerations of units are all over the shop.
Perhaps the most disappointing is that, as people have said, the good stuff seems to have got better, and the bad stuff seems to have got worse. Not universally perhaps, but in so many cases to show this was a job lot decision.
May also point to playtesters sticking to their bubble and only providing feedback on the units they already 'know' are good.
Other stuff getting a cursory 'yeah, that's fine' to GW and a private muttered 'who even cares, anyway?'
GW introduced most of the Faction Focus articles by providing a 'playtester and tournament player' who's an expert in 'such and such' army. In my experience, army experts will fight tooth and nail to keep their favorites from being nerfed, even (or especially) if they need it. Anything else gets a pass.
If you're looking at 5 point handflamers and 50 point twin Multimeltas and thinking 'yeah, playtesters did that'...you're just wrong.
Nah, im done with GW. Been dealing with the chaos tax for to long. 6 point cultists and 14 point CSM's while Inter's are at 20. That's just blatant favoritism. Problem is, not sure where is the best place is to sell my stuff? Ebay?
Crimson wrote: They should definitely errata all marine chainswords and stormshields to work the same way. It will just be confusing if there are several different versions of the same item in one army.
The chainsword isn't the same. There's a normal chainsword, and an astartes chainsword. Not the same item.
BlaxicanX wrote: So, to the fellas who were like "you can't draw any conclusions yet, maybe the FAQs have changed things!" The FAQs are now out. Am I allowed to have a opinion on all these changes now, or do I have to wait until 10th edition?
Essentially no changes in the DG and CSMfaqs, just a couple changes to game phrases ie Kharn's Betrayer rule effects friendly models in "engagement range".
Crimson wrote: They should definitely errata all marine chainswords and stormshields to work the same way. It will just be confusing if there are several different versions of the same item in one army.
The chainsword isn't the same. There's a normal chainsword, and an astartes chainsword. Not the same item.
He did say Marine Chainswords, not all Chainswords.
Table wrote: Nah, im done with GW. Been dealing with the chaos tax for to long. 6 point cultists and 14 point CSM's while Inter's are at 20. That's just blatant favoritism. Problem is, not sure where is the best place is to sell my stuff? Ebay?
Selling your army just as you think they have been nerfed seems like a terrible market decision...
But no longer a core rule, which means if the specific missions aren't being used, then it can be abused and ignored. It's @#$%ups like this which make new iterations of 40k, less than amazing...
It wasn't really a core rule either before.
It was a suggested rule for tournament organizers to implement, that then got widely accepted as "basically a core rule".
Crimson wrote: They should definitely errata all marine chainswords and stormshields to work the same way. It will just be confusing if there are several different versions of the same item in one army.
The chainsword isn't the same. There's a normal chainsword, and an astartes chainsword. Not the same item.
He did say Marine Chainswords, not all Chainswords.
Right, but it's not the same item. There's a Chainsword, and then an Astartes Chainsword. The Primaris guys get the Astartes Chainsword, the minimarines get the normal Chainswords. It's not any more confusing to have both than to have power swords and power mauls.
Table wrote: Nah, im done with GW. Been dealing with the chaos tax for to long. 6 point cultists and 14 point CSM's while Inter's are at 20. That's just blatant favoritism. Problem is, not sure where is the best place is to sell my stuff? Ebay?
Ebay is kinnda crap for selling mini's these days, you'll either get ignored or scalped with very little middle ground. The best place would actually be your local 40k focused facebook group/discord channel, because even if it goes for a little less than you want, there is no shipping or listing fee, and your growing your local scene. Failing that, I'd suggest the miniswap subreddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/Miniswap/ though it's becoming more popular which means dealing with jerks.
