Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/12 17:42:56


Post by: CommanderWalrus


Hello! I'm the OP for that "we all need to wait and see" thread
I started that thread to caution my comrades in the hobby against holding too hard to their expectations, good and bad. It started a lot of discussion that I greatly enjoyed, and I would like to get a general reaction/feedback to the new codexes thread going.
I'll start with what I think of the new Codexes, although note that as a dedicated Necron fan I will have more to say on that than the Marines

the good
I really like a lot of the changes in the new books overall. I really feel like Necrons as a whole were made into a much more fun and customizable army, with better internal balancing and many more options. It's not all good, but overall I really think they made the whole faction more fun to play as and against.
While the Marine nerfs aren't what we were hoping for, there are still some and I think it's a step in the right direction. I'm honestly against them nerfing Marines "too" hard, because that would just create a cycle of them getting buffed again(and can you imagine how annoying it would be if the main complaint went straight from "they're too good" to "they're too bad"?)
Necrons got a lot of stuff they were missing before, good melee, good Troops, more options, etc. It legitimately gives me hope that the guys making these books can figure out what's wrong and fix it.
While they might not be super viable in competitive meta(idk though, I'm really not an expert), Necrons are definitely better off than they were. And Marines might still be annoyingly strong, but I do feel like the slight nerfs open up a lot of opportunities for other armies against them.
And it's a small thing, but I really like the formatting on the new books. It feels much more intuitive and easy to get into. YMMV of course, but I think the books are just easier to read.
I still think that a points drop is not only coming for Necrons, but will help a lot. Definitely not a full fix, but I think it would help. You can accuse me of maintaining a wait and see mindset even after we've actually seen, but I do feel like a buff is pretty likely.
the bad
Necrons were definitely one of the weakest factions in the game, and I'm a little confused that they were nerfed in some areas? Like, it's on the level of someone deciding "Tau are too good at melee, let's nerf them", like, what? I don't like to complain too much, but I don't know why you would be so restrictive on a faction that clearly just needs to be a little stronger.
I said that Necrons have more options, but that's only in most areas. For some reason, their relics and warlord traits are even worse than they were. I have no idea why they refused to give them better relics/traits, like, um, it's a new book, you can give them new stuff?
While I feel like Necrons and Marines are still more even with each other by a lot, it's still a little upsetting to compare the books and realize how obvious it is which faction GW likes more. It's not unexpected, but I just wish the power gap wasn't so obvious.

the ugly
All this and the Monolith is still bad :( it needs so little to be good at this point and yet it's not.
Eradicators definitely go under "ugly" but people with more experience have already discussed them more extensively. So I'm just acknowledging that it's a big issue
The number of different datasheets for the same units in the Marime codex makes me worry for the writers health.
A lot of the units that didn't get new models feel left behind real bad and that makes me sad(poor Obelisk)

Overall
My reaction is overall positive, but I do like to remain positive even on silly internet forums. I recognize the flaws present in these books but still feel like it's a huge step in the right direction. Not the silver bullet full fix we wanted, but I definitely feel like we're much better off with these books. Also the new models look cool durr.
But please, tell me your opinions! If you think I'm completely stupid, than unironically ill accept that. If you agree, then I'd love to see your thoughts! No matter what, I just want to hear what others have to say on these releases. Please be polite to each other in this thread, I might no mind accusations of idiocy or foolish idealism, but most people do.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/12 17:57:15


Post by: Cynista


Games Workshop opened themselves up for scrutiny when they decided to release two codices at the same time, as the first books of the edition. The onus was on them to set a good precedent and they didn't.

As much as I'm trying to find powerful and fun builds, it's very very obvious that the Necron codex is substantially weaker and generally lacking compared to the Space Marine book and GW deserve to be criticised for it.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/12 17:58:33


Post by: Xenomancers


The monolith is good LOL.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/12 17:59:46


Post by: Eldarain


 Xenomancers wrote:
The monolith is good LOL.

Stompa, Ork Buggy good?


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/12 18:10:45


Post by: Tyranid Horde


I think the difference in power level between the two factions is not a good thing, and nor is the fact that Marines are annoyingly strong.

I expected Necrons to be at least somewhat on par with marines, but they're unsurprisingly not.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/12 18:16:25


Post by: Canadian 5th


Have people actually played Crons vs Marines yet or is all this talk about the imbalance all just theory crafting?


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/12 18:20:36


Post by: Dudeface


 Canadian 5th wrote:
Have people actually played Crons vs Marines yet or is all this talk about the imbalance all just theory crafting?


They saw YouTube vids probably. It'll be mostly theory and knee jerking.

Xeno has a point on the monolith, it does have some uses and is an expensive ace in the hole potentially.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/12 18:25:12


Post by: Cynista


 Canadian 5th wrote:
Have people actually played Crons vs Marines yet or is all this talk about the imbalance all just theory crafting?

Some people have. Although it isn't necessary, just read both books and it's stunningly obvious. The funny thing is that head to head, the right Necron build will actually do quite well against the Marine meta (lots of power armour, few vehicles) that we will see. If there's one thing I think they can do well, it's killing Space Marines.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/12 18:26:49


Post by: Dudeface


Cynista wrote:
 Canadian 5th wrote:
Have people actually played Crons vs Marines yet or is all this talk about the imbalance all just theory crafting?

Some people have. Although it isn't necessary, just read both books and it's stunningly obvious. The funny thing is that head to head, the right Necron build will actually do quite well against the Marine meta (lots of power armour, few vehicles) that we will see. If there's one thing I think they can do well, it's killing Space Marines.


This... makes no sense, the marine book is better but the necron can easily beat them?


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/12 18:29:05


Post by: Cynista


Dudeface wrote:
Cynista wrote:
 Canadian 5th wrote:
Have people actually played Crons vs Marines yet or is all this talk about the imbalance all just theory crafting?

Some people have. Although it isn't necessary, just read both books and it's stunningly obvious. The funny thing is that head to head, the right Necron build will actually do quite well against the Marine meta (lots of power armour, few vehicles) that we will see. If there's one thing I think they can do well, it's killing Space Marines.


This... makes no sense, the marine book is better but the necron can easily beat them?

Yes it does. Use your brain. And I didn't say easily.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/12 18:29:50


Post by: Canadian 5th


Cynista wrote:
 Canadian 5th wrote:
Have people actually played Crons vs Marines yet or is all this talk about the imbalance all just theory crafting?

Some people have. Although it isn't necessary, just read both books and it's stunningly obvious. The funny thing is that head to head, the right Necron build will actually do quite well against the Marine meta (lots of power armour, few vehicles) that we will see. If there's one thing I think they can do well, it's killing Space Marines.

Common wisdom often makes fools of us all.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/12 18:32:36


Post by: Voss


Cynista wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Cynista wrote:
 Canadian 5th wrote:
Have people actually played Crons vs Marines yet or is all this talk about the imbalance all just theory crafting?

Some people have. Although it isn't necessary, just read both books and it's stunningly obvious. The funny thing is that head to head, the right Necron build will actually do quite well against the Marine meta (lots of power armour, few vehicles) that we will see. If there's one thing I think they can do well, it's killing Space Marines.


This... makes no sense, the marine book is better but the necron can easily beat them?

Yes it does. Use your brain. And I didn't say easily.


But you've clearly said necrons will do quite well. But also that the imbalance is 'stunningly obvious.'

I'd say his brain is doing quite well if he finds those to be incompatible assertions.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/12 18:33:33


Post by: Dudeface


Cynista wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Cynista wrote:
 Canadian 5th wrote:
Have people actually played Crons vs Marines yet or is all this talk about the imbalance all just theory crafting?

Some people have. Although it isn't necessary, just read both books and it's stunningly obvious. The funny thing is that head to head, the right Necron build will actually do quite well against the Marine meta (lots of power armour, few vehicles) that we will see. If there's one thing I think they can do well, it's killing Space Marines.


This... makes no sense, the marine book is better but the necron can easily beat them?

Yes it does. Use your brain. And I didn't say easily.


They can be built to do well against marines and "if there's one thing I think they can do well, it's killing marines", doesn't suggest they find it easy?


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/12 18:35:03


Post by: Aaranis


One of our local top players read the Necrons book and said there were really good elements there. From his words: Flayed Ones are great and can be buffed to high levels, and the C'tan shards of the Void Dragon and Night Bringer are almost auto-include. I didn't listen to the rest as I started discussing with someone else but I'm curious to see what the competitive scene will make of that instead of the usually negative and dismissive Dakka Community (don't take it badly folks I'm like that too).

I hope the writers will be a consistent team and not like in AoS where you feel like there's a team that writes the most broken OP stuff they can, and another team that loves to write fluffy casual books. I hope there was COMMUNICATION in the writing of 9th overall.

I'm eager to play against those two new codices but the pandemic isn't getting any better and my store has closed games again sadly.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/12 18:36:38


Post by: Xenomancers


 Eldarain wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
The monolith is good LOL.

Stompa, Ork Buggy good?
Ork buggies are good - top tier ATM actually. Never said Stompa was amazing. Just that it wasnt the worst unit in the game. Typical dakka. Bad memories.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/12 18:37:59


Post by: Galas


Necrons are basically a new army with triple the options they had before. I laugh at how people is so fast to disregard them as a bad competitive force, specially without big tournament evidence for covid.

I'm not saying they are better than marines but they are in no way bad.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/12 18:38:54


Post by: Cynista


Voss wrote:
Cynista wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Cynista wrote:
 Canadian 5th wrote:
Have people actually played Crons vs Marines yet or is all this talk about the imbalance all just theory crafting?

Some people have. Although it isn't necessary, just read both books and it's stunningly obvious. The funny thing is that head to head, the right Necron build will actually do quite well against the Marine meta (lots of power armour, few vehicles) that we will see. If there's one thing I think they can do well, it's killing Space Marines.


This... makes no sense, the marine book is better but the necron can easily beat them?

Yes it does. Use your brain. And I didn't say easily.


But you've clearly said necrons will do quite well. But also that the imbalance is 'stunningly obvious.'

I'd say his brain is doing quite well if he finds those to be incompatible assertions.

They are not incompatible assertions. If you can't see that, then I'd kindly ask you to use your brain too before wading in.

This is not a difficult concept to understand (although I could be wrong and Necrons could be horrible against Marines), because the status quo hasn't changed. Necrons were already an anti-meta pick. Back end of 8th they were one of the only factions who were beating Marines, despite having one of the weakest books.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/12 18:43:39


Post by: Canadian 5th


Cynista wrote:
They are not incompatible assertions. If you can't see that, then I'd kindly ask you to use your brain too before wading in.

This is not a difficult concept to understand (although I could be wrong and Necrons could be horrible against Marines), because the status quo hasn't changed. Necrons were already an anti-meta pick. Back end of 8th they were one of the only factions who were beating Marines, despite having one of the weakest books.

Would you elucidate on why they're so weak? If it's obvious it shouldn't take much time for you to explain it to us Luddites who think the Necrons look pretty awesome.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/12 18:50:22


Post by: Dudeface


Cynista wrote:
Voss wrote:
Cynista wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Cynista wrote:
 Canadian 5th wrote:
Have people actually played Crons vs Marines yet or is all this talk about the imbalance all just theory crafting?

Some people have. Although it isn't necessary, just read both books and it's stunningly obvious. The funny thing is that head to head, the right Necron build will actually do quite well against the Marine meta (lots of power armour, few vehicles) that we will see. If there's one thing I think they can do well, it's killing Space Marines.


This... makes no sense, the marine book is better but the necron can easily beat them?

Yes it does. Use your brain. And I didn't say easily.


But you've clearly said necrons will do quite well. But also that the imbalance is 'stunningly obvious.'

I'd say his brain is doing quite well if he finds those to be incompatible assertions.

They are not incompatible assertions. If you can't see that, then I'd kindly ask you to use your brain too before wading in.

This is not a difficult concept to understand (although I could be wrong and Necrons could be horrible against Marines), because the status quo hasn't changed. Necrons were already an anti-meta pick. Back end of 8th they were one of the only factions who were beating Marines, despite having one of the weakest books.


So what you were trying to say is necrons can be pushed into being efficient against marines specifically but weak overall, whereas most marine options can be slapped together with no real loss.

Because if necrons aren't considered overly weak against other armies and can beat Marines, that puts them at number 1 contention.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/12 18:52:30


Post by: Bosskelot


Even if people are judging Necron performance on youtube battle reports I have to ask; which battle reports? Both TTTactics and TTTitans have Marine v Necron reports and both were incredibly close, with Necrons winning in Tactics and losing in Titans. And the differences were like 4 points each time. In Titans other Necron batrep they kind of stomped a Daemon list.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/12 18:53:18


Post by: Xenomancers


On the whole - Necrons match up REALLY well with marines.

Just wait. Armies with 30 deathmarks killing all your characters while also being really hard to kill with t5 and 3+ essentially a 5+ FNP.
Immortals and warriors get great returns and win battles of attrition with equal points of marines.
Pretorians Murder rek primaris like it's their job (oh yeah it is their job)
Doom stalkers are good against literally everything they shoot in the army.

I wouldn't bring a monolith against marines if I had a choice. Simply because eradicators exist but anyone reasonable knows that wont last longer than a month.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/12 18:54:19


Post by: reds8n



Use your brain


Can we please avoid making comments like this. Really doesn't add anything to a discussion and is guaranteed to get people's backs up and quite possibly derail the whole thread.


ta.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/12 18:59:26


Post by: a_typical_hero


Cynista wrote:
They are not incompatible assertions. If you can't see that, then I'd kindly ask you to use your brain too before wading in.

This is not a difficult concept to understand (although I could be wrong and Necrons could be horrible against Marines), because the status quo hasn't changed. Necrons were already an anti-meta pick. Back end of 8th they were one of the only factions who were beating Marines, despite having one of the weakest books.

If that would have been the case, we would have seen Necrons making top placements like Orks do right now. I can't recall such results. Can you please provide me a link where I can verify it myself?


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/12 19:00:32


Post by: Cynista


Dudeface wrote:
So what you were trying to say is necrons can be pushed into being efficient against marines specifically but weak overall, whereas most marine options can be slapped together with no real loss.

I said precisely what I meant.

But yes, you now have the general idea. They have the tools to kill marines. Of course, marines have the tools to kill everything. So like I said, my optimistic prediction that Necrons will be anti-meta again could be wrong.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/12 19:27:48


Post by: BrianDavion


what armies do necrons struggle with? they seem pretty potent to me. sure Marines have a lot more options but well.. we knew that


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/12 19:34:40


Post by: vipoid


 CommanderWalrus wrote:

I said that Necrons have more options, but that's only in most areas. For some reason, their relics and warlord traits are even worse than they were. I have no idea why they refused to give them better relics/traits, like, um, it's a new book, you can give them new stuff?


This is the part that really gets me.

Given that the non-Cryptek Necron characters still have very little wargear, artefacts and warlord traits are going to be the main way in which you differentiate them . . . and they're almost universally terrible.

The worst part is that they're not just bad, they're also boring. Nanoscarab Casket used to let a model heal in your opponent's turn and gave it a 50% chance of coming back to life the first time it died. Now it lets you heal a single extra wound each turn and does literally nothing else.

Because a Necron character coming back to life would just break the fluff entirely.


And then we've got joys like the Sempiternal Weave (seriously, the Timesplinter Cloak was removed but this stayed?), which is just +1T, +1W. Does there even exist an item with a less exciting effect than this?


Maybe they'll still be competitive but it seems like a lot of potentially fun options and builds have been removed for no good reason.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/12 19:48:08


Post by: yukishiro1


Cynista wrote:
Games Workshop opened themselves up for scrutiny when they decided to release two codices at the same time, as the first books of the edition. The onus was on them to set a good precedent and they didn't.

As much as I'm trying to find powerful and fun builds, it's very very obvious that the Necron codex is substantially weaker and generally lacking compared to the Space Marine book and GW deserve to be criticised for it.


Yeah, this is really what it comes down to. By releasing two books at once, they invite comparisons between the two, and they just aren't very favorable.

Which in a lot of ways is a shame, because standing alone, the Necron book is a solid 8/10, replacing a book that was more like a 3/10. It's a massive improvement.

If only the Space Marine codex was like the Necron one, I think we'd all be a lot more positive about the direction of the game.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/12 19:50:23


Post by: JohnnyHell


The Necron won’t won’t get nerfed, and the Marine one no doubt will. Necrons stand to gain in time I guess!


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/12 19:53:17


Post by: Mmmpi


Voss wrote:
Cynista wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Cynista wrote:
 Canadian 5th wrote:
Have people actually played Crons vs Marines yet or is all this talk about the imbalance all just theory crafting?

Some people have. Although it isn't necessary, just read both books and it's stunningly obvious. The funny thing is that head to head, the right Necron build will actually do quite well against the Marine meta (lots of power armour, few vehicles) that we will see. If there's one thing I think they can do well, it's killing Space Marines.


This... makes no sense, the marine book is better but the necron can easily beat them?

Yes it does. Use your brain. And I didn't say easily.


But you've clearly said necrons will do quite well. But also that the imbalance is 'stunningly obvious.'

I'd say his brain is doing quite well if he finds those to be incompatible assertions.


He said a specific build will do well against marines. Nothing about that makes his assertion that the book is overall less powerful false or incompatible.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/12 19:54:48


Post by: yukishiro1


Yes, that is what gives me the most hope. But that relies on the SM book being the outlier.

We'll have a better idea once we see the DG book. If that is at the Necron power level, it's going to be a good sign that GW Gee-dubbed it up again with Space Marines.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/12 20:10:11


Post by: Xenomancers


I think an important observation that needs to be made here. Space marine auras while a nerfed a little a great deal (still affect most of their army) while MWBD has been massively nerfed and can't be used on many really powerful units (just troop squads and tombblades moslty). I think this has to be an error as the intention of core...had to be an attempt to reduce the abuse of auras (which space marines were the main offender).

When a fix goes so far from fixing the problem it was attempting to fix and makes things worse. It makes you scratch your head a little. It gives me hope though that this is an oversite and it will be fixed.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/12 20:18:07


Post by: yukishiro1


I think it shows that the designers of the two books had vastly different visions for how <CORE> was supposed to work. The Necron designers took the whole <CORE> thing seriously and interpreted it restrictively to limit many of the more powerful effects in the codex to pretty much only the basic troops of the faction.

The SM designers, meanwhile, seem to have thought that <CORE> was just supposed to stop a chapter master being a buffbot for a bunch of repulsors (ironically not an issue for years now) and that was it, it wasn't supposed to do anything more than that. As a result, they designed a book where <CORE> was the default, with only a small handful of exceptions.

The place you can see this most clearly is in allowing the Chapter master reroll buff to hit characters in addition to <CORE>. This makes no sense in the context of the way the Necron book deals with <CORE>.

It's hardly the first time GW has been caught with its employees not singing off the same hymn sheet, but it's disappointing to see it still happening, especially with concurrently released flagship books for the new edition.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/12 20:18:58


Post by: Tyel


Mixed views really.

I think the Necron codex is great - and if everyone got a similar sort of codex, I think the game would be in a great spot. I'm not quite sure on "the tournament build" - but most things feel on the healthier side of viable, as opposed to "I cannot stop laughing".

Marines unfortunately feels like a minor tone down and GW probably needed to go further. Its going to prompt a shuffling of the deck (well, I say that, eradicators were already here) and will still be the army to beat. I don't really want marines to be nerfed into oblivion (well, not all the time) - but the prospect of another year of marine meta kind of sucks.

GW need to add a gangbusters style secondary ASAP.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/12 20:27:26


Post by: BrianDavion


yukishiro1 wrote:
I think it shows that the designers of the two books had vastly different visions for how <CORE> was supposed to work. The Necron designers took the whole <CORE> thing seriously and interpreted it restrictively to limit many of the more powerful effects in the codex to pretty much only the basic troops of the faction.

The SM designers, meanwhile, seem to have thought that <CORE> was just supposed to stop a chapter master being a buffbot for a bunch of repulsors (ironically not an issue for years now) and that was it, it wasn't supposed to do anything more than that. As a result, they designed a book where <CORE> was the default, with only a small handful of exceptions.

The place you can see this most clearly is in allowing the Chapter master reroll buff to hit characters in addition to <CORE>. This makes no sense in the context of the way the Necron book deals with <CORE>.

It's hardly the first time GW has been caught with its employees not singing off the same hymn sheet, but it's disappointing to see it still happening, especially with concurrently released flagship books for the new edition.


core being this widespread to marines honestly doesn't suprise me, in part because GW had already defined what was core for marines some time ago in codex 8.0 (hence why chapter tactics initally was infantry dreads and bikes only) with that in mind I think the armies that emerge well from core will be the armies with a large well defined core. armies with a poorly defined core on the other hand, may have some issues.



We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/12 20:38:33


Post by: yukishiro1


But that shouldn't be the case. Any time a new concept is introduced into the game, it should be introduced into the game in a balance-neutral way. Armies that are almost all <CORE> should pay for that advantage with units that are less efficient base-line. <CORE> shouldn't end up screwing over some factions and helping others balance wise because <reasons>, it should be pointed for like anything else.

GW screws up the balance of its game time and time again by failing to follow this most basic of game design concepts. They throw stuff into the game willy-nilly without regard for the balance, and then try to fix it afterwards.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/12 21:30:35


Post by: EightFoldPath


A Sautekh 9th edition army gets:
51 data sheets (best of any dynasty by a good few)
35 strategems
7 warlord traits
9 relics
21 extras (12 arkana + 9 c'tan powers)

An Ultramarines 9th edition army gets (I ran out of fingers and toes several times so may have miscounted):
110 data sheets (116% more)
50 strategems (42% more)
18 warlord traits (157% more)
30 relics (233% more)
45 extras (7 chapter command upgrades with 7 more warlord traits and 7 more relics, 18 psychic powers, 6 litanies) (114% more)

The supplements are the mistake that keeps on giving.

Also, don't worry forgeworld will be coming soon to give Space Marines a much needed helping hand.

For Necrons in general:

Only 5 out of 51 data sheets are Core. Then they have Capotek and Destroyer Cult as alternatives. This is bad, as it splits the book into three groups that don't work with each other.

The command protocols are also really hard to use effectively, you are constantly thinking "wish I had this one last turn/ext turn". Then when you do get the right protocol, your unit isn't in range of any characters... Can't I just I have an extra AP on all my rapid fire and assault guns turn 2 and 3 no matter where I am standing?


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/12 21:36:17


Post by: yukishiro1


No. Instead you get an extra 1AP when you roll 6s to wound...an ability so powerful it has to be gated behind a once per game limitation you decide at the start of the game, and that you need a character within 9" to proc.

Space marines 1AP period in predictable ways is not nearly as powerful, and therefore just activates automatically with no thought required.

Oh, wait.

Protocols are an interesting idea and some of them are actually good, but man did they go overboard with the terms and conditions, and man a lot of them sure are duds. After all the T&Cs you would think that the +1AP ones could just be +1AP for shooting, or for melee, period...but no, instead it's only on a 6 to wound, i.e. like 1/10th as powerful.



We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/12 22:53:39


Post by: nekooni


yukishiro1 wrote:
No. Instead you get an extra 1AP when you roll 6s to wound...an ability so powerful it has to be gated behind a once per game limitation you decide at the start of the game, and that you need a character within 9" to proc.

Space marines 1AP period in predictable ways is not nearly as powerful, and therefore just activates automatically with no thought required.

Oh, wait.

Protocols are an interesting idea and some of them are actually good, but man did they go overboard with the terms and conditions, and man a lot of them sure are duds. After all the T&Cs you would think that the +1AP ones could just be +1AP for shooting, or for melee, period...but no, instead it's only on a 6 to wound, i.e. like 1/10th as powerful.


1/6th. It's a d6 system. Just saying :p
But yeah , I was massively underwhelmed by the protocols.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/12 23:03:18


Post by: vipoid


EightFoldPath wrote:
A Sautekh 9th edition army gets:
51 data sheets (best of any dynasty by a good few)
35 strategems
7 warlord traits
9 relics
21 extras (12 arkana + 9 c'tan powers)

An Ultramarines 9th edition army gets (I ran out of fingers and toes several times so may have miscounted):
110 data sheets (116% more)
50 strategems (42% more)
18 warlord traits (157% more)
30 relics (233% more)
45 extras (7 chapter command upgrades with 7 more warlord traits and 7 more relics, 18 psychic powers, 6 litanies) (114% more)


If you think that's bad, a Poison Tongue DE army gets:
15 data sheets
18 strategems
4 warlord traits
5 relics
0 extras

I realise they haven't had a 9th edition codex yet, but still.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/12 23:04:13


Post by: Galas


TBH I believe the problem are not protocols or Grey Knights tides or Sisters of Battle stuff. Those are all mono-codex buffs that actually make the player to chose stuff and plan ahead. They are engaging and fun.

Space Marine doctrines are an aberration. In their basical form, they are the most boring stuff possible, and the most powerfull one, a direct +1 AP for a whole army for free. The super doctrines are pure cheese that feel like they are designed to be "fluffy" but in practice are just the cherry on top of the cheesecake thats the supplements.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/12 23:15:28


Post by: Cynista


EightFoldPath wrote:
Only 5 out of 51 data sheets are Core. Then they have Capotek and Destroyer Cult as alternatives. This is bad, as it splits the book into three groups that don't work with each other.

The problem here is they weren't brave enough with Crypteks and the whole army has suffered for it. Cryptek's should be the links holding everything together but there's not quite enough meat on the bone. All Cryptek's should be able to interact with all 3 army sections IMO


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/12 23:20:23


Post by: yukishiro1


nekooni wrote:

1/6th. It's a d6 system. Just saying :p
But yeah , I was massively underwhelmed by the protocols.


Actually more like 1/3, assuming you wound on average on a 4+; only things that actually wound get the AP. I dunno where I pulled 1/10th from.

There are some good protocols. Fall back and shoot is hard to time right, but it's a very powerful effect if you can make use of it. +1STR varies a lot, but if it translates into a break point, it's huge. Being able to shoot and do an action is usually meh but sometimes game-winning.

But yes, in general they feel a bit underpowered for how many T&Cs they are hidden behind. Frankly, they aren't any more powerful than canticles typically, so I'm not sure why they're locked in before the game, AND limited by dynasty. For that level of limitation, you'd expect a commensurate increase in power, and they don't get it. If you're taking the Silent King they're worth it because of how much he lets you manipulate them, but without that, frankly I think splashing in a Sautek patrol for the free vect on Nemesor Zandy may be more powerful.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/12 23:31:32


Post by: Sasori


I think a lot of people are vastly overestimating the gulf between Space Marines and Necrons right now.

Is the Space Marine Book stronger than the Necron book? Yeah, for sure. Can the Necron book compete with Space Marines? Absolutely.

The new Necron book is strong, and I think we're going to start seeing it pop up on top tables before too long.

That being said, it is not near as point as click as Space Marines. You have to do a lot of preplanning and execution is harder.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/12 23:36:16


Post by: yukishiro1


The new Necron book is excellent at killing Space Marines, so it'd be hugely problematic if it couldn't compete with the one faction it is best designed to beat.

I do think it's a good book. We won't know whether it's strong till we have something besides the SM codex to compare it to.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/12 23:42:31


Post by: EightFoldPath


 vipoid wrote:
EightFoldPath wrote:
A Sautekh 9th edition army gets:
51 data sheets (best of any dynasty by a good few)
35 strategems
7 warlord traits
9 relics
21 extras (12 arkana + 9 c'tan powers)

An Ultramarines 9th edition army gets (I ran out of fingers and toes several times so may have miscounted):
110 data sheets (116% more)
50 strategems (42% more)
18 warlord traits (157% more)
30 relics (233% more)
45 extras (7 chapter command upgrades with 7 more warlord traits and 7 more relics, 18 psychic powers, 6 litanies) (114% more)


If you think that's bad, a Poison Tongue DE army gets:
15 data sheets
18 strategems
4 warlord traits
5 relics
0 extras

I realise they haven't had a 9th edition codex yet, but still.

Agreed, there are plenty of similar 8th edition codexes like that.

As the first non SM 9th edition codex I was expecting at least an extra page of strategems, warlord traits and relics in the Necron book to help "keep up" with the space marine supplements.

I guess we now look towards the Death Guard codex to see if this is what all non SM factions should expect. It could be really painful for DG because they had a really limited 8th edition codex for so long and had just got some actual options with War of the Spider. If their 9th codex is as stingy as Necrons they may lose some of them due to lack of space.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/12 23:46:49


Post by: Sasori


How many total stratagems do Deathguard have now, including WotS?

Necrons got 40, that seems pretty reasonable for a codex. Nothing is going to compare to how many SM are getting with their supplements.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 00:34:21


Post by: H.B.M.C.


I want to know why they made even more equipment into strats (Meltabombs, smoke launchers, etc.).


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 01:01:08


Post by: Racerguy180


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I want to know why they made even more equipment into strats (Meltabombs, smoke launchers, etc.).


gotta spend that CP on something...I guess? Lame nonetheless.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 01:01:13


Post by: CKO


I have been trying to figure out what makes Space Marines so popular. I believe it is the fact that their troop choices are easier to use
.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 01:56:14


Post by: Argive


The usual suspects are strangely silent..


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 02:01:01


Post by: the_scotsman


Couple of unit comparisons:

Land Raider. A unit that's pretty universally regarded as not great. 285pts. T8 2+ W16. 4 lascannons, 6 S5 AP-1 D2 heavy bolter shots.

Monolith with Death Rays. 380pts. 8 more wounds, regenerates 1 wound per turn, 4 3+D3 damage antitank shots, D6 S8 Ap-3 D3 shots. Does have a nice autohitting melee attack.

The monolith is a LOW slot, so basically will never get a doctrine, deep strikes (if you want to leave nearly 400pts off the board just for fun) and does have the ability to transport 1 unit onto the board per turn, but can't move if it does so.

Basically it's a land raider you pour 1/3 more points into, gaining approximately 1 eradicator's shooting worth of extra durability and all your guns become 24" range, so you have to be closer. Is it worth 100pts and 3CP over the already bad LR?

IMO: Nope.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In order to steelman the 'crons, i'll assume every single time they always benefit from RPs.

Lychguard: 28pts per model. T5 W2 Sv3+, A3. Can either be outfitted with Scythes for S7 Ap-4 D2 or Blades for S6 Ap-3 D1 and gain a storm shield, becoming Sv2+ and 4++.

compare sword-and-board to an assault terminator with LCs.

The Lychguard are:

-Less durable vs boltguns/lasguns/other basic d1 fire
-identically durable vs heavy bolters, plasma, other D2 weaponry
-More durable vs D3 and D6 damage weaponry

The terminators deal more damage vs everything. 5A on the charge, less strength but reroll wounds more than makes up for that, and AP-1

Also, small note for a slow melee unit: The terminators deep strike.

For 1 point more than scythe lychguard, you can have jump pack vanvets with power fists. Basically, you get 12" move, fly, and native deep strike with essentially the same damage for 1pt, and only lose out on a small bit of durability.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 02:12:40


Post by: yukishiro1


It really feels like GW just doesn't understand how their own game works with large models. For every one they get basically right - the Silent King, for example - there are at least 5 that are just a complete mess.



We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 02:14:01


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


 Xenomancers wrote:
The monolith is good LOL.


The monolith is a Lord of War, so uh, I'm really not feeling it. It might be okay as a Heavy Support [with d6+4 pretty strong AT shots], but for 3 [or even 6] CP on top of it's extant cost? My bet is Nah.

It's also like a weak Lord of War. Like, it's not a Knight, and Knights are the bar for the slot it's in. It doesn't gak 36 mortal wound a turn either. So like, it's in a high value high expectation Lord of War slot that costs extra to unlock with the general performance of a big Heavy Support.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 02:14:22


Post by: the_scotsman


Praetorians compare even worse to vanvets. vanvets with 1 LC and jump pack are 24pts vs the praetorians at 25, praetorians have worse damage vs almost everything again thanks to the reroll wounds, move 10" instead of move 12" , no deep strike, and the same slight durability increase.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 02:14:39


Post by: yukishiro1


Pretty sure that was a Stompa joke...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_scotsman wrote:
Praetorians compare even worse to vanvets. vanvets with 1 LC and jump pack are 24pts vs the praetorians at 25, praetorians have worse damage vs almost everything again thanks to the reroll wounds, move 10" instead of move 12" , no deep strike, and the same slight durability increase.


I mostly agree re: your prior post on the lycheguard, this one seems more off to me. Praetorians have 2D (including S5 -3AP 2d shooting attacks), vanvets with LCs don't. But they do lose dynasty bonuses, and <CORE>, which is significant. I mean I guess technically they have the 1D loadout too, but literally nobody would ever take them that way because it's straight-up worse.

Now whitescars in assault doctrine make everything in the necron book look terrible, but they do that to pretty much everything in the game, sooo....


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 02:19:16


Post by: the_scotsman


Deathmarks: At 18ppm, they are in essence the same as a space marine sniper scout with slightly better damage (S5 Ap-2 vs S4 AP-1), for a couple points.

The 'huge buff' to deathmarks that necron players are supposed to get excited for is essentially the same thing as the 'soft squatting' of oldmarine scouts that marine players are claiming.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There are a few things in this book I think do compare favorably to the marine book just on the core statline - Immortals are fairly solid, Warriors are fairly solid, Ctan look good - but in general, the units are just to the same double standard that pretty much everything in the game seems to be now vs marines.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 02:26:23


Post by: Sasori


the_scotsman wrote:
Praetorians compare even worse to vanvets. vanvets with 1 LC and jump pack are 24pts vs the praetorians at 25, praetorians have worse damage vs almost everything again thanks to the reroll wounds, move 10" instead of move 12" , no deep strike, and the same slight durability increase.


Can you show your math for this, This doesn't look correct to me at face value. The Rod has Strength 5 -3 AP Flat Damage 2 in shooting and in melee. Even with the Reroll to wound and extra attack from the lighting claws it doesn't seem like on face value that Vangets get more damage through.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_scotsman wrote:
Deathmarks: At 18ppm, they are in essence the same as a space marine sniper scout with slightly better damage (S5 Ap-2 vs S4 AP-1), for a couple points.

The 'huge buff' to deathmarks that necron players are supposed to get excited for is essentially the same thing as the 'soft squatting' of oldmarine scouts that marine players are claiming.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There are a few things in this book I think do compare favorably to the marine book just on the core statline - Immortals are fairly solid, Warriors are fairly solid, Ctan look good - but in general, the units are just to the same double standard that pretty much everything in the game seems to be now vs marines.


Deathmarks also Have BS 2, T5 and a better base save. They also have their intercept stratagem as well, which can be used even when they are on the board.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 02:47:52


Post by: the_scotsman


I was comparing the variant with the pistol and blade to the unit with the pistol and blade. now I see that the rod is indeed 100% better for the same cost, and I would concede that praetorians except for not getting dynasty codes, Deep Strike or CORE do appear to be fairly comparable to vanvets.

There isn't really a good way to compare rod praets with vanvets truth be told. Vanvets don't have a mid-s multidamage weapon option.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Sasori wrote:


Deathmarks also Have BS 2, T5 and a better base save. They also have their intercept stratagem as well, which can be used even when they are on the board.


Better base save, but scouts can just have 2+ in cover with camo cloaks.

Slightly more durability, slightly more damage, couple points more expensive.

They're basic D1 snipers with MW on a 6. Those have existed since the index and have been nonfunctional since the index, because they simply do not kill characters fast enough to matter.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 02:52:52


Post by: Sasori


the_scotsman wrote:
I was comparing the variant with the pistol and blade to the unit with the pistol and blade. now I see that the rod is indeed 100% better for the same cost, and I would concede that praetorians except for not getting dynasty codes, Deep Strike or CORE do appear to be fairly comparable to vanvets.

There isn't really a good way to compare rod praets with vanvets truth be told. Vanvets don't have a mid-s multidamage weapon option.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Sasori wrote:


Deathmarks also Have BS 2, T5 and a better base save. They also have their intercept stratagem as well, which can be used even when they are on the board.


Better base save, but scouts can just have 2+ in cover with camo cloaks.

Slightly more durability, slightly more damage, couple points more expensive.

They're basic D1 snipers with MW on a 6. Those have existed since the index and have been nonfunctional since the index, because they simply do not kill characters fast enough to matter.


I mean, BS 2, T5 and base 3+ save with RP, +1 S and -1 AP on the sniper rifle is a pretty significant difference for 2 PPM more than sniper scouts. I don't disagree that Deathmarks are not amazing, but it feels like most snipers in the game really are not in a great spot.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 02:58:23


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


The nerfs to Necrons were absolutely hilarious and out of whack, no matter the buffs that single wound models got.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 03:00:06


Post by: Argive


EightFoldPath wrote:
 vipoid wrote:
EightFoldPath wrote:
A Sautekh 9th edition army gets:
51 data sheets (best of any dynasty by a good few)
35 strategems
7 warlord traits
9 relics
21 extras (12 arkana + 9 c'tan powers)

An Ultramarines 9th edition army gets (I ran out of fingers and toes several times so may have miscounted):
110 data sheets (116% more)
50 strategems (42% more)
18 warlord traits (157% more)
30 relics (233% more)
45 extras (7 chapter command upgrades with 7 more warlord traits and 7 more relics, 18 psychic powers, 6 litanies) (114% more)


If you think that's bad, a Poison Tongue DE army gets:
15 data sheets
18 strategems
4 warlord traits
5 relics
0 extras

I realise they haven't had a 9th edition codex yet, but still.

Agreed, there are plenty of similar 8th edition codexes like that.

As the first non SM 9th edition codex I was expecting at least an extra page of strategems, warlord traits and relics in the Necron book to help "keep up" with the space marine supplements.

I guess we now look towards the Death Guard codex to see if this is what all non SM factions should expect. It could be really painful for DG because they had a really limited 8th edition codex for so long and had just got some actual options with War of the Spider. If their 9th codex is as stingy as Necrons they may lose some of them due to lack of space.


Its almost like the amount of options/rules available correlates to performance and balance issues...


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 03:03:39


Post by: Sasori


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The nerfs to Necrons were absolutely hilarious and out of whack, no matter the buffs that single wound models got.


Nearly every single datasheet got improved across the board, some dramatically so. Most of our weapons got a complete overhaul and improved as well. Our Stratagems improved, our Dynasty codes are also vastly improved.

The buffs the dex received across the board far, far outweigh the changes to core.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 03:05:44


Post by: aphyon


H.B.M.C. wrote:I want to know why they made even more equipment into strats (Meltabombs, smoke launchers, etc.).


because your still thinking this is 40K. it is not 40K any more than AOS is warhammer fantasy. it is a totally new game system that uses it's own mechanics that are alien to everything that was 40K. the WHFB community didn't take it as well as the hardcore 40K fans and the majority jumped ship for other games like kings of war.

If GW had released a totally new game with all these mechanics and called it "whiskey tango foxtrot" there would be none of the anguish that we see constantly on the forums.

Because they are selling it under the 40K IP with the iconic troupes of the 40K universe and it is literally a completely different game than what 40K was for almost 20 years. those of us who existed before 8th edition in the hobby are sitting here going "what the hell?" those who started with or after 8th don't understand because they never experienced the game any other way.

As long as the players keep shoveling money into GWs pockets they will continue doing what they are doing.


.



CKO wrote:I have been trying to figure out what makes Space Marines so popular. I believe it is the fact that their troop choices are easier to use
.


1. they are humans and as players we self identify and they are superheros in effect in this universe
2. they are the most all around army or they were. tough enough and good enough at a little bit of everything to be solid. other armies were tier 2 overly specialized so they required a bit more finesse to play well.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 03:08:08


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Argive wrote:
The usual suspects are strangely silent..
They're still waiting.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 03:24:21


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Sasori wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The nerfs to Necrons were absolutely hilarious and out of whack, no matter the buffs that single wound models got.


Nearly every single datasheet got improved across the board, some dramatically so. Most of our weapons got a complete overhaul and improved as well. Our Stratagems improved, our Dynasty codes are also vastly improved.

The buffs the dex received across the board far, far outweigh the changes to core.

You're apparently not looking at the same codex. All the multiwound models might as well not have RP. Our equivalent of Super Doctrines are much weaker and a lot harder to actually get to use. A lot of the relics stayed the same or are just worse than before or worse to equivalents.

As I said, the buffs to single wound models is no match for everything else.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 03:36:36


Post by: Sasori


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Sasori wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The nerfs to Necrons were absolutely hilarious and out of whack, no matter the buffs that single wound models got.


Nearly every single datasheet got improved across the board, some dramatically so. Most of our weapons got a complete overhaul and improved as well. Our Stratagems improved, our Dynasty codes are also vastly improved.

The buffs the dex received across the board far, far outweigh the changes to core.

You're apparently not looking at the same codex. All the multiwound models might as well not have RP. Our equivalent of Super Doctrines are much weaker and a lot harder to actually get to use. A lot of the relics stayed the same or are just worse than before or worse to equivalents.

As I said, the buffs to single wound models is no match for everything else.


I am looking at the same codex. It just seems like you either don't actually play the game, or don't understand what a nerf is.

RP as it functioned in 8th might as well have not existed for any units. The cost was baked in extremely high, and it was very easy to completely circumvent. The 9th RP is significantly better on 1W models and it is still better on 2W models. It's not not amazing on 3W models, but the cost isn't very baked in compared to before, and you actually have a chance to use it. RP by no means got nerfed. Anyone that says either didn't play Necrons in 8th, or didn't play against competent opponents that understood how RP worked.

We didn't even have Command Protocols before, so that's a nerf at all. They are harder to use than Doctrines no doubt, but the effects for the most part are pretty good.

We also have living metal now across every single MW which is a flat buff.

Most of our Relics got better, some significantly so. The Voltaic Staff and Eternity Orb both spring to mind. The Veil got a slight nerf, and I'll admit that the Nanoscarab casket got obliterated.

You're literally ignoring the host of buffs across the entire book, and trying to pick one or two things to present as some kind of overarching nerf to the dex, which is demonstrably not the case.



We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 03:49:19


Post by: solkan


 aphyon wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:I want to know why they made even more equipment into strats (Meltabombs, smoke launchers, etc.).


because your still thinking this is 40K. it is not 40K any more than AOS is warhammer fantasy. it is a totally new game system that uses it's own mechanics that are alien to everything that was 40K. the WHFB community didn't take it as well as the hardcore 40K fans and the majority jumped ship for other games like kings of war.


Alien to everything that was 40k? That's an odd thing to claim when 40k has, at one time or another, had:
- Robots with a flow chart control system
- Range modifiers
- Vehicle damage locations, and graphic hit location charts
- Psychic power decks
- War gear decks
- Redone how melee combat works twice (at least, depending on how you want to count)
- Started with a M stat for models, removed it, and then added it back

For WHFB, they took a 'pivot blocks of infantry' game and tried to turn it into something else, maybe to make it more accessible or make it cheaper to buy into. That's why you saw the Pathfinder style "You just killed the specific game mechanics we were here for" reactions.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 03:52:37


Post by: BrianDavion


also once AOS was sorted out there where a LOT of voices here calling for 40K to basicly be turned into "AOS 40K"


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 04:21:04


Post by: aphyon


solkan wrote:
 aphyon wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:I want to know why they made even more equipment into strats (Meltabombs, smoke launchers, etc.).


because your still thinking this is 40K. it is not 40K any more than AOS is warhammer fantasy. it is a totally new game system that uses it's own mechanics that are alien to everything that was 40K. the WHFB community didn't take it as well as the hardcore 40K fans and the majority jumped ship for other games like kings of war.


Alien to everything that was 40k? That's an odd thing to claim when 40k has, at one time or another, had:
- Robots with a flow chart control system
- Range modifiers
- Vehicle damage locations, and graphic hit location charts
- Psychic power decks
- War gear decks
- Redone how melee combat works twice (at least, depending on how you want to count)
- Started with a M stat for models, removed it, and then added it back

For WHFB, they took a 'pivot blocks of infantry' game and tried to turn it into something else, maybe to make it more accessible or make it cheaper to buy into. That's why you saw the Pathfinder style "You just killed the specific game mechanics we were here for" reactions.


Nice cherry pick, i specifically referenced 40K from 3rd-5th and to a lesser extent 6th & 7th edition when the core mechanics were pretty well cemented and the same from 1998-2017
RT was more of an RPG and 2nd was a transition to more of a wargame that only lasted for those 2 editions with all the detailed rules you referenced .

BrianDavion wrote:also once AOS was sorted out there where a LOT of voices here calling for 40K to basicly be turned into "AOS 40K"


It was probably a test run, looks like they got their wish. like the WHFB players they killed the game mechanics i was here for with 40K so i went back to playing 5th.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 04:34:13


Post by: H.B.M.C.


While you're all arguing about the "AoS-ing" of 40K, I'm still annoyed that they continue to turn things that should be equipment into strats.

How long before the Hunter Killer missile becomes a strat?


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 04:48:51


Post by: Breton


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
While you're all arguing about the "AoS-ing" of 40K, I'm still annoyed that they continue to turn things that should be equipment into strats.

How long before the Hunter Killer missile becomes a strat?


I thought they already did that on the Repulsors?


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 05:00:58


Post by: BrianDavion


Breton wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
While you're all arguing about the "AoS-ing" of 40K, I'm still annoyed that they continue to turn things that should be equipment into strats.

How long before the Hunter Killer missile becomes a strat?


I thought they already did that on the Repulsors?


they got better


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 05:02:47


Post by: Breton


BrianDavion wrote:
Breton wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
While you're all arguing about the "AoS-ing" of 40K, I'm still annoyed that they continue to turn things that should be equipment into strats.

How long before the Hunter Killer missile becomes a strat?


I thought they already did that on the Repulsors?


they got better


Yeah but weren't they a Hunter Killer strat on Repulsors in 8.5 or something?


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 05:06:03


Post by: aphyon


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
While you're all arguing about the "AoS-ing" of 40K, I'm still annoyed that they continue to turn things that should be equipment into strats.

How long before the Hunter Killer missile becomes a strat?

give it time....they got to ease it all in....next up "this unit wants to shoot i have to use 1 cp strat to activate them".


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 05:12:58


Post by: H.B.M.C.


There are too many strats to begin with. There are so many strats that should just be special rules, especially when the strat is unit specific.

Now they've gone and made a bunch of equipment into strats. What benefit is there to the game by making smoke launchers into something that only one tank can use a turn?


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 05:34:06


Post by: Racerguy180


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
There are too many strats to begin with. There are so many strats that should just be special rules, especially when the strat is unit specific.

Now they've gone and made a bunch of equipment into strats. What benefit is there to the game by making smoke launchers into something that only one tank can use a turn?


GW just doubled down on the MTG-ification of 40k, the want you to NEED to use cp to have the units function. It's another way to cater to players that like having to manage a resource which is a BIG fething MISTAKE!

There should be something like 10 universal strats and 3-5 FACTION ones....no more. Not everything needs to have a bespoke strat.

Why in Terra would making weapon options a strat be a good idea. I guess it's people are too lazy to model stuff appropriately armed and like the easy way out. making the choice between autolaunchers and fragstorms determined how you use the model, just fething stupid to change it. let's take meaningful choices(that you make before the game & pay for in your list) and chuck them out the window.

ALL OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE!!!!!!!

I hope that the cp to activate idea dies a fiery death, then the ashes put into a capsule and shot into the corona of Sol.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 06:30:09


Post by: Breton


 aphyon wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
While you're all arguing about the "AoS-ing" of 40K, I'm still annoyed that they continue to turn things that should be equipment into strats.

How long before the Hunter Killer missile becomes a strat?

give it time....they got to ease it all in....next up "this unit wants to shoot i have to use 1 cp strat to activate them".


I'd kind of like to see some of the unit abilities moved to 0 CP Strats. The Erad double tap for example, The old Thunderfire Cannon ammo choices come back as a 0CP strat for each ammo, or for each unit with being able to take up to three cannon per unit. A lot of those freebie rules from what was it 5th edition Formations? can come back as 0CP strats too. One thing I liked about those formations was that it allowed units that were seriously underperforming to get a special rule to improve them without an entire reworking of the edition. Just put the strat on the unit Datasheet for unit abilities they want to have around but not spammable.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 06:43:00


Post by: Not Online!!!


Breton wrote:
 aphyon wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
While you're all arguing about the "AoS-ing" of 40K, I'm still annoyed that they continue to turn things that should be equipment into strats.

How long before the Hunter Killer missile becomes a strat?

give it time....they got to ease it all in....next up "this unit wants to shoot i have to use 1 cp strat to activate them".


I'd kind of like to see some of the unit abilities moved to 0 CP Strats. The Erad double tap for example, The old Thunderfire Cannon ammo choices come back as a 0CP strat for each ammo, or for each unit with being able to take up to three cannon per unit. A lot of those freebie rules from what was it 5th edition Formations? can come back as 0CP strats too. One thing I liked about those formations was that it allowed units that were seriously underperforming to get a special rule to improve them without an entire reworking of the edition. Just put the strat on the unit Datasheet for unit abilities they want to have around but not spammable.






Feck no, get rid of the stratagem bs, and reintegrate abilities and price units propperly.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 07:02:13


Post by: aphyon


That's not going to happen. GW has latched onto this stratagem resource management BS like a junkie to his crack pipe.

Instead of having armies with lore based specific rules, gear and unit builds. everybody is all the same with stratagems being the only thing that you can use to add some variety. most of it to boost damage or resistance. the "MTG-ification of 40k" is nearly complete.

Thanks to cawl and primaris everybody is an ultramarine now with a different paint color and heraldry. i seriously don't get how people think this is better, well anybody who has played the game since before 6th edition. all the "fixes" to 9th everybody thinks is better is still not as good as it used to be when they fixed it before.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 07:07:40


Post by: JohnnyHell


Breton wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Breton wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
While you're all arguing about the "AoS-ing" of 40K, I'm still annoyed that they continue to turn things that should be equipment into strats.

How long before the Hunter Killer missile becomes a strat?


I thought they already did that on the Repulsors?


they got better


Yeah but weren't they a Hunter Killer strat on Repulsors in 8.5 or something?


They were, with a randomly different name to excuse it.

Tbh Stratagems are fine. On the whole they’re a fun mechanic and the game is more fun than it has been since 2nd for me. YMMV. Just wanted to add a counterpoint to the salt overdoses. Some Strats should be unit abilities, and the costing on some is wrong, but they generate some fun moments in our games and that’s what we’re here for.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 aphyon wrote:
That's not going to happen. GW has latched onto this stratagem resource management BS like a junkie to his crack pipe.

Instead of having armies with lore based specific rules, gear and unit builds. everybody is all the same with stratagems being the only thing that you can use to add some variety. most of it to boost damage or resistance. the "MTG-ification of 40k" is nearly complete.

Thanks to cawl and primaris everybody is an ultramarine now with a different paint color and heraldry. i seriously don't get how people think this is better, well anybody who has played the game since before 6th edition. all the "fixes" to 9th everybody thinks is better is still not as good as it used to be when they fixed it before.


In practise, the Marine Chapters do feel very different. Try playing some games not feeding on internet salty circle jerks. Honestly, the army isn’t as homogenous and mono build as people would have you believe. My DA feel very different to White Scars, to Crimson Fists, to my Salamanders. You pick differently, play differently, as it should be.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 07:15:41


Post by: Breton


 JohnnyHell wrote:


They were, with a randomly different name to excuse it.

Tbh Stratagems are fine. On the whole they’re a fun mechanic and the game is more fun than it has been since 2nd for me. YMMV. Just wanted to add a counterpoint to the salt overdoses. Some Strats should be unit abilities, and the costing on some is wrong, but they generate some fun moments in our games and that’s what we’re here for.
That's what I like about the 0CP idea. Some abilities are too good if they're spammed, but removing them entirely may be too much. Plus it would allow more abilities on more units without a Monty Haul scenario.


In practise, the Marine Chapters do feel very different. Try playing some games not feeding on internet salty circle jerks. Honestly, the army isn’t as homogenous and mono build as people would have you believe. My DA feel very different to White Scars, to Crimson Fists, to my Salamanders. You pick differently, play differently, as it should be.


Pretty much.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 07:48:29


Post by: aphyon


Tbh Stratagems are fine. On the whole they’re a fun mechanic and the game is more fun than it has been since 2nd for me.


For me It is the worst the game has been since 6th (7th was better before the formation storm hit, actually played a bit of that), and like 6th i stopped playing, or rather i went back to playing 5th

In practise, the Marine Chapters do feel very different. Try playing some games not feeding on internet salty circle jerks. Honestly, the army isn’t as homogenous and mono build as people would have you believe. My DA feel very different to White Scars, to Crimson Fists, to my Salamanders. You pick differently, play differently, as it should be.


I work at a game store running the late night gaming area, i have watched for hours on end (since late june when we got up and running again) people playing 9th. one of the guys i play 5th with also plays 9th. he likes using his 3.5 chaos codex in 5th more, but his brother and son want to play 9th so he does both. i don't need the internet to see how bad the game is.

And yes they are. white scare oh boy 9th edition special sauce-we get to advance and then charge..maybe pull off a turn 1 charge? where are their lore based rules? hunting lances? true grit? hit&run? where is their skilled rider (or massed bikes for that matter) or their mounted infantry requirement?

One of the regulars who plays primaris plays "white scars" i took one look at it and i i knew it wasn't white scars they would never fight like that.



We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 08:09:41


Post by: BrianDavion


Oh boy! you don't play 40k but you sir stock shelves in a local gaming store! that clearly makes you an expert! after all you watch people play!

And yes they are. white scare oh boy 9th edition special sauce-we get to advance and then charge..maybe pull off a turn 1 charge? where are their lore based rules? hunting lances? true grit? hit&run? where is their skilled rider (or massed bikes for that matter) or their mounted infantry requirement?

One of the regulars who plays primaris plays "white scars" i took one look at it and i i knew it wasn't white scars they would never fight like that.


what hunted Lances? I've been playing since 5th edition and white scars haven't had hunting lances (in fact the WS captain now can take a power lance, which makes white scars more like white scars then they've been in ages) also if the regular playes primaris white scars.. well if he wants bikes he's got em now but white scars aren't purely a bike army.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 08:19:45


Post by: a_typical_hero


 aphyon wrote:

I work at a game store running the late night gaming area, i have watched for hours on end (since late june when we got up and running again) people playing 9th. one of the guys i play 5th with also plays 9th. he likes using his 3.5 chaos codex in 5th more, but his brother and son want to play 9th so he does both. i don't need the internet to see how bad the game is.

And yes they are. white scare oh boy 9th edition special sauce-we get to advance and then charge..maybe pull off a turn 1 charge? where are their lore based rules? hunting lances? true grit? hit&run? where is their skilled rider (or massed bikes for that matter) or their mounted infantry requirement?

One of the regulars who plays primaris plays "white scars" i took one look at it and i i knew it wasn't white scars they would never fight like that.


Can't help but this sounds an awful lot like "You are a White Scars fan, oh yeah? Then tell me the middle names of each member of the first company during the Macharius crusade!"

On a more serious note, you are not wrong that they don't have the same rules that they used to. But they got a whole supplement full of specific stratagems, relics, units and warlord traits that set them apart from other chapters.
Do you want to know how they fight according to the lore? Take a look at the company structure before and after the Indomitus crusade:

Before Primaris
https://warhammer40k.fandom.com/wiki/White_Scars and CTRL+F for "The Brotherhoods".

After Primaris
Spoiler:


Looks a lot like a regular, codex compliant chapter to me.
And battle companies are not set in stone. They do request elements from reserve companies according to their needs.

I find it hard to say any legal combination of Marine units in a regular patrol / battalion /brigade detachment is "not how they would fight".


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 08:28:56


Post by: BrianDavion


I suspect he's one of the people out there who thinks all white scars are bikes all the time. which isn't true at all. in fact Primaris offer white scars some good oppertunities, Supressors are techncly heavy support elements but are fast moving (to the point of being classed fast attack) which seems like something white scars would dig.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 08:37:06


Post by: aphyon


Oh boy! you don't play 40k but you sir stock shelves in a local gaming store! that clearly makes you an expert! after all you watch people play!


I DO NOT stock shelves i RUN late night gaming which means i set up games/tables, coordinate games/events, play games, clean up and lock up afterward
i PLAY 40K i also play warmachine and infinity and DUST and B5 wars and victory at sea and classic batltetech and BFG and several other games.

It doesn't take a genius to read the rules, watch (often for hours) how other people play 9th edition and discuss it with the regulars to know how 9th plays. and because i can compare it to other editions of 40K as well as other systems i actively play. i can reach a qualified opinion about the quality of 9th edition game mechanics and rules.



The power lances had been a thing since 3rd it was an expansion listed in the index astartes books specifically for white scars army lists (all sgts/gharacters could take them as wargear.) including all their chapter special rules. also including a transport restriction. if they are not on bikes they must be in a transport or use jet packs. but then again when you can take 10 man bike squads as basic troops, attack bikes as heavy support, and scout bikes as fast attack they could bring a lot of bikes.


Before Primaris


That pretty well sums up the in game rules i mentioned-

Evoking the mounted warriors of their heritage, each brotherhood maintains a high proportion of Assault Bikes, Attack Bikes and Land Speeders, and their infantry squads are almost always borne to battle by fast moving vehicles or gunships. Indeed, it is often said that the White Scars are born in the saddle and are not at ease unless fighting on, in or from an armoured mount of some kind.-



-Overall, the White Scars are considered a powerful and effective Chapter when undertaking direct, rapid assaults or carrying out surgical strikes intended to achieve specific operational objectives.

However, their lack of units with a great deal of resilience or staying power such as heavy weapons-equipped Tactical Marines, Devastator Marines, Dreadnoughts or the heavier Astartes main battle tanks means that their detachments are more fragile if not used at a tactically appropriate moment or if forced to face prolonged, static combat, particularly against well-defended enemy strongholds and heavily-fortified positions.

The White Scars are not a Chapter that would fare well undertaking sieges, for example.



An example of an army when i think white scars-

Spoiler:






We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 08:49:49


Post by: Breton


a_typical_hero wrote:


After Primaris
Spoiler:


Looks a lot like a regular, codex compliant chapter to me.
And battle companies are not set in stone. They do request elements from reserve companies according to their needs.

I find it hard to say any legal combination of Marine units in a regular patrol / battalion /brigade detachment is "not how they would fight".


Those company markings are all the reason I need to not play White Scars. I'm not that good of a painter.

Even when White Scars were bike heavy they weren't all bike, they also outflanked Rhinos full of Tac Squads.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 08:50:44


Post by: Dudeface


BrianDavion wrote:
I suspect he's one of the people out there who thinks all white scars are bikes all the time. which isn't true at all. in fact Primaris offer white scars some good oppertunities, Supressors are techncly heavy support elements but are fast moving (to the point of being classed fast attack) which seems like something white scars would dig.


It does bring amusing mental images of driving bikes up/down stairs to hit people, everyone having to hang out the saddles to raise flags, driving their bikes through the showers when they get back on the ship, driving them into briefings etc.

Regarding primaris white scars, lots of repulsors, impulsors, outriders, stormstrikes and inceptors. Matches the themes and keeps them mobile, doesn't need an extravagant rules set for it, just a little player intuition.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 09:49:45


Post by: BrianDavion


we didn't have primaris bikes until fairly recently, (hell we didn't even have a reasonable light transport a year ago) but it's clear GW is looking to expand those options.


Looking at the picture I see 2 tactical squads 1 with a rhino one with a droip pod. 7 bike squads and 2 predators (not doable because you can't make bikes troops anymore but that's an issue first born have as well) and 3 land speeders.

I could build a primaris equivilant pretty easily.


White Scars Outrider Detachment

1 Primaris Chaplain on Bike (115 points)
1 Primaris Captain.(85 points)
1 Primaris Librarian (100 points)
2 Squads of Intercessors, (100 points eacg)
2 Impulsors (125 each)
3 squads of 3 outriders (135 each)
1 squads of Invader ATVs with Multi Meltas (135 points)
and 2 of the new galdiator reapers.

pretty close to equivilant (less bikes but we've got the rule of 3 now) and conveniantly thats a decently solid ~2000 point list.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 10:02:02


Post by: aphyon


It's 3 bike squads, remember they could take full 10 man squads of bikes, nobody else could (the limit for most marines was 6+ an attack bike). but close enough.

That's why i was pointing out the guys list at our store. didn't look like scars. it was mostly foot slogging infantry with 3 bikes.

But hey your primaris boys have a speeder coming so that's something at least.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 10:04:31


Post by: Galas


Since when have become Lighting Claws the benchmark of offensive damage?? I spam them because I love then but they have been crap since at least 8th. Now they have actually a place to take dual lighting instead of literally anything else.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 10:07:58


Post by: BrianDavion


 aphyon wrote:
It's 3 bike squads, remember they could take full 10 man squads of bikes, nobody else could (the limit for most marines was 6+ an attack bike). but close enough.

That's why i was pointing out the guys list at our store. didn't look like scars. it was mostly foot slogging infantry with 3 bikes.

But hey your primaris boys have a speeder coming so that's something at least.


ten man bike squads must have been a 3rd or 4th edition thing. they've been limited to squads of 3-6 like everyone else as long as I've been playing


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 10:08:39


Post by: aphyon


Well they used to be really good at killing massed infantry when paired- power weapon with +1 attack for an extra close combat weapon, re-rolling all failed wound rolls.

But that's what they used to do, now it is different.


then man bike squads must have been a 3rd or 4th edition thing. they've been limited to squads of 3-6 like everyone else as long as I've been playing


I rate their original rules right up there with the quality of the 3.5 chaos codex. the lore driven nature of the rules is what made me love 40K. but then i started in 3rd when that was a major part of the game.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 10:27:21


Post by: BrianDavion


 aphyon wrote:
Well they used to be really good at killing massed infantry when paired- power weapon with +1 attack for an extra close combat weapon, re-rolling all failed wound rolls.

But that's what they used to do, now it is different.


then man bike squads must have been a 3rd or 4th edition thing. they've been limited to squads of 3-6 like everyone else as long as I've been playing


I rate their original rules right up there with the quality of the 3.5 chaos codex. the lore driven nature of the rules is what made me love 40K. but then i started in 3rd when that was a major part of the game.


rules that work with the lore are good. the chapter supplements for Marines have really been a god send in that regard. the various chapters all fight differtantly


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 10:29:38


Post by: Umbros


 aphyon wrote:
It's 3 bike squads, remember they could take full 10 man squads of bikes, nobody else could (the limit for most marines was 6+ an attack bike). but close enough.

That's why i was pointing out the guys list at our store. didn't look like scars. it was mostly foot slogging infantry with 3 bikes.

But hey your primaris boys have a speeder coming so that's something at least.


But White Scars aren't just about bikes...


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 10:35:21


Post by: Not Online!!!


BrianDavion wrote:
 aphyon wrote:
Well they used to be really good at killing massed infantry when paired- power weapon with +1 attack for an extra close combat weapon, re-rolling all failed wound rolls.

But that's what they used to do, now it is different.


then man bike squads must have been a 3rd or 4th edition thing. they've been limited to squads of 3-6 like everyone else as long as I've been playing


I rate their original rules right up there with the quality of the 3.5 chaos codex. the lore driven nature of the rules is what made me love 40K. but then i started in 3rd when that was a major part of the game.


rules that work with the lore are good. the chapter supplements for Marines have really been a god send in that regard. the various chapters all fight differtantly


at the distinct detriment of any other faction.

So no, not a god send.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 11:52:28


Post by: the_scotsman


 Galas wrote:
Since when have become Lighting Claws the benchmark of offensive damage?? I spam them because I love then but they have been crap since at least 8th. Now they have actually a place to take dual lighting instead of literally anything else.


Are you referring to me here? If so, I'd answer: since they became the same cost as a power weapon and still deal way more damage.

in general, I would point to a few major advantages that marine lists in the new codex are going to have over 'crons:

1) More options. This is being discussed generally, but it's worth bringing up first and foremost. The issue of baseline cost of firstborn marines has been fixed, and now marines are backed to being the. Most. flexible. Army. ever. So. many. options. Units like sternguard dw vets vanvets company vets wolf guard tacticals etc etc that had the flexible wargear to allow you to fine-tune your units to your competitive heart's content now have the core statline to back up their options, and boy oh boy has every single option been lovingly crafted in order to make sure you have a reason to take it over any other given option. Contrast that level of effort with necron wargear options: hey what should I take on my Praetorians, oh Staffs, because theyre better. Hey what should I take on my tomb blades, the unit that didn't get the memo that SM bikes were going to W3 and accidentally stayed the same pts cost as them despite having less speed and no melee capabilities, should I take the guns that cost 5 extra points or maybe the gun that gets 2 more shots so it does almost exactly the same damage as both of the other guns?

Add in the fact that, due to the supplement structure, marines have access to twice the stratagems, twice the relics, twice the warlord traits, and just 3x the number of units in general as anyone else, they have a lot more opportunities to come up with optimized combos. And hey, if you really want one of those abilities but don't like the army trait? Successor chapters, the rule marines still have that apparently everybody else still doesn't get, allowing you to do the thing GW should frigging know better to not do, optimize your army trait and still get everything one of the more easily balanced fixed army traits gets as bonus options.

2) more synergy. Look at any given 'cron HQ, let's say the Lord. Same basic cost as a marine captain, obviously basically no wargear options, shittier statline by far (W4 A3 no invuln etc) and whereas a captain gives you "CORE units within 6" reroll 1s to hit" the necron lord gives you "CORE units within 6"....move 1" more" and "Select ONE core unit within 6" to reroll 1s to hit."

Oh, and lest you get excited about that +1" move ability lets remember marines just automatically move 1" more than 'crons in general.

Also, what's CORE? Well, in marines, it's "Everything that's not a tank, and not a character." Everything in the whole codex. Literal dozens of units. Heavy weapon units, VEHICLE keyword units, basic troops, elite bodyguards, support units, fast bikers, etc. What's CORE for 'Crons?

Warriors, Immortals, Lychguard, Deathmarks, maybe Tomb Blades (there's literally a single finger right on top of where the keyword might be on my images, lol). Thaaaaaaat's it. And nearly every ability your HQ characters can have is limited to CORE units only except for the aura on the destroyers, limited to DESTROYER units only. Well, except for those 30-point res orbs that will never in a million years make you 30 points back.

The only support units that seem to not be shackled to CORE are the canoptek reanimator, which is still hot trash (110 point unit that does next to nothing offensively and is fully targetable T5 W6 anyone? Come on, don't be shy, it's 3x the points and exactly 1 single wound more durable than an ork killa kan....get one before it's gone!) and the triarch stalker, a 140 point unit armed with exactly 1/3 of the firepower of a 120-point squad of eradicators..

3) Not good at the new missions. The new Res rules push Crons into a max-size unit playstyle, and the units that appear to be actually good out of the codex are also 300-point behemoths. I think if you were to make an optimized cron list for fighting, it would be a super suboptimal list for actually doing the missions in 9th, and in competitive play that will push their winrates down, even if casual players who base an army's apparent strength on their ability to kill don't feel this one as much.

All in all, I expect pretty standard no-allies xenos codex performance out of the necrons: 1 core, good build with minor variations competitive players try (say, which C'tan to take, which supporting elite units to bring alongside the blocks of warriors, which weapons to bring on a couple different units to shift with the meta) mid tier performance at best with a small play %, with most really good performances driven by a bunch of opponents not expecting to face necrons and being prepared instead for the meta army.

Which will absolutely, at least for now, remain marines.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 11:53:49


Post by: Salt donkey


Bit of conterversal opinion here, but IMO the necron codex is actually better COMPETITIVELY than the marine codex. Now what that means is that in most more casual games, I am expecting marines to win more often than not over necrons. However, once list building get’s more optimized I expect necrons to have an edge over marines.

This is because while necrons have less generally powerful units than marines, their top tier options are mostly better than marines have. Outside of a certain melta toting unit marines have, all their best competitive units/strategies got nerfed. Top teir marine lists always ran grav devastators, and they got hit hard. Same thing with aggressors (and centurions which would have replaced aggressors otherwise). People love to complain about primaris troops, but most competitive lists invested minimal points in this area. Scouts being moved to elites hurts this, and I also don’t like heavy intercessors due to how expensive they are. All characters outside of the apothecary got worse as well.

Sure they got buffs in other places, but I feel marines now struggle with hordes in a way they didn’t use to. At the very least we don’t know if these new buffs will be able to counteract all the nerfs.

Necrons meanwhile have the void dragon and the nightbringer, which I’d be willing to bet large moneys will staples in all competitive lists and will be very quickly hated by non necron players. Doomstalkers are also OP, as are scarabs. Necron troop options are also better than marines, IMO. Finally, it seems one of CC options will bound to be good.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 11:56:17


Post by: sanguine40k


yukishiro1 wrote:
No. Instead you get an extra 1AP when you roll 6s to wound...an ability so powerful it has to be gated behind a once per game limitation you decide at the start of the game, and that you need a character within 9" to proc.

Space marines 1AP period in predictable ways is not nearly as powerful, and therefore just activates automatically with no thought required.


Much like the T'au commander's master of war ability, which is 1/battle (barring 2 sept-specific special characters) and only affects units in range of that commander (but the cost of the ability is baked into every commander, ofc).

I am not hopeful that master of war is going to be fixed in 9th if protocols weren't done right.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 12:14:39


Post by: Dudeface


Salt donkey wrote:
Bit of conterversal opinion here, but IMO the necron codex is actually better COMPETITIVELY than the marine codex. Now what that means is that in most more casual games, I am expecting marines to win more often than not over necrons. However, once list building get’s more optimized I expect necrons to have an edge over marines.

This is because while necrons have less generally powerful units than marines, their top tier options are mostly better than marines have. Outside of a certain melta toting unit marines have, all their best competitive units/strategies got nerfed. Top teir marine lists always ran grav devastators, and they got hit hard. Same thing with aggressors (and centurions which would have replaced aggressors otherwise). People love to complain about primaris troops, but most competitive lists invested minimal points in this area. Scouts being moved to elites hurts this, and I also don’t like heavy intercessors due to how expensive they are. All characters outside of the apothecary got worse as well.

Sure they got buffs in other places, but I feel marines now struggle with hordes in a way they didn’t use to. At the very least we don’t know if these new buffs will be able to counteract all the nerfs.

Necrons meanwhile have the void dragon and the nightbringer, which I’d be willing to bet large moneys will staples in all competitive lists and will be very quickly hated by non necron players. Doomstalkers are also OP, as are scarabs. Necron troop options are also better than marines, IMO. Finally, it seems one of CC options will bound to be good.


I can see it, the scary eradicators wasting shots on doomstalkers and the marines being unable to take the c'tan apart whilst drowning under warrior bodies might become a thing.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 12:29:43


Post by: Cynista


 Sasori wrote:
Our Stratagems improved, our Dynasty codes are also vastly improved.

Uhhhhh??? Not really.....


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 12:45:12


Post by: the_scotsman


LOL, doomstalkers OP?

You mean that unit that has a D6 shot, D6 damage gun? just one of them?

Yeah, that's the kind of reliability that just SCREAMS "Tournament Unit" isn't it?

Nothing like rolling that D6 for your unit's shots that you now cannot reroll, and getting a 1. Whoops, 140pts of model is shooting 1 lascannon this turn, hahahahaah!


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 12:50:48


Post by: Slipspace


Salt donkey wrote:
Bit of conterversal opinion here, but IMO the necron codex is actually better COMPETITIVELY than the marine codex. Now what that means is that in most more casual games, I am expecting marines to win more often than not over necrons. However, once list building get’s more optimized I expect necrons to have an edge over marines.

This is because while necrons have less generally powerful units than marines, their top tier options are mostly better than marines have. Outside of a certain melta toting unit marines have, all their best competitive units/strategies got nerfed. Top teir marine lists always ran grav devastators, and they got hit hard. Same thing with aggressors (and centurions which would have replaced aggressors otherwise). People love to complain about primaris troops, but most competitive lists invested minimal points in this area. Scouts being moved to elites hurts this, and I also don’t like heavy intercessors due to how expensive they are. All characters outside of the apothecary got worse as well.

Sure they got buffs in other places, but I feel marines now struggle with hordes in a way they didn’t use to. At the very least we don’t know if these new buffs will be able to counteract all the nerfs.

Necrons meanwhile have the void dragon and the nightbringer, which I’d be willing to bet large moneys will staples in all competitive lists and will be very quickly hated by non necron players. Doomstalkers are also OP, as are scarabs. Necron troop options are also better than marines, IMO. Finally, it seems one of CC options will bound to be good.


The C'Tan are great, agreed. Not sure I'd call the Troops better. Intercessors are generally seen as some of the best Troops in the game and while Immortals got a really solid buff in the new Codex I think on balance I'd prefer Intercessors. Dommstalkers being OP is an interesting take. How do you figure that? They have decent stats, but only hit on a 4+ base and have the most random anti-tank weapon in the game. Also, Scarabs OP? WTF? Again, they're a decent unit and probably good enough to take in most Necron armies but I have no idea how you could call them OP. The fact a lot of the previously good SM units got nerfed doesn't mean the Codex overall is worse since there are other options that got better or entirely new units that are just fantastically good.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 12:52:09


Post by: Dudeface


the_scotsman wrote:
LOL, doomstalkers OP?

You mean that unit that has a D6 shot, D6 damage gun? just one of them?

Yeah, that's the kind of reliability that just SCREAMS "Tournament Unit" isn't it?

Nothing like rolling that D6 for your unit's shots that you now cannot reroll, and getting a 1. Whoops, 140pts of model is shooting 1 lascannon this turn, hahahahaah!


2d3 shots would have felt a little nicer admittedly.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 13:09:32


Post by: Xenomancers


the_scotsman wrote:
LOL, doomstalkers OP?

You mean that unit that has a D6 shot, D6 damage gun? just one of them?

Yeah, that's the kind of reliability that just SCREAMS "Tournament Unit" isn't it?

Nothing like rolling that D6 for your unit's shots that you now cannot reroll, and getting a 1. Whoops, 140pts of model is shooting 1 lascannon this turn, hahahahaah!
It is blast so that is something. It all averages out and sometimes it does excessive damage. It's always str 10 and ap-5 though so it's really not any more random that lesser weapons. It's not OP but for 140 points it is a top tier unit.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 13:22:06


Post by: Gadzilla666


Sounds like a demolisher cannon with better AP to me. Does it have more range? How does the Doomstalker's defensive stats compare to a Leman Russ? Can it shoot twice if it moves at half speed?


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 13:28:20


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 JohnnyHell wrote:
Tbh Stratagems are fine. On the whole they’re a fun mechanic and the game is more fun than it has been since 2nd for me. YMMV. Just wanted to add a counterpoint to the salt overdoses. Some Strats should be unit abilities, and the costing on some is wrong, but they generate some fun moments in our games and that’s what we’re here for.
People disliking more equipment become strats is now a "salt overdose"? Sheesh...


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 13:28:34


Post by: the_scotsman


 Xenomancers wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
LOL, doomstalkers OP?

You mean that unit that has a D6 shot, D6 damage gun? just one of them?

Yeah, that's the kind of reliability that just SCREAMS "Tournament Unit" isn't it?

Nothing like rolling that D6 for your unit's shots that you now cannot reroll, and getting a 1. Whoops, 140pts of model is shooting 1 lascannon this turn, hahahahaah!
It is blast so that is something. It all averages out and sometimes it does excessive damage. It's always str 10 and ap-5 though so it's really not any more random that lesser weapons. It's not OP but for 140 points it is a top tier unit.


Frankly, I would be amazed if the doomstalker saw significant play competitively. Compared to a piece like an Onager Dunecrawler with NL, the amount of reliability that you gain from having easily accessible rerolls to hit and min-3 damage is well worth the drop from D6 hits to D3, and we haven't seen a lot of those tearing it up in competitive play either. Stacking a large amount of points into something that you have to also buff to make it reliable, screen to keep it from being tied up, and at the end of the day you STILL might just get voip'd out of existence by one of several hyperefficient suicide antitank units running around in the current meta...it just doesn't seem like a unit you'd bring to the board to do your tank killing.

Not when you've got the supreme reliability of CHARACTER-protected, damage-capped t7 4++ ctan with apocalyptically powerful antitank capabilities in the same arsenal.

Do you have a different definition of "Top Tier" than I'm using here? in my eyes for something to be top tier, I'd say it'd be "something I'd consider taking in a tournament army list." I cannot come up with a reason to take a doomstalker over a ctan for that purpose. Or heck - a Doom Scythe. For 60 more points, I get

1) An extra 10 tesla shots. Not amazing, but nice.

2) the ability to reserve for 1cp if my opponent has a unit like erads/rets waiting to instapop it, so I guarantee 1 round of shots.

3) Heavy 3 instead of d6 shots, and damage 3+d3 instead of D6.

4) cares more about line of sight than pretty much any long range antitank (can't move and shoot at full effectiveness) vs could not give less of a gak about any of that because it can basically be anywhere.

The doomstalker seems to suffer the same exact problems that cause people to consider the Vindicator unusably bad. What is the distinction there?


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 13:33:51


Post by: Tyel


Doomsday Arks became the go to, so randomness isn't necessary the end of the world, even if it will feel awful when a tournament run dies because you get two turns of 1-2 shots.

I might be on completely the wrong end of things, but I think the power of the Necron Codex will be in assault. The Nightbringer stands in for Ghaz while blobs of Skorpekhs and Wraiths run around eating everything else. Warriors or immortals meanwhile hold the backfield.

I mean without regard to optimisation I think for 2000 points you could have:

Catacomb Command Barge
Skorpekh Lord
Nightbringer
3*10 Necron Warriors
Some arrangement of 28 Skorpekhs, Wraiths, and/or Ophydians. Vary to taste.

Depending on how Eradicators twist the meta, you might miss some dedicated anti-armour, in which case slot in the Void Dragon over the Nightbringer maybe.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 13:34:18


Post by: the_scotsman


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Sounds like a demolisher cannon with better AP to me. Does it have more range? How does the Doomstalker's defensive stats compare to a Leman Russ? Can it shoot twice if it moves at half speed?


1) yes, 48" range.

2) the stalker is T6 3+ 4++ vs a LR being T8 3+. Same wounds. So the Doomstalker is:

-Better vs a Lascannon
-Better vs a melta
-The same vs a battlecannon/missile launcher
-Worse vs an autocannon
-The same vs a heavy bolter

3) No, in fact if it moves, its gun becomes a Battlecannon instead of a super-demolisher.

A Leman Russ demolisher is going to have twice the firepower, half the range, and different, probably slightly worse, durability.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyel wrote:
Doomsday Arks became the go to, so randomness isn't necessary the end of the world, even if it will feel awful when a tournament run dies because you get two turns of 1-2 shots.

I might be on completely the wrong end of things, but I think the power of the Necron Codex will be in assault. The Nightbringer stands in for Ghaz while blobs of Skorpekhs and Wraiths run around eating everything else. Warriors or immortals meanwhile hold the backfield.

I mean without regard to optimisation I think for 2000 points you could have:

Catacomb Command Barge
Skorpekh Lord
Nightbringer
3*10 Necron Warriors
Some arrangement of 28 Skorpekhs, Wraiths, and/or Ophydians. Vary to taste.

Depending on how Eradicators twist the meta, you might miss some dedicated anti-armour, in which case slot in the Void Dragon over the Nightbringer maybe.


Wraiths seem solid. I have no clue why you'd ever go for a skorphekh or Ophidyan over them, just on the fact that they have a good invulnerable and the melee destroyers do not.

Necron Deep Strike is not Marine Deep Strike. necrons don't have on-demand +2" charge aura on a 130 point character who also deep strikes. Wraith melee makes an effective distraction carnifex in some list setups, but I dunno. untargetable ctan backing up walls of unkillable warriors and immortals seems like a fairly ironclad strategy to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyel wrote:
Doomsday Arks became the go to, so randomness isn't necessary the end of the world, even if it will feel awful when a tournament run dies because you get two turns of 1-2 shots.

I might be on completely the wrong end of things, but I think the power of the Necron Codex will be in assault. The Nightbringer stands in for Ghaz while blobs of Skorpekhs and Wraiths run around eating everything else. Warriors or immortals meanwhile hold the backfield.

I mean without regard to optimisation I think for 2000 points you could have:

Catacomb Command Barge
Skorpekh Lord
Nightbringer
3*10 Necron Warriors
Some arrangement of 28 Skorpekhs, Wraiths, and/or Ophydians. Vary to taste.

Depending on how Eradicators twist the meta, you might miss some dedicated anti-armour, in which case slot in the Void Dragon over the Nightbringer maybe.


Doomsdays became the go-to when both Doomsdays, heavy destroyers and doom scythes were lolrandom d6 damage. neither of the latter now have that weakness.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 13:42:08


Post by: Gadzilla666


the_scotsman wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Sounds like a demolisher cannon with better AP to me. Does it have more range? How does the Doomstalker's defensive stats compare to a Leman Russ? Can it shoot twice if it moves at half speed?


1) yes, 48" range.

2) the stalker is T6 3+ 4++ vs a LR being T8 3+. Same wounds. So the Doomstalker is:

-Better vs a Lascannon
-Better vs a melta
-The same vs a battlecannon/missile launcher
-Worse vs an autocannon
-The same vs a heavy bolter

3) No, in fact if it moves, its gun becomes a Battlecannon instead of a super-demolisher.

A Leman Russ demolisher is going to have twice the firepower, half the range, and different, probably slightly worse, durability.

Well, that sounds interesting, at least. It isn't just a demolisher cannon+. Unfortunately interesting doesn't always equal good. But it definitely sounds like it could be.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 13:49:49


Post by: Tyel


the_scotsman wrote:
Wraiths seem solid. I have no clue why you'd ever go for a skorphekh or Ophidyan over them, just on the fact that they have a good invulnerable and the melee destroyers do not.

Necron Deep Strike is not Marine Deep Strike. necrons don't have on-demand +2" charge aura on a 130 point character who also deep strikes. Wraith melee makes an effective distraction carnifex in some list setups, but I dunno. untargetable ctan backing up walls of unkillable warriors and immortals seems like a fairly ironclad strategy to me.


I'm pretty sure you can target the C'Tan. Its rules explicitly say you can ignore look out sir when targeting it?

Charging out of Deep Strike is an issue - but Novokh for the +1 could mitigate it somewhat. Unfortunately you can't have that and obsec, but I may be overvaluing that.

I think the argument on Skorpekhs is just the significantly higher expected damage output. To risk of taking both is someone will just kill them first and handle the wraiths later, but then the wraiths are going to be in their lines turn 2, so they may not be able to ignore them.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 13:51:31


Post by: Sasori


One important thing to note about the Doomstalker is that it's BS doesn't degrade as it loses wounds. It's firing at full firepower until it dies.

It also has For the Greater Good, which may or may not come into play some games, and it always fires on high power when that happens.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 13:56:47


Post by: Xenomancers


the_scotsman wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
LOL, doomstalkers OP?

You mean that unit that has a D6 shot, D6 damage gun? just one of them?

Yeah, that's the kind of reliability that just SCREAMS "Tournament Unit" isn't it?

Nothing like rolling that D6 for your unit's shots that you now cannot reroll, and getting a 1. Whoops, 140pts of model is shooting 1 lascannon this turn, hahahahaah!
It is blast so that is something. It all averages out and sometimes it does excessive damage. It's always str 10 and ap-5 though so it's really not any more random that lesser weapons. It's not OP but for 140 points it is a top tier unit.


Frankly, I would be amazed if the doomstalker saw significant play competitively. Compared to a piece like an Onager Dunecrawler with NL, the amount of reliability that you gain from having easily accessible rerolls to hit and min-3 damage is well worth the drop from D6 hits to D3, and we haven't seen a lot of those tearing it up in competitive play either. Stacking a large amount of points into something that you have to also buff to make it reliable, screen to keep it from being tied up, and at the end of the day you STILL might just get voip'd out of existence by one of several hyperefficient suicide antitank units running around in the current meta...it just doesn't seem like a unit you'd bring to the board to do your tank killing.

Not when you've got the supreme reliability of CHARACTER-protected, damage-capped t7 4++ ctan with apocalyptically powerful antitank capabilities in the same arsenal.

Do you have a different definition of "Top Tier" than I'm using here? in my eyes for something to be top tier, I'd say it'd be "something I'd consider taking in a tournament army list." I cannot come up with a reason to take a doomstalker over a ctan for that purpose. Or heck - a Doom Scythe. For 60 more points, I get

1) An extra 10 tesla shots. Not amazing, but nice.

2) the ability to reserve for 1cp if my opponent has a unit like erads/rets waiting to instapop it, so I guarantee 1 round of shots.

3) Heavy 3 instead of d6 shots, and damage 3+d3 instead of D6.

4) cares more about line of sight than pretty much any long range antitank (can't move and shoot at full effectiveness) vs could not give less of a gak about any of that because it can basically be anywhere.

The doomstalker seems to suffer the same exact problems that cause people to consider the Vindicator unusably bad. What is the distinction there?

I like nightscythes too. In this eddition though flyers are basically boned. With negs to hit capped at -1. You are just giving people a discount to advance and shoot or move with a heavy and shoot without hitting any worse. No quantum or no invune is really hurting it. Plus they raised it's price. I love the damage profile though. Absolutely excellent unit for hunting gravis models. You could be right I wouldn't be surprised seeing 2/3 of these in a list specifically for mercing gravis.

2 DDA and 2 night scythe is a pretty good option.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 14:04:21


Post by: a_typical_hero


The C'tan is better imo, but you can only have one per detachment. And I want to second it that they do have a special rule saying they can't benefit from Look out, Sir.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 14:18:20


Post by: the_scotsman


Interestingly, Necrons do have an answer to the Master of Sanctity Jump Pack Chaplain's +2" to charge litany, but it basically only works for lychguard because it is CORE-limited.

Take a Night Scythe, reserve it, and then use the Prismatic 1Cp stratagem to set the Lychguard unit up 3" away from it when it arrives from reseves.

Boom, 145-pt support unit that allows you to do a 6" charge from deep strike. and as a bonus, you also get a crappy little plane, which I rate as generally a bit more effective than a chappy.

The only question is at 28ppm whether scytheguard are good enough for that capability to matter. They certainly get good points return vs meqs and you can take down a vehicle for 1cp making them S8.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Xenomancers wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
LOL, doomstalkers OP?

You mean that unit that has a D6 shot, D6 damage gun? just one of them?

Yeah, that's the kind of reliability that just SCREAMS "Tournament Unit" isn't it?

Nothing like rolling that D6 for your unit's shots that you now cannot reroll, and getting a 1. Whoops, 140pts of model is shooting 1 lascannon this turn, hahahahaah!
It is blast so that is something. It all averages out and sometimes it does excessive damage. It's always str 10 and ap-5 though so it's really not any more random that lesser weapons. It's not OP but for 140 points it is a top tier unit.


Frankly, I would be amazed if the doomstalker saw significant play competitively. Compared to a piece like an Onager Dunecrawler with NL, the amount of reliability that you gain from having easily accessible rerolls to hit and min-3 damage is well worth the drop from D6 hits to D3, and we haven't seen a lot of those tearing it up in competitive play either. Stacking a large amount of points into something that you have to also buff to make it reliable, screen to keep it from being tied up, and at the end of the day you STILL might just get voip'd out of existence by one of several hyperefficient suicide antitank units running around in the current meta...it just doesn't seem like a unit you'd bring to the board to do your tank killing.

Not when you've got the supreme reliability of CHARACTER-protected, damage-capped t7 4++ ctan with apocalyptically powerful antitank capabilities in the same arsenal.

Do you have a different definition of "Top Tier" than I'm using here? in my eyes for something to be top tier, I'd say it'd be "something I'd consider taking in a tournament army list." I cannot come up with a reason to take a doomstalker over a ctan for that purpose. Or heck - a Doom Scythe. For 60 more points, I get

1) An extra 10 tesla shots. Not amazing, but nice.

2) the ability to reserve for 1cp if my opponent has a unit like erads/rets waiting to instapop it, so I guarantee 1 round of shots.

3) Heavy 3 instead of d6 shots, and damage 3+d3 instead of D6.

4) cares more about line of sight than pretty much any long range antitank (can't move and shoot at full effectiveness) vs could not give less of a gak about any of that because it can basically be anywhere.

The doomstalker seems to suffer the same exact problems that cause people to consider the Vindicator unusably bad. What is the distinction there?

I like nightscythes too. In this eddition though flyers are basically boned. With negs to hit capped at -1. You are just giving people a discount to advance and shoot or move with a heavy and shoot without hitting any worse. No quantum or no invune is really hurting it. Plus they raised it's price. I love the damage profile though. Absolutely excellent unit for hunting gravis models. You could be right I wouldn't be surprised seeing 2/3 of these in a list specifically for mercing gravis.

2 DDA and 2 night scythe is a pretty good option.


Flyers can still deep strike for 1cp thanks to reserves. in a world of eradicators and retributors, a 4++ wont keep you alive any more than a -1 to hit will. being off the board is the only guaranteed way to get your shots off.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 14:19:37


Post by: VladimirHerzog


the_scotsman wrote:

Not when you've got the supreme reliability of CHARACTER-protected, damage-capped t7 4++ ctan with apocalyptically powerful antitank capabilities in the same arsenal.


ctans dont benefit from look out sir.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 14:28:06


Post by: Xenomancers


Erads are a joke. No way they exist much longer than a few weeks like this. Marines stuff that is OP gets nerfed quickly. I also doubt outflank continues to exist ether. Remember turn 1 deepstrike in 8th? That didn't take long to nerf after that created so much problems.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 14:31:15


Post by: the_scotsman


Army setups I like for 'crons:

Silver Tide: Take no non-woundcapped heavy unit, take large units of flayer warriors backed up by units like the silent king and nightbringer to keep the enemy from safely closing to engage the warriors in melee. Crypteks for HQ slots, probably 1x patrol or 2x patrols so you can take 2 ctan if you dont want to bring the king.

destroyer spam: a unit of claw wraiths i like as a distraction carnifex for this setup because they have the same W3 defensive profile but pack an invuln. Then take big units of lokhusts with hidden heavy lokhusts to hurt tanks. Min squads of flayed ones make great deep striking action spammers to allow your floaty bois to concentrate on the harvest.

Elite Army: 10-man immortal squads make the single targeted abilities on the various HQs actually worthwhile to use, provide a melee screen with some sword and shield lychguard and go brawl in the middle of the board. Good weapons for going into a MEQ meta, and your defensive profiles are different from the new MEQ that I doubt people will be bringing a lot of what you don't want to see (MW spam, high-AP single-damage weapons)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Erads are a joke. No way they exist much longer than a few weeks like this. Marines stuff that is OP gets nerfed quickly. I also doubt outflank continues to exist ether. Remember turn 1 deepstrike in 8th? That didn't take long to nerf after that created so much problems.


We'll see. I can only speak to what the state of the game is right now, not what I assume the state of the game will be after what is currently strong gets nerfed. Erads are not the only powerful point removal unit durrently making heavy vehicles not useful.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 14:42:24


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 Xenomancers wrote:
Erads are a joke. No way they exist much longer than a few weeks like this. Marines stuff that is OP gets nerfed quickly. I also doubt outflank continues to exist ether. Remember turn 1 deepstrike in 8th? That didn't take long to nerf after that created so much problems.


unless im missing something, you can't outflank on turn one?


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 14:47:31


Post by: Xenomancers


But 4++ save is a pretty effective way at mitigating damage. Pretty much the best available tool. No unit at 130ish points should be putting out 8 tank killer shots. I mean...the Valiant Gladiator does that and its 250 points...There is a clear unbalance here. At 6 shots it was already pretty bad but a point increase would have been satisfactory. With erads getting a MM option in the codex...it is just laughable.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 14:59:23


Post by: the_scotsman


 Xenomancers wrote:
But 4++ save is a pretty effective way at mitigating damage. Pretty much the best available tool. No unit at 130ish points should be putting out 8 tank killer shots. I mean...the Valiant Gladiator does that and its 250 points...There is a clear unbalance here. At 6 shots it was already pretty bad but a point increase would have been satisfactory. With erads getting a MM option in the codex...it is just laughable.


I'm not arguing that, but most heavy vehicles are not wounded on 3s by autocannons. It's the same as a drukhari ravager, really, vs other similarly priced units it's more durable vs some weapons and less vs others.

The doomstalker is decently durable for the cost. The primary thing that in my eyes makes it not worth considering as a competitive piece is the lack of reliability. D6 shot D6 damage gun is just bad IMO, particularly when 3d3 and 3+d3 options are available.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 15:07:39


Post by: Xenomancers


the_scotsman wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
But 4++ save is a pretty effective way at mitigating damage. Pretty much the best available tool. No unit at 130ish points should be putting out 8 tank killer shots. I mean...the Valiant Gladiator does that and its 250 points...There is a clear unbalance here. At 6 shots it was already pretty bad but a point increase would have been satisfactory. With erads getting a MM option in the codex...it is just laughable.


I'm not arguing that, but most heavy vehicles are not wounded on 3s by autocannons. It's the same as a drukhari ravager, really, vs other similarly priced units it's more durable vs some weapons and less vs others.

The doomstalker is decently durable for the cost. The primary thing that in my eyes makes it not worth considering as a competitive piece is the lack of reliability. D6 shot D6 damage gun is just bad IMO, particularly when 3d3 and 3+d3 options are available.

I think the doom stalker beats out Heavy destroyers without question though. The Nightscythe might be a better option. I will have to try it out. I liked it a lot better at 170 points with the ability to take MWBD from an indom overlord. I played it that way and it did great weeks ago. Now +30 points - no 2+ to hit and super tesla....It's gonna be hard for me to justify it - I have the nerf blues.

Safe to say Triarch stalkers are auto include. At least 1. Maybe 3.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 15:12:40


Post by: the_scotsman


140pts for 1 eradicators' worth of firepower?

I don't know if I'd call it an auto-include...for the same price, you can have 2 lokhust heavies hidden in units of regular lokhusts, which have native reroll 1s to hit and can have reroll all wounds.

I'd buy that for a dollar.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 15:13:44


Post by: Acehilator


Doomstalkers are useable if you take two or three with a Technomancer with Canoptek Control Node, but if you play in hard local metas or you are looking at tournament play, you want DDAs, they are simply better.

- more movement (not much, but still)
- FLY (still useful even without fall back + shoot)
- more HP (similar points efficiency, but still)
- QS (generally a wash, but better with 4++ stratagem)
- better secondary weapon (2.5 times as many shots)
- no need for a babysitter (better flexibility with hiding and general positioning)
- not needing the Technomancer also frees up a Cryptek slot for the rest of the army


On a sidenote, a DDA will survive a unit of fully buffed Eradicators (4x Heavy, 2x Multi with Chapter Master + Lieutnant rerolls) outside Melta range if you use the 4++ stratagem, taking 11.31 damage.

The Doomstalker won't, and the Doomscythe neither.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 15:18:55


Post by: CommanderWalrus


One thing I'm looking forward to is seeing the actually tournament results of Necrons with the new book. Personally, I'll honestly be surprised if they place great in tournaments, but I still think it'll be interesting to discuss their viability with a bit more hard evidence.
Also, thanks for all the replies in this thread, everyone!


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 15:24:34


Post by: Dudeface


Acehilator wrote:
Doomstalkers are useable if you take two or three with a Technomancer with Canoptek Control Node, but if you play in hard local metas or you are looking at tournament play, you want DDAs, they are simply better.

- more movement (not much, but still)
- FLY (still useful even without fall back + shoot)
- more HP (similar points efficiency, but still)
- QS (generally a wash, but better with 4++ stratagem)
- better secondary weapon (2.5 times as many shots)
- no need for a babysitter (better flexibility with hiding and general positioning)
- not needing the Technomancer also frees up a Cryptek slot for the rest of the army


On a sidenote, a DDA will survive a unit of fully buffed Eradicators (4x Heavy, 2x Multi with Chapter Master + Lieutnant rerolls) outside Melta range if you use the 4++ stratagem, taking 11.31 damage.

The Doomstalker won't, and the Doomscythe neither.


You miss the doomsday ark is 50 points more each, taking 2 pays for the cryptek, likewise they degrade on their BS and the stalkers don't, it's not clear cut that either option is better imo.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 15:37:17


Post by: Acehilator


Degradation is literally the only advantage in taking Stalkers. I am sure it's not worth it missing out on all the little things noted above.

Also, a "operate at top bracket" strat exists.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 15:44:48


Post by: yukishiro1


There are a lot of other advantages too. The DDA pays a lot of points for a bunch of 24" rapid fire anti-infantry weapons that are hard to use effectively without debuffing your big gun. It doesn't get free FTGG overwatch. It doesn't get to use the strat to shoot at something that killed one of your characters - super situational, but game-winning in the right circumstances. As a vehicle, it gets shredded by haywire, in a meta where harlequins are super strong and almost every harlequin player takes at least one 5-man squad of the bikes. Etc etc.

I instinctively dislike both of them because 1d6 shots 1d6 damage weapons are a bad joke. But they have done a pretty good job of creating reasons to take both versions, within that generally ineffective paradigm.



We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 16:19:07


Post by: Xenomancers


the_scotsman wrote:
140pts for 1 eradicators' worth of firepower?

I don't know if I'd call it an auto-include...for the same price, you can have 2 lokhust heavies hidden in units of regular lokhusts, which have native reroll 1s to hit and can have reroll all wounds.

I'd buy that for a dollar.

You should be taking the heavy gauss version even though its the most expensive. 6 shots str 7 ap-3 d3 damage. Most importantly though. They spread around reorll 1's to hit and have decent melee ability.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Acehilator wrote:
Degradation is literally the only advantage in taking Stalkers. I am sure it's not worth it missing out on all the little things noted above.

Also, a "operate at top bracket" strat exists.

190 x 3 = 570.
140 3x+ 95 for cryptec is 515.

It saves you 55 points and you get a cryptec to reanimate an infanttry a turn. The additional shots you get from the secondaries could be argued that can in certain situations be worth the extra points but I doubt it. 65 points gets you a spider with a claw to repair too. I think the choice between the two options is pretty close but the doom stalker wins out in the end. ESP if you also include other conaoptec units that benefit from the +1 aura too.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 18:47:01


Post by: Sasori


One thing I would note about the Doom scythe and the LHD with Destructors is that they are only likely to get an attack with their weapon, and then be wiped off the board.

So while the points per damage on the LHD and Doom scythe are higher, I generally expect the Doomstalkers to stick around much longer. Same with a DDA.

There could be a case of bringing individual LHDs. Now that we have credible Melee and Ranged Anti-tank in multiple slots though, we might be able to suffice with just a few 1 ofs LHDs.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 19:05:40


Post by: Tycho


Doomstalkers are useable if you take two or three with a Technomancer with Canoptek Control Node, but if you play in hard local metas or you are looking at tournament play, you want DDAs, they are simply better.


I'd agree with the part of the statement that says they are good if you take more than 1 and you support them, they are good. I struggle to see how they will be in any way "OP".

As for the results of "Wait and see" - I have said in many posts our group's "wait and see" moment was going to be the first two books. I guess you can label us cautiously optimistic?

Once again, there were VERY CLEARLY two extremely different interpretations of the initial design direction. As has been pointed out - Necrons got CORE in a very limited manner and Marines got it left and right like it was going out of style. A lot of the Necron "buffs" are highly situational, and/or side-grades that are hard to get too excited about as well.

That said, we really like the layouts of the new books, and really, they over-all did what we wanted them to do. Marines have been brought more in line, and the 'Crons are currently in the running for "most improved" (provided DG don't knock them out of that slot when their dex comes out!). Crons actually feel workable again. They have actual tools in the toolbox and marines were dialed back but not nerfed into the ground, so, yeah - cautiously optimistic over here.

EDIT:

The one caveat to this that I forgot to mention is the poor, poor Monolith - 380 points, LoW, AND IT LOST FLY? They basically put it in a sack and smashed it repeatedly with a hammer. I don't actually like them personally, so it doesn't affect me, but it's the functional equivalent of GW deciding Dar Eldar don't need Raiders anymore - such an iconic unit to the army, and it's not likely to see the table this edition with its current rules. That's a real head scratcher imo.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 19:22:25


Post by: Acehilator


Well AT is the area Necrons are struggling with the most, which is funny given the stats on the weapon themselves. People on the Necrontyr Reddit have pics up of their LHDs, they are surprisingly small. Three in a unit are 210, they are infantry, so moving through walls and getting Light Cover is a thing. The weapons in said unit are way more consistent than DDA/Stalker, easy to hide etc. Obviously they melt to Eradicators.

Regarding the codizes, the general design is fine. Necrons having limited CORE is fine, it fits the fluff. If all codizes would turn out like the Necron one, that would be really nice. SMs continue to play their own game, at this point I don't care anymore. Them having CORE everywhere is fine too (well except Dreads, but whatever), GW just missed the points cost, as usual. Overall, I am not interested in another round of powercreep.

Looking forward to the DG codex.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 22:46:08


Post by: Eonfuzz


 Xenomancers wrote:
Erads are a joke. No way they exist much longer than a few weeks like this. Marines stuff that is OP gets nerfed quickly. I also doubt outflank continues to exist ether. Remember turn 1 deepstrike in 8th? That didn't take long to nerf after that created so much problems.


Hmm yes, I too remember how quickly the whole last year and a half of 8th nerfed marines. Yes yes. Tell it to the world how it is Xeno.
Marines need the power level to keep up with units such as the Stompa and Squigbuggy clearly


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 23:12:44


Post by: dominuschao


Erads are pretty busted. But retributors can do similar now. 12 meltas at 36" with +1 damage (+3 half range). 150 pts and a 1 cp.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 23:16:52


Post by: Salt donkey


OP might have been strong words by me, but stalkers are very cheap for what you get. Previously every competitive necron player used 3 doomsday arcs in their lists, This is despite the fact that their weapons are D6 shots, D6 damage. Yes this isn’t ideal, but having 3 in a list adds a lot of redundancy that is needed for competitive lists. Doomstalkers lack the quantum shielding that arcs had, but gained a 4++ and are a lot cheaper at 140 points (x 3 since you have to run 3 for the consistentancy). Their main gun is slightly better to with AP -5, which does matter in this marine meta. The key here is that 48 inch range, which allows them to hang in the back away from scary melta weapons, which will be a lot more common than scary long ranged guns.

Also I think a lot of you are underestimating how important their cheap cost is. I here comments like “for only 60 points more I can get a doomsycth” or something similar for doomsday arcs. But as previously mentioned I think you have to run 3 of these units due to constancy, which means that 60 points get’s x3 as well to 180 points. Now where at the point where a necron player who takes 3 doomstalkers gets a full unit more than the player who takes one of the other doom options. Frankly this feels like powercreep to sell new models, but that’s just how the math works out here.

Also I’m not advocating people use doomstalkers instead of C’tan’s, but rather with C’tans. A list that uses 3 stalkers, the voiddragon, and nightbringer has 880 points left for troops, HQ’s, and maybe a melee unit. That to me will become the default setup for most competitive necron lists (although this is admittedly theoycrafting at this point).


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/13 23:30:33


Post by: BrianDavion


140 points is cheap eneugh that you can toss one (or even three) into your list reasonably painlessly. I mean if you wanna compare the thing to a marine unit, it's worth noting that a twin las predator costs 130 points (thats not including the sponsons) and gets better performance along just about every metric.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 00:45:55


Post by: yukishiro1


C'tan are too expensive, and lose most of their value if you take more than one. I doubt you will see them in competitive lists period, but if you do, it'll be a max of one.

Las preds are terrible and completely unseen in competitive lists, so "doomstalkers are like that" (they aren't, but just going with it for the moment) doesn't seem to be a great endorsement.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 00:51:49


Post by: BrianDavion


yukishiro1 wrote:
C'tan are too expensive, and lose most of their value if you take more than one. I doubt you will see them in competitive lists period, but if you do, it'll be a max of one.

Las preds are terrible and completely unseen in competitive lists, so "doomstalkers are like that" (they aren't, but just going with it for the moment) doesn't seem to be a great endorsement.


ohh I just felt obligated to note doomstalkers are better then at least one marine heavy support option!

honestly I'd never looked at predator points until now, jesus those those are over priced. A pity, I had a predator I was thinking I could take for the odd game or two but I suspect ti'll spend 9th edition shelved


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 01:04:39


Post by: Sasori


yukishiro1 wrote:
C'tan are too expensive, and lose most of their value if you take more than one. I doubt you will see them in competitive lists period, but if you do, it'll be a max of one.

Las preds are terrible and completely unseen in competitive lists, so "doomstalkers are like that" (they aren't, but just going with it for the moment) doesn't seem to be a great endorsement.


I don't think I can really agree here. Nothing in the game does what the Nightbringer does, and I think you will always see one in a competitive list.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 01:31:50


Post by: Cynista


I don't understand why some people have been saying Lokhust Destroyers moving to Heavy Support is a bad thing. It's a great thing! Fast Attack is always the most stacked but that's levelled out slightly

Also I actually like what they have done with classic Destroyers (apart from nerfing the strat ffs), making them these one robot wrecking balls of firepower. The issue is both Lokhust and Heavy Lokhust are at overpriced. Regular's by at least 10 points


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 03:04:49


Post by: yukishiro1


 Sasori wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
C'tan are too expensive, and lose most of their value if you take more than one. I doubt you will see them in competitive lists period, but if you do, it'll be a max of one.

Las preds are terrible and completely unseen in competitive lists, so "doomstalkers are like that" (they aren't, but just going with it for the moment) doesn't seem to be a great endorsement.


I don't think I can really agree here. Nothing in the game does what the Nightbringer does, and I think you will always see one in a competitive list.


I think that's why you won't see him in a competitive list. There's a reason nothing else in the game does what he does - because that isn't a role that really needs doing IMO. Maybe in a meta with lots of knights or something, but 40k isn't generally a game where you need a 350 point melee beatstick. He feels to me like a "win harder" piece, something that will absolutely smash lists you'd beat anyway but doesn't give you a real competitive advantage against the lists you would have trouble with. Anything that can do damage in 3 or even 2 phases is a massive threat to him.

Honestly his c'tan power is probably the scariest thing about him and the main reason I'd take him, more than his melee. He puts out something like 4.5ish targeted MWs on average per turn when he's within range of it, and that's enough to be really scary to characters.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 03:09:00


Post by: BrianDavion


yukishiro1 wrote:
 Sasori wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
C'tan are too expensive, and lose most of their value if you take more than one. I doubt you will see them in competitive lists period, but if you do, it'll be a max of one.

Las preds are terrible and completely unseen in competitive lists, so "doomstalkers are like that" (they aren't, but just going with it for the moment) doesn't seem to be a great endorsement.


I don't think I can really agree here. Nothing in the game does what the Nightbringer does, and I think you will always see one in a competitive list.


I think that's why you won't see him in a competitive list. There's a reason nothing else in the game does what he does - because that isn't a role that really needs doing IMO. Maybe in a meta with lots of knights or something, but 40k isn't generally a game where you need a 350 point melee beatstick. He feels to me like a "win harder" piece, something that will absolutely smash lists you'd beat anyway but doesn't give you a real competitive advantage against the lists you would have trouble with. Anything that can do damage in 3 or even 2 phases is a massive threat to him.

Honestly his c'tan power is probably the scariest thing about him and the main reason I'd take him, more than his melee. He puts out something like 4.5ish targeted MWs on average per turn when he's within range of it, and that's enough to be really scary to characters.


keep in mind that the meta is always shifting, a year from now a new knights codex could come out that is insane;y good, insanely popular and suddenly every necron player wants to have nightbringer on hand. having a tool that "may not be needed in the current meta" doesn't mean it's not a bad tool to have.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 03:17:26


Post by: yukishiro1


I never said it was. I said I don't think you'll see him in competitive lists right now. Obviously if the meta changes and big beefy units aren't being suppressed by eradicators any more the situation might change.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 03:52:29


Post by: Void__Dragon


Tycho wrote:

Once again, there were VERY CLEARLY two extremely different interpretations of the initial design direction. As has been pointed out - Necrons got CORE in a very limited manner and Marines got it left and right like it was going out of style.


I really don't think there were, I just think people made the mistake in thinking which units being designated CORE were done so for balance/gameplay reasons. Gonna quote a post I just made on the subject:

 Void__Dragon wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
I think it's a pretty safe bet that Space Marines getting <CORE> on essentially the whole army is just another case of the protagonist faction getting to ignore the rules everyone else plays by. Xenos in particular I'm sure will still have very restrictive <CORE> lists because, well, NPC faction syndrome and all that.



The only inconsistency concerning CORE for Marines and CORE for Necrons is that the Centurion by the standards they're obviously operating with should have it.

All the Marines that are CORE are so because they are all some variation of dudes in the open field. Infantry, bikers, and dreadnoughts whose metal frame essentially is their body. They are core because all can be directly coordinated by a Spess Mehreen commander.

The Necron units that are CORE are all of the units the Necron nobility can directly coordinate. So just warriors, immortal, deathmark, tomb blades, and lych guard. Destroyers and Flayed Ones are insane, and Canoptek are mindless and working within the pre-set parameters of their design.

It makes perfect sense that Eradicators are CORE, even if it's bad for game balance, just like it makes perfect sense that flayed ones aren't core, even if it would be fine for balance.

The mistake is in assuming that GW designated units as core according to game balance; with the exception of Centurions they didn't, it was a narrative decision. What "feels" right. Because 40k is a narrative game.

I don't like it very much myself, but there isn't any double standard that benefits Marines. The one time they went against that obvious design philosophy was in a hamfisted attempt to gut the Centurion.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote:
I never said it was. I said I don't think you'll see him in competitive lists right now. Obviously if the meta changes and big beefy units aren't being suppressed by eradicators any more the situation might change.


What lists have the targeted smite firepower to shave three wounds off of him that are meta right now except maybe Daemons?


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 04:01:11


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Couldn't agree more Void__Dragon.

The Necron Core units are Core because it makes sense within the fluff. Flayed Ones are abhorred by the Necrons, and Destroyers (of all types) are obsessive creatures slowly devolving into madness. Of course they're not considered "Core" by the Necrons.

And you're right that the inconsistency are the Centurions.



We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 04:19:52


Post by: Voss


Yeah. Its what I've been saying for a while. Core is GW's latest stab at pushing fluffy 'this is what this army is supposed to look like.'

Necron Core means 'actually necrons,' 'sane,' and not 'watchmen outside the order of the dynasties'

It has squat to do with balance.
Marine Core is basically infantry/bikes capable of taking orders (which is basically all of them), plus dreads because GW thinks dreads are cool (and loyalist dreads are heavily dosed with heroism particles and battle honors, rather than pure crazy).
Centurions I can't explain. It might be a random thought about game balance, but it could just as easily be an accidental omission.

----
It'll be interesting to see how Death Guard are handled. I obviously expect it on the plague marines, terminators and dreads, but not daemon engines or cultists. The various Nurgle Daemons also seem unlikely since they currently break detachment bonuses.
Poxwalkers are my 'I'm not sure' guess.
I kind of expect them to seem 'shorted' here, simply because they don't have marine units threaded through every slot type (no fast or heavy), and the glut of elite characters shouldn't get it (as excluding characters is one of the points of the Core tag).

When they finally get around to Imperial Guard, it'll be really interesting, since that's the codex I half-expect to see it on tanks. And not on any of the Auxiliary units. But just Infantry, special weapons squads, HWT, veterans and scions (if them) seems too limited.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 04:30:03


Post by: BrianDavion


Voss wrote:
Yeah. Its what I've been saying for a while. Core is GW's latest stab at pushing fluffy 'this is what this army is supposed to look like.'

Necron Core means 'actually necrons,' 'sane,' and not 'watchmen outside the order of the dynasties'

It has squat to do with balance.

It'll be interesting to see how Death Guard are handled. I obviously expect it on the marines, terminators and dreads, but not daemon engines or cultists. The various Nurgle Daemons also seem unlikely since they currently break detachment bonuses.
Poxwalkers are my 'I'm not sure' guess.

When they finally get around to Imperial Guard, it'll be really interesting, since that's the point I half-expect to see it on tanks.


and this BTW gets back to some of us managed to predict what the core units would be pretty accurately before the codices launched. we looked at what GW said the intent of the rule was, rather then wish hopefully


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 04:36:23


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Voss wrote:
When they finally get around to Imperial Guard, it'll be really interesting, since that's the codex I half-expect to see it on tanks. And not on any of the Auxiliary units. But just Infantry, special weapons squads, HWT, veterans and scions (if them) seems too limited.
Depends on how they do the Leman Russ entry, really.

If it's just all-in-one, then there might be some hesitation to list Vanquishers and Executioners as "core". If they split them up a bit, then regular Russes, Exterminators and maybe Demolishers could be core. The Chimera is a possibility as well. On the other hand, I wouldn't be shocked if Sentinels didn't get it.

Scions are an interesting case, as they are not something I'd consider "core" in a Guard army. In a Scion army though, they are obviously intrinsic (so is the Taurox for that matter). They could make it conditional ie. "If you Warlord has the 'Scion' Keyword then the following units gain the Core keyword". They could even do that with tanks, as it happens.

Hell that might even be a way of fixing the current nonsense with Dark Eldar. "If you include a Succubus in your army all Wych units gain the Core keyword". And so on...



We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 04:40:08


Post by: Voss


Conditional Core makes no real sense- it undermines the utility of having the concept at all.

Instead of going that route, they're better off sticking to the relevant keyword (be it 'Scion' or 'Russ.'). In this case Scion would be like Destroyers, where the leader models & strats only buff the relevant unit and they don't get Core.


---
That said, dark eldar (as they're currently organized) might be a messy exception to that, simply because GW has made such as mess of the 'subfactions.'
Though equally likely, I could see dark eldar having NO Core at all, just characters and strats that only affect Kabals, Cults OR Covens, but never more than one.

But I still hope that DE (and CE) just get massive overhauls to drag them out of the pits of neglect they've been summarily tossed into, making that sort of speculation moot.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 05:03:14


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Voss wrote:
Conditional Core makes no real sense- it undermines the utility of having the concept at all.
Does it? Tanks would be Core a tank army. Scions would be Core in a Scion army.

They're not going to do 3 separate books, so unless they make all those units core regardless of army structure (which makes no sense - a Leman Russ shouldn't be "Core" in a Scion army) conditional Core would be a way of resolving that.



We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 05:26:45


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Sasori wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
C'tan are too expensive, and lose most of their value if you take more than one. I doubt you will see them in competitive lists period, but if you do, it'll be a max of one.

Las preds are terrible and completely unseen in competitive lists, so "doomstalkers are like that" (they aren't, but just going with it for the moment) doesn't seem to be a great endorsement.


I don't think I can really agree here. Nothing in the game does what the Nightbringer does, and I think you will always see one in a competitive list.

The Ghaz defense is absolutely strong on the unit, especially when Ghaz himself isn't exactly great at buffing Orks whereas the CTan aren't really trying to buff their army and pay just for the straight utility/offense.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 06:12:26


Post by: BrianDavion


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Voss wrote:
Conditional Core makes no real sense- it undermines the utility of having the concept at all.
Does it? Tanks would be Core a tank army. Scions would be Core in a Scion army.

They're not going to do 3 separate books, so unless they make all those units core regardless of army structure (which makes no sense - a Leman Russ shouldn't be "Core" in a Scion army) conditional Core would be a way of resolving that.



As Voss said you don't need <core> for that.

if you open up the necron and marine codex, core is honestly used pretty spareingly, Imperial Guard do not, have, as a general rule many Aura's (in fact the only one I could find was the Lord Comissars "use my LDR when within 6 inches" one. granted I don't have the codex so could be wrong) Scions can't order guardsmen, tank commanders can't order infantry etc.
Looking at what I can find about the Guard assuming nothing changes in their new codex beyond getting core added where approperate if tanks and scions didn't get core, the end result would be you couldn't cast psykic barrier on them or mental fortitude.

Hardly the end of the world.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 06:43:26


Post by: Denegaar


Voss wrote:

That said, dark eldar (as they're currently organized) might be a messy exception to that, simply because GW has made such as mess of the 'subfactions.'
Though equally likely, I could see dark eldar having NO Core at all, just characters and strats that only affect Kabals, Cults OR Covens, but never more than one.

But I still hope that DE (and CE) just get massive overhauls to drag them out of the pits of neglect they've been summarily tossed into, making that sort of speculation moot.


I hope GW listens to you on the last part.

But we are going to have CORE in our army. Out of the 3 buffs we are using in our lists right now (we have a couple more, but can be neglected), two of them enter into the category of "no no" for GW.

- Archon buffing Ravagers (no no)
- Drazhar buffing himself (no no) and Incubi (that's fine)
- Haemonculous buffing Covens (I guess that's going to stay)

So I guess everything can get CORE (inside the subfaction restriction) but vehicles. I hope Pain and Parasite Engines get it, at least.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 07:07:58


Post by: JohnnyHell


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:
Tbh Stratagems are fine. On the whole they’re a fun mechanic and the game is more fun than it has been since 2nd for me. YMMV. Just wanted to add a counterpoint to the salt overdoses. Some Strats should be unit abilities, and the costing on some is wrong, but they generate some fun moments in our games and that’s what we’re here for.
People disliking more equipment become strats is now a "salt overdose"? Sheesh...


I’m sure you’re aware the whole thread was getting super salty but no, misrepresent my post and try and wind me up, whatever floats your boat. Anything optimistic is to be crushed lest it spread and Dakka become a positive place where talk is allowed about a hobby people *enjoy*. That would be AWFUL.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 07:27:05


Post by: CEO Kasen


 JohnnyHell wrote:
I’m sure you’re aware the whole thread was getting super salty but no, misrepresent my post and try and wind me up, whatever floats your boat. Anything optimistic is to be crushed lest it spread and Dakka become a positive place where talk is allowed about a hobby people *enjoy*. That would be AWFUL.


Is sarcastically accusing people of misrepresenting you in bad faith in an argument about plastic spacemen rules, instead of merely clarifying a possible misunderstanding of your stance, really going to contribute to a positive atmosphere?


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 07:43:04


Post by: Not Online!!!


 CEO Kasen wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:
I’m sure you’re aware the whole thread was getting super salty but no, misrepresent my post and try and wind me up, whatever floats your boat. Anything optimistic is to be crushed lest it spread and Dakka become a positive place where talk is allowed about a hobby people *enjoy*. That would be AWFUL.


Is sarcastically accusing people of misrepresenting you in bad faith in an argument about plastic spacemen rules, instead of merely clarifying a possible misunderstanding of your stance, really going to contribute to a positive atmosphere?


It's Jhonny.
Sarcasm is his bread and butter, let this dakkanaut be.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 08:20:01


Post by: Salt donkey


yukishiro1 wrote:
 Sasori wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
C'tan are too expensive, and lose most of their value if you take more than one. I doubt you will see them in competitive lists period, but if you do, it'll be a max of one.

Las preds are terrible and completely unseen in competitive lists, so "doomstalkers are like that" (they aren't, but just going with it for the moment) doesn't seem to be a great endorsement.


I don't think I can really agree here. Nothing in the game does what the Nightbringer does, and I think you will always see one in a competitive list.


I think that's why you won't see him in a competitive list. There's a reason nothing else in the game does what he does - because that isn't a role that really needs doing IMO. Maybe in a meta with lots of knights or something, but 40k isn't generally a game where you need a 350 point melee beatstick. He feels to me like a "win harder" piece, something that will absolutely smash lists you'd beat anyway but doesn't give you a real competitive advantage against the lists you would have trouble with. Anything that can do damage in 3 or even 2 phases is a massive threat to him.

Honestly his c'tan power is probably the scariest thing about him and the main reason I'd take him, more than his melee. He puts out something like 4.5ish targeted MWs on average per turn when he's within range of it, and that's enough to be really scary to characters.


I don’t exactly get what your argument here is. Plenty of melee beatstick a are seeing play right now. Greater demons, custode terminators, space marine smash characters, deathshroud terminators, oh and Ghaz, are all popular meta choices. Also the reason why most melee beatsticks fail is because of fragility, which the nightbringer is not. You make it sound like he will fold like wet tissue paper against most armies, but I have a hard time seeing this. What lists are necrons struggling with? We where talking about the marine matchup in this thread, and he seems great there as marines don’t have many great ways to do wounds to him outside of melee and shooting (most marine lists use minimal pyskers, and many of these exist to buff). Custodes are absolutely terrified of him. Same thing with sisters of battle (which got a lot better with the melta rules change). Honestly it’s seems to me he’ll struggle more aginst lower tier armies, like Tyranids, craftworlds, and thousands sons. Demons would be bad if they had any shooting.

Also you are right that the mortal wound output he brings is a big selling point. Kills a lot of meta threats quite well.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 08:35:14


Post by: a_typical_hero


While highly unlikely, a Librarian Dreadnought has the ability to solo the Nightbringer in one round.

I will try this feat just for bragging rights.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 08:45:19


Post by: Breton


a_typical_hero wrote:
While highly unlikely, a Librarian Dreadnought has the ability to solo the Nightbringer in one round.

I will try this feat just for bragging rights.


The current one, or the old one?


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 08:55:40


Post by: Dudeface


Breton wrote:
a_typical_hero wrote:
While highly unlikely, a Librarian Dreadnought has the ability to solo the Nightbringer in one round.

I will try this feat just for bragging rights.


The current one, or the old one?


Either, in theory, the librarian dread could do 3 wounds with the storm bolter or w/e, 3 with a smite then 3 in melee.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 09:06:28


Post by: Spoletta


Bugs have almost no auras, but...

What do you expect to be CORE for the nids? Because fluff wise I have no thread to follow, there is no theme to a nid army.

HQ will not be CORE, but apart from that I have no idea...


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 09:13:22


Post by: a_typical_hero


Dudeface wrote:
Either, in theory, the librarian dread could do 3 wounds with the storm bolter or w/e, 3 with a smite then 3 in melee.


I was thinking about the Meltagun to increase the chance during the shooting phase, but yeah.

Meltagun - d6 wounds
2x Smite - up to 2d3 wounds
Melee - 3 wounds with each attack

Not a bad threat potential for an ~150p investment. Especially since it got Character protection.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 09:15:16


Post by: Sunny Side Up


Spoletta wrote:
Bugs have almost no auras, but...

What do you expect to be CORE for the nids? Because fluff wise I have no thread to follow, there is no theme to a nid army.

HQ will not be CORE, but apart from that I have no idea...


I'd be surprised if they double up on Core on top of Synapse with Nids. They probably just stick to effects being applicable to units in synapse (e.g. the Nid Psychic Awakening weak-sauce-version of Master Artisans/Expert Crafters already does that).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Voss wrote:
Conditional Core makes no real sense- it undermines the utility of having the concept at all.
Does it? Tanks would be Core a tank army. Scions would be Core in a Scion army.

They're not going to do 3 separate books, so unless they make all those units core regardless of army structure (which makes no sense - a Leman Russ shouldn't be "Core" in a Scion army) conditional Core would be a way of resolving that.



Again, they can do that with different keywords that work similar to Core.

The Necron Codex already does it with Destroyers and Canoptek. There're few Core units, especially compared to Marines, but there're also buff-characters, auras, etc.. that go off the Destroyer or Canoptek keywords that produce comparable effects for a mainly/all Canoptek or Destroyer army.

IG could do the same. Maybe the use the Core-keyword for your basic infantry (or change the wording of it down the line), and also introduce a different kinda-like-core-keyword to use for synergies between Tank models / Scion models, etc..


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 09:34:48


Post by: Tyel


I'm afraid I think GW's core qualification is a case of "chuck a dart and have the players speculate if its due to fluff, due to gameplay or purely due to whim".

There is no logical reason aggressors/eradicators should be core, but centurions are not. The only argument I can see is gameplay "Uh, when we were writing this, centurions were a problem, so we wanted them nerfed." I'd expect eradicators to lose the keyword in 6-12 months on similar grounds.

With that said, many factions don't even have meaningful set of buffs to hand out. I'd expect for instance Archons to stop buffing Ravagers - but really, stripped of this, the buff is so ephemeral, you'd hope the whole thing would be redesigned. Sisters's buffing Exorcists is likely another thing to go.

I'm drawing a blank on what guard aura buffs tanks. Yarrick perhaps? Which feels like a special character rule that doesn't need a lot or reorganisation.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 10:24:46


Post by: Sunny Side Up


Well, Officers and Tank Commanders giving Orders to themselves, instead of giving orders to their underlings is surely going the way of the dodo.

The idea of a Company Commander shouting into his pocket mirror to make himself run faster has always been a bit silly.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 10:44:35


Post by: BrianDavion


Tyel wrote:
I'm afraid I think GW's core qualification is a case of "chuck a dart and have the players speculate if its due to fluff, due to gameplay or purely due to whim".

There is no logical reason aggressors/eradicators should be core, but centurions are not. The only argument I can see is gameplay "Uh, when we were writing this, centurions were a problem, so we wanted them nerfed." I'd expect eradicators to lose the keyword in 6-12 months on similar grounds.

With that said, many factions don't even have meaningful set of buffs to hand out. I'd expect for instance Archons to stop buffing Ravagers - but really, stripped of this, the buff is so ephemeral, you'd hope the whole thing would be redesigned. Sisters's buffing Exorcists is likely another thing to go.

I'm drawing a blank on what guard aura buffs tanks. Yarrick perhaps? Which feels like a special character rule that doesn't need a lot or reorganisation.


Centurions might not have core because GW sees them as a support platform that's "not commonly used in a typical marine force" not saying I agree with it, but that's the best I can fathom it, or.... yeah this is just GW nerf hammering centurions again


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 10:51:21


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 CEO Kasen wrote:
Is sarcastically accusing people of misrepresenting you in bad faith in an argument about plastic spacemen rules, instead of merely clarifying a possible misunderstanding of your stance, really going to contribute to a positive atmosphere?
Don't worry Kasen. I made that post knowing full well the response I was going to get. You could set your watch to him.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 10:53:03


Post by: Karol


BrianDavion 792902 10955387 wrote:

Centurions might not have core because GW sees them as a support platform that's "not commonly used in a typical marine force" not saying I agree with it, but that's the best I can fathom it, or.... yeah this is just GW nerf hammering centurions again


But aren't dreadnoughts in both the tactical and warsuit version core? There is no way a centurion suit is more rare then a suit termintor armour for regular marines.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 11:11:05


Post by: Spoletta


Tyel wrote:
I'm afraid I think GW's core qualification is a case of "chuck a dart and have the players speculate if its due to fluff, due to gameplay or purely due to whim".

There is no logical reason aggressors/eradicators should be core, but centurions are not. The only argument I can see is gameplay "Uh, when we were writing this, centurions were a problem, so we wanted them nerfed." I'd expect eradicators to lose the keyword in 6-12 months on similar grounds.

With that said, many factions don't even have meaningful set of buffs to hand out. I'd expect for instance Archons to stop buffing Ravagers - but really, stripped of this, the buff is so ephemeral, you'd hope the whole thing would be redesigned. Sisters's buffing Exorcists is likely another thing to go.

I'm drawing a blank on what guard aura buffs tanks. Yarrick perhaps? Which feels like a special character rule that doesn't need a lot or reorganisation.


There is actually one big gameplay reason for centurions not being CORE. The same for ATV not being CORE.
They are avoiding to give CORE to units whose models are over a certain point cost. They are trying to limit the maximum point cost of a unit which can benefit from CORE (which means that it can be buffed by CM).

They allow you to reach high point costs of a unit, but only if you go into high model count and start suffering from blasts.
Centurions and ATV can get close to a 300 point unit and still be unaffected by blast.
Aggressors get only up to 225 before becoming really good targets for many blast weapons.

If you keep the value of CORE units low, you mostly prevent castles. A captain needs 500 points of CORE units around him or he is useless (read: More units were better than the support he offers for his cost). This means that right now in the new codex you take a captain only if you are interested both in his fighting capabilities AND his leadership capabilities (which is a win in GW's cinematic eyes), OR if you use him as a buff bot, he needs at least 3 CORE units around him, which in 9th is close to impossible.

CM has been also priced separately. It adds the reroll of one result to a single unit. Since it costs 40 points, it means that if you don't have a 240 point unit, you were better off buying more of that unit with those 40 points.

Now, I don't know if GW thought about that when he designed this, but right now it is strangely working really elegantly.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 11:14:24


Post by: the_scotsman


So, why is it CORE when it's three necrons floating on individual high-speed flying machines, but not CORE when it's three necrons sitting together operating a single much slower flying machine?

Why can an overlord issue commands from a command barge, but can't issue commands to an annihilation barge?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote:
Bugs have almost no auras, but...

What do you expect to be CORE for the nids? Because fluff wise I have no thread to follow, there is no theme to a nid army.

HQ will not be CORE, but apart from that I have no idea...


fluff wise it should be anything in synapse. the hive mind controls it all.

Right? Because there's no double standard that works in favor of marines here?


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 11:25:37


Post by: Spoletta


the_scotsman wrote:
So, why is it CORE when it's three necrons floating on individual high-speed flying machines, but not CORE when it's three necrons sitting together operating a single much slower flying machine?

Why can an overlord issue commands from a command barge, but can't issue commands to an annihilation barge?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote:
Bugs have almost no auras, but...

What do you expect to be CORE for the nids? Because fluff wise I have no thread to follow, there is no theme to a nid army.

HQ will not be CORE, but apart from that I have no idea...


fluff wise it should be anything in synapse. the hive mind controls it all.

Right? Because there's no double standard that works in favor of marines here?


Because CORE for Necrons follows different logics. They have no Lt aura, captain aura, or CM buff.
Which logics? I have no idea, I don't know necrons well enough.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 11:26:12


Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Voss wrote:
Conditional Core makes no real sense- it undermines the utility of having the concept at all.
Does it? Tanks would be Core a tank army. Scions would be Core in a Scion army.

How about instead of conditional CORE, the abilities being limited to CORE + other keyword seems like a way better solution.
You got a Scion HQ and a Catachan HQ? Ok, the Scion HQ abilities affect unites with the CORE and SCION keywords, the Catachan HQ abilities affect the units with the CORE and CATACHAN keywords.
Avoid your Catachan HQ ordering Scion units around because your warlord is a Scion, or vice versa, which makes no sense lore-wise imo.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 11:40:02


Post by: Tyel


Spoletta wrote:
There is actually one big gameplay reason for centurions not being CORE. The same for ATV not being CORE.
They are avoiding to give CORE to units whose models are over a certain point cost. They are trying to limit the maximum point cost of a unit which can benefit from CORE (which means that it can be buffed by CM).

They allow you to reach high point costs of a unit, but only if you go into high model count and start suffering from blasts.
Centurions and ATV can get close to a 300 point unit and still be unaffected by blast.
Aggressors get only up to 225 before becoming really good targets for many blast weapons.

If you keep the value of CORE units low, you mostly prevent castles. A captain needs 500 points of CORE units around him or he is useless (read: More units were better than the support he offers for his cost). This means that right now in the new codex you take a captain only if you are interested both in his fighting capabilities AND his leadership capabilities (which is a win in GW's cinematic eyes), OR if you use him as a buff bot, he needs at least 3 CORE units around him, which in 9th is close to impossible.

CM has been also priced separately. It adds the reroll of one result to a single unit. Since it costs 40 points, it means that if you don't have a 240 point unit, you were better off buying more of that unit with those 40 points.

Now, I don't know if GW thought about that when he designed this, but right now it is strangely working really elegantly.


I think this is a good observation - but I feel its far too thought out to be GW's motivation

Its also a hard analysis to do, because you have to quantify some sort of "residue HQ slot filler tax" into every unit.

The CM price is an odd mix - because yes, on paper, I'm not sure its mathematically worth it.

For a regular unit hitting on 3s, the regular captain boosts damage output from 6/9->7/9. CM boosts it to 8/9. So an 8/7 damage boost. So in theory you'd need to boost a unit worth more than 280 points for the 40 points to be spent on that buff, over another model. More really - since you are not getting any resilience stats like wounds for your points.

With a minus 1 to hit this goes from 1/2->7/12->9/12, in which case you'd only need to buff 140 points. So if you can get a unit worth 200 or so its probably rational.

The counter argument I guess is that reliability has a value all its own.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 11:53:35


Post by: Castozor


Tyel wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
There is actually one big gameplay reason for centurions not being CORE. The same for ATV not being CORE.
They are avoiding to give CORE to units whose models are over a certain point cost. They are trying to limit the maximum point cost of a unit which can benefit from CORE (which means that it can be buffed by CM).

They allow you to reach high point costs of a unit, but only if you go into high model count and start suffering from blasts.
Centurions and ATV can get close to a 300 point unit and still be unaffected by blast.
Aggressors get only up to 225 before becoming really good targets for many blast weapons.

If you keep the value of CORE units low, you mostly prevent castles. A captain needs 500 points of CORE units around him or he is useless (read: More units were better than the support he offers for his cost). This means that right now in the new codex you take a captain only if you are interested both in his fighting capabilities AND his leadership capabilities (which is a win in GW's cinematic eyes), OR if you use him as a buff bot, he needs at least 3 CORE units around him, which in 9th is close to impossible.

CM has been also priced separately. It adds the reroll of one result to a single unit. Since it costs 40 points, it means that if you don't have a 240 point unit, you were better off buying more of that unit with those 40 points.

Now, I don't know if GW thought about that when he designed this, but right now it is strangely working really elegantly.


I think this is a good observation - but I feel its far too thought out to be GW's motivation

Its also a hard analysis to do, because you have to quantify some sort of "residue HQ slot filler tax" into every unit.

The CM price is an odd mix - because yes, on paper, I'm not sure its mathematically worth it.

For a regular unit hitting on 3s, the regular captain boosts damage output from 6/9->7/9. CM boosts it to 8/9. So an 8/7 damage boost. So in theory you'd need to boost a unit worth more than 280 points for the 40 points to be spent on that buff, over another model. More really - since you are not getting any resilience stats like wounds for your points.

With a minus 1 to hit this goes from 1/2->7/12->9/12, in which case you'd only need to buff 140 points. So if you can get a unit worth 200 or so its probably rational.

The counter argument I guess is that reliability has a value all its own.

I enjoy the math on this but did you take into account you are buffing for a potential 5 turns not just 1? Or in other words, would you pay 40 points to use CM re-rolls 5 times per game? I would.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 11:58:56


Post by: BrianDavion


Karol wrote:
BrianDavion 792902 10955387 wrote:

Centurions might not have core because GW sees them as a support platform that's "not commonly used in a typical marine force" not saying I agree with it, but that's the best I can fathom it, or.... yeah this is just GW nerf hammering centurions again


But aren't dreadnoughts in both the tactical and warsuit version core? There is no way a centurion suit is more rare then a suit termintor armour for regular marines.


Dreadnoughts are core, the Warsuit is NOT.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 12:26:45


Post by: Darsath


BrianDavion wrote:
Karol wrote:
BrianDavion 792902 10955387 wrote:

Centurions might not have core because GW sees them as a support platform that's "not commonly used in a typical marine force" not saying I agree with it, but that's the best I can fathom it, or.... yeah this is just GW nerf hammering centurions again


But aren't dreadnoughts in both the tactical and warsuit version core? There is no way a centurion suit is more rare then a suit termintor armour for regular marines.


Dreadnoughts are core, the Warsuit is NOT.

Dreadnoughts are core for now. Likely to change.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 12:32:22


Post by: Spoletta


 Castozor wrote:
Tyel wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
There is actually one big gameplay reason for centurions not being CORE. The same for ATV not being CORE.
They are avoiding to give CORE to units whose models are over a certain point cost. They are trying to limit the maximum point cost of a unit which can benefit from CORE (which means that it can be buffed by CM).

They allow you to reach high point costs of a unit, but only if you go into high model count and start suffering from blasts.
Centurions and ATV can get close to a 300 point unit and still be unaffected by blast.
Aggressors get only up to 225 before becoming really good targets for many blast weapons.

If you keep the value of CORE units low, you mostly prevent castles. A captain needs 500 points of CORE units around him or he is useless (read: More units were better than the support he offers for his cost). This means that right now in the new codex you take a captain only if you are interested both in his fighting capabilities AND his leadership capabilities (which is a win in GW's cinematic eyes), OR if you use him as a buff bot, he needs at least 3 CORE units around him, which in 9th is close to impossible.

CM has been also priced separately. It adds the reroll of one result to a single unit. Since it costs 40 points, it means that if you don't have a 240 point unit, you were better off buying more of that unit with those 40 points.

Now, I don't know if GW thought about that when he designed this, but right now it is strangely working really elegantly.


I think this is a good observation - but I feel its far too thought out to be GW's motivation

Its also a hard analysis to do, because you have to quantify some sort of "residue HQ slot filler tax" into every unit.

The CM price is an odd mix - because yes, on paper, I'm not sure its mathematically worth it.

For a regular unit hitting on 3s, the regular captain boosts damage output from 6/9->7/9. CM boosts it to 8/9. So an 8/7 damage boost. So in theory you'd need to boost a unit worth more than 280 points for the 40 points to be spent on that buff, over another model. More really - since you are not getting any resilience stats like wounds for your points.

With a minus 1 to hit this goes from 1/2->7/12->9/12, in which case you'd only need to buff 140 points. So if you can get a unit worth 200 or so its probably rational.

The counter argument I guess is that reliability has a value all its own.

I enjoy the math on this but did you take into account you are buffing for a potential 5 turns not just 1? Or in other words, would you pay 40 points to use CM re-rolls 5 times per game? I would.


The math is done on a per turn basis, which actually adds another point.

To make efficient use of the CM, you need that big target unit to be alive as long as your CM is alive.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 12:33:51


Post by: Breton


Spoletta wrote:
Bugs have almost no auras, but...

What do you expect to be CORE for the nids? Because fluff wise I have no thread to follow, there is no theme to a nid army.

HQ will not be CORE, but apart from that I have no idea...


Gaunts, Warriors, Stealers, Lictors, Gargoyls, Raveners, maybe thropes.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 12:37:05


Post by: Tyel


 Castozor wrote:
I enjoy the math on this but did you take into account you are buffing for a potential 5 turns not just 1? Or in other words, would you pay 40 points to use CM re-rolls 5 times per game? I would.


Yes the captain will hopefully survive all game and get to use CM 5 times. But your extra 40 points of "stuff" could also survive 5 turns. Or rather you could always be 40 points "up" from where you would otherwise be.

I'm going to use eradicators because they are neatly 40 points, even though in practice you get to a point of obvious overkill which is why I doubt you'd ever see 6 man squads. (Unless we somehow relive 2018 and Knights are on every table.)

You can put CM on 6 eradicators, or you could have 7 eradicators (idk, in 2 squads, which is probably better anyway...).
7 eradicators have better shooting, because (marginally), 7/6 is greater than 8/7 (the damage buff of CM). They also give you 3 extra wounds.
If the CM could *only* buff the eradicators, it would obviously be a bad ability - because as the eradicator unit suffers casualties, the buff impacts a lower number of points and having an "extra" eradicator matters more.

I.E. CM on 3 eradicators is still a 8/7 buff - i.e. 14%~. Whereas having 4 eradicators over 3 is now a 33% buff.

Now the CM can buff another unit, but that depends on there being something worthwhile to buff up. Buffing say 5 intercessors is probably quite incidental, and you'd almost certainly want the extra eradicator over that.

Basically its complicated. I don't think CM is bad - and I can imagine lists where you have 40 points left over, but due to unit sizes/detachment slots its CM or say 2 intercessors - and CM would be the better bet. But its no longer an auto-take, and may not even be optimal.

(Perhaps sadly, it probably is, because its a great buff to put on say a 3-4 strong squad of eradicators with an MM and the rest with the heavy meltas, and you want to buff that BS 4+ - but that's an eradicator problem rather than a CM problem.)


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 12:55:56


Post by: Tycho


There is no logical reason aggressors/eradicators should be core, but centurions are not. The only argument I can see is gameplay "Uh, when we were writing this, centurions were a problem, so we wanted them nerfed." I'd expect eradicators to lose the keyword in 6-12 months on similar grounds.


Yep. That I think is the one big question mark right now. The design philosophy has, thus far been applied inconsistently both internally, as well as externally. It will be interesting to see how it gets applied going forward. Will DG Demon engines get CORE? If Dreads and Eradicators got it, the DG demon engines should probably get it as well, but if we look at some things in the 'Cron dex it makes me wonder if they will, or if they will just create a new aura to get around not giving them core. From what we've seen so far, I can see them backing off of this core thing pretty quickly. I actually think core is a good idea, but I'm not sure how well it's going to work given how they've applied it so far.

For the record, I think the 'Cron dex probably comes closer to getting it "right" so far. In terms of the over-all game, it feels like the 'cron dex is more how I'd like the rest of the books to go. We shall see I suppose.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 13:00:28


Post by: the_scotsman


Tycho wrote:
There is no logical reason aggressors/eradicators should be core, but centurions are not. The only argument I can see is gameplay "Uh, when we were writing this, centurions were a problem, so we wanted them nerfed." I'd expect eradicators to lose the keyword in 6-12 months on similar grounds.


Yep. That I think is the one big question mark right now. The design philosophy has, thus far been applied inconsistently both internally, as well as externally. It will be interesting to see how it gets applied going forward. Will DG Demon engines get CORE? If Dreads and Eradicators got it, the DG demon engines should probably get it as well, but if we look at some things in the 'Cron dex it makes me wonder if they will, or if they will just create a new aura to get around not giving them core. From what we've seen so far, I can see them backing off of this core thing pretty quickly. I actually think it's a good idea, but I'm not sure how well it's going to work given how they've applied it so far.

For the record, I think the 'Cron dex probably comes closer to getting it "right" so far. In terms of the over-all game, it feels like the 'cron dex is more how I'd like the rest of the books to go. We shall see I suppose.


yeah, I'm sure it will be.

SM Standard: everything gets to be core. It's perfectly lore-friendly for you to be able to powergame successor chapter traits and get absolutely everything from a codex chapter of your choice.

Everyone Else Standard: Only Ork Boyz are core, every ability buff stratagem and psychic power in the codex gets changed to CORE only. Fielding non-boyz units breaks the lore of the orks, who are 99.999% boyz.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 13:19:12


Post by: Tycho


yeah, I'm sure it will be.

SM Standard: everything gets to be core. It's perfectly lore-friendly for you to be able to powergame successor chapter traits and get absolutely everything from a codex chapter of your choice.

Everyone Else Standard: Only Ork Boyz are core, every ability buff stratagem and psychic power in the codex gets changed to CORE only. Fielding non-boyz units breaks the lore of the orks, who are 99.999% boyz.


Oh man! I was thinking about the potential issues core creates with DE, but I didn't even consider the Orks. They've been built up over the years so that, theoretically, if we go by the fluff, almost everything but Stormboyz and the 'naughts should be core, but they also have almost no auras to speak of, so what's the point? So then, do you skip "core" for them, or do yo give them auras like everyone else?

I can see this going the way of past editions where they say something like "If your Warlord is a Wartrike", bikers are core, if your warlord is a Warboss, boyz and nobz are core, etc etc. I just hope the units get appropriate buffs if that's the case. It takes away a certain amount of freedom, so one would hope there would be a coresponding payoff.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 13:31:53


Post by: Catulle


the_scotsman wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
LOL, doomstalkers OP?

You mean that unit that has a D6 shot, D6 damage gun? just one of them?

Yeah, that's the kind of reliability that just SCREAMS "Tournament Unit" isn't it?

Nothing like rolling that D6 for your unit's shots that you now cannot reroll, and getting a 1. Whoops, 140pts of model is shooting 1 lascannon this turn, hahahahaah!
It is blast so that is something. It all averages out and sometimes it does excessive damage. It's always str 10 and ap-5 though so it's really not any more random that lesser weapons. It's not OP but for 140 points it is a top tier unit.


Frankly, I would be amazed if the doomstalker saw significant play competitively. Compared to a piece like an Onager Dunecrawler with NL, the amount of reliability that you gain from having easily accessible rerolls to hit and min-3 damage is well worth the drop from D6 hits to D3, and we haven't seen a lot of those tearing it up in competitive play either. Stacking a large amount of points into something that you have to also buff to make it reliable, screen to keep it from being tied up, and at the end of the day you STILL might just get voip'd out of existence by one of several hyperefficient suicide antitank units running around in the current meta...it just doesn't seem like a unit you'd bring to the board to do your tank killing.

Not when you've got the supreme reliability of CHARACTER-protected, damage-capped t7 4++ ctan with apocalyptically powerful antitank capabilities in the same arsenal.

Do you have a different definition of "Top Tier" than I'm using here? in my eyes for something to be top tier, I'd say it'd be "something I'd consider taking in a tournament army list." I cannot come up with a reason to take a doomstalker over a ctan for that purpose. Or heck - a Doom Scythe. For 60 more points, I get

1) An extra 10 tesla shots. Not amazing, but nice.

2) the ability to reserve for 1cp if my opponent has a unit like erads/rets waiting to instapop it, so I guarantee 1 round of shots.

3) Heavy 3 instead of d6 shots, and damage 3+d3 instead of D6.

4) cares more about line of sight than pretty much any long range antitank (can't move and shoot at full effectiveness) vs could not give less of a gak about any of that because it can basically be anywhere.

The doomstalker seems to suffer the same exact problems that cause people to consider the Vindicator unusably bad. What is the distinction there?


Do not engage the board's ur-example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 13:52:20


Post by: Voss


 Denegaar wrote:
Voss wrote:

That said, dark eldar (as they're currently organized) might be a messy exception to that, simply because GW has made such as mess of the 'subfactions.'
Though equally likely, I could see dark eldar having NO Core at all, just characters and strats that only affect Kabals, Cults OR Covens, but never more than one.

But I still hope that DE (and CE) just get massive overhauls to drag them out of the pits of neglect they've been summarily tossed into, making that sort of speculation moot.


I hope GW listens to you on the last part.

But we are going to have CORE in our army. Out of the 3 buffs we are using in our lists right now (we have a couple more, but can be neglected), two of them enter into the category of "no no" for GW.

- Archon buffing Ravagers (no no)
- Drazhar buffing himself (no no) and Incubi (that's fine)
- Haemonculous buffing Covens (I guess that's going to stay)

So I guess everything can get CORE (inside the subfaction restriction) but vehicles. I hope Pain and Parasite Engines get it, at least.


None of that requires Core:
Archon adds 'infantry' tag to the text of his buff.
Drazhar buff would be non character Incubi units
Haemonculus would just be <coven>


DE sub factions are a mess, but they can be worked around, if GW really wants to pursue that madnes. Daemons really have the same problem, where subfactions matter a lot more than what gets the theoretical Core tag.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 14:00:38


Post by: The Newman


BrianDavion wrote:
Karol wrote:
BrianDavion 792902 10955387 wrote:

Centurions might not have core because GW sees them as a support platform that's "not commonly used in a typical marine force" not saying I agree with it, but that's the best I can fathom it, or.... yeah this is just GW nerf hammering centurions again


But aren't dreadnoughts in both the tactical and warsuit version core? There is no way a centurion suit is more rare then a suit termintor armour for regular marines.


Dreadnoughts are core, the Warsuit is NOT.


Tactical Dreadnought is a more obscure term for Terminators, he might have meant Dreads and Termies and just worded it strangely.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 14:15:36


Post by: Xenomancers


 Eonfuzz wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Erads are a joke. No way they exist much longer than a few weeks like this. Marines stuff that is OP gets nerfed quickly. I also doubt outflank continues to exist ether. Remember turn 1 deepstrike in 8th? That didn't take long to nerf after that created so much problems.


Hmm yes, I too remember how quickly the whole last year and a half of 8th nerfed marines. Yes yes. Tell it to the world how it is Xeno.
Marines need the power level to keep up with units such as the Stompa and Squigbuggy clearly

I seem to remember supplements getting released and nerfed within a month or 2 with massive changes to how doctrines worked and then a world wide pandemic brought the game to a screeching halt. Now we are here. This Marine codex was written between 3-6 months ago and is a direct result of everything at the beginning of the year.

Aggressors nerfed
Centurions nerfed
Even Repulsor executioners nerfed (for the 4th time now) Thanks Ironhands.

It would be great if you could refute my argument with an example of some kind of lasting marine unit that is allowed to dominate for extended periods instead of making really weak personal attacks which are out of context and ironically true in the case of buggies. Stompas I only defended as being not that bad and can be played around. You know that though. So I am just humoring you with a response.

My point remains true that marine units that are over the top get fixed relatively quick compared to things like...really like any other army. Unless youre nids. Nids also get squashed pretty quickly if they have anything that works.




We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 14:19:16


Post by: Gadzilla666


Tycho wrote:
There is no logical reason aggressors/eradicators should be core, but centurions are not. The only argument I can see is gameplay "Uh, when we were writing this, centurions were a problem, so we wanted them nerfed." I'd expect eradicators to lose the keyword in 6-12 months on similar grounds.


Yep. That I think is the one big question mark right now. The design philosophy has, thus far been applied inconsistently both internally, as well as externally. It will be interesting to see how it gets applied going forward. Will DG Demon engines get CORE? If Dreads and Eradicators got it, the DG demon engines should probably get it as well, but if we look at some things in the 'Cron dex it makes me wonder if they will, or if they will just create a new aura to get around not giving them core. From what we've seen so far, I can see them backing off of this core thing pretty quickly. I actually think core is a good idea, but I'm not sure how well it's going to work given how they've applied it so far.

For the record, I think the 'Cron dex probably comes closer to getting it "right" so far. In terms of the over-all game, it feels like the 'cron dex is more how I'd like the rest of the books to go. We shall see I suppose.

Isn't the new Death Guard character gw previewed supposed to buff daemon engines? If so I'd say they won't be CORE, you'd need him if you want to buff your daemon engines, similar to how loyalists need a techmarine to buff their vehicles. I could see them doing the same for the Undivided Legions with disco lords and maybe MoPs, with our infantry, bikes and dreadnoughts being CORE just like loyalists. It's not what I'd prefer though. I'd rather they return to how it was in previous editions, where loyalists needed their leaders for support, while csm didn't, because they had better base stats, and our characters were mostly just tough beat sticks.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 14:25:25


Post by: Spoletta


 Xenomancers wrote:
 Eonfuzz wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Erads are a joke. No way they exist much longer than a few weeks like this. Marines stuff that is OP gets nerfed quickly. I also doubt outflank continues to exist ether. Remember turn 1 deepstrike in 8th? That didn't take long to nerf after that created so much problems.


Hmm yes, I too remember how quickly the whole last year and a half of 8th nerfed marines. Yes yes. Tell it to the world how it is Xeno.
Marines need the power level to keep up with units such as the Stompa and Squigbuggy clearly

I seem to remember supplements getting released and nerfed within a month or 2 with massive changes to how doctrines worked and then a world wide pandemic brought the game to a screeching halt. Now we are here. This Marine codex was written between 3-6 months ago and is a direct result of everything at the beginning of the year.

Aggressors nerfed
Centurions nerfed
Even Repulsor executioners nerfed (for the 4th time now) Thanks Ironhands.

It would be great if you could refute my argument with an example of some kind of lasting marine unit that is allowed to dominate for extended periods instead of making really weak personal attacks which are out of context and ironically true in the case of buggies. Stompas I only defended as being not that bad and can be played around. You know that though. So I am just humoring you with a response.

My point remains true that marine units that are over the top get fixed relatively quick compared to things like...really like any other army. Unless youre nids. Nids also get squashed pretty quickly if they have anything that works.




SM were actually nerfed 5 times in a row, counting this last codex, and I'm probably forgetting some.
GW didn't exactly sit on its thumbs, it is simply that the first iteration of SM 2.0 was THAT busted, and even with all these consecutive nerfs they are still quite good.



We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 14:33:45


Post by: Tycho


Isn't the new Death Guard character gw previewed supposed to buff daemon engines? If so I'd say they won't be CORE, you'd need him if you want to buff your daemon engines, similar to how loyalists need a techmarine to buff their vehicles. I could see them doing the same for the Undivided Legions with disco lords and maybe MoPs, with our infantry, bikes and dreadnoughts being CORE just like loyalists. It's not what I'd prefer though. I'd rather they return to how it was in previous editions, where loyalists needed their leaders for support, while csm didn't, because they had better base stats, and our characters were mostly just tough beat sticks.


Yeah, far as I know, he is suppose to buff the engines. That's why I mentioned them "finding a way around it". I'm nervous about that character in particular because most of our DG demon engines are fast and want to go FORWARD. Looks like (form viewing the model itself - this just conjecture based on that image and GW's past history), in classic Gdubs fashion, we're getting a guy who probably only moves 4" and halves his advance rolls but will still need to be with 7" to buff anything. All for our demon engines that move 10+ inches a turn ... hopefully we get access to some kind of native warp time ....

IDK - this and the Ork things I mentioned are why I'm skeptical of "core" in general. It almost seems like maybe it was better off just being a "fix" for marine specific problems? I still like the idea of core. Just don't know how well they will execute on it as we're already seeing signs of significant inconsistencies.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 14:42:46


Post by: Gadzilla666


Tycho wrote:
Spoiler:
Isn't the new Death Guard character gw previewed supposed to buff daemon engines? If so I'd say they won't be CORE, you'd need him if you want to buff your daemon engines, similar to how loyalists need a techmarine to buff their vehicles. I could see them doing the same for the Undivided Legions with disco lords and maybe MoPs, with our infantry, bikes and dreadnoughts being CORE just like loyalists. It's not what I'd prefer though. I'd rather they return to how it was in previous editions, where loyalists needed their leaders for support, while csm didn't, because they had better base stats, and our characters were mostly just tough beat sticks.


Yeah, far as I know, he is suppose to buff the engines. That's why I mentioned them "finding a way around it". I'm nervous about that character in particular because most of our DG demon engines are fast and want to go FORWARD. Looks like (form viewing the model itself - this just conjecture based on that image and GW's past history), in classic Gdubs fashion, we're getting a guy who probably only moves 4" and halves his advance rolls but will still need to be with 7" to buff anything. All for our demon engines that move 10+ inches a turn ... hopefully we get access to some kind of native warp time ....

IDK - this and the Ork things I mentioned are why I'm skeptical of "core" in general. It almost seems like maybe it was better off just being a "fix" for marine specific problems? I still like the idea of core. Just don't know how well they will execute on it as we're already seeing signs of significant inconsistencies.

He's in terminator armor isn't he? I'm guessing he can deep strike in once the fast movers are in position in order to buff them, or hang back with the PBCs. Not saying that'll be good, but it sounds like what gw would expect. Personally I'm wondering if they'll actually make warp smiths useful by giving them an ability to buff our tanks. And a new model, the current one is showing its age.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 15:41:26


Post by: vipoid


Regarding the whole 'Core' debate, I think the real issue is that 'Core' is such a meaningless term.

With keywords like 'Destroyer' or 'Canoptek', you have a key theme to work with. Keywords like 'Terminator' give you not only a theme but also a distinct aesthetic, so that it's pretty obvious whether a given model belongs to that theme or not.

But what is Core supposed to mean?

"Well obviously it's units that form the core of any army!" I imagine many of you saying.

Well this explains why troops are core, but it fails to explain why HQs aren't core. Is leadership not also the core of any army? That's certainly what the detachment system seems to be based around. I could maybe understand special characters not being core, but generic HQs also not being core seems completely out of whack with everything else. And with Necrons it's even stranger as Lychguard are core. So it's vitally important that every Necron army has a faithful core of royal guard, but irrelevant whether those guards have anyone to protect?

And if it's because HQs aren't numerous enough, then you're going to have to explain to me why Scarabs aren't core - when they're as numerous and ubiquitous as it gets.

I suppose what I'm saying is that 'Core' seems like a misleading term, when many units that fall under that umbrella are not actually core units (either in fluff terms or in list-building), whilst units that would seem to be core are nevertheless excluded from the 'Core' keyword.

I get what they were trying to do. Kind of. But it just seems like such a messy and illogical way of going about it, and all to preserve a mechanic that really should have died off in 9th anyway.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 15:58:29


Post by: yukishiro1


Salt donkey wrote:


I don’t exactly get what your argument here is. Plenty of melee beatstick a are seeing play right now. Greater demons, custode terminators, space marine smash characters, deathshroud terminators, oh and Ghaz, are all popular meta choices. Also the reason why most melee beatsticks fail is because of fragility, which the nightbringer is not. You make it sound like he will fold like wet tissue paper against most armies, but I have a hard time seeing this. What lists are necrons struggling with? We where talking about the marine matchup in this thread, and he seems great there as marines don’t have many great ways to do wounds to him outside of melee and shooting (most marine lists use minimal pyskers, and many of these exist to buff). Custodes are absolutely terrified of him. Same thing with sisters of battle (which got a lot better with the melta rules change). Honestly it’s seems to me he’ll struggle more aginst lower tier armies, like Tyranids, craftworlds, and thousands sons. Demons would be bad if they had any shooting.

Also you are right that the mortal wound output he brings is a big selling point. Kills a lot of meta threats quite well.


My point is the C'tan aren't actually very effective as melee beatsticks. Even Nightbringer (a) doesn't hit very hard for his points except against high invuln/FNP targets, and (b) has no good delivery mechanism for getting into combat in the first place. A model that only moves 8" and can't advance and charge or deep strike is pretty limited as a melee threat because it has very limited ability to choose its target. Nightbringer is only actually effective in combat if he can choose his target, because the only things he is actually good at killing for his points are stuff with high invulns or FNPs that he can negate. But if a smart opponent can just lead him on a merry chase while wearing him down over a couple turns, it doesn't really mater how good he is at killing high invuln high FNP targets, because he'll never get to.

The C'tan powers end up being a big selling point because it at least allows him to do *something* while he's getting moveblocked and screened and otherwise neutralized.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 16:03:28


Post by: the_scotsman


yep. it's a lot like Doctrines (and now, their equivalents sent in to help other factions Keep Up With The Joneses) and like Formations in previous editions.

What...exactly, are these rules in place to actually convey? Why does a space marine devastator with a lascannon shoot his first shot really good, and then the...laser...gets less...penetrating?

Sisters' prayers have always been represented through acts of faith, through their invuln save, etc, but now it's also like...."oh, and we also get +1" to advance and charges. Because we did pray for that too. We prayed to run good."

These are the kinds of pointless, bloaty fat rules that just get carved out of the game with every new edition shift. And nobody misses them. Remember when "free transports' was core to marines' identity? Remember when there was that dumb, bizarre drop pod+devastators+assault marines formation that did like 60 trillion different little special bonuses because GW made totally unnecessary replacements for those kits and they sold so good that they decided they had to reboot marines completely next time or they wouldn't make any money?



We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 16:11:36


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


yukishiro1 wrote:
Salt donkey wrote:


I don’t exactly get what your argument here is. Plenty of melee beatstick a are seeing play right now. Greater demons, custode terminators, space marine smash characters, deathshroud terminators, oh and Ghaz, are all popular meta choices. Also the reason why most melee beatsticks fail is because of fragility, which the nightbringer is not. You make it sound like he will fold like wet tissue paper against most armies, but I have a hard time seeing this. What lists are necrons struggling with? We where talking about the marine matchup in this thread, and he seems great there as marines don’t have many great ways to do wounds to him outside of melee and shooting (most marine lists use minimal pyskers, and many of these exist to buff). Custodes are absolutely terrified of him. Same thing with sisters of battle (which got a lot better with the melta rules change). Honestly it’s seems to me he’ll struggle more aginst lower tier armies, like Tyranids, craftworlds, and thousands sons. Demons would be bad if they had any shooting.

Also you are right that the mortal wound output he brings is a big selling point. Kills a lot of meta threats quite well.


My point is the C'tan aren't actually very effective as melee beatsticks. Even Nightbringer (a) doesn't hit very hard for his points except against high invuln/FNP targets, and (b) has no good delivery mechanism for getting into combat in the first place. A model that only moves 8" and can't advance and charge or deep strike is pretty limited as a melee threat because it has very limited ability to choose its target. Nightbringer is only actually effective in combat if he can choose his target, because the only things he is actually good at killing for his points are stuff with high invulns or FNPs that he can negate. But if a smart opponent can just lead him on a merry chase while wearing him down over a couple turns, it doesn't really mater how good he is at killing high invuln high FNP targets, because he'll never get to.

The C'tan powers end up being a big selling point because it at least allows him to do *something* while he's getting moveblocked and screened and otherwise neutralized.

The generic outflank Strat fixes a lot of mobility issues and with that you can avoid potential mortal wound sources to avoid dying in one turn.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 16:12:46


Post by: yukishiro1


Rules on top of rules is the new 40k paradigm though, isn't it? They've seen how successful it is with Magic and are going for the same thing.

The fact that none of these rules serve much purpose is besides the point - the rules themselves *are* the purpose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

The generic outflank Strat fixes a lot of mobility issues and with that you can avoid potential mortal wound sources to avoid dying in one turn.


Ok, so now you're paying 350 points and 2CP for a single model that doesn't appear until T2 at the earliest, can be easily screened out, and realistically will not make combat the turn it comes in because it has no way to boost its charge from reserves, meaning it has a better than 50% chance of just sitting there where it came in.

Reserving a c'tan would be a massive trap in most games, it makes it even *harder* to choose your target and leaves him swinging in the wind just as much. The issue with the C'tan isn't mobility per se in terms of getting across the board - 8" + an advance role on a FLY model will get you to the enemy's deployment zone on T2 - the issue is in getting the C'tan into the target you want. And putting the C'tan into reserves makes that even harder.

The basic problem is that once a C'tan gets into combat with something it doesn't want to, it has no way to get out. It has to just sit there fighting away, because it can't fall back and charge, and it can't even fall back and cast powers. So they are prime targets for being tarpitted.

If C'tan could charge and cast after falling back I would feel totally differently about them. But they can't, and that makes them of pretty limited value against a good opponent.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 16:19:48


Post by: Denegaar


Voss wrote:
None of that requires Core:
Archon adds 'infantry' tag to the text of his buff.
Drazhar buff would be non character Incubi units
Haemonculus would just be <coven>


DE sub factions are a mess, but they can be worked around, if GW really wants to pursue that madnes. Daemons really have the same problem, where subfactions matter a lot more than what gets the theoretical Core tag.


I guess they can stick with the subfaction thing and skip CORE altogether, if they want. We don't have a CORE of the army anyway...


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 17:10:08


Post by: Tyel


yukishiro1 wrote:
The basic problem is that once a C'tan gets into combat with something it doesn't want to, it has no way to get out. It has to just sit there fighting away, because it can't fall back and charge, and it can't even fall back and cast powers. So they are prime targets for being tarpitted.


By what though?

I mean sure, the Nightbringer can be tarpitted by 30 boyz. He just doesn't have the swings to chop them all up.
But as Ork players will bemoan - 30 boyz isn't a trivial sum of points.
What sort of unit are you thinking of? If someone tags you with a 100 point unit, odds are you just up and kill it.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 17:18:50


Post by: yukishiro1


You don't need 30 boyz, he won't even kill 10 grots in a round of combat on average. And 10 boyz will do the 3 wounds to him on average, and also not typically die, though you'll have to spend the 2CP to auto-pass morale. Nurglings will make him just break down and cry tears of frustration, and spawn will do the same while actually hurting him back. He literally kills 2.5 nurgling bases or spawn a round. It's pretty bad.

He's good against marines, but necrons are already strong against marines. And if they have something like primaris bikers, those are pretty good at tarpitting him too. Anything 4W or more that's cheap is a problem for him, those 1d6 strikes are so unreliable. And he doesn't cut through transhuman, so even a 5-man intercessor squad can tarpit him for 1CP.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 18:00:48


Post by: Mr Morden


Voss wrote:
 Denegaar wrote:
Voss wrote:

That said, dark eldar (as they're currently organized) might be a messy exception to that, simply because GW has made such as mess of the 'subfactions.'
Though equally likely, I could see dark eldar having NO Core at all, just characters and strats that only affect Kabals, Cults OR Covens, but never more than one.

But I still hope that DE (and CE) just get massive overhauls to drag them out of the pits of neglect they've been summarily tossed into, making that sort of speculation moot.


I hope GW listens to you on the last part.

But we are going to have CORE in our army. Out of the 3 buffs we are using in our lists right now (we have a couple more, but can be neglected), two of them enter into the category of "no no" for GW.

- Archon buffing Ravagers (no no)
- Drazhar buffing himself (no no) and Incubi (that's fine)
- Haemonculous buffing Covens (I guess that's going to stay)

So I guess everything can get CORE (inside the subfaction restriction) but vehicles. I hope Pain and Parasite Engines get it, at least.


None of that requires Core:
Archon adds 'infantry' tag to the text of his buff.
Drazhar buff would be non character Incubi units
Haemonculus would just be <coven>

DE sub factions are a mess, but they can be worked around, if GW really wants to pursue that madnes. Daemons really have the same problem, where subfactions matter a lot more than what gets the theoretical Core tag.


At this point the DE really should have three books.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 18:01:59


Post by: Sasori


yukishiro1 wrote:
You don't need 30 boyz, he won't even kill 10 grots in a round of combat on average. And 10 boyz will do the 3 wounds to him on average, and also not typically die, though you'll have to spend the 2CP to auto-pass morale. Nurglings will make him just break down and cry tears of frustration, and spawn will do the same while actually hurting him back. He literally kills 2.5 nurgling bases or spawn a round. It's pretty bad.

He's good against marines, but necrons are already strong against marines. And if they have something like primaris bikers, those are pretty good at tarpitting him too. Anything 4W or more that's cheap is a problem for him, those 1d6 strikes are so unreliable. And he doesn't cut through transhuman, so even a 5-man intercessor squad can tarpit him for 1CP.


I will acknowledge that there are a few bad tarpits out there for him. He does at least still get to use his powers while he is in CC, so you are still quite possible dealing a large amount amount of damage at the targets you need to. I'd also like to point out that if an opponent is able to tarpit you with Nurglings or Intercessors, then this is probably more due to a mistake on your part than a brilliant play on theirs.

That being said, unless it starts to shift, the meta is mostly marines and very elite elite armies. The Nightbringer is excellent at dealing with Custodes, Harlequins, Marines and everything in DG bar Nurglings, and it seems like a lot of the recent Deathguard lists are only taking 6-9 nurglings. We've even started to see a resurgence Ad Mech, for which the Nightbringer is very well suited for dealing with.

The Ork Mobs lists and Slaanesh daemons list, The nightbringer is not quite as well suited for.

So, I really think right now the Nightbringer is an excellent piece of tech in lists that performs fwell or the most part well against top armies. There are some matchups where it doesn't perform as well, but even then I would not be unhappy if he tarpitted a unit of 26 Daemonettes for a few turns before wiping them out.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 18:17:05


Post by: Xenomancers


 Sasori wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
You don't need 30 boyz, he won't even kill 10 grots in a round of combat on average. And 10 boyz will do the 3 wounds to him on average, and also not typically die, though you'll have to spend the 2CP to auto-pass morale. Nurglings will make him just break down and cry tears of frustration, and spawn will do the same while actually hurting him back. He literally kills 2.5 nurgling bases or spawn a round. It's pretty bad.

He's good against marines, but necrons are already strong against marines. And if they have something like primaris bikers, those are pretty good at tarpitting him too. Anything 4W or more that's cheap is a problem for him, those 1d6 strikes are so unreliable. And he doesn't cut through transhuman, so even a 5-man intercessor squad can tarpit him for 1CP.


I will acknowledge that there are a few bad tarpits out there for him. He does at least still get to use his powers while he is in CC, so you are still quite possible dealing a large amount amount of damage at the targets you need to. I'd also like to point out that if an opponent is able to tarpit you with Nurglings or Intercessors, then this is probably more due to a mistake on your part than a brilliant play on theirs.

That being said, unless it starts to shift, the meta is mostly marines and very elite elite armies. The Nightbringer is excellent at dealing with Custodes, Harlequins, Marines and everything in DG bar Nurglings, and it seems like a lot of the recent Deathguard lists are only taking 6-9 nurglings. We've even started to see a resurgence Ad Mech, for which the Nightbringer is very well suited for dealing with.

The Ork Mobs lists and Slaanesh daemons list, The nightbringer is not quite as well suited for.

So, I really think right now the Nightbringer is an excellent piece of tech in lists that performs fwell or the most part well against top armies. There are some matchups where it doesn't perform as well, but even then I would not be unhappy if he tarpitted a unit of 26 Daemonettes for a few turns before wiping them out.
I do imagine the void or nightbringer are going to be escorted by something like...10 wraiths...or at the very minimum - tomb blades clearing out a path. Roll out your CCB with relic staff with him and they can tag team most threats in CC and he gives shooty support. Tarpitting my 350 point destructor beast aint happening.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 18:23:17


Post by: Dudeface


the_scotsman wrote:
yep. it's a lot like Doctrines (and now, their equivalents sent in to help other factions Keep Up With The Joneses) and like Formations in previous editions.

What...exactly, are these rules in place to actually convey? Why does a space marine devastator with a lascannon shoot his first shot really good, and then the...laser...gets less...penetrating?

Sisters' prayers have always been represented through acts of faith, through their invuln save, etc, but now it's also like...."oh, and we also get +1" to advance and charges. Because we did pray for that too. We prayed to run good."

These are the kinds of pointless, bloaty fat rules that just get carved out of the game with every new edition shift. And nobody misses them. Remember when "free transports' was core to marines' identity? Remember when there was that dumb, bizarre drop pod+devastators+assault marines formation that did like 60 trillion different little special bonuses because GW made totally unnecessary replacements for those kits and they sold so good that they decided they had to reboot marines completely next time or they wouldn't make any money?



Whilst I agree in principle, the doctrines is to represent the rhythm of a marine attack, soften the big stuff up at range while moving forwards, core of the army then lays waste in bolter range followed by an assault to clear out stragglers.

The Sisters one is a little more hand wavey but its literal diving intervention iirc, loyalty (mono faction conveniently) driving them to receiving blessings for the battle via prist, holy water, golden light or w/e.

Both are nice and characterful but from a rules perspective it smacks of "we had to think of something to stop you taking allies"


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 18:23:46


Post by: yukishiro1


If they have units that can tarpit him, there's not really any way you can avoid it besides not getting engaged until they're all eliminated...in which case you're not in melee with what you want to be either. There's no way to avoid getting tarpitted once you engage, they just withdraw whatever you attacked (assuming it isn't dead) and then charge the tarpit in instead. If you can't charge anything within move + charge range of the nurglings/intercessors/etc, you aren't going to be charging anything you want to charge.

Quins can mostly just avoid him and have damage potential in 3 phases, marines can tarpit him with literally any 5-man, 2W+ squad in their army for 1CP with transhuman. He's excellent against Custodes, no arguments there. DG can not only tarpit him with nurglings OR spawn, they can also easily remove 3 wounds in both shooting and combat along with probably 1d3 in the psychic if you commit him and they they want to, meaning they will reliably kill him in 2 rounds.

Don't get me wrong, he'll make your opponent pay attention to him for sure. I'm just not convinced he's actually all that effective against a good player who knows how to counter him. Like I said, if he could fall back and charge and use powers, I'd feel totally different about him, but that's a massive limitation to be exploited by someone who knows how to play the game.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 18:34:27


Post by: the_scotsman


Dudeface wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
yep. it's a lot like Doctrines (and now, their equivalents sent in to help other factions Keep Up With The Joneses) and like Formations in previous editions.

What...exactly, are these rules in place to actually convey? Why does a space marine devastator with a lascannon shoot his first shot really good, and then the...laser...gets less...penetrating?

Sisters' prayers have always been represented through acts of faith, through their invuln save, etc, but now it's also like...."oh, and we also get +1" to advance and charges. Because we did pray for that too. We prayed to run good."

These are the kinds of pointless, bloaty fat rules that just get carved out of the game with every new edition shift. And nobody misses them. Remember when "free transports' was core to marines' identity? Remember when there was that dumb, bizarre drop pod+devastators+assault marines formation that did like 60 trillion different little special bonuses because GW made totally unnecessary replacements for those kits and they sold so good that they decided they had to reboot marines completely next time or they wouldn't make any money?



Whilst I agree in principle, the doctrines is to represent the rhythm of a marine attack, soften the big stuff up at range while moving forwards, core of the army then lays waste in bolter range followed by an assault to clear out stragglers.

The Sisters one is a little more hand wavey but its literal diving intervention iirc, loyalty (mono faction conveniently) driving them to receiving blessings for the battle via prist, holy water, golden light or w/e.

Both are nice and characterful but from a rules perspective it smacks of "we had to think of something to stop you taking allies"


And yet, evidence shows that even among armies that don't get Doctrine-equivalent rules, just shifting from the previous CP-structure to the new one, where bringing allies brings with it a small CP price, solved that particular problem almost completely.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 19:03:16


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 Denegaar wrote:
Voss wrote:
None of that requires Core:
Archon adds 'infantry' tag to the text of his buff.
Drazhar buff would be non character Incubi units
Haemonculus would just be <coven>


DE sub factions are a mess, but they can be worked around, if GW really wants to pursue that madnes. Daemons really have the same problem, where subfactions matter a lot more than what gets the theoretical Core tag.


I guess they can stick with the subfaction thing and skip CORE altogether, if they want. We don't have a CORE of the army anyway...


watch them make our mercenaries the only non-core models "to prevent them from getting auras". I wouldnt even be surprised, clearly GW doesnt know wtf drukharis are after that PA


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 19:33:02


Post by: Karol


Or the buffs are going to be locked behind covens. So a wych is going to buff core wych units. Archon kabalites etc.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 19:41:39


Post by: Denegaar


Karol wrote:
Or the buffs are going to be locked behind covens. So a wych is going to buff core wych units. Archon kabalites etc.


That's how it works now without CORE.

Archons can only buff Kabals (reroll 1s to hit), Succubus only buff Cults (reroll 1s to hit in fight phase) and Haemonculous only buff Covens (+1 thoughness). Drazhar only buffs Incubi (+1 to wound rolls).

They can add another layer with CORE, but that's only going to decrease the already low utility of our auras.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 19:58:24


Post by: NinthMusketeer


Could make stuff like the Archon's aura affecting Kabal and Core. Then wyches and wracks get Core. So buffs affect everyone from the sub-army plus the basic troops from the other two.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 22:05:27


Post by: CKO


Necron's Core units are those who have a relationship with the Noble. The canopteks don't have core because they are ruled by Crypteks. Destroyers don't have core because they are machines who focus soley on the destruction of their enemies.

The Necron player who claims that they lost so much because of the core rule is false. Almost every unit has an HQ choice that provides synergy with each unit. Nobles for core units, crypteks for canopteks, and Skorpekh or lokhust lords for destroyers. Vehicles, Flayed Ones, and Triarch Praetorians are the only units in the codex that don't receive a buff from ICs.

Almost every unit received a buff the unit may be different but the new Necron codex is better.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 23:36:58


Post by: Hecaton


 CKO wrote:
Necron's Core units are those who have a relationship with the Noble. The canopteks don't have core because they are ruled by Crypteks. Destroyers don't have core because they are machines who focus soley on the destruction of their enemies.

The Necron player who claims that they lost so much because of the core rule is false. Almost every unit has an HQ choice that provides synergy with each unit. Nobles for core units, crypteks for canopteks, and Skorpekh or lokhust lords for destroyers. Vehicles, Flayed Ones, and Triarch Praetorians are the only units in the codex that don't receive a buff from ICs.

Almost every unit received a buff the unit may be different but the new Necron codex is better.


What faction do you play?


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/14 23:37:32


Post by: H.B.M.C.


What would that matter?

Core is core for fluff reasons, which is why things like Centurions not getting it stand out as incongruous.



We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 00:11:40


Post by: Salt donkey


yukishiro1 wrote:
Salt donkey wrote:


I don’t exactly get what your argument here is. Plenty of melee beatstick a are seeing play right now. Greater demons, custode terminators, space marine smash characters, deathshroud terminators, oh and Ghaz, are all popular meta choices. Also the reason why most melee beatsticks fail is because of fragility, which the nightbringer is not. You make it sound like he will fold like wet tissue paper against most armies, but I have a hard time seeing this. What lists are necrons struggling with? We where talking about the marine matchup in this thread, and he seems great there as marines don’t have many great ways to do wounds to him outside of melee and shooting (most marine lists use minimal pyskers, and many of these exist to buff). Custodes are absolutely terrified of him. Same thing with sisters of battle (which got a lot better with the melta rules change). Honestly it’s seems to me he’ll struggle more aginst lower tier armies, like Tyranids, craftworlds, and thousands sons. Demons would be bad if they had any shooting.

Also you are right that the mortal wound output he brings is a big selling point. Kills a lot of meta threats quite well.


My point is the C'tan aren't actually very effective as melee beatsticks. Even Nightbringer (a) doesn't hit very hard for his points except against high invuln/FNP targets, and (b) has no good delivery mechanism for getting into combat in the first place. A model that only moves 8" and can't advance and charge or deep strike is pretty limited as a melee threat because it has very limited ability to choose its target. Nightbringer is only actually effective in combat if he can choose his target, because the only things he is actually good at killing for his points are stuff with high invulns or FNPs that he can negate. But if a smart opponent can just lead him on a merry chase while wearing him down over a couple turns, it doesn't really mater how good he is at killing high invuln high FNP targets, because he'll never get to.

The C'tan powers end up being a big selling point because it at least allows him to do *something* while he's getting moveblocked and screened and otherwise neutralized.


You would have had a point if this was 8th, but in 9th the concept of kiting is a lot weaker. Holding Central objectives is how you win games, which is why you are seeing those previously mentioned threats being heavily used in the meta, despite some of them not being mobile. I personally have used custodes terminators in a ton of games, and pretty much never deep struck them. They have been the MVP’s in most games in anyway.

What matters for beststicks now is how durable they are, and how hard they hit. As you admitted the nightbringer does a good job handling expensive tough bodies, which let me remind you is far more common than hordes right now. Even against hordes, 12 sweep attacks is still pretty decent (in a single a turn, the nightbringer kills a squad of guardsman on Average). He won’t be your primary anti-horde choice in a list, but he won’t be a liability in this area either.

Finally let’s look at durability. IMO nightbringer comes in at a A+++ in this area. Many armies won’t be able to do damage outside of 2 phases, and even the ones who can do damage in 3 are probably going to be extremely limited in what can do a certain type of damage. The fact that assault is likely going to be need one of those phases is even more problematic for the necron players opponent, as you need to position the unit to charge him in the movement phase. That means the op is will be committed to killing the nightbringer before he/she is certain they can do the wounds needed in each phase. For example someone might plan to kill nighty with smites, shooting, and assault. However if they have a bad psychic phase that only does 2 or less wounds, then the unit that will charge him is now doomed to take swings and mortal wounds from him. Many competitive players are going to be unwilling to take this risk. So that basically means you can guarantee it will take at least 2 rounds to finish him off, which is fantastic for a powerful Melee unit.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 00:13:54


Post by: BrianDavion


Basicly core exists because GW doesn't want Captains directing repulsor executioner fire from behind the lines, or overlords hanging back with destroyers and buffing them with MWBD. bopth of which where (apparently) things in 8th edition.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 01:26:46


Post by: yukishiro1


He doesn't kill a whole squad of guardsmen on average, he kills 8.33. We went over this above. This is actually a significant difference because it means on his own, more often than not he leaves a squad of 10 with one model left after the morale phase, which means he is left tarpitted since he can't fall back and charge or use powers. If he does this all game from turns 2 through 5, he'd kill all of 170 points worth of models in melee. He absolutely is a liability against hordes.

He's a 350 point model that will not get into combat T1 against anything he wants to be fighting, cannot fall back and do anything, will not make his points back if tarpitted while being worn down, and can be killed by most armies in two turns if they set their minds to it. I do think he has a place in some lists, but he's far from an auto-include in any competitive list.

Sure, he can sit on an objective and make the opponent not send their big unit onto that objective. But 350 points is a lot to spend on someone for objective-camping duty. Especially someone who will lose that objective to a move-move-move guardsmen squad that costs 50 points.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 02:02:57


Post by: CKO


This video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gyBoNvrP2o explains why the Nightbringer is an S tier unit. Necrons have rapid-fire weapons everywhere to deal with hordes.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 03:00:38


Post by: Castozor


Meh I can see why CORE was handed out so generously to marines and not necrons for fluff reasons but it still feels bad. Maybe between WHFB and now GW designed a new definition of core but it just feels bad. Why even design it and then let marines use it for 80% of their codex. Although I guess the main issue is that the marine codex is just over bloated in general. I'm against squating tacticals and their offshoots, but at this point just for fairness sake's they should not be in the same book as derp-marines.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 03:14:44


Post by: Voss


BrianDavion wrote:
Basicly core exists because GW doesn't want Captains directing repulsor executioner fire from behind the lines, or overlords hanging back with destroyers and buffing them with MWBD. bopth of which where (apparently) things in 8th edition.


I think some GW designers were deeply, horribly offended by reports that Roboute Guilliman, Primarch of the Ultramarines, Avenging Son of the Emperor, Lord Regent of the Imperium of Man was repeatedly made to squeeze into a tight parking lot full of tanks and then ringed with a picket of exactly 32 guardsmen.

It was the gameplay equivalent of choking the hallowed Spirit of the Game with a pretezel and then repeatedly putting the boot in.

And thus... 9th edition.
Consider how many design decisions happen to at least discourage or actively stop each part of that.


Plus all those fun late 8th edition FAQs that start with a paragraph that functionally reads as 'NO! You weren't supposed to do that!' Which was probably heavily edited for tone and content.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 03:32:30


Post by: BrianDavion


Voss wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Basicly core exists because GW doesn't want Captains directing repulsor executioner fire from behind the lines, or overlords hanging back with destroyers and buffing them with MWBD. bopth of which where (apparently) things in 8th edition.


I think some GW designers were deeply, horribly offended by reports that Roboute Guilliman, Primarch of the Ultramarines, Avenging Son of the Emperor, Lord Regent of the Imperium of Man was repeatedly made to squeeze into a tight parking lot full of tanks and then ringed with a picket of exactly 32 guardsmen.

It was the gameplay equivalent of choking the hallowed Spirit of the Game with a pretezel and then repeatedly putting the boot in.

And thus... 9th edition.
Consider how many design decisions happen to at least discourage or actively stop each part of that.


Plus all those fun late 8th edition FAQs that start with a paragraph that functionally reads as 'NO! You weren't supposed to do that!' Which was probably heavily edited for tone and content.


LOL pretty much. It's clear that GW envisioned captains leading a key charge up the board providing support to his forces at key areas. and not "Gulliman Parking lots"


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 04:54:01


Post by: Hecaton


Voss wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Basicly core exists because GW doesn't want Captains directing repulsor executioner fire from behind the lines, or overlords hanging back with destroyers and buffing them with MWBD. bopth of which where (apparently) things in 8th edition.


I think some GW designers were deeply, horribly offended by reports that Roboute Guilliman, Primarch of the Ultramarines, Avenging Son of the Emperor, Lord Regent of the Imperium of Man was repeatedly made to squeeze into a tight parking lot full of tanks and then ringed with a picket of exactly 32 guardsmen.

It was the gameplay equivalent of choking the hallowed Spirit of the Game with a pretezel and then repeatedly putting the boot in.

And thus... 9th edition.
Consider how many design decisions happen to at least discourage or actively stop each part of that.


Plus all those fun late 8th edition FAQs that start with a paragraph that functionally reads as 'NO! You weren't supposed to do that!' Which was probably heavily edited for tone and content.


The message to some factions (like Tau) is "No! You weren't supposed to win!" which is just sad. To be frank, it totally delegitimizes what they're doing when they make the fething primario cart and don't make it a vehicle. They want the game to be broken, but they want the game to be broken in a way that drives marine sales.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 05:14:20


Post by: BrianDavion


Hecaton wrote:
Voss wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Basicly core exists because GW doesn't want Captains directing repulsor executioner fire from behind the lines, or overlords hanging back with destroyers and buffing them with MWBD. bopth of which where (apparently) things in 8th edition.


I think some GW designers were deeply, horribly offended by reports that Roboute Guilliman, Primarch of the Ultramarines, Avenging Son of the Emperor, Lord Regent of the Imperium of Man was repeatedly made to squeeze into a tight parking lot full of tanks and then ringed with a picket of exactly 32 guardsmen.

It was the gameplay equivalent of choking the hallowed Spirit of the Game with a pretezel and then repeatedly putting the boot in.

And thus... 9th edition.
Consider how many design decisions happen to at least discourage or actively stop each part of that.


Plus all those fun late 8th edition FAQs that start with a paragraph that functionally reads as 'NO! You weren't supposed to do that!' Which was probably heavily edited for tone and content.


The message to some factions (like Tau) is "No! You weren't supposed to win!" which is just sad. To be frank, it totally delegitimizes what they're doing when they make the fething primario cart and don't make it a vehicle. They want the game to be broken, but they want the game to be broken in a way that drives marine sales.


are you refering to suit commander spam? because GW generally tried to cut down on every faction that spammed HQs, Tau and Marines both got hit with a detachment limit on their beat stick HQs (Marines got that limit in codex 9.0) Tyranids resulted in the rule of 3 becoming a thing..


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 05:22:50


Post by: Hecaton


BrianDavion wrote:
are you refering to suit commander spam? because GW generally tried to cut down on every faction that spammed HQs, Tau and Marines both got hit with a detachment limit on their beat stick HQs (Marines got that limit in codex 9.0) Tyranids resulted in the rule of 3 becoming a thing..


Just the general state of the game in 9th - the game rewards you for taking objectives in the center field but they didn't bother to give Tau any meaningful ways to do that. So Tau should just be happy to wait around for a few years while their army isn't functional in the current edition... it's pathetic.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 05:37:48


Post by: BrianDavion


Hecaton wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
are you refering to suit commander spam? because GW generally tried to cut down on every faction that spammed HQs, Tau and Marines both got hit with a detachment limit on their beat stick HQs (Marines got that limit in codex 9.0) Tyranids resulted in the rule of 3 becoming a thing..


Just the general state of the game in 9th - the game rewards you for taking objectives in the center field but they didn't bother to give Tau any meaningful ways to do that. So Tau should just be happy to wait around for a few years while their army isn't functional in the current edition... it's pathetic.



And what "meaningful way" to do that should GW have given Tau?


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 05:43:03


Post by: Hecaton


BrianDavion wrote:
And what "meaningful way" to do that should GW have given Tau?


I dunno dude. The gamespace is near infinite. There are any of a number of ways to do that. The important thing is that when they rolled over a new edition that changed a lot of stuff, they should have put more work in to make sure everyone's faction worked in the new paradigm. Players deserve better.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 05:47:43


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Ah yes, the old "you can't expect game designers to DESIGN GAMES! I mean, how are they supposed to do that?"


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 05:54:25


Post by: Void__Dragon


BrianDavion wrote:


And what "meaningful way" to do that should GW have given Tau?


Make them a combined arms force with a tip of the spear consisting of kroot auxiliaries to push people off of points is a good start, rather than just a static gunline with really gakky kroot elements you can take that don't do anything. Maybe make Krootox riders more durable and actually able to kill things in melee.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 05:55:37


Post by: BrianDavion


Hecaton wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
And what "meaningful way" to do that should GW have given Tau?


I dunno dude. The gamespace is near infinite. There are any of a number of ways to do that. The important thing is that when they rolled over a new edition that changed a lot of stuff, they should have put more work in to make sure everyone's faction worked in the new paradigm. Players deserve better.


So you can't think of anything specific then? dude you're in the same space everyone (except necrons and space marines by virtue of getting their 'dexes first) are using your 8th edition codex until you get a new one. GW ALREADY made an exception for Tau to the new Overwatch rules. hoenstly I think barring GW putting out an entirely new unit type for Tau that's proably the best you can hope for.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 05:57:08


Post by: Unit1126PLL


BrianDavion wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
And what "meaningful way" to do that should GW have given Tau?


I dunno dude. The gamespace is near infinite. There are any of a number of ways to do that. The important thing is that when they rolled over a new edition that changed a lot of stuff, they should have put more work in to make sure everyone's faction worked in the new paradigm. Players deserve better.


So you can't think of anything specific then? dude you're in the same space everyone (except necrons and space marines by virtue of getting their 'dexes first) are using your 8th edition codex until you get a new one. GW ALREADY made an exception for Tau to the new Overwatch rules. hoenstly I think barring GW putting out an entirely new unit type for Tau that's proably the best you can hope for.


I hope the police catch whomever held GW at gunpoint and forced them to release 9th edition before the army rules for it were completed.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 05:57:40


Post by: BrianDavion


 Void__Dragon wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:


And what "meaningful way" to do that should GW have given Tau?


Make them a combined arms force with a tip of the spear consisting of kroot auxiliaries to push people off of points is a good start, rather than just a static gunline with really gakky kroot elements you can take that don't do anything. Maybe make Krootox riders more durable and actually able to kill things in melee.


I don't disagree, but that'll require a codex rewrite which I'm sure is coming, but right now unless you're playing Marines or necrons you're playing with your 8th edition codex. frankly I think Tau are WELL over due a total revamp to add some more depth to the army. no 40k army should be a one trick pony.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 06:03:57


Post by: Hecaton


BrianDavion wrote:
So you can't think of anything specific then? dude you're in the same space everyone (except necrons and space marines by virtue of getting their 'dexes first) are using your 8th edition codex until you get a new one. GW ALREADY made an exception for Tau to the new Overwatch rules. hoenstly I think barring GW putting out an entirely new unit type for Tau that's proably the best you can hope for.


I don't even play Tau, I play Harlequins (and dabble in orks). Or at least nominally. 9e hasn't really grabbed me, despite the fact that you can win with Harlequins. My point is this - you're absolving GW of the responsibility to put out a good edition, because you don't stop to think that they should have designed the missions to work with the armies that exist. You're saying that they're in the same spot as everyone except necrons and space marines - which is not true, because some factions do great in the current paradigm. And even if it was true, it still wouldn't be *good* - changing mission structure and table size dramatically alters the game, and not adjusting armies to that new reality means that some armies are nonfunctional to one degree or another. Again, players deserve better - Tau should have been tweaked at the start of 9th to be viable, just like a lot of other forces.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I hope the police catch whomever held GW at gunpoint and forced them to release 9th edition before the army rules for it were completed.


This. The responsibility rests with GW to make a quality game.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 06:17:07


Post by: Vanican


As a CSM player, I'm very cautiously optimistic about what GW could do with us, but I am still very much in the wait and see phase until the DG codex drops.

We have how many units in common with DG, off the top of my head: Daemon princes, sorcerers, hellbrute, defiler, possessed, spawn, and chaos lords, on top of special rules like DttFE. How those units turn out I think will determine how much investment 9th gets out of me until our dex.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 06:21:52


Post by: BrianDavion


Hecaton wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
So you can't think of anything specific then? dude you're in the same space everyone (except necrons and space marines by virtue of getting their 'dexes first) are using your 8th edition codex until you get a new one. GW ALREADY made an exception for Tau to the new Overwatch rules. hoenstly I think barring GW putting out an entirely new unit type for Tau that's proably the best you can hope for.


I don't even play Tau, I play Harlequins (and dabble in orks). Or at least nominally. 9e hasn't really grabbed me, despite the fact that you can win with Harlequins. My point is this - you're absolving GW of the responsibility to put out a good edition, because you don't stop to think that they should have designed the missions to work with the armies that exist. You're saying that they're in the same spot as everyone except necrons and space marines - which is not true, because some factions do great in the current paradigm. And even if it was true, it still wouldn't be *good* - changing mission structure and table size dramatically alters the game, and not adjusting armies to that new reality means that some armies are nonfunctional to one degree or another. Again, players deserve better - Tau should have been tweaked at the start of 9th to be viable, just like a lot of other forces.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I hope the police catch whomever held GW at gunpoint and forced them to release 9th edition before the army rules for it were completed.


This. The responsibility rests with GW to make a quality game.


hat's not an edition problem... that's an ARMY DESIGN problem. The Tau are a one trick pony army, THATS the design problem


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 06:22:02


Post by: Void__Dragon


Hecaton wrote:
Tau should have been tweaked at the start of 9th to be viable, just like a lot of other forces.


It is impossible to make Tau work in ninth with some tweaking. They need a full re-design. The current codex is not balanceable under ninth and frankly ninth is a much better edition than eighth and shouldn't have been put on hold because of possibly the most binary and least interactive army in the entire game. Tau fundamentally do not work in ninth and never will until a full rework.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 06:22:27


Post by: BrianDavion


 Vanican wrote:
As a CSM player, I'm very cautiously optimistic about what GW could do with us, but I am still very much in the wait and see phase until the DG codex drops.

We have how many units in common with DG, off the top of my head: Daemon princes, sorcerers, hellbrute, defiler, possessed, spawn, and chaos lords, on top of special rules like DttFE. How those units turn out I think will determine how much investment 9th gets out of me until our dex.


I'm hoping GW has the presence of mind to FAQ those changes to CSMs and 1k Sons when the codices drop.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 06:23:45


Post by: Hecaton


 Void__Dragon wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
Tau should have been tweaked at the start of 9th to be viable, just like a lot of other forces.


It is impossible to make Tau work in ninth with some tweaking. They need a full re-design. The current codex is not balanceable under ninth and frankly ninth is a much better edition than eighth and shouldn't have been put on hold because of possibly the most binary and least interactive army in the entire game. Tau fundamentally do not work in ninth and never will until a full rework.


That redesign should have come with 9th then. That book is not cheap.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote:


hat's not an edition problem... that's an ARMY DESIGN problem. The Tau are a one trick pony army, THATS the design problem


It depends on how you look at it. It wasn't an army design problem in 8th. And if the army was that bad, they should have been prioritized over MOAR PRIMARIS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote:
 Vanican wrote:
As a CSM player, I'm very cautiously optimistic about what GW could do with us, but I am still very much in the wait and see phase until the DG codex drops.

We have how many units in common with DG, off the top of my head: Daemon princes, sorcerers, hellbrute, defiler, possessed, spawn, and chaos lords, on top of special rules like DttFE. How those units turn out I think will determine how much investment 9th gets out of me until our dex.


I'm hoping GW has the presence of mind to FAQ those changes to CSMs and 1k Sons when the codices drop.


lol


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 06:26:46


Post by: Blackie


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Could make stuff like the Archon's aura affecting Kabal and Core. Then wyches and wracks get Core. So buffs affect everyone from the sub-army plus the basic troops from the other two.


I agree, Drukhari auras will likely work using two keywords, not only the CORE one. So an Archon will probably affect CORE <KABAL> units, an haemonculus only CORE <COVEN>, etc...


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 06:28:44


Post by: Hecaton


 Blackie wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Could make stuff like the Archon's aura affecting Kabal and Core. Then wyches and wracks get Core. So buffs affect everyone from the sub-army plus the basic troops from the other two.


I agree, Drukhari auras will likely work using two keywords, not only the CORE one. So an Archon will probably affect CORE <KABAL> units, an haemonculus only CORE <COVEN>, etc...


You two are disagreeing. But you're right, in that the Drukhari auras will probably work in the most restrictive and awkward, unfun, and less-powerful way.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 06:30:37


Post by: BrianDavion


Hecaton wrote:
 Void__Dragon wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
Tau should have been tweaked at the start of 9th to be viable, just like a lot of other forces.


It is impossible to make Tau work in ninth with some tweaking. They need a full re-design. The current codex is not balanceable under ninth and frankly ninth is a much better edition than eighth and shouldn't have been put on hold because of possibly the most binary and least interactive army in the entire game. Tau fundamentally do not work in ninth and never will until a full rework.


That redesign should have come with 9th then. That book is not cheap.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote:


hat's not an edition problem... that's an ARMY DESIGN problem. The Tau are a one trick pony army, THATS the design problem


It depends on how you look at it. It wasn't an army design problem in 8th. And if the army was that bad, they should have been prioritized over MOAR PRIMARIS.


marines also needed a redesign, you'd think you'd know that given all the people complaining about the last codex

look what tau need is a new codex, and frankly they need a new way of looking at things, GW needs to stop shoveling out mecha (look I'm a battletech fan, if I'm saying a faction has too many big stompy robots it's time to listen) and proably start looking at xenos auxillery. Kroot, for example, are supposed to be the "disposable close assault troops" and IMHO they're not filling that role. replace their basic weapon with some sort of power pike, that let's them fight first when they're charged. it's thematic to Tau as an "over watch faction" and gives them some troops that are well suited to taking land (hell a kroot unit like that with a strike team back lining them would be HELL to shake off an objective)

my question on what you'd give Tau was basicly intended to highlight that problem, the Tau aren't an easily fixed army. but frankly they NEED the fix, new edition or no. because as it stands, they're a dull army


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 06:35:48


Post by: Hecaton


BrianDavion wrote:
marines also needed a redesign, you'd think you'd know that given all the people complaining about the last codex


"Nerf" is more accurate. Doesn't take a new codex to make that happen.

BrianDavion wrote:
look what tau need is a new codex, and frankly they need a new way of looking at things,


They should have updated the existing Tau codex to work in 9e. Yes, it would have taken more work, but it's work they should have done, as opposed to leaving Tau players in the lurch for what's probably going to be years. Players deserve better.

BrianDavion wrote:
my question on what you'd give Tau was basicly intended to highlight that problem, the Tau aren't an easily fixed army. but frankly they NEED the fix, new edition or no. because as it stands, they're a dull army


I think anything that's too interesting would be complained about by Astartes players. Remember them bitching about the Kellermorph? I don't know what specifically you'd give the Tau, though, because it would have to be approached holistically with edition changes and mission design, and that's a tall order. But it's work that should have been done.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 06:37:34


Post by: Breton


BrianDavion wrote:
 Void__Dragon wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:


And what "meaningful way" to do that should GW have given Tau?


Make them a combined arms force with a tip of the spear consisting of kroot auxiliaries to push people off of points is a good start, rather than just a static gunline with really gakky kroot elements you can take that don't do anything. Maybe make Krootox riders more durable and actually able to kill things in melee.


I don't disagree, but that'll require a codex rewrite which I'm sure is coming, but right now unless you're playing Marines or necrons you're playing with your 8th edition codex. frankly I think Tau are WELL over due a total revamp to add some more depth to the army. no 40k army should be a one trick pony.


The problem is Tau are designed as the Ork mirror. Really good at shooting, really bad at melee. Instead of making Tau good at melee they'd do better to make them get some limited mobility after shooting so they can shoot someone off an objective then move onto it (somewhere probably during their charge phase) before their command phase Their Jet Packs used to be able to do that. It just has to be worded in such a way they can't run out of LOS blocking, shoot, run into LOS blocking.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 06:43:18


Post by: Salt donkey


yukishiro1 wrote:
He doesn't kill a whole squad of guardsmen on average, he kills 8.33. We went over this above. This is actually a significant difference because it means on his own, more often than not he leaves a squad of 10 with one model left after the morale phase, which means he is left tarpitted since he can't fall back and charge or use powers. If he does this all game from turns 2 through 5, he'd kill all of 170 points worth of models in melee. He absolutely is a liability against hordes.

He's a 350 point model that will not get into combat T1 against anything he wants to be fighting, cannot fall back and do anything, will not make his points back if tarpitted while being worn down, and can be killed by most armies in two turns if they set their minds to it. I do think he has a place in some lists, but he's far from an auto-include in any competitive list.

Sure, he can sit on an objective and make the opponent not send their big unit onto that objective. But 350 points is a lot to spend on someone for objective-camping duty. Especially someone who will lose that objective to a move-move-move guardsmen squad that costs 50 points.


Sorry didn’t that discussion, I’ve lumped it in with this useless core discussion that I’ve been skimming by. I meant he kills a guardsman squad with mortal wounds + melee which is important because that guardsman squad could be holding an objective. Also as others said necrons have plenty of Anti horde tools, so him not being the most efficient here doesn’t matter much.

I also saw you say that is somehow bad against marines. This to me tells me you are committed to thinking he’s a non-meta unit no matter what. So I’ll table this discussion until after we see results.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 07:07:00


Post by: Dudeface


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
And what "meaningful way" to do that should GW have given Tau?


I dunno dude. The gamespace is near infinite. There are any of a number of ways to do that. The important thing is that when they rolled over a new edition that changed a lot of stuff, they should have put more work in to make sure everyone's faction worked in the new paradigm. Players deserve better.


So you can't think of anything specific then? dude you're in the same space everyone (except necrons and space marines by virtue of getting their 'dexes first) are using your 8th edition codex until you get a new one. GW ALREADY made an exception for Tau to the new Overwatch rules. hoenstly I think barring GW putting out an entirely new unit type for Tau that's proably the best you can hope for.


I hope the police catch whomever held GW at gunpoint and forced them to release 9th edition before the army rules for it were completed.


British police generally don't carry a firearm and are usually pretty slow to respond, they still might be on their way!


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 07:20:10


Post by: Blackie


Breton wrote:


The problem is Tau are designed as the Ork mirror. Really good at shooting, really bad at melee.


Orks are not bad in shooting and they're not great in combat either. 75% of the ork codex is made of "shooting only" or "shooting mostly" units.

They have bad BS but their shooting overall is certainly good or decent enough on the tabletop. Their melee is actually underwhelming instead.

Since the death of power klaws/fists that could instant kill characters and vehicles in previous editions orks are now mostly a shooting oriented army. But thye've always been mixed bags with lots of viable shooting and melee options.

Tau are truly one dimensional instead and they need to change: either with giving them a few solid melee options or with buffing some of their stats in order to make them extremely durable.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 07:47:35


Post by: a_typical_hero


Personally I would prefer Tau to get more alien auxiliary. Kroot and Vespids were interesting at the time of release, but since then have been relegated to the 2nd row behind bigger and bigger suits.

Fish of Fury tactics were fun to have around, JSJ not so much.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 08:12:52


Post by: BrianDavion


As I said I'd like to see GW double down on Auxillery. for Tau, they should basicly be essentially 3 or 4 factions in a single codex.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 08:22:23


Post by: Hecaton


BrianDavion wrote:
As I said I'd like to see GW double down on Auxillery. for Tau, they should basicly be essentially 3 or 4 factions in a single codex.


Sure, with draconian army building restrictions like Dark Eldar and a bunch of HQs which only support very specific units... nah, I'd rather aee them get the Astartes treatment where the army actually works.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 08:34:30


Post by: Not Online!!!


Hecaton wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
As I said I'd like to see GW double down on Auxillery. for Tau, they should basicly be essentially 3 or 4 factions in a single codex.


Sure, with draconian army building restrictions like Dark Eldar and a bunch of HQs which only support very specific units... nah, I'd rather aee them get the Astartes treatment where the army actually works.


If by work you mean dominatingly , annoyingly and repressive of the meta, more then Tau as a skew allready are with their lack of dedicated working CQC ...
no, working auxilia, a refocus back on actual tanks and a working combined arms playstyle certainly would be better and healther rather then marine nr 2 blueberry boogaloo.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 09:04:14


Post by: Crispy78


a_typical_hero wrote:
Personally I would prefer Tau to get more alien auxiliary. Kroot and Vespids were interesting at the time of release, but since then have been relegated to the 2nd row behind bigger and bigger suits.

Fish of Fury tactics were fun to have around, JSJ not so much.


But then I consider that to be similar to how CSM were so reliant on cultists. If I'm playing CSM, I want the actual CSMs to be good and to make up the core of my army. Likewise, when I was considering Tau (which I was for some time, before my regular opponent beat me to it!) it was because I wanted to play as Tau - not their minions.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 09:17:15


Post by: BrianDavion


Crispy78 wrote:
a_typical_hero wrote:
Personally I would prefer Tau to get more alien auxiliary. Kroot and Vespids were interesting at the time of release, but since then have been relegated to the 2nd row behind bigger and bigger suits.

Fish of Fury tactics were fun to have around, JSJ not so much.


But then I consider that to be similar to how CSM were so reliant on cultists. If I'm playing CSM, I want the actual CSMs to be good and to make up the core of my army. Likewise, when I was considering Tau (which I was for some time, before my regular opponent beat me to it!) it was because I wanted to play as Tau - not their minions.


keep in mind no one's saying Tau themselves should be crap. but rather they should have xenos auxilleries playing a role in covering their weaknesses to make the army as a whole better while still maintaining the feel of tau themselves.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 09:25:57


Post by: Crispy78


No I know - but I was burnt a bit by that with my CSMs over 6th / 7th. There did seem to be a prevalent attitude at the time that CSMs worked by maxing out on cultists and it didn't seem to matter that the actual CSMs themselves weren't worth taking... Didn't sit well with me.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 09:33:44


Post by: BrianDavion


Crispy78 wrote:
No I know - but I was burnt a bit by that with my CSMs over 6th / 7th. There did seem to be a prevalent attitude at the time that CSMs worked by maxing out on cultists and it didn't seem to matter that the actual CSMs themselves weren't worth taking... Didn't sit well with me.


I've got a CSM army and it annoyed the hell out of me too. I think the LSM codex shows signs GW is reckongizing the issues, scouts being moved to elites forces marines to take well.. power armored marines as their core troop. I doubt GW'll do anything like move cultists to elites but I'd be willing to bet GW won't make them core.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 09:36:30


Post by: vipoid


 Blackie wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Could make stuff like the Archon's aura affecting Kabal and Core. Then wyches and wracks get Core. So buffs affect everyone from the sub-army plus the basic troops from the other two.


I agree, Drukhari auras will likely work using two keywords, not only the CORE one. So an Archon will probably affect CORE <KABAL> units


All one of them.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 10:33:01


Post by: BrianDavion


 vipoid wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Could make stuff like the Archon's aura affecting Kabal and Core. Then wyches and wracks get Core. So buffs affect everyone from the sub-army plus the basic troops from the other two.


I agree, Drukhari auras will likely work using two keywords, not only the CORE one. So an Archon will probably affect CORE <KABAL> units


All one of them.


I could see Core actually being the "missing link" for dark eldar, as now you'll have units that can provide buffs to differant sub factions but also some HQs that can provide a buff to all core units.

Although it's more likely GW'll feth it up.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 10:51:25


Post by: Dysartes


Hecaton wrote:
Spoiler:
Voss wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Basicly core exists because GW doesn't want Captains directing repulsor executioner fire from behind the lines, or overlords hanging back with destroyers and buffing them with MWBD. bopth of which where (apparently) things in 8th edition.


I think some GW designers were deeply, horribly offended by reports that Roboute Guilliman, Primarch of the Ultramarines, Avenging Son of the Emperor, Lord Regent of the Imperium of Man was repeatedly made to squeeze into a tight parking lot full of tanks and then ringed with a picket of exactly 32 guardsmen.

It was the gameplay equivalent of choking the hallowed Spirit of the Game with a pretezel and then repeatedly putting the boot in.

And thus... 9th edition.
Consider how many design decisions happen to at least discourage or actively stop each part of that.


Plus all those fun late 8th edition FAQs that start with a paragraph that functionally reads as 'NO! You weren't supposed to do that!' Which was probably heavily edited for tone and content.


The message to some factions (like Tau) is "No! You weren't supposed to win!" which is just sad. To be frank, it totally delegitimizes what they're doing when they make the fething primario cart and don't make it a vehicle. They want the game to be broken, but they want the game to be broken in a way that drives marine sales.


After the Riptide, et al, were Monstrous Creatures when they first appeared rather than vehicles, Tau players don't get to bitch about the Primario Kart not being a vehicle.

I'm not saying I agree with it not being a vehicle, but players in glass codexes (or codicies, or whatever)...


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 10:55:06


Post by: vipoid


BrianDavion wrote:
 vipoid wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Could make stuff like the Archon's aura affecting Kabal and Core. Then wyches and wracks get Core. So buffs affect everyone from the sub-army plus the basic troops from the other two.


I agree, Drukhari auras will likely work using two keywords, not only the CORE one. So an Archon will probably affect CORE <KABAL> units


All one of them.


I could see Core actually being the "missing link" for dark eldar, as now you'll have units that can provide buffs to differant sub factions but also some HQs that can provide a buff to all core units.


I think you're overestimating how many HQs exist in the DE codex.

BrianDavion wrote:
Although it's more likely GW'll feth it up.


For once we're in full agreement.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 11:19:00


Post by: the_scotsman


BrianDavion wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
are you refering to suit commander spam? because GW generally tried to cut down on every faction that spammed HQs, Tau and Marines both got hit with a detachment limit on their beat stick HQs (Marines got that limit in codex 9.0) Tyranids resulted in the rule of 3 becoming a thing..


Just the general state of the game in 9th - the game rewards you for taking objectives in the center field but they didn't bother to give Tau any meaningful ways to do that. So Tau should just be happy to wait around for a few years while their army isn't functional in the current edition... it's pathetic.



And what "meaningful way" to do that should GW have given Tau?


I dunno, I could come up with some kind of ability maybe where after a unit you want to designate as kind of an armored battle-suit that seizes the objectives before the troops go to hold it, they could possibly shoot, and then hve some sort of post-shoot movement to make up for the fact that as a faction, Tau do not get the free movement inherent to charging.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote:
Crispy78 wrote:
a_typical_hero wrote:
Personally I would prefer Tau to get more alien auxiliary. Kroot and Vespids were interesting at the time of release, but since then have been relegated to the 2nd row behind bigger and bigger suits.

Fish of Fury tactics were fun to have around, JSJ not so much.


But then I consider that to be similar to how CSM were so reliant on cultists. If I'm playing CSM, I want the actual CSMs to be good and to make up the core of my army. Likewise, when I was considering Tau (which I was for some time, before my regular opponent beat me to it!) it was because I wanted to play as Tau - not their minions.


keep in mind no one's saying Tau themselves should be crap. but rather they should have xenos auxilleries playing a role in covering their weaknesses to make the army as a whole better while still maintaining the feel of tau themselves.


Would be cool then if those units weren't absolute hot trash wouldn't it.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 11:22:06


Post by: BrianDavion


the_scotsman wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
are you refering to suit commander spam? because GW generally tried to cut down on every faction that spammed HQs, Tau and Marines both got hit with a detachment limit on their beat stick HQs (Marines got that limit in codex 9.0) Tyranids resulted in the rule of 3 becoming a thing..


Just the general state of the game in 9th - the game rewards you for taking objectives in the center field but they didn't bother to give Tau any meaningful ways to do that. So Tau should just be happy to wait around for a few years while their army isn't functional in the current edition... it's pathetic.



And what "meaningful way" to do that should GW have given Tau?


I dunno, I could come up with some kind of ability maybe where after a unit you want to designate as kind of an armored battle-suit that seizes the objectives before the troops go to hold it, they could possibly shoot, and then hve some sort of post-shoot movement to make up for the fact that as a faction, Tau do not get the free movement inherent to charging.



proably but would it be something quick and easy to FAQ into the army? proably not.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 12:30:02


Post by: the_scotsman


BrianDavion wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
are you refering to suit commander spam? because GW generally tried to cut down on every faction that spammed HQs, Tau and Marines both got hit with a detachment limit on their beat stick HQs (Marines got that limit in codex 9.0) Tyranids resulted in the rule of 3 becoming a thing..


Just the general state of the game in 9th - the game rewards you for taking objectives in the center field but they didn't bother to give Tau any meaningful ways to do that. So Tau should just be happy to wait around for a few years while their army isn't functional in the current edition... it's pathetic.



And what "meaningful way" to do that should GW have given Tau?


I dunno, I could come up with some kind of ability maybe where after a unit you want to designate as kind of an armored battle-suit that seizes the objectives before the troops go to hold it, they could possibly shoot, and then hve some sort of post-shoot movement to make up for the fact that as a faction, Tau do not get the free movement inherent to charging.



proably but would it be something quick and easy to FAQ into the army? proably not.


I dunno, we've got time to write completely new datasheets abilities etc for every single sub-faction marine unit to make sure that space wolves players don't have to wait an extra *checks notes* 2 months between the update they got in april and their new codex coming in november or so.

It's cool for every CSM faction to play 1W marines vs 2W marines though, that's fine, and we certainly don't need to do anything to make Tau function in 9th ed between now and 2021.

Or anybody fething else, apparently. Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeverybody gets to wait while they slowly, laboriously update the current meta-dominant faction. Again.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 12:50:48


Post by: Unit1126PLL


the_scotsman wrote:
Or anybody fething else, apparently. Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeverybody gets to wait while they slowly, laboriously update the current meta-dominant faction. Again.


Be careful; someone must've held GW employees hostage or something until they released 9th edition, even if it was premature. That's the only reason I can think of that they wouldn't update everyone at the same time (as they've shown the ability to do in 8th).


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 12:57:51


Post by: Not Online!!!


the_scotsman wrote:


I dunno, we've got time to write completely new datasheets abilities etc for every single sub-faction marine unit to make sure that space wolves players don't have to wait an extra *checks notes* 2 months between the update they got in april and their new codex coming in november or so.

It's cool for every CSM faction to play 1W marines vs 2W marines though, that's fine, and we certainly don't need to do anything to make Tau function in 9th ed between now and 2021.

Or anybody fething else, apparently. Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeverybody gets to wait while they slowly, laboriously update the current meta-dominant faction. Again.


Well, some factions aren't even getting any update so it could be worse, and frankly so long the virus runs rampant they may very well take their time with the rules etc.

Otoh, .... yeah, it is still accurate.. and a justified feeling imo... especially for late PA factions...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Or anybody fething else, apparently. Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeverybody gets to wait while they slowly, laboriously update the current meta-dominant faction. Again.


Be careful; someone must've held GW employees hostage or something until they released 9th edition, even if it was premature. That's the only reason I can think of that they wouldn't update everyone at the same time (as they've shown the ability to do in 8th).


they indexed everyone and it was also a gak show. With a beta ruleset that was hella abusive.
GW also relies upon the spread of their dexes to generate multiple strong quartals.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 13:09:00


Post by: Cynista


Not Online!!! wrote:


Otoh, .... yeah, it is still accurate.. and a justified feeling imo... especially for late PA factions...

Which reminds me, the only faction that didn't get a rules update with PA was Necrons. That's fine, they said, because that's the first 9th edition codex; you'll get all the stuff that was going to be in PA in there!

Oh hang on, Necrons didn't actually receive any anti-psyker rules as far as I can see. Two new expensive named characters with really quite minor abilities aside. We even had the Warlord trait deny removed, and the one piece of wargear that allows a deny is still only present on one datasheet in the codex.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 13:14:22


Post by: Tyel


Hmmm. Its the usual debate.

Tau could do with a fundamental re-write to make their codex more interesting.

But I think you could fix them by just cutting the points significantly. Its still lacking interaction and possibly *fun* - and the list would probably be "triptide but now with the points necessary for other units to go claim some points" - but I suspect it would work.

Similar view on DE. I think the 3 (4+) factions in one book experiment has failed. It doesn't add anything but problems. I'd like it abandoned and DE once again re-imagined as a single cohesive whole.

But for all the tears over no HQ options and poison and perhaps Wych Cult in general - as a book, I think it would probably be top tier if everything was about 10-15% cheaper.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 13:16:41


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Not Online!!! wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Or anybody fething else, apparently. Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeverybody gets to wait while they slowly, laboriously update the current meta-dominant faction. Again.


Be careful; someone must've held GW employees hostage or something until they released 9th edition, even if it was premature. That's the only reason I can think of that they wouldn't update everyone at the same time (as they've shown the ability to do in 8th).


they indexed everyone and it was also a gak show. With a beta ruleset that was hella abusive.
GW also relies upon the spread of their dexes to generate multiple strong quartals.

So instead, the 8th edition codexes function as indexes with any abuses found there persisting and the 9th edition codexes having a leg up as they slowly creep forwards...

and yes, I understand GW's business model. It is precisely that I understand it that I disagree with it. Rules shouldn't be a major source of income for them - "selling rulebooks" shouldn't be the core of their profit. If it is, then obviously things will bloat because "omg we need some new rules to release! Quick make something up!" which is exactly what happens at the end of every edition since 4th.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 13:23:12


Post by: tneva82


BrianDavion wrote:
Crispy78 wrote:
No I know - but I was burnt a bit by that with my CSMs over 6th / 7th. There did seem to be a prevalent attitude at the time that CSMs worked by maxing out on cultists and it didn't seem to matter that the actual CSMs themselves weren't worth taking... Didn't sit well with me.


I've got a CSM army and it annoyed the hell out of me too. I think the LSM codex shows signs GW is reckongizing the issues, scouts being moved to elites forces marines to take well.. power armored marines as their core troop. I doubt GW'll do anything like move cultists to elites but I'd be willing to bet GW won't make them core.


Certainly showed balance isn't top priority for gw


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cynista wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:


Otoh, .... yeah, it is still accurate.. and a justified feeling imo... especially for late PA factions...

Which reminds me, the only faction that didn't get a rules update with PA was Necrons. That's fine, they said, because that's the first 9th edition codex; you'll get all the stuff that was going to be in PA in there!

Oh hang on, Necrons didn't actually receive any anti-psyker rules as far as I can see. Two new expensive named characters with really quite minor abilities aside. We even had the Warlord trait deny removed, and the one piece of wargear that allows a deny is still only present on one datasheet in the codex.


Stratagem and relic list is pretty small still. Doesn't look like codex plus pa now does it? Marines meanwhile still have big pile. Just as predicted. Lack of pa was disadvantage


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 13:28:06


Post by: the_scotsman


Tyel wrote:
Hmmm. Its the usual debate.

Tau could do with a fundamental re-write to make their codex more interesting.

But I think you could fix them by just cutting the points significantly. Its still lacking interaction and possibly *fun* - and the list would probably be "triptide but now with the points necessary for other units to go claim some points" - but I suspect it would work.

Similar view on DE. I think the 3 (4+) factions in one book experiment has failed. It doesn't add anything but problems. I'd like it abandoned and DE once again re-imagined as a single cohesive whole.

But for all the tears over no HQ options and poison and perhaps Wych Cult in general - as a book, I think it would probably be top tier if everything was about 10-15% cheaper.


Just fundamentally: I really really wish Eldar had the same kind of "points+durability bump" that classic marines just got. tbh I'd like it if MOST of the game got that, lol.

but I don't think DE are a non-functional army. Just boring, and as they have been basically since marines 2.0, the comparison in terms of game stats between the supposedly "superhumanly fast" eldar and stuff like space marines equipped with heavy weaponry is laughable.

Charge your hyperfast, drugged up wych arena fighter into a primaris space marine lugging a gigantic autocannon: Make the exact same number of attacks in close combat. LOL.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 13:29:04


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Or anybody fething else, apparently. Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeverybody gets to wait while they slowly, laboriously update the current meta-dominant faction. Again.


Be careful; someone must've held GW employees hostage or something until they released 9th edition, even if it was premature. That's the only reason I can think of that they wouldn't update everyone at the same time (as they've shown the ability to do in 8th).


they indexed everyone and it was also a gak show. With a beta ruleset that was hella abusive.
GW also relies upon the spread of their dexes to generate multiple strong quartals.

So instead, the 8th edition codexes function as indexes with any abuses found there persisting and the 9th edition codexes having a leg up as they slowly creep forwards...

and yes, I understand GW's business model. It is precisely that I understand it that I disagree with it. Rules shouldn't be a major source of income for them - "selling rulebooks" shouldn't be the core of their profit. If it is, then obviously things will bloat because "omg we need some new rules to release! Quick make something up!" which is exactly what happens at the end of every edition since 4th.


I absolutly agree . Hence why we will get this Edition pa2.0 aswell


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 13:38:02


Post by: Tycho


The Necron player who claims that they lost so much because of the core rule is false. Almost every unit has an HQ choice that provides synergy with each unit. Nobles for core units, crypteks for canopteks, and Skorpekh or lokhust lords for destroyers. Vehicles, Flayed Ones, and Triarch Praetorians are the only units in the codex that don't receive a buff from ICs.

Almost every unit received a buff the unit may be different but the new Necron codex is better.


I don't think anyone's actually claimed they got worse, and I even said the 'cron dex does "core" the right way. I would argue (as I said before) most of the Necron "upgrades" feel more like side-grades too. That said, I think I like the dex. It's just that there were two different design directions for these codexes and that's what people are concerned about.

Currently, "core" seems like classic GW. A thing in one army needed fixed, so they drummed up a fix for it, but applied it to everyone whether they needed it or not, and now there's a lopsided result. The DG codex will be very telling imo.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 14:58:11


Post by: The Newman


Hecaton wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
are you refering to suit commander spam? because GW generally tried to cut down on every faction that spammed HQs, Tau and Marines both got hit with a detachment limit on their beat stick HQs (Marines got that limit in codex 9.0) Tyranids resulted in the rule of 3 becoming a thing..


Just the general state of the game in 9th - the game rewards you for taking objectives in the center field but they didn't bother to give Tau any meaningful ways to do that. So Tau should just be happy to wait around for a few years while their army isn't functional in the current edition... it's pathetic.


A bunch of people have had things to say about this so I know I'm a bit late to the party, but as someone who has been pushing center-field objectives with Daemonettes and Termagaunts I'm not sure I see the problem with Kroot.

They're much better than Termagaunts for that extra point between better melee, better shooting, and pre-game movement, and on average they come pretty close to killing their weight in Daemonettes if they can shoot and then charge them. I will grant that they don't have the morale shenanigans but you're paying for that on Synapse creatures in the one case and banners and Syll'Esske in the other.

They're not great but nothing on the 5-7 point range really is. (Guardsmen not withstanding, and they're not really great either, just a noticable outlier.) Big blobs of Gaunts and daemons seem to be working, can anyone who has tried putting a significant number of Kroot on the table in 9th speak to why they don't work?


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 15:45:40


Post by: Breton


the_scotsman wrote:


but I don't think DE are a non-functional army.


I don't think they're an army, let alone a functional one. I mean they're better off than Custodes, and some others but they're still hurting for datasheets. They feel more like a Edlar supplement/auxiliary. They need a lot of units, and quick.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 15:57:59


Post by: Racerguy180


Kroot are more of a model issue than gaunts/daemonettes tho.

If they were plastic I'm sure the rules would be at least "passable".


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 16:09:44


Post by: the_scotsman


Racerguy180 wrote:
Kroot are more of a model issue than gaunts/daemonettes tho.

If they were plastic I'm sure the rules would be at least "passable".


Kroot are plastic.

They're just kinda gakky plastic, and they don't kill space marines so the number of, whatever, deamonettes they can kill doesn't really matter.

Daemonettes are good because they can kill space marines passably. Intercessors still kill equivalent points of them of course, dont be silly, why would a mid-s high-ap dedicated melee-only unit work against a space marine with a 30" range rifle, but they work in overwhelming numbers.

Gants I dunno, I don't think they're actually good, so the comparison with gaunts seems a bit silly.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 16:11:37


Post by: VladimirHerzog


Breton wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:


but I don't think DE are a non-functional army.


I don't think they're an army, let alone a functional one. I mean they're better off than Custodes, and some others but they're still hurting for datasheets. They feel more like a Edlar supplement/auxiliary. They need a lot of units, and quick.


They have a good number of units, what they need is to get rid of the stupid "units are subfaction locked" concept and more HQ options (just give them acces to bikes/skyboard/wings ffs).
And custodes IS a functioning army, idk where you get the idea that theyre not.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 16:13:47


Post by: vipoid


Breton wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:


but I don't think DE are a non-functional army.


I don't think they're an army, let alone a functional one. I mean they're better off than Custodes, and some others but they're still hurting for datasheets. They feel more like a Edlar supplement/auxiliary. They need a lot of units, and quick.


I really hope that DE get some meaningful releases for their next codex.

Because - and I say this as a Necron player - I think they were far more in need of the truckload of new stuff Necrons got than Necrons were.

I think breaking the codex into the respective subfactions only served to highlight how anaemic it is. Because when you break it down like that, you realise that Kabal has basically 1 unit that isn't a vehicle, Cult has 2 units, plus a third that doesn't count as Cult even though only they can use it, and Coven has 2 units plus 2 monsters, all of which are stuck doing melee. Oh, and Mandrakes, Incubi and Scourges are just kind of floating around with no connection to anything else. I guess Incubi have Drazhar (though all he actually does is make them redundant) and Scourges could be rolled in with Kabal, but that still leaves Mandrakes stuck with no HQs and no connection to the rest of the army.

It feels less like a coherent codex and more like someone threw three half-finished mini-factions and 3 lone units together and called it a book.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 16:31:24


Post by: The Newman


 vipoid wrote:
Breton wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:


but I don't think DE are a non-functional army.


I don't think they're an army, let alone a functional one. I mean they're better off than Custodes, and some others but they're still hurting for datasheets. They feel more like a Edlar supplement/auxiliary. They need a lot of units, and quick.


I really hope that DE get some meaningful releases for their next codex.

Because - and I say this as a Necron player - I think they were far more in need of the truckload of new stuff Necrons got than Necrons were.

I think breaking the codex into the respective subfactions only served to highlight how anaemic it is. Because when you break it down like that, you realise that Kabal has basically 1 unit that isn't a vehicle, Cult has 2 units, plus a third that doesn't count as Cult even though only they can use it, and Coven has 2 units plus 2 monsters, all of which are stuck doing melee. Oh, and Mandrakes, Incubi and Scourges are just kind of floating around with no connection to anything else. I guess Incubi have Drazhar (though all he actually does is make them redundant) and Scourges could be rolled in with Kabal, but that still leaves Mandrakes stuck with no HQs and no connection to the rest of the army.

It feels less like a coherent codex and more like someone threw three half-finished mini-factions and 3 lone units together and called it a book.


As a Marine player: if DE needs new releases more that you did, they need new releases way more than I did.

I hope it's DE as well, they need an overhaul more than anyone else, and I say that while also sitting on a new-to-me collection of Tyranids that are in a kind of woeful place too. Not the model range, that's ...fine, but the rules are not.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 16:50:42


Post by: Breton


 VladimirHerzog wrote:


They have a good number of units, what they need is to get rid of the stupid "units are subfaction locked" concept and more HQ options (just give them acces to bikes/skyboard/wings ffs).
And custodes IS a functioning army, idk where you get the idea that theyre not.


Outside of Forgeworld Custodes have a single HS and FA datasheet. Between Rule of Three and any kind of variety they're in a bad place.

Dark Eldar -as I said - are slightly better off, but still in a bad place for datasheets. They've got what two kits, 3 datasheets, for Heavy Support, none of them infantry? They shouldn't be a mirror image of Eldar, but they should have close to the same variety and flexibility - A couple infantry heavy weapon types like Reapers and/or Spiders, maybe a slave crewed/powered/moved Support Weapons/Artillery unit of some kind.





We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 16:52:19


Post by: Galas


 vipoid wrote:
Breton wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:


but I don't think DE are a non-functional army.


I don't think they're an army, let alone a functional one. I mean they're better off than Custodes, and some others but they're still hurting for datasheets. They feel more like a Edlar supplement/auxiliary. They need a lot of units, and quick.


I really hope that DE get some meaningful releases for their next codex.

Because - and I say this as a Necron player - I think they were far more in need of the truckload of new stuff Necrons got than Necrons were.

I think breaking the codex into the respective subfactions only served to highlight how anaemic it is. Because when you break it down like that, you realise that Kabal has basically 1 unit that isn't a vehicle, Cult has 2 units, plus a third that doesn't count as Cult even though only they can use it, and Coven has 2 units plus 2 monsters, all of which are stuck doing melee. Oh, and Mandrakes, Incubi and Scourges are just kind of floating around with no connection to anything else. I guess Incubi have Drazhar (though all he actually does is make them redundant) and Scourges could be rolled in with Kabal, but that still leaves Mandrakes stuck with no HQs and no connection to the rest of the army.

It feels less like a coherent codex and more like someone threw three half-finished mini-factions and 3 lone units together and called it a book.


I mean, thats what happened in AoS when they divided whole armies into 3-4 mini factions. Normally they are extremely anemic because... they weren't designed to be played that way. The problem is that Dark Eldar, all three parts of their codex have much more personality, gameplay differences and disparity that those 3 are probably more worthy of a proper codex than BA, DA and SW ever were. So the proper way to separate them is to revamp the three parts and make them proper armies or keep them together like always.

Custodes with FW are perfectly fine TBH, the problem is when tournaments ban FW and you end up with an army not worth playing.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 17:18:25


Post by: VladimirHerzog


Breton wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:


They have a good number of units, what they need is to get rid of the stupid "units are subfaction locked" concept and more HQ options (just give them acces to bikes/skyboard/wings ffs).
And custodes IS a functioning army, idk where you get the idea that theyre not.


Outside of Forgeworld Custodes have a single HS and FA datasheet. Between Rule of Three and any kind of variety they're in a bad place.

Dark Eldar -as I said - are slightly better off, but still in a bad place for datasheets. They've got what two kits, 3 datasheets, for Heavy Support, none of them infantry? They shouldn't be a mirror image of Eldar, but they should have close to the same variety and flexibility - A couple infantry heavy weapon types like Reapers and/or Spiders, maybe a slave crewed/powered/moved Support Weapons/Artillery unit of some kind.






Forgeworld units are perfectly legal and part of the army, i don't see why you're "not counting" them in the models they have available.
Admech, thousand sons, deathguard and demons don't have Heavy support infantry either.

DE definitely needs help, hopefully theyre gonna make it a single army again and add some parts that they are missing.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 18:32:58


Post by: Breton


 VladimirHerzog wrote:



Forgeworld units are perfectly legal and part of the army,

They're also generally more expensive, get less support, and are not carried in the stores. No army should have to count on Forgeworld. Forgeworld should be dessert, not the main course.

i don't see why you're "not counting" them in the models they have available.
Admech, thousand sons, deathguard and demons don't have Heavy support infantry either.
And they should get some. Every army should have most of the basic archetypal units, and at least two significantly different ways to list-build and play.

DE definitely needs help, hopefully theyre gonna make it a single army again and add some parts that they are missing.

Either that or really roll all the Eldar into one and let them synergize effectively. Or both. Both would be best. I liked the Ynarri gimmick, but they didn't really deliver on it.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 18:52:43


Post by: VladimirHerzog


Breton wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:



Forgeworld units are perfectly legal and part of the army,

They're also generally more expensive, get less support, and are not carried in the stores. No army should have to count on Forgeworld. Forgeworld should be dessert, not the main course.

they get the same amount of support and the main studio writes their rules now. Excluding them because of their price is ridiculous when you look at the $$price of things like mekguns.
You got a point with the "not carried in stores"




i don't see why you're "not counting" them in the models they have available.
Admech, thousand sons, deathguard and demons don't have Heavy support infantry either.
And they should get some. Every army should have most of the basic archetypal units, and at least two significantly different ways to list-build and play.


Not every army functions the same way. Heavy support for demons would make more sense if they were hulking beasts or large constructs (soul grinders, chariots). And the armies i listed do have significantly different options.

Also, for deathguard it would litterally go against the fluff. They don't use heavy weapons on infantry, its against their whole combat ideology.



DE definitely needs help, hopefully theyre gonna make it a single army again and add some parts that they are missing.

Either that or really roll all the Eldar into one and let them synergize effectively. Or both. Both would be best. I liked the Ynarri gimmick, but they didn't really deliver on it.


Yeah, at the risk of infuriating many players, i quite like the concept of Ynnari but i wouldnt want to see all elf codex consolidated into a single "Ynnari" codex. IMO they should just let you pick Ynnari as a "chapter tactic" which would give you their specific rules and let you take any Eldar in the same detachment. The abuse of the early 8th ynnari was the multiple actions and the inter faction buffs (doom/guide). Fore them to take Ynnari stuff only and it would be perfectly fine.

I still want my DE/Craftworlds/Clowns to be separated in their respective codex but their playstyles refined and modernised.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 18:57:20


Post by: Tyel


the_scotsman wrote:
Gants I dunno, I don't think they're actually good, so the comparison with gaunts seems a bit silly.


I think saying its *good* would be to go too far - but there are hints its the more competitive way to play Tyranids (which still isn't great - but still).

With that said I'm not really sure what Tau players are trying at the moment. I feel Triptide and drones and commanders just doesn't give you enough bulk to hold (never mind reclaim) objectives but just about everything else is obviously overcosted for what it does. 60-100 kroot might... serve a purpose.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 19:06:23


Post by: the_scotsman


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Breton wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:


They have a good number of units, what they need is to get rid of the stupid "units are subfaction locked" concept and more HQ options (just give them acces to bikes/skyboard/wings ffs).
And custodes IS a functioning army, idk where you get the idea that theyre not.


Outside of Forgeworld Custodes have a single HS and FA datasheet. Between Rule of Three and any kind of variety they're in a bad place.

Dark Eldar -as I said - are slightly better off, but still in a bad place for datasheets. They've got what two kits, 3 datasheets, for Heavy Support, none of them infantry? They shouldn't be a mirror image of Eldar, but they should have close to the same variety and flexibility - A couple infantry heavy weapon types like Reapers and/or Spiders, maybe a slave crewed/powered/moved Support Weapons/Artillery unit of some kind.






Forgeworld units are perfectly legal and part of the army, i don't see why you're "not counting" them in the models they have available.
Admech, thousand sons, deathguard and demons don't have Heavy support infantry either.

DE definitely needs help, hopefully theyre gonna make it a single army again and add some parts that they are missing.


I predict such wild levels of support as:

-one (1) new Lelith Hesperax model, still has the same core statline whereby the single best solo combatant duelist in an army of high-speed, low-strength one on one duelists gets an attacks stat of 4 to go along with her big huge beefy strength stat of 3.

She can nearly kill a WHOLE TACTICAL MARINE in combat!!!!

and then

-a new codex, with a super exciting new rule whereby you get to pick 2 extremely minor effects if your detachment shares all FACTION keywords.

And theyll forget to include mercenary units in that rule for the first 2 weeks.

Problemo....a-solvedo.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 19:16:25


Post by: Breton


 VladimirHerzog wrote:

they get the same amount of support and the main studio writes their rules now.
The last FAQ was in July. During what looks like a giant game wide roll out.



Not every army functions the same way. Heavy support for demons would make more sense if they were hulking beasts or large constructs (soul grinders, chariots). And the armies i listed do have significantly different options.

Also, for deathguard it would litterally go against the fluff. They don't use heavy weapons on infantry, its against their whole combat ideology.



Every army should have most of the basic archetypal units
Most of. Nor do they necessarily have to have heavy weapons - They could be assault like Eradicators. It could be some sort of combination disease/decay effect + "normal" guns. The new take on Aux Grenade Launchers with a "Rust Grenade". There are a number of ways to get the archetype without using a cookie cutter.



Yeah, at the risk of infuriating many players, i quite like the concept of Ynnari but i wouldnt want to see all elf codex consolidated into a single "Ynnari" codex. IMO they should just let you pick Ynnari as a "chapter tactic" which would give you their specific rules and let you take any Eldar in the same detachment. The abuse of the early 8th ynnari was the multiple actions and the inter faction buffs (doom/guide). Fore them to take Ynnari stuff only and it would be perfectly fine.

I still want my DE/Craftworlds/Clowns to be separated in their respective codex but their playstyles refined and modernised.


I'd like to see them all in one codex, but playable as seperate or together. I'd like to see both playable seperately, I'd like to see both of them get some truly interesting/entertaining benefits and drawbacks of being played together.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 19:44:59


Post by: Denegaar


Ynnari could be a nice supplement once Harlequins, Craftworlds and Drukhari get their Codexes.

The fact that they are releasing a new Lelith model and that Lorewise she's pretty much with Yvraine now... it's a hint that something is happening.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 20:20:03


Post by: EightFoldPath


Tyel wrote:
Hmmm. Its the usual debate.

Tau could do with a fundamental re-write to make their codex more interesting.

But I think you could fix them by just cutting the points significantly. Its still lacking interaction and possibly *fun* - and the list would probably be "triptide but now with the points necessary for other units to go claim some points" - but I suspect it would work.

Spot on. They could even lower the points costs of everything but riptides and shield drones. Ghostkeels stand out as one of the worst costed units, they are also a cool mech suit. They could drop the points on gun drones, marker drones and all the specialist drones. They could drop the points on Devilfish and Hammerheads. They could drop the points on Strike Teams, Breacher Teams and Pathfinder Teams.

I am now wondering what they'll do with the Riptide overcharge to get a 3++ invulnerable, as they seem to be doing away with them. Does anything in the SM codex have a 3++ now?


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 20:22:09


Post by: sanguine40k


EightFoldPath wrote:

I am now wondering what they'll do with the Riptide overcharge to get a 3++ invulnerable, as they seem to be doing away with them. Does anything in the SM codex have a 3++ now?


Possibly go with the same change storm shields got - 4++ and +1 to armour saving rolls?


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 20:45:22


Post by: a_typical_hero


EightFoldPath wrote:
I am now wondering what they'll do with the Riptide overcharge to get a 3++ invulnerable, as they seem to be doing away with them. Does anything in the SM codex have a 3++ now?

A relic armor can activate a 3++ once per game and even then it only lasts for a phase. Not round. Phase.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 20:48:53


Post by: Insectum7


EightFoldPath wrote:

I am now wondering what they'll do with the Riptide overcharge to get a 3++ invulnerable, as they seem to be doing away with them. Does anything in the SM codex have a 3++ now?
Hopefully they just dump it.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 20:50:12


Post by: Breton


EightFoldPath wrote:


I am now wondering what they'll do with the Riptide overcharge to get a 3++ invulnerable, as they seem to be doing away with them. Does anything in the SM codex have a 3++ now?


The Ultima Storm Shields on Victrix Guard are still 3++ but that's about it.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 20:54:09


Post by: a_typical_hero


 Insectum7 wrote:
Hopefully they just dump it.

Agreed. 3++ was a crutch to make Terminators viable for the first time since 2nd edition. It is not needed anymore and its absence makes the game better.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 20:57:37


Post by: Quasistellar


I think Tau could be an easy fix and not ruin the army asthetics (and I do think GW does care about having a unified "look" for an army, which might be the reason they haven't expanded on Kroot or Vespid).

Just have them design a melee suit for a new auxiliary race.. They could give the suit a different "shape", like maybe 4 arms or something, but keep the same angular (anime) design. Now you've got a new auxiliary unit, it can get into melee on objectives, and it maintains the look of the army. Easy peasy.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 21:03:34


Post by: Galas


The problem of Tau is removing the hability to abandon combat with your fly units and shoot. When all you do is shoot, and the game is about claiming objetives in the middle, the moment something touches your expensive shooting units everything dies.

Nerf Tau shooting, give them movility, and allow for some response to being charged and tagged in meele that is something more than dark souls's "YOU DIED" message.

Plastic and usable Krootox Riders would also help a little. But as others have said, if orks can be a shooting army with BS+5 I don't undersand why by now Tau don't have a support auxiliary race or suits that at least work in meele.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 21:57:41


Post by: BrianDavion


the_scotsman wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
are you refering to suit commander spam? because GW generally tried to cut down on every faction that spammed HQs, Tau and Marines both got hit with a detachment limit on their beat stick HQs (Marines got that limit in codex 9.0) Tyranids resulted in the rule of 3 becoming a thing..


Just the general state of the game in 9th - the game rewards you for taking objectives in the center field but they didn't bother to give Tau any meaningful ways to do that. So Tau should just be happy to wait around for a few years while their army isn't functional in the current edition... it's pathetic.



And what "meaningful way" to do that should GW have given Tau?


I dunno, I could come up with some kind of ability maybe where after a unit you want to designate as kind of an armored battle-suit that seizes the objectives before the troops go to hold it, they could possibly shoot, and then hve some sort of post-shoot movement to make up for the fact that as a faction, Tau do not get the free movement inherent to charging.



proably but would it be something quick and easy to FAQ into the army? proably not.


I dunno, we've got time to write completely new datasheets abilities etc for every single sub-faction marine unit to make sure that space wolves players don't have to wait an extra *checks notes* 2 months between the update they got in april and their new codex coming in november or so.

It's cool for every CSM faction to play 1W marines vs 2W marines though, that's fine, and we certainly don't need to do anything to make Tau function in 9th ed between now and 2021.

Or anybody fething else, apparently. Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeverybody gets to wait while they slowly, laboriously update the current meta-dominant faction. Again.


without a Index many of BA, SW etc armies are literally unplayable. I don't mean "Really really bad like greyknights before PA literally unplayable" I mean literally as in "the dataslates for a lot of their units have dissappered" unplayable. I don't think it's reasonable to tell a DA player "yeah technicly you can't use half your models for the next 3 months"


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 22:18:20


Post by: harlokin


Breton wrote:

Either that or really roll all the Eldar into one and let them synergize effectively. Or both. Both would be best. I liked the Ynarri gimmick, but they didn't really deliver on it.


Yeah, that would give me a really good push to find another hobby.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 22:22:09


Post by: BrianDavion


 harlokin wrote:
Breton wrote:

Either that or really roll all the Eldar into one and let them synergize effectively. Or both. Both would be best. I liked the Ynarri gimmick, but they didn't really deliver on it.


Yeah, that would give me a really good push to find another hobby.


depends how they did it, if they put all the units into one codex, and presented it as a "you can play eldar, dark eldar or yannari with one book now. if you play CWE these are your rules and restrictions, if dark eldar these are etc" it could work out alright. then put out a supplement for each that dives into more nitty gritty.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 22:32:20


Post by: Galas


Eldar share literally 0 units, theres no reason whatsoever to consolidate them. Marines are an exception because they share a ton of units.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 22:44:22


Post by: Argive


BrianDavion wrote:
 harlokin wrote:
Breton wrote:

Either that or really roll all the Eldar into one and let them synergize effectively. Or both. Both would be best. I liked the Ynarri gimmick, but they didn't really deliver on it.


Yeah, that would give me a really good push to find another hobby.


depends how they did it, if they put all the units into one codex, and presented it as a "you can play eldar, dark eldar or yannari with one book now. if you play CWE these are your rules and restrictions, if dark eldar these are etc" it could work out alright. then put out a supplement for each that dives into more nitty gritty.


Of course...
Only red/green/black/grey marines need books of their own because they are so original and different from each other...

There is as much similarity aesthetically and fluff-wise between a guardian and a kabalite as there is between a chaos spiky power armoured marine and a non spiky blue marine..


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/15 22:45:06


Post by: CEO Kasen


BrianDavion wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
are you refering to suit commander spam? because GW generally tried to cut down on every faction that spammed HQs, Tau and Marines both got hit with a detachment limit on their beat stick HQs (Marines got that limit in codex 9.0) Tyranids resulted in the rule of 3 becoming a thing..


Just the general state of the game in 9th - the game rewards you for taking objectives in the center field but they didn't bother to give Tau any meaningful ways to do that. So Tau should just be happy to wait around for a few years while their army isn't functional in the current edition... it's pathetic.



And what "meaningful way" to do that should GW have given Tau?


I dunno, I could come up with some kind of ability maybe where after a unit you want to designate as kind of an armored battle-suit that seizes the objectives before the troops go to hold it, they could possibly shoot, and then hve some sort of post-shoot movement to make up for the fact that as a faction, Tau do not get the free movement inherent to charging.



proably but would it be something quick and easy to FAQ into the army? proably not.


I dunno, we've got time to write completely new datasheets abilities etc for every single sub-faction marine unit to make sure that space wolves players don't have to wait an extra *checks notes* 2 months between the update they got in april and their new codex coming in november or so.

It's cool for every CSM faction to play 1W marines vs 2W marines though, that's fine, and we certainly don't need to do anything to make Tau function in 9th ed between now and 2021.

Or anybody fething else, apparently. Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeverybody gets to wait while they slowly, laboriously update the current meta-dominant faction. Again.


without a Index many of BA, SW etc armies are literally unplayable. I don't mean "Really really bad like greyknights before PA literally unplayable" I mean literally as in "the dataslates for a lot of their units have dissappered" unplayable. I don't think it's reasonable to tell a DA player "yeah technicly you can't use half your models for the next 3 months"


That's not the problem, though. The problem there isn't the existence of a BA/SW/DA index; it's that even with their antiquated rules release model, so staggeringly little effort seems to be going into the other armies that they can't do something as simple as hike a points cost by 3 and change a wound number via FAQ for CSM/TS/DG in the meantime, let alone update Tau into something that plays 9th reasonably well.

CSM/TS/DG don't want an index, they just want their goddamn 10,000 year veterans who sold their souls to Chaos to have something to show for it besides unburdening themselves from the weight of that darn bothersome second wound.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/16 00:25:10


Post by: Hecaton


BrianDavion wrote:
proably but would it be something quick and easy to FAQ into the army? proably not.


I don't care if it's "quick and easy," GW put all this damn effort into a new edition, they should have put that work in too. Apparently you think players should pay top dollar for half-assed work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote:
I've got a CSM army and it annoyed the hell out of me too. I think the LSM codex shows signs GW is reckongizing the issues, scouts being moved to elites forces marines to take well.. power armored marines as their core troop. I doubt GW'll do anything like move cultists to elites but I'd be willing to bet GW won't make them core.


Except that the price hike to cultists shows that GW would rather nerf cultists than make CSM a viable unit. GW doesn't care if CSM suck as a faction, in fact in many ways it's a feature, as it will allow little Timmy to stomp them and feel good about it, but they don't want the internal balance of the faction to favor cultists.


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/16 01:00:06


Post by: Void__Dragon


Tyel wrote:

But I think you could fix them by just cutting the points significantly.


Only in the sense that to fix them you would have to make them so overwhelmingly powerful that they'd make Marines look like Genestealer Cults by comparison.

Tau are the most binary army in the game save for maybe knights (who also suck the balls). To work in ninth with just point cuts they'd have to be able to blast the enemy army off the board and cripple their scoring power completely to make up for the fact that they have no capability to flip objectives. Straight buffing the most cancer army in the game (yes my friends even more than Marines) save perhaps knights is not the solution (at least not if they want to hard cap ppm at 5 points or higher, I guess to give them more melee punch they could make kroot laughably cheap to push people off of objectives or just swarm them without dying but even then I doubt it would work lol).


We have waited, we have seen! @ 2020/10/16 01:03:30


Post by: SemperMortis


I think they need to rework the 9th edition missions to fix some of that. But also, nerfing Marines would help just about everyone.

Who knows though, maybe GW for the first time ever is going to release a balanced edition where when everyone gets their codex we are relatively close in power, and intercessors are no longer punching genestealers to death with one hand while blasting Tau fire warriors with the other.