Switch Theme:

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

New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 15:26:22


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


How do.

Well, have at it!

https://www.warhammer-community.com/faqs/


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Canoptek Reanimator is now 80 points, down from 110. And the Triarch Stalker gains Quantum Shielding.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 15:29:19


Post by: bullyboy


addressed the apothecary and ATV....finally


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 15:30:19


Post by: beast_gts


The 2021 MUNITORUM FIELD MANUAL is a free download


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 15:37:27


Post by: VladimirHerzog


Lol, the only drukhari list that works getting nerfed. Good thing the codex is coming soon.

Woah, apparently fire and fading lets you embark on transports now.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 15:38:36


Post by: Tycho


The 2021 MUNITORUM FIELD MANUAL is a free download


Such a good move by GW! From the bits I've seen so far, this is also a pretty good FAQ. Haven't gone through all of it, but the 'crons and Marines seem to have recieved the right edits imo.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 15:43:58


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Huh. You can Fire and Fade into wave serpents now.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 15:44:15


Post by: a_typical_hero


- Point nerfs to problematic units
- Addressing 1st turn advantage
- Adressing problematic secondaries

and it is free. Great move by GW.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 15:47:36


Post by: TheAvengingKnee


beast_gts wrote:
The 2021 MUNITORUM FIELD MANUAL is a free download


That was a nice change of pace to give it out free now.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 15:47:51


Post by: Spoletta


Some little adjustments to nid points too.

Nothing major, but the buff to warriors and raveners is nice.
Nerf to zoans.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 15:48:10


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Huh. You can Fire and Fade into wave serpents now.


yeah, thats huge for elves in general.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 15:51:03


Post by: Spoletta


They also updated tau plasma and flamer weapons.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 15:51:44


Post by: ERJAK


Sisters ate a few nerfs, but they were minor and fair and we got 2 points knocked off of zephyrim as compensation.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 15:53:21


Post by: necrontyrOG


Looks like guard infantry went up, including veterans, and I'm a bit confused about Chimera points. Are they base 65 with the hull heavy bolter, and you just add points for turret upgrades?


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 15:53:41


Post by: Spoletta


ERJAK wrote:
Sisters ate a few nerfs, but they were minor and fair and we got 2 points knocked off of zephyrim as compensation.


Ouch, didn't notice them. Will have to check again.

Edit: Oh... found them.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 15:58:02


Post by: Umbros


Very early impressions, but most of the changes seem sensible... I'm impressed... until I can test it out at least.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 15:58:15


Post by: ERJAK


Spoletta wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
Sisters ate a few nerfs, but they were minor and fair and we got 2 points knocked off of zephyrim as compensation.


Ouch, didn't notice them. Will have to check again.


It's just 5 points for the canoness, 1ppm for repentia, 2ppm for retibutors, 2ppm for rhinos. Nothing that's gonna cripple the army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Small change at the very beginning of the GT rules, can't choose to go second anymore if you win the die roll...unless I missed that one before.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 16:00:59


Post by: jaredb


 necrontyrOG wrote:
Looks like guard infantry went up, including veterans, and I'm a bit confused about Chimera points. Are they base 65 with the hull heavy bolter, and you just add points for turret upgrades?


Anything not listed in the points for the chimera, is free.so it looks like the Multi-laser is free, but you pay for anything else.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 16:03:07


Post by: Tycho


- Addressing 1st turn advantage


Missed that one. Where was it?


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 16:03:16


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


Local club’s discord seems to feel going second got a boost, but haven’t expanded on why.

Anyone care to weigh in?


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 16:03:30


Post by: Spoletta


Plague marines at 21 points... ouch... Those boys will be very powerful.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 16:04:56


Post by: ERJAK


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Local club’s discord seems to feel going second got a boost, but haven’t expanded on why.

Anyone care to weigh in?


Turn 5 the player going second scores at the end of their TURN not their command phase now.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 16:05:53


Post by: jaredb


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Local club’s discord seems to feel going second got a boost, but haven’t expanded on why.

Anyone care to weigh in?



More forgiving end game scoring for if your going second for Primary objective and take and hold. Makes playing T5 actually mean something.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 16:07:42


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


Forgive my stupids, but how did work it prior to the change?


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 16:07:47


Post by: Tycho


Turn 5 the player going second scores at the end of their TURN not their command phase now.


Awesome change. Love this. If only games actually went 5 turns ...

I really do like that change though. I'm glad they addressed the issue.

Forgive my stupids, but how did work it prior to the change?


Both players scored in the Command phase, so on turn 5, Player 1 could immediately score their points and then leave the objectives to make sure they could shut player 2 out from scoring at all.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 16:09:35


Post by: ERJAK


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Forgive my stupids, but how did work it prior to the change?


Second turn player would score at the end of their command phase so BR 5 Turn 2 was almost completely useless for scoring primary.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 16:10:58


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


Some changes to secondary objective scoring - points for Abhor the Witch, for example, went down.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 16:14:27


Post by: Spoletta


Abhor the witch and bring it down both went significantly down.
You now have to completely table a TS list to score 15, depending on how many chars he brought.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 16:17:59


Post by: ERJAK


Nerfing bring it down and not nerfing mortifiers...that's a bold move cotton.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 16:19:53


Post by: TheAvengingKnee


Spoletta wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
Sisters ate a few nerfs, but they were minor and fair and we got 2 points knocked off of zephyrim as compensation.


Ouch, didn't notice them. Will have to check again.

Edit: Oh... found them.


Where did you find them, I have been looking and can't


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 16:20:31


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Anyone spot any MAJOR changes in the points costs? Looking at Slaanesh daemons, they stayed largely static.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 16:21:04


Post by: Darsath


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Anyone spot any MAJOR changes in the points costs? Looking at Slaanesh daemons, they stayed largely static.

Only major one for myself was the Reanimator going from 110 points to 80 points.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 16:23:07


Post by: Arcanis161


Well, my Guard army can bring Leman Russes without giving up too many points, and now there's an (albeit small) argument for Conscripts.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 16:25:18


Post by: Tycho


Plague marines at 21 points... ouch... Those boys will be very powerful.


That's bordering on unplayable. I hope to god this is the new codex price as well and we don't see another increase on top of that ...




New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 16:27:35


Post by: Unit1126PLL


They really dicked up Baneblades it looks like.

They went up 65 points, but the Demolisher cannon (formerly 20) is free (I guess). But now the Twin Heavy Bolter is 50, unless that's the price for one Sponson but at least the lascannon is free, but you have to buy the sponsons in pairs so is that 50 for the pair or is a pair of sponsons 100 now and two pairs 400? And if it isn't the price for a sponson, is it the price for the twin heavy bolter on the front or is that free too?


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 16:27:47


Post by: Gadzilla666


Warp Talons down to 23 PPM from 27. That's better, no great, but better.

Where are the new FAQS? The newest I'm seeing are from December.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 16:28:59


Post by: Not Online!!!


DG vs CSM

CSM PM are 18 ppm

And more funny, DG cultists 5ppm poxwalkers 5ppm CSM cultists .... 6ppm.

For what is in essence the same fething unit...


Atleast it's free but something ain't right.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 16:29:18


Post by: Gadzilla666


Tycho wrote:
Plague marines at 21 points... ouch... Those boys will be very powerful.


That's bordering on unplayable. I hope to god this is the new codex price as well and we don't see another increase on top of that ...



That's the 2W price. 1W is still 18 PPM for the Undivided Legions.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 16:29:25


Post by: Unit1126PLL


What it looks like they did with the baneblade was raise the price by 15 points, then include the hull heavy bolter and demolisher cannon, then fold sponsons.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 16:29:26


Post by: TheAvengingKnee


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Warp Talons down to 23 PPM from 27. That's better, no great, but better.

Where are the new FAQS? The newest I'm seeing are from December.


I had to change my sorting from newest first to something else and then back to see them. can also try ctrl+F5 if on a PC.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 16:31:34


Post by: ccs


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
How do.

Well, have at it!

https://www.warhammer-community.com/faqs/


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Canoptek Reanimator is now 80 points, down from 110. And the Triarch Stalker gains Quantum Shielding.


The triarch stalker already had Quantum Shielding

Edit: Ah, I see you were referring to it gaining the Keyword.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 16:31:35


Post by: VladimirHerzog


Not Online!!! wrote:
DG vs CSM

CSM PM are 18 ppm

And more funny, DG cultists 5ppm poxwalkers 5ppm CSM cultists .... 6ppm.

For what is in essence the same fething unit...


Atleast it's free but something ain't right.


CSM PM won't get the DG support,are still 1 wound and theyre also not troops so the difference in pts is fine.
poxwalkers can't shoot and are slower, the difference in pts is fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tycho wrote:
Plague marines at 21 points... ouch... Those boys will be very powerful.


That's bordering on unplayable. I hope to god this is the new codex price as well and we don't see another increase on top of that ...




nah, 21 pts for their stats is really good, they will still be solid.

Also, these are 100% the codex cost since the codex was supposed to already be out.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 16:33:59


Post by: Not Online!!!


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
DG vs CSM

CSM PM are 18 ppm

And more funny, DG cultists 5ppm poxwalkers 5ppm CSM cultists .... 6ppm.

For what is in essence the same fething unit...


Atleast it's free but something ain't right.


CSM PM won't get the DG support,are still 1 wound and theyre also not troops so the difference in pts is fine.
poxwalkers can't shoot and are slower, the difference in pts is fine.

Sorry, no, 5 PPm cultists for thee but not for me CSM is NOT FINE.
Because they didn't change.

Atleast the earthshaker carriage battery is finally cheaper (5ppm) then the basilisk...



New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 16:34:41


Post by: Umbros


Not Online!!! wrote:
DG vs CSM

CSM PM are 18 ppm

And more funny, DG cultists 5ppm poxwalkers 5ppm CSM cultists .... 6ppm.

For what is in essence the same fething unit...


Atleast it's free but something ain't right.


Maybe wait until the codex is released...


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 16:35:30


Post by: Gadzilla666


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
DG vs CSM

CSM PM are 18 ppm

And more funny, DG cultists 5ppm poxwalkers 5ppm CSM cultists .... 6ppm.

For what is in essence the same fething unit...


Atleast it's free but something ain't right.


CSM PM won't get the DG support,are still 1 wound and theyre also not troops so the difference in pts is fine.
poxwalkers can't shoot and are slower, the difference in pts is fine.

He's talking about the cultists Vlad. Death Guard cultists are 5 PPM, CSM cultists are still 6 PPM.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 16:35:49


Post by: Not Online!!!


Umbros wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
DG vs CSM

CSM PM are 18 ppm

And more funny, DG cultists 5ppm poxwalkers 5ppm CSM cultists .... 6ppm.

For what is in essence the same fething unit...


Atleast it's free but something ain't right.


Maybe wait until the codex is released...


The same unit with the same stats for 2 diffrent pricepoints...
Yeah no, reeks once again of dex designers beeing separate and avoiding each other like most house cats do with water.

For the record, i understand the PM's i just mock them for not even bothering to update the unit because it is shared.
What i don't understand is the magically cheaper culitsts for DG compared to CSM. Especially because THE cultist spam legion is NOT DG.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 16:36:59


Post by: Umbros


Not Online!!! wrote:
Umbros wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
DG vs CSM

CSM PM are 18 ppm

And more funny, DG cultists 5ppm poxwalkers 5ppm CSM cultists .... 6ppm.

For what is in essence the same fething unit...


Atleast it's free but something ain't right.


Maybe wait until the codex is released...


The same unit with the same stats for 2 diffrent pricepoints...
Yeah no, reeks once again of dex designers beeing separate and avoiding each other like most house cats do with water.


You don't know what synergies/extra rules exist in the book. There may be none and it is a silly discrepancy, but you just don't know...


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 16:37:10


Post by: VladimirHerzog


Not Online!!! wrote:

Sorry, no, 5 PPm cultists for thee but not for me CSM is NOT FINE.
Because they didn't change.

Atleast the earthshaker carriage battery is finally cheaper (5ppm) then the basilisk...



they did change tho. DG got a codex, CSM didnt.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 16:38:08


Post by: Daedalus81


 bullyboy wrote:
addressed the apothecary and ATV....finally


I mean...like two months for sweeping FAQs. Seems pretty timely to me.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 16:38:25


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 Gadzilla666 wrote:

He's talking about the cultists Vlad. Death Guard cultists are 5 PPM, CSM cultists are still 6 PPM.


yeah, him mentionning poxwalkers messed up my reading comprehension. Still, CSM is behind everywhere anyway, once we get a codex it should be fine (knocks on wood)


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 16:39:17


Post by: Biasn


The thousand sons cultists are 6pts aswell btw


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 16:39:50


Post by: mokoshkana


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Woah, apparently fire and fading lets you embark on transports now.
Where is this? Did they remove something that previously restricted it?


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 16:39:55


Post by: VladimirHerzog


Not Online!!! wrote:


The same unit with the same stats for 2 diffrent pricepoints...
Yeah no, reeks once again of dex designers beeing separate and avoiding each other like most house cats do with water.

For the record, i understand the PM's i just mock them for not even bothering to update the unit because it is shared.
What i don't understand is the magically cheaper culitsts for DG compared to CSM. Especially because THE cultist spam legion is NOT DG.


DG plagues and CSM plagues aren't the same unit tho..... troop vs elite is a huge difference.

The magically cheaper cultists is dumb but thats the least of our complaints, just give us 2W already!


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 16:40:40


Post by: Daedalus81


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Anyone spot any MAJOR changes in the points costs? Looking at Slaanesh daemons, they stayed largely static.


Nothing major seen yet. An important one though is the 5 points to Eradicators. It doesn't take them off the table, but it might slow them down a bit.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 16:40:50


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 mokoshkana wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Woah, apparently fire and fading lets you embark on transports now.
Where is this? Did they remove something that previously restricted it?


OUT OF PHASE RULES AND EMBARKING
ON TRANSPORTS
We wish to add an example to explain how the Out of Phase rules
apply to units. When a unit uses a rule to make a move as if it
were the Movement phase, all the normal rules that would apply in
the Movement phase apply when making that move. For example,
models in that unit cannot finish that move within Engagement
Range of any enemy models, and if every model in that unit
finishes that move wholly within 3" of a friendly Transport model,
they can embark within that Transport model following the
normal Movement phase rules regarding embarkation.


core rulebook faq


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 16:42:25


Post by: Not Online!!!


VladimirHerzog wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:

He's talking about the cultists Vlad. Death Guard cultists are 5 PPM, CSM cultists are still 6 PPM.


yeah, him mentionning poxwalkers messed up my reading comprehension. Still, CSM is behind everywhere anyway, once we get a codex it should be fine (knocks on wood)


Biasn wrote:The thousand sons cultists are 6pts aswell btw


Look, i have to commend GW, they resisted their Greedyness and gave us a free rules update and pts. They even put it online which is masterfully custommer friendly.
What is less is the still seeming 0 interaction between lead writers for dex rules and pts...

Also considering ALL sm got insta updated whiles all CSM which will get the impending buff didn't , vlad, doesn't bode well imo.

Also i may be forgiven for not trusting GW...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:


The same unit with the same stats for 2 diffrent pricepoints...
Yeah no, reeks once again of dex designers beeing separate and avoiding each other like most house cats do with water.

For the record, i understand the PM's i just mock them for not even bothering to update the unit because it is shared.
What i don't understand is the magically cheaper culitsts for DG compared to CSM. Especially because THE cultist spam legion is NOT DG.


DG plagues and CSM plagues aren't the same unit tho..... troop vs elite is a huge difference.

The magically cheaper cultists is dumb but thats the least of our complaints, just give us 2W already!


Seconded, atleast the FW arty got a bit more usefull, which is the part of my R&H still getting updated


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 16:44:11


Post by: mokoshkana


@VladimirHerzog Thanks! I was looking in the wrong spot in that pdf.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Folks, remember that units in different books have access to different stratagems and synergies. That SHOULD absolutely be factored in to a units cost. In the new world, it is not just as easy as adding a second detachment to gain access to a second grouping of Stratagems as detachments now have an actual CP cost.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 16:46:24


Post by: Tycho


Also, these are 100% the codex cost since the codex was supposed to already be out.


Oh that's right! I forgot about that. Whew! lol


I mean...like two months for sweeping FAQs. Seems pretty timely to me.


I think the UK is locked down pretty hard right now too. It's not just 2 months - it's 2 months in a quarantine. I'd agree that this is a pretty laudable achievement. Especially the Munitorum being free, and with so many of the changes being ones very specifically called for by the community. I'm sure there are some "misses" here too, but over all, I think this looks to be like some of their better work.




New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 16:47:01


Post by: Tyranid Horde


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 mokoshkana wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Woah, apparently fire and fading lets you embark on transports now.
Where is this? Did they remove something that previously restricted it?


OUT OF PHASE RULES AND EMBARKING
ON TRANSPORTS
We wish to add an example to explain how the Out of Phase rules
apply to units. When a unit uses a rule to make a move as if it
were the Movement phase, all the normal rules that would apply in
the Movement phase apply when making that move. For example,
models in that unit cannot finish that move within Engagement
Range of any enemy models, and if every model in that unit
finishes that move wholly within 3" of a friendly Transport model,
they can embark within that Transport model following the
normal Movement phase rules regarding embarkation.


core rulebook faq


That's a pretty big buff that they might errata again, fire and fade was nerfed for a reason.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 16:58:11


Post by: bullyboy


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
addressed the apothecary and ATV....finally


I mean...like two months for sweeping FAQs. Seems pretty timely to me.


so you're saying that the Space Marine Codex was released in November?


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 16:58:14


Post by: Ice_can


Spoletta wrote:
They also updated tau plasma and flamer weapons.

What FAQ are you seeing anything about Tau plasma in?
The Flamers were changed in august last year anway so that's not new.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 16:58:35


Post by: Amishprn86


DE has a typo, 99% sure Reavers and Hellions points got mixed up b.c there is NO WAY we get 10pt Reavers lol.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 17:00:50


Post by: addnid


Eradicators and harlequin stuff avoided the "point increase bat" ? whyyyyyyyy ?


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 17:01:38


Post by: Not Online!!!


 addnid wrote:
Eradicators and harlequin stuff avoided the "point increase bat" ? whyyyyyyyy ?


because GW wants to sell the eradicators first in a separate overpriced elite infantry box?

Dunno


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 17:01:38


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 addnid wrote:
Eradicators and harlequin stuff avoided the "point increase bat" ? whyyyyyyyy ?

I think Eradicators actually did get hit, not sure about Harl Q. Inn.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 17:02:07


Post by: Mulletdude


 addnid wrote:
Eradicators and harlequin stuff avoided the "point increase bat" ? whyyyyyyyy ?


Not sure what you're on about, but Eradicators went up 5ppm.

Harlies, however, have remained 100% at current prices.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 17:08:18


Post by: Tyel


I just want to know who was abusing Outriders to the point where they were on the scale with Eradicators and Inceptors.

Looks like Tau Commanders have been nerfed with a slight points increase, which we can clearly all agree was necessary. There is some compensation in 5 point reductions for crisis suits and a bit more for Broadsides and Hammerheads.

As I see it a tactical drone squad costs 20 points a model, even though the drones themselves are unchanged. Which feels like a (???).


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 17:08:27


Post by: Abaddon303


Seems to me like GW are actually basing points for units and weapons on the individual codex.

If GW believe cultists are stronger in CSM armies than they are in DG (I'd probably agree) then they should be different points.

The DG helbrute is 5pts more than the CSM one. I imagine that is taking into account the contagions etc it will be benefiting from.

A lot of people complained when Tacs weren't cheaper than CSM despite access to doctrines etc...


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 17:09:27


Post by: mokoshkana


Abaddon303 wrote:
Seems to me like GW are actually basing points for units and weapons on the individual codex.

If GW believe cultists are stronger in CSM armies than they are in DG (I'd probably agree) then they should be different points.

The DG helbrute is 5pts more than the CSM one. I imagine that is taking into account the contagions etc it will be benefiting from.

A lot of people complained when Tacs weren't cheaper than CSM despite access to doctrines etc...
This guy gets it!


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 17:18:56


Post by: Ice_can


Tyel wrote:
I just want to know who was abusing Outriders to the point where they were on the scale with Eradicators and Inceptors.

Looks like Tau Commanders have been nerfed with a slight points increase, which we can clearly all agree was necessary. There is some compensation in 5 point reductions for crisis suits and a bit more for Broadsides and Hammerheads.

As I see it a tactical drone squad costs 20 points a model, even though the drones themselves are unchanged. Which feels like a (???).

Commander's haven't changed they have been at those increased points along with the rest of the army since the change to 9th.
Glad to see they are finally undoing the neef to crisis suits finally.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 17:19:35


Post by: Gadzilla666


 mokoshkana wrote:
Abaddon303 wrote:
Seems to me like GW are actually basing points for units and weapons on the individual codex.

If GW believe cultists are stronger in CSM armies than they are in DG (I'd probably agree) then they should be different points.

The DG helbrute is 5pts more than the CSM one. I imagine that is taking into account the contagions etc it will be benefiting from.

A lot of people complained when Tacs weren't cheaper than CSM despite access to doctrines etc...
This guy gets it!

Then please explain why Land Raiders, Predators, Vindicators, Sicarans, Leviathans, Fellblades, Fire Raptors, etc, etc, etc still cost exactly the same for loyalists and CSM?


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 17:31:04


Post by: bullyboy


Ice_can wrote:
Tyel wrote:
I just want to know who was abusing Outriders to the point where they were on the scale with Eradicators and Inceptors.

Looks like Tau Commanders have been nerfed with a slight points increase, which we can clearly all agree was necessary. There is some compensation in 5 point reductions for crisis suits and a bit more for Broadsides and Hammerheads.

As I see it a tactical drone squad costs 20 points a model, even though the drones themselves are unchanged. Which feels like a (???).

Commander's haven't changed they have been at those increased points along with the rest of the army since the change to 9th.
Glad to see they are finally undoing the neef to crisis suits finally.


No, they went up compared to ministorum manual.

What is confusing to me is the new format and how drones work. Drones as a unit are 20 points each, no differentiation as to which kind. But drones taken as upgrades in units (such as commanders, etc), don't have any points attached and therefore are free under current format.

Looking at how the app functions, and now this points format, I don't think characters etc will get drones as upgrades. You will probably buy a pool of them and allocate out accordingly. Who knows? It's really messed up though.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 17:32:03


Post by: Tyel


Didn't see the post above when I started typing, so ignore this.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 17:33:21


Post by: mokoshkana


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 mokoshkana wrote:
Abaddon303 wrote:
Seems to me like GW are actually basing points for units and weapons on the individual codex.

If GW believe cultists are stronger in CSM armies than they are in DG (I'd probably agree) then they should be different points.

The DG helbrute is 5pts more than the CSM one. I imagine that is taking into account the contagions etc it will be benefiting from.

A lot of people complained when Tacs weren't cheaper than CSM despite access to doctrines etc...
This guy gets it!

Then please explain why Land Raiders, Predators, Vindicators, Sicarans, Leviathans, Fellblades, Fire Raptors, etc, etc, etc still cost exactly the same for loyalists and CSM?
Because the powers that be have determined the synergy/stratagems surrounding those units don't require variant point levels


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 17:35:11


Post by: Xenomancers


Tyel wrote:
Didn't see the post above when I started typing, so ignore this.

There is an okay build that keeps it with ATS and a relic airbusrt grenade but I think it forces you to take the missle pod with the burst cannon.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 17:36:21


Post by: catbarf


Devourers went down to 2pts for Termagants, but stayed at 4pts for Warriors.

So they're still pointless on Warriors since 6pts gets you a significantly better Deathspitter, but on Termagants you go from 5pts for a basic Gaunt with a single S4 shot at 12" to 7pts for three S4 shots at 18".

Also, Hive Guard got cheaper.

This has just enough weirdness for me to suspect lots of typos at work.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 17:37:31


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 Amishprn86 wrote:
DE has a typo, 99% sure Reavers and Hellions points got mixed up b.c there is NO WAY we get 10pt Reavers lol.


unless they become super bad in the upcoming codex. Which i really hope not, theyre the unit i like most in my Drukharis (visually)


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 17:38:00


Post by: Not Online!!!


 mokoshkana wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 mokoshkana wrote:
Abaddon303 wrote:
Seems to me like GW are actually basing points for units and weapons on the individual codex.

If GW believe cultists are stronger in CSM armies than they are in DG (I'd probably agree) then they should be different points.

The DG helbrute is 5pts more than the CSM one. I imagine that is taking into account the contagions etc it will be benefiting from.

A lot of people complained when Tacs weren't cheaper than CSM despite access to doctrines etc...
This guy gets it!

Then please explain why Land Raiders, Predators, Vindicators, Sicarans, Leviathans, Fellblades, Fire Raptors, etc, etc, etc still cost exactly the same for loyalists and CSM?
Because the powers that be have determined the synergy/stratagems surrounding those units don't require variant point levels


Yeah , gw can do no wrong.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 17:41:06


Post by: Niiai


The poeple over at The Hive (forum) have actually started to drop hive guards from their lists. They are just super fragile. They instead roll with 2 exoshrines mostly, and some of the FW models.

Also, I have yet to have more then one survive until my turn 1. Theu are super fragile. My opponents dakkajets always kills them. I do not mind the nids changes.

Some small changes to GSC cult as well. Mostly following IG prices on the broodbrothers (more exspensive infantery, cheaper russ, cheaper chimera weapons) cheaper abberants and cheaper transports.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 17:41:33


Post by: Karol


Hmm not a single change, not even basic update to incinerator range. Well at least there are no nerfs either which is a plus.

Sad that abhore is still a thing.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 17:44:16


Post by: VladimirHerzog


Karol wrote:
Hmm not a single change, not even basic update to incinerator range. Well at least there are no nerfs either which is a plus.

Sad that abhore is still a thing.


read the whole thing and stop crying, abhor was nerfed.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 17:45:23


Post by: Xenomancers


 catbarf wrote:
Devourers went down to 2pts for Termagants, but stayed at 4pts for Warriors.

So they're still pointless on Warriors since 6pts gets you a significantly better Deathspitter, but on Termagants you go from 5pts for a basic Gaunt with a single S4 shot at 12" to 7pts for three S4 shots at 18".

Also, Hive Guard got cheaper.

This has just enough weirdness for me to suspect lots of typos at work.

Kinda of odd when your bet options get buffed and not much else changes.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 17:56:09


Post by: Tycho


read the whole thing and stop crying, abhor was nerfed.


While I'm glad they nerfed it, I was really hoping they would just say it no longer stacks w/assassinate. It is admittedly less of a problem now, but it's still a problem.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 17:56:09


Post by: Gadzilla666


 mokoshkana wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 mokoshkana wrote:
Abaddon303 wrote:
Seems to me like GW are actually basing points for units and weapons on the individual codex.

If GW believe cultists are stronger in CSM armies than they are in DG (I'd probably agree) then they should be different points.

The DG helbrute is 5pts more than the CSM one. I imagine that is taking into account the contagions etc it will be benefiting from.

A lot of people complained when Tacs weren't cheaper than CSM despite access to doctrines etc...
This guy gets it!

Then please explain why Land Raiders, Predators, Vindicators, Sicarans, Leviathans, Fellblades, Fire Raptors, etc, etc, etc still cost exactly the same for loyalists and CSM?
Because the powers that be have determined the synergy/stratagems surrounding those units don't require variant point levels

Then the "powers that be" don't know their own rules. Both fw Land Raiders, all of the big flyers, and all of the super heavies for loyalists have the "Machine Spirit" keyword, which gives them access to the "Power of the Machine Spirit" strategem, which from 2CP allows them to function as if they are at full wounds no matter how much they've been damaged, the CSM variants have no equivalent. That's good for the Land Raiders and flyers, but huge for a 600 PPM pile of guns like a Fellblade. Based on that alone they shouldn't be the same price. Add on doctrines, super doctrines, and chapter tactics and it starts getting ridiculous.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 18:06:52


Post by: Lord Perversor


 Tyranid Horde wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 mokoshkana wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Woah, apparently fire and fading lets you embark on transports now.
Where is this? Did they remove something that previously restricted it?


OUT OF PHASE RULES AND EMBARKING
ON TRANSPORTS
We wish to add an example to explain how the Out of Phase rules
apply to units. When a unit uses a rule to make a move as if it
were the Movement phase, all the normal rules that would apply in
the Movement phase apply when making that move. For example,
models in that unit cannot finish that move within Engagement
Range of any enemy models, and if every model in that unit
finishes that move wholly within 3" of a friendly Transport model,
they can embark within that Transport model following the
normal Movement phase rules regarding embarkation.


core rulebook faq


That's a pretty big buff that they might errata again, fire and fade was nerfed for a reason.


Been that way since 9th hit, since the embark restrictions was per phase on this edition so nothing changed.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 18:08:06


Post by: mokoshkana


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 mokoshkana wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 mokoshkana wrote:
Abaddon303 wrote:
Seems to me like GW are actually basing points for units and weapons on the individual codex.

If GW believe cultists are stronger in CSM armies than they are in DG (I'd probably agree) then they should be different points.

The DG helbrute is 5pts more than the CSM one. I imagine that is taking into account the contagions etc it will be benefiting from.

A lot of people complained when Tacs weren't cheaper than CSM despite access to doctrines etc...
This guy gets it!

Then please explain why Land Raiders, Predators, Vindicators, Sicarans, Leviathans, Fellblades, Fire Raptors, etc, etc, etc still cost exactly the same for loyalists and CSM?
Because the powers that be have determined the synergy/stratagems surrounding those units don't require variant point levels

Then the "powers that be" don't know their own rules. Both fw Land Raiders, all of the big flyers, and all of the super heavies for loyalists have the "Machine Spirit" keyword, which gives them access to the "Power of the Machine Spirit" strategem, which from 2CP allows them to function as if they are at full wounds no matter how much they've been damaged, the CSM variants have no equivalent. That's good for the Land Raiders and flyers, but huge for a 600 PPM pile of guns like a Fellblade. Based on that alone they shouldn't be the same price. Add on doctrines, super doctrines, and chapter tactics and it starts getting ridiculous.
GW proper has shown they generally don't really care about FW when it comes to balance. If they did, those units would be in the Codex, not in a FW book. As for the rest, I guess wait for a CSM codex. Maybe the DG codex will shed some light on the future for some of those units on the Chaos side of the house.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 18:10:34


Post by: Canadian 5th


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Then the "powers that be" don't know their own rules. Both fw Land Raiders, all of the big flyers, and all of the super heavies for loyalists have the "Machine Spirit" keyword, which gives them access to the "Power of the Machine Spirit" strategem, which from 2CP allows them to function as if they are at full wounds no matter how much they've been damaged, the CSM variants have no equivalent. That's good for the Land Raiders and flyers, but huge for a 600 PPM pile of guns like a Fellblade. Based on that alone they shouldn't be the same price. Add on doctrines, super doctrines, and chapter tactics and it starts getting ridiculous.

None of these units are good. The loyalist version being better isn't even close to enough to make them anything but a handicap to your list.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 18:12:42


Post by: Tycho


None of these units are good. The loyalist version being better isn't even close to enough to make them anything but a handicap to your list.


Some of those units actually are good. You wouldn't know this though because you haven't actually played since 5th ...


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 18:13:13


Post by: princeyg


Thank the maker!!!

as per the core rulebook errata I can now safely deploy haruspex and t-fexes from my t-cyte again!!!

Thank you GW!!!!!!




New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 18:13:22


Post by: JNAProductions


 Canadian 5th wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Then the "powers that be" don't know their own rules. Both fw Land Raiders, all of the big flyers, and all of the super heavies for loyalists have the "Machine Spirit" keyword, which gives them access to the "Power of the Machine Spirit" strategem, which from 2CP allows them to function as if they are at full wounds no matter how much they've been damaged, the CSM variants have no equivalent. That's good for the Land Raiders and flyers, but huge for a 600 PPM pile of guns like a Fellblade. Based on that alone they shouldn't be the same price. Add on doctrines, super doctrines, and chapter tactics and it starts getting ridiculous.

None of these units are good. The loyalist version being better isn't even close to enough to make them anything but a handicap to your list.
So, if a unit isn't competitive, who cares if it's just mediocre or so actively bad you're shooting yourself in the foot for bringing it?

You know, some people like the models, and might want to bring them in a non-tourney game.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 18:16:15


Post by: yukishiro1


Sigh. They recognized the problems, but the solutions are all over the place, and some of them are straight-up terrible. Forcing the player who "wins" the roll-off to go first is silly, and does very little to address first-turn advantage.

Similarly, they recognized there's a problem with Abhor...but the "solution" is mind-bogglingly bad, and falls flat on its face at doing what they are saying prompted the change - namely, that the secondary punishes GK and TSons too much. But all they did is lower the points for killing characters from 5 to 3! You still get 2 points for each psychic unit killed. You'll still easily max it against GK and Tsons. It makes the secondary less punishing against lists with only psychic characters...but it's still a kick in the teeth to GK and Tsons.

The while we stand rule change - and specifically the bit that lets you split a unit after nominating it, and then the opponent has to destroy *both* halves - is another stupid change that is just a stealth buff to space marines, as you can now take a big unit, combat squad it, and still use half while hiding the other half to get the points. Even worse for custodes, who can split up a 10-man terminator unit and then just hold back 1 or 2 to get the points while using the rest of the unit with no worries about it being destroyed.


You really have to wonder about GW sometimes. Even when they recognize an issue, the "solution" if as often as not a real head-scratcher.



New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 18:16:52


Post by: Gadzilla666


 mokoshkana wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 mokoshkana wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 mokoshkana wrote:
Abaddon303 wrote:
Seems to me like GW are actually basing points for units and weapons on the individual codex.

If GW believe cultists are stronger in CSM armies than they are in DG (I'd probably agree) then they should be different points.

The DG helbrute is 5pts more than the CSM one. I imagine that is taking into account the contagions etc it will be benefiting from.

A lot of people complained when Tacs weren't cheaper than CSM despite access to doctrines etc...
This guy gets it!

Then please explain why Land Raiders, Predators, Vindicators, Sicarans, Leviathans, Fellblades, Fire Raptors, etc, etc, etc still cost exactly the same for loyalists and CSM?
Because the powers that be have determined the synergy/stratagems surrounding those units don't require variant point levels

Then the "powers that be" don't know their own rules. Both fw Land Raiders, all of the big flyers, and all of the super heavies for loyalists have the "Machine Spirit" keyword, which gives them access to the "Power of the Machine Spirit" strategem, which from 2CP allows them to function as if they are at full wounds no matter how much they've been damaged, the CSM variants have no equivalent. That's good for the Land Raiders and flyers, but huge for a 600 PPM pile of guns like a Fellblade. Based on that alone they shouldn't be the same price. Add on doctrines, super doctrines, and chapter tactics and it starts getting ridiculous.

GW proper has shown they generally don't really care about FW when it comes to balance. If they did, those units would be in the Codex, not in a FW book. As for the rest, I guess wait for a CSM codex. Maybe the DG codex will shed some light on the future for some of those units on the Chaos side of the house.

All of those rules apply to codex units now, and these points apply now, not for some future CSM codex. If gw was really pricing units based on their current rules in their current codexes then none of the shared vehicles between loyalists and CSM would be priced the same.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 18:19:02


Post by: Canadian 5th


Tycho wrote:
None of these units are good. The loyalist version being better isn't even close to enough to make them anything but a handicap to your list.


Some of those units actually are good. You wouldn't know this though because you haven't actually played since 5th ...

If they're good I'm sure you'll be able to show me the tournament results they're putting up. Good in the context of casual just means a bad unit that you win with against other bad units.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 18:20:21


Post by: nekooni


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Karol wrote:
Hmm not a single change, not even basic update to incinerator range. Well at least there are no nerfs either which is a plus.

Sad that abhore is still a thing.


read the whole thing and stop crying, abhor was nerfed.

I'd rather be able to run my named Witch Hunter Inquisitor with the Abhor the Witch secondary than seeing it nerfed, to be honest. Still weird that AtW requires you to not have any psykers.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 18:21:22


Post by: Canadian 5th


 JNAProductions wrote:
So, if a unit isn't competitive, who cares if it's just mediocre or so actively bad you're shooting yourself in the foot for bringing it?

You know, some people like the models, and might want to bring them in a non-tourney game.

If you're going to bring bad units because you like them why does it matter if they're slightly less bad due to a niche rule that costs 2 CP? The balance difference between the two is small enough that it won't likely cost you more than one in a hundred games.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 18:23:26


Post by: Tycho


If they're good I'm sure you'll be able to show me the tournament results they're putting up. Good in the context of casual just means a bad unit that you win with against other bad units.


The fact that marines are good enough that they don't take some of these does not mean the units suck. It's a completely different discussion. Play the game.


So, if a unit isn't competitive, who cares if it's just mediocre or so actively bad you're shooting yourself in the foot for bringing it?

You know, some people like the models, and might want to bring them in a non-tourney game.


Cadian's stance over several threads now appears to be one of not actually caring if the game is fun or not. IDK what to make if it. They haven't actually played since 5th so make of that what you will.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 18:23:27


Post by: VladimirHerzog


nekooni wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Karol wrote:
Hmm not a single change, not even basic update to incinerator range. Well at least there are no nerfs either which is a plus.

Sad that abhore is still a thing.


read the whole thing and stop crying, abhor was nerfed.

I'd rather be able to run my named Witch Hunter Inquisitor with the Abhor the Witch secondary than seeing it nerfed, to be honest. Still weird that AtW requires you to not have any psykers.


Ordo Hereticus Inquisitors should allow you still pick Abhor the witch IMO, i'd totally let my opponent do it if it ever came up.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 18:23:53


Post by: BlackoCatto


A guardsmen is 5.5 pts or something, I guess that makes conscripts a partial choice now.

Hate it


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 18:26:29


Post by: Tycho


A guardsmen is 5.5 pts or something, I guess that makes conscripts a partial choice now.

Hate it


I wonder what's behind that? Doesn't make sense to me.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 18:29:03


Post by: JNAProductions


 Canadian 5th wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
So, if a unit isn't competitive, who cares if it's just mediocre or so actively bad you're shooting yourself in the foot for bringing it?

You know, some people like the models, and might want to bring them in a non-tourney game.

If you're going to bring bad units because you like them why does it matter if they're slightly less bad due to a niche rule that costs 2 CP? The balance difference between the two is small enough that it won't likely cost you more than one in a hundred games.
Because you still want a chance to win, and have a fun game.

If I take a squad of, say, Reivers in a SM army, my list is weaker than if I had taken a better unit. But that one unit is not going to stop me from having a chance of winning the game. So if I like Reivers, I can take them and still have a good game.

If I take something like two Stompas in a 2k game, I'm going to get absolutely stomped. It will, in all probability, not be any fun, because I never stood a chance. Even just one Stompa is likely to cripple my forces, since it's close to half my army, 3 CP, and not worth even close to that.

Do you understand that it's not a binary? That there's a spectrum?


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 18:29:49


Post by: mokoshkana


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 mokoshkana wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 mokoshkana wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 mokoshkana wrote:
Abaddon303 wrote:
Seems to me like GW are actually basing points for units and weapons on the individual codex.

If GW believe cultists are stronger in CSM armies than they are in DG (I'd probably agree) then they should be different points.

The DG helbrute is 5pts more than the CSM one. I imagine that is taking into account the contagions etc it will be benefiting from.

A lot of people complained when Tacs weren't cheaper than CSM despite access to doctrines etc...
This guy gets it!

Then please explain why Land Raiders, Predators, Vindicators, Sicarans, Leviathans, Fellblades, Fire Raptors, etc, etc, etc still cost exactly the same for loyalists and CSM?
Because the powers that be have determined the synergy/stratagems surrounding those units don't require variant point levels

Then the "powers that be" don't know their own rules. Both fw Land Raiders, all of the big flyers, and all of the super heavies for loyalists have the "Machine Spirit" keyword, which gives them access to the "Power of the Machine Spirit" strategem, which from 2CP allows them to function as if they are at full wounds no matter how much they've been damaged, the CSM variants have no equivalent. That's good for the Land Raiders and flyers, but huge for a 600 PPM pile of guns like a Fellblade. Based on that alone they shouldn't be the same price. Add on doctrines, super doctrines, and chapter tactics and it starts getting ridiculous.

GW proper has shown they generally don't really care about FW when it comes to balance. If they did, those units would be in the Codex, not in a FW book. As for the rest, I guess wait for a CSM codex. Maybe the DG codex will shed some light on the future for some of those units on the Chaos side of the house.

All of those rules apply to codex units now, and these points apply now, not for some future CSM codex. If gw was really pricing units based on their current rules in their current codexes then none of the shared vehicles between loyalists and CSM would be priced the same.
Actually they are priced based on whats to come. GW knows what's coming down the pike over the next few months, and they are leaning forward. You just can't see it because you don't know what is coming. It's fine though, we'll just agree to disagree.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 18:30:20


Post by: the_scotsman


Genestealer Cult seems to have gotten some pretty substatial buffs....but to Vehicles, weirdly, the things that the only useful competitive lists were already spamming. Trucks, Chimeras, Rockgrinders, and Russes all dropped a bunch.

2pt drop on Aberrants is literally the only point drop on units...still nearly more expensive than a W3 terminator XD

Hand Flamers 1pt more expensive, and Brood Bros are now Guardsmen who don't get a regimental doctrine AND are 0.5pts more expensive, yippee!

Drukhari got pretty expensive points changes, I'm guessing that's just gonna be the point changes from the new codex.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 18:32:40


Post by: yukishiro1


Also, and I realize some people will consider this griping...it really annoys me when GW does something like raise the points on eradicators - a unit that was transparently overpowered - without acknowledging what a mistake they made in the first place, and that everyone telling them it was a mistake was right and they were wrong. It just feels dishonest. Is it too much to ask for a little bit of a mea culpa and admission that they pointed them too aggressively and some sort of commitment to being more careful in future?


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 18:36:12


Post by: Tycho


Also, and I realize some people will consider this griping...it really annoys me when GW does something like raise the points on eradicators - a unit that was transparently overpowered - without acknowledging what a mistake they made in the first place, and that everyone telling them it was a mistake was right and they were wrong. It just feels dishonest. Is it too much to ask for a little bit of a mea culpa and admission that they pointed them too aggressively and some sort of commitment to being more careful in future?


IIRC - I think I've only ever seen them do something like this twice. Once, it started out like an admission of a mistake and ended as a backhanded scolding of players who were using the rules in a perfectly legal way that was just not what the writers had intended (I.e. - it was the player's fault), and the other time was the Iron Hands nerf which came with a kind of "Well, we were told there were problems but wanted to test WHERE the problems were ..." kind of thing.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 18:42:48


Post by: Spoletta


yukishiro1 wrote:
Sigh. They recognized the problems, but the solutions are all over the place, and some of them are straight-up terrible. Forcing the player who "wins" the roll-off to go first is silly, and does very little to address first-turn advantage.

Similarly, they recognized there's a problem with Abhor...but the "solution" is mind-bogglingly bad, and falls flat on its face at doing what they are saying prompted the change - namely, that the secondary punishes GK and TSons too much. But all they did is lower the points for killing characters from 5 to 3! You still get 2 points for each psychic unit killed. You'll still easily max it against GK and Tsons. It makes the secondary less punishing against lists with only psychic characters...but it's still a kick in the teeth to GK and Tsons.

The while we stand rule change - and specifically the bit that lets you split a unit after nominating it, and then the opponent has to destroy *both* halves - is another stupid change that is just a stealth buff to space marines, as you can now take a big unit, combat squad it, and still use half while hiding the other half to get the points. Even worse for custodes, who can split up a 10-man terminator unit and then just hold back 1 or 2 to get the points while using the rest of the unit with no worries about it being destroyed.


You really have to wonder about GW sometimes. Even when they recognize an issue, the "solution" if as often as not a real head-scratcher.



You may want to read that objective again. WWSWF is based on MODELS, not UNITS. No one cares if you split the unit, the FAQ regards the case where the MODEL splits.

Also, the solution to first turn advantage isn't in the roll decision, but in the fact that finally the second player gets to play a turn 5!


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 18:46:11


Post by: Amishprn86


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
DE has a typo, 99% sure Reavers and Hellions points got mixed up b.c there is NO WAY we get 10pt Reavers lol.


unless they become super bad in the upcoming codex. Which i really hope not, theyre the unit i like most in my Drukharis (visually)


But thats months away, this is for the right now rules. 36 bikes for 360pts is literally auto take no matter what.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 18:47:14


Post by: VladimirHerzog


yukishiro1 wrote:
Also, and I realize some people will consider this griping...it really annoys me when GW does something like raise the points on eradicators - a unit that was transparently overpowered - without acknowledging what a mistake they made in the first place, and that everyone telling them it was a mistake was right and they were wrong. It just feels dishonest. Is it too much to ask for a little bit of a mea culpa and admission that they pointed them too aggressively and some sort of commitment to being more careful in future?


yeah but what else can they even do? not like they can straight-out delete the unit. And them nerfing them IS them telling us they realised it was a mistake. As much as people were crying about them, they didnt (literally) break the game.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 18:52:44


Post by: Tycho


yeah but what else can they even do? not like they can straight-out delete the unit. And them nerfing them IS them telling us they realised it was a mistake. As much as people were crying about them, they didnt (literally) break the game.


Yeah, I mean if they had to publicly apologize every time they grossly miss-pointed a unit, the Field Manual would be a thousand pages long.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 18:58:39


Post by: yukishiro1


Spoletta wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
Sigh. They recognized the problems, but the solutions are all over the place, and some of them are straight-up terrible. Forcing the player who "wins" the roll-off to go first is silly, and does very little to address first-turn advantage.

Similarly, they recognized there's a problem with Abhor...but the "solution" is mind-bogglingly bad, and falls flat on its face at doing what they are saying prompted the change - namely, that the secondary punishes GK and TSons too much. But all they did is lower the points for killing characters from 5 to 3! You still get 2 points for each psychic unit killed. You'll still easily max it against GK and Tsons. It makes the secondary less punishing against lists with only psychic characters...but it's still a kick in the teeth to GK and Tsons.

The while we stand rule change - and specifically the bit that lets you split a unit after nominating it, and then the opponent has to destroy *both* halves - is another stupid change that is just a stealth buff to space marines, as you can now take a big unit, combat squad it, and still use half while hiding the other half to get the points. Even worse for custodes, who can split up a 10-man terminator unit and then just hold back 1 or 2 to get the points while using the rest of the unit with no worries about it being destroyed.


You really have to wonder about GW sometimes. Even when they recognize an issue, the "solution" if as often as not a real head-scratcher.



You may want to read that objective again. WWSWF is based on MODELS, not UNITS. No one cares if you split the unit, the FAQ regards the case where the MODEL splits.

Also, the solution to first turn advantage isn't in the roll decision, but in the fact that finally the second player gets to play a turn 5!


You may want to read the objective again. They changed it in the FAQ. It's now units, not models.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 18:58:55


Post by: Gadzilla666


mokoshkana wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 mokoshkana wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 mokoshkana wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 mokoshkana wrote:
Abaddon303 wrote:
Seems to me like GW are actually basing points for units and weapons on the individual codex.

If GW believe cultists are stronger in CSM armies than they are in DG (I'd probably agree) then they should be different points.

The DG helbrute is 5pts more than the CSM one. I imagine that is taking into account the contagions etc it will be benefiting from.

A lot of people complained when Tacs weren't cheaper than CSM despite access to doctrines etc...
This guy gets it!

Then please explain why Land Raiders, Predators, Vindicators, Sicarans, Leviathans, Fellblades, Fire Raptors, etc, etc, etc still cost exactly the same for loyalists and CSM?
Because the powers that be have determined the synergy/stratagems surrounding those units don't require variant point levels

Then the "powers that be" don't know their own rules. Both fw Land Raiders, all of the big flyers, and all of the super heavies for loyalists have the "Machine Spirit" keyword, which gives them access to the "Power of the Machine Spirit" strategem, which from 2CP allows them to function as if they are at full wounds no matter how much they've been damaged, the CSM variants have no equivalent. That's good for the Land Raiders and flyers, but huge for a 600 PPM pile of guns like a Fellblade. Based on that alone they shouldn't be the same price. Add on doctrines, super doctrines, and chapter tactics and it starts getting ridiculous.

GW proper has shown they generally don't really care about FW when it comes to balance. If they did, those units would be in the Codex, not in a FW book. As for the rest, I guess wait for a CSM codex. Maybe the DG codex will shed some light on the future for some of those units on the Chaos side of the house.

All of those rules apply to codex units now, and these points apply now, not for some future CSM codex. If gw was really pricing units based on their current rules in their current codexes then none of the shared vehicles between loyalists and CSM would be priced the same.
Actually they are priced based on whats to come. GW knows what's coming down the pike over the next few months, and they are leaning forward. You just can't see it because you don't know what is coming. It's fine though, we'll just agree to disagree.

Ok, we'll agree to disagree, but I'll bet we'll be seeing a lot of points changes for CSM units from this document once their new codex is released. They're not priced on whats to come, they're priced for right now.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 18:58:57


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 Canadian 5th wrote:
Tycho wrote:
Cadian's stance over several threads now appears to be one of not actually caring if the game is fun or not. IDK what to make if it. They haven't actually played since 5th so make of that what you will.

Observe Tycho being so blind he repeated calls me Cadian when my user name is clearly Canadian 5th. Can we trust a user who literally can't even read correctly?


Can you stop?


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 18:59:17


Post by: tauist


Why would they apologise for trying to improve the game? I'm confused.. Wait, do you actually think GW owes the playerbase anything? They've always done what they want, its not going to change, unless you become one of their playtesters and make a compelling enough case regarding your argument.

Anyways, thanks for the free PDF! Feels good to get something for free which used to cost money.

Cheers


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 18:59:25


Post by: Tycho


Observe Tycho being so blind he repeated calls me Cadian when my user name is clearly Canadian 5th. Can we trust a user who literally can't even read correctly?


Apologies for the disability ...


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 19:04:33


Post by: yukishiro1


 tauist wrote:
Why would they apologise for trying to improve the game? I'm confused..


Because they spent the last 6 months telling everyone it was fine (first turn advantage) and that they just need to learn2play (see Brandt on these very forums for an example). Or because they came out with new kits with units priced in transparently ridiculous ways (eradicators) and then ignored everyone for 6 months telling them the units were hugely mispointed.

It just feels so corporate-PR-speak to be like "hey guys! great news! we adjusted points on some units that were overperforming! be happy!" when it never should have happened in the first place because a trained gerbil could have told them the original points were bonkers.

I wouldn't care if it didn't happen over and over again and if GW seemed to actually learn from these things. But they don't. They do the same thing over and over and then act like they're doing everybody a favor by fixing it. It feels like treating the player base like idiots when you make changes they've been crying for since the original release without acknowledging that yes, the players were right and yes, you were wrong and yes, going forward, maybe we'll learn from this and try to make sure it doesn't happen again.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 19:04:50


Post by: Canadian 5th


 JNAProductions wrote:
Because you still want a chance to win, and have a fun game.

Then you have a few options. You can always talk to your opponent and find some way that you can mitigate the issues with your units. You can accept that units that you like the models for are bad and leave them on the shelf in favor of playing better units. You can play with them at a handicap and define a margin of defeat that you feel comfortable counting as a victory due to unit imbalances.

If I take a squad of, say, Reivers in a SM army, my list is weaker than if I had taken a better unit. But that one unit is not going to stop me from having a chance of winning the game. So if I like Reivers, I can take them and still have a good game.

If the rest of your list is good you can always carry a weak unit or two.

If I take something like two Stompas in a 2k game, I'm going to get absolutely stomped. It will, in all probability, not be any fun, because I never stood a chance. Even just one Stompa is likely to cripple my forces, since it's close to half my army, 3 CP, and not worth even close to that.

Removed - BrookM Use your skills as an adult to solve this issue in the non-tournament games you play. As for tournament play, leave the bad units at home.



New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 19:06:53


Post by: mokoshkana


 Canadian 5th wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Because you still want a chance to win, and have a fun game.

Then you have a few options. You can always talk to your opponent and find some way that you can mitigate the issues with your units. You can accept that units that you like the models for are bad and leave them on the shelf in favor of playing better units. You can play with them at a handicap and define a margin of defeat that you feel comfortable counting as a victory due to unit imbalances.

If I take a squad of, say, Reivers in a SM army, my list is weaker than if I had taken a better unit. But that one unit is not going to stop me from having a chance of winning the game. So if I like Reivers, I can take them and still have a good game.

If the rest of your list is good you can always carry a weak unit or two.

If I take something like two Stompas in a 2k game, I'm going to get absolutely stomped. It will, in all probability, not be any fun, because I never stood a chance. Even just one Stompa is likely to cripple my forces, since it's close to half my army, 3 CP, and not worth even close to that.

You're presumably an adult who understands that GW does a poor job at balancing their game. Use your skills as an adult to solve this issue in the non-tournament games you play. As for tournament play, leave the bad units at home.
Use a modicum of decorum. Trying talking to others like an adult instead of attacking them like a jerk. Don't be a troll.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 19:07:29


Post by: Canadian 5th


Removed - BrookM


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 19:10:24


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


So did they address why one walking Gravis unit is able to shoot twice while the other two can't?


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 19:11:21


Post by: yukishiro1


I think people would prefer you obeyed the forum rules, to avoid getting more threads locked or creating more work for the mods who have to clean up the pointless bickering.

This is place where we discuss the game, not how much we don't like other posters.



New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 19:12:34


Post by: Karol


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Karol wrote:
Hmm not a single change, not even basic update to incinerator range. Well at least there are no nerfs either which is a plus.

Sad that abhore is still a thing.


read the whole thing and stop crying, abhor was nerfed.


With 3 HQs, 1 Ancient and 2 apothecaries it is still an auto take.



You're presumably an adult who understands that GW does a poor job at balancing their game. Use your skills as an adult to solve this issue in the non-tournament games you play. As for tournament play, leave the bad units at home.

Wait, is that an actual rule that people who are adults can change rules and those that aren't can not. Because if yes, it is a bit messed up for anyone under 18.


At least in terms of this update, I'm prepared to cut some slack for Covid related complications. I mean yeah, we felt pretty early on that Eradicators were an issue, but I wouldn't want GW jumping on a nerf to anything too fast based just off of internet forums. They were probably trying to gather what data they could given the lockdowns and tournament cancellations etc.

I wonder why they nerfed outridders. If it was someone mixing them up with blade guard, or maybe the outridder kids reached they assumed number of sales and could be purned on the pyre of balance.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 19:12:44


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 mokoshkana wrote:
So much for polite Canadians. Welcome to the ignore list...


Hey, most of us aren't like this


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Karol wrote:
Hmm not a single change, not even basic update to incinerator range. Well at least there are no nerfs either which is a plus.

Sad that abhore is still a thing.


read the whole thing and stop crying, abhor was nerfed.


With 3 HQs, 1 Ancient and 2 apothecaries it is still an auto take.


if your opponent manages to kill all of these, you probably lost even without abhor the witch.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 19:14:00


Post by: Tycho


Because they spent the last 6 months telling everyone it was fine (first turn advantage) and that they just need to learn2play (see Brandt on these very forums for an example). Or because they came out with new kits with units priced in transparently ridiculous ways (eradicators) and then ignored everyone for 6 months telling them the units were hugely mispointed.


It's Brandt's job now to be a mouthpiece so I just take everything he says with a grain of salt now. He's not going to bite the hand that signs his checks.

At least in terms of this update, I'm prepared to cut some slack for Covid related complications. I mean yeah, we felt pretty early on that Eradicators were an issue, but I wouldn't want GW jumping on a nerf to anything too fast based just off of internet forums. They were probably trying to gather what data they could given the lockdowns and tournament cancellations etc.

I wouldn't be surprised if this was a "hedging our bets" nerf and it gets another 5 tacked on later if they continue to be a issue later on this year.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 19:14:26


Post by: yukishiro1


The problem with new abhor isn't the 3 per character, it's the 2 per unit. This means you'll still auto-take it against TS or GK - which also means that their "solution" doesn't address the very problem they said it was aimed to address. It's another /facepalm moment.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 19:16:17


Post by: Tycho


The problem with new abhor isn't the 3 per character, it's the 2 per unit. This means you'll still auto-take it against TS or GK - which also means that their "solution" doesn't address the very problem they said it was aimed to address. It's another /facepalm moment.


Also it still stacks w/assassinate. Unless I missed something. I recently got a user's name wrong so it's possible. Please tell me I missed something here ...


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 19:16:47


Post by: VladimirHerzog


yukishiro1 wrote:
The problem with new abhor isn't the 3 per character, it's the 2 per unit. This means you'll still auto-take it against TS or GK - which also means that their "solution" doesn't address the very problem they said it was aimed to address. It's another /facepalm moment.


you need to kill 30% more non-character units to get the same amount of points. It got nerfed. I'm still hoping GW eventually makes all kill-centric secondaries unable to double dip tho.

And you now need to kill 5 characters instead of only 3 to max it out with characters.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tycho wrote:


Also it still stacks w/assassinate. Unless I missed something. I recently got a user's name wrong so it's possible. Please tell me I missed something here ...


don't sweat it with misreading his name, its not like "Cadian" isnt a word that looks a lot like "Canadian" and is strongly tied with 40k, the game we're discussing.

Yes, the real fix for abhor would be to make it not stack with Assassinate, but lowering the pts each unit gives is a much bigger improvement.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 19:19:10


Post by: Canadian 5th


yukishiro1 wrote:
I think people would prefer you obeyed the forum rules, to avoid getting more threads locked or creating more work for the mods who have to clean up the pointless bickering.

This is place where we discuss the game, not how much we don't like other posters.

I'm not the half dozen people who are dogpiling me nor did I start the debate on my own worthiness to comment on the state of 40k. If others wish to cease attacking me I will cease my counterattack.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 19:20:20


Post by: yukishiro1


Tycho wrote:
Because they spent the last 6 months telling everyone it was fine (first turn advantage) and that they just need to learn2play (see Brandt on these very forums for an example). Or because they came out with new kits with units priced in transparently ridiculous ways (eradicators) and then ignored everyone for 6 months telling them the units were hugely mispointed.


It's Brandt's job now to be a mouthpiece so I just take everything he says with a grain of salt now. He's not going to bite the hand that signs his checks.

At least in terms of this update, I'm prepared to cut some slack for Covid related complications. I mean yeah, we felt pretty early on that Eradicators were an issue, but I wouldn't want GW jumping on a nerf to anything too fast based just off of internet forums. They were probably trying to gather what data they could given the lockdowns and tournament cancellations etc.

I wouldn't be surprised if this was a "hedging our bets" nerf and it gets another 5 tacked on later if they continue to be a issue later on this year.


Well yeah, but that's why communication and honestly is important. If they came out and said that stuff, it wouldn't be an issue. The issue is created by the cowardly PR-based way they avoid admitting that all these changes show that the problems with the game the player base identified were real, not just a learn2play issue.

Say you've spent the last 6 months lobbying your boss to change company policy on X. You present all the data. You send multiple emails. You bring it up in meetings. Over that six months, your boss tells you you're wrong, that you don't have the data she has and don't properly understand the issue, or just says nothing at all. Then suddenly, 6 months later, your boss puts out an email to your team adopting the policy change you advocated for, taking credit for it and painting it as just part of doing business, and with no acknowledgment whatsoever that he had been opposed to it for the last 6 months. You'd be annoyed, wouldn't you?

That's what GW does, every single time. It just feels like they could get a lot of easy goodwill with the community by being more willing to hold up their hands when they mess up and say "yeah, we realize you were saying this all along and yes, you were right. Our bad! We'll try to learn and be better next time!"



New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 19:20:48


Post by: Tycho


Yes, the real fix for abhor would be to make it not stack with Assassinate, but lowering the pts each unit gives is a much bigger improvement.


Yeah, agreed it's definitely an improvement. I'm glad they acknowledged it. I'm still really hoping we end up dumping the kill secondaries in total, but I'll take what I can get!

That's what GW does, every single time. It just feels like they could get a lot of easy goodwill with the community by being more willing to hold up their hands when they mess up and say "yeah, we realize you were saying this all along and yes, you were right. Our bad! We'll try to learn and be better next time!"


That's a fair point. I still think we'd get tired of hearing it though.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 19:20:56


Post by: VladimirHerzog


Karol wrote:

Wait, is that an actual rule that people who are adults can change rules and those that aren't can not. Because if yes, it is a bit messed up for anyone under 18.



its not a rule, no. Its more that adults in general have more experience and therefore they assume an adult should be able to come up with solutions to the balance problem.

Anyone is allowed to change some rules in 40k.


Removed - Rule #1 please


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 19:24:54


Post by: Ice_can


 bullyboy wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
Tyel wrote:
I just want to know who was abusing Outriders to the point where they were on the scale with Eradicators and Inceptors.

Looks like Tau Commanders have been nerfed with a slight points increase, which we can clearly all agree was necessary. There is some compensation in 5 point reductions for crisis suits and a bit more for Broadsides and Hammerheads.

As I see it a tactical drone squad costs 20 points a model, even though the drones themselves are unchanged. Which feels like a (???).

Commander's haven't changed they have been at those increased points along with the rest of the army since the change to 9th.
Glad to see they are finally undoing the neef to crisis suits finally.


No, they went up compared to ministorum manual.

What is confusing to me is the new format and how drones work. Drones as a unit are 20 points each, no differentiation as to which kind. But drones taken as upgrades in units (such as commanders, etc), don't have any points attached and therefore are free under current format.

Looking at how the app functions, and now this points format, I don't think characters etc will get drones as upgrades. You will probably buy a pool of them and allocate out accordingly. Who knows? It's really messed up though.

Sorry I only exclusively use the coldstar or named comanders

But 5 points on crisis comanders and 10 on enforcers.

The high output burst cannon is now 0 points so for 135 for the default coldstar loadout which is 5 less than the field manuals 140.

The issue is we are still stuck with not actually being able to take the HOBC without the misslepod.

Drones are listed in their own section for the old points at the end so god knows what GW are playing at as they now have 2 points for the same models in the same codex.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 19:24:58


Post by: yukishiro1


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
The problem with new abhor isn't the 3 per character, it's the 2 per unit. This means you'll still auto-take it against TS or GK - which also means that their "solution" doesn't address the very problem they said it was aimed to address. It's another /facepalm moment.


you need to kill 30% more non-character units to get the same amount of points. It got nerfed.


Nobody's saying it didn't get nerfed. I'm pointing out that the nerf doesn't accomplish their stated objective. They explicitly say they did this because it was too hash on GK and TS. But this change doesn't fix that. This change means I can take 3 psykers as eldar or CSM soup...it doesn't change the fact that any pure GK or TS list will still give up 15 easy points from abhor. Yes, you have to kill more of the army than before...but you're still going to max it, unless you're getting roflstomped.

|t's just a bad change: it doesn't do what they said they made the change in order to do. It's better than nothing, but given that they were taking the time to supposedly try to fix the worst secondary in the game, they didn't accomplish their aim. It's still a garbage secondary.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 19:24:59


Post by: ccs


Tycho wrote:
Observe Tycho being so blind he repeated calls me Cadian when my user name is clearly Canadian 5th. Can we trust a user who literally can't even read correctly?


Apologies for the disability ...


Just blame auto-correct on your phone. Who hasn't sent a message & not noticed AC did its own thing to a normal word....


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 19:25:05


Post by: Karol


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
The problem with new abhor isn't the 3 per character, it's the 2 per unit. This means you'll still auto-take it against TS or GK - which also means that their "solution" doesn't address the very problem they said it was aimed to address. It's another /facepalm moment.


you need to kill 30% more non-character units to get the same amount of points. It got nerfed. I'm still hoping GW eventually makes all kill-centric secondaries unable to double dip tho.


It is still double dipping and GK aren't the most resilient of armies. they are costed like DG, but without the +1W or the DR. To not get 15, my opponent would really have not do any killing at all. And from my expiriance, if you play vs the most common armies in 9th, losing 3-4 characters and 2-3 units in a game is something that happens everytime. And I play a sub optimal army with a lot of termintors. A GK army run the proper way with interceptors and strikes is not going to feel much difference, because technicaly it was giving way more then 15 VPs to AtW. It is a stupid secondary that should not exist. Specialy considering that the balance to it a warp objectives which are not realy doable. Specialy with psychic actions being dispelable by the opponent and stoping you from doing stuff. It makes even less sense when one considers that the psychic powers that make the whole army work, can only be taken by characters. So giving up them to do psychic actions is like playing with one third of your chapter tactic, and it has a build in counter against any opponent that can stop psychic powers.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 19:26:37


Post by: Tycho


Just blame auto-correct on your phone. Who hasn't sent a message & not noticed AC did its own thing to a normal word....




If you look at my posts, you'll see most end up being edited multiple times. I should just end all of them with "sent from my iPhone" and not worry about it!


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 19:31:15


Post by: PenitentJake


yukishiro1 wrote:
The problem with new abhor isn't the 3 per character, it's the 2 per unit. This means you'll still auto-take it against TS or GK - which also means that their "solution" doesn't address the very problem they said it was aimed to address. It's another /facepalm moment.


I think the idea was that if maxing it no longer provides as many points as other Secondaries, it provides some balance because taking it, yields a potential max that is less than what the 1k sons or GK could earn if they max their secondary.

The stacking still is an issue though, and eliminating stacking would have solved more problems than this fix does. It is something though, and it will change the dynamic.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 19:35:48


Post by: yukishiro1


PenitentJake wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
The problem with new abhor isn't the 3 per character, it's the 2 per unit. This means you'll still auto-take it against TS or GK - which also means that their "solution" doesn't address the very problem they said it was aimed to address. It's another /facepalm moment.


I think the idea was that if maxing it no longer provides as many points as other Secondaries, it provides some balance because taking it, yields a potential max that is less than what the 1k sons or GK could earn if they max their secondary.

The stacking still is an issue though, and eliminating stacking would have solved more problems than this fix does. It is something though, and it will change the dynamic.


But it doesn't. It still provides more easy points than any other kill secondary except maybe Titan Killers. Any pure GK or TS list will still give up the full 15 points. It helps chaos soup or eldar a lot, it helps GK or TS comparatively little. Just the opposite of why they said they were making the change.

Now if they limited it to 10 points total, NOW we'd be talking...


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 19:37:07


Post by: Karol


I can tell you that GK trying to do warp objectives are not maxing anything, they are so hard to perform, and so easy to counter that it is best not to bother with them.

And it does nothing, in an avarge game vs an avarge list you still going to be giving up 11+VP. And the 15th isn't that hard to achive. At least against GK. No idea how many actual 1ksons units, 1ksons armies run nowadays. From what I have seen it is one big unit, but it is hard to judge based on no research and one player at one store, and some tournament lists.


I mean if the opponent kill 2 characters and 2 units. Which is really not hard considering how aggro the game is right now, and how fast good armies move and how close to the enemy GK have to get to do it. It is still 10VPs. I don't think there are many well build armies that can not kill 2x5 meq/teq and 2 characters over 5 turns. Not even tau are that bad.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 19:41:11


Post by: yukishiro1


Nobody runs pure TS because it's garbage. But if you actually did, it'd still give up well over 15 with the new values.

TJ Lanigan's chaos list is about the heaviest TS currently running around (TS make up 875 points of it), and that still gives up an astounding 19 points under the new values (almost all from characters).


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 19:43:32


Post by: the_scotsman


yukishiro1 wrote:
The problem with new abhor isn't the 3 per character, it's the 2 per unit. This means you'll still auto-take it against TS or GK - which also means that their "solution" doesn't address the very problem they said it was aimed to address. It's another /facepalm moment.


Interestingly, in its new form, if you took Abhor against my Thousand Sons army you could theoretically max it, but it'd be a HELL of a trap take unless you were planning on totally tabling me.

You'd have to kill the Unkillable Chicken LOC, 30 Pinks, 20 Rubrics, 10 Scarabs, Ahriman and 1 other Exalsorc on disk.

That's like 3/4 of my army.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 19:44:16


Post by: Karol


That is kind of a bad. I guess they run a lot of librarians and demon casters?


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 19:45:47


Post by: yukishiro1


the_scotsman wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
The problem with new abhor isn't the 3 per character, it's the 2 per unit. This means you'll still auto-take it against TS or GK - which also means that their "solution" doesn't address the very problem they said it was aimed to address. It's another /facepalm moment.


Interestingly, in its new form, if you took Abhor against my Thousand Sons army you could theoretically max it, but it'd be a HELL of a trap take unless you were planning on totally tabling me.

You'd have to kill the Unkillable Chicken LOC, 30 Pinks, 20 Rubrics, 10 Scarabs, Ahriman and 1 other Exalsorc on disk.

That's like 3/4 of my army.


Yeah, but it was a trap to take it against that sort of list before, too. The only thing that changed betweeen before and now for that list is that you get less points for killing an unkillable unit (irrelevant), and less points for killing protected characters that shouldn't be dying anyway.

Ironically, the netlist this helps most is triple keeper.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 19:46:51


Post by: HeIlsing


Posted it first in the Rumors Thread and found this one.
I checked Black Templar Units and Emperors Champion dropped 5 points down to 80 but also Crusader Initiates cost now 15ppm instead of 18 which would mean Tactical Marines for 15ppm basicly?
This has to be an Error?


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 19:48:55


Post by: yukishiro1


Oh hey, never mind. I was forgetting that old abhor was 3 points per non-character unit, now it's 2. It was even worse than I remembered!

That actually does change things. I change my opinion a little bit. It's still a garbage secondary, but the fix is not quite as bad as I thought. Though that also really goes to show how unbelievably bad the old abhor was.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 19:50:49


Post by: VladimirHerzog


Karol wrote:

It is still double dipping and GK aren't the most resilient of armies. they are costed like DG, but without the +1W or the DR. To not get 15, my opponent would really have not do any killing at all. And from my expiriance, if you play vs the most common armies in 9th, losing 3-4 characters and 2-3 units in a game is something that happens everytime. And I play a sub optimal army with a lot of termintors. A GK army run the proper way with interceptors and strikes is not going to feel much difference, because technicaly it was giving way more then 15 VPs to AtW. It is a stupid secondary that should not exist. Specialy considering that the balance to it a warp objectives which are not realy doable. Specialy with psychic actions being dispelable by the opponent and stoping you from doing stuff. It makes even less sense when one considers that the psychic powers that make the whole army work, can only be taken by characters. So giving up them to do psychic actions is like playing with one third of your chapter tactic, and it has a build in counter against any opponent that can stop psychic powers.


yeah, which is why i said i'd rather make all kill-secondaries independent.

Double dipping is bad game design and ITC used to prevent it, i don't understand why GW got rid of this restriction.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 19:52:03


Post by: Tycho


Nobody runs pure TS because it's garbage. But if you actually did, it'd still give up well over 15 with the new values.


I run pure Tsons. Garbage is probably too weak a description.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 19:52:50


Post by: yukishiro1


 VladimirHerzog wrote:


Double dipping is bad game design and ITC used to prevent it, i don't understand why GW got rid of this restriction.


I've been banging that horn since 9th came out, and getting abuse for it here. It's bonkers game design. It's so obviously bad that it feels like there has to be some reason for it - not a reason that makes sense, mind you, but some reason - in the heads of the developers. It can't just be an oversight.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 19:56:07


Post by: VladimirHerzog


yukishiro1 wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:


Double dipping is bad game design and ITC used to prevent it, i don't understand why GW got rid of this restriction.


I've been banging that horn since 9th came out, and getting abuse for it here. It's bonkers game design. It's so obviously bad that it feels like there has to be some reason for it - not a reason that makes sense, mind you, but some reason - in the heads of the developers. It can't just be an oversight.


Probably because ITC is quite polarizing, some people love it, others despise it and think that anything that comes from it is bad.

I personally never like the format that much but if GW is going o copy paste it , they shouldve done a proper copy paste


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 19:58:42


Post by: -Guardsman-


yukishiro1 wrote:
I've been banging that horn since 9th came out

I think you're mixing metaphors.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 19:59:05


Post by: Karol


 VladimirHerzog wrote:


yeah, which is why i said i'd rather make all kill-secondaries independent.

Double dipping is bad game design and ITC used to prevent it, i don't understand why GW got rid of this restriction.


I wonder what they based their changes on, because there is no way someone at the studio plays GK for real. Maybe someone was running a 3 librarian or 3 seer list, and it felt unfair to give up so many VPs so easily, while at the same time without the expiriance of how fast a unit of 5 strikes or interceptors dies, they don't have a real feel for how many GK units die per game. I can't base it on myself, because I am neither a tournament or good player. But all those game with GK done by GW playtesters or other good players always end up in blood baths with like 4-5 units deads and 2 characters. I think almost every GK army takes if we stand we fight, which means opponents will try to kill at least 2 of our big units, and then they will try to kill 2-3 units that sit on primary objectives. Those units are always dead, unless something really bad happens to opponents dice.

Well all in all, it is a good change. I mean they could have made the change worse, and hike up so points. It is not like that didn't do stuff like that in the past. So the FAQ ain't so bad. Even If do wish we got normal range on incinerators.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 20:01:54


Post by: BrookM


Hey guys, warnings and vacations have been issued, some cleaning has been applied. In the future, please report, don't retort, thanks!


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 20:04:49


Post by: Tycho


Probably because ITC is quite polarizing, some people love it, others despise it and think that anything that comes from it is bad.


I feel like it has more to do with the fact that so few people play the armies truly hit by this that a lot of people really over-looked things like the double-dipping.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 20:11:24


Post by: Spoletta


yukishiro1 wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
Sigh. They recognized the problems, but the solutions are all over the place, and some of them are straight-up terrible. Forcing the player who "wins" the roll-off to go first is silly, and does very little to address first-turn advantage.

Similarly, they recognized there's a problem with Abhor...but the "solution" is mind-bogglingly bad, and falls flat on its face at doing what they are saying prompted the change - namely, that the secondary punishes GK and TSons too much. But all they did is lower the points for killing characters from 5 to 3! You still get 2 points for each psychic unit killed. You'll still easily max it against GK and Tsons. It makes the secondary less punishing against lists with only psychic characters...but it's still a kick in the teeth to GK and Tsons.

The while we stand rule change - and specifically the bit that lets you split a unit after nominating it, and then the opponent has to destroy *both* halves - is another stupid change that is just a stealth buff to space marines, as you can now take a big unit, combat squad it, and still use half while hiding the other half to get the points. Even worse for custodes, who can split up a 10-man terminator unit and then just hold back 1 or 2 to get the points while using the rest of the unit with no worries about it being destroyed.


You really have to wonder about GW sometimes. Even when they recognize an issue, the "solution" if as often as not a real head-scratcher.



You may want to read that objective again. WWSWF is based on MODELS, not UNITS. No one cares if you split the unit, the FAQ regards the case where the MODEL splits.

Also, the solution to first turn advantage isn't in the roll decision, but in the fact that finally the second player gets to play a turn 5!


You may want to read the objective again. They changed it in the FAQ. It's now units, not models.


I stand corrected. It is a much bigger change than I thought then.

What factions can abuse something like this?


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 20:16:35


Post by: yukishiro1


-Guardsman- wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
I've been banging that horn since 9th came out

I think you're mixing metaphors.




Spoletta wrote:

What factions can abuse something like this?


Space marines, mainly (big surprise there!). Custodes too, though it costs them CP. Orks can sorta do it with buggies I guess, in that you could bring 3 in a unit of one and then try to hide one of them while not worrying about the other two, though I'm not sure that's as strong. Eldar weapon platforms, but those are limited to 3 per pre-game unit, and to get high enough points to be a while we stand they'd need to be D-cannons, so I'm not sure that's viable, though the fact that the D-cannon ignores LOS does make it an interesting option if you really engineered the list for it I guess?

Ironically, I think the reason they did it was to try to avoid a different kind of abuse, where people used while we stand with lowish value characters they then hid, by deliberately engineering their list not to have anything worth many points. But in true GW form, they screwed it up and opened a new kind of abuse. The weird thing is they saw the issue enough to put in a caveat that drones don't count, so why they couldn't also see the issue with other unit splitting, I don't know.



New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 20:22:18


Post by: Kitane


Spoletta wrote:


I stand corrected. It is a much bigger change than I thought then.

What factions can abuse something like this?


Custodes probably. Extra juicy when picking a unit of Allarus terminators and then split them up.

About the Abhor the Witch, the change definitely makes it better for Nids. Many synapse creatures also happened to be characters and psykers and a threat of double dip from Assasinate/Bring it down and Abhor the Witch was quite limiting during the list building.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 20:34:27


Post by: yukishiro1


Yeah, the abhor change mainly helps character-psyker heavy lists; it means you can realistically take 3 psyker characters without being so tempting for your opponent that the whole game turns into "can he kill my psykers or not?" It's much better for eldar or chaos soup or nids than it is for GK and TS.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 20:35:56


Post by: ccs


Tycho wrote:
Nobody runs pure TS because it's garbage. But if you actually did, it'd still give up well over 15 with the new values.


I run pure Tsons. Garbage is probably too weak a description.


There's at least two pure TS at my local shop.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 20:38:23


Post by: CommunistNapkin


Spoletta wrote:


What factions can abuse something like this?


I think that this might be good for Guard as well. I may have to double check some things, but I believe this would allow things like Leman Russes to be taken in squadrons, and that squad would be the target for While We Stand, We Fight. Then on the table they are deployed and act separately, so all the Russes in a squadron would have to be destroyed to score the objective.

I suppose I could be wrong about this though.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 21:21:02


Post by: Tycho


There's at least two pure TS at my local shop.


Thinking about it - it's not actually true that I run pure Tsons anymore. It is all Tzeentch and mostly Tsons, but the demons that I used to summon, have slowly morphed into an ever increasing patrol detachment of Tzeentch demons from the actual demons book. I find this much more competitive than my legtitmately all Tsons list which was really struggling.

How do your players do?


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 21:45:48


Post by: Daedalus81


 bullyboy wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
addressed the apothecary and ATV....finally


I mean...like two months for sweeping FAQs. Seems pretty timely to me.


so you're saying that the Space Marine Codex was released in November?


Close enough. Not like things were bumpin' on the tournament scene during a pandemic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote:
Sigh. They recognized the problems, but the solutions are all over the place, and some of them are straight-up terrible. Forcing the player who "wins" the roll-off to go first is silly, and does very little to address first-turn advantage.


I doubt it will move the needle much, but it might change deployment game theory a bit especially now that player 2 scores at the end of the game. There's more here than just a quick comment will reveal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote:
Also, and I realize some people will consider this griping...it really annoys me when GW does something like raise the points on eradicators - a unit that was transparently overpowered - without acknowledging what a mistake they made in the first place, and that everyone telling them it was a mistake was right and they were wrong. It just feels dishonest. Is it too much to ask for a little bit of a mea culpa and admission that they pointed them too aggressively and some sort of commitment to being more careful in future?


Surely 5 points doesn't "fix" them in your mind. I have not followed any tournaments since the holidays, but before then marines weren't running roughshod over everyone with mass eradicators. This is like a 30 to 45 point nerf at most that doesn't reduce the number of eradicators on the field.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 22:32:20


Post by: H.B.M.C.


ERJAK wrote:
Turn 5 the player going second scores at the end of their TURN not their command phase now.
I don't understand why this isn't the case for each player every turn.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 22:35:20


Post by: yukishiro1


But you already didn't know if you were going first or second when you deployed, so I don't see how restricting choice will really change that. It seems more like an admission that they aren't able to willing to get it to 50/50, so they'll try to limit the damage by not allowing the flip "winner" to choose the better option.

They said it removes "analysis paralysis," but that's basically another way of saying it removes tactics and thought.

The scoring stuff is more interesting, but it isn't a great vote of confidence in their own system that they're taking away the ability to choose to give your opponent the first turn.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 22:35:28


Post by: Umbros


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
Turn 5 the player going second scores at the end of their TURN not their command phase now.
I don't understand why this isn't the case for each player every turn.


The player going second would win almost every time...


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 22:35:47


Post by: Daedalus81


yukishiro1 wrote:
 tauist wrote:
Why would they apologise for trying to improve the game? I'm confused..


Because they spent the last 6 months telling everyone it was fine (first turn advantage) and that they just need to learn2play (see Brandt on these very forums for an example). Or because they came out with new kits with units priced in transparently ridiculous ways (eradicators) and then ignored everyone for 6 months telling them the units were hugely mispointed.


That isn't GW making those claims. Eradicators are strong, but didn't dominate. Maybe things would look different without a pandemic - I don't know. How many points should they be if they're hugely mispointed?


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 22:36:38


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
Turn 5 the player going second scores at the end of their TURN not their command phase now.
I don't understand why this isn't the case for each player every turn.


to allow for counterplay. If i score at the end of my turn, i only need to take the objective, not hold it.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 22:50:51


Post by: Daedalus81


yukishiro1 wrote:
But you already didn't know if you were going first or second when you deployed, so I don't see how restricting choice will really change that. It seems more like an admission that they aren't able to willing to get it to 50/50, so they'll try to limit the damage by not allowing the flip "winner" to choose the better option.

They said it removes "analysis paralysis," but that's basically another way of saying it removes tactics and thought.

The scoring stuff is more interesting, but it isn't a great vote of confidence in their own system that they're taking away the ability to choose to give your opponent the first turn.


The game theory in me makes me think deploying for a second turn is the best option. I might be forced to go first so I would need to be faster in some fashion to make up for that.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 22:51:27


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Umbros wrote:
The player going second would win almost every time...
This was never the case in previous editions, why would it be in 9th?


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 22:53:34


Post by: yukishiro1


But you could already be forced to go first.

The only thing that changes is if one player clearly sets up to go first and the other clearly set up to go second, there's still a 50% chance of it going the other way, whereas before both players would probably choose the same thing.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 22:54:14


Post by: Tycho


H.B.M.C. wrote:
Umbros wrote:
The player going second would win almost every time...
This was never the case in previous editions, why would it be in 9th?


Especially since, in many cases in previous editions you only had to score right at the end and the second player still wasn’t predominantly winning ...


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 22:57:46


Post by: yukishiro1


 Daedalus81 wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
 tauist wrote:
Why would they apologise for trying to improve the game? I'm confused..


Because they spent the last 6 months telling everyone it was fine (first turn advantage) and that they just need to learn2play (see Brandt on these very forums for an example). Or because they came out with new kits with units priced in transparently ridiculous ways (eradicators) and then ignored everyone for 6 months telling them the units were hugely mispointed.


That isn't GW making those claims. Eradicators are strong, but didn't dominate. Maybe things would look different without a pandemic - I don't know. How many points should they be if they're hugely mispointed?


Wasn't GW making what claims? About first turn advantage not being a thing and it just being a L2P issue? No, that was very much GW itself. Brandt is a GW employee. And they also ran one of those silly metawatch articles and then teed Nanavati up with a question about first-turn advantage clearly designed for him to knock it down and tell people it wasn't a thing.

On eradicators, it wasn't exactly my lone opinion that they were egregiously mispointed (or, more precisely, that the fire twice rule was very poorly thought out and the result was very problematic). I don't know if the current nerf will be enough or not, we'll see I suppose. I wouldn't have nerfed their points, I would have just removed the shoot twice if you're shooting at the same target rule and left it at that.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 23:25:17


Post by: Daedalus81


Ah, gotcha. I never bothered to read those articles. I could say your take on it being a set up is cynical, but I wouldn't doubt Nanavanti actually holds those thoughts.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/07 23:56:36


Post by: Valkyrie


Planning to get a Defiler for my Thousand Sons, delighted to see Twin-Lascannons are now just 10pts!


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 01:03:43


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Valkyrie wrote:
Planning to get a Defiler for my Thousand Sons, delighted to see Twin-Lascannons are now just 10pts!


Be aware that may be a typo. The twin lascannon upgrade is 30pts on the normal CSM Defiler.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 02:15:35


Post by: Bitharne


yukishiro1 wrote:
-Guardsman- wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
I've been banging that horn since 9th came out

I think you're mixing metaphors.




Spoletta wrote:

What factions can abuse something like this?


Space marines, mainly (big surprise there!). Custodes too, though it costs them CP. Orks can sorta do it with buggies I guess, in that you could bring 3 in a unit of one and then try to hide one of them while not worrying about the other two, though I'm not sure that's as strong. <...>



Bold mine.

Orks can do it with Deffdreads. Buggies aren't squadrons; they're one unit always (never buy more than one per...it's bad).

EDIT - My bad..P82. It's not on their datasheet (shows how much I focus on speed freak models sorry)


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 02:21:48


Post by: Castozor


Bitharne wrote:

Bold mine.

Orks can do it with Deffdreads. Buggies aren't squadrons; they're one unit always (never buy more than one per...it's bad).


I haven't touched my Ork codex in a while but I'm pretty sure Buggies can do the vehicle squadron thing too. How else could people bring 18 to a tournament?


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 02:22:42


Post by: McMagnus Mindbullets


I haven't been on dakka in a good long while and after having looked through this thread I remember why. Cheers guys.

Regardless, I came to see what people's initial reactions were and to chuck in my own two cents on the changes and that's what I'll do.

Firstly, I think it's really important to properly consider that with this round of FAQs they have reviewed every single model in the game, along with the usual changing a handful of the core rules and FAQing other specific interaction problems. For nothing. When they usually charge you at least 20 quid for it (which I always hated). I think that's a pretty great thing for the rules team to have done especially in covid times.

Anyway, it's great to see that it seems like they've actually really listened to the online reaction and feelings of 9th edition. Many of the FAQs throughout 8th were to steer the game a different way out of the blue or to get rid of really bad exploitations. It definitely feels like they've listened a lot more than they have in the past- the online community has been talking about especially the first turn and power of the roll off, and yes while that metawatch article seemed like they were covering their asses, it's great to see the changes be so seemingly considered without needing to majorly change the games fundamentals - though of course I'll have to playtest it to form my proper opinion (great one covid cheers )

On that, the change to the reroll as well as the change to the end of the game seem like a good step in the right direction, not too drastic as well as not currently feeling like too little. Again, after however many weeks of lockdown I am excited to try it out. Interested to see how the numbers work out as well as the subtle changes in list design that come with it.

Secondaries... WWSWF seems weird but bring it down and abhor is great to see- those blasting about TS and GK still giving away max points- I think now at the point where you've given max points you are no longer in any position to win the game. 2 characters and 5 units or 3 characters and 3 units that are all psykers screams an L. Would be nice if assassinate wouldn't double dip though.
This update almost to me feels like GW testing the waters of what to end up having in the next mission pack with hopefully a set of some better action based secondaries that encourage exploratory list building rather than kill secondaries providing preventative list building. Excited for the next round of GT missions.
The points, also, (aside from of course a few errors and woes- poor tau), seem mostly nicely justified and fair. The cheeky preview at upcoming dexes is alot of fun too.

Overall, a pretty great first update imo. Step in the right direction and room for the game to grow even more this year.

Anyway hope you lot are as excited to get models on the table again and try out some new rules even if it has to be after however many weeks in lockdown.

Keep it respectful.
Cheers


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 02:28:23


Post by: Bitharne


 Castozor wrote:
Bitharne wrote:

Bold mine.

Orks can do it with Deffdreads. Buggies aren't squadrons; they're one unit always (never buy more than one per...it's bad).


I haven't touched my Ork codex in a while but I'm pretty sure Buggies can do the vehicle squadron thing too. How else could people bring 18 to a tournament?


Go to a 3k tournament? Buggiest are 100 points each (on average)

Deffdreads have the "Dread Mob" rule which splits them after deployment. None of the buggies have that rule; nor do killakans.

EDIT - Aw...I don't use Speed Freak stuff them that much. Speed Mob rule noted points to Pate 82 that gives them this rule. My appologies

also glad I learned this I might source some more buggies I like to annoy my friends who hate them


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 03:17:24


Post by: Ghaz


beast_gts wrote:
The 2021 MUNITORUM FIELD MANUAL is a free download

This leads me to believe that the 2021 Chapter Approved will be released in December.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 03:33:37


Post by: l0k1


Amusing to note that Helbrutes don't have Missile Launchers listed at all.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 03:47:04


Post by: tneva82


Not Online!!! wrote:
DG vs CSM

CSM PM are 18 ppm

And more funny, DG cultists 5ppm poxwalkers 5ppm CSM cultists .... 6ppm.

For what is in essence the same fething unit...


Atleast it's free but something ain't right.


One is 2w, one is 1w


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 04:44:15


Post by: Rihgu


 l0k1 wrote:
Amusing to note that Helbrutes don't have Missile Launchers listed at all.


That means they pay no points for them.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 04:51:19


Post by: l0k1


Rihgu wrote:
 l0k1 wrote:
Amusing to note that Helbrutes don't have Missile Launchers listed at all.


That means they pay no points for them.


I must have misinterpreted it then. Thanks!


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 05:25:35


Post by: Daedalus81


 l0k1 wrote:
Rihgu wrote:
 l0k1 wrote:
Amusing to note that Helbrutes don't have Missile Launchers listed at all.


That means they pay no points for them.


I must have misinterpreted it then. Thanks!


Yea - it's the same for the CCW - not listed, because it is base. They just figure dropping the ccw for a ml is the same cost.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 06:47:02


Post by: kingheff


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Ah, gotcha. I never bothered to read those articles. I could say your take on it being a set up is cynical, but I wouldn't doubt Nanavanti actually holds those thoughts.


For sure he and the other art of war players say and do choose to go second reasonably often. Certain missions do have a problem for the second player if their opponent can jump forwards and survive on the midfield but that's more of an issue with the mission design.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 07:06:37


Post by: Bosskelot


Really feels like Reavers and Hellions have had their points mixed up.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 08:33:45


Post by: Jidmah


My ork buggy list went from giving up 17 VP for bring it down to just 9 VP

I also really like the while we stand, we fight change. Up till now it was either a trap or had to be exploited to score any points.
Forcing your opponent to go through a unit of 10 blightlords or 20 plague marines seems pretty awesome though. It might even be worth trying for orks with units of MANz or something like flash gits sitting in a transport.

I don't think there is a big advantage in using it with buggy squadrons though, as buggies are paper thin, killing nine over the course of a game should be trivial. Squadrons of MBH or LRBT though...


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 11:17:30


Post by: Karol


 McMagnus Mindbullets wrote:

Secondaries... WWSWF seems weird but bring it down and abhor is great to see- those blasting about TS and GK still giving away max points- I think now at the point where you've given max points you are no longer in any position to win the game. 2 characters and 5 units or 3 characters and 3 units that are all psykers screams an L. Would be nice if assassinate wouldn't double dip though.


I don't think you understand how resilient 5 man 1w space marine squads are. Or even termintors, in an edition where people have the main opponent as 2W primaris and optimise against killing those. And yeah neither 1ksons, nor GK are great right now, but just because they are not great, it shouldn't mean they should have an auto take double dipping secondary that works 100% of times, and the GK or 1ksons player can't do a thing about it. But lets say you lose 2 characters and 4 units. This still a great secondary point wise, it double dips, and if your opponent plays WWSWF, which probably does, and you go after those so important to GK characters and high cost units, you are not only doing your objectives, but stoping the GK player from doing his. At which point it becomes a triple dip, and is not very fun to have around. I would maybe understand it if both GK and 1ksons had super easy warp objectives to do and had huge % win rates under their belts.


Also it is kind of a hard to imagine when some people say that losing 3-4 tanks or vehicles per game can easily happen, but losing 4 units and a bunch of characters is somehow a rare you were losing anyway situation.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 11:34:39


Post by: Valkyrie


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Valkyrie wrote:
Planning to get a Defiler for my Thousand Sons, delighted to see Twin-Lascannons are now just 10pts!


Be aware that may be a typo. The twin lascannon upgrade is 30pts on the normal CSM Defiler.


Oh I know but a man can dream...


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 11:56:01


Post by: p5freak


Am i correct in assuming that all melee weapons, except chainfists and powerfists, are now free for CSM termis ? They arent listed in the MFM2021, so they cost nothing ? A termi with power axe and combiplasma was 38, and now is 33 ?


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 12:26:41


Post by: Denegaar


 Bosskelot wrote:
Really feels like Reavers and Hellions have had their points mixed up.


It would be awesome that Hellions were 10 points. Firstly I thought that they would be too good, but thinking about it, 10ppm Hellions would be just fun and playable. Better weapon and speed in exchange of ObSec and the Sv++ of the Wyches seems about right.

10 pts Jetbikes are of course a typo, or an awful attempt from GW to sell those kits.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 12:35:50


Post by: A.T.


 p5freak wrote:
Am i correct in assuming that all melee weapons, except chainfists and powerfists, are now free for CSM termis ? They arent listed in the MFM2021, so they cost nothing ? A termi with power axe and combiplasma was 38, and now is 33 ?
You would use the last listed price, unless the unit specifies 'wargear included'.
Explicitly free items are listed as cost = 0.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 12:40:02


Post by: Cynista


Nightbringer going up 20 points is nonsense. It wasn't remotely underpriced, the other three are just overpriced


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 12:49:04


Post by: p5freak


A.T. wrote:
 p5freak wrote:
Am i correct in assuming that all melee weapons, except chainfists and powerfists, are now free for CSM termis ? They arent listed in the MFM2021, so they cost nothing ? A termi with power axe and combiplasma was 38, and now is 33 ?
You would use the last listed price, unless the unit specifies 'wargear included'.
Explicitly free items are listed as cost = 0.


Not true. From the MFM2021 :

You can use this book to determine the points (pts) value of
each unit in your army. Each entry lists the unit’s size (i.e. how
many models the unit can contain) and how many points the
unit costs. If an entry has a unit cost of ‘x pts/model’, then the
unit costs x points for every model in that unit. You must then
add points for each weapon, or item of wargear, that is included
in that unit if it is listed in that unit’s entry (weapons and
wargear not listed in a unit’s entry cost no additional points to
include in that unit).


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 13:52:08


Post by: Jidmah


 p5freak wrote:
Am i correct in assuming that all melee weapons, except chainfists and powerfists, are now free for CSM termis ? They arent listed in the MFM2021, so they cost nothing ? A termi with power axe and combiplasma was 38, and now is 33 ?


Yes, this is correct. It also makes sense when you compare them to loyalist terminators. A chaos terminator with PF and bolter is 33, a loyalist with the same loadout is 38 but has an extra wound. An axe/plasma blightlord would be 45.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 15:05:43


Post by: Sasori


 Ghaz wrote:
beast_gts wrote:
The 2021 MUNITORUM FIELD MANUAL is a free download

This leads me to believe that the 2021 Chapter Approved will be released in December.


Possible. I think we're going to see the new 2021 GT Pack and New points in July though.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 15:34:33


Post by: DominayTrix


The Tau changes are a clown fiesta. Some highlights:

The Coldstar's HOBC is now free, but costs 8 to replace with the inferior version since you MUST take the missile pod with the HOBC. Coldstars have a point cost listed for CIBs even though the codex says they cannot be taken.
Troop's DS8 support turrets no longer have a price listed for SMS, but the missile pod variants just doubled in price.
Ghostkeel flamers are now free, has a 5pt shield generator which is half the cost other normal suits pay for it.
Speaking of which, Riptides have a point cost listed for them as well after previously being forbidden.
Tactical drones cost 20 pts per model as a FA choice despite every model costing 10/15pts.
Broadside SMS cost 13 points unlike other suits.
Hammerheads/Skyrays/Devilfish no longer have attached drones as an option or they are baked into the cost. Either way the devilfish pays 5pts less per SMS.
The stormsurge and V'Vahra both pay 30pts for shield generators.
Shielded missile drones are 5 pts cheaper than missile drones and cost the exact same as a shield drone despite being both.
The MV52 shield drone has a point cost despite not having a single unit capable fielding it.

They could probably use a FAQ...



New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 15:42:01


Post by: Aenar


 DominayTrix wrote:
The Tau changes are a clown fiesta. Some highlights:

The Coldstar's HOBC is now free, but costs 8 to replace with the inferior version since you MUST take the missile pod with the HOBC. Coldstars have a point cost listed for CIBs even though the codex says they cannot be taken.
Troop's DS8 support turrets no longer have a price listed for SMS, but the missile pod variants just doubled in price.
Ghostkeel flamers are now free, has a 5pt shield generator which is half the cost other normal suits pay for it.
Speaking of which, Riptides have a point cost listed for them as well after previously being forbidden.
Tactical drones cost 20 pts per model as a FA choice despite every model costing 10/15pts. -> yet they still are 2 PR for 4 models in the new Power Rating Update, +1 PR for each +2 Drones added to the squad (implying they cost 10 pts each, not 20)
Broadside SMS cost 13 points unlike other suits.
Hammerheads/Skyrays/Devilfish no longer have attached drones as an option or they are baked into the cost. Either way the devilfish pays 5pts less per SMS.
The stormsurge and V'Vahra both pay 30pts for shield generators.
Shielded missile drones are 5 pts cheaper than missile drones and cost the exact same as a shield drone despite being both.
The MV52 shield drone has a point cost despite not having a single unit capable fielding it.

They could probably use a FAQ...



New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 15:53:57


Post by: addnid


 McMagnus Mindbullets wrote:
I haven't been on dakka in a good long while and after having looked through this thread I remember why. Cheers guys.

Regardless, I came to see what people's initial reactions were and to chuck in my own two cents on the changes and that's what I'll do.

Firstly, I think it's really important to properly consider that with this round of FAQs they have reviewed every single model in the game, along with the usual changing a handful of the core rules and FAQing other specific interaction problems. For nothing. When they usually charge you at least 20 quid for it (which I always hated). I think that's a pretty great thing for the rules team to have done especially in covid times.

Cheers


While I agree with you regarding dakka in general (though some threads are quite good honestly, and the mods do a good job of locking down the worst ones), I think you are very naive if you think they have reviewed every single model in the game. Goraknauts Morkanauts for example still have the same outrageous cost, I won't go into every unit whose cost didn't change, but should have, it would be too long. They clearly only modified a few unit and option costs here and there, half of which make no sense at all.

I love what they did on last turn scoring, as well as the the secondary mods (aside from the mod to While We Stand which I hate). But on cost modifications, they got the tyranid part more or less good, but for example they totally missed the opportunity to rebalance melta weapons, among other things. I think they did like 20% of all units, and not even did that well those who did get on their radar. Of course it is a free download. You get what you "pay" for ("pay" because most people don't pay they just get the pdf without paying).


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 16:35:20


Post by: Tycho


They clearly only modified a few unit and option costs here and there, half of which make no sense at all.


Haven't had time to really test this, but it almost feels like they adjusted according to anything they have tourney data for (Eradicators for example) , and anything that has consistently received a ton of complaints everywhere as being awful (Reanimator). This would explain why Gorka/Morkanaughts didn't get much attention.

They aren't used much on the tourney scene, and you don't hear much about them anywhere else, so GW doesn't have enough data and thus isn't sure how to adjust them.

I do agree they are over-costed though ...


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 16:40:26


Post by: wuestenfux


Well, as I'm playing Necrons atm, the changes are minor for me as I don't play C'tans.
Reanimator is a great model but not so great game-wise.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 16:45:46


Post by: Tyel


 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, as I'm playing Necrons atm, the changes are minor for me as I don't play C'tans.
Reanimator is a great model but not so great game-wise.


I don't think you'd take it by choice - but if you were running it for fun, I think 80 points is about right for it not to be especially debilitating.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 16:46:04


Post by: Unit1126PLL


I'm still wrapping my head around the heavy, heavy nerfs to Imperial Guard superheavies. Did they win a tournament somewhere?


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 16:46:39


Post by: Darsath


Even with the big points drop, I still don't see myself running a reanimator any time soon. 80 points is still too much for how quickly it dies.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 16:51:17


Post by: Tycho


I don't think you'd take it by choice - but if you were running it for fun, I think 80 points is about right for it not to be especially debilitating.


Having tried it in a ton of games, I respectfully disagree. It's just so easy for a lot of armies to basically 1-shot. I wouldn't consider it until we hit maybe 70. At that point you could make the argument that it's too cheap for it's abilities, but the problem is, GW fethed up here with the model. It's too difficult to hide, and WAY too squishy, so even though it's got decent abilities and a decent strat, it's pretty much a 1-turn auto-kill for most opponents.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 17:56:09


Post by: Daedalus81


 Jidmah wrote:

I also really like the while we stand, we fight change. Up till now it was either a trap or had to be exploited to score any points.
Forcing your opponent to go through a unit of 10 blightlords or 20 plague marines seems pretty awesome though. It might even be worth trying for orks with units of MANz or something like flash gits sitting in a transport.

I don't think there is a big advantage in using it with buggy squadrons though, as buggies are paper thin, killing nine over the course of a game should be trivial. Squadrons of MBH or LRBT though...


There are a couple issues with WWSWF.

First, do units that split after deployment (buggies) count as a unit before or after the split?
Second, units that can be willfully split seem like something that can be heavily exploited by Custodes especially.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 17:59:06


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I'm still wrapping my head around the heavy, heavy nerfs to Imperial Guard superheavies. Did they win a tournament somewhere?


People played them last edition, so they must be too good and need to not be played this edition. Maybe the Guard Codex will hand them some kind of massive buff but more likely you're waiting for 10th Edition in 2024 and the new Baneblade kit with four new variants that are all much better than the last ones before Guard superheavies are playable again.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 17:59:30


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Tycho wrote:
I don't think you'd take it by choice - but if you were running it for fun, I think 80 points is about right for it not to be especially debilitating.


Having tried it in a ton of games, I respectfully disagree. It's just so easy for a lot of armies to basically 1-shot. I wouldn't consider it until we hit maybe 70. At that point you could make the argument that it's too cheap for it's abilities, but the problem is, GW fethed up here with the model. It's too difficult to hide, and WAY too squishy, so even though it's got decent abilities and a decent strat, it's pretty much a 1-turn auto-kill for most opponents.

You're always better off with the equivalent amount of points of any W1 model in the army.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 18:02:26


Post by: Daedalus81


Tyel wrote:
 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, as I'm playing Necrons atm, the changes are minor for me as I don't play C'tans.
Reanimator is a great model but not so great game-wise.


I don't think you'd take it by choice - but if you were running it for fun, I think 80 points is about right for it not to be especially debilitating.


I'm giving one a go this weekend hopefully. I don't see myself ever taking more than one though.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 18:08:06


Post by: Rihgu


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:

I also really like the while we stand, we fight change. Up till now it was either a trap or had to be exploited to score any points.
Forcing your opponent to go through a unit of 10 blightlords or 20 plague marines seems pretty awesome though. It might even be worth trying for orks with units of MANz or something like flash gits sitting in a transport.

I don't think there is a big advantage in using it with buggy squadrons though, as buggies are paper thin, killing nine over the course of a game should be trivial. Squadrons of MBH or LRBT though...


There are a couple issues with WWSWF.

First, do units that split after deployment (buggies) count as a unit before or after the split?
Second, units that can be willfully split seem like something that can be heavily exploited by Custodes especially.


You select units for WWSWF before the battle begins, which happens after deployment (step 14) as best as I can tell?
And for your second question I believe so, and that would be funny but it's spending 700 points and some CP to protect 5VP.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 18:08:51


Post by: A.T.


 p5freak wrote:
Not true. From the MFM2021
Well that's interesting. A little odd as there is no way to tell the difference between and editing mistake and free wargear but interesting none the less.

Congratulations to sisters players for their free simulacrums in every squad. What else has become free by virtue of absence ?


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 18:14:59


Post by: The Newman


Tycho wrote:
The problem with new abhor isn't the 3 per character, it's the 2 per unit. This means you'll still auto-take it against TS or GK - which also means that their "solution" doesn't address the very problem they said it was aimed to address. It's another /facepalm moment.


Also it still stacks w/assassinate. Unless I missed something. I recently got a user's name wrong so it's possible. Please tell me I missed something here ...


I read the FAQ and the very first thing I did was email the faq address to tell them the real problem with Abh the Witch is that it's not in Purge the Enemy where it clearly belongs. I'd bet they're going to get a lot of feedback to that effect before the end of the day.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 mokoshkana wrote:
Abaddon303 wrote:
Seems to me like GW are actually basing points for units and weapons on the individual codex.

If GW believe cultists are stronger in CSM armies than they are in DG (I'd probably agree) then they should be different points.

The DG helbrute is 5pts more than the CSM one. I imagine that is taking into account the contagions etc it will be benefiting from.

A lot of people complained when Tacs weren't cheaper than CSM despite access to doctrines etc...
This guy gets it!

Then please explain why Land Raiders, Predators, Vindicators, Sicarans, Leviathans, Fellblades, Fire Raptors, etc, etc, etc still cost exactly the same for loyalists and CSM?

Because a Chaos Lord can still grant rerolls to every vehicle in range and loyalists commanders can't?


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 18:45:19


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


I both love and hate the Custodes Changes. For one solid quarter, I wish my meta would remain basically the same. This basically kills the vehicle lists and brings back the ever hated "All bikes list" or the "All shields list" which was boring as hell.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 19:05:10


Post by: Quasistellar


I'm a little disappointed in the Outrider, Inceptor Eradicator changes.

Outriders really didn't need a points increase.

Only plasma inceptors needed a point increase.

I think Eradicators definitely needed a change, but I don't think points is the way--I think they need to lose the shoot twice rule. Give them a different bonus (like maybe +1 to hit like they did for the Repulsor Executioner) for shooting the same target.

I do like the FAQ/Errata and points changes overall, aside from Tau. Man, they just cannot stop kicking Tau while they're down, can they?


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 19:15:39


Post by: Saturmorn Carvilli


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Tycho wrote:
I don't think you'd take it by choice - but if you were running it for fun, I think 80 points is about right for it not to be especially debilitating.


Having tried it in a ton of games, I respectfully disagree. It's just so easy for a lot of armies to basically 1-shot. I wouldn't consider it until we hit maybe 70. At that point you could make the argument that it's too cheap for it's abilities, but the problem is, GW fethed up here with the model. It's too difficult to hide, and WAY too squishy, so even though it's got decent abilities and a decent strat, it's pretty much a 1-turn auto-kill for most opponents.

You're always better off with the equivalent amount of points of any W1 model in the army.


Looking over the data sheet, yeah; I think you'd generally be better off more bodies right now. Without actual experience either with or against it, my gut says the Reanimator probably should stay in the 80-100pts range but increase Toughness and/or Wounds. That way it doesn't become too affordable to move away from being a support element (still unlikely), but also have the resiliency to force and opponent to expend more damage dealing assets than they might want to over high priority targets.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 19:15:59


Post by: Darsath


Quasistellar wrote:
I'm a little disappointed in the Outrider, Inceptor Eradicator changes.

Outriders really didn't need a points increase.

Only plasma inceptors needed a point increase.

I think Eradicators definitely needed a change, but I don't think points is the way--I think they need to lose the shoot twice rule. Give them a different bonus (like maybe +1 to hit like they did for the Repulsor Executioner) for shooting the same target.

I do like the FAQ/Errata and points changes overall, aside from Tau. Man, they just cannot stop kicking Tau while they're down, can they?

Honestly, I think removing the CORE keyword from Eradicators would have made enough of a difference.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 19:20:51


Post by: Daedalus81


Rihgu wrote:

You select units for WWSWF before the battle begins, which happens after deployment (step 14) as best as I can tell?
And for your second question I believe so, and that would be funny but it's spending 700 points and some CP to protect 5VP.


I went through the book and it doesn't seem like there is such a section in the mission rules. I think we might see 3 man LRBTs become popular. Fair point on the other one.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 19:48:58


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Tycho wrote:
I don't think you'd take it by choice - but if you were running it for fun, I think 80 points is about right for it not to be especially debilitating.


Having tried it in a ton of games, I respectfully disagree. It's just so easy for a lot of armies to basically 1-shot. I wouldn't consider it until we hit maybe 70. At that point you could make the argument that it's too cheap for it's abilities, but the problem is, GW fethed up here with the model. It's too difficult to hide, and WAY too squishy, so even though it's got decent abilities and a decent strat, it's pretty much a 1-turn auto-kill for most opponents.

You're always better off with the equivalent amount of points of any W1 model in the army.


Looking over the data sheet, yeah; I think you'd generally be better off more bodies right now. Without actual experience either with or against it, my gut says the Reanimator probably should stay in the 80-100pts range but increase Toughness and/or Wounds. That way it doesn't become too affordable to move away from being a support element (still unlikely), but also have the resiliency to force and opponent to expend more damage dealing assets than they might want to over high priority targets.

Honestly based on the size I'm surprised it doesn't have at minimum 12 wounds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Darsath wrote:
Quasistellar wrote:
I'm a little disappointed in the Outrider, Inceptor Eradicator changes.

Outriders really didn't need a points increase.

Only plasma inceptors needed a point increase.

I think Eradicators definitely needed a change, but I don't think points is the way--I think they need to lose the shoot twice rule. Give them a different bonus (like maybe +1 to hit like they did for the Repulsor Executioner) for shooting the same target.

I do like the FAQ/Errata and points changes overall, aside from Tau. Man, they just cannot stop kicking Tau while they're down, can they?

Honestly, I think removing the CORE keyword from Eradicators would have made enough of a difference.

Or remove the double shooting since they did it with Aggressors.

Seriously the lack of consistency there is fething mind boggling. Either let Gravis units on foot double shoot when standing still or don't. Just one unit getting it and the other losing it for reasons is stupid.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 19:53:14


Post by: VladimirHerzog


The Newman wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 mokoshkana wrote:
Abaddon303 wrote:
Seems to me like GW are actually basing points for units and weapons on the individual codex.

If GW believe cultists are stronger in CSM armies than they are in DG (I'd probably agree) then they should be different points.

The DG helbrute is 5pts more than the CSM one. I imagine that is taking into account the contagions etc it will be benefiting from.

A lot of people complained when Tacs weren't cheaper than CSM despite access to doctrines etc...
This guy gets it!

Then please explain why Land Raiders, Predators, Vindicators, Sicarans, Leviathans, Fellblades, Fire Raptors, etc, etc, etc still cost exactly the same for loyalists and CSM?

Because a Chaos Lord can still grant rerolls to every vehicle in range and loyalists commanders can't?


Lol, because it makes so much sense to make every unit overpriced because youre assuming theyre getting auras instead of making the lord itself more expensive.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 20:00:54


Post by: Rihgu


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
The Newman wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 mokoshkana wrote:
Abaddon303 wrote:
Seems to me like GW are actually basing points for units and weapons on the individual codex.

If GW believe cultists are stronger in CSM armies than they are in DG (I'd probably agree) then they should be different points.

The DG helbrute is 5pts more than the CSM one. I imagine that is taking into account the contagions etc it will be benefiting from.

A lot of people complained when Tacs weren't cheaper than CSM despite access to doctrines etc...
This guy gets it!

Then please explain why Land Raiders, Predators, Vindicators, Sicarans, Leviathans, Fellblades, Fire Raptors, etc, etc, etc still cost exactly the same for loyalists and CSM?

Because a Chaos Lord can still grant rerolls to every vehicle in range and loyalists commanders can't?


Lol, because it makes so much sense to make every unit overpriced because youre assuming theyre getting auras instead of making the lord itself more expensive.


On the other end of the spectrum, "because it makes so much sense to make the chaos lord overpriced because you're assuming it's giving 3 fellblades re-roll"


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 20:02:13


Post by: Tycho


I read the FAQ and the very first thing I did was email the faq address to tell them the real problem with Abh the Witch is that it's not in Purge the Enemy where it clearly belongs. I'd bet they're going to get a lot of feedback to that effect before the end of the day.


Hopefully, but I actually sent them that feedback when the mission pack was released. So ......

Honestly based on the size I'm surprised it doesn't have at minimum 12 wounds.


Agreed. The biggest issue is how trivial it is to kill while also being super difficult to hide. Make it so that it's just slightly harder to 1-shot it, and 80 points becomes more palatable. Right now though, I would agree that even with the points drop, you're still better off with more bodies.

EDIT:

You could also maybe give it a strat to increase it's range for a turn or something. Part of the problem with it is that it needs to be super close to your warriors to do its thing, and you want those warriors moving up to take objectives. So you HAVE to expose it, which is easy to do because it's fething giant for how few wounds it has.

The other option is to plunk it in the backfield to boost any objective camping bodies you may have, but even then, you're far better off with more 1 wound bodies given how the new RP work anyway ...


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 20:08:33


Post by: Voss


Darsath wrote:
Quasistellar wrote:
I'm a little disappointed in the Outrider, Inceptor Eradicator changes.

Outriders really didn't need a points increase.

Only plasma inceptors needed a point increase.

I think Eradicators definitely needed a change, but I don't think points is the way--I think they need to lose the shoot twice rule. Give them a different bonus (like maybe +1 to hit like they did for the Repulsor Executioner) for shooting the same target.

I do like the FAQ/Errata and points changes overall, aside from Tau. Man, they just cannot stop kicking Tau while they're down, can they?

Honestly, I think removing the CORE keyword from Eradicators would have made enough of a difference.


Not at all. The issue with the eradicators is they're a complete fire-and-forget independent package. If they survive after they turn up and wreck things its a complete bonus and they don't need support of any kind.
They just turn up, double tap at 24" and keep moving until something stomps on them.

+15 points for each trio doesn't matter. Spending CP on them doesn't matter. Being in auras doesn't matter. They're just doing their thing, double tapping any sort of targets they like.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 20:27:02


Post by: VladimirHerzog


Rihgu wrote:

On the other end of the spectrum, "because it makes so much sense to make the chaos lord overpriced because you're assuming it's giving 3 fellblades re-roll"



well.. yeah it does. Its the chaos lord's ability, not the fellblades. Its the same problem with the Guilliman tax that caused the mid 8th marine slump.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 20:30:11


Post by: Xenomancers


Tycho wrote:
I don't think you'd take it by choice - but if you were running it for fun, I think 80 points is about right for it not to be especially debilitating.


Having tried it in a ton of games, I respectfully disagree. It's just so easy for a lot of armies to basically 1-shot. I wouldn't consider it until we hit maybe 70. At that point you could make the argument that it's too cheap for it's abilities, but the problem is, GW fethed up here with the model. It's too difficult to hide, and WAY too squishy, so even though it's got decent abilities and a decent strat, it's pretty much a 1-turn auto-kill for most opponents.

It is pretty comparable to a canoptec spider. Their points should be much closer.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 20:33:15


Post by: Voss


 Xenomancers wrote:
Tycho wrote:
I don't think you'd take it by choice - but if you were running it for fun, I think 80 points is about right for it not to be especially debilitating.


Having tried it in a ton of games, I respectfully disagree. It's just so easy for a lot of armies to basically 1-shot. I wouldn't consider it until we hit maybe 70. At that point you could make the argument that it's too cheap for it's abilities, but the problem is, GW fethed up here with the model. It's too difficult to hide, and WAY too squishy, so even though it's got decent abilities and a decent strat, it's pretty much a 1-turn auto-kill for most opponents.

It is pretty comparable to a canoptec spider. Their points should be much closer.


Don't say that. GW will raise the point cost of the spyder instead.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 20:56:03


Post by: Daedalus81


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Rihgu wrote:

On the other end of the spectrum, "because it makes so much sense to make the chaos lord overpriced because you're assuming it's giving 3 fellblades re-roll"



well.. yeah it does. Its the chaos lord's ability, not the fellblades. Its the same problem with the Guilliman tax that caused the mid 8th marine slump.


Right it is the age old problem, but eventually lords won't be giving super heavies rerolls. For now they do - whether this is worth distinction I don't know.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 21:04:49


Post by: Tycho



It is pretty comparable to a canoptec spider. Their points should be much closer.


It is comparable and the spider's a good example because it can also get some cover from time to time. lol


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 21:42:43


Post by: Quasistellar


 Xenomancers wrote:
Tycho wrote:
I don't think you'd take it by choice - but if you were running it for fun, I think 80 points is about right for it not to be especially debilitating.


Having tried it in a ton of games, I respectfully disagree. It's just so easy for a lot of armies to basically 1-shot. I wouldn't consider it until we hit maybe 70. At that point you could make the argument that it's too cheap for it's abilities, but the problem is, GW fethed up here with the model. It's too difficult to hide, and WAY too squishy, so even though it's got decent abilities and a decent strat, it's pretty much a 1-turn auto-kill for most opponents.

It is pretty comparable to a canoptec spider. Their points should be much closer.


I was thinking the same thing.

I do understand the hesitance by GW to make the Reanimator too good. If you get too many overlapping defensive buffs on a unit (warriors) it can break the game. Currently Warriors seem really good without help from a Reanimator. There's a lot of things that buff warriors defensively that people aren't even using because they're so good just as-is, like Szeras, the Reanimator, and Ghost Arks for example.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 21:54:14


Post by: Tycho


I was thinking the same thing.

I do understand the hesitance by GW to make the Reanimator too good. If you get too many overlapping defensive buffs on a unit (warriors) it can break the game. Currently Warriors seem really good without help from a Reanimator. There's a lot of things that buff warriors defensively that people aren't even using because they're so good just as-is, like Szeras, the Reanimator, and Ghost Arks for example.


That's the biggest problem with it, and with the Necron codex as a whole - too much nuance - too many ways to do the exact same thing for no good reason, and with some of those ways being WAY better/worse than others. Phil Kelly's special non-Eldar trademark frankly. Would not be surprised to find out he wrote it. It feels really similar to his 6th ed CSM book.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/08 22:25:55


Post by: Bitharne


Quasistellar wrote:I'm a little disappointed in the Outrider, Inceptor Eradicator changes.

Outriders really didn't need a points increase.

Only plasma inceptors needed a point increase.

I think Eradicators definitely needed a change, but I don't think points is the way--I think they need to lose the shoot twice rule. Give them a different bonus (like maybe +1 to hit like they did for the Repulsor Executioner) for shooting the same target.

I do like the FAQ/Errata and points changes overall, aside from Tau. Man, they just cannot stop kicking Tau while they're down, can they?


My, preferred, solution to the Eradicator problem is (as usual) a stratagem for their special ability: basically rapid fire for Gravis with the stipulation that they can't target different units. Such that ANY gravis unit can do it. So aggressors can have their double-tap back, too, but only against a single target. I hate "free" stuff with a burning passion. So costing some resources, CP obviously in this case, to give them a strong ability is perfectly fine imo. Also, give aggressors back their advance and fire without penalty power. That was just stupid.


Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Tycho wrote:
I don't think you'd take it by choice - but if you were running it for fun, I think 80 points is about right for it not to be especially debilitating.


Having tried it in a ton of games, I respectfully disagree. It's just so easy for a lot of armies to basically 1-shot. I wouldn't consider it until we hit maybe 70. At that point you could make the argument that it's too cheap for it's abilities, but the problem is, GW fethed up here with the model. It's too difficult to hide, and WAY too squishy, so even though it's got decent abilities and a decent strat, it's pretty much a 1-turn auto-kill for most opponents.

You're always better off with the equivalent amount of points of any W1 model in the army.


Looking over the data sheet, yeah; I think you'd generally be better off more bodies right now. Without actual experience either with or against it, my gut says the Reanimator probably should stay in the 80-100pts range but increase Toughness and/or Wounds. That way it doesn't become too affordable to move away from being a support element (still unlikely), but also have the resiliency to force and opponent to expend more damage dealing assets than they might want to over high priority targets.


Reanimators are intrinsically broken. They need LoS rules granted to them by warriors...or QS at a minimum. Until then they'll be auto-take or auto-avoid depending on their points value; I err-on auto-avoid even at 80 though.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/09 00:05:58


Post by: Daedalus81


Bitharne wrote:


My, preferred, solution to the Eradicator problem is (as usual) a stratagem for their special ability: basically rapid fire for Gravis with the stipulation that they can't target different units. Such that ANY gravis unit can do it. So aggressors can have their double-tap back, too, but only against a single target. I hate "free" stuff with a burning passion. So costing some resources, CP obviously in this case, to give them a strong ability is perfectly fine imo. Also, give aggressors back their advance and fire without penalty power. That was just stupid.



Aggressors almost always went against one target anyway. Stripping that ability from Eradicators would mean they need to be cheaper. As it stands a MM Attack Bike is 55. Same toughness, more move, extra wound, always fires two shots, and ignores move penalties. Its a pretty fine line to walk.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bitharne wrote:
Reanimators are intrinsically broken. They need LoS rules granted to them by warriors...or QS at a minimum. Until then they'll be auto-take or auto-avoid depending on their points value; I err-on auto-avoid even at 80 though.


This becomes a difficult thing to place, too now that you can make Necron blobs your most expensive unit with double obsec. They're probably too expensive, but there's a line where they might wind up tilting certain lists over.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/09 00:08:52


Post by: Eldarain


Or remove it and increase the price of the Attack Bike.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/09 00:19:50


Post by: Karol


 Eldarain wrote:
Or remove it and increase the price of the Attack Bike.


That would be a double nerf, I am not sure what it would suppose to achive, specialy considering that harliequins were not change in the faq batch at all.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/09 01:11:41


Post by: Eldarain


Karol wrote:
 Eldarain wrote:
Or remove it and increase the price of the Attack Bike.


That would be a double nerf, I am not sure what it would suppose to achive, specialy considering that harliequins were not change in the faq batch at all.

They also need to have their AT brought in line. Right now armor/monsters both internally and externally are suffering from "but Erads/Abike and Fusion/Haywire"


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/09 01:16:39


Post by: Karol


If you nerf eradictors and attack bikes, then the next thing you are going to have to nerf is MM devastators, melta drop sterguard, and by the time you do that marines will stop having an efficient anti tank option. While at the same time harlequins are going to runing with an anti tank and anti meq gun on every troop model.

The only thing this would achive is to make marines worse, harlequins better and the CWE codex a problem if it has a single good tank or vehicle in it. Even now with all those OP marines running around , CWE+Harli soups are winning tournaments.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/09 02:07:18


Post by: Daedalus81


 Eldarain wrote:

They also need to have their AT brought in line. Right now armor/monsters both internally and externally are suffering from "but Erads/Abike and Fusion/Haywire"


Remember when everyone was like "hordes are dead"? Pepperidge Farm remembers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote:
CWE+Harli soups are winning tournaments.


And GSC. And Custodes. And Daemons. And Necrons. And AdMech. And Sisters. And Orks.

Nids and Eldar were sitting low and both have some potentially helpful point cuts.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/09 02:14:32


Post by: VladimirHerzog


Karol wrote:
If you nerf eradictors and attack bikes, then the next thing you are going to have to nerf is MM devastators, melta drop sterguard, and by the time you do that marines will stop having an efficient anti tank option. While at the same time harlequins are going to runing with an anti tank and anti meq gun on every troop model.

The only thing this would achive is to make marines worse, harlequins better and the CWE codex a problem if it has a single good tank or vehicle in it. Even now with all those OP marines running around , CWE+Harli soups are winning tournaments.

lascannons and thunderhammers would still be in the game...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Daedalus81 wrote:


And GSC. And Custodes. And Daemons. And Necrons. And AdMech. And Sisters. And Orks.

Nids and Eldar were sitting low and both have some potentially helpful point cuts.


yeah but those dont matter to their eyes, eldars bad mmmkay


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/09 04:08:19


Post by: yukishiro1


Nids and Eldar just got their points back to something close to what they should have been in the beginning but for really bad decisions made by someone who was probably actually intoxicated at the time.

I mean, 10 point guardians? Seriously? That's trippin' territory.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/09 05:15:43


Post by: Gadzilla666


Daedalus81 wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Rihgu wrote:

On the other end of the spectrum, "because it makes so much sense to make the chaos lord overpriced because you're assuming it's giving 3 fellblades re-roll"



well.. yeah it does. Its the chaos lord's ability, not the fellblades. Its the same problem with the Guilliman tax that caused the mid 8th marine slump.


Right it is the age old problem, but eventually lords won't be giving super heavies rerolls. For now they do - whether this is worth distinction I don't know.

Whether it is or not, I doubt gw considered it. All of these shared units for loyalists and CSM have had the same price for multiple editions, long before CORE was a factor. This particular argument is odd to begin with: who's bringing 3 600 PPM Fellblades for their Chaos Lord to buff? Realistically, if you want to use this argument I'd look at their ability to buff something like Vindicator Laser Destroyers in their current rules.

Eldarain wrote:
Karol wrote:
 Eldarain wrote:
Or remove it and increase the price of the Attack Bike.


That would be a double nerf, I am not sure what it would suppose to achive, specialy considering that harliequins were not change in the faq batch at all.

They also need to have their AT brought in line. Right now armor/monsters both internally and externally are suffering from "but Erads/Abike and Fusion/Haywire"

Either some current AT units are underpriced or vehicles are overpriced. Right now 5 eradicators with the heavy meltas (245 points) can reliably kill 300+ PPM tanks in a single round of shooting. That's just too efficient. The 5 PPM increase is not enough. I don't want to see infantry AT priced out of the game, but right now lot of it it's too cheap in relation to most of its intended targets.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/09 05:16:18


Post by: Daedalus81


*shrug* Fully loaded Stompa is down 15.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/09 05:55:20


Post by: Hecaton


 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Either some current AT units are underpriced or vehicles are overpriced. Right now 5 eradicators with the heavy meltas (245 points) can reliably kill 300+ PPM tanks in a single round of shooting. That's just too efficient. The 5 PPM increase is not enough. I don't want to see infantry AT priced out of the game, but right now lot of it it's too cheap in relation to most of its intended targets.


That would be "too efficient" in any other faction, but it makes Astartes players feel like they're in control, like they have the upper hand, it'll get them to buy more models because they feel rewarded by GW for their allegiance.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/09 06:15:06


Post by: Gadzilla666


Hecaton wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Either some current AT units are underpriced or vehicles are overpriced. Right now 5 eradicators with the heavy meltas (245 points) can reliably kill 300+ PPM tanks in a single round of shooting. That's just too efficient. The 5 PPM increase is not enough. I don't want to see infantry AT priced out of the game, but right now lot of it it's too cheap in relation to most of its intended targets.


That would be "too efficient" in any other faction, but it makes Astartes players feel like they're in control, like they have the upper hand, it'll get them to buy more models because they feel rewarded by GW for their allegiance.

You do realize that the overpriced 300+PPM tanks I was referring to were repulsors, right? The issue is underpriced infantry AT vs overpriced vehicles. Harliequins get it too cheap with fusion pistols + haywire, SoB get it too cheap with retributors, it isn't just a loyalists issue. Eradicators are just the most egregious example.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/09 09:24:27


Post by: Blackie


 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Right now 5 eradicators with the heavy meltas (245 points) can reliably kill 300+ PPM tanks in a single round of shooting. That's just too efficient. The 5 PPM increase is not enough. I don't want to see infantry AT priced out of the game, but right now lot of it it's too cheap in relation to most of its intended targets.


Problem with Eradicators is the combination of their damage outpur and their stats. If they were firstborn marines with T4 2W they'd be fine at 40-45ppm, basically Devastators that are paying some extra points for getting assault weapons and double tap.

They'd be fair. Gravis armour dudes are almost as tough as light vehicles. At 45ppm they need to give up both assault and double tap or to be priced at 55-65ppm. Gravis and primaris dudes are all cheaper than they should be actually.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/09 10:06:27


Post by: Bosskelot


Eradicators and the Reanimator are both units that can't really be fixed without changing their datasheets. Just tweaking their points is always going result in a situation where they're either too cheap or too expensive because their core abilities are so problematic.

Like, with the Reanimator I'm not even sure the army really needs it as a unit anyway. You don't super rely on tougher units to be reanimating and units like Warriors don't require it at all to be tanky unshiftable tarpits for opponents to deal with. However, if you actually get a +1 to RP on warriors it's incredibly strong and that's why the hoops the Reanimator has to jump through are so ridiculous. Making it too cheap also leads to a situation like old-RP where suddenly that rule becomes oppressive at lower points levels.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/09 20:28:54


Post by: Daedalus81


 Bosskelot wrote:
Eradicators and the Reanimator are both units that can't really be fixed without changing their datasheets. Just tweaking their points is always going result in a situation where they're either too cheap or too expensive because their core abilities are so problematic.

Like, with the Reanimator I'm not even sure the army really needs it as a unit anyway. You don't super rely on tougher units to be reanimating and units like Warriors don't require it at all to be tanky unshiftable tarpits for opponents to deal with. However, if you actually get a +1 to RP on warriors it's incredibly strong and that's why the hoops the Reanimator has to jump through are so ridiculous. Making it too cheap also leads to a situation like old-RP where suddenly that rule becomes oppressive at lower points levels.


Yep.

Some thoughts on the reanimator though.

At this point it needs to bring back 6 models with its ability to be equivalent to just taking more warriors. That means 36 necrons would need to die on average. This seems like a large figure, but it is achievable when buffing just a single unit due to models coming back.

If the reanimator does nothing, but rez 6 models it is a wash, BUT the reanimator itself is still on the table. It is also 6 wounds at T5 3+ making it roughly similar in durability to the models it replaces. Add in that it has 6 S6 AP2 shots and 4 S5 AP2 melee attacks it makes for a pretty decent support unit especially when paired with Reaper Necrons.

So, if the reanimator can hide for a bit (nice and skinny) and then join the fray mid battle when anti-tank is reduced and if it rezzes 3 or 4 models it likely has paid for itself and more. If it takes anti-tank on the chin early then it is a bigger loss overall.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/09 20:39:16


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


Except I’d always use a Reanimator on Immortals, as they’re my hitty units. Warriors don’t really need it.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/09 22:32:15


Post by: The Newman


 Bosskelot wrote:
Eradicators and the Reanimator are both units that can't really be fixed without changing their datasheets. Just tweaking their points is always going result in a situation where they're either too cheap or too expensive because their core abilities are so problematic.

Like, with the Reanimator I'm not even sure the army really needs it as a unit anyway. You don't super rely on tougher units to be reanimating and units like Warriors don't require it at all to be tanky unshiftable tarpits for opponents to deal with. However, if you actually get a +1 to RP on warriors it's incredibly strong and that's why the hoops the Reanimator has to jump through are so ridiculous. Making it too cheap also leads to a situation like old-RP where suddenly that rule becomes oppressive at lower points levels.


Not that I'm going to defend Eradicators at 45 points, but as others have pointed out it's worth looking at what is on either side of them.

On one side Devastator Marines with Multimeltas are 7 points cheaper so for the cost of 4 Eradicators you can have 4 Devs with MMs plus the Serg and a Cherub which is just about on par and can split fire without losing half it's hitting power, and also have T1 Deep strike and much cheaper transport options for what that's worth.

On the other side for 10 more points you have MM Attack bikes with an extra wound, 9" more movement, and a stormbolter that also can move and shoot and split fire without penalty.

As bad as they look (especially compared to the AT options in Xenos factions, that's just a travesty) the issue isn't really the Eradicators, Marines have other options that are almost as good. It's that tanks are just absurdly squishy for their points by comparison.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/09 22:37:14


Post by: Daedalus81


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Except I’d always use a Reanimator on Immortals, as they’re my hitty units. Warriors don’t really need it.


No argument there. Immortals makes the math a little nicer since they'd only have to save 4 to 5 models, but realistically 2 or 3 to be potentially worth it.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/10 00:01:35


Post by: Gadzilla666


The Newman wrote:
 Bosskelot wrote:
Eradicators and the Reanimator are both units that can't really be fixed without changing their datasheets. Just tweaking their points is always going result in a situation where they're either too cheap or too expensive because their core abilities are so problematic.

Like, with the Reanimator I'm not even sure the army really needs it as a unit anyway. You don't super rely on tougher units to be reanimating and units like Warriors don't require it at all to be tanky unshiftable tarpits for opponents to deal with. However, if you actually get a +1 to RP on warriors it's incredibly strong and that's why the hoops the Reanimator has to jump through are so ridiculous. Making it too cheap also leads to a situation like old-RP where suddenly that rule becomes oppressive at lower points levels.


Not that I'm going to defend Eradicators at 45 points, but as others have pointed out it's worth looking at what is on either side of them.

On one side Devastator Marines with Multimeltas are 7 points cheaper so for the cost of 4 Eradicators you can have 4 Devs with MMs plus the Serg and a Cherub which is just about on par and can split fire without losing half it's hitting power, and also have T1 Deep strike and much cheaper transport options for what that's worth.

On the other side for 10 more points you have MM Attack bikes with an extra wound, 9" more movement, and a stormbolter that also can move and shoot and split fire without penalty.

As bad as they look (especially compared to the AT options in Xenos factions, that's just a travesty) the issue isn't really the Eradicators, Marines have other options that are almost as good. It's that tanks are just absurdly squishy for their points by comparison.

So maybe there should be a general price drop for most vehicles (pretty much anything without an invul and not a dreadnought) along a price increase for multi-meltas and melta units like eradicators. Say about 10% each way, that way melta isn't nerfed into the ground and vehicles become less squishy in general.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/10 00:17:52


Post by: Karol


If you rise point cost of melta, rise the point cost of units carrying them, make tanks cheaper, and I assume that marine tanks stay the same cost, and we aren't suddenly seeing 65pts dreads with MM running around the tables, the marines would be in a rather rough shape, when other armies start getting their rules for 9th. Not to mention tha armageddon that would happen, in an edition or two, when GW finaly phases out all the non primaris models, and suddenly those eradictors are along side the ATV the only anti tank marine have worth taking. Because I really don't think GW is going to make primaris tanks cheaper or give them +4 invs.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/10 00:27:32


Post by: The Newman


I don't think adjusting the points is the answer, I'd say something like Duty Eternal across the board for all Vehicles/Monsters with really tough units like Land Raiders and Monoliths are supposed to be having a -2 instead of a -1 is closer to the right answer. Something to make engaging tanks with small arms and light/medium machine gun fire a losing proposition.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/10 00:46:42


Post by: Gadzilla666


The Newman wrote:
I don't think adjusting the points is the answer, I'd say something like Duty Eternal across the board for all Vehicles/Monsters with really tough units like Land Raiders and Monoliths are supposed to be having a -2 instead of a -1 is closer to the right answer. Something to make engaging tanks with small arms and light/medium machine gun fire a losing proposition.

That would work against melta and other AT weapons, but wouldn't affect small arms, unless you're going to let that ability reduce damage to 0. It would also require adding the rule to a lot of units, and gw generally only does that with new editions/codexes.

@Karol: Of course you'd reduce prices for loyalist vehicles as well. Repulsors and Land Raiders are already overpriced.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/10 00:48:33


Post by: BrianDavion


The Newman wrote:
I don't think adjusting the points is the answer, I'd say something like Duty Eternal across the board for all Vehicles/Monsters with really tough units like Land Raiders and Monoliths are supposed to be having a -2 instead of a -1 is closer to the right answer. Something to make engaging tanks with small arms and light/medium machine gun fire a losing proposition.


not a bad idea TBH. A Land Raider outta be pretty much impervious to all but the heaviest weapons given that's it's whole schtick.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/10 00:50:37


Post by: Karol


 Gadzilla666 wrote:

That would work against melta and other AT weapons, but wouldn't affect small arms, unless you're going to let that ability reduce damage to 0. It would also require adding the rule to a lot of units, and gw generally only does that with new editions/codexes.

@Karol: Of course you'd reduce prices for loyalist vehicles as well. Repulsors and Land Raiders are already overpriced.


So all this would change is that we would suddenly see swarms of land speeders with multi meltas and dreadnoughts with meltas .

IMO the best way to deal with it is to assume that this edition melta is the king of weapons, and not plasma, and that it will probably change in 10th ed. And God helps us, if in mid edition GW decides to change it, because the way they over compansate we are going to see 4 shot str 6 ap3 plasma and melta having its range cut by half, or getting the extra shot at half range only.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/10 00:54:41


Post by: JNAProductions


BrianDavion wrote:
The Newman wrote:
I don't think adjusting the points is the answer, I'd say something like Duty Eternal across the board for all Vehicles/Monsters with really tough units like Land Raiders and Monoliths are supposed to be having a -2 instead of a -1 is closer to the right answer. Something to make engaging tanks with small arms and light/medium machine gun fire a losing proposition.


not a bad idea TBH. A Land Raider outta be pretty much impervious to all but the heaviest weapons given that's it's whole schtick.
Do we really want it to take 64 Thunder Hammer hits to kill a Land Raider?

As compared to 288 AP-1 Bolter hits.
192 AP-2 Bolter hits.

Because that actually makes D1 better than D2, D3, or Dd3 against a Land Raider, because you're not wasting points on a stat that does nothing. Hell, even Dd6 only averages to 2 damage. That'd make a Missile Launcher only about six times as effective as a Bolt Rifle during the Tactical Doctrine.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/10 01:06:16


Post by: warmaster21


Id rather see vehicles and monsters get a weight class keyword (light, medium, heavy, juggernaut) and come with an ignore ap 0/1/2/3 rule or something similar, and adjust AT weapons around the tier of vehicles they are designed to fight.

Would make heavier vehicles more resistant to D2 low ap weapons while still allowing proper at to hurt them.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/10 02:44:16


Post by: yukishiro1


Damage reduction is a terrible solution to ridiculous damage inflation.

If GW is really committed to this new game where 130 point squads are shooting 6 D6+2 damage shots...the solution isn't damage reduction, it's just raising the amount of wounds vehicle have.

Now the real solution is taking back the mental decision that the game needed to be even more deadly than it already was. But that's clearly not going to happen. So the next best solution is inflating the wounds characteristic to go with the inflated damage characteristic.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/10 02:59:35


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


Quick question:

Have LRs ever been considered Super Heavies? In the lore they are as large as Baneblades.

They already cost the same, give LRs 28 wounds and give Baneblades a price decrease. Call LRs Superheavy and make them cost cp instead of points.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/10 02:59:56


Post by: NinthMusketeer


I think vehicles need more defense against non-AT fire. Just more toughness, wounds, and save could probably do it. I was pretty shocked that SM vehicles weren't 2+ save standard.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/10 04:44:53


Post by: ccs


 JNAProductions wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
The Newman wrote:
I don't think adjusting the points is the answer, I'd say something like Duty Eternal across the board for all Vehicles/Monsters with really tough units like Land Raiders and Monoliths are supposed to be having a -2 instead of a -1 is closer to the right answer. Something to make engaging tanks with small arms and light/medium machine gun fire a losing proposition.


not a bad idea TBH. A Land Raider outta be pretty much impervious to all but the heaviest weapons given that's it's whole schtick.
Do we really want it to take 64 Thunder Hammer hits to kill a Land Raider?

As compared to 288 AP-1 Bolter hits.
192 AP-2 Bolter hits.

Because that actually makes D1 better than D2, D3, or Dd3 against a Land Raider, because you're not wasting points on a stat that does nothing. Hell, even Dd6 only averages to 2 damage. That'd make a Missile Launcher only about six times as effective as a Bolt Rifle during the Tactical Doctrine.


Ideally I'd like to see such weapons not be able to damage these targets at all.
But if you insist that your non-AT weapons should still be able to affect such targets? Then yes, you should have to invest a stupid amount of effort .


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/10 06:57:34


Post by: Matt.Kingsley


What? But damage reduction effects don't affect 1 Damage weapons.

Basically you just make anti-tank weapons worse at killing tanks with the pay-off being... Overcharged Plasma is less good?


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/10 07:10:32


Post by: Bitharne


I think the simplest fix for Tanks is to give them a special rule against small arms that they roll TWO dice for their armor save and pick the best.

Thus a Krak Missile would be better at punching into a Rhino or Land Raider than a Tactical Doctrine Bolt Rifle would.

Either add another Tag like "Blast" to weapons that denote them as "Anti-Tank" which bypasses the double armor rule; or just apply the double armor roll to S4/5 or less weapons to make it apply fairly simply.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/10 07:20:57


Post by: Eldarain


They should have just increased AT targets wound count making dedicated AT weaponry the best way of dealing with them. (While still moving the AT weaponry to the higher average more reliable profiles we've seen)

It seems like instead they heard High rate of fire mid Str/D weapons are the best AT weapons and cranked up AT weapons alone. Not fixing the problem and making AT targets worse without adjusting their points.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/10 08:16:25


Post by: Spoletta


All the current problems are tied to melta, so instead of changing everything everywhere, maybe that it would be better to just fix melta.

I would actually be fine with the current damage output of melta. It is supposed to be devastating. It isn't supposed to be long range though. When the perk of multimelta was that it had longer range it was fine. Now that is an actual MULTI-melta, then there is no reason to keep that range. I would drop multi meltas to range 16", same for both versions of the eradicators melta. At that range it can be killy.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/10 08:48:18


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think vehicles need more defense against non-AT fire. Just more toughness, wounds, and save could probably do it. I was pretty shocked that SM vehicles weren't 2+ save standard.
If GW weren't so afraid of rules that can be applied across the game (some might call them, universal) then they could easily resolve this by introducing the concept or Anti-Infantry, Anti-Vehicle and "Macro" or whatever weapons for things that should be able to do both.

That would use the keyword system that already exists (units would be defined as either Infantry or Vehicles), and the opposite type of weapon would have a penalty vs the non-optimal target (ie. Anti-Infantry weapons only wound units with the Vehicle Keyword on a 6+). That's a potentially extreme example, but you get the idea.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/10 10:07:30


Post by: Blackie


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think vehicles need more defense against non-AT fire. Just more toughness, wounds, and save could probably do it. I was pretty shocked that SM vehicles weren't 2+ save standard.
If GW weren't so afraid of rules that can be applied across the game (some might call them, universal) then they could easily resolve this by introducing the concept or Anti-Infantry, Anti-Vehicle and "Macro" or whatever weapons for things that should be able to do both.

That would use the keyword system that already exists (units would be defined as either Infantry or Vehicles), and the opposite type of weapon would have a penalty vs the non-optimal target (ie. Anti-Infantry weapons only wound units with the Vehicle Keyword on a 6+). That's a potentially extreme example, but you get the idea.


But it's mostly anti tank tools like melta weapons that make vehicles squishy. Lasguns that actually damage Land Raiders is a fairy tale.

I'd like vehicles to be tougher, but without adding more dice rolling, more wounds or mechanics like those abilities that reduce damage. I'd simply cut ALL re-rolls, including from CPs, except maybe but just a few relegated to specific signature units, like Tankbusta, I'd also remove ALL the fire-twice abilties (inlcuding options like sisters' cherubs) with no exceptions and some of the combos that enhance some firepower to be overly devastating. Increase the points cost of some weapons if there the need to do it and that's it.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/10 10:40:49


Post by: Tyel


The problem is caused by the fact they've completely arbitrarily given MMs 2 shots (and Eradicators effectively 2 shots) without a points increase. So combined with the change to melta rules, they are just ludicrously lethal - offering easy 100%+ returns on normal dice, and 150-200% on above average or buffed up dice.

You could argue all vehicles without invuls were already too weak in the meta of buffed up las cannons, krak missiles, anything really - but this is what has snapped things completely.

As a result of the change an MM is now about 3 times as good as a lascannon for 5 more points. Its 10 points less than a double las, which is clearly crazy.

To vaguely balance this stupidity, GW is now forced to go through all the other factions and boost their comparable guns too (or not, cue obvious imbalance). We should see with Dark Eldar very soon.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/10 10:45:06


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


So what you’re saying is anti-tank weapons should be less good at taking out tanks?


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/10 10:54:02


Post by: kodos


The Newman wrote:

On one side Devastator Marines with Multimeltas are 7 points cheaper so for the cost of 4 Eradicators you can have 4 Devs with MMs plus the Serg and a Cherub which is just about on par and can split fire without losing half it's hitting power, and also have T1 Deep strike and much cheaper transport options for what that's worth.

On the other side for 10 more points you have MM Attack bikes with an extra wound, 9" more movement, and a stormbolter that also can move and shoot and split fire without penalty.

As bad as they look (especially compared to the AT options in Xenos factions, that's just a travesty) the issue isn't really the Eradicators, Marines have other options that are almost as good.


and this is the point why the problem is not going away with points and will get even worse over time

for the scale 40k as a game is, there is limited design space for units and now Marines have 3 identical units with a very narrow line for the "right" point costs for each of them with the result that 1 unit will always be better than the other two depending on the current core rules/scenarios

the issue with 40k an Marines is that there are several units for the very same batttlefield role and you cannot balance them internally any more and the solution that GW has for that problem is to release more units because people only buying the new ones because they look better won't get into that problem any way

and this problem also carry over to all those community-rules that try to fix 40k, without reducing the number of units that do the same

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think vehicles need more defense against non-AT fire. Just more toughness, wounds, and save could probably do it. I was pretty shocked that SM vehicles weren't 2+ save standard.
If GW weren't so afraid of rules that can be applied across the game (some might call them, universal) then they could easily resolve this by introducing the concept or Anti-Infantry, Anti-Vehicle and "Macro" or whatever weapons for things that should be able to do both.

That would use the keyword system that already exists (units would be defined as either Infantry or Vehicles), and the opposite type of weapon would have a penalty vs the non-optimal target (ie. Anti-Infantry weapons only wound units with the Vehicle Keyword on a 6+). That's a potentially extreme example, but you get the idea.


we already were at that point in 40k game design with the result that we got heavy Anti-Infantry weapons that were better at killing tanks than the Anti-Tank weapons

problem with GW here is that no matter what the initial idea is, they throw it away after the 3rd Codex because they are bored from the rules and think the new faction need something new & different to be exiting and they have some crazy ideas that need to be used somewhere

it would already help if they were able to keep one basic design over a full edition and not changing it twice (so even if at the beginning of 9th vehicles would be wounded by everything without the Anti-Tank Keyword on a 6+, at the end everyone would have either an Anti-Infantry weapon with the AT Keyword or some Auras/Buffs would overwrite it by adding default +2 to wound or killing without a "to wound" roll needed)


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/10 11:26:26


Post by: Tyel


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
So what you’re saying is anti-tank weapons should be less good at taking out tanks?


In brief, yes.

In very crude terms, I think all-comer guns should get *on average* 25% returns on everything. Specialised weapons should get say 10% returns on the wrong targets, and 45% or so on the right targets.

The general lethality in 8th went up and up to the point you'd probably add 10% on top of this base, and then another 10% for usual synergy.

The issue today is that MMs give 100% returns on average dice. Increasingly significantly if in 12" range or when buffs are applied. Which is completely out of whack with other weapon interactions in the game.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/10 11:42:40


Post by: ccs


 Blackie wrote:

But it's mostly anti tank tools like melta weapons that make vehicles squishy.


I think you've missed the fact that this is EXACTLY what melta weapons are supposed to do.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/10 11:46:24


Post by: Duskweaver


"A model with the VEHICLE keyword can reroll failed armour saving throws against attacks with a damage characteristic of 1."

Would that work as a universal rule?


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/10 12:01:47


Post by: Jidmah


Attacks with a damage characteristic of 1 are not the problem. MBH aren't even anywhere near eradicators in efficiency, but ever since the multi-melta change I didn't have to roll for the missile launchers even once. Next to nothing in the game survives getting hit by 3 multi-meltas at half range.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/10 12:30:40


Post by: ccs


 Jidmah wrote:
Next to nothing in the game survives getting hit by 3 multi-meltas at half range.


And? You make it sound like this is some recent revelation. It's not.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/10 12:45:06


Post by: Blackie


ccs wrote:
 Blackie wrote:

But it's mostly anti tank tools like melta weapons that make vehicles squishy.


I think you've missed the fact that this is EXACTLY what melta weapons are supposed to do.


No, you missed the point of my post. I was responding to H.B.M.C who said that weapons should get a role, so anti-infantry weapons don't hurt vehicles so much. I replied that anti tank weapons already do most of the job against vehicles so making anti-infantry weapons less powerful against vehicles doesn't really change anything.

I'm actually in favor of the current Melta weapons' profiles. I don't like all the tools to increase damage to unreasonable limits, and anything that involves more dice rolling, especially re-rolls and firing-twice mechanics.



New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/10 13:16:06


Post by: Jidmah


ccs wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Next to nothing in the game survives getting hit by 3 multi-meltas at half range.


And? You make it sound like this is some recent revelation. It's not.


When "nothing" includes a range of a 65 trukks to 900 point lords of war, how do you properly price such a weapon?


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/10 13:36:16


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Blackie wrote:
But it's mostly anti tank tools like melta weapons that make vehicles squishy. Lasguns that actually damage Land Raiders is a fairy tale.
I don't know how many times this has to be stated, but this isn't about Lasguns.

This is about the mid-strength, mid-damage, multi-shot weapons that are generally more effective against vehicles than actual anti-tank weapons. The things that are very powerful anti-infantry weapons, and as a result become far more efficient vehicle killers simple due to weight of fire mixed with consistent damage.

Tyel wrote:
The problem is caused by the fact they've completely arbitrarily given MMs 2 shots (and Eradicators effectively 2 shots) without a points increase.
I'd argue they've made MMs worth their points cost, whereas before they weren't worth taking at all.



New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/10 14:33:51


Post by: bullyboy


Melta is fine, it needed a change because it wasn't optimal before. Its only an issue at half range, so that mostly rules out regular melta and focuses on multi-melta and eradicators.
The latter just need to lose the double shoot rule, period. Didn't they learn from aggressors?
Other platforms have a known threat range of 12", thats your parameter you have to work with. Yes, the board is smaller and the middle ground is more important....oops, unintended consequences.
If you want to protect vehicles from melta, you need to screen them from 12" instead of the 9" screen vs deep strike.

For one though, not sad to see melta on the board.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/10 14:40:16


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Jidmah wrote:
ccs wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Next to nothing in the game survives getting hit by 3 multi-meltas at half range.


And? You make it sound like this is some recent revelation. It's not.


When "nothing" includes a range of a 65 trukks to 900 point lords of war, how do you properly price such a weapon?

Somebody shoot your Stompa with a bunch of multi-melta Salamanders Devastators with full rerolls to hit and wound? That's the only way I see one getting destroyed in one round of shooting from 3 multi-meltas. I think that's a problem with the number of force multipliers that can be stacked on a unit. That WOMBO COMBO crap needs to go away.

I still think multi-meltas and things like eradicators are underpriced for their efficiency against their intended targets though (and Stompas are WAAYYY overpriced).


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/10 15:12:02


Post by: warmaster21


 Jidmah wrote:
ccs wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Next to nothing in the game survives getting hit by 3 multi-meltas at half range.


And? You make it sound like this is some recent revelation. It's not.


When "nothing" includes a range of a 65 trukks to 900 point lords of war, how do you properly price such a weapon?


you price them based on the tier of vehicles they are suppose to kill. If you have weapons that efficiently kill warlord titans they should be extremely expensive, and if you are using them to pop trucks then that's your own fault for overkill, adversely an AT weapon designed to kill trucks, sentinels, should be far cheaper in comparison. though of course there are considerations to be made with range, accessibility, reliability, etc etc

its a fine balancing act to have weapons that kill vehicles but dont also shread infantry in equal measure. and vice versa


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/10 15:53:08


Post by: The Newman


 warmaster21 wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
ccs wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Next to nothing in the game survives getting hit by 3 multi-meltas at half range.


And? You make it sound like this is some recent revelation. It's not.


When "nothing" includes a range of a 65 trukks to 900 point lords of war, how do you properly price such a weapon?


you price them based on the tier of vehicles they are suppose to kill. If you have weapons that efficiently kill warlord titans they should be extremely expensive, and if you are using them to pop trucks then that's your own fault for overkill, adversely an AT weapon designed to kill trucks, sentinels, should be far cheaper in comparison. though of course there are considerations to be made with range, accessibility, reliability, etc etc

its a fine balancing act to have weapons that kill vehicles but dont also shread infantry in equal measure. and vice versa


And of course that's a problem with basic game design, it wouldn't be a fine balancing act if there was more differentiation between vehicle/monster and infantry profiles.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/10 17:21:12


Post by: catbarf


The Newman wrote:
it wouldn't be a fine balancing act if there was more differentiation between vehicle/monster and infantry profiles.


I'd say it's more an issue of vehicles not having much differentiation. Back when we had AV you really felt the difference in durability between an AV11 Rhino and an AV14 Leman Russ- the Rhino had to be scared of plasma and autocannons, where the Russ was more concerned with lascannons.

Now most weapons are wounding both on the same value, and they both have the same save, so in practice the only real difference is number of wounds. And that's why massed autocannons/disintegrators/etc are great, because you don't need the heavy anti-tank weapons; just take as many mid-strength guns as you can and that covers your anti-infantry and anti-tank requirements while still being effective if you run into an all-infantry or all-tank skew list.

I still don't understand why tanks don't have a 2+ save. That alone would make for a significant difference in feel between lighter APCs/IFVs that may be somewhat vulnerable to small arms versus proper tanks that you need AP to beat.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/10 17:22:05


Post by: KurtAngle2


 bullyboy wrote:
Melta is fine, it needed a change because it wasn't optimal before. Its only an issue at half range, so that mostly rules out regular melta and focuses on multi-melta and eradicators.
The latter just need to lose the double shoot rule, period. Didn't they learn from aggressors?
Other platforms have a known threat range of 12", thats your parameter you have to work with. Yes, the board is smaller and the middle ground is more important....oops, unintended consequences.
If you want to protect vehicles from melta, you need to screen them from 12" instead of the 9" screen vs deep strike.

For one though, not sad to see melta on the board.


Absolutely not, MM having 2 shots instead of 1 and a better half-range rule for the same cost as before was a classic GW overreaction that made Lascannons always worse than MM in any scenario.
No way a Lascannon is 20 pts when a MM is 25: the latter needs to cost 35 pts to actually represent the efficiency difference between these two.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/10 17:32:44


Post by: Ork-en Man


I would use the Anti-Tank keyword for weapons and add a Heavy Armor keyword to certain vehicles. Any weapon without the AT keyword would only get 1 shot ap0 d1 against Heavy Armor vehicles. That would stop the anti-elite/light vehicle weapons from drowning tanks in fire.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/10 18:11:54


Post by: Spoletta


KurtAngle2 wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
Melta is fine, it needed a change because it wasn't optimal before. Its only an issue at half range, so that mostly rules out regular melta and focuses on multi-melta and eradicators.
The latter just need to lose the double shoot rule, period. Didn't they learn from aggressors?
Other platforms have a known threat range of 12", thats your parameter you have to work with. Yes, the board is smaller and the middle ground is more important....oops, unintended consequences.
If you want to protect vehicles from melta, you need to screen them from 12" instead of the 9" screen vs deep strike.

For one though, not sad to see melta on the board.


Absolutely not, MM having 2 shots instead of 1 and a better half-range rule for the same cost as before was a classic GW overreaction that made Lascannons always worse than MM in any scenario.
No way a Lascannon is 20 pts when a MM is 25: the latter needs to cost 35 pts to actually represent the efficiency difference between these two.


I agree.

Multimeltas right now are out of whack. What they need though isn't an increase in cost, because they are so good at anti tank that you would have to price them in the stratosphere. They need limits. Either a low range, or severely lowered effects when above half range.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/10 18:54:26


Post by: alextroy


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Tyel wrote:
The problem is caused by the fact they've completely arbitrarily given MMs 2 shots (and Eradicators effectively 2 shots) without a points increase.
I'd argue they've made MMs worth their points cost, whereas before they weren't worth taking at all.
You made my point before I did. We went from MFM where MMs were overcosted to now them being undercoated by the rules adjustment. Rather funny how quickly opinions swing.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/10 19:12:32


Post by: Lord Zarkov


 alextroy wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Tyel wrote:
The problem is caused by the fact they've completely arbitrarily given MMs 2 shots (and Eradicators effectively 2 shots) without a points increase.
I'd argue they've made MMs worth their points cost, whereas before they weren't worth taking at all.
You made my point before I did. We went from MFM where MMs were overcosted to now them being undercoated by the rules adjustment. Rather funny how quickly opinions swing.


Agreed. Given how soon the rule change came out after MFM, MMs were almost certainly pointed in it based on the new profile (and IIRC they went up compared to 8th so people saying they doubled in shots without a point increase are being slightly disingenuous).

Eradicators are a problem though...


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/10 19:22:20


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


In the talk of changing how AT weapons work, who decides what is a dedicated AT weapon?

Baneblade cannon
Punisher cannon
Demolisher cannon?
Vulcan Mega Bolter? All of these can be effective AT weapons. But if we make this work on a AT/not AT basis.do we make the Baneblade suddenly crap against infantry? Or the Vulcan suck against Knights?

I would make anything T7+ flat out anything less than half it's T value. T7 is immune to S3 weapons. T8 is immune to S4. Etc.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/10 19:38:54


Post by: alextroy


FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
In the talk of changing how AT weapons work, who decides what is a dedicated AT weapon?

Baneblade cannon
Punisher cannon
Demolisher cannon?
Vulcan Mega Bolter? All of these can be effective AT weapons. But if we make this work on a AT/not AT basis.do we make the Baneblade suddenly crap against infantry? Or the Vulcan suck against Knights?

I would make anything T7+ flat out anything less than half it's T value. T7 is immune to S3 weapons. T8 is immune to S4. Etc.
GW, of course. They are the ones who know what the weapons are supposed to be


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/10 19:39:22


Post by: Denegaar


Maybe the rules should use more the keywords we have, making weapons better vs VEHICLE, for example... the same way a Poisoned Weapon is worse vs that keyword.

If you don't use that design space, a Guard and a Tank is just the same with different Sv, W and T values... so it's harder to specialize weapons.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/10 19:53:54


Post by: Gadzilla666


KurtAngle2 wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
Melta is fine, it needed a change because it wasn't optimal before. Its only an issue at half range, so that mostly rules out regular melta and focuses on multi-melta and eradicators.
The latter just need to lose the double shoot rule, period. Didn't they learn from aggressors?
Other platforms have a known threat range of 12", thats your parameter you have to work with. Yes, the board is smaller and the middle ground is more important....oops, unintended consequences.
If you want to protect vehicles from melta, you need to screen them from 12" instead of the 9" screen vs deep strike.

For one though, not sad to see melta on the board.


Absolutely not, MM having 2 shots instead of 1 and a better half-range rule for the same cost as before was a classic GW overreaction that made Lascannons always worse than MM in any scenario.
No way a Lascannon is 20 pts when a MM is 25: the latter needs to cost 35 pts to actually represent the efficiency difference between these two.

I think they made multi-meltas too cheap for infantry, as well as small cheap platforms like bikes and landspeeders. No one is complaining about multi-meltas on Leman Russes, or Immolators, or Achilles Land Raiders, or even dreadnoughts, because none of those have the same number of shots per points. They can't be used as effectively as a "suicide squad" that you just get into range, obliterate the target, and don't care what happens to them afterwards. Multi-melta Devastators, attack bikes, retributors, and eradicators (who effective have multi-meltas) are great for that. They're also easier to hide and deep strike from reserves or drop pods in the case of Devastators. Multi-meltas for infantry and eradicators need to be more expensive.

And those heavy meltas eradicators can take need to be way more than +5 points more than the standard guns. I don't know how you justify an infantry gun that averages the same damage as a Fellblade's accelerator cannon.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/10 20:09:52


Post by: a_typical_hero


FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I would make anything T7+ flat out anything less than half it's T value. T7 is immune to S3 weapons. T8 is immune to S4. Etc.


One Bolter shot by a Marine in Rapid Fire range does 0,074 wounds to a T8 3+ save target. Your proposed change does not alter that meaningfully. And it does not address the current problem: Melter is too efficient across the board at killing tanks and monsters.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/10 20:18:52


Post by: bullyboy


KurtAngle2 wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
Melta is fine, it needed a change because it wasn't optimal before. Its only an issue at half range, so that mostly rules out regular melta and focuses on multi-melta and eradicators.
The latter just need to lose the double shoot rule, period. Didn't they learn from aggressors?
Other platforms have a known threat range of 12", thats your parameter you have to work with. Yes, the board is smaller and the middle ground is more important....oops, unintended consequences.
If you want to protect vehicles from melta, you need to screen them from 12" instead of the 9" screen vs deep strike.

For one though, not sad to see melta on the board.


Absolutely not, MM having 2 shots instead of 1 and a better half-range rule for the same cost as before was a classic GW overreaction that made Lascannons always worse than MM in any scenario.
No way a Lascannon is 20 pts when a MM is 25: the latter needs to cost 35 pts to actually represent the efficiency difference between these two.


Lascannons are 100% better than MM at 25+" range.

I do agree that the cost should be adjusted though, just not by much. The MM needs to be at 12" or less and is less impressice vs T8.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/10 20:44:54


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


What if they reduced Melta to 8"? Then DS is out, and the actual idea of Melta is upheld. Get in close and shotgun the tank.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/10 21:13:51


Post by: Ice_can


a_typical_hero wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I would make anything T7+ flat out anything less than half it's T value. T7 is immune to S3 weapons. T8 is immune to S4. Etc.


One Bolter shot by a Marine in Rapid Fire range does 0,074 wounds to a T8 3+ save target. Your proposed change does not alter that meaningfully. And it does not address the current problem: Melter is too efficient across the board at killing tanks and monsters.

While I get your point there is an elephant in the room your sidestepping a little too quick
Marines due to the excessive stack of special rules they have tend to look far less efficient on raw stats than they actually are, no-one doesn't use the free rules and rerolls.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/10 21:55:56


Post by: Tyel


 bullyboy wrote:
Lascannons are 100% better than MM at 25+" range.

I do agree that the cost should be adjusted though, just not by much. The MM needs to be at 12" or less and is less impressice vs T8.


In older editions this may have mattered more, as you got negatives to hit from moving and units often castled in the corner rather than having to move on to mid-table objectives.
But that was then and this is now. Getting MMs into 24" is easy - getting them into 12" isn't all that hard unless we are talking back-table basilisks and the like.

MM and Las versus various targets at BS 3.

Versus T7/3+ (Predator)

MM: 2*2/3*2/3*1*3.5=3.11.
In half range: 4.88.
Las: 1*2/3*2/3*5/6*3.5=1.296.

The MM is 2.4 times as good - rising to 3.75 times as good in half range.

Versus T8/3+ (Leman Russ)

MM: 2*2/3*1/2*1*3.5=2.33.
In half range: 3.66
Las: 1*2/3*2/3*5/6*3.5=1.296.

MM is 1.8 times as good - rising to 2.82 times as good in half range.

Versus T8/3+/5++ (Knight)
MM: 2*2/3*1/2*2/3*3.5=1.55.
In half range: 2.44.
Las: 1*2/3*2/3*2/3*3.5=1.037.

The MM is 1.5 times as good, rising to 2.35 times as good in half range.

Versus T6/4+/5++ (Ravager)
MM: 2*2/3*2/3*2/3*3.5=2.07.
In half range: 3.259
Las: 1*2/3*2/3*2/3*3.5=1.037.

The MM is twice as good, rising to 3.14 times in half range.

These figures are not close - and nowhere near the sort of boost in damage output you should getting for 5 more points.
MM is broken in 24" - it becomes obscene in 12".


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/10 21:58:09


Post by: Klickor


Lasguns and bolters aren't killing tanks alone. But them being able to wound tanks are a bit problematic. If you have an opposing knight with only a couple of wounds left you can try to take off the last wounds with your lasguns before dedicating a whole tank commander to finish it off. Most often it isn't the weakest guns that do this well but the ones like heavy bolters. Mid range guns like that aren't that bad at finishing of vehicles.

In earlier editions Heavy Bolters couldnt even scratch the paint on anything tougher than a rhino while a Krak missile could threaten any vehicle, not very well, but way more threatening than the heavy bolter to armor. Now the range is a wash since getting Los over 36" isnt easy. Against a rotating knight the missile only wounds on 4s compared to the bolters 5s, same save and flat 2 damage vs a d6. With 3x the shots the bolter is way more likely to do the last 1-2dmg on something.

I have killed of the last 11 wounds on 2 knights with normal str 3-4 ap0 shots just due to weight of numbers in one game. He managed to kill all my anti-tank but still lost. We both had like 600pts left on the table and guardsmen can be quite efficient in a slugging match against knights. He kills so little points with each attack and while you only get a wound in for every 36 attacks each of those are worth as much as half a unit of guardsmen.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/10 22:31:46


Post by: Gadzilla666


 bullyboy wrote:
KurtAngle2 wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
Melta is fine, it needed a change because it wasn't optimal before. Its only an issue at half range, so that mostly rules out regular melta and focuses on multi-melta and eradicators.
The latter just need to lose the double shoot rule, period. Didn't they learn from aggressors?
Other platforms have a known threat range of 12", thats your parameter you have to work with. Yes, the board is smaller and the middle ground is more important....oops, unintended consequences.
If you want to protect vehicles from melta, you need to screen them from 12" instead of the 9" screen vs deep strike.

For one though, not sad to see melta on the board.


Absolutely not, MM having 2 shots instead of 1 and a better half-range rule for the same cost as before was a classic GW overreaction that made Lascannons always worse than MM in any scenario.
No way a Lascannon is 20 pts when a MM is 25: the latter needs to cost 35 pts to actually represent the efficiency difference between these two.


Lascannons are 100% better than MM at 25+" range.

I do agree that the cost should be adjusted though, just not by much. The MM needs to be at 12" or less and is less impressice vs T8.

Yes, lascannons have more range than multi-meltas, but they don't need to be within 12 to outperform lascannons against T8, remember, you're getting twice the shots and +1AP.

60 points of infantry lascannons at 15 points each (4) vs 60 points of infantry multi-meltas at 20 points each (3) on a BS3 platform against T8 3+:

4 lascannons: hitting on 3s, S9 vs T8 = wounding on 3s, AP-3 means saving on 6s, average damage 3.5: 4×.66=2.667×.66=1.778×.84=1.448×3.5=5.185 damage.

3 multi-meltas, 2 shots each for 6 shots, hitting on 3s, S8 vs T8 = wounding on 4s, AP-4 means no save, average damage 3.5: 6×.66=4×.5=2×3.5=7 damage. Get within 12 and average damage jumps to 11.

Now, increase those multi-meltas to 25 points each, so you get 5 lascannons for 3 multi-meltas.

5 lascannons on a BS3 platform vs T8 3+: 5×.66=3.333×.66=2.222×.84=1.852×3.5=6.481 damage.

So lascannons are still 100% better outside of 24, multi-meltas are slightly better outside of 12 (as they should be), and significantly better inside of 12 (once again, as they should be).

So agreed, they need to be adjusted, but not by much.

I'm still not sure how you balance those D6+2 damage heavy melta guns on eradicators though.

Edit: ninjad by Tyel.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/10 22:54:54


Post by: Insectum7


Many people say that bringing two Predators is double the firepower of a Land Raider. But once you put a Multimelta on it the Land Raider has the firepower of two Predators at close range.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/10 23:18:04


Post by: a_typical_hero


Ice_can wrote:
While I get your point there is an elephant in the room your sidestepping a little too quick
Marines due to the excessive stack of special rules they have tend to look far less efficient on raw stats than they actually are, no-one doesn't use the free rules and rerolls.


I did the math for 10 Intercessors equipped with each of their three Bolter variants sitting in their preferred doctrine for the type of Bolter, shooting at a T8 3+ target.
+ Chapter Master for full to hit rerolls
+ Lieutenant for rerolling 1s to wound
+ Catechism of Fire litany for +1 to wound for shooting at the nearest target
+ Recitation of Focus litany for +1 to hit
+ Storm of Fire warlord trait for getting an extra point of AP on to wound rolls of 6

If I'm correct we look at
- 6,93 wounds for Stalker bolt rifles
- 5,67 wounds for bolt rifles
- 6,62 wounds for Auto bolt rifles

That is enough damage from the squad to bring a Leman Russ or a Predator down one bracket, but at that point you are putting a lot of ressources into the Intercessors for an okay outcome and you have to be in the best possible circumstances. Without doing the math, I would expect a dedicated Melter unit to perform far better with just some of the buffs above.

I had a different thought, though, why I would actually welcome T8 being immune to low S fire. It saves me the time to wait through a full squad of FRFSRF Guardsmen or Ork boys shooting for little to no effect at all.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/10 23:37:30


Post by: Eonfuzz


Should vehicles and Dreadnought just have an inbuilt damage resistance? It'd make horde killing weapons not amazing at killing tanks?

Something like:
Dreadnought and Rhino Equivalents: Reduce damage taken by 1, minimum of 1
Predator and Equivs: Reduce damage taken by 2, minimum of 1
Land Raider and Equivs: Reduce damage taken by 2, minimum of 0


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/10 23:42:27


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Eonfuzz wrote:
Should vehicles and Dreadnought just have an inbuilt damage resistance? It'd make horde killing weapons not amazing at killing tanks?

Something like:
Dreadnought and Rhino Equivalents: Reduce damage taken by 1, minimum of 1
Predator and Equivs: Reduce damage taken by 2, minimum of 1
Land Raider and Equivs: Reduce damage taken by 2, minimum of 0


This is GW game design. Stack extra rules on top of the problem until it goes away. The problem is tied up in the way wounding and saves work (1s fail/6s pass in places where it really doesn't make sense), 2W infantry and weapons to kill 2W infantry in an environment where most vehicles have 8-12 wounds, and blast attacks having an irrationally high rate of fire against single targets. You could make a band-aid patch by passing out DR more broadly, but it'd make the game slower/more complicated without addressing the actual problems.


New FAQ, points and errata. @ 2021/01/11 00:05:13


Post by: Eonfuzz


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Eonfuzz wrote:
Should vehicles and Dreadnought just have an inbuilt damage resistance? It'd make horde killing weapons not amazing at killing tanks?

Something like:
Dreadnought and Rhino Equivalents: Reduce damage taken by 1, minimum of 1
Predator and Equivs: Reduce damage taken by 2, minimum of 1
Land Raider and Equivs: Reduce damage taken by 2, minimum of 0


This is GW game design. Stack extra rules on top of the problem until it goes away. The problem is tied up in the way wounding and saves work (1s fail/6s pass in places where it really doesn't make sense), 2W infantry and weapons to kill 2W infantry in an environment where most vehicles have 8-12 wounds, and blast attacks having an irrationally high rate of fire against single targets. You could make a band-aid patch by passing out DR more broadly, but it'd make the game slower/more complicated without addressing the actual problems.


Aye, it being a lazy rules bandaid is why I suggested it. GW aren't about to go back and revise their core rules at this point.