It's baffling they won't do that. The only explanation I can think of is they think that's what Laser Destroyers are for? But how many Imperial/Chaos units get those?
Making the autocannon Assault instead of the silly rules it currently has makes sense. It's basically an inferior Herakles now.
I'm curious to see what neutron lasers will do now.
If they handle them the same as the Neutron Lasers in the Compendium (Valdor Tank Hunter, Cerberus Heavy Tank Destroyer, Sicaran Venator), then it'll be a flat D6 if the unit remained stationary in your previous movement phase.
Do you know your thread title keeps setting off Dakka’s "too many exclamation marks" warning?
So the houndbois lose one wound and gain one toughness, which seems like a nerf..
The phosphor blast pistol becomes d3 shots instead of 1 shot.
The Arc Maul/power maul gain +1S and improves from AP-1 to AP-2
Edit: Oooh, and everyone got an extra attack on profile
Edit 2: Someone else noted that the galvanic carbines got AP-1 as well
Edit 3: The sulphur breath gets the standard upgrade to 12" range and also improves its AP to -2 (from AP-1)
Also, the phosphor blast rifle goes from 4 shots to 2d3 shots. Which is statistically the same of course but seems like a weird change. Are all phosphor weaponry going to random amount of shots? Because then Kastelans will feel that as a giant nerf.
I find it somewhat funny yet not surprising I get the horse guys finally only to see them lose a wound..sad. Was going to buff the squad sizes out but I'm going to pump the brakes on that and see what shakes out from the new stuff.
That said I do always say to get what you like and not whats good at the time, I have time to figure it out not like I'll be playing any time soon still.
Cybtroll wrote: 9th seems hell-bent on increasing the lethality even more than 8th and faster... I'mm baffled
I mean, are you shocked? Are you really?
Seems like half the units in the game are walking around with 2-3 wounds 2+/4++ and half of those only get wounded on 4s. Lethality HAS to go up because durability smashed right through the roof.
Ugh. Save me from 2d3 shot weapons. The epitome of pointless dice rolling with a strong average of 4, and the need to roll for every model in the unit. [Though the plasma inceptors are still even worse, since you have to worry about which one might die on overcharged shots]
H.B.M.C. wrote: Because they're the generic basic Lascannon, whereas the AdMech keeps the good stuff for themselves.
Bosskelot wrote: ...worst of their type. Dark Lances, Gauss Destructors and Cognis Las should all...
Admech have Dark Lances and Gauss Destructors now? How heretekal...
Less facetiously, I'm more wondering why regular lascannons have to be "the worst", not why equivalents should be better.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Because they're the generic basic Lascannon, whereas the AdMech keeps the good stuff for themselves.
Bosskelot wrote: ...worst of their type. Dark Lances, Gauss Destructors and Cognis Las should all...
Admech have Dark Lances and Gauss Destructors now? How heretekal...
Less facetiously, I'm more wondering why regular lascannons have to be "the worst", not why equivalents should be better.
Well, Dark/Bright Lances and Multimeltas are S8. I think people take the S9 on las for granted. It's nice to always wound on 3s.
It's frustrating that Lascannons are d6, but they're the most easily spammable long-range AT. I get why GW would keep them with a bit more swinginess.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Because they're the generic basic Lascannon, whereas the AdMech keeps the good stuff for themselves.
Bosskelot wrote: ...worst of their type. Dark Lances, Gauss Destructors and Cognis Las should all...
Admech have Dark Lances and Gauss Destructors now? How heretekal...
Less facetiously, I'm more wondering why regular lascannons have to be "the worst", not why equivalents should be better.
Because the wider Imperium is not as technologically advanced as races like the Aeldari or the Necrons.
Their Lascannons should be the worst available, but be the cheapest and most spammable to represent the mass-produced and easily replaceable nature of Imperial war materiel.
Ahhh, I see - when you said "the worst", I though you might mean that they should be absolutely inferior to lances etc. in every regard (including stuff like cost, spammability, etc).
Every option should be balanced by rules and point costs, even if some stuff is thematically weaker, it should not be competitively weaker. (Imperial guardsmen vs custodes for example outside weapon options)
No they should be worse in most regards, but just make up for that by being relatively cheaper and more easily spammed.
There's indications melta-type weaponry might be seeing the same sort of thing, if Heat Lances are anything to go by.
At the end of the day every Xenos race aside from like, Orks or Nids, should have superior weaponry on average compared to most Imperial Factions and you can balance and design around this through points costs or other factors like resilience. You represent lore on the table much better while also still having an interesting and varied game system. If Aeldari and Necrons are supposedly incredibly technologically advanced races then this should be represented in some fashion on the tabletop because it just makes the game fundamentally more interesting to have these differences represented.
I do think Lascannons should be useful in some way, and their current stats are problematic, but I also do not think that they should be the equals of Darklight or Gauss.
Bosskelot wrote: No they should be worse in most regards, but just make up for that by being relatively cheaper and more easily spammed.
There's indications melta-type weaponry might be seeing the same sort of thing, if Heat Lances are anything to go by.
At the end of the day every Xenos race aside from like, Orks or Nids, should have superior weaponry on average compared to most Imperial Factions and you can balance and design around this through points costs or other factors like resilience. You represent lore on the table much better while also still having an interesting and varied game system. If Aeldari and Necrons are supposedly incredibly technologically advanced races then this should be represented in some fashion on the tabletop because it just makes the game fundamentally more interesting to have these differences represented.
I do think Lascannons should be useful in some way, and their current stats are problematic, but I also do not think that they should be the equals of Darklight or Gauss.
Problem: Current price of a Dark Lance: 15 points. Current price of a lascannon: 15 points. So Chaos and Loyalist Scum are paying the same price for inferior weapons. That ain't cool. Make lascannons Dd6 MINIMUM 3 and cut the points. There's "worse than Xenos", and then there's just "bad".
Kanluwen wrote: The wielder certainly is a big deal, but nobody's going to take the weapon if it's lacklustre.
Which is why no one ever takes Lasguns, right?
If you were only allowed one Lascannon, I'd agree-but the fact that you can load up squads with them and slap them all over the place significantly mitigates its downsides.
Bosskelot wrote: No they should be worse in most regards, but just make up for that by being relatively cheaper and more easily spammed.
There's indications melta-type weaponry might be seeing the same sort of thing, if Heat Lances are anything to go by.
At the end of the day every Xenos race aside from like, Orks or Nids, should have superior weaponry on average compared to most Imperial Factions and you can balance and design around this through points costs or other factors like resilience. You represent lore on the table much better while also still having an interesting and varied game system. If Aeldari and Necrons are supposedly incredibly technologically advanced races then this should be represented in some fashion on the tabletop because it just makes the game fundamentally more interesting to have these differences represented.
I do think Lascannons should be useful in some way, and their current stats are problematic, but I also do not think that they should be the equals of Darklight or Gauss.
Problem: Current price of a Dark Lance: 15 points. Current price of a lascannon: 15 points. So Chaos and Loyalist Scum are paying the same price for inferior weapons. That ain't cool. Make lascannons Dd6 MINIMUM 3 and cut the points. There's "worse than Xenos", and then there's just "bad".
Yeah whilst I could understand 3+D3 for premium antivehicle weapons, Lascannons should get the D6 (Minimum 3) to be a somewhat decent weapon for its current cost
Gadzilla666 wrote: Problem: Current price of a Dark Lance: 15 points. Current price of a lascannon: 15 points. So Chaos and Loyalist Scum are paying the same price for inferior weapons. That ain't cool. Make lascannons Dd6 MINIMUM 3 and cut the points. There's "worse than Xenos", and then there's just "bad".
The point value of two weapons that will never be in the same army, yet alone on the same model isn't particularly important. Especially when Dark Lances are free on Raiders and Ravager
What is important is the overall package. Is a 140 Triple-Dark Lance Ravager a good point comparison to a 170 point Quad-Lascannon Predator Annihilator?
Gadzilla666 wrote: Problem: Current price of a Dark Lance: 15 points. Current price of a lascannon: 15 points. So Chaos and Loyalist Scum are paying the same price for inferior weapons. That ain't cool. Make lascannons Dd6 MINIMUM 3 and cut the points. There's "worse than Xenos", and then there's just "bad".
The point value of two weapons that will never be in the same army, yet alone on the same model isn't particularly important. Especially when Dark Lances are free on Raiders and Ravager
What is important is the overall package. Is a 140 Triple-Dark Lance Ravager a good point comparison to a 170 point Quad-Lascannon Predator Annihilator?
Not really. But then again, I've seen people be complaining a gakload that Predators aren't good.
For reference, against a T8 3+ target, they do...
3 shots
2 hits
1 wound
1 failed save
5 damage from the Ravager
vs.
4 shots
8/3 hits
16/9 wounds
80/54 or 40/27 failed saves
140/27 or just over 5 damage from the Predator
So about equal on the offense, on average, against that target. Add a few more targets along with analysis of damage deviation from the average. Then you look at defenses, maneuverability, special rules...
No need to actually do this. The point is you can't look at the upgrade cost of a specific weapon on a specific model and declare "unfair" compared to a different specific weapon on a different specific model in a completely different army. Predators might be crap, but the upgrade cost of a Lascannon on them is not relevant to the upgrade cost of a Dark Lance on a Kabalite Warrior.
Kanluwen wrote: The wielder certainly is a big deal, but nobody's going to take the weapon if it's lacklustre.
Which is why no one ever takes Lasguns, right?
If you were only allowed one Lascannon, I'd agree-but the fact that you can load up squads with them and slap them all over the place significantly mitigates its downsides.
debatably, people dont take lasguns. They take guardsmen , who have no other weapon option, in order to meat shield the things they actually want.
small difference, but important. no one is taking guardsmen for the lasgun firepower, thats just a bonus to keeping the big guns alive longer.
Is it just me or did Predator Annihilators just become hella good if they get this LC buff? Not to mention Stormlords with quad sponsons.....or any baneblade chassis with quad sponsons.
I sort of wish GW would just get on with it. (Yes, I know we have lengthy threads on that point).
We know they are going to boost all anti-tank weapons to make up for the explicitly daft MM boost. (Also, going to be faintly hysterical if a heavy bolter is 3 S5 AP-1 2 damage... and an autocannon is... 3 S7 AP-1 2 damage. Uh... woops).
Eventually - presumably in 10th - I think they are going to give vehicles/monsters 50% more wounds to compensate.
Here is the thing they have set up a real big disruption of the anti tank weapons. Meltas are good, some would say too good and now all the other anti tank weapons are getting better.
Leaving say the lascannon behind. I don't mind if its more swingy so long as its costed correctly for that feature. Same goes for the Missile launcher which tends to pay too much for the " gift " of being versatile.
Problem is a cost issue, let some be swingy but make them cost effective for spamming all over and cost the more potent AT weapons accordingly. Do so with cost but maybe also with rate of fire or other changes to the promised heavier damage of more reliable AT weapons.
It's just all stat inflation, and it'll lead the same place stat inflation always leads: a hard reset in the next edition because it gets out of hand. In the meantime it produces a nice power creep effect, though, which GW seems rather enamored of.
Did anyone really think tanks were too survivable in 8th (aside from stuff like the IH debacle, which had nothing to do with tanks themselves)? GW's problem has come from piling so many wounds onto infantry and bikers that even "anti-tank" weapons often won't kill them in one damaging hit, requiring a big boost to those weapons to make sure they can actually kill infantry in one damaging hit. In today's game, a D3+3 damage weapon isn't even anti-tank because tanks don't really exist, it's anti-terminator, since it's exactly what you need to kill a 3W terminator with -1D.
A 4 lascannon predator will still be junk because it's still a tank and tanks are, ironically, a terrible platform in 9th for anti-tank weapons. As evidenced by their points. You know something's rotten in the state of denmark when 3 infantry models with anti-tank weapons cost more than a tank mounted with anti-tank weapons.
It is stat bloat but this is what they do, make the system bloat out of control like a great unclean one and then blow it up from orbit and say how they learned their lesson and it'll be all better now.
In the mean time certain armies have over expensive yet inferior AT weapons and others live in the land of plenty as the power creep rolls on.
The only bright side being some people will get crazy strong units that perhaps were only so so in editions past. Like they can't leave Vanquishers to suck for IG which the precedent we've seen so far for AT. Neutron lasers have to hit pretty hard. They've shown that they will mess with weapon stats of say auto cannons so the Exterminator has to be much better if only in rate of fire, etc.
That ends up being a fleeting feeling of good as the game just ends up being set up to strip down in moments of opening fire until the OP bloat crushes the system into dust.
As happy as I am for those happy with their new books the trend makes it seem like it'll be a bitter sweet experience as all we do is trade board wipes and all have some units butchered in regard to their weapon load outs. Which is the worst part to me, power be damned needing to replace and rejig large sections of an army suck and no I never had to do this all the time as is becoming common place with this brave new world of books we live in.
I dodged it for DE as my units didn't have a whole lot of focus to them for wyches. The plague marines hit me in the nards, I'm hoping the skittari doesn't, as well as the scions they could bone me hard on, past that they can't really hurt me but isn't that enough ?
AP super prevalence is bad, right now. That's why they need ++ and then +++ or related systems.
As for admech, I cannot wait to see more HH models in 40k admech. A lot of 40k admech units look like toys to me (e.g. the dakka bots, though they are growing on me, but I cannot stomach the boats). HH units have a darker aesthetic, IMO, with those menacing myrmydons and what not.
PS - 40k admech remind me of the movie "Short Circuit (1986)".
Grey40k wrote: AP super prevalence is bad, right now. That's why they need ++ and then +++ or related systems.
As for admech, I cannot wait to see more HH models in 40k admech. A lot of 40k admech units look like toys to me (e.g. the dakka bots, though they are growing on me, but I cannot stomach the boats). HH units have a darker aesthetic, IMO, with those menacing myrmydons and what not.
PS - 40k admech remind me of the movie "Short Circuit (1986)".
I like the techno-horror vibe of the 30K Mechanicum so much more than the zany anchronisms of the 40K Mechanicus that I sold my Mechanicus and bought into Legio Cybernetica. I'd probably spend more if they had 40K rules as well. It's almost like GW doesn't want to sell their incredibly expensive resin sculpts.
I like the techno-horror vibe of the 30K Mechanicum so much more than the zany anchronisms of the 40K Mechanicus that I sold my Mechanicus and bought into Legio Cybernetica. I'd probably spend more if they had 40K rules as well. It's almost like GW doesn't want to sell their incredibly expensive resin sculpts.
I suspect that economies of scale are worse for FW. They never want to push them too hard, and we know GW is all about the profit.
In any case, dark mechanicum is an amazing flavor army, and I do love the range in general.
Does anyone want to spare a thought to all the poor knight players right now? As if double shooting meltas weren't bad now we have twin lascannons on fast attack units that can d6+6 damage (If each one is D3+3) and pop knight brackets like it's not even funny. Even my Ares is like, COMMON MAN!
Cybtroll wrote: 9th seems hell-bent on increasing the lethality even more than 8th and faster... I'mm baffled
they upped defenses extremely significantly in the SM, Necron, and DG codexes, so anti-elite weaponry is trending towards being more powerful.
The only instance IMO that lethality is actually increasing and i agree it's a bad thing is anti-vehicle weaponry, which seems to be going 100% coocoo bananas with many random characters and crap able to just instantly demolish a whole tank in one swing, and antitank units being able to do absurd overkill like 18 damage on average to T7 3+.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Does anyone want to spare a thought to all the poor knight players right now? As if double shooting meltas weren't bad now we have twin lascannons on fast attack units that can d6+6 damage (If each one is D3+3) and pop knight brackets like it's not even funny. Even my Ares is like, COMMON MAN!
No, nobody wants to spare a thought to knight players. I honestly can't think of another instance where it was so widespread and common for a full faction in the game to have people just go 'nope, not playing against that army.
I don't know if it's even warranted. I've never actually seen someone playing a knight army as their like, main thing that they play.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Does anyone want to spare a thought to all the poor knight players right now? As if double shooting meltas weren't bad now we have twin lascannons on fast attack units that can d6+6 damage (If each one is D3+3) and pop knight brackets like it's not even funny. Even my Ares is like, COMMON MAN!
Knights are the most interesting book to watch. That's the make or break moment. Either they go overboard and we enter Castellan-mania again or they're kind of crap on their own. Getting knights juuuust right will be incredibly hard to pull off.
Daedalus81 wrote: Knights are the most interesting book to watch. That's the make or break moment. Either they go overboard and we enter Castellan-mania again or they're kind of crap on their own. Getting knights juuuust right will be incredibly hard to pull off.
I'm looking forward to the not-quite-a-Paladin-but-bigger-than-an-Armiger release that will be the Knight Lieutenant!
Knights never work in 40k, they break too many rules of a game system that isn't designed for them. They'll always be either oppressive or junk, and for the sake of the game it's better when they err on the side of junk.
This tends to be true of all large models, but it's especially true when a faction takes *only* large models. Large models don't work right within 40k's rules, it exaggerates all the basic problems with the system.
I expect the knights codex will have a rule that reduces damage to knights (aside from armigers) by 1/2. It's the only real way to combat the ridiculous inflation of damage we've seen since the start of 9th. It's also stupid, but that's the hole they've dug for themselves.
yukishiro1 wrote: Knights never work in 40k, they break too many rules of a game system that isn't designed for them. They'll always be either oppressive or junk, and for the sake of the game it's better when they err on the side of junk.
This tends to be true of all large models, but it's especially true when a faction takes *only* large models. Large models don't work right within 40k's rules, it exaggerates all the basic problems with the system.
No arguing with this. Fantastic models, but to me super-heavies really have no place in a 1.5k (or even 2k game). Been sayin' it since they intergrated superheavies into regular games back in 6th. I often seem in a minority here, so always nice to see someone else of the same opinion.
yukishiro1 wrote: I expect the knights codex will have a rule that reduces damage to knights (aside from armigers) by 1/2. It's the only real way to combat the ridiculous inflation of damage we've seen since the start of 9th. It's also stupid, but that's the hole they've dug for themselves.
If they do then it'll almost as if we'll be back in 8th... You'll be forced to take enough AT to take out a knight (or 3) and which point anything that is vaguely vehicle/ monster like but isn't a knight evaporates from the board rather quickly.
If Cognis Lascannons do go upto D3+3 in the code that is a huge jump in lethality. The major worry for the overall meta (whether casual or comp) is various codexes simply being left behind this huge shift in AT, especially if points remain relatively unchanged.
yukishiro1 wrote: Knights never work in 40k, they break too many rules of a game system that isn't designed for them. They'll always be either oppressive or junk, and for the sake of the game it's better when they err on the side of junk.
This tends to be true of all large models, but it's especially true when a faction takes *only* large models. Large models don't work right within 40k's rules, it exaggerates all the basic problems with the system.
I expect the knights codex will have a rule that reduces damage to knights (aside from armigers) by 1/2. It's the only real way to combat the ridiculous inflation of damage we've seen since the start of 9th. It's also stupid, but that's the hole they've dug for themselves.
I am given a little bit of hope by how they seem to drive a connection with Knights & Admech in Charadon, but that's a specific fluff angle. No telling how the rest of the houses will fair or how a mono knight army will benefit.
yukishiro1 wrote: Knights never work in 40k, they break too many rules of a game system that isn't designed for them. They'll always be either oppressive or junk, and for the sake of the game it's better when they err on the side of junk.
This tends to be true of all large models, but it's especially true when a faction takes *only* large models. Large models don't work right within 40k's rules, it exaggerates all the basic problems with the system.
I expect the knights codex will have a rule that reduces damage to knights (aside from armigers) by 1/2. It's the only real way to combat the ridiculous inflation of damage we've seen since the start of 9th. It's also stupid, but that's the hole they've dug for themselves.
The main problem with knights is that they're fundamentally just 1000% terrible at winning the game, but most players just don't fundamentally view winning the game as winning the game. They view destroying the opponent's army as winning the game, and 'winning the mission' as kind of a technically thing, or a thing you try to pull of if you can't destroy the opposing army.
Nobody gets madder at a thing in 40k than when their cool thing they think should kill a thing doesn't kill a thing. Whether that's "I can't get my combat thing into combat with you shooty thing" or "your big thing is too big to shoot with my little guns!" or "your tough thing didnt die" the only exception to the rule is special characters, who people rage out if they ever ever ever ever ever ever ever die.
I'll be EXTREMELY surprised if GW gives up on their biggest cash cow of 8th. There is too much money on the table in the three model list faction. It's just too against their values (Money) to not make them broken as all hell again, and removed - Rule #1 please (Ahem, customers) will run out and buy the new Cawl pattern Castellan with void shields, and quad lascannon eviserators that do 8 shots of S10 ap4 d6+3 damage and fist/leg mounted Cawl pattern Heavy Assault cannons that are 20 shots of s5 ap 2 d3 damage. We'll see them till the CA nerfs them to Stompa level points cost, and then these forums will generate another 6-10 threads about how unfair the world is. Meanwhile, Eldar will get a new plastic......Nearsear.
Xenomancers wrote: These box instructions have been notoriously wrong on lots of things. I wouldn't get too excited yet.
Well which ones have been flat out wrong? I know they won't have any special rules listed, but I'm unsure of them being just straight up wrong.
Off the top of my head - Thunder Hammers for VV were listed at 4 damage. To be fair a lot of the early errors were on early on space marines stuff. The first boxes to come out in new boxing.
Xenomancers wrote: These box instructions have been notoriously wrong on lots of things. I wouldn't get too excited yet.
Well which ones have been flat out wrong? I know they won't have any special rules listed, but I'm unsure of them being just straight up wrong.
Off the top of my head - Thunder Hammers for VV were listed at 4 damage. To be fair a lot of the early errors were on early on space marines stuff. The first boxes to come out in new boxing.
Yeah, and SM veterans were listd as having 30" range bolters, but the thunder hammer thing was definitely a big source of Consternation...then after all that TH's got nerfed.
Each knight is about 200 bucks if you want all the options, magnets, and paint. Thats 600 for all three. Another 50 for amigers or adMech, then all the books, thats easily another 250. You are looking at close to 1k for a 2k list. That's not say, Guard cost, but it's not Custodes either. They were a money maker when they were kings of the edition. You can easily make them kings again, and watch the money roll in.
Was gonna say... Vanquishers are the epitome of suck.
I can't think of a time when they didn't suck, except, possibly, when they didn't exist. That was the pinnacle of the vanquisher experience.
Single shot direct fire (no template) anti-armor weapon on the BS3 faction was a sorry launching point.
Was gonna say... Vanquishers are the epitome of suck.
I can't think of a time when they didn't suck, except, possibly, when they didn't exist. That was the pinnacle of the vanquisher experience.
Single shot direct fire (no template) anti-armor weapon on the BS3 faction was a sorry launching point.
I mean they boosted Hellions this edition. Who knows at this point.
Was gonna say... Vanquishers are the epitome of suck.
I can't think of a time when they didn't suck, except, possibly, when they didn't exist. That was the pinnacle of the vanquisher experience.
Single shot direct fire (no template) anti-armor weapon on the BS3 faction was a sorry launching point.
Hot take, but I recall them being OK-ish in 5e. They really started sucking (comparative) gak after Hull Points were added, and they were never good, but they could be OK for their points. I might've just had the Emperor's luck with my rolls, though.
Was gonna say... Vanquishers are the epitome of suck.
I can't think of a time when they didn't suck, except, possibly, when they didn't exist. That was the pinnacle of the vanquisher experience.
Single shot direct fire (no template) anti-armor weapon on the BS3 faction was a sorry launching point.
What're you talking about? They hit 50% of the time & when they hit they were effective at their job (punching armor) when they were introduced in 3e. This btw is better odds of hitting than the standard LR battle-cannon that you rolled the scatter dice to hit with.
If your complaint is that they didn't have a blast template? Then you were just using the wrong tool for the task....
Xenomancers wrote: These box instructions have been notoriously wrong on lots of things. I wouldn't get too excited yet.
Only so many times can you be wrong and people still read the comment. They may lack some clarity of how it all goes together but when have the weapon stats been wrong ? Let alone enough to be " notorious " for being wrong ? All the DG leaks from those instructions were bang on. Is it as notorious as who told you DA would get a heavy nerf in their faq ?
Was gonna say... Vanquishers are the epitome of suck.
I can't think of a time when they didn't suck, except, possibly, when they didn't exist. That was the pinnacle of the vanquisher experience.
Single shot direct fire (no template) anti-armor weapon on the BS3 faction was a sorry launching point.
It's a heavy AT weapon in an edition so far that seems to favor high AT weapons. It may still hit poorly, but we can't be sure it'll stay single fire, or at a low BS and I'm sure it'll at least hit like a dark lance if not harder as its much rarer in how it can be fielded and on what platforms. I am pretty confident we will finally see a vanquisher worth a gak, if it hits.
Xenomancers wrote: These box instructions have been notoriously wrong on lots of things. I wouldn't get too excited yet.
Only so many times can you be wrong and people still read the comment. They may lack some clarity of how it all goes together but when have the weapon stats been wrong ? Let alone enough to be " notorious " for being wrong ? All the DG leaks from those instructions were bang on. Is it as notorious as who told you DA would get a heavy nerf in their faq ?
Was gonna say... Vanquishers are the epitome of suck.
I can't think of a time when they didn't suck, except, possibly, when they didn't exist. That was the pinnacle of the vanquisher experience.
Single shot direct fire (no template) anti-armor weapon on the BS3 faction was a sorry launching point.
It's a heavy AT weapon in an edition so far that seems to favor high AT weapons. It may still hit poorly, but we can't be sure it'll stay single fire, or at a low BS and I'm sure it'll at least hit like a dark lance if not harder as its much rarer in how it can be fielded and on what platforms. I am pretty confident we will finally see a vanquisher worth a gak, if it hits.
I literally said most the mistakes were on early space marine releases "to be fair" go on though - keep making more and more popular by talking about me.
Xenomancers wrote: I really don't see Ad mech lascannons getting d3+3. If that is the case though...is the Neutron laser going to be d6+2 or d6+4?
It's listed as D3+3 isn't it? tbh I think it's kind of delusional to think that the ballistari is not getting the listed stat improvements. d3+3 instead of d6 isn't a 'typo' like 4 instead of 3 could have been.
Balistarii being less durable but more offensively powerful vs the neutron onager being tougher makes sense. Otherwise the balistarii just has no reason to exist (as it does now)
its not really down 3 points in damage, it's just that its damage now ranges from 4 to 6 instead of 3, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6. Average damage is up quite a bit actually.
That is a minor buff to the nuetron laser but ultimately a nerf because it has blast. Not being able to shoot it into melee sucks.
It used to be d6 damage min 3. That is really disappointing...it has the same damage as 2 lascannons...makes me skeptical.
Xenomancers wrote: That is a minor buff to the nuetron laser but ultimately a nerf because it has blast. Not being able to shoot it into melee sucks.
It used to be d6 damage min 3. That is really disappointing...it has the same damage as 2 lascannons...makes me skeptical.
a coglas balistarii is in the realm of...what... 80ish points? Vs the onager at 120. Slightly more damage (mostly off of the extra AP), a small extra anti-infantry firepower boost with the 8 shots of cognis stubbers, and extra defenses for 40pts. Makes total sense.
the_scotsman wrote: its not really down 3 points in damage, it's just that its damage now ranges from 4 to 6 instead of 3, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6. Average damage is up quite a bit actually.
These in box datasheets also don't show special rules. It's still possible that the Neutron Laser will get the same "don't move, get flat D6" rule that all the other "Neutron Lasers" we've seen so far in 9th have gotten.
Xenomancers wrote: That is a minor buff to the nuetron laser but ultimately a nerf because it has blast. Not being able to shoot it into melee sucks.
It used to be d6 damage min 3. That is really disappointing...it has the same damage as 2 lascannons...makes me skeptical.
I recon it's worth around 3 lascannons.
D3 shots averages 2 shots, D3+3 averages at 5 Damage. For a (Hit/Wound/Save) Weighted 10 Damage.
3 Shots from a lascannon give a (Hit/Wound/Save) Weighted 10.5 Damage (advantage lascannon by a whisker).
Against a 3+ (no ++) then the extra AP over the lascannon shifts things in the Neutron lasers favour (it completely mitigates the armour), whilst against any invul then 3 lascannons will (on average) just edge out the Neutron laser.
Xenomancers wrote: That is a minor buff to the nuetron laser but ultimately a nerf because it has blast. Not being able to shoot it into melee sucks.
It used to be d6 damage min 3. That is really disappointing...it has the same damage as 2 lascannons...makes me skeptical.
I feel like if you expect an Onager to be in melee something might be going wrong.
So the other option is what'll actually be good? Useful to know.
It didn't really change apart from getting separate profiles so you can at least shoot the right targets. I imagine it will also lose the -1 against ground. That's about it.
The Beamer got way better as did the THPB and the Neutron we just need more detail.
So the other option is what'll actually be good? Useful to know.
It didn't really change apart from getting separate profiles so you can at least shoot the right targets. I imagine it will also lose the -1 against ground. That's about it.
The Beamer got way better as did the THPB and the Neutron we just need more detail.
+1 to hit and can splitfire the right targets - can shoot into melee - cost less. Pretty huge.
Kanluwen wrote: When they screwed Skitarii over with the Cult Mechanicus merge...
Still on about this, are we? You do know that they were only split to sell a separate book. It had nothing to do with the fluff. Cult Mechanicus = Skitarii = Adeptus Mechanicus.
Kanluwen wrote: When they screwed Skitarii over with the Cult Mechanicus merge...
Still on about this, are we? You do know that they were only split to sell a separate book. It had nothing to do with the fluff. Cult Mechanicus = Skitarii = Adeptus Mechanicus.
You're not wrong but the army felt a lot more unique when introduced. The Cult part introduced later was a lamer release
So the other option is what'll actually be good? Useful to know.
It didn't really change apart from getting separate profiles so you can at least shoot the right targets. I imagine it will also lose the -1 against ground. That's about it.
The Beamer got way better as did the THPB and the Neutron we just need more detail.
*watches the point sail over Daed's head*
The point being whichever option Xeno thinks is good is the one I'll rank as least likely until more evidence comes in - Squigbuggy's ahoy!
Can definitely agree that with some of the weird options the AdMech get which have special rules at the moment, we will need to see the final datasheet before we can truly say which weapons have won/lost here - but the numerical changes to some of them are interesting.
Kanluwen wrote: When they screwed Skitarii over with the Cult Mechanicus merge...
Still on about this, are we? You do know that they were only split to sell a separate book. It had nothing to do with the fluff. Cult Mechanicus = Skitarii = Adeptus Mechanicus.
You're not wrong but the army felt a lot more unique when introduced. The Cult part introduced later was a lamer release
A lot of books have lost a lot of flavor since the jump. Not exactly shocking.
The point being whichever option Xeno thinks is good is the one I'll rank as least likely until more evidence comes in - Squigbuggy's ahoy!
Can definitely agree that with some of the weird options the AdMech get which have special rules at the moment, we will need to see the final datasheet before we can truly say which weapons have won/lost here - but the numerical changes to some of them are interesting.
Nothing sails over my head. I am too fast. I would catch it.
Xenomancers wrote: These box instructions have been notoriously wrong on lots of things. I wouldn't get too excited yet.
Only so many times can you be wrong and people still read the comment. They may lack some clarity of how it all goes together but when have the weapon stats been wrong ? Let alone enough to be " notorious " for being wrong ? All the DG leaks from those instructions were bang on. Is it as notorious as who told you DA would get a heavy nerf in their faq ?
Was gonna say... Vanquishers are the epitome of suck.
I can't think of a time when they didn't suck, except, possibly, when they didn't exist. That was the pinnacle of the vanquisher experience.
Single shot direct fire (no template) anti-armor weapon on the BS3 faction was a sorry launching point.
It's a heavy AT weapon in an edition so far that seems to favor high AT weapons. It may still hit poorly, but we can't be sure it'll stay single fire, or at a low BS and I'm sure it'll at least hit like a dark lance if not harder as its much rarer in how it can be fielded and on what platforms. I am pretty confident we will finally see a vanquisher worth a gak, if it hits.
I literally said most the mistakes were on early space marine releases "to be fair" go on though - keep making more and more popular by talking about me.
Well if you want to be known for citing an early error as a reason to discredit all leaks going forward, sure thing. Notoriety is assured.
Xenomancers wrote: That is a minor buff to the nuetron laser but ultimately a nerf because it has blast. Not being able to shoot it into melee sucks.
It used to be d6 damage min 3. That is really disappointing...it has the same damage as 2 lascannons...makes me skeptical.
a coglas balistarii is in the realm of...what... 80ish points? Vs the onager at 120. Slightly more damage (mostly off of the extra AP), a small extra anti-infantry firepower boost with the 8 shots of cognis stubbers, and extra defenses for 40pts. Makes total sense.
At first I thought " Wha ? " as well. However, looking at it you do have to take into account the platform, the AP and the Str now. 12 is a good deal stronger than 9 in purposes of needing 2s to wound now. It will be quite proficient at pasting teqs, hitting vehicles and if attacking light vehicles will be wounding them on 2s as well. Now is it the best change in the world ? No, but it is stronger than a lascannon and without knowing the full details of costing on the platforms now the devil may well be in the details.
So the other option is what'll actually be good? Useful to know.
It didn't really change apart from getting separate profiles so you can at least shoot the right targets. I imagine it will also lose the -1 against ground. That's about it.
The Beamer got way better as did the THPB and the Neutron we just need more detail.
+1 to hit and can splitfire the right targets - can shoot into melee - cost less. Pretty huge.
We don't have any details yet on actual cost or special rules or the like. The devil is in the details on this one, would be an oddity if it kept the array as the best options, again. Though honestly any the Onager could use some buffs to bring it in line with other options.
The point being whichever option Xeno thinks is good is the one I'll rank as least likely until more evidence comes in - Squigbuggy's ahoy!
Can definitely agree that with some of the weird options the AdMech get which have special rules at the moment, we will need to see the final datasheet before we can truly say which weapons have won/lost here - but the numerical changes to some of them are interesting.
Nothing sails over my head. I am too fast. I would catch it.
Heresy! But seriously, I love Kataphrons. For me they completely showcase the ethos/aesthetic of the Ad Mech in a single model. Weird cyborg thing with a massive gun....ah perfection.
yukishiro1 wrote: It's weird it ever had T8. Why they nerfed the AP on its shots I have no idea, though.
Compared to a wirlwind. It is OP.
A whirlwind doesn't need LOS. I guess nerfing its AP would sorta make sense if it becomes able to fire without LOS, but even with the AP nerf, that'd be a very powerful profile for something with non-LOS shooting. D6 damage is super rare for artillery these days, the only thing I can think of that has it is forge world stuff.
yukishiro1 wrote: It's weird it ever had T8. Why they nerfed the AP on its shots I have no idea, though.
Compared to a wirlwind. It is OP.
So what?
Well its literally the sisters WW equivalent. So if its better than the space marine version. There is no issue. It should have ILOS though - pretty sure it always has.
It doesn't have ignore LOS, and as far as I'm aware, it never has - certainly not since the most recent revamp. It is not a WW equivalent at all. It could become that in the new book, but it isn't now.
Out of curiosity I went back through the old books. I can't find any edition it had ignore LOS in, though I wasn't able to find the profile for the weapon in 5th edition. It didn't ignore LOS in 6h or 7th, unless I missed it somehow. It certainly doesn't ignore LOS currently.
Heresy! But seriously, I love Kataphrons. For me they completely showcase the ethos/aesthetic of the Ad Mech in a single model. Weird cyborg thing with a massive gun....ah perfection.
yukishiro1 wrote: It doesn't have ignore LOS, and as far as I'm aware, it never has - certainly not since the most recent revamp. It is not a WW equivalent at all. It could become that in the new book, but it isn't now.
Out of curiosity I went back through the old books. I can't find any edition it had ignore LOS in, though I wasn't able to find the profile for the weapon in 5th edition. It didn't ignore LOS in 6h or 7th, unless I missed it somehow. It certainly doesn't ignore LOS currently.
Wow; I just checked the Witch Hunter dex, and it didn't have it in that one either. I would have bet money on that!
Heresy! But seriously, I love Kataphrons. For me they completely showcase the ethos/aesthetic of the Ad Mech in a single model. Weird cyborg thing with a massive gun....ah perfection.
Just a low tech Necron Destroyer tbh
^Yah. Except the Imperial ones wind up being better that the super-technologically advanced Xenos one, iirc.
i like the kataphrons form a lore and battlefield role angle. they are the admech soloution to the "heavy weapons problem" (ie how to get powerful weapons that can keep up with your line infantry). The marines are big enough to just lug their heavy weapons, the eldar use grav techology for floating gun platforms, the tau rely on markerlights/seeker missiles and vehicle mounted guns, etc. the Admech use the Karaphrons to fill that role, providing fire support to the skitarii (who only have "special" weapons equivalents like the plasma gun or thier sniper rifle). it's a cool and intresting way of doing it and one that fits their lore.
yukishiro1 wrote: It's weird it ever had T8. Why they nerfed the AP on its shots I have no idea, though.
Compared to a wirlwind. It is OP.
So what?
Well its literally the sisters WW equivalent. So if its better than the space marine version. There is no issue. It should have ILOS though - pretty sure it always has.
It really isn't the sisters WW, it's been their only jack of all trades tank and sole source of long range AT for quite a long time now. It was never really a WW. I agree it should ignore line of sight but the WW was kind of bleh from way back, primarily because marines weren't known for bombardment outside line of sight. Oddly it was one of my last units I got as a marine player because it was so meh, never did I view it as an AT platform unlike the exorcist which has been " The " Heavy AT choice for the sisters for a long time, besides just retributors which aren't a vehicle.
yukishiro1 wrote: It's weird it ever had T8. Why they nerfed the AP on its shots I have no idea, though.
Compared to a wirlwind. It is OP.
Won't someone please think of the whirlwinds ?!?!?!
As silly as we think of BAD Marine units, they do exist and a whole codex should be usable. Tyranids used to do good at tournaments just because Flyrants and Mawlocs, but nobody chimed in when those Tyranid players wished for usable Gaunts. It's really just hating because Marines get releases and others get less.
yukishiro1 wrote: It's weird it ever had T8. Why they nerfed the AP on its shots I have no idea, though.
Compared to a wirlwind. It is OP.
Won't someone please think of the whirlwinds ?!?!?!
As silly as we think of BAD Marine units, they do exist and a whole codex should be usable. Tyranids used to do good at tournaments just because Flyrants and Mawlocs, but nobody chimed in when those Tyranid players wished for usable Gaunts. It's really just hating because Marines get releases and others get less.
I'm not making light of units being under performing but the WW has been really meh for a long time when compared to other artillery units. It's a hold over from back when armies could have strengths and weaknesses and individual identity. Unlike now where most all factions need an answer to everything and evolve to be all the same forces with just different visuals and point costs but the same access to every type of unit.
If everyone didn't have access to outside line of sight arty weapons even a meh WW would be great to have for marines. Now though its all just every army getting similar toys and over lapping choices regardless of theme of the force on a whole. Which just highlights units like WW being meh all the more as opposed to a tool in the tool kit it ends up being seen as a bad arty choice compared to all the other arty vehicles.
As is, we still don't know if Exorcists will even get ignore line of sight so this is all just xeno worries of worrying about how an unknown change could invalidate a marine choice that hasn't been amazing for a long time, if ever.
yukishiro1 wrote: It's weird it ever had T8. Why they nerfed the AP on its shots I have no idea, though.
Compared to a wirlwind. It is OP.
Won't someone please think of the whirlwinds ?!?!?!
As silly as we think of BAD Marine units, they do exist and a whole codex should be usable. Tyranids used to do good at tournaments just because Flyrants and Mawlocs, but nobody chimed in when those Tyranid players wished for usable Gaunts. It's really just hating because Marines get releases and others get less.
I'm not making light of units being under performing but the WW has been really meh for a long time when compared to other artillery units. It's a hold over from back when armies could have strengths and weaknesses and individual identity. Unlike now where most all factions need an answer to everything and evolve to be all the same forces with just different visuals and point costs but the same access to every type of unit.
If everyone didn't have access to outside line of sight arty weapons even a meh WW would be great to have for marines. Now though its all just every army getting similar toys and over lapping choices regardless of theme of the force on a whole. Which just highlights units like WW being meh all the more as opposed to a tool in the tool kit it ends up being seen as a bad arty choice compared to all the other arty vehicles.
As is, we still don't know if Exorcists will even get ignore line of sight so this is all just xeno worries of worrying about how an unknown change could invalidate a marine choice that hasn't been amazing for a long time, if ever.
Individual identity is not a thing if you're going to have a unit designed for a particular role. Just because Marines aren't KNOWN for artillery it doesn't mean Whirlwinds should be bad. Just because Tau aren't known for melee it doesn't mean Kroot should be bad at the role. Likewise, if Dark Eldar just got an artillery unit tomorrow, it should be decent and not junk just because Dark Eldar aren't known for artillery.
We can agree to disagree about identity mattering but if all armies are the same just look different it isn't a very engaging choice on who you play then, imo.
That said, we have no real evidence that the exorcist is being made ignore line of sight outside of something saying " It could be nerfed because.."
Then Xeno goes into typical state and cites one of the worst Artillery pieces in the game, in a kit still in production. Should it be better ? Probably, but decades haven't shown they care much to make it better. It's a cheap bombardment platform for marines, that's about it.
I'm not even saying the WW is junk, it's competing for arty with one unit in a marine list in the core book, the thunderfire, which is worse than it was so in that respect the WW comes out well enough. Just because a unit doesn't beat other choices in other books doesn't mean its just junk in its own codex.
What makes it see less light is typically its cost or people wanting other choices with their limited points taken.
I can safely say few people would expect to see Dark Eldar get a new arty unit that will pale say, Guard arty units but they'd expect it to feel like a viable choice in its own book. Which is all any unit should be.
Individual identity is not a thing if you're going to have a unit designed for a particular role. Just because Marines aren't KNOWN for artillery it doesn't mean Whirlwinds should be bad. Just because Tau aren't known for melee it doesn't mean Kroot should be bad at the role.
No but it does mean they should be worse at it, point for point, than armies who are thematically inclined that way
I don't mind the WW. A lot of people bring a judiciar, but why not suppression fire that turns off OWand makes them fight last without needing to be w/i 3" while also laying out hurt on their backfield?
Might not be as point efficient, but it at least seems to have utility.
Individual identity is not a thing if you're going to have a unit designed for a particular role. Just because Marines aren't KNOWN for artillery it doesn't mean Whirlwinds should be bad. Just because Tau aren't known for melee it doesn't mean Kroot should be bad at the role.
No but it does mean they should be worse at it, point for point, than armies who are thematically inclined that way
Individual identity is not a thing if you're going to have a unit designed for a particular role. Just because Marines aren't KNOWN for artillery it doesn't mean Whirlwinds should be bad. Just because Tau aren't known for melee it doesn't mean Kroot should be bad at the role.
No but it does mean they should be worse at it, point for point, than armies who are thematically inclined that way
So Kroot should be bad?
No but it does mean they should be worse at melee, point for point, than armies who are thematically inclined that way
Cynista wrote: No but it does mean they should be worse at melee, point for point, than armies who are thematically inclined that way
I remember this being literally an example of what not to do in my game design classes in school. The practical result of this balance approach is that players with 'shooty' armies are incentivized to eschew melee altogether, because their melee units can never go toe-to-toe with those of other armies.
The right way to do it is to make melee a limited part of the army- fewer force multipliers and options, so that the force cannot practically rely on melee. Or for units like Kroot, giving them shooting capability (which they pay for) so that they actually cannot spec into purely melee.
Since when are we saying GW is about making a good game ? They are all about sell a good model, with good enough rules then mix it up all the time to aid people in buying new stuff.
Making an army bad at somethings better at others then moving it around is exactly in their wheel house.
I do agree though that you should have some options to do all the things but for some armies its like one unit and little else.
Like Bullgryns, they aren't better than other armies CC groups but they are the only good option for Guard, as ogryns suck.
Kroot should be better at what they do but should they be able to take on incubi ? I don't think so and I'm sure few others do either. No one is saying they should suck at their job but just not be toe to toe able to match CC focused forces.
Which seems to be exactly what you both are saying in a round about way.
People will always be more incentivized to follow an armys strengths over their weaknesses or go with an army that excels in the focus of a certain editions mechanics.
GW don't really care if thats bad games design so long as they are selling models.
yukishiro1 wrote: It's weird it ever had T8. Why they nerfed the AP on its shots I have no idea, though.
Compared to a wirlwind. It is OP.
Won't someone please think of the whirlwinds ?!?!?!
As silly as we think of BAD Marine units, they do exist and a whole codex should be usable. Tyranids used to do good at tournaments just because Flyrants and Mawlocs, but nobody chimed in when those Tyranid players wished for usable Gaunts. It's really just hating because Marines get releases and others get less.
I'm just curious, having just idly glanced at thread, wouldn't it be better to buff the Whirlwind up to where Excorcists are instead of nerving the Excorcist down to the Whirlwind's level?
Cynista wrote:
catbarf wrote: Or for units like Kroot, giving them shooting capability (which they pay for) so that they actually cannot spec into purely melee.
With the end result being that they are worse at melee, point for point.
Yes, but it means melee is an option they can use in general and they can use the shooting weapons to soften up an enemy to charge in and tie them down. Nobody is saying a standard Kroot needs to be able to take on Khorne Beserkers in melee unaided.
AngryAngel80 wrote:Since when are we saying GW is about making a good game ? They are all about sell a good model, with good enough rules then mix it up all the time to aid people in buying new stuff.
Making an army bad at somethings better at others then moving it around is exactly in their wheel house.
I do agree though that you should have some options to do all the things but for some armies its like one unit and little else.
Like Bullgryns, they aren't better than other armies CC groups but they are the only good option for Guard, as ogryns suck.
Kroot should be better at what they do but should they be able to take on incubi ? I don't think so and I'm sure few others do either. No one is saying they should suck at their job but just not be toe to toe able to match CC focused forces.
Which seems to be exactly what you both are saying in a round about way.
People will always be more incentivized to follow an armys strengths over their weaknesses or go with an army that excels in the focus of a certain editions mechanics.
GW don't really care if thats bad games design so long as they are selling models.
Bullgryns are an excellent example of this, though Ogryn are the exact opposite...
Bullgryns are a sturdy melee heavy hitter that Guard can use to plug a hole in what is otherwise a mostly ranged army. They are expensive to field yes, but they are well worth it and you can give them a few buffs in order to give them a boost. Their only real issue is that I personally don't see the point of taking the ranged option on them. Ogryn on the other hand are an example of it done wrong - not sturdy enough with their 5+ save, not shooty enough, not stabby enough, and far to expensive for what they bring to the table. In an ideal world, both would be legitimately viable options to field with one focused on offense, the other defense, but instead we have one being both stabby and tanky and the other just not having any role at all.
And nobody is saying Kroot need to take on Incubi in close combat, but t3, w1, a1, 6+ save really doesn't do much of anything well. Their only boon is that they are strength 4 so have a slightly better chance of wounding some things, but with no ap on their attacks it won't do much. Currently they don't really fill any role in their army, except for being slightly cheaper than Fire Warriors while being far worse and getting less access to buffs.
Individual identity is not a thing if you're going to have a unit designed for a particular role. Just because Marines aren't KNOWN for artillery it doesn't mean Whirlwinds should be bad. Just because Tau aren't known for melee it doesn't mean Kroot should be bad at the role.
No but it does mean they should be worse at it, point for point, than armies who are thematically inclined that way
So Kroot should be bad?
No but it does mean they should be worse at melee, point for point, than armies who are thematically inclined that way
That's the opposite of good game design LMAO. So should the durable infantry unit for Eldar, Wraithguard, be not durable at all because of the supposed glass cannon trope? Should Skull Cannons just be straight garbage because Daemons don't shoot?
yukishiro1 wrote: It's weird it ever had T8. Why they nerfed the AP on its shots I have no idea, though.
Compared to a wirlwind. It is OP.
Won't someone please think of the whirlwinds ?!?!?!
As silly as we think of BAD Marine units, they do exist and a whole codex should be usable. Tyranids used to do good at tournaments just because Flyrants and Mawlocs, but nobody chimed in when those Tyranid players wished for usable Gaunts. It's really just hating because Marines get releases and others get less.
I'm just curious, having just idly glanced at thread, wouldn't it be better to buff the Whirlwind up to where Excorcists are instead of nerving the Excorcist down to the Whirlwind's level?
I was actually fine with the functionality of the Exorcist and probably not have changed it outside giving it ignore LoS, which I honestly thought it already did.
First off, we don't even know yet if Exorcists will be getting ignore line of sight, that was a
" What if " at this point.
Second, I'd say a unit having a durable or some durable options for a glass cannon faction isn't a bad idea however one unit does not an army make. Wraith guard are tough but do they end up feeling tougher than say, Death guard which are one of the tough factions ? No of course they don't and that is the point. Though I guess because they aren't as tough as Deathguard they are just straight trash yeah ?
Really the hyperbole in this discussion is out of this world.
The WW isn't even straight trash it just isn't a great option in a codex so full of option and choice its like a great unclean one of knowledge.
However no one would think it made any sense at all if say, a Khorne skull cannon was just straight the best point for point shooting unit in a faction that is near total CC.
Some armies are just better at things than others and their choices may feel meh for a multitude of reasons. GW isn't trying to make a competitive game, just do enough to give people competitive light and switch it around all the time to churn the meta and army lists like so much butter.
AngryAngel80 wrote: First off, we don't even know yet if Exorcists will be getting ignore line of sight, that was a
" What if " at this point.
Second, I'd say a unit having a durable or some durable options for a glass cannon faction isn't a bad idea however one unit does not an army make. Wraith guard are tough but do they end up feeling tougher than say, Death guard which are one of the tough factions ? No of course they don't and that is the point. Though I guess because they aren't as tough as Deathguard they are just straight trash yeah ?
Really the hyperbole in this discussion is out of this world.
The WW isn't even straight trash it just isn't a great option in a codex so full of option and choice its like a great unclean one of knowledge.
However no one would think it made any sense at all if say, a Khorne skull cannon was just straight the best point for point shooting unit in a faction that is near total CC.
Some armies are just better at things than others and their choices may feel meh for a multitude of reasons. GW isn't trying to make a competitive game, just do enough to give people competitive light and switch it around all the time to churn the meta and army lists like so much butter.
I'd say Wraithguard are more durable than Blightlord Terminators vs several weapons for the points, especially in the D1 department. Should we decrease their durability now?
yukishiro1 wrote: It's weird it ever had T8. Why they nerfed the AP on its shots I have no idea, though.
Compared to a wirlwind. It is OP.
Won't someone please think of the whirlwinds ?!?!?!
As silly as we think of BAD Marine units, they do exist and a whole codex should be usable. Tyranids used to do good at tournaments just because Flyrants and Mawlocs, but nobody chimed in when those Tyranid players wished for usable Gaunts. It's really just hating because Marines get releases and others get less.
I'm just curious, having just idly glanced at thread, wouldn't it be better to buff the Whirlwind up to where Excorcists are instead of nerving the Excorcist down to the Whirlwind's level?
Cynista wrote:
catbarf wrote: Or for units like Kroot, giving them shooting capability (which they pay for) so that they actually cannot spec into purely melee.
With the end result being that they are worse at melee, point for point.
Yes, but it means melee is an option they can use in general and they can use the shooting weapons to soften up an enemy to charge in and tie them down. Nobody is saying a standard Kroot needs to be able to take on Khorne Beserkers in melee unaided.
AngryAngel80 wrote:Since when are we saying GW is about making a good game ? They are all about sell a good model, with good enough rules then mix it up all the time to aid people in buying new stuff.
Making an army bad at somethings better at others then moving it around is exactly in their wheel house.
I do agree though that you should have some options to do all the things but for some armies its like one unit and little else.
Like Bullgryns, they aren't better than other armies CC groups but they are the only good option for Guard, as ogryns suck.
Kroot should be better at what they do but should they be able to take on incubi ? I don't think so and I'm sure few others do either. No one is saying they should suck at their job but just not be toe to toe able to match CC focused forces.
Which seems to be exactly what you both are saying in a round about way.
People will always be more incentivized to follow an armys strengths over their weaknesses or go with an army that excels in the focus of a certain editions mechanics.
GW don't really care if thats bad games design so long as they are selling models.
Bullgryns are an excellent example of this, though Ogryn are the exact opposite...
Bullgryns are a sturdy melee heavy hitter that Guard can use to plug a hole in what is otherwise a mostly ranged army. They are expensive to field yes, but they are well worth it and you can give them a few buffs in order to give them a boost. Their only real issue is that I personally don't see the point of taking the ranged option on them. Ogryn on the other hand are an example of it done wrong - not sturdy enough with their 5+ save, not shooty enough, not stabby enough, and far to expensive for what they bring to the table. In an ideal world, both would be legitimately viable options to field with one focused on offense, the other defense, but instead we have one being both stabby and tanky and the other just not having any role at all.
And nobody is saying Kroot need to take on Incubi in close combat, but t3, w1, a1, 6+ save really doesn't do much of anything well. Their only boon is that they are strength 4 so have a slightly better chance of wounding some things, but with no ap on their attacks it won't do much. Currently they don't really fill any role in their army, except for being slightly cheaper than Fire Warriors while being far worse and getting less access to buffs.
I completely agree with you, stuff like Kroot should be better, and Ogryns of course. I only argued that those units shouldn't be better than the CC focused forces not that they should stay crap. The issue of that got conflated with " What if an exorcist gets ignore line of sight ? Then it's better than a WW ! " First, that is supposition it will get that at this point, second, the exorcist is an Anti tank and anti infantry unit, a whirlwind is just an anti infantry unit so they aren't even comparable in that regard.
I mean at that point why don't we say " It's getting ignore line of sight ? What about my guard Wyvern ? It's just straight better than that ! " They don't do the same thing, they'd just share a similar fire mode.
AngryAngel80 wrote: First off, we don't even know yet if Exorcists will be getting ignore line of sight, that was a
" What if " at this point.
Second, I'd say a unit having a durable or some durable options for a glass cannon faction isn't a bad idea however one unit does not an army make. Wraith guard are tough but do they end up feeling tougher than say, Death guard which are one of the tough factions ? No of course they don't and that is the point. Though I guess because they aren't as tough as Deathguard they are just straight trash yeah ?
Really the hyperbole in this discussion is out of this world.
The WW isn't even straight trash it just isn't a great option in a codex so full of option and choice its like a great unclean one of knowledge.
However no one would think it made any sense at all if say, a Khorne skull cannon was just straight the best point for point shooting unit in a faction that is near total CC.
Some armies are just better at things than others and their choices may feel meh for a multitude of reasons. GW isn't trying to make a competitive game, just do enough to give people competitive light and switch it around all the time to churn the meta and army lists like so much butter.
I'd say Wraithguard are more durable than Blightlord Terminators vs several weapons for the points, especially in the D1 department. Should we decrease their durability now?
Please, tell us all how wraith guard are really the unit that will win the tanky battle between armies, I mean I see all them threads of how OP them wraith guard be. Just because they are better in some circumstances doesn't mean they are the " toughest ". Feel free to place your thoughts down on it though. I mean this whole discussion is living in what if world but you have to actually place it where the rubber meets the road. A one off unit doesn't make an army something its not and won't win the day on its own either.
Much like how Bullgryn can aide a guard list but don't make up the mainstay of the guard list, and doesn't change the fact the guard are mostly a shooting army just happen to have a tough ( I guess guardsmen are tough now too ? ) CC focused unit to plug a gap but not really beat out other heavy CC hitters in CC focused forces, nor should they. Unless we are making every army the same, with the same focuses and middle of the road functionality,we shouldn't expect every option to go toe to toe with each other especially from a CC focused force.
Every army doing everything equally well to each other is better for competition but more boring for the game. If you want that we should all just agree on the same faction to play vs each other then get the same units with the same upgrades and just hash it out that way every game.
However, I say again, we don't even know if the Exorcist will get the ignore line of sight but if it does, it doesn't make the WW junk, it's rules would end up making it that because GW doesn't cares and seemingly hasn't for quite some time. Though the WW I still don't think is just, it's just not a great option for points and they are better spent else where in a marine list.
It'd make sense, but GW isn't big into doing things that make sense, so for all we know the range is a misprint and the missiles are now a melee attack.
yukishiro1 wrote: It's weird it ever had T8. Why they nerfed the AP on its shots I have no idea, though.
Compared to a wirlwind. It is OP.
So what?
Well its literally the sisters WW equivalent. So if its better than the space marine version. There is no issue. It should have ILOS though - pretty sure it always has.
It never has been a whirlwind equivalent. As far as I know, WW weren't used to blow up tanks and that has been the only purpose of the exorcist since it's release. If we have to make comparisons, it was basically a lascan predator but with missiles. They added the anti personal missiles in 8th.
It looks like they are just going to repurpose it to make space for the new tank (even though I don't see it piking up the anti tank mantle with 3 heavy bolters either but the special battle canon might be) which is a bit annoying.
I think you have to consider things as a package. You get offensive stats, defensive stats and board control. You get army rules etc that effect these.
Do I think Kroot should 1v1 Incubi? Not really. But they have a gun. They have a free move at the start of the game. You get a lot more bodies for your points and objective secured. (Okay its probably not enough but hopefully you see my point).
If you stripped all that away and made Kroot 15 points then yea - +/- some difference, I think they should be up there with Incubi, Repentia and so on. Otherwise what would be the point?
If GW were to release some new dedicated combat Tau units - say Fire Warriors or Crisis Suits with swords - there isn't much point making them crap for their points as no one will run them.
I don't see the problem with them being worth their points, because you can't spend them twice. Someone with 1500 points of "Combat Tau" hasn't also brought 1500 points of Riptides and Broadsides.
I mean we see this with say Marines. GW for some reason clearly doesn't like Marine Tanks - so they are all comparably expensive/inefficient. So how many do you see on the table? Is someone showing up to a game with a couple of Gladiators, or even an ancient Predator, really going to ruin your day?
It'd make sense, but GW isn't big into doing things that make sense, so for all we know the range is a misprint and the missiles are now a melee attack.
Drive closer so I can hit them with my...missiles?!
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: That's the opposite of good game design LMAO. So should the durable infantry unit for Eldar, Wraithguard, be not durable at all because of the supposed glass cannon trope? Should Skull Cannons just be straight garbage because Daemons don't shoot?
You are being ridiculous and arguing in bad faith. Nobody has claimed Wraithguard should "not be durable at all" or that Kroot should be bad. You know this, so stop erecting weird strawman arguments. I'm not here for it
And I doubt you know the first thing about game design.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: That's the opposite of good game design LMAO. So should the durable infantry unit for Eldar, Wraithguard, be not durable at all because of the supposed glass cannon trope? Should Skull Cannons just be straight garbage because Daemons don't shoot?
You are being ridiculous and arguing in bad faith. Nobody has claimed Wraithguard should "not be durable at all" or that Kroot should be bad. You know this, so stop erecting weird strawman arguments. I'm not here for it
And I doubt you know the first thing about game design.
Well I clearly know more than you since you're blabbering that Kroot being better than Fire Warriors in melee actually means anything.
It'd make sense, but GW isn't big into doing things that make sense, so for all we know the range is a misprint and the missiles are now a melee attack.
Drive closer so I can hit them with my...missiles?!
Isn't as funny, since the new ork squighog riders are doing exactly that.
After all, it’s rare to find an Ork who wouldn’t appreciate how you can make a humble spear louder and killier by adding rocket boosters to it.
Daedalus81 wrote: I don't mind the WW. A lot of people bring a judiciar, but why not suppression fire that turns off OWand makes them fight last without needing to be w/i 3" while also laying out hurt on their backfield?
Might not be as point efficient, but it at least seems to have utility.
Units that aren't points efficient have no place in lists.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: That's the opposite of good game design LMAO. So should the durable infantry unit for Eldar, Wraithguard, be not durable at all because of the supposed glass cannon trope? Should Skull Cannons just be straight garbage because Daemons don't shoot?
You are being ridiculous and arguing in bad faith. Nobody has claimed Wraithguard should "not be durable at all" or that Kroot should be bad. You know this, so stop erecting weird strawman arguments. I'm not here for it
And I doubt you know the first thing about game design.
Well I clearly know more than you since you're blabbering that Kroot being better than Fire Warriors in melee actually means anything.
That makes the third time in successive replies that you have claimed I said something I haven't. You should probably stop doing that, it's not a good look
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: That's the opposite of good game design LMAO. So should the durable infantry unit for Eldar, Wraithguard, be not durable at all because of the supposed glass cannon trope? Should Skull Cannons just be straight garbage because Daemons don't shoot?
You are being ridiculous and arguing in bad faith. Nobody has claimed Wraithguard should "not be durable at all" or that Kroot should be bad. You know this, so stop erecting weird strawman arguments. I'm not here for it
And I doubt you know the first thing about game design.
Well I clearly know more than you since you're blabbering that Kroot being better than Fire Warriors in melee actually means anything.
That makes the third time in successive replies that you have claimed I said something I haven't. You should probably stop doing that, it's not a good look
That's how you're defending the design. Either Kroot should be okay at melee or they shouldn't because Tau aren't a melee army. This isn't rocket science, this is how some of you are defending the "army identity" garbage.
Inefficient units can't be the backbone of a list, that much is true, but they absolutely have a place in lists if they do something critical nothing else in your army can do that can turn a loss into a win. It doesn't matter whether you win by 1 point or 10, so if you can transform some 1 point losses to 1 point wins by taking an inefficient unit it's worth it, even if it turns your average game from a 10 point win to only an 7 point win.
Daedalus81 wrote: I don't mind the WW. A lot of people bring a judiciar, but why not suppression fire that turns off OWand makes them fight last without needing to be w/i 3" while also laying out hurt on their backfield?
Might not be as point efficient, but it at least seems to have utility.
Units that aren't points efficient have no place in lists.
Sure they do. My criteria for deciding if such a unit has a place in my forces is:
1) is it performing a function I need done?
2) I just like the model.
You know, I might pic up the Ad Mech codex for this edition.
I’m still love/hate their look, but with the various new units added since their last Codex, they’re definitely looking an interesting army.
For the love/hate thing? I love their outright wackiness. They certainly feel like an army of crazed tech-zealots. But they’re still not quite what I always thought they’d look like.
Daedalus81 wrote: I don't mind the WW. A lot of people bring a judiciar, but why not suppression fire that turns off OWand makes them fight last without needing to be w/i 3" while also laying out hurt on their backfield?
Might not be as point efficient, but it at least seems to have utility.
Units that aren't points efficient have no place in lists.
Sure they do. My criteria for deciding if such a unit has a place in my forces is:
1) is it performing a function I need done?
2) I just like the model.
Irrelevant if
1.) Another unit fills that function better. Or another function works much better.
2.) Liking the model is irrelevant in competitive discussion. Perfectly valid point otherwise.
I’m still love/hate their look, but with the various new units added since their last Codex, they’re definitely looking an interesting army.
For the love/hate thing? I love their outright wackiness. They certainly feel like an army of crazed tech-zealots. But they’re still not quite what I always thought they’d look like.
They are imperial Necrons. Without reanimation protocols....and instead get 6++ saves. Ehhh...
Ad mech has dog raiders and bombers, both of which are far and away the best version of their unit in the game. Ironically it's the core of the army itself that is rather underwhelming in a meta with lots of 1+ or even 0+ save bodies.
Daedalus81 wrote: I don't mind the WW. A lot of people bring a judiciar, but why not suppression fire that turns off OWand makes them fight last without needing to be w/i 3" while also laying out hurt on their backfield?
Might not be as point efficient, but it at least seems to have utility.
Units that aren't points efficient have no place in lists.
And posters who bring nothing useful to a discussion have no place on forums, Mr. Squigbuggy.
The Suppressive Fire strat certainly gives a WW a role - especially as you only need to hit to trigger it - but whether 125 points and 1CP/strat is worth it for something you'll get to use three times a game (at a guess) is worth it is another matter entirely.
Dysartes wrote: The Suppressive Fire strat certainly gives a WW a role - especially as you only need to hit to trigger it - but whether 125 points and 1CP/strat is worth it for something you'll get to use three times a game (at a guess) is worth it is another matter entirely.
I would think people don't mind making ASF wyches go later without having to put a Judiciar in range of a Succubus or taking Set Defend off DATH/SS termies. And when it doesn't then just hurt stuff on backfield objectives. Or just a TFC to tremor shell fast melee. There's lots to explore and people tend to look only at models killed rather than an intangible advantgage.
Daedalus81 wrote: I don't mind the WW. A lot of people bring a judiciar, but why not suppression fire that turns off OWand makes them fight last without needing to be w/i 3" while also laying out hurt on their backfield?
Might not be as point efficient, but it at least seems to have utility.
Units that aren't points efficient have no place in lists.
Sure they do. My criteria for deciding if such a unit has a place in my forces is:
1) is it performing a function I need done?
2) I just like the model.
Irrelevant if
1.) Another unit fills that function better. Or another function works much better.
2.) Liking the model is irrelevant in competitive discussion. Perfectly valid point otherwise.
1) Then will come the consideration of what slot/how many pts that "better" unit is. Will using that better unit mean sacrificing something else I want slot-wise? Will it cost me more pts? Just because _____ might not be the most efficient unit doesn't mean it's not still an affordable choice. Also it not being the most efficient =/= inefficient.
2) Very valid to me. Be it competitive or casual, I don't buy/play with models I don't like.
Daedalus81 wrote: I don't mind the WW. A lot of people bring a judiciar, but why not suppression fire that turns off OWand makes them fight last without needing to be w/i 3" while also laying out hurt on their backfield?
Might not be as point efficient, but it at least seems to have utility.
Units that aren't points efficient have no place in lists.
Sure they do. My criteria for deciding if such a unit has a place in my forces is:
1) is it performing a function I need done?
2) I just like the model.
Well lets talk Kroot again then. Their function is two fold: either infiltration or anti-infantry melee. The army can already be fast if it wants to (though an unpopular play style), so the former use is kinda covered. Now if we look at the melee, if they're really not much more capable than Fire Warriors to begin with, why is this role trying to be used? We can say we NEED that element until it's time to actually use it, in which case you were better off with just more Tau units.
It'd make sense, but GW isn't big into doing things that make sense, so for all we know the range is a misprint and the missiles are now a melee attack.
Drive closer so I can hit them with my...missiles?!
They'd never do it, I'd like a missile fist and we all know they won't try and make me smile. ( Aside from Orks, I don't play Orks but sister missile fists, they'd never do. )
Daedalus81 wrote: I don't mind the WW. A lot of people bring a judiciar, but why not suppression fire that turns off OWand makes them fight last without needing to be w/i 3" while also laying out hurt on their backfield?
Might not be as point efficient, but it at least seems to have utility.
Units that aren't points efficient have no place in lists.
Which is why everyone should play DA inner circle terminators, mmmm points effectiveness, my body is ready.
Edit : On topic here, we have no reason to assume the leaks are fake nor do we have a real reason to assume the exorcist is becoming ignore line of sight outside of a " Maybe..." and even if it does, it isn't the reason why the WW is sub par, it's been so for many editions but when it first came out it did a role no other unit in the army did, outside line of sight bombardment. Right now, we don't even know if the exorcist is gaining that so lets wait to cry about the poor hated WW until we know if thats even true, I'm sure we'll see a thread or two on how it gaining that makes some other book suck more, somehow, then.
yukishiro1 wrote: Ad mech has dog raiders and bombers, both of which are far and away the best version of their unit in the game. Ironically it's the core of the army itself that is rather underwhelming in a meta with lots of 1+ or even 0+ save bodies.
I’m not terribly bothered about whether the base infantry of a given army are particularly killy, as I’m a weirdo.
But certainly their original release line up lacked anti-tank punch, which always bothered me, as I’d always pictured Ad-Mech as the bane of enemy vehicles, affronts as they are to the Omnissiah.
In the few games I played, I did enjoy hosing my opponent down with Radium Carbines, but I always struggled against his tanks.
Certainly feels like that’s been addressed. If only I liked the look of the Onager!
yukishiro1 wrote: Ad mech has dog raiders and bombers, both of which are far and away the best version of their unit in the game. Ironically it's the core of the army itself that is rather underwhelming in a meta with lots of 1+ or even 0+ save bodies.
I’m not terribly bothered about whether the base infantry of a given army are particularly killy, as I’m a weirdo.
But certainly their original release line up lacked anti-tank punch, which always bothered me, as I’d always pictured Ad-Mech as the bane of enemy vehicles, affronts as they are to the Omnissiah.
In the few games I played, I did enjoy hosing my opponent down with Radium Carbines, but I always struggled against his tanks.
Certainly feels like that’s been addressed. If only I liked the look of the Onager!
Mainly because they butchered arc weaponry and removed all haywire attacks from our hqs
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: That's the opposite of good game design LMAO. So should the durable infantry unit for Eldar, Wraithguard, be not durable at all because of the supposed glass cannon trope? Should Skull Cannons just be straight garbage because Daemons don't shoot?
You are being ridiculous and arguing in bad faith. Nobody has claimed Wraithguard should "not be durable at all" or that Kroot should be bad. You know this, so stop erecting weird strawman arguments. I'm not here for it
And I doubt you know the first thing about game design.
You literally did say, twice, that they should be worse FOR THE POINTS.
That's bad game design - I'm sorry. If you want to make a particular style of play an army's strong suit, all you need to do is not provide particular tools, or provide limited tools, that perform a different playstyle.
making them purposefully worse for the points than other armies' tools who do have that identity is a fundamentally stupid move, because you're simply ensuring those units never see the tabletop. Guard remain fundamentally a shooting-focused army even when Bullgryns are effective for their points, because most of the datasheets, abilities, stratagems, auras, etc within the army focus on shooting rather than melee. Similarly, they can be 'not the best psyker faction' simply by limiting guard psykers to a fairly basic-tier psyker mastery level compared to factions like Thousand Sons and Eldar. there's no NEED for primaris psykers to be purposefully overcosted to discourage their use - they're simply limited in what they can do, and that can hold true for kroot.
If the biggest thing Tau can bring to the table for a melee unit is the equivalent of a spawn or clawed fiend in the Krootox, then Tau will remain a shooting army because there aren't melee options present to fulfil the roles necessary to make a functioning army.
yukishiro1 wrote: Ad-mech does fine against tanks right now, because again, in a huge irony, tanks are much less, well, tanky than heavy infantry in this game.
Terminator with storm shield in cover - 0+ save. You need AP-3 to even take them off a 2+.
Leman Russ - 3+ save, can't get cover.
AP1 and 2 weapons are useless against terminators, but will shred tanks.
I know people talk a lot about wounds, but that has lots of other difficult implications. What about just giving some heavier vehicles ( not knights ) a 0+ ( or 1+ with some special +1 to saves rule ) or 1+ save? 0+ would at least give a landraider a 4+ against melta.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: That's the opposite of good game design LMAO. So should the durable infantry unit for Eldar, Wraithguard, be not durable at all because of the supposed glass cannon trope? Should Skull Cannons just be straight garbage because Daemons don't shoot?
You are being ridiculous and arguing in bad faith. Nobody has claimed Wraithguard should "not be durable at all" or that Kroot should be bad. You know this, so stop erecting weird strawman arguments. I'm not here for it
And I doubt you know the first thing about game design.
You literally did say, twice, that they should be worse FOR THE POINTS.
That's bad game design - I'm sorry.
And you should be, because nothing you said after this does anything whatsoever to prove the point you're trying to make.
Bullgryn are worse FOR THE POINTS than the dedicated, durable heavy infantry of melee orientated factions. Yet they do see the tabletop, as do many other units in many other armies that are not as point efficient as say, Death Guard Terminators. Because amazingly enough, they do serve a purpose even though they aren't as good. Kroot may indeed need to get better than they currently are, that was not the debate.
You and others can call it bad game design if you like, you're entitled to your opinion. I don't share it, nor do I care to hear any big brain reductive theories as to why you think you're right.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: That's the opposite of good game design LMAO. So should the durable infantry unit for Eldar, Wraithguard, be not durable at all because of the supposed glass cannon trope? Should Skull Cannons just be straight garbage because Daemons don't shoot?
You are being ridiculous and arguing in bad faith. Nobody has claimed Wraithguard should "not be durable at all" or that Kroot should be bad. You know this, so stop erecting weird strawman arguments. I'm not here for it
And I doubt you know the first thing about game design.
You literally did say, twice, that they should be worse FOR THE POINTS.
That's bad game design - I'm sorry.
And you should be, because nothing you said after this does anything whatsoever to prove the point you're trying to make.
Bullgryn are worse FOR THE POINTS than the dedicated, durable heavy infantry of melee orientated factions. Yet they do see the tabletop, as do many other units in many other armies that are not as point efficient as say, Death Guard Terminators. Because amazingly enough, they do serve a purpose even though they aren't as good. Kroot may indeed need to get better than they currently are, that was not the debate.
You and others can call it bad game design if you like, you're entitled to your opinion. I don't share it, nor do I care to hear any big brain reductive theories as to why you think you're right.
Cool? Cool.
You'd have a point, except that they don't. Bullgryns saw the tabletop back when they actually could be viewed as reasonably equivalent to durable heavy infantry from other factions back in early 8th. They do not currently, and guard as a whole is one of the three bottom armies overall.
When GW actually does pursue this kind of design philosophy, what the players do is just skew their lists because it's more effective than including the intentionally overcosted units, because they are intentionally overcosted.
Kroot do not see play. Skullcannons and Soul Grinders do not see play. Ogryns and Rough Riders do not see play.
And you should be, because nothing you said after this does anything whatsoever to prove the point you're trying to make.
Bullgryn are worse FOR THE POINTS than the dedicated, durable heavy infantry of melee orientated factions. Yet they do see the tabletop, as do many other units in many other armies that are not as point efficient as say, Death Guard Terminators. Because amazingly enough, they do serve a purpose even though they aren't as good. Kroot may indeed need to get better than they currently are, that was not the debate.
You and others can call it bad game design if you like, you're entitled to your opinion. I don't share it, nor do I care to hear any big brain reductive theories as to why you think you're right.
Cool? Cool.
I share the sentiment that similar units do not need to be similarly costed across different armies.
Kroot just don't offer anything interesting to the army, which I think is the bigger problem.
Cover interactions with vehicles are an absolute travesty in modern 40K. They need to sort that gak out pronto.
Yes, very very much this.
The whole cap on +/- to hit shouldn't apply to cover. There needs to be actual interaction with the terrain and benefits/negatives for each type of terrain.
What can/can't shoot thru something
What shooting thru that terrain means for both shooter and shootee
Lack of actual dangerous terrain, i.e. like if I go thru this crater/ruin I need to be wary of any toppling or falling debris as I cross it.
They are just one of the best units in the game and spammed at competitive level.
Are you talking about Death Riders maybe? you know, the unit that they gave a good, comparable statline to melee units from other codeces and...voila, suddenly you saw them in guard lists?
I'm talking about Rough Riders, the now legends unit that was the worst unit in the game like 5 editions running.
Sort of feel on paper Kroot shouldn't be that bad.
I mean for your points you have okay shooting and okay assault. The initial starter move is good for getting across the table and standing on objectives (or getting out of dodge). Okay they fall over if you look at them funny - but they are also so cheap is that really a problem? Morale might be an issue - but then a Tau Ethereal pushes them to LD9, probably throwing up a 6+++ too - which for 6 points a model is a reasonable save.
But there's probably some Tau nerds on TTS who've proved me wrong.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: That's the opposite of good game design LMAO. So should the durable infantry unit for Eldar, Wraithguard, be not durable at all because of the supposed glass cannon trope? Should Skull Cannons just be straight garbage because Daemons don't shoot?
You are being ridiculous and arguing in bad faith. Nobody has claimed Wraithguard should "not be durable at all" or that Kroot should be bad. You know this, so stop erecting weird strawman arguments. I'm not here for it
And I doubt you know the first thing about game design.
You literally did say, twice, that they should be worse FOR THE POINTS.
That's bad game design - I'm sorry. If you want to make a particular style of play an army's strong suit, all you need to do is not provide particular tools, or provide limited tools, that perform a different playstyle.
making them purposefully worse for the points than other armies' tools who do have that identity is a fundamentally stupid move, because you're simply ensuring those units never see the tabletop. Guard remain fundamentally a shooting-focused army even when Bullgryns are effective for their points, because most of the datasheets, abilities, stratagems, auras, etc within the army focus on shooting rather than melee. Similarly, they can be 'not the best psyker faction' simply by limiting guard psykers to a fairly basic-tier psyker mastery level compared to factions like Thousand Sons and Eldar. there's no NEED for primaris psykers to be purposefully overcosted to discourage their use - they're simply limited in what they can do, and that can hold true for kroot.
If the biggest thing Tau can bring to the table for a melee unit is the equivalent of a spawn or clawed fiend in the Krootox, then Tau will remain a shooting army because there aren't melee options present to fulfil the roles necessary to make a functioning army.
Well I don't know what they mean but I can say I meant that Tau wouldn't or perhaps shouldn't be a melee focused force. I do think Kroot should be a viable option just not a great CC unit. Much like your bringing up the Bullgryn. they are effective but don't and won't turn a guard army into a CC force.
It's not bad that the Tau remain a shooting army, any more than its bad demons remain a CC focused army. The trick is and has been make all aspects of the game viable and all units feel like real choices, GW does this poorly, always has and always will. Though if you were thinking to make a CC themed force, more than likely you wouldn't think an army with one or two useful CC units, you'd focus on a force that builds on its strength in that department. Specialized isn't a bad thing, the games design sometimes can be a very bad thing however when making those focused armies.
They are just one of the best units in the game and spammed at competitive level.
Rough riders don't see play for more reasons than bad design, lets be real here. No easy to get models is one thing, being in legends is another. I'd say if they got the love that Death riders do people would indeed take them, as they are actually useful.
I'm talking about Rough Riders, the now legends unit that was the worst unit in the game like 5 editions running.
Well no gak Rough Riders don't see play genius. All you people do is look at tourney results. Most of wich apparently don't allow Legends units. Hard to see things being used when you look at an environment where they're not even allowed to be played....
And then the poison that's the tourney standard filters down into casual play and you have people suddenly shunning models that were 100% fine yesterday and still have valid 9e rules.
I've had the the following conversation, or variations of, in both 40k & Sigmar numerous times since Legends came to be"
"I can't use my _____ anymore. :(" "Why not?"
"It was moved to Legends" "But it still has valid rules?"
"Yeah. But Legends isn't allowed in {fill in tourney of your choice}." "?? I wasn't aware this game was a tourney...."
I'm talking about Rough Riders, the now legends unit that was the worst unit in the game like 5 editions running.
Well no gak Rough Riders don't see play genius. All you people do is look at tourney results. Most of wich apparently don't allow Legends units. Hard to see things being used when you look at an environment where they're not even allowed to be played....
And then the poison that's the tourney standard filters down into casual play and you have people suddenly shunning models that were 100% fine yesterday and still have valid 9e rules.
I've had the the following conversation, or variations of, in both 40k & Sigmar numerous times since Legends came to be"
"I can't use my _____ anymore. :(" "Why not?"
"It was moved to Legends" "But it still has valid rules?"
"Yeah. But Legends isn't allowed in {fill in tourney of your choice}." "?? I wasn't aware this game was a tourney...."
The bold part is so fething true it hurts and should be considered the lowest standard there.
Underlined for best statement yet.
To be fair, getting Legends'd means the rules are only still valid if:
1) GW sticks to what they've said re: 8e/9e being a "living edition" (already dubious, not least because I can't recall if that was ever explicitly stated or not )
2) Changes to the base rules of the game not breaking a Legends'd unit (eg. if Unit A can do a special move in the Psychic Phase and 10e does away with the Psychic Phase, or if Unit B gets a bonus vs [KROOT] but the next Tau dex changes [KROOT] to [CROAKFACE GRIBBLECHIN])
3) GW sticks to what they've said re: Legends simply being left alone instead of eventually deleted.
GW certainly aren't the worst offenders when it comes to suddenly and unexpectedly dropping a plan for something completely different, but even outside of "all games are tourney prep" I wouldn't blame someone for being leery of continuing to use a unit once it goes to Legends.
We had a whole huge debate on if GW doing legends was good or bad, I still firmly think it was just a kiss of death and not a benevolent act on their part.
That said, I'd say someone was kind of an apricot sucking banana face if they refused to play against a legends unit.
If its a tournament then they can be the bad guys, I'm not about to be the guy who denies someone a loved unit, especially not when the current models can be beyond broke as is.
This is all way off topic though so I hope we get more news soon.
Is there anything in legends that doesn't totally suck at this point? If there's anything still overpowered or game-breaking I can see how someone wouldn't want to play against it, but if it's the normal terrible junk, if someone wants to gimp themselves by taking it, that's fine by me.
Who knows, there may come a decision to restore some of those Legends models. It's not like we've seen some models be skipped by a codex only to return later down the years.
AngryAngel80 wrote: We had a whole huge debate on if GW doing legends was good or bad, I still firmly think it was just a kiss of death and not a benevolent act on their part.
That said, I'd say someone was kind of an apricot sucking banana face if they refused to play against a legends unit.
If its a tournament then they can be the bad guys, I'm not about to be the guy who denies someone a loved unit, especially not when the current models can be beyond broke as is.
This is all way off topic though so I hope we get more news soon.
Sounds like GW should update that unit's rules then instead of the asinine patterns they've created on top of the fact that some here still defend them on it or blame the players instead.
AngryAngel80 wrote: We had a whole huge debate on if GW doing legends was good or bad, I still firmly think it was just a kiss of death and not a benevolent act on their part.
That said, I'd say someone was kind of an apricot sucking banana face if they refused to play against a legends unit.
If its a tournament then they can be the bad guys, I'm not about to be the guy who denies someone a loved unit, especially not when the current models can be beyond broke as is.
This is all way off topic though so I hope we get more news soon.
Sounds like GW should update that unit's rules then instead of the asinine patterns they've created on top of the fact that some here still defend them on it or blame the players instead.
As much as we can disagree on other things, on this I agree with you 100%. This is entirely a GW sucks issue that they should make better and people shouldn't defend them over it but we both know as sure as the sun will be in the sky tomorrow that people will defend GW until the end for everything.
To play devil's advocate though, should GW keep updating rules for units they no longer make?
Should GW be forced to continue making models available in order to justify continuing to update the rules?
And if so, at what point does that interfere with their ability to produce, store and sell other models?
Again, I get it- if you have a model you love, and it goes to Legends, and your preferred way to play the game is at a tournament that doesn't allow it, that hurts. I do miss Kyrinov and Jacobus, and a part of me wishes GW had kept them. But if they had, would it have been at the expense of Taddeus the Purifier, Pious Vorne and Gotfett de Montbard?
We react to that which hurts us, and it often prevents us from seeing the big picture. It really is a Kobayishi Maru for GW; if they were still forced to manufacture and update rules for every unit they've produced since 1987 because somebody loves it, but STILL come up with enough new models to keep the rest of us happy too?
I mean, is that really possible?
And then, if you love YOUR model enough, you'll come up with reasons why they should keep YOUR model manufactured and supported, but somebody else's model could be cut to make room for new stuff, right?
So as GW, how do you win this fight. Honestly, if you think you've got a way to keep a greater number of people happy than Legends, throw it on the table. Maybe there is a solution that's better and I just can't see it.
But to go back to Kyrinov and Jacobus, here are the options:
1: Status quo; stop making the models, but give them Legends so that anyone who already has them can keep using them.
2: Keep updating rules for them, but not make them... So then someone who likes the rules either has to convert or proxy.
3: Release a new plastic Jacobus and Kyrinov with new rules; and I have to admit... This sounds tempting. But would it cost me the Palatine? Or the Paragon? Or the Castigator? I mean, are the Admech players out there really going to be okay if I get all four of the units previewed PLUS Jacobus and Kyrinov? CWE players certainly aren't going to be happy about that (even if it turns out that we DO get a complete refresh in December, it sure isn't going to stop us from bitching about it until then... And I'd probably be one of the ones doing the bitching).
4. Stop making the models AND not bother giving us Legends; if you've got Kyrinov or Jacobus, play them as Counts as Missionaries (or counts as Preachers or counts as Taddeus the Purifier).
Those are they only four options I see. All of them suck. How do you beat the Kobayashi Maru?
PenitentJake wrote: 2: Keep updating rules for them, but not make them... So then someone who likes the rules either has to convert or proxy.
This one. GW used to be a lot more friendly to conversions/proxying. That's an attitude that they should go back to, Chapterhouse be damned (I understand that they need to worry about their IP, but if they aren't going to be making a mini, the least GW can do is not be gakheads to their customers about it).
Incorrect. I don't want to gatekeep people who want to play 40k but don't want to get into conversions, but this is a hobby with a long and consistent history of allowing for such things. If someone puts down a cardboard cutout for a mini that isn't being made (legitimately or not), I'm not going to have much trouble with it (so long as we agree on it's "size" for LoS purposes), same as I wouldn't if someone scratch-built that mini from plasticard or sourced it from eBay/"eBay".
Edit: They could consider having a "Legendarium" as part of the codex cycle (realistically, probably "Legendarium - Imperium", "Legendarium - Chaos", "Legendarium - Xenos" or "Legendarium - Xenos I/Legendarium - Xenos II") to accomplish this. I'm not particularly a fan of more codices at this point, but it would be an option if it was decided (for whatever reason) to not include them as a short list in the back of the relevant codex.
Why would GW make up-to-date rules for models it doesn't make any more? GW's objective is to make profits for itself, not rules for you. GW used to be friendlier to gamers because it used to be a company owned by gamers that produced products for gamers. Those days are long gone, and they aren't coming back.
It's honestly surprising they even kept Legends around, and the only reason was surely that if they didn't, people would have been even angrier.
waefre_1 wrote: Edit: They could consider having a "Legendarium" as part of the codex cycle (realistically, probably "Legendarium - Imperium", "Legendarium - Chaos", "Legendarium - Xenos" or "Legendarium - Xenos I/Legendarium - Xenos II") to accomplish this. I'm not particularly a fan of more codices at this point, but it would be an option if it was decided (for whatever reason) to not include them as a short list in the back of the relevant codex.
How would this be different from Legends as it is?
As much as you might dislike it, GW has produced rules for OOP models and given them away for free. That is an extremely customer friendly thing to do. What more do they really have to do and why should they do it?
PenitentJake wrote: To play devil's advocate though, should GW keep updating rules for units they no longer make?
Should GW be forced to continue making models available in order to justify continuing to update the rules?
And if so, at what point does that interfere with their ability to produce, store and sell other models?
Again, I get it- if you have a model you love, and it goes to Legends, and your preferred way to play the game is at a tournament that doesn't allow it, that hurts. I do miss Kyrinov and Jacobus, and a part of me wishes GW had kept them. But if they had, would it have been at the expense of Taddeus the Purifier, Pious Vorne and Gotfett de Montbard?
We react to that which hurts us, and it often prevents us from seeing the big picture. It really is a Kobayishi Maru for GW; if they were still forced to manufacture and update rules for every unit they've produced since 1987 because somebody loves it, but STILL come up with enough new models to keep the rest of us happy too?
I mean, is that really possible?
And then, if you love YOUR model enough, you'll come up with reasons why they should keep YOUR model manufactured and supported, but somebody else's model could be cut to make room for new stuff, right?
So as GW, how do you win this fight. Honestly, if you think you've got a way to keep a greater number of people happy than Legends, throw it on the table. Maybe there is a solution that's better and I just can't see it.
But to go back to Kyrinov and Jacobus, here are the options:
1: Status quo; stop making the models, but give them Legends so that anyone who already has them can keep using them.
2: Keep updating rules for them, but not make them... So then someone who likes the rules either has to convert or proxy.
3: Release a new plastic Jacobus and Kyrinov with new rules; and I have to admit... This sounds tempting. But would it cost me the Palatine? Or the Paragon? Or the Castigator? I mean, are the Admech players out there really going to be okay if I get all four of the units previewed PLUS Jacobus and Kyrinov? CWE players certainly aren't going to be happy about that (even if it turns out that we DO get a complete refresh in December, it sure isn't going to stop us from bitching about it until then... And I'd probably be one of the ones doing the bitching).
4. Stop making the models AND not bother giving us Legends; if you've got Kyrinov or Jacobus, play them as Counts as Missionaries (or counts as Preachers or counts as Taddeus the Purifier).
Those are they only four options I see. All of them suck. How do you beat the Kobayashi Maru?
This whole thing starts with a false premise. How hard would it be to update some models ? Not hard at all. What is the difference between a chaplain on a bike and a primaris chaplain on bike ? Little more than standard marine weapons and lacking a wound. Is that really any heavy work they need to do ? I don't think so, anyone could do that in moments. Hell they still have captains on bikes somehow they manage with that.
Legends has proven already even if its not a tournament people will not play against them because the tournament mindset pervades all aspects of the game, not just when you are at a tournament and GW knew this. So their boon of legends was just a kiss of a death wrapped up nice to look like a gift, it really wasn't.
GW is not the sweet damsel that cares what it does to the players. They simply want you to buy the new thing and they realize if they kept up with the already sold kids people might not just " upgrade " to the new thing. This isn't a stock issue and some of these kits hadn't been in production for a long time yet had rules the whole time for seemingly not really much more effort than the usual when it came to writing rules.
Heres how you beat it, you keep producing the rules for your models, realize perhaps people will get third party models or one day update them yourself but honor the people who made you the money and earned you the place you are today. Plenty would just upgrade anyways some words and point costs do little to over work the GW rules teams.
Like I predicted though, in swept the protection to why GW is blameless and only a benevolent loving patron giving us the best they can, yeah right. They didn't give any more thought to this other than the bottom line.
Their datasheet indicate T3 sadly. Our Skitarii Alphas also didnt get 2Wounds back. Serberys would be W3. Still only Guardsman LD, no WS3+ ( although I can live with that). The only thing that skitarii troops might get is 2 attacks as seen on serberys. On the other hand Bats stay at 2 attacks so skitarii might as well stay at 1.
Im curious what they will give skitarii to make them more elite again. Scions and kabalite warriors are overall better and have better synergies and buffs currently.
0XFallen wrote: Their datasheet indicate T3 sadly. Our Skitarii Alphas also didnt get 2Wounds back. Serberys would be W3. Still only Guardsman LD, no WS3+ ( although I can live with that). The only thing that skitarii troops might get is 2 attacks as seen on serberys. On the other hand Bats stay at 2 attacks so skitarii might as well stay at 1.
Im curious what they will give skitarii to make them more elite again. Scions and kabalite warriors are overall better and have better synergies and buffs currently.
Range nerf seems kinda odd, but I use the Flamer bros anyway. Glad to see they stayed at 2 wounds. Tbf it does make sense for the mounted bros to get T4 and 2 wounds, as it’s in line with every other unit and their +1W and T for being on a bike/mount. Don’t know if it’s necessarily a good thing in the long run though.
AngryAngel80 wrote: GW would never use rules to sell models, they are the pinnacles of balance and straight shooting honesty.
I like how this dumb meme is always parroted despite zero proof and continents of evidence to the contrary. Yup, GW uses rules to sell models, that's why big $$ Primaris grav tanks have trash sheets (oh wait...), that's why GW did idiotic squat buff 95% of playerbase hated that slashed primaris sales (because they want to sell cheap ugly old trash, not new expensive boxes, eh?), that's why necron big models all have terrible rules (especially dumpster fire that is Monolith LoW status), that's why they killed Knight and Baneblade armies, etc, etc, Earth is flat
We do have a few examples of GW overcooking the rules to sell models (wraithknight being the most infamous). But the very fact that these example are so few and far between does suggest it isn't a regular practice of theirs.
At the very least, we can say that if they try to deliberately overpower units to sell kits, they aren't very good at it most of the time.
AngryAngel80 wrote: GW would never use rules to sell models, they are the pinnacles of balance and straight shooting honesty.
I like how this dumb meme is always parroted despite zero proof and continents of evidence to the contrary. Yup, GW uses rules to sell models, that's why big $$ Primaris grav tanks have trash sheets (oh wait...), that's why GW did idiotic squat buff 95% of playerbase hated that slashed primaris sales (because they want to sell cheap ugly old trash, not new expensive boxes, eh?), that's why necron big models all have terrible rules (especially dumpster fire that is Monolith LoW status), that's why they killed Knight and Baneblade armies, etc, etc, Earth is flat
You do realize the primaris were made a good deal better than first born marines for a awhile before first borns were buffed yes ? You do realize that while primaris tanks may not be amazing they still end up better, mostly, than first born tanks yes ? You do realize that GW may be aware people all have monoliths who play necrons as they weren't a LoW before yes ? You do realize that Baneblades and Knights more so did have a large amount of time they were very good as choices run and Baneblades have been sold for a long time so far yes ?
It may not always work, but it may not always be their design straight out the gate either. To think they won't push rules to push purchases though, that would be the conspiracy theory here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: We do have a few examples of GW overcooking the rules to sell models (wraithknight being the most infamous). But the very fact that these example are so few and far between does suggest it isn't a regular practice of theirs.
At the very least, we can say that if they try to deliberately overpower units to sell kits, they aren't very good at it most of the time.
Are they always very good at it ? No but if they don't get the sales they want right off, best bet your bottom dollar they will make them tasty as soon as the next update for that models rules come out, typically. Some units oddly they seem content to not really entice people on with rules, like unless I missed it people weren't too thrilled with the ork buggies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: And all their concepts and ideas are 100% original and do not use any other areas of fiction or history for inspiration.
They invented arrows, skulls, Roman numerals and grenade launchers.
GW actually trademarked my skull, it'll be a sad day when I die and they take possession of it.
Most boxes of a model are sold around release, if they were trying to overpower stuff to sell it it wouldn't make sense to do it down the road as opposed to when they're released.
What GW definitely does in terms of balance is stir the pot, but it seems to be more random stirring than purposeful choices to buff or nerf particular things. The total hit and miss nature of the recent Space Marines release illustrates this pretty well.
We're arguing semantics then as stirring the pot I still consider placing rules to sell models. I am sure they sold a good amount of baneblades, knights, all those things on release to people who just wanted the models when available.
I mean how many people said they thought the firestorm turret thing was dumb, yet would buy 3 ? However for everyone else, they would wait until they had a use for them. Hence the mecha horses, using them for instance. They were priced point wise to move, with rules to make them attractive and even a primo strat to give them bite in their role.
The hit or miss with marines is not really, in my mind, a miss at all as the primaris stuff still usually ends up better than its first born contemporary. The fact that vehicles are kind of meh right now not withstanding.
There are just too many times that you see, trends like, these kinds of models are great, now they suck, transports are terrible, now they are mandatory, flyers, LoW, etc, etc. They may be often bad at it but that doesn't mean they don't push people in certain directions and if they don't at first do so, they'll keep buffing until they get there, like with Marines which went up and up and then had to dial back down. How many special rules did they have to slap on them to make them feel like a strong choice ? For awhile it was just buffs on buffs culminating with the likes of iron hands, before the mild nerfening.
Which thankfully left the DA alone, so all may still enjoy their transhuman terminators. Which I appreciate.
PenitentJake wrote: 2: Keep updating rules for them, but not make them... So then someone who likes the rules either has to convert or proxy.
This one. GW used to be a lot more friendly to conversions/proxying. That's an attitude that they should go back to, Chapterhouse be damned (I understand that they need to worry about their IP, but if they aren't going to be making a mini, the least GW can do is not be gakheads to their customers about it).
Yeah, this is the way I'd think they should go about it - and they could even do the odd article on WHC or video on YouTube showing how to convert some of these models.
In terms of updating, I'd say a sweep through Legends at the start of an edition should be the minimum expectation. Ideally, I'd want to see them reviewed when a 'dex is redone, so keywording and weapon profiles are kept consistent, and so that if anything is removed from the book, it shows up in Legends pretty much straightaway. Having just checked, OG Ragnar isn't in Legends, for example, and I'm pretty sure he was pulled from the SW Supplement.
Boy it's fun to watch him bust into threads like the Cool Aid Man only to fall over and spill the drink everywhere.
alextroy wrote: If GW has actively overpowered a kit to sell it in recent years, I wouldn’t say “they aren’t very good at it”. They would be abysmally bad at it.
There we agree.
Just because GW try to do it doesn't mean they're any good at it.
AngryAngel80 wrote: GW actually trademarked my skull, it'll be a sad day when I die and they take possession of it.
AngryAngel80 wrote: We're arguing semantics then as stirring the pot I still consider placing rules to sell models. I am sure they sold a good amount of baneblades, knights, all those things on release to people who just wanted the models when available.
I think things have always been too scattershot for this to really be a motivation. There's also no obvious reason for why GW want to sell this bit of plastic but not that bit of plastic.
I think the evidence is just that GW internally have a relatively limited understanding of how their game is played at a competitive/obsessive/min-maxer level - and historically seemingly not much interest. So their rules did not take this into account.
Consequently when cries of "this is too powerful" and "this is rubbish" eventually reached them, some guy grabbed a power slider up and down - but having no idea where "balance" is, you just got a new random outcome. Do you think GW secretly had a conspiracy to sell Thunderfire Cannons? And if they had that conspiracy, why has it seemingly dramatically ended now? I think its more likely someone in the rules team just went "this seems like a cool rule?" GW has no obvious motive in making IH the best chapter any more than UM or IF or whatever - its just that "cool rule" on "cool rule" made them so.
The iterative approach of the CA points adjustments usually worked quite well because if a unit is "bad" at say 20 points - its going to be "better" at 16-18, even if its not perfect. Where it went wrong is when you had this process running alongside major metashifts brought on by new books - see for instance GSC.
The fact the 9th codexes seem to have had a wider playtest is also probably why there are less explicit issues than before - at least for now.
If GW does try to overpower new kits to push sales of them, then they do it so incompetently that you can effectively just ignore it as a consequence.
"You do realize primaris tanks are bad but they're better than firstborn tanks" like, no, dude. They're actually generally not, because they load so many weapons onto primaris tanks that they're just giant points piniatas for your opponent to demolish. ABSOLUTELY give me a las predator over a fething lancer, a land speeder with a multi-melta over a storm speeder that costs 2.5 times as much, degrades, and gets one single additional mm shot, and a Vindicator over...most marine vehicles honestly, 140 points for something that's probably just about as durable as a 360 point repulsor.
They're all not great, but if I had to take either firstborn tanks or primaris tanks, firstborn all day every day in basically every category.
AngryAngel80 wrote: You do realize the primaris were made a good deal better than first born marines for a awhile before first borns were buffed yes ? You do realize that while primaris tanks may not be amazing they still end up better, mostly, than first born tanks yes ?
Would you care to quantify this statement?
Please use a Gladiator Reaper at 230 points against a TAC Razorback at 125.
You do realize that GW may be aware people all have monoliths who play necrons as they weren't a LoW before yes ?
I fail to see how this is relevant.
You do realize that Baneblades and Knights more so did have a large amount of time they were very good as choices run and Baneblades have been sold for a long time so far yes ?
CK are doing quite well. Baneblades would probably do fine as well right now if people just stopped worrying about the 3CP.
Are they always very good at it ? No but if they don't get the sales they want right off, best bet your bottom dollar they will make them tasty as soon as the next update for that models rules come out, typically. Some units oddly they seem content to not really entice people on with rules, like unless I missed it people weren't too thrilled with the ork buggies.
See...you're just arguing both sides of the coin so that you can't ever "be wrong".
Ork Buggies were decent. It's the community that decided they weren't good ( Squig Buggies mostly excluded ). Ork Buggies got a point drop and people still decided they weren't worth it. Now we see people using tons of buggies. Why? Because people decided to actually try them instead of listening to misguided community opinion.
What is or is not "good" is largely determined by how people view things not by how GW has balanced it. There have been the warping events from marines, Castellans, and Ynnari. You will claim these are as intended. I will claim that the issues surrounding are mistakes rooted in far more complex issues.
I don't see how seeing the full codex would somehow lower the damage output of these new profiles tho? I've already been down on 40k these days, this just makes me nega-hyped for the admech codex
VladimirHerzog wrote: I don't see how seeing the full codex would somehow lower the damage output of these new profiles tho? I've already been down on 40k these days, this just makes me nega-hyped for the admech codex
Are these weapons actually...that crazy?
I mean, sure, OK, its got damage flat 3 and that's pretty good, but it wounds on a 4 and has AP-2, where most anti-tank weapons generally wound on a 3 since theyre usually s8 and usually have AP at least -3.
IIRC the weapon they're competing with is an assault 2 18" range plasma gun, correct? which overcharged against a tank profile would deal 1.48 damage, and the new arc rifle in rapid would deal 1.33.
The plasma caliver is going to be more effective against MEQ, obviously, because damage flat 2 and owund on 2s and AP-3, and against tanks, with the downside of it being obviously exploding the wielder on a 1 if you overcharge it.
The change to cognis auto and lascannons makes perfect sense as well, because (again IIRC) they're mounted on the big ironstrider balistarii things, and they're in direct competition with Onager Dunecrawlers. Rather than making those just...less good versions of Onagers, now they're the 'high damage for the points, low durability' option.
These all seem like pretty reasonable buffs to make.
Admech in general ( not everything ofc) was underperforming in relation to model and lore. They have the best imperial tech, which you never felt in 8th edition, which was a huge nerf from 7th edition.
VladimirHerzog wrote: I don't see how seeing the full codex would somehow lower the damage output of these new profiles tho? I've already been down on 40k these days, this just makes me nega-hyped for the admech codex
In all seriousness I can see how it could be stressful.
It could wind up being a huge stinker, but there's a lot to consider. AdMech had a really early book and it's rules require a loooot of revision. How will Canticles be handled? How will CORE be applied? We've seen drops in durability on new units ( also see DE ). What about with Kataphrons?
0XFallen wrote: Admech in general ( not everything ofc) was underperforming in relation to model and lore. They have the best imperial tech, which you never felt in 8th edition, which was a huge nerf from 7th edition.
And of course baseline mass-produced imperial tech used by the imperial guard is better than....every 'hyper-advanced' technological xenos race in the game, but that's neither here nor there
I am in agreement that admech weaponry needed to be greatly improved. I'm guessing they'll just give simple statbuffs and get rid of the fiddly "thing on a 6" rules like what currently exist on arc, galvanic, cognis, transonic etc etc, which is good.
VladimirHerzog wrote: I don't see how seeing the full codex would somehow lower the damage output of these new profiles tho? I've already been down on 40k these days, this just makes me nega-hyped for the admech codex
In all seriousness I can see how it could be stressful.
It could wind up being a huge stinker, but there's a lot to consider. AdMech had a really early book and it's rules require a loooot of revision. How will Canticles be handled? How will CORE be applied? We've seen drops in durability on new units. What about with Kataphrons?
idk, but if you asked me to guess:
-the Bionics rule will be their 'they always get this' USR, and Canticles will be their 'only if no allies, maybe we let you grandfather in one Knight and still get them' doctrine-equivalent
-forgeworld choice will let you swap out a vanilla canticle or maybe improve a particular canticle
Tyel wrote: The Codex may remove certain... exciting combinations from Engine War.
But yes - possibly the most shooty faction in the game right now getting 40% more shooting doesn't fill me with joy.
Meh, let’s see what gets Core before we assume the most shooty faction gets significantly more shooty. If robots keep BS4 and lose re-rolls, and Wrath of Mars goes away or gets capped, the biggest boogeyman in the army is gone.
I haven’t seen anything yet that’s Eradicaters level of broken, have you?
Most of the shooting power in 8th came not from pure stats but by reroll bubles and stratagem stacking.
What most people that complaints about profile changes with 9th dont see (because most people don't play that much) is that the offensive output of most shooting lists in 9th is actually lowering in relation with 8th with the exception of armies that were just too weak.
9th codex are removing most of the absurd buff stacking of 8th and the reroll absurdities of those codex, and making the base stats of the weapons better to compensate. Those are great changes: Units and weapons stand on their own merits, not by how ubermonger they become with 1-2 auras, psychic powers and 2-3 stratagems on top of them.
Stat inflation is one of the defining features of 9th edition. People should get used to it, it isn't going away. I personally think it's a big mistake, but GW clearly doesn't make decisions based on what I think, so that's neither here nor there.
yukishiro1 wrote: Stat inflation is one of the defining features of 9th edition. People should get used to it, it isn't going away. I personally think it's a big mistake, but GW clearly doesn't make decisions based on what I think, so that's neither here nor there.
Thats what i feel, the game was already too lethal for my taste instead being based on strategy. And i think expressing that opinion is fine, me chosing to shelf my 40k because i don't like how it currently is is fine.
yukishiro1 wrote: Stat inflation is one of the defining features of 9th edition. People should get used to it, it isn't going away. I personally think it's a big mistake, but GW clearly doesn't make decisions based on what I think, so that's neither here nor there.
I have to ask: Why would it be a mistake?
To me, one of the greatest crimes of gw's systems over the years has been that they DONT FREAKING USE THEM. they pick one combination of, for example, wounds, toughness, and save, and they make a JILLION different units that exact combination of stats with very little to differentiate them, and then they make a surprised pikachu face when every single edtiion there ends up being a 'best weapon type' to take vs everything.
The fact that necrons and death guard got wildly vastly different stat increases to make them resilient in very different ways is one of the best features of 9th as opposed to 8th. Moving marines to a w2 framework opens a huge amount of design freedom and opens the door to, for example -
-Letting Eldar have good save values, making them into a low-T high-sv faction
-Letting Orks have T5 (because it no longer makes the W2 marines feel weak) and maybe adding additional toughness/wounds to nids as well, making them the 'durable by being difficult to wound' faction
If the defensive profiles of the various different factions are finally finally being made distinct, suddenly it's a whole lot less easy to 'solve' the equation of which weapon you want, and spam it to the exclusion of all others.
Also, increasing the consistency of heavy weaponry is massively needed. Damage including a lot more flat values than straight d3s and d6s is something that was immediately clear in the opening days of 8th to me.
I'm glad all this is happening, my only complaint is that it's one army at a time, but designers can only work so fast. Slow is better than not at all or sloppy.
You do realize that Baneblades and Knights more so did have a large amount of time they were very good as choices run and Baneblades have been sold for a long time so far yes ?
CK are doing quite well. Baneblades would probably do fine as well right now if people just stopped worrying about the 3CP.
Not a guard player then... The SHTs have a problem where their survivability doesn't increase in the same way as their damage and points over basic tanks. If you can kill Leman Russ you can kill Baneblades and the guard player loses more points and firepower for not much more effort on your part. Throw in the CP loss and you may as well get a Knight.
yukishiro1 wrote: Stat inflation is one of the defining features of 9th edition. People should get used to it, it isn't going away. I personally think it's a big mistake, but GW clearly doesn't make decisions based on what I think, so that's neither here nor there.
Thats what i feel, the game was already too lethal for my taste instead being based on strategy. And i think expressing that opinion is fine, me chosing to shelf my 40k because i don't like how it currently is is fine.
While I generally would agree, I would still hold my final verdict unitl the codex is released and we have all the rules. And the final, final verdict until we have all 9th ed codices. GW seems to be putting at least some effort into balancing the lethality with special abilities like "fight last" or "can't be hit/wounded better than....".
Now if that works in the long run and provides for a somewhat healthy meta for 9th remains to be seen, but like I said in another thread: if a 10th edition comes around in a couple of years, and we get another cycle of codex releases with the same level of power creep as this one, I don't think the game can handle it unless they make a hard reset regarding weapon profiles and unit stats.
More dangerous weapons for 9th. Just what the Tech-Priest ordered.
Having said that, I think some of the increased power will be tempered by the fact that things like Arc-Rifles will be 0-1 per squad of 10 Skitarii. It's ok though, I'm sure 10-man squads with 1 Transuranic Arquebus, 1 Arc-Rifle and 1 Plasma Caliver will work really well.
H.B.M.C. wrote: More dangerous weapons for 9th. Just what the Tech-Priest ordered.
Having said that, I think some of the increased power will be tempered by the fact that things like Arc-Rifles will be 0-1 per squad of 10 Skitarii. It's ok though, I'm sure 10-man squads with 1 Transuranic Arquebus, 1 Arc-Rifle and 1 Plasma Caliver will work really well.
I could see them losing their 2 per 5 for a more archaic wording scheme.
I do like that the standard galvanic rifle is at cross purposes with the arc rifle. One doesn't want to move and the other does, which can offset the pretty solid buff to the rifles or cause people to limit use of arc rifles.
yukishiro1 wrote: Stat inflation is one of the defining features of 9th edition. People should get used to it, it isn't going away. I personally think it's a big mistake, but GW clearly doesn't make decisions based on what I think, so that's neither here nor there.
I have to ask: Why would it be a mistake?
Stat inflation isn't the same as stat differentiation. Stat inflation is when stats all move in one direction, which is what we're seeing in 9th. Everybody's just getting bigger numbers for pretty much everything. Well, except the wounds characteristic of vehicles, for some bizarre reason, leading to the very strange result that 3 heavy infantry models are now often significantly more resilient than a tank.
Re your point of not using the full scale...that's getting worse, not better. When's the last time you saw anything new with a stat below the historical average stat block (i.e. hitting on 4s, S3/T3, etc)? You don't see it. The numbers are not being spread out, they're just all going up.
Mariongodspeed wrote: Meh, let’s see what gets Core before we assume the most shooty faction gets significantly more shooty. If robots keep BS4 and lose re-rolls, and Wrath of Mars goes away or gets capped, the biggest boogeyman in the army is gone.
I haven’t seen anything yet that’s Eradicaters level of broken, have you?
I'm doing that thing where its hard for me to imagine an army I don't play without all the special rules that inevitably seem to exist when I do play against it.
Are for example 75 point D3+3 Lascannon Ballistarii broken in a world of eradicators, attack bikes, retributors? Probably not really - but mentally it seems like a very significant boost versus "the standard". The Autocannon version does make the Enmitic exterminator Heavy Lokhust even more rubbish than it was - but I think the world had more or less universally made that judgement.
Xenomancers wrote: Safe to say I can go back to complaining about marine being terrible again.
Have you ever stopped ?
Automatically Appended Next Post: The fact a lot of these have gone to assult basicaly means ad mech will be the " super mobile" faction... Because who cares about penalties due to terrain and unit abilities when you are already advancing and getting a penalty... Yet another example why -1 cap is dumb.
So not only a buff in damage/ROF but also in mobility which I think is being overlooked. This is some serious creep from an army that was essentially gunline+
yukishiro1 wrote: Stat inflation is one of the defining features of 9th edition. People should get used to it, it isn't going away. I personally think it's a big mistake, but GW clearly doesn't make decisions based on what I think, so that's neither here nor there.
Xenomancers wrote: Safe to say I can go back to complaining about marine being terrible again.
Have you ever stopped ?
Automatically Appended Next Post: The fact a lot of these have gone to assult basicaly means ad mech will be the " super mobile" faction... Because who cares about penalties due to terrain and unit abilities when you are already advancing and getting a penalty... Yet another example why -1 cap is dumb.
So not only a buff in damage/ROF but also in mobility which I think is being overlooked. This is some serious creep from an army that was essentially gunline+
They have some incredible melee units. Electro priests are just silly.
Just look at this cognis lascannon 48" assault 2 str 9 ap-3 d3+3 damage.
Compared to a lastalon? 24" Heavy 2 str 9 ap-3 d6 damage. Double the range and 5 avg damage cvs 3/4. I guess this cognis lascannon needs to be what? 60 points for the twin for it to be even remotely balanced with the lastalon which costs 40?
Mariongodspeed wrote: Meh, let’s see what gets Core before we assume the most shooty faction gets significantly more shooty. If robots keep BS4 and lose re-rolls, and Wrath of Mars goes away or gets capped, the biggest boogeyman in the army is gone.
I haven’t seen anything yet that’s Eradicaters level of broken, have you?
I'm doing that thing where its hard for me to imagine an army I don't play without all the special rules that inevitably seem to exist when I do play against it.
Are for example 75 point D3+3 Lascannon Ballistarii broken in a world of eradicators, attack bikes, retributors? Probably not really - but mentally it seems like a very significant boost versus "the standard". The Autocannon version does make the Enmitic exterminator Heavy Lokhust even more rubbish than it was - but I think the world had more or less universally made that judgement.
Lets compare apples to apples.
Vehicles in general are bad right now because of weapons averaging 4-5 wounds each are plentiful. However...this new ballistarii vs a gladiator lancer? Give me a faking break.
Admech was onced supposed to be the mobile faction in 7th e. Cognis weapons already allowed advancing and shooting. Its also a twinlascannon, not just one. Admech units are also generally not that fast. Ironstriders are basically huge walking legs and move 10". Raiders are fast because of their scout move. But other factions known for their speed laugh at our movement ( that really happened several times)
I think everyone recognises the Lancer is borderline unplayable rubbish. (All of them are really)
The question is how they stackup with MM attack bikes, Retributors etc. I think it would be around a wash - rules depending. I think MM attack bikes should be more expensive - because that level of lethality is bad for the game - but if GW don't, they are the bar to compare with.
yukishiro1 wrote: Stat inflation is one of the defining features of 9th edition. People should get used to it, it isn't going away. I personally think it's a big mistake, but GW clearly doesn't make decisions based on what I think, so that's neither here nor there.
I have to ask: Why would it be a mistake?
Stat inflation isn't the same as stat differentiation. Stat inflation is when stats all move in one direction, which is what we're seeing in 9th. Everybody's just getting bigger numbers for pretty much everything. Well, except the wounds characteristic of vehicles, for some bizarre reason, leading to the very strange result that 3 heavy infantry models are now often significantly more resilient than a tank.
Re your point of not using the full scale...that's getting worse, not better. When's the last time you saw anything new with a stat below the historical average stat block (i.e. hitting on 4s, S3/T3, etc)? You don't see it. The numbers are not being spread out, they're just all going up.
...except that they're not.
Firstborn marines got an additional wound, but Necrons did not - instead, they got additional defenses in the form of resurrection protocols that actually work as advertised bringing models back to life, and vehicles that essentially had Transhuman Phys and a 5++. Meaning that an army spamming the high-AP d2 weaponry that would be super effective against marines is highly INeffective against necrons.
And Dreadnoughts got a different sort of durability boost from regular marines, -1 damage, meaning marines have an inbuilt support unit that's ideal for surviving the exact types of weapons that marines themselves are susceptible to.
Death Guard got both the additional wound and their FNP changed to -1 damage, making them another threat alongside necrons that makes spamming D2 weaponry to tailor against marines unviable, and we can already see that both hit the current competitive meta - which was doing exactly that - like a brick.
Then you add Drukhari to the mix whose defenses are primarily invulnerable saves, FNPs and negative to hit mods, which is another, completely distinct form of defenses that makes spamming high strength high damage weaponry like people are already beginning to spam to target death guard less viable.
GW is primarily getting this done using buffs - though given that the codex release schedule has included something like 5 marine codexes the 'average' 9th edition codex is still a step down in power level overall rather than a step up, but that's because so many things in the game were already sitting right at the bottom or the standard stat value. How much stuff in the game was 'basically a guardsman' in 8th? it became a race to the bottom.
if you create a situation where you can't spam weapon A because of army B, you can't spam weapon B because of army C, and you can't spam weapon C because of army A, you naturally create a less lethal game environment by forcing people to create take all comers lists.
Tyel wrote: I think everyone recognises the Lancer is borderline unplayable rubbish. (All of them are really)
The question is how they stackup with MM attack bikes, Retributors etc. I think it would be around a wash - rules depending. I think MM attack bikes should be more expensive - because that level of lethality is bad for the game - but if GW don't, they are the bar to compare with.
Everything could be fixed with proper points. Attack bike really are fine. The issue is weapons do not scale in price based on what you put them on. A MM is clearly worth more on a units that moves and shoots with no penalty and moves 14" rather than on a tactical marine. But you pay the same price for it.
Tyel wrote: I think everyone recognises the Lancer is borderline unplayable rubbish. (All of them are really)
The question is how they stackup with MM attack bikes, Retributors etc. I think it would be around a wash - rules depending. I think MM attack bikes should be more expensive - because that level of lethality is bad for the game - but if GW don't, they are the bar to compare with.
Everything could be fixed with proper points. Attack bike really are fine. The issue is weapons do not scale in price based on what you put them on. A MM is clearly worth more on a units that moves and shoots with no penalty and moves 14" rather than on a tactical marine. But you pay the same price for it.
Good thing they reorganized the point costs to allow for different costs on different squads. Nothing stopping them from adjusting it if it is really an issue.
75ppm for the twin cognis lascannon balistarii seems like a fairly reasonable cost even comparing to a less viable MM platform like an attack bike - take a land speeder for example.
iirc a balistarii is 10" move, T5 W6 Sv4+ 6++ with a -1 to hit. A land speeder is 18" (or 16" maybe i forget) move with fly T6 W6 Sv3+ and a gun that's significantly better at 12" range and slightly worse at 24" range. plus a little bonus rule thing that we'll give it for free.
yukishiro1 wrote: Stat inflation isn't the same as stat differentiation. Stat inflation is when stats all move in one direction, which is what we're seeing in 9th.
Not entirely accurate. Admech has wound drops and DE saw some layers of saves stripped. Aggs lost double tap.
The fact a lot of these have gone to assult basicaly means ad mech will be the " super mobile" faction... Because who cares about penalties due to terrain and unit abilities when you are already advancing and getting a penalty... Yet another example why -1 cap is dumb.
So not only a buff in damage/ROF but also in mobility which I think is being overlooked. This is some serious creep from an army that was essentially gunline+
Ironstriders dont have -1 to hit, only dragoons and they could advance and shoot beforehand too.
Great read about the buff to resilience, which many forget. Generally I liked the idea of increasing the spectrum between guardsmen and SM. Now everything in between can be unique(though skitarii bodystats dont look promising, their incoming rules might change that)
0XFallen wrote: Admech was onced supposed to be the mobile faction in 7th e. Cognis weapons already allowed advancing and shooting. Its also a twinlascannon, not just one. Admech units are also generally not that fast. Ironstriders are basically huge walking legs and move 10". Raiders are fast because of their scout move. But other factions known for their speed laugh at our movement ( that really happened several times)
Skitarii were the mobile faction.
Cult Mechanicus had an easily accessible Deep Strike Formation.
OK, so a MM landspeeder has a literally identical statline except for Sv3+ instead of Sv4+.
A mm landspeeder has lower range, but significantly higher mobility (plus Fly) and has slightly lower damage at the outside of its range band and slightly higher on the inside.
....are mm landspeeders OP? not hearing a ton of chatter about them.
OK, so a MM landspeeder has a literally identical statline except for Sv3+ instead of Sv4+.
A mm landspeeder has lower range, but significantly higher mobility (plus Fly) and has slightly lower damage at the outside of its range band and slightly higher on the inside.
....are mm landspeeders OP? not hearing a ton of chatter about them.
Str 9 is a huge consideration for an anti tank weapon.
I don't think it is too big of a deal for the unit itself. It just so much better than any marine vehicle is laughable at this point. Basically identical firepower to a gladiator lancer for less than half the points. Durability much higher but at 2.75 units to 1. Their durability per point is about the same. Joke.
Tyel wrote: I think everyone recognises the Lancer is borderline unplayable rubbish. (All of them are really)
The question is how they stackup with MM attack bikes, Retributors etc. I think it would be around a wash - rules depending. I think MM attack bikes should be more expensive - because that level of lethality is bad for the game - but if GW don't, they are the bar to compare with.
Everything could be fixed with proper points. Attack bike really are fine. The issue is weapons do not scale in price based on what you put them on. A MM is clearly worth more on a units that moves and shoots with no penalty and moves 14" rather than on a tactical marine. But you pay the same price for it.
Good thing they reorganized the point costs to allow for different costs on different squads. Nothing stopping them from adjusting it if it is really an issue.
75ppm for the twin cognis lascannon balistarii seems like a fairly reasonable cost even comparing to a less viable MM platform like an attack bike - take a land speeder for example.
iirc a balistarii is 10" move, T5 W6 Sv4+ 6++ with a -1 to hit. A land speeder is 18" (or 16" maybe i forget) move with fly T6 W6 Sv3+ and a gun that's significantly better at 12" range and slightly worse at 24" range. plus a little bonus rule thing that we'll give it for free.
As for the guns: In terms of pure damage I'd rate D3+3 damage (Min 4, Av 5, Max 6) as significantly better then D6 (Min 1, Av 3.5, Max 6) , both in terms of consistency, and mean (5 is a 42% increase over 3.5). In melta range in terms of pure damage the melta is now D6+2 (Min 3, Av 5.5, Max 8), so edges out the D3+3 with a 10% increase in mean damage, but is far swingier.
It's not all about the damage stat thoug. In a world where T8 and/or ++s are fairly common then S9 AP-3 is going to be the most consistent performer in terms of wounding and getting past those saves (the twin cognis lascannon will edge out damage the multi-melta even if the melta's in 1/2 range against T8, and perform noticably better against T8/5++). If the Ironstrider is around 75 pts I'd think it'd definately compare favourably to the LS. In a match up, if you also consider the superior range of the lascannons I'd have to award the contest to the Ironstrider Balistarii.
The increase of D3+3 replacing D6 does raise interesting questions on the attack bike vs landspeeder debate. the with a min of 4 damage D3+3 will always take out an attack bike on a damaging shoot, but will only take out a landspeeder (or other 6W platform) 1/3 of the time. Are the extra points of the LS worth needing a 2nd shot to take it out 2/3 of the time?
To me an issue with C:SM is the good AT is very good (e.g. Eradicators, Melta attack bikes etc), but lots of the options (e.g. predators, gladiators) are rather lacklustre at best.
Tyel wrote: I think everyone recognises the Lancer is borderline unplayable rubbish. (All of them are really)
The question is how they stackup with MM attack bikes, Retributors etc. I think it would be around a wash - rules depending. I think MM attack bikes should be more expensive - because that level of lethality is bad for the game - but if GW don't, they are the bar to compare with.
Yes, they probably are 'balanced' when looking at similar really good units so in that way its 'fine' but the question is if that is a baseline we should want the game to be centered around.
As others have already said, I don't think I have heard anyone complain that the game was not 'killy' enough and that stuff should be removed off the board faster.
All that said, I do like the d6 damage moving to d3+3 (or preferably d3+2) because so many d6 damage weapons were/are bad because of how unreliable they are.
But they probably should be more expensive.
I enjoy that the changes to Galvanic Rifles reinforce Rangers as the long-range fire support infantry, and also that Arc Rifles got a minor range buff to make them synergize- it feels like someone looked at these choices and wanted to give them more purpose, which is a deeper look than just buffing power. Rangers will now be able to out-shoot Marines at long range, but will be less effective at mobile shooting up close, let alone in melee. Sounds about right.
I also second the point that a lot of issues with lethality in 8th came from specific weapons and from buffs. I don't think Arc Rifles will be overpowered; I think they'll now be as worth taking as Plasma Calivers or Transuranic Arquebuses. It was never basic infantry or Ironstriders that scared me; it was big units of Kastelans in shooting mode with Cawl sitting nearby and popping Wrath of Mars. That wombo-comboing is downright oppressive, and if it gets removed I'm all for better basic profiles on the weapons.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I like that updated Haywire weapons are fine for killing monsters and multiwound models now thanks to the DD3 they've been adding.
Are Haywire guns now better at killing monsters than poison guns?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I like that updated Haywire weapons are fine for killing monsters and multiwound models now thanks to the DD3 they've been adding.
Are Haywire guns now better at killing monsters than poison guns?
Someone would have to do the math that owns the DE codex, but Scourges can get 4 Haywire Blasters vs 4 poison weapons.
Haywire blasters are Heavy 1D3 shots S3 Ap-3 damage 1D3 Wounds Blast, with special rules for vehicles that don't matter here. Splinter Cannons are Heavy 3 Poison 4+ Ap-1 D2.
Automatically Appended Next Post: OK, against 6+ T3 1W infantry it is better. But it is a big ball of lightning.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I like that updated Haywire weapons are fine for killing monsters and multiwound models now thanks to the DD3 they've been adding.
Are Haywire guns now better at killing monsters than poison guns?
no, not even close. Don't listen to the living memes of dakka.
Against any monster, a splinter cannon wounds on 4+ (3+ if you have the right kabal), AP-1, 2W, with 3 shots. Making it more or less a super heavy bolter.
OK, so a MM landspeeder has a literally identical statline except for Sv3+ instead of Sv4+.
A mm landspeeder has lower range, but significantly higher mobility (plus Fly) and has slightly lower damage at the outside of its range band and slightly higher on the inside.
....are mm landspeeders OP? not hearing a ton of chatter about them.
Str 9 is a huge consideration for an anti tank weapon.
I don't think it is too big of a deal for the unit itself. It just so much better than any marine vehicle is laughable at this point. Basically identical firepower to a gladiator lancer for less than half the points. Durability much higher but at 2.75 units to 1. Their durability per point is about the same. Joke.
A gladiator lancer has less firepower than a land speeder with a single mm against most targets. It seems like the problem here is that the glancer is a fething joke against....eeeeeeeeeeeeeverything, compared to...plenty of units in the marine codex? A laspred embarrasses this fething thing. It's not a good point of comparison.
The guns are worth at most 100 points but GW will think (not entirely unreasonably) that you should pay more for 12 T8 wounds - even if without invuls they are incredibly easy to pop.
So its probably going to get a cut to say 150 in CA and still be rubbish. It needs a fundamental rules rewrite.
Tyel wrote: The Lancer's just got Squigbuggy problems.
The guns are worth at most 100 points but GW will think (not entirely unreasonably) that you should pay more for 12 T8 wounds - even if without invuls they are incredibly easy to pop.
So its probably going to get a cut to say 150 in CA and still be rubbish. It needs a fundamental rules rewrite.
tbh it feels like both it and the repulsecutioner were properly priced around firing twice (at which point it would kidna make sense as a Laspred 2.0) and then hastily rejiggered to "+1 to hit" and its point value was not modified at all.
the_scotsman wrote: A gladiator lancer has less firepower than a land speeder with a single mm against most targets. It seems like the problem here is that the glancer is a fething joke against....eeeeeeeeeeeeeverything, compared to...plenty of units in the marine codex? A laspred embarrasses this fething thing. It's not a good point of comparison.
I don't think that's the right take. The lancer doesn't need to be in danger close to get a buff to damage. On top of that the lancer can take T8 as well as T5 W4. What happens when a speeder or AB can't get within 12"? Those shots aren't anything special.
A Lancer is a counter-deploy that can hang back and pop in and out of firing lanes going after mid range up through tough targets. It will kill two ABs 48% of the time ( one 43% ). Meanwhile a MM out of half would kill two 5% of the time ( and one 37% ). Even in half it becomes only 14% and 47%. It also a fair bit more against knights that MM in half range.
Is it better than 3 to 4 attack bikes? Well, those probably need to go up in cost a bit, but I bet with good play that tank would take them out before they can bracket it most of the time. Marines are going to find out that MM aren't going to cut it when everything else can walk out from behind cover and ice their current anti-tank with ease.
Kanluwen wrote: Skitarii were the mobile faction.
Cult Mechanicus had an easily accessible Deep Strike Formation.
You'll never let this nonsense go, will you?
Remind me again, which codex's units had Tireless Advance? Was it Skitarii or Cult Mechanicus?
"Cult and Skitarii are part of the same overall faction!", you'll constantly come into threads trying to start crap. Never once has that been a disputed fact. I'll even grant you that apparently they were meant to be considered "one big faction" or whatever the hell James Hewitt's commentary was about it.
It doesn't change that my point still stands. Cult Mechanicus' units? They weren't mobile. They weren't meant to be. The mobility in that book came from the Holy Requisitioner formation, which granted Deep Strike to a Dominus and 2-3 units of Kataphron Breachers.
Skitarii had that mobility in spades. Everything could get Tireless Advance via a Battle Maniple or the Skitarii Maniple Detachment. Scout moves for everyone!
So, TLDR:
Skitarii had movement shenanigans while Cult didn't. My statement is correct and you're just, as usual, trying to pick fights.
Your mistake is thinking that they're meant to be two different armies. They were not. They were never intended to be that way either. We've had someone who worked on the rules at the time they were made tell us this. And yet you still go on and on about it every chance you get.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Your mistake is thinking that they're meant to be two different armies. They were not. They were never intended to be that way either. We've had someone who worked on the rules at the time they were made tell us this. And yet you still go on and on about it every chance you get.
That's what I'm getting at.
Which is why when I say DA, there's absolutely no differentiation between Greenwing, Deathwing, and Ravenwing, right? Same army, so there can't be ANY delineations between different parts of it!
JNAProductions wrote: Which is why when I say DA, there's absolutely no differentiation between Greenwing, Deathwing, and Ravenwing, right? Same army, so there can't be ANY delineations between different parts of it!
Except there's no one getting their panties in a twist about GW putting Deathwing units in the Dark Angel Codex.
Kan is (eternally) upset because GW put out a Skitarii book and a Cult Mechanicus book (for entirely - confirmed - corporate reasons, not because they were meant to be separate armies) and he liked one and disliked another, and hated it when a new AdMech book came out that combined the two split lists.
It's not even slightly similar to your attempted comparison.
JNAProductions wrote: Which is why when I say DA, there's absolutely no differentiation between Greenwing, Deathwing, and Ravenwing, right? Same army, so there can't be ANY delineations between different parts of it!
Except there's no one getting their panties in a twist about GW putting Deathwing units in the Dark Angel Codex.
Kan is (eternally) upset because GW put out a Skitarii book and a Cult Mechanicus book (for entirely - confirmed - corporate reasons, not because they were meant to be separate armies) and he liked one and disliked another, and hated it when a new AdMech book came out that combined the two split lists.
It's not even slightly similar to your attempted comparison.
Sure, sure. That's why.
It totally isn't, as I've repeatedly stated, because Skitarii lost all of their flavor(Doctrina Imperatives, special upgrades for the Onager Dunecrawlers, squadrons of Onagers, Scout moves, no need for an HQ) when they got combined with the Cult Mechanicus...who basically received everything that the loudmouth War Convocation scrubs complained that the Cult "needed to function competitively", and then the follow-on "Skitarii Summer" just added transports that everyone immediately started lauding for Electropriests.
JNAProductions wrote: Which is why when I say DA, there's absolutely no differentiation between Greenwing, Deathwing, and Ravenwing, right? Same army, so there can't be ANY delineations between different parts of it!
Except there's no one getting their panties in a twist about GW putting Deathwing units in the Dark Angel Codex.
Kan is (eternally) upset because GW put out a Skitarii book and a Cult Mechanicus book (for entirely - confirmed - corporate reasons, not because they were meant to be separate armies) and he liked one and disliked another, and hated it when a new AdMech book came out that combined the two split lists.
It's not even slightly similar to your attempted comparison.
Eh, it kind of is, though. If the units that were formerly Skitarii lose all their advantages, then combining them is a loss. It would be like Deathwing being no different from any other Terminator squad or Crusader Squads being dropped in favor of Tactical Squads because all these Chapters are now in Codex: Space Marines.
Though, just whining because they are combined is pointless. Complaining that your old units lost their flavor at the same time they were combined with another codex, though, is valid.
the_scotsman wrote: A gladiator lancer has less firepower than a land speeder with a single mm against most targets. It seems like the problem here is that the glancer is a fething joke against....eeeeeeeeeeeeeverything, compared to...plenty of units in the marine codex? A laspred embarrasses this fething thing. It's not a good point of comparison.
I don't think that's the right take. The lancer doesn't need to be in danger close to get a buff to damage. On top of that the lancer can take T8 as well as T5 W4. What happens when a speeder or AB can't get within 12"? Those shots aren't anything special.
A Lancer is a counter-deploy that can hang back and pop in and out of firing lanes going after mid range up through tough targets. It will kill two ABs 48% of the time ( one 43% ). Meanwhile a MM out of half would kill two 5% of the time ( and one 37% ). Even in half it becomes only 14% and 47%. It also a fair bit more against knights that MM in half range.
Is it better than 3 to 4 attack bikes? Well, those probably need to go up in cost a bit, but I bet with good play that tank would take them out before they can bracket it most of the time. Marines are going to find out that MM aren't going to cut it when everything else can walk out from behind cover and ice their current anti-tank with ease.
DA excluded from analysis.
TLDR; people are overly fearful of using vehicles
I ain't talking about Attack Bikes here, I'm talking about OTHER main battle tanks, this thing is an embarrassment.
Gladiator: 4.62w vs standard vehicles
Quadlas Predator: 5.17w vs standard vehicles
Pros: Cheaper (170)
Cons: Less durable (-1W -1T)
automatically comes with the smokescreen keyword, doesn't have to buy it for 5pts LOL.
only 48" range vs 72" that'll matter a lot.
PBC with Entropy: 7.61w vs standard vehicles
Pros: more durable (+1w, -1 damage)
Main weapon ignores LOS cheaper (175)
cons: only 6.62 vs T8 oh noes
Tank Commander Battletank with hull lascannon: 5.43 vs standard vehicles
Pros: Cheaper (185)
Exactly as durable
Gets Tank Orders to make him deal even more damage (didn't factor that in to initial damage)
Cons: Moves exactly the same speed, but practically 5" slower since he needs to move at half speed to get good damage
Onager Dunecrawler (new datasheet) with Neutron Laser: 4.65w vs standard vehicles
Pros: WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY CHEAPER (130)
Actually more durable vs most common antitank weapons because of the invuln
does a morale thing i guess, that'll be replaced now with the smoke launchers assuming they have the new strat
Canticles>Doctrines, gets a benefit from them more turns in the game
Cons: 2" slower?
Triple Dark Lance Ravager: 6.65w vs standard vehicles
Pros: 4" faster, also has fly suck it primaris loser hover tanks
again much Cheaper (140)
again, because of the invuln, actually takes more of the most standard antitank guns in the game to kill
The problem is, all the instances where you might think "aha, here's where my improved stats will come in handy!" it still gets outperformed. Let's say you're comparing to a triple dark lance ravager, but - uh oh, you're shooting Leman Russ tanks! Surely the strength ten laser destroyer will prove to be superior nope it doesn't the ravager does 5w cus 3 shots and AP-4. Oh man it looks like the enemy's got a melta gun, TOUGHNESS EIGHT HERE WE GO BABY whoops looks like the ravager still takes slightly more shots to kill because of that ding dang invuln save. Oh, and it's just a paltry SIXTY points cheaper.
You're the one who brought up the attack bike comparison - I pointed out that right there in the same role in the same codex is the lascannon predator, that old antiquated hunk of junk that basically everyone agrees the game has moved past, with it's "basically unchanged since the index" performance, and it embarrasses the shiny new btwGW always makes new models op for da moneyz Gladiator.
the_scotsman wrote: A gladiator lancer has less firepower than a land speeder with a single mm against most targets. It seems like the problem here is that the glancer is a fething joke against....eeeeeeeeeeeeeverything, compared to...plenty of units in the marine codex? A laspred embarrasses this fething thing. It's not a good point of comparison.
I don't think that's the right take. The lancer doesn't need to be in danger close to get a buff to damage. On top of that the lancer can take T8 as well as T5 W4. What happens when a speeder or AB can't get within 12"? Those shots aren't anything special.
A Lancer is a counter-deploy that can hang back and pop in and out of firing lanes going after mid range up through tough targets. It will kill two ABs 48% of the time ( one 43% ). Meanwhile a MM out of half would kill two 5% of the time ( and one 37% ). Even in half it becomes only 14% and 47%. It also a fair bit more against knights that MM in half range.
Is it better than 3 to 4 attack bikes? Well, those probably need to go up in cost a bit, but I bet with good play that tank would take them out before they can bracket it most of the time. Marines are going to find out that MM aren't going to cut it when everything else can walk out from behind cover and ice their current anti-tank with ease.
DA excluded from analysis.
TLDR; people are overly fearful of using vehicles
I ain't talking about Attack Bikes here, I'm talking about OTHER main battle tanks, this thing is an embarrassment.
Gladiator: 4.62w vs standard vehicles
Quadlas Predator: 5.17w vs standard vehicles
Pros: Cheaper (170)
Cons: Less durable (-1W -1T)
automatically comes with the smokescreen keyword, doesn't have to buy it for 5pts LOL.
only 48" range vs 72" that'll matter a lot.
PBC with Entropy: 7.61w vs standard vehicles
Pros: more durable (+1w, -1 damage)
Main weapon ignores LOS cheaper (175)
cons: only 6.62 vs T8 oh noes
Tank Commander Battletank with hull lascannon: 5.43 vs standard vehicles
Pros: Cheaper (185)
Exactly as durable
Gets Tank Orders to make him deal even more damage (didn't factor that in to initial damage)
Cons: Moves exactly the same speed, but practically 5" slower since he needs to move at half speed to get good damage
Onager Dunecrawler (new datasheet) with Neutron Laser: 4.65w vs standard vehicles
Pros: WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY CHEAPER (130)
Actually more durable vs most common antitank weapons because of the invuln
does a morale thing i guess, that'll be replaced now with the smoke launchers assuming they have the new strat
Canticles>Doctrines, gets a benefit from them more turns in the game
Cons: 2" slower?
Triple Dark Lance Ravager: 6.65w vs standard vehicles
Pros: 4" faster, also has fly suck it primaris loser hover tanks
again much Cheaper (140)
again, because of the invuln, actually takes more of the most standard antitank guns in the game to kill
The problem is, all the instances where you might think "aha, here's where my improved stats will come in handy!" it still gets outperformed. Let's say you're comparing to a triple dark lance ravager, but - uh oh, you're shooting Leman Russ tanks! Surely the strength ten laser destroyer will prove to be superior nope it doesn't the ravager does 5w cus 3 shots and AP-4. Oh man it looks like the enemy's got a melta gun, TOUGHNESS EIGHT HERE WE GO BABY whoops looks like the ravager still takes slightly more shots to kill because of that ding dang invuln save. Oh, and it's just a paltry SIXTY points cheaper.
You're the one who brought up the attack bike comparison - I pointed out that right there in the same role in the same codex is the lascannon predator, that old antiquated hunk of junk that basically everyone agrees the game has moved past, with it's "basically unchanged since the index" performance, and it embarrasses the shiny new btwGW always makes new models op for da moneyz Gladiator.
Fair points, but the rest of the book has a lot of say in how vehicles interact within the army. PBCs need to be at that level, because DG has so little long range shooting. TC I won't comment on since that whole situation needs a rework anyway.
The Ravager is a great target for the Lancer. It will kill a Ravager in one salvo 15% of the time ( 9.7% for a las pred ). A Ravager will kill a Lancer 6% of the time. If the Lancer decided to pop smoke then that becomes 3%
Imagine four MM got a bead on it and it popped smoke. Dead 17% of the time. Ravager? 38%.
People are way undervaluing the +1 to hit and smoke. We're also only talking it's main gun. When it needs to there is a fair amount of support weapons it can toss out so it defends itself from DS pretty well. The Predator is great, but it can't be under estimated how easy it is to flub attacks especially when it picks up a -1 to hit.
JNAProductions wrote: Which is why when I say DA, there's absolutely no differentiation between Greenwing, Deathwing, and Ravenwing, right? Same army, so there can't be ANY delineations between different parts of it!
Except there's no one getting their panties in a twist about GW putting Deathwing units in the Dark Angel Codex.
Kan is (eternally) upset because GW put out a Skitarii book and a Cult Mechanicus book (for entirely - confirmed - corporate reasons, not because they were meant to be separate armies) and he liked one and disliked another, and hated it when a new AdMech book came out that combined the two split lists.
It's not even slightly similar to your attempted comparison.
Eh, it kind of is, though. If the units that were formerly Skitarii lose all their advantages, then combining them is a loss. It would be like Deathwing being no different from any other Terminator squad or Crusader Squads being dropped in favor of Tactical Squads because all these Chapters are now in Codex: Space Marines.
Though, just whining because they are combined is pointless. Complaining that your old units lost their flavor at the same time they were combined with another codex, though, is valid.
Except that a lot of codexs lost that sort of flavor in the ensuing years. It really wasn't because of the codex fusion but because a lot of dex's lost some degree of it in the crossover in that timeline. We're only getting some of it back now in 9th it seems.
the_scotsman wrote: A gladiator lancer has less firepower than a land speeder with a single mm against most targets. It seems like the problem here is that the glancer is a fething joke against....eeeeeeeeeeeeeverything, compared to...plenty of units in the marine codex? A laspred embarrasses this fething thing. It's not a good point of comparison.
I don't think that's the right take. The lancer doesn't need to be in danger close to get a buff to damage. On top of that the lancer can take T8 as well as T5 W4. What happens when a speeder or AB can't get within 12"? Those shots aren't anything special.
A Lancer is a counter-deploy that can hang back and pop in and out of firing lanes going after mid range up through tough targets. It will kill two ABs 48% of the time ( one 43% ). Meanwhile a MM out of half would kill two 5% of the time ( and one 37% ). Even in half it becomes only 14% and 47%. It also a fair bit more against knights that MM in half range.
Is it better than 3 to 4 attack bikes? Well, those probably need to go up in cost a bit, but I bet with good play that tank would take them out before they can bracket it most of the time. Marines are going to find out that MM aren't going to cut it when everything else can walk out from behind cover and ice their current anti-tank with ease.
DA excluded from analysis.
TLDR; people are overly fearful of using vehicles
I ain't talking about Attack Bikes here, I'm talking about OTHER main battle tanks, this thing is an embarrassment.
Gladiator: 4.62w vs standard vehicles
Quadlas Predator: 5.17w vs standard vehicles
Pros: Cheaper (170)
Cons: Less durable (-1W -1T)
automatically comes with the smokescreen keyword, doesn't have to buy it for 5pts LOL.
only 48" range vs 72" that'll matter a lot.
PBC with Entropy: 7.61w vs standard vehicles
Pros: more durable (+1w, -1 damage)
Main weapon ignores LOS cheaper (175)
cons: only 6.62 vs T8 oh noes
Tank Commander Battletank with hull lascannon: 5.43 vs standard vehicles
Pros: Cheaper (185)
Exactly as durable
Gets Tank Orders to make him deal even more damage (didn't factor that in to initial damage)
Cons: Moves exactly the same speed, but practically 5" slower since he needs to move at half speed to get good damage
Onager Dunecrawler (new datasheet) with Neutron Laser: 4.65w vs standard vehicles
Pros: WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY CHEAPER (130)
Actually more durable vs most common antitank weapons because of the invuln
does a morale thing i guess, that'll be replaced now with the smoke launchers assuming they have the new strat
Canticles>Doctrines, gets a benefit from them more turns in the game
Cons: 2" slower?
Triple Dark Lance Ravager: 6.65w vs standard vehicles
Pros: 4" faster, also has fly suck it primaris loser hover tanks
again much Cheaper (140)
again, because of the invuln, actually takes more of the most standard antitank guns in the game to kill
The problem is, all the instances where you might think "aha, here's where my improved stats will come in handy!" it still gets outperformed. Let's say you're comparing to a triple dark lance ravager, but - uh oh, you're shooting Leman Russ tanks! Surely the strength ten laser destroyer will prove to be superior nope it doesn't the ravager does 5w cus 3 shots and AP-4. Oh man it looks like the enemy's got a melta gun, TOUGHNESS EIGHT HERE WE GO BABY whoops looks like the ravager still takes slightly more shots to kill because of that ding dang invuln save. Oh, and it's just a paltry SIXTY points cheaper.
You're the one who brought up the attack bike comparison - I pointed out that right there in the same role in the same codex is the lascannon predator, that old antiquated hunk of junk that basically everyone agrees the game has moved past, with it's "basically unchanged since the index" performance, and it embarrasses the shiny new btwGW always makes new models op for da moneyz Gladiator.
Fair points, but the rest of the book has a lot of say in how vehicles interact within the army. PBCs need to be at that level, because DG has so little long range shooting. TC I won't comment on since that whole situation needs a rework anyway.
The Ravager is a great target for the Lancer. It will kill a Ravager in one salvo 15% of the time ( 9.7% for a las pred ). A Ravager will kill a Lancer 6% of the time. If the Lancer decided to pop smoke then that becomes 3%
Imagine four MM got a bead on it and it popped smoke. Dead 17% of the time. Ravager? 38%.
People are way undervaluing the +1 to hit and smoke. We're also only talking it's main gun. When it needs to there is a fair amount of support weapons it can toss out so it defends itself from DS pretty well. The Predator is great, but it can't be under estimated how easy it is to flub attacks especially when it picks up a -1 to hit.
....so, why are we comparing the Lancer with -1 to hit from its 1cp stratagem and 5pt upgrade equipment and to a Ravager that ISNT using its -1 to hit stratagem that it just gets no upgrade necessary? And also still pretending that it doesn't matter that the lancer is a full SIXTY points more expensive? Also, maybe I'm setting up this website you've linked wrong somehow, but inputting the basic stats of both defenders and running them against 4 MMs in melta range shows me a 45% chance of destroying the ravager, 45% chance of destroying the gladiator, with both of them using their -1 to hit ability.
also, I get the Lancer's chance to destroy the Ravager in one shot as 4.6% (heavy 2, 2+ to hit, S10 Ap-3 D3+3) and the Ravagers (again, a 60 point cheaper unit) chance to kill the Lancer at 3.8%. Either this website isn't particularly reliable, or you're entering the stats in wrong somewhere.
The fact that the lancer has +1 to hit baked in is a NEGATIVE, not a positive. to-hit caps mean that I can stack up functionally 2 -1 to hits on the Lancer, and the Lancer can't gain a +1 to hit from any means (idk if it can at this point, but SMs have so much gak I'm not about to go digging for it in their 90 bajillion stratagems). The lancer's +1 to hit is to attempt to make up for the fact that it gets fewer shots and also incidentally can't split its fire at all like most of its competition like the predator and ravager can.
I know you love thinking that everything's got a use, everything is good and balanced and everyone throughout all of competitive play is a fool while you understand the true power of every unit, but this thing is just overcosted by a significant amount for the heat it brings to the table.
I didn't factor in the secondary weapons on the lancer because it gets to a certain point where we're comparing units that are nearly half as expensive as this damn thing just to try and find a unit that it manages to outperform in its basic function.
....so, why are we comparing the Lancer with -1 to hit from its 1cp stratagem and 5pt upgrade equipment and to a Ravager that ISNT using its -1 to hit stratagem that it just gets no upgrade necessary? And also still pretending that it doesn't matter that the lancer is a full SIXTY points more expensive? Also, maybe I'm setting up this website you've linked wrong somehow, but inputting the basic stats of both defenders and running them against 4 MMs in melta range shows me a 45% chance of destroying the ravager, 45% chance of destroying the gladiator, with both of them using their -1 to hit ability.
also, I get the Lancer's chance to destroy the Ravager in one shot as 4.6% (heavy 2, 2+ to hit, S10 Ap-3 D3+3) and the Ravagers (again, a 60 point cheaper unit) chance to kill the Lancer at 3.8%. Either this website isn't particularly reliable, or you're entering the stats in wrong somewhere.
The fact that the lancer has +1 to hit baked in is a NEGATIVE, not a positive. to-hit caps mean that I can stack up functionally 2 -1 to hits on the Lancer, and the Lancer can't gain a +1 to hit from any means (idk if it can at this point, but SMs have so much gak I'm not about to go digging for it in their 90 bajillion stratagems). The lancer's +1 to hit is to attempt to make up for the fact that it gets fewer shots and also incidentally can't split its fire at all like most of its competition like the predator and ravager can.
I know you love thinking that everything's got a use, everything is good and balanced and everyone throughout all of competitive play is a fool while you understand the true power of every unit, but this thing is just overcosted by a significant amount for the heat it brings to the table.
I didn't factor in the secondary weapons on the lancer because it gets to a certain point where we're comparing units that are nearly half as expensive as this damn thing just to try and find a unit that it manages to outperform in its basic function.
This 8 MM vs Ravager with -1 ( 23.6% )
Spoiler:
And vs Lancer with -1 ( 17.9% ) -- ignore the lack of name changes
Spoiler:
So a Ravager gains with a -1, which is fine. You're doing D6+2 which gets them to 47.6% Ravager and 43% Lancer, but I am counting on them not being able to come within 12".
I know you love thinking that everything's got a use, everything is good and balanced and everyone throughout all of competitive play is a fool while you understand the true power of every unit, but this thing is just overcosted by a significant amount for the heat it brings to the table.
I don't think anyone is a fool. I think a lot of people take on impressions of things through discussions and co-opt real world experience for their decision making.
I don't think everything is balanced, but I do think things are more balanced than people assume and some put too much stock in things being the "same" across armies. The heat it brings is more sufficient than people assume since they balk at it "only having two shots". A -2 mod is pretty rare these days so I don't know that it is a relevant consideration.
There is also a sense that vehicles without invulns are very vulnerable, but doesn't this math show otherwise? At least in this narrow exercise?
A Ravager scores 2 hits
A Lancer scores 1.7 hits
A Ravager wounds T8 on 4s - 1 wound
A Lander wounds T8 on 3s - 1.1 wound
A Ravager wounds T5 on 3s - 1.3 wounds
A Lander wounds T5 on 2s - 1.4 wounds
I find the Lancer sufficiently comparable in damage. I also find it at least comparably durable. We then have to wrestle with the extra 70 to 75 points, but 15 to 20 points of that is unaccounted for in damage opportunities. Could it drop 20 points? Probably pretty easily. Should you worry about "losing" 20 points when you probably would take only one? I don't think so.
The Ravager is tough 6 and W11 - that's why you're showing such big differences from my numbers in the head-to-head matchup.
A -2 mod is uncommon? Does Dense Cover just exist nowhere on your tables? Anything that can get a -1 (anything with smoke, any flyer, anything Harlequin, many dark eldar things) plus any Dense cover, gets a -2. it doesn't come up because few units are dumb enough to be designed around an always-on +1 to hit that they rely on to be useful.
That's the main problem with the glancer - all its advantages are hyper-niche extremely uncommon situations and targets where it gets microscopic advantages. its biggest advantage is vs T5, and there just aren't that many t5 targets out there that you don't lose efficiency targeting with a min 4 damage gun. It's basically marine attack bikes, custode terminators and outriders and that's it. Custode bikes and Ork Buggies and almost all drukhari vehicles. Necrons might have some T5 stuff but, whoops its our old pal quantum shielding, making those S8 AT weapons better regardless!
It's got these tiny, niche advantages like 'oh man, if something deep strikes near me im really gonna show em what for with my 8 storm bolter shots' and 'boy those idiots bringing lascannons and multimeltas to the tabletop will sure be sorry when they want to shoot a T5 target with an invulnerable that cancels out the advantage of AP-4 and have to wound on 3s!' and 'my T8 will provide a huge durability advantage as long as nobody brings a S9 or S10 weapon to shoot tanks with!'
As I see it, without minuses to hit, the Lancer has a 5/6*5/6*2/3*2/3*2/3*2/3*1/3=4.57% chance to one-shot a Ravager. Since you have to hit twice, wound twice, and both fail saves and then you need a 5+ on 2D3. The bolters etc would raise this marginally.
Whereas the Ravager has a 6.17% chance to one-shot the lancer as you can get the kill by:
3 hits, 3 wounds=(8/27*1/8)
3 hits 2 wounds, 6 damage=(8/27*3/8*1/9)
2 hits, 2 wounds, 6 damage=(12/27*1/4*1/9).
Tyel wrote: As I see it, without minuses to hit, the Lancer has a 5/6*5/6*2/3*2/3*2/3*2/3*1/3=4.57% chance to one-shot a Ravager. Since you have to hit twice, wound twice, and both fail saves and then you need a 5+ on 2D3. The bolters etc would raise this marginally.
Whereas the Ravager has a 6.17% chance to one-shot the lancer as you can get the kill by:
3 hits, 3 wounds=(8/27*1/8)
3 hits 2 wounds, 6 damage=(8/27*3/8*1/9)
2 hits, 2 wounds, 6 damage=(12/27*1/4*1/9).
And again - we are talking about a matchup between a unit that is in the neighborhood of *half* the point cost as our point of comparison. We are talking about a grown adult who can maybe hold his own in a karate championship if he's up against fourteen year olds.
I guess my Custodes bike list can go buh bye now.....These Las cannon's are assault 2 now, so that's fun. I mean that's funny, because 9th is silly.
I feel like the Monty Python Colonel needs to come out and do his " STOP THAT STOP THAT" bit. "We had a nice game about toy soldiers and what not, but it's all become a bit too SILLY."
@Daedelus: Are you arguing that the Primaris tanks are correctly priced? I'm not one to argue for buffs for anything with "Primaris" in its name, but just combare them with other sm tanks. Compare the various Gladiators to the various Sicarans or Vindicator Laser Destroyer. Compare a 365 PPM Repulsor Executioner to a 360 PPM Land Raider Achilles. The things are overpriced. It's like gw forgot they took FLY away from them.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I guess my Custodes bike list can go buh bye now.....These Las cannon's are assault 2 now, so that's fun. I mean that's funny, because 9th is silly.
I feel like the Monty Python Colonel needs to come out and do his " STOP THAT STOP THAT" bit. "We had a nice game about toy soldiers and what not, but it's all become a bit too SILLY."
I'm sure Custodian Guard will get 5 wounds or something when they get their silly update.
Sort of surprised there's not been a leak of the Robots. Maybe they are not being changed.
Gadzilla666 wrote: @Daedelus: Are you arguing that the Primaris tanks are correctly priced? I'm not one to argue for buffs for anything with "Primaris" in its name, but just combare them with other sm tanks. Compare the various Gladiators to the various Sicarans or Vindicator Laser Destroyer. Compare a 365 PPM Repulsor Executioner to a 360 PPM Land Raider Achilles. The things are overpriced. It's like gw forgot they took FLY away from them.
Well honestly - they were overpriced to begin with - in 8th you could put them in auras though and they would put out very high damage but just about any dedicated anti tank platform or gimick could kill 1 a turn on an average roll. Without auras and with losing their shoot twice ability. Repuslors/ executioners should be in the 250 range and Gladiators should be in the 150 range. Legit 100-80 points over-costed on these things. It is a really bad look for an edition that is making claims to be "really balanced". Yeah no. It is not. There are still tiers of units - there will still be tiers of armys - with the game having a deliberate power creep through the edition - just like MTG.
never change, xeno. I love it when I'm making the comparison between two units and going 'yeah, it looks like because the advantages between this 140pt unit and this 200pt unit are so small, the 200pt unit should really probably be closer to a 160pt, maybe 170pt unit.." and xeno comes in and goes
A HUNDRED POINTS OVERPRICED!!!!!111!!! MAKE THE GLANCER A ONE HUNDRED POINT TANK, GIVE IT THE SAME FIREPOWER AS A RAVAGER PLUS FREE SITUATIONAL ADVANTAGES FOR A FORTY PERCENT DISCOUNT OR MARINES ARE TRASH FOREVER!!!!
Automatically Appended Next Post: also, the glad valiant is 50pts more expensive but at least it has enough firepower to kill god. 11.4 wounds to a standard vehicle outside of melta range - its main problem is just that there aren't that many targets big enough to warrant taking it to one-shot them. I don't know how you honestly balance the Valiant, it's either going to be wildly undercosted if you get it down in the range of a unit of 4 eradicators or wildly overcosted if it can never kill something close to its price (as it is now).
the_scotsman wrote: The Ravager is tough 6 and W11 - that's why you're showing such big differences from my numbers in the head-to-head matchup.
Oh gahd damnit.
It's got these tiny, niche advantages like 'oh man, if something deep strikes near me im really gonna show em what for with my 8 storm bolter shots' and 'boy those idiots bringing lascannons and multimeltas to the tabletop will sure be sorry when they want to shoot a T5 target with an invulnerable that cancels out the advantage of AP-4 and have to wound on 3s!' and 'my T8 will provide a huge durability advantage as long as nobody brings a S9 or S10 weapon to shoot tanks with!'
and hey! TIL GW actually put in YET ANOTHER bolt weapon with the glad reaper - the all-new TEMPEST BOLTER! We've hit 30 bolters folks, everyone punch your cards and bring them to warhammer world, Games Workshop now legally has to give us a free ice cream cone or grande caramel macciato or we get to sue!
Gadzilla666 wrote: @Daedelus: Are you arguing that the Primaris tanks are correctly priced? I'm not one to argue for buffs for anything with "Primaris" in its name, but just combare them with other sm tanks. Compare the various Gladiators to the various Sicarans or Vindicator Laser Destroyer. Compare a 365 PPM Repulsor Executioner to a 360 PPM Land Raider Achilles. The things are overpriced. It's like gw forgot they took FLY away from them.
Not correctly priced, but not so far off and not so useless as to not be worth consideration. I do think tanks should be more imposing in the durability category, but that's a whole other detailed discussion.
Under no circumstances would I take more than one of a type and probably not more than one in total.
the_scotsman wrote: never change, xeno. I love it when I'm making the comparison between two units and going 'yeah, it looks like because the advantages between this 140pt unit and this 200pt unit are so small, the 200pt unit should really probably be closer to a 160pt, maybe 170pt unit.." and xeno comes in and goes
A HUNDRED POINTS OVERPRICED!!!!!111!!! MAKE THE GLANCER A ONE HUNDRED POINT TANK, GIVE IT THE SAME FIREPOWER AS A RAVAGER PLUS FREE SITUATIONAL ADVANTAGES FOR A FORTY PERCENT DISCOUNT OR MARINES ARE TRASH FOREVER!!!!
Automatically Appended Next Post: also, the glad valiant is 50pts more expensive but at least it has enough firepower to kill god. 11.4 wounds to a standard vehicle outside of melta range - its main problem is just that there aren't that many targets big enough to warrant taking it to one-shot them. I don't know how you honestly balance the Valiant, it's either going to be wildly undercosted if you get it down in the range of a unit of 4 eradicators or wildly overcosted if it can never kill something close to its price (as it is now).
I was refering the the repulsors with those points. The Gladiator variants should be more like 60-40 points less. I don't think the Lancer should be 100 points...That would just be silly. I did literally state the points range they should be in. Lancer 150 - Valliant being 50 points more than a lancer should be 200. That would be a decent place for them.
The main problem with the unit is it dies to easy...T8 offers very little protection. They treat t8 like it is T10...A 5++ goes a long way though and they pretty much toss that out for free.
Tyel wrote: As I see it, without minuses to hit, the Lancer has a 5/6*5/6*2/3*2/3*2/3*2/3*1/3=4.57% chance to one-shot a Ravager. Since you have to hit twice, wound twice, and both fail saves and then you need a 5+ on 2D3. The bolters etc would raise this marginally.
Whereas the Ravager has a 6.17% chance to one-shot the lancer as you can get the kill by:
3 hits, 3 wounds=(8/27*1/8)
3 hits 2 wounds, 6 damage=(8/27*3/8*1/9)
2 hits, 2 wounds, 6 damage=(12/27*1/4*1/9).
And again - we are talking about a matchup between a unit that is in the neighborhood of *half* the point cost as our point of comparison. We are talking about a grown adult who can maybe hold his own in a karate championship if he's up against fourteen year olds.