I expect point changes based on pre-Death Guard tournament results. These books are made few months in advance so I doubt we'll see any changes to DG or Drukhari.
I also expect some mission changes and changes to secondaries as well as new secondary objectives.
Basically the same I've expected from GHB over the years, but with this CA has basically the same point release cadence as AoS. Something I expected when CA was released in the GHB spot last year.
Nobody in my group bought the GT Mission pack and I'm not even sure if more than half of the people even know it exists. If this CA is only about tournament missions noone will care about it. Updated points? Yeah, well, we get these from Battlescribe one week later if GW can't be bothered to update their pdf. I guess after the crusade books the tournament crowd wants to have something too, but I'm not part of that group.
Honestly, considering all their delays at this point I think they should have scrapped the whole thing and instead put out a codex with their ressources. The tournament players got along with their boring ITC missions for years, I'm sure they would have been okay with a longer lifespan of the first pack, especially since most parts of the World didn't even have a lot of tournaments in the last 1,5 years...
Edit: thinking about it I'd say that stuff would have a good place in a WD, just like the Maelstrom missions. Didn't they even have the points pdf only last months in there only to make that invalid now?
Best news in months.
Let's hope it's enough to balance the game a bit more.
I have a gorilla-sized monkey on my back, with restrictions being lifted I might actually play again now.
No, not best news in months. Most people have barely played since 9th came out with the original points/mission packs. releasing new ones now, at a cost, is just BS. Put it up online for free, although that's how I'll get mine anyway when it gets put up by someone else.
So what are we expecting from this? Any hoped for rules and points changes?
Also, looks like the free points were just a one time deal.
I expect nothing. Its really too soon for any of 2021's games (and those are rare anyway) to be meaningfully accounted for so this is in response to... the various flavors of Marines? And necrons, I guess?
The first replaced by a free online version was... fine, if an obvious waste of money. But from the February update to now (which is to say, when they sent it to printers in maybe... March?)... seems pointless. I'm not sure Dark Eldar were even out when they finalized the values in this book. If they wanted to update a couple factions, they could have done that online again. But they could at least wait until a dozen 9th edition armies actually exist in the wild before the next system-wide overhaul via darts.
So what are we expecting from this? Any hoped for rules and points changes?
Also, looks like the free points were just a one time deal.
I expect nothing. Its really too soon for any of 2021's games (and those are rare anyway) to be meaningfully accounted for so this is in response to... the various flavors of Marines? And necrons, I guess?
The first replaced by a free online version was... fine, if an obvious waste of money. But from the February update to now (which is to say, when they sent it to printers in maybe... March?)... seems pointless. I'm not sure Dark Eldar were even out when they finalized the values in this book. If they wanted to update a couple factions, they could have done that online again. But they could at least wait until a dozen 9th edition armies actually exist in the wild before the next system-wide overhaul via darts.
Agreed, this seems very early after the last "balance update", especially when printing lead times are considered. They couldn't have collected much data. Maybe just fixing what they broke? I was really hoping that the free balance updates via download system would stick around.
Eldarsif wrote: I expect point changes based on pre-Death Guard tournament results. These books are made few months in advance so I doubt we'll see any changes to DG or Drukhari.
I also expect some mission changes and changes to secondaries as well as new secondary objectives.
Basically the same I've expected from GHB over the years, but with this CA has basically the same point release cadence as AoS. Something I expected when CA was released in the GHB spot last year.
These are printed on the fly more than codexes.
Don't expect magic, because there are so many codexes incoming.
Best thing is to hope for properly revised secondaries.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bullyboy wrote: Most people have barely played since 9th came out with the original points/mission packs.
Release broken junk, charge people $50 for it, then charge them another $50 to fix it once a year.
It's a great gig if you can get it, I guess. Whichever marketing exec came up with the brilliant idea of making people pay for this stuff every year presumably got quite the bonus for it.
yukishiro1 wrote: Release broken junk, charge people $50 for it, then charge them another $50 to fix it once a year.
It's a great gig if you can get it, I guess. Whichever marketing exec came up with the brilliant idea of making people pay for this stuff every year presumably got quite the bonus for it.
Going to be minimal rule changes, some slight point updates (whoops lol gretchins are now 4 pts) followed by pandering power creep for space marines.
If we're lucky... *lucky* it'll include a points update for CSM along side two wounds.
I think we'll see a few changes to weapon costs, maybe a few changes to some models, like the impulsor dropping (potentially) in cost a tad, and potentially some increases for some units (It wouldn't surprise me to see Dante drop a few points, but Sanguinary Guard jump up a bit).
I think the real shake-up is going to be on the secondary objectives and the mission pack, and that I am by far and away more excited for.
I don't really even understand how they can sell points as a practical matter. Does that mean that technically speaking if you don't buy the new points, you can't use your army any more? Because it's not like you can just keep using the old points values.
Seems like one of those "The Emperor has no clothes" things that only works as long as nobody says "hey, wait a minute..." (or, perhaps more accurately, only works because everyone gets the points from other sources, and GW pretends to look the other way).
The main drive for this one will be the GT book.
That book saw a lot of heavy use for me, and for sure a bit of tweaks to the secondary missions can't do the game bad.
I will laugh hard if this book bans factions specific secondaries from GT play.
As for points, there will be no changes to DE (where the points are not the sole issue by the way), since this book can't possibly have that data already.
I foresee an increase in cost for all types of melta, an increase in cost for attack bikes... actually not much since the balancing of SM/necron/DG isn't that bad. Maybe a little point buffs to less used units. Probably some buffs to Deathwatch.
Interested to see the new missions and secondaries. Basically everyone I know uses the GT Mission pack for matched play games (as it's compact and easy to transport) so having some more variety will be nice.
With the lead time on the books needed to print them and the lack of real data over the past year I'm really unsure as to how the points are going to look. Plus with disrupted and delayed schedules I could see Orks and Sisters (maybe even GK and TS) getting weirdly out of whack points changes to reflect Codexes that were meant to be out already, so that'll be fun to look forward to.
In terms of Necrons, everything that isn't a CCB, Warrior, Scarab or Chronomancer needs to go down in points (yes even NB and TSK). But again because of the lack of data and relatively short amount of time between Codex and this book I doubt there will be many changes for Necrons or LSM.
If that's the best news you've had in months, even limited to GW news, then your life truly sucks.
Oh, were you serious?
Of course limited to GW stuff, I haven't bought literally anything GW since late 2020 as they released nothing even vaguely interesting to me.
Now that restrictions are lifting, the idea of starting to play again with trash tier armies (Tau and Guard especially) wasn't so appealing. An attempt to balance the game is always welcome imho.
The best thing would be receiving these updates as free PDF files on warcom.
Even then, considering my hobby spending is limited to liters of resin and STL files at the moment, I don't mind spending those €25-30 on a rules booklet that is convenient to use in game.
So what are we expecting from this? Any hoped for rules and points changes?
Also, looks like the free points were just a one time deal.
The last points change was half-assed to say the least, they knew there would be an uproar charging for that crap, it should have been day 7 errata with how few changes there were. Hopefully this will be a larger overhaul.
For Necrons the thing I hope for the most is reduced price for voidblades and hyperphase swords on HQs, I just want GW to show they give a damn about people that use points and not PL.
For the missions I am hoping for a full suite of objectives for all armies, no more objectives in army books and no more armies left in the cold, alternatively, banning faction objectives from the GT missions. I am also hoping non-Characters stop being worth VP for the Abhor the Witch secondary objective and the remaining Warpcraft Secondaries get buffs. Cut Off the Head and Bring it Down need buffs, if you are taking 6 10-wound vehicles it should be possible to score more than 6 VP for killing all of them. Maybe just lower the 2 VP bracket from 11+ to 10+. Buff the 10W vehicles that need it to keep up with the increased heat from Bring it Down.
I am hoping campaign supplements get banned in the GT missions or Specialist Detachments get allowed, if Specialist Detachments do get allowed I hope for a nerf to the SSAG.
The GT2020 has been out for a year, there are a lot of people that have managed to get a lot of games in in that time whether face to face or on TTS, they've also watched or read a lot of battle reports and there's been a lot of tournament info being analysed by the likes of Goonhammer.
I'm certainly ready for some new missions and secondaries. A £20 book of new missions will invigorate my gaming far more than spending £20 on new models right now.
I'm really hopeful the tweaks they made to the secondaries a few months back show they are seriously looking to calibrate the balance, there has been plenty written about what they could tweak and adjust that if they take on board could really improve the playing experience.
I'd maybe like some tweaks to terrain rules (ruins should be obscuring and dense cover in their examples) perhaps even a slight adjustment to how negatives don't stack. I like that one player can't stack multiple negatives, but it doesn't quite sit right with me that because my opponent's flyer is -1 to hit, i can then advance and fire my assault weapons through dense cover with impunity.
As far as the munitorum points update, I think we'll have to wait and see if they also update the pdf on WarCom at the same time. I'm reasonably hopeful they will.
I never felt like I was paying for the first MFM that came with GT2020 last summer. They gave a free update in the winter with 2021 Mk I, then for those that want a printed copy they gave it away alongside a purchase of White Dwarf. Now we're getting another update alongside a book that is pretty much essential if you have any interest in playing 40k competitively.
If the model going forward is to adjust points every 6 months then that is so much better than the system we had before and hopefully doesn't leave players with models left out in the cold for an entire year. I really don't understand why anybody would see that as a negative thing?
The GT2020 has been out for a year, there are a lot of people that have managed to get a lot of games in in that time whether face to face or on TTS, they've also watched or read a lot of battle reports and there's been a lot of tournament info being analysed by the likes of Goonhammer.
I'm certainly ready for some new missions and secondaries. A £20 book of new missions will invigorate my gaming far more than spending £20 on new models right now.
I'm really hopeful the tweaks they made to the secondaries a few months back show they are seriously looking to calibrate the balance, there has been plenty written about what they could tweak and adjust that if they take on board could really improve the playing experience.
I'd maybe like some tweaks to terrain rules (ruins should be obscuring and dense cover in their examples) perhaps even a slight adjustment to how negatives don't stack. I like that one player can't stack multiple negatives, but it doesn't quite sit right with me that because my opponent's flyer is -1 to hit, i can then advance and fire my assault weapons through dense cover with impunity.
As far as the munitorum points update, I think we'll have to wait and see if they also update the pdf on WarCom at the same time. I'm reasonably hopeful they will.
I never felt like I was paying for the first MFM that came with GT2020 last summer. They gave a free update in the winter with 2021 Mk I, then for those that want a printed copy they gave it away alongside a purchase of White Dwarf. Now we're getting another update alongside a book that is pretty much essential if you have any interest in playing 40k competitively.
If the model going forward is to adjust points every 6 months then that is so much better than the system we had before and hopefully doesn't leave players with models left out in the cold for an entire year. I really don't understand why anybody would see that as a negative thing?
100% this, especially the last sentence.
It's €32.50 RRP, which means less than €25 with the usual discount. It's the best money you can spend in this hobby if you play matched play games regularly enough.
The GT2020 has been out for a year, there are a lot of people that have managed to get a lot of games in in that time whether face to face or on TTS, they've also watched or read a lot of battle reports and there's been a lot of tournament info being analysed by the likes of Goonhammer.
I'm certainly ready for some new missions and secondaries. A £20 book of new missions will invigorate my gaming far more than spending £20 on new models right now.
I'm really hopeful the tweaks they made to the secondaries a few months back show they are seriously looking to calibrate the balance, there has been plenty written about what they could tweak and adjust that if they take on board could really improve the playing experience.
I'd maybe like some tweaks to terrain rules (ruins should be obscuring and dense cover in their examples) perhaps even a slight adjustment to how negatives don't stack. I like that one player can't stack multiple negatives, but it doesn't quite sit right with me that because my opponent's flyer is -1 to hit, i can then advance and fire my assault weapons through dense cover with impunity.
As far as the munitorum points update, I think we'll have to wait and see if they also update the pdf on WarCom at the same time. I'm reasonably hopeful they will.
I never felt like I was paying for the first MFM that came with GT2020 last summer. They gave a free update in the winter with 2021 Mk I, then for those that want a printed copy they gave it away alongside a purchase of White Dwarf. Now we're getting another update alongside a book that is pretty much essential if you have any interest in playing 40k competitively.
If the model going forward is to adjust points every 6 months then that is so much better than the system we had before and hopefully doesn't leave players with models left out in the cold for an entire year. I really don't understand why anybody would see that as a negative thing?
I love playing 40K and I can’t wait to finally get a game in but when your first game of an edition requires you to buy updated points and rules for your essentially new BRB and Codex, it’s fairly galling. Especially when it’s another €25+ on top of what you’ve already spent as opposed to a free document correcting the points values and rules. There is an avalanche of additional books on top of the Codexes that is really off-putting.
The GT book is my most utilized book as it has the missions and rules in on small book. I've played in several tourneys, pick up games and a league and they all utilized this book. The main rulebook hasn't left my house since I first bought it.
I'd like to have updated secondaries, both existing and add new options as well as some new mission options.
I know points values will end up online soon after its release, but will be interested to see what changes occur. With the challenges in the release schedule this year, I wonder what books were already supposed to be out by the time this book is released. Hopefully won't have contradictory points values like we saw with Drukhari a few months back.
The GT2020 has been out for a year, there are a lot of people that have managed to get a lot of games in in that time whether face to face or on TTS, they've also watched or read a lot of battle reports and there's been a lot of tournament info being analysed by the likes of Goonhammer.
I'm certainly ready for some new missions and secondaries. A £20 book of new missions will invigorate my gaming far more than spending £20 on new models right now.
I'm really hopeful the tweaks they made to the secondaries a few months back show they are seriously looking to calibrate the balance, there has been plenty written about what they could tweak and adjust that if they take on board could really improve the playing experience.
I'd maybe like some tweaks to terrain rules (ruins should be obscuring and dense cover in their examples) perhaps even a slight adjustment to how negatives don't stack. I like that one player can't stack multiple negatives, but it doesn't quite sit right with me that because my opponent's flyer is -1 to hit, i can then advance and fire my assault weapons through dense cover with impunity.
As far as the munitorum points update, I think we'll have to wait and see if they also update the pdf on WarCom at the same time. I'm reasonably hopeful they will.
I never felt like I was paying for the first MFM that came with GT2020 last summer. They gave a free update in the winter with 2021 Mk I, then for those that want a printed copy they gave it away alongside a purchase of White Dwarf. Now we're getting another update alongside a book that is pretty much essential if you have any interest in playing 40k competitively.
If the model going forward is to adjust points every 6 months then that is so much better than the system we had before and hopefully doesn't leave players with models left out in the cold for an entire year. I really don't understand why anybody would see that as a negative thing?
100% agreed on the way negative modifiers to hit should stack. The limit should be on how many the player controlling the targeted unit can stack, it shouldn't apply to things you do yourself. But I don't think that will be addressed in this, that would more likely be handled in a FAQ, same for changes to any existing secondaries. I'm hoping for a new secondarie that targets units of multi-wound high save models that aren't troops, similar to the old ITC Gangbusters secondary myself.
The GT2020 has been out for a year, there are a lot of people that have managed to get a lot of games in in that time whether face to face or on TTS, they've also watched or read a lot of battle reports and there's been a lot of tournament info being analysed by the likes of Goonhammer.
I'm certainly ready for some new missions and secondaries. A £20 book of new missions will invigorate my gaming far more than spending £20 on new models right now.
I'm really hopeful the tweaks they made to the secondaries a few months back show they are seriously looking to calibrate the balance, there has been plenty written about what they could tweak and adjust that if they take on board could really improve the playing experience.
I'd maybe like some tweaks to terrain rules (ruins should be obscuring and dense cover in their examples) perhaps even a slight adjustment to how negatives don't stack. I like that one player can't stack multiple negatives, but it doesn't quite sit right with me that because my opponent's flyer is -1 to hit, i can then advance and fire my assault weapons through dense cover with impunity.
As far as the munitorum points update, I think we'll have to wait and see if they also update the pdf on WarCom at the same time. I'm reasonably hopeful they will.
I never felt like I was paying for the first MFM that came with GT2020 last summer. They gave a free update in the winter with 2021 Mk I, then for those that want a printed copy they gave it away alongside a purchase of White Dwarf. Now we're getting another update alongside a book that is pretty much essential if you have any interest in playing 40k competitively.
If the model going forward is to adjust points every 6 months then that is so much better than the system we had before and hopefully doesn't leave players with models left out in the cold for an entire year. I really don't understand why anybody would see that as a negative thing?
I love playing 40K and I can’t wait to finally get a game in but when your first game of an edition requires you to buy updated points and rules for your essentially new BRB and Codex, it’s fairly galling. Especially when it’s another €25+ on top of what you’ve already spent as opposed to a free document correcting the points values and rules. There is an avalanche of additional books on top of the Codexes that is really off-putting.
I do understand your frustration and it does suck that so many people have been unable to play yet, but at the same time, it isn't GWs fault that you haven't had a chance to try out their 2020 missions. New missions once a year has been a pretty standard schedule since the beginning of 8th and many people will be really excited for this.
I'd also say, if you haven't yet played a game of 9th, your first few games are unlikely to be highly competitive in nature. Stick with the GT2020 missions, or even the BRB missions. One of my gaming circles play very casual and are quite happy playing the BRB missions and having a blast.
You probably also don't really need the new points for a while too, I'm sure nobody is gonna be too adverse to you using the points that were released in January in your first few games of 9th, I can't imagine the points will change significantly to the point a friendly match up will be ruined. We'll wait to see if they end up as a free download anyway and, if not, it's all on battlescribe or reasonably easy to parse from discussions on here or reddit where many of the biggest points adjustments fall.
100% agreed on the way negative modifiers to hit should stack. The limit should be on how many the player controlling the targeted unit can stack, it shouldn't apply to things you do yourself. But I don't think that will be addressed in this, that would more likely be handled in a FAQ, same for changes to any existing secondaries. I'm hoping for a new secondarie that targets units of multi-wound high save models that aren't troops, similar to the old ITC Gangbusters secondary myself.
Yes a gangbusters type secondary is really essential as there is no middle ground between thin their ranks and bring it down/titan hunter. It means elite armies like marines are largely immune to the kill secondaries. Maybe also something to address the double bubble aspect of killing a unit that counts towards two secondaries would be good?
100% agreed on the way negative modifiers to hit should stack. The limit should be on how many the player controlling the targeted unit can stack, it shouldn't apply to things you do yourself. But I don't think that will be addressed in this, that would more likely be handled in a FAQ, same for changes to any existing secondaries. I'm hoping for a new secondarie that targets units of multi-wound high save models that aren't troops, similar to the old ITC Gangbusters secondary myself.
Yes a gangbusters type secondary is really essential as there is no middle ground between thin their ranks and bring it down/titan hunter. It means elite armies like marines are largely immune to the kill secondaries. Maybe also something to address the double bubble aspect of killing a unit that counts towards two secondaries would be good?
Yes, a limit to double dipping on secondaries would be good. Could probably be handled by moving some secondaries around in the categories.
Eldarsif wrote: I expect point changes based on pre-Death Guard tournament results. These books are made few months in advance so I doubt we'll see any changes to DG or Drukhari.
I also expect some mission changes and changes to secondaries as well as new secondary objectives.
Basically the same I've expected from GHB over the years, but with this CA has basically the same point release cadence as AoS. Something I expected when CA was released in the GHB spot last year.
These are printed on the fly more than codexes.
Don't expect magic, because there are so many codexes incoming.
Best thing is to hope for properly revised secondaries.
These are printed yearly, much like Chapter Approved and GHB every year before that so I expect what I have been seeing in every CA and GHB for the past 5 years. These aren't exactly new books even if the CA format has changed somewhat, both internally and time slot-wise. If anything I am more surprised that people don't seem to have realized the release cadence of Chapter Approved. In AoS a lot of people are excited for the General's Handbook during the summer.
I expect minor changes to the missions. Problem missions might be adjusted or removed for another.
I expect modification to secondaries as well as new ones to fill in any existing gaps.
I expect point changes. I expect Ork and SoB points might have the new points and I expect quite a few books that are not coming in the next 2 months to see point updates except for the 2 that came out this year so far. Ad Mech will of course have the same points as in the upcoming book.
I do understand your frustration and it does suck that so many people have been unable to play yet, but at the same time, it isn't GWs fault that you haven't had a chance to try out their 2020 missions. New missions once a year has been a pretty standard schedule since the beginning of 8th and many people will be really excited for this.
Yep. We've had a lot of games where I live and all of us are excited for potential tweaks. I really like the 2020 book, but it can use some improvements.
At least the inclusion of errata that were published in pdf, to the mission packs. Someone mentioned that a secondary objective similar to the "gangbusters" of the ITC pack during 8th is needed. I concur, I really feel that someting in between the "thin their ranks" and "bring it down" is needed. Currently the more elite you shape your list (at the exclusion of vehicles), the more poweful and immune to killing secondaries your army becomes. But I highly doubt they would do this move : it would negatively impact their cherished Space Marines. I even have doubts we will get anything significant in this domain, but I may be surprised. The sign that may yield to a surprise, is the fact that the design studio is aware of some shortcomings of the 9th edition current state. They publish a metawatch article from time to time, and they featured the glorious geeks that are handing out statistics on the state of the game. They are aware of Goonhammer. They are aware that many secondaries objectives are trash, some are nearly auto-picks. They have already given us a PDF errata in the middle of lockdown, to correct the most glaring issues. We will see. This will be the first chapter I will browse through.
As for the points costs, meh, they already done an update in the beginning of the year. The competitive data for basis is slim due to Covid-19. Most of the equipement prices are already rounded to multiples of 5. Most of the big stuff has already been through two adjustments, with cautious up or downs (if any). Few codices have been released since the munitorum field manual 2021 mark 1. So I don't expect anything big.
1. a few points adjustments on stuff like Drukharii raiders
2. updated secondaries including somthing that targets stuff like Gravis marines (gangbusters equivelent)
3. updated rules - i.e. include any FAQ's that have been posted into the core rules.
What we will get:
1. points that are mostly the same, maybe a drop on some marine units. errors on wargear points (e.g. forgetting points for wargear or providing points for illegal loadouts)
2. one or two new/updated secondaries that marines can basically ignore due to how the armies are currently structured.
3. the original core rules reprinted, "oops we forgot to update them".
I love playing 40K and I can’t wait to finally get a game in but when your first game of an edition requires you to buy updated points and rules for your essentially new BRB and Codex, it’s fairly galling. Especially when it’s another €25+ on top of what you’ve already spent as opposed to a free document correcting the points values and rules. There is an avalanche of additional books on top of the Codexes that is really off-putting.
So how's this any different than if you'd been returning from a previous edition?
We answer this question all the time here online & in real life:
Player: I last played in x. What books do I need to play now?
ANSWER: Current rulebook + current codex + xyz
I have had great value from the GT2020 Pack - use it at tourneys and pick-up games. Handy size and the ring-bound format is great. I am expecting refreshed missions and secondaries. Not expecting big changes to rules but nothing surprises me anymore! The points values updates were likely sent to the printers pre-Codex Drukhari tourney results so they will likely be followed up by a Day 1 FAQ patch.
100% agreed on the way negative modifiers to hit should stack. The limit should be on how many the player controlling the targeted unit can stack, it shouldn't apply to things you do yourself. But I don't think that will be addressed in this, that would more likely be handled in a FAQ, same for changes to any existing secondaries. I'm hoping for a new secondarie that targets units of multi-wound high save models that aren't troops, similar to the old ITC Gangbusters secondary myself.
Right - I can get behind that logic. If you incur multiple negatives yourself then that's on you, but no -2/-3/-4 units with no interaction.
100% agreed on the way negative modifiers to hit should stack. The limit should be on how many the player controlling the targeted unit can stack, it shouldn't apply to things you do yourself. But I don't think that will be addressed in this, that would more likely be handled in a FAQ, same for changes to any existing secondaries. I'm hoping for a new secondarie that targets units of multi-wound high save models that aren't troops, similar to the old ITC Gangbusters secondary myself.
Right - I can get behind that logic. If you incur multiple negatives yourself then that's on you, but no -2/-3/-4 units with no interaction.
Exactly. The problem was players stacking defensive negative modifiers to hit on their own units. Stopping that was a good idea, but allowing things like infantry with heavy weapons to just not care if they moved or not wasn't. I just can't decide if Dense Cover should stack or not IE: Devastator squad moves, Dense Cover is between them and their target, target pops Smokescreen, should they be -3 to hit, or only -2?
It also creates the confusing and silly interactions of like
"oh, the opposing unit I want to target is already -1 to hit, I have no reason not to try and hit it with my lascannon while moving/advance with my melta"
"this unit is ULTRA SUPER SNEAKY so they always get -1 to hit....aaaaaand obviously that means they have no reason to hide behind Dense Cover and might as well stand out in the open?"
100% agreed on the way negative modifiers to hit should stack. The limit should be on how many the player controlling the targeted unit can stack, it shouldn't apply to things you do yourself. But I don't think that will be addressed in this, that would more likely be handled in a FAQ, same for changes to any existing secondaries. I'm hoping for a new secondarie that targets units of multi-wound high save models that aren't troops, similar to the old ITC Gangbusters secondary myself.
Right - I can get behind that logic. If you incur multiple negatives yourself then that's on you, but no -2/-3/-4 units with no interaction.
Exactly. The problem was players stacking defensive negative modifiers to hit on their own units. Stopping that was a good idea, but allowing things like infantry with heavy weapons to just not care if they moved or not wasn't. I just can't decide if Dense Cover should stack or not IE: Devastator squad moves, Dense Cover is between them and their target, target pops Smokescreen, should they be -3 to hit, or only -2?
IMO a cap of +1 to your hit rolls/-1 for enemy units to hit you based on abilities and rules that YOU APPLY TO YOURSELF makes sense to me.
Dense Cover, move and shoot penalties, psy power debuffs etc etc etc should not fall under the same cap.
If I already have a -1 to hit ability, I should not be able to stack another -1 to hit ability on top.
If I already have a +1 to hit ability, I should not be able to stack another +1 to hit ability on top.
the_scotsman wrote: It also creates the confusing and silly interactions of like
"oh, the opposing unit I want to target is already -1 to hit, I have no reason not to try and hit it with my lascannon while moving/advance with my melta"
"this unit is ULTRA SUPER SNEAKY so they always get -1 to hit....aaaaaand obviously that means they have no reason to hide behind Dense Cover and might as well stand out in the open?"
It also partially nullifies what was supposed to be one of the advantages of vehicles in 9th: Dense Cover between your target and your unit and you need to move to get into range? Doesn't matter if it's a tank that ignores the penalty for moving with heavy weapons or infantry that don't, because they're both at the same penalty.
100% agreed on the way negative modifiers to hit should stack. The limit should be on how many the player controlling the targeted unit can stack, it shouldn't apply to things you do yourself. But I don't think that will be addressed in this, that would more likely be handled in a FAQ, same for changes to any existing secondaries. I'm hoping for a new secondarie that targets units of multi-wound high save models that aren't troops, similar to the old ITC Gangbusters secondary myself.
Right - I can get behind that logic. If you incur multiple negatives yourself then that's on you, but no -2/-3/-4 units with no interaction.
Exactly. The problem was players stacking defensive negative modifiers to hit on their own units. Stopping that was a good idea, but allowing things like infantry with heavy weapons to just not care if they moved or not wasn't. I just can't decide if Dense Cover should stack or not IE: Devastator squad moves, Dense Cover is between them and their target, target pops Smokescreen, should they be -3 to hit, or only -2?
IMO a cap of +1 to your hit rolls/-1 for enemy units to hit you based on abilities and rules that YOU APPLY TO YOURSELF makes sense to me.
Dense Cover, move and shoot penalties, psy power debuffs etc etc etc should not fall under the same cap.
If I already have a -1 to hit ability, I should not be able to stack another -1 to hit ability on top.
If I already have a +1 to hit ability, I should not be able to stack another +1 to hit ability on top.
1. a few points adjustments on stuff like Drukharii raiders
2. updated secondaries including somthing that targets stuff like Gravis marines (gangbusters equivelent)
3. updated rules - i.e. include any FAQ's that have been posted into the core rules.
Seeing points in book have been finalized before dark eldar were even supposed to be released let alone when they were don't expect any changes on DE .At least any based on actual data.
So how's this any different than if you'd been returning from a previous edition?
We answer this question all the time here online & in real life:
Player: I last played in x. What books do I need to play now?
ANSWER: Current rulebook + current codex + xyz
Because in prior edition you just bought your codex SW and used it for most of 8th ed, while now you have to start with buying the sm codex and the sw book day 1.
Eldarsif wrote: I expect minor changes to the missions. Problem missions might be adjusted or removed for another.
Would you say there were many problem missions in the 2020 pack, out of interest? Haven't had chance to play, so unsure how well they did with the first round of scenarios.
So how's this any different than if you'd been returning from a previous edition?
We answer this question all the time here online & in real life:
Player: I last played in x. What books do I need to play now?
ANSWER: Current rulebook + current codex + xyz
Because in prior edition you just bought your codex SW and used it for most of 8th ed, while now you have to start with buying the sm codex and the sw book day 1.
And outside of Space Marines it's still rulebook + codex + maybe a campaign book (if you really need anything from that book).
Heck your beloved GK's are still going to be just that eventually too. Someone new starting does not need 17 books to play a game. They may need 3 but often just 2.
I'm afraid I'm a fan of the modifiers being capped like now. I feel stacking modifiers is not a box that need's to be reopened.
Intuitively it does perhaps seem silly that a guy carrying a heavy weapon can jog along and then shoot at super-sneaky unit through a forest at no more penalty than shooting a regular unit in the open - but I think negatives to hit were just awful for the game. So I prefer the gameyness over the verisimilitude.
The counter argument is that minuses to hit at some of the best counters to "everything dies by the close of turn 3" - but yeah. They don't hit all armies equally and for those poor suffering BS4+ armies its just obnoxious.
And outside of Space Marines it's still rulebook + codex + maybe a campaign book (if you really need anything from that book).
Heck your beloved GK's are still going to be just that eventually too. Someone new starting does not need 17 books to play a game. They may need 3 but often just 2.
I don't think I would describe GK as an army I love. Plus the army is unplayable with without its supplement book. So any new player has to buy the two.
I'm not 100% sure we "need" an anti-elite infantry secondary.
Are elite infantry factions doing so well that their opponents "need" to score more points against them? That's the question you need to ask. Just because that type of secondary doesn't yet exist, doesn't mean it "needs" to exist.
The negatives-to-hit problem can be solved in two ways:
1) All 6s hit. In the GW style, it's simple and easy, but it's also clunky and affects the game unevenly, while still making modifier-stacking pointless against some armies.
2) In cases where you couldn't normally hit the enemy, still roll-to-hit, and any 6 must be re-rolled on the firer's BS to "confirm" the hit. With the usual drawback of adding another "to-hit" roll step (and all the crappiness that comes with rolling EVEN MORE dice), the benefits are now that BS matters. Unfortunately, modifier-stacking would still be pointless once you reduced the enemy to hitting on 7s.
Other than that, we'd need a revamp of the design of 40k to make it work - on the level of removing Flyers, stratagems, etc. for example.
Quasistellar wrote: I'm not 100% sure we "need" an anti-elite infantry secondary.
Are elite infantry factions doing so well that their opponents "need" to score more points against them? That's the question you need to ask. Just because that type of secondary doesn't yet exist, doesn't mean it "needs" to exist.
I dunno, would you consider elite infantry lists being over 50% of the play meta overall since the launch of 9th "doing so well that their opponents need to score more points against them"?
DG+SM+Custodes has never dipped below 50% of the play meta to my knowledge.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: The negatives-to-hit problem can be solved in two ways:
1) All 6s hit. In the GW style, it's simple and easy, but it's also clunky and affects the game unevenly, while still making modifier-stacking pointless against some armies.
2) In cases where you couldn't normally hit the enemy, still roll-to-hit, and any 6 must be re-rolled on the firer's BS to "confirm" the hit. With the usual drawback of adding another "to-hit" roll step (and all the crappiness that comes with rolling EVEN MORE dice), the benefits are now that BS matters. Unfortunately, modifier-stacking would still be pointless once you reduced the enemy to hitting on 7s.
Other than that, we'd need a revamp of the design of 40k to make it work - on the level of removing Flyers, stratagems, etc. for example.
I don't get why only being able to get a -1 to hit from abilities you apply on your units and the '6s always hit' (which is already a rule) wouldn't resolve the problematic aspects of to hit mods.
being able to, at will, make a unit -3 to hit is absolutely abusive. No question. but being able to have a unit at -3 to hit through 1 ability on that unit and two penalties incurred by the firing model does not seem nearly as problematic to me. You put two of those -1s to hit on yourself.
Thin Their Ranks not applying to vehicles and counting wounds rather than models is a pretty significant change. Not sure if it'll really serve as a Gangbusters equivalent, but it's something.
Sounds like they're trying to make the kill secondaries more specific so as to be harder to max out, while also increasing the value of action-focused secondaries. I'm onboard with that.
catbarf wrote: Thin Their Ranks not applying to vehicles and counting wounds rather than models is a pretty significant change. Not sure if it'll really serve as a Gangbusters equivalent, but it's something.
Sounds like they're trying to make the kill secondaries more specific so as to be harder to max out, while also increasing the value of action-focused secondaries. I'm onboard with that.
Guess it depends on how many points per model its worth.
If you had me design it, I'd make pretty much any "kill stuff" objective be worth 10-12 points max IF your opponent is constructing almost all their list around the targeted unit type.
Like, Bring it Down should be worth 10-12pts if your opponent is playing a mechanized list, or you're playing vs Knights, or a nidzilla list. Similarly if your opponent is bringing all infantry, No Prisoners should be designed to return 10-12 points vs an army made up against mostly lets say ~9 points per wound infantry. The chaff-iest chaff horde of just all unadorned guardsmen or genestealer cultists might max it out at 15 but very rarely.
The objectives that you should be able to get to 15 in a typical good game are the ones that require you to forgo optimally pursuing the destruction of the opposing army.
The new version of Deploy Scramblers, the evocatively named Retrieve Octarius Data
This is, quite possibly, the worst change they could have possibly made.
What is an Octarius, what data does it have, and why do Orks or Tyranids want to retrieve it? Let's keep the secondary objectives easy to say and remember, please. Plus side of "simple" objective names is it's easier to fluff Tyranids deploying scrambler spore bio-hives or whatever than it is for them to... retrieve... octarius data? whatever that is.
Previously, Investigate Sites could only begin at the end of your Movement phase if the centre of the battlefield was devoid of enemy units. This presented a real problem. As long as your opponent got at least one model within 6″ of the centre on their turn, you could never score it since you generally can’t destroy enemy models before the end of your Movement phase.
Er...yeah? Why exactly did it take a year to figure that out that this secondary was trash as written? Any competitive player would have told you that as their immediate reaction after reading the text.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they are finally fixing things like this that are so obviously poorly designed. But it's a bit galling to be charged another premium book price just to fix stuff that everybody told them was broken the first time around.
Also, I guess Nanavati gave up his objection to participating in their unpaid playtesting program, or else GW is now paying people (spoiler: I doubt it's the second).
The new version of Deploy Scramblers, the evocatively named Retrieve Octarius Data
This is, quite possibly, the worst change they could have possibly made.
What is an Octarius, what data does it have, and why do Orks or Tyranids want to retrieve it? Let's keep the secondary objectives easy to say and remember, please. Plus side of "simple" objective names is it's easier to fluff Tyranids deploying scrambler spore bio-hives or whatever than it is for them to... retrieve... octarius data? whatever that is.
Yeah, that feels like a Space Marine centric name for a Space Marine biased objective, in a Space Marine favoured game.
I think they changed the names so people don't confuse the old ones and the new ones.
Quasistellar wrote: I'm not 100% sure we "need" an anti-elite infantry secondary.
Are elite infantry factions doing so well that their opponents "need" to score more points against them? That's the question you need to ask. Just because that type of secondary doesn't yet exist, doesn't mean it "needs" to exist.
I agree, part of the reason why I don't think such a secondary should exist is the question why have secondaries in the first place? My answer to that question is that it's a good way to punish people for spamming similar units, playing against 100% horde or 100% vehicle can be an unfun experience unless you have 70% anti-horde or 70% anti-vehicle and if you have 100% anti-horde or anti-vehicle it will also be unfun because it will be too easy. Heavy infantry get countered by anti-infantry and anti-horde, there is no feels-bad in terms of wasting certain weapon profiles on them. There is no value in spamming them unless they simply happen to be undercosted relative to vehicle or horde units in your faction and the answer to that question is nerfing those units on pts. But gangbusters nerfs units that don't need nerfs, like Paladins, Wraithblades and Ogryn.
One possibility that wouldn't impact things too much would be counting wounds caused to non-vehicle non-monster units instead of models killed +9 for each vehicle/monster for the Thin Their Ranks secondary objective. Aaaand my suggestion is already in the game, well that was fast.
The new version of Deploy Scramblers, the evocatively named Retrieve Octarius Data
This is, quite possibly, the worst change they could have possibly made.
What is an Octarius, what data does it have, and why do Orks or Tyranids want to retrieve it? Let's keep the secondary objectives easy to say and remember, please. Plus side of "simple" objective names is it's easier to fluff Tyranids deploying scrambler spore bio-hives or whatever than it is for them to... retrieve... octarius data? whatever that is.
Yeah, that feels like a Space Marine centric name for a Space Marine biased objective, in a Space Marine favoured game.
Well, feel free to call it 'Retrieve Tasty Biomass' if it suits you.
Yeah there's obviously not going to be an elite-infantry specific kill secondary now, they just changed thin the ranks to cover them instead.
I'm not sure how that is actually going to work, though: it is either going to be a guaranteed 15 points against any horde if the calculation is generous enough to make it relevant vs elite infantry, or it's still going to be a no-go vs stuff like custodes because the calculation is based around said hordes.
I.e. if you use the current calculation of 10 wounds = 1 point, that's pretty much pointless vs elite infantry armies like custodes or marines, your average list is going to only give up in the 7ish point range even if you table them, thanks to the exclusions for characters, vehicles, and monsters.
For example, my current custodes list only has 51 eligible wounds, that's 5 points. Marines lists might go a little higher - maybe in the 7-9 point range - though not much, with how popular the triple contemptors are, and how rare intercessor hordes are.
Quasistellar wrote: I'm not 100% sure we "need" an anti-elite infantry secondary.
Are elite infantry factions doing so well that their opponents "need" to score more points against them? That's the question you need to ask. Just because that type of secondary doesn't yet exist, doesn't mean it "needs" to exist.
I agree, part of the reason why I don't think such a secondary should exist is the question why have secondaries in the first place? My answer to that question is that it's a good way to punish people for spamming similar units, playing against 100% horde or 100% vehicle can be an unfun experience unless you have 70% anti-horde or 70% anti-vehicle and if you have 100% anti-horde or anti-vehicle it will also be unfun because it will be too easy. Heavy infantry get countered by anti-infantry and anti-horde, there is no feels-bad in terms of wasting certain weapon profiles on them. There is no value in spamming them unless they simply happen to be undercosted relative to vehicle or horde units in your faction and the answer to that question is nerfing those units on pts. But gangbusters nerfs units that don't need nerfs, like Paladins, Wraithblades and Ogryn.
One possibility that wouldn't impact things too much would be counting wounds caused to non-vehicle non-monster units instead of models killed +9 for each vehicle/monster for the Thin Their Ranks secondary objective. Aaaand my suggestion is already in the game, well that was fast.
I think it's a great way to get at stuff like hyper rezzing DA and attack bikes who have few angles you can interact with.
Well that is great, specially for armies that don't run elite stuff. But it is not so good for for factions who have no options to not elite, specially if they are on the weaker side. There is already a problem of double dipping on secondaries. I don't think we need something that ends with armies doing three secondaries at the same time, killing the same one unit.
Karol wrote: I don't think we need something that ends with armies doing three secondaries at the same time, killing the same one unit.
I think you'll want to wait and see what comes out for psychic secondaries.
No Prisoners is Infantry, Bikes, and Swarms instead of any model = 1 and W10+ = 10. That places vehicles almost exclusively in Bring It Down and Characters exclusively in Assassinate. The only time you might have overlap would be with a titanic unit or with psychic.
So if you take a couple GMDKs and 10x5 marine units you'll give up you'll give up 4 for Bring It Down, 5 for No Prisoner ( 10 if you were W2 ), and 15 for Abhor. If you instead went something like 2x10 purifier, 3x5 strikes, 10 termies you'd give up 5 or 6 on No Prisoner and 12 on Abhor ( assuming you can keep the GMDKs alive ).
We also don't know if Abhor will change. Now watch people scramble to prevent W2 on CSM.
I am waiting since start of 9th, and nothing from 8th ed history, makes me feel better about the possible rule sets. But If somehow termintor armies suddenly become really good, and GW does something to the super efficiency of open topped transports who knows, what can happen.
Eldarsif wrote: I expect point changes based on pre-Death Guard tournament results. These books are made few months in advance so I doubt we'll see any changes to DG or Drukhari.
I also expect some mission changes and changes to secondaries as well as new secondary objectives.
Basically the same I've expected from GHB over the years, but with this CA has basically the same point release cadence as AoS. Something I expected when CA was released in the GHB spot last year.
These are printed on the fly more than codexes.
Don't expect magic, because there are so many codexes incoming.
Best thing is to hope for properly revised secondaries.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bullyboy wrote: Most people have barely played since 9th came out with the original points/mission packs.
Depends where you live.
Free would be nice though.
Kinda sad that literally the most important step for balance is treated in an "on the fly" manner.
I'm a bit concerned that Titan Hunter (I forget the GT pack name) wasn't addressed in the article.
No Prisoners looks like it has promise but we'll see. As I said before I don't think there needs to be a specific "anti-elite" secondary, but it is nice to be able to count those wounds killed towards something.
This type of thing might be good against things like Death Guard poxwalkers + terminators, for instance. It's something, at least.
Karol wrote: Well that is great, specially for armies that don't run elite stuff. But it is not so good for for factions who have no options to not elite, specially if they are on the weaker side. There is already a problem of double dipping on secondaries. I don't think we need something that ends with armies doing three secondaries at the same time, killing the same one unit.
I think it should be pretty clear given that the new No Prisoners specifies units that dont have the VEHICLE, MONSTER or CHARACTER keywords that they are now trying to limit that double-dipping.
Personally, if this goes into affect and Abhor becomes something you can take that CANT be taken alongside the 'kill characters' one (which is IMO where the biggest problem of double-dipping on kill secondaries takes place) then I'm pretty happy.
.........and I know, literally every post you make is just vagueposting about "m-muh grey knights" but come on. At least try to figure out how many points youd actually give up with this new secondary for like a second. Your average hyper elite GK army would be packing like 6 points maximum with new No Prisoners.
This objective is going to be primarily helpful against armies that spam 5-8pts per wound models, not actual elite armies that tend to pay 12-15pts per wound. Hordes of Orks, Drukhari Hellions/Reavers/Courts of the Archon, etc.
Xenomancers wrote: Kinda sad that literally the most important step for balance is treated in an "on the fly" manner.
That's not what that means. You should know that by now.
I am confused. You literally said this is done on the fly and I agree with you on that. Now it seems you suggesting they put serious time into this? All the while they will ignore 85% of the models in every army.
I think it should be pretty clear given that the new No Prisoners specifies units that dont have the VEHICLE, MONSTER or CHARACTER keywords that they are now trying to limit that double-dipping.
Personally, if this goes into affect and Abhor becomes something you can take that CANT be taken alongside the 'kill characters' one (which is IMO where the biggest problem of double-dipping on kill secondaries takes place) then I'm pretty happy.
.........and I know, literally every post you make is just vagueposting about "m-muh grey knights" but come on. At least try to figure out how many points youd actually give up with this new secondary for like a second. Your average hyper elite GK army would be packing like 6 points maximum with new No Prisoners.
This objective is going to be primarily helpful against armies that spam 5-8pts per wound models, not actual elite armies that tend to pay 12-15pts per wound. Hordes of Orks, Drukhari Hellions/Reavers/Courts of the Archon, etc.
My army gives up 9VP on abhore on avarge. More vs something like DE, who don't even have to drop options like harlequins, because they don run psykers on their own.
I am not sure what a hyper elite GK army is even if you run 1 unit of troops and 3 units of paladins you would still be running 3 characters and apothecaries, in that lists only the servitors are not psykers. And the reason argument , that it makes sense for something to happen regarding GK rules, is something I will trust when I can see it in print. a 20pts strike or 30+pts termintors doesn't make sense at all, yet here we are closing on to a year of 9th.
And while I do think about GK, there are other elite armies that wouldn't want to see DE get another easy to do secondary. Custodes for example or armies running a ton of termintors.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Quasistellar wrote: I'm a bit concerned that Titan Hunter (I forget the GT pack name) wasn't addressed in the article.
No Prisoners looks like it has promise but we'll see. As I said before I don't think there needs to be a specific "anti-elite" secondary, but it is nice to be able to count those wounds killed towards something.
This type of thing might be good against things like Death Guard poxwalkers + terminators, for instance. It's something, at least.
But it litteraly helps one type of army DE and the different eldar soups. And neither of those need more help with winning or doing easy secondaries.
What I would like to see is the change to the secondary that lets DE score for free on turn 1, practicaly no army is able to move on to them turn 1, and if they do, then DE just wipe them out specially if someone gets greedy and tries to go for three quarters instead of two.
Didn't buy last CA not going to buy this one either. Its a complete waste of money, paper and ink. Its going to be redundant and obsolete within a few months as new codex come out with new FAQs, points and faction-based secondaries. I guess this is just another kick in the teeth of the faction that didn't get a codex/ weapons upgrade..
The fact they still have the audacity to charge for "fixes" and people are willingly giving them money is insane.. This should be a free pdf/ FAQ.
I'll allow it if it updated the app.
So I wonder, if you are an app user, you will HAVE to pay for this in order to use up-to-date points?
best part about the article is the first image that gets people excited that maybe chaos marines are getting addressed..........GW "hahaha, get out of here, you're drunk, we're just emphasizing those Imperial Fists at the bottom and how their 2W will now affect a secondary".
The GT2020 has been out for a year, there are a lot of people that have managed to get a lot of games in in that time whether face to face or on TTS, they've also watched or read a lot of battle reports and there's been a lot of tournament info being analysed by the likes of Goonhammer.
I'm certainly ready for some new missions and secondaries. A £20 book of new missions will invigorate my gaming far more than spending £20 on new models right now.
I'm really hopeful the tweaks they made to the secondaries a few months back show they are seriously looking to calibrate the balance, there has been plenty written about what they could tweak and adjust that if they take on board could really improve the playing experience.
I'd maybe like some tweaks to terrain rules (ruins should be obscuring and dense cover in their examples) perhaps even a slight adjustment to how negatives don't stack. I like that one player can't stack multiple negatives, but it doesn't quite sit right with me that because my opponent's flyer is -1 to hit, i can then advance and fire my assault weapons through dense cover with impunity.
As far as the munitorum points update, I think we'll have to wait and see if they also update the pdf on WarCom at the same time. I'm reasonably hopeful they will.
I never felt like I was paying for the first MFM that came with GT2020 last summer. They gave a free update in the winter with 2021 Mk I, then for those that want a printed copy they gave it away alongside a purchase of White Dwarf. Now we're getting another update alongside a book that is pretty much essential if you have any interest in playing 40k competitively.
If the model going forward is to adjust points every 6 months then that is so much better than the system we had before and hopefully doesn't leave players with models left out in the cold for an entire year. I really don't understand why anybody would see that as a negative thing?
Sadly, to answer your first line, it seems so. Salty and edgy is in. More missions is fun, bring it on I say!
The GT2020 has been out for a year, there are a lot of people that have managed to get a lot of games in in that time whether face to face or on TTS, they've also watched or read a lot of battle reports and there's been a lot of tournament info being analysed by the likes of Goonhammer.
I'm certainly ready for some new missions and secondaries. A £20 book of new missions will invigorate my gaming far more than spending £20 on new models right now.
I'm really hopeful the tweaks they made to the secondaries a few months back show they are seriously looking to calibrate the balance, there has been plenty written about what they could tweak and adjust that if they take on board could really improve the playing experience.
I'd maybe like some tweaks to terrain rules (ruins should be obscuring and dense cover in their examples) perhaps even a slight adjustment to how negatives don't stack. I like that one player can't stack multiple negatives, but it doesn't quite sit right with me that because my opponent's flyer is -1 to hit, i can then advance and fire my assault weapons through dense cover with impunity.
As far as the munitorum points update, I think we'll have to wait and see if they also update the pdf on WarCom at the same time. I'm reasonably hopeful they will.
I never felt like I was paying for the first MFM that came with GT2020 last summer. They gave a free update in the winter with 2021 Mk I, then for those that want a printed copy they gave it away alongside a purchase of White Dwarf. Now we're getting another update alongside a book that is pretty much essential if you have any interest in playing 40k competitively.
If the model going forward is to adjust points every 6 months then that is so much better than the system we had before and hopefully doesn't leave players with models left out in the cold for an entire year. I really don't understand why anybody would see that as a negative thing?
Sadly, to answer your first line, it seems so. Salty and edgy is in. More missions is fun, bring it on I say!
Hate is a strong word. Disappointment better describes the situation.
Most people have not had time to adjust their lists since the last points update. Not sure why another one is coming out so soon.
The changes to Secondaries might be too much. From what I already know, I can easily max out about 4 of them every game. Getting the sense this is true for other armies, what's the point of Secondaries if everyone's running away with them every game?
On top of that, the cover art. That Primaris' helmet looks off. Thought I was looking at a Primaris Fire Warrior for a second. If GW is going to pick my pocket, they can at least delight my eyes.
The article doesn't even say there are new missions, and in fact it has Brandt saying the "focus" is on secondaries, not new missions. They may well be the same missions reprinted with some very minor tweaks.
The GT2020 has been out for a year, there are a lot of people that have managed to get a lot of games in in that time whether face to face or on TTS, they've also watched or read a lot of battle reports and there's been a lot of tournament info being analysed by the likes of Goonhammer.
I'm certainly ready for some new missions and secondaries. A £20 book of new missions will invigorate my gaming far more than spending £20 on new models right now.
I'm really hopeful the tweaks they made to the secondaries a few months back show they are seriously looking to calibrate the balance, there has been plenty written about what they could tweak and adjust that if they take on board could really improve the playing experience.
I'd maybe like some tweaks to terrain rules (ruins should be obscuring and dense cover in their examples) perhaps even a slight adjustment to how negatives don't stack. I like that one player can't stack multiple negatives, but it doesn't quite sit right with me that because my opponent's flyer is -1 to hit, i can then advance and fire my assault weapons through dense cover with impunity.
As far as the munitorum points update, I think we'll have to wait and see if they also update the pdf on WarCom at the same time. I'm reasonably hopeful they will.
I never felt like I was paying for the first MFM that came with GT2020 last summer. They gave a free update in the winter with 2021 Mk I, then for those that want a printed copy they gave it away alongside a purchase of White Dwarf. Now we're getting another update alongside a book that is pretty much essential if you have any interest in playing 40k competitively.
If the model going forward is to adjust points every 6 months then that is so much better than the system we had before and hopefully doesn't leave players with models left out in the cold for an entire year. I really don't understand why anybody would see that as a negative thing?
Sadly, to answer your first line, it seems so. Salty and edgy is in. More missions is fun, bring it on I say!
to add on to that first point, no, people don't hate playing 40K. They do hate, however, this constant pay to play format that GW encompasses. I already don't like how quickly books are invalidated (of course that depends on your gaming situation), but I'd rather spend money on models, not continued publications to fix the issues they create.
I have liked the GT pack from the start, the book is very compact and allow easy check on alot of things.
I think they will fix some of the unusable secondaries and that will make the game more interesting.
Leds hope they nerf secondaries like "we stand", "outs of moment,"stubborn defiance".. all secondaries that benefit passive gameplay.
I don`t expect anything from the points since prev CA, disappointments and nerf on units that don`t longer need it.
Argive wrote: Didn't buy last CA not going to buy this one either. Its a complete waste of money, paper and ink.
Its going to be redundant and obsolete within a few months as new codex come out with new FAQs, points and faction-based secondaries. I guess this is just another kick in the teeth of the faction that didn't get a codex/ weapons upgrade..
The fact they still have the audacity to charge for "fixes" and people are willingly giving them money is insane.. This should be a free pdf/ FAQ.
I'll allow it if it updated the app.
So I wonder, if you are an app user, you will HAVE to pay for this in order to use up-to-date points?
You don't get this for points. The points are in essence freebie you get alongside real meat(which you need for tournaments and random pickup games)
Tyel wrote:I'm afraid I'm a fan of the modifiers being capped like now. I feel stacking modifiers is not a box that need's to be reopened.
Intuitively it does perhaps seem silly that a guy carrying a heavy weapon can jog along and then shoot at super-sneaky unit through a forest at no more penalty than shooting a regular unit in the open - but I think negatives to hit were just awful for the game. So I prefer the gameyness over the verisimilitude.
The counter argument is that minuses to hit at some of the best counters to "everything dies by the close of turn 3" - but yeah. They don't hit all armies equally and for those poor suffering BS4+ armies its just obnoxious.
You're right, they don't hit all armies equally. The current rules of capping negative modifiers to hit at -1 while making "6s always hit" hurts lower BS/WS armies more than those with better BS/WS. Going from hitting on 2s to 3s is a 20% drop in efficiency, 3s to 4s is 25%, 4s to 5s is 33%, and 5s to 6s is 50%. Flip it around, keep 6s always hit, but allow "self inflicted" penalties to stack with defensive penalties, which would still be capped at -1 with a cap of total penalties of -3 and you get: hitting on 2s going to 5s - 60% drop in efficiency, 3s to 6s - 75% drop, 4s to 6s - 66% drop, 5s to 6s - 50%. This would hit more "elite" factions harder than the less elite, with the exception of anything with WS/BS 2. Would that be good? That's the question.
Quasistellar wrote: I'm not 100% sure we "need" an anti-elite infantry secondary.
Are elite infantry factions doing so well that their opponents "need" to score more points against them? That's the question you need to ask. Just because that type of secondary doesn't yet exist, doesn't mean it "needs" to exist.
I agree, part of the reason why I don't think such a secondary should exist is the question why have secondaries in the first place? My answer to that question is that it's a good way to punish people for spamming similar units, playing against 100% horde or 100% vehicle can be an unfun experience unless you have 70% anti-horde or 70% anti-vehicle and if you have 100% anti-horde or anti-vehicle it will also be unfun because it will be too easy. Heavy infantry get countered by anti-infantry and anti-horde, there is no feels-bad in terms of wasting certain weapon profiles on them. There is no value in spamming them unless they simply happen to be undercosted relative to vehicle or horde units in your faction and the answer to that question is nerfing those units on pts. But gangbusters nerfs units that don't need nerfs, like Paladins, Wraithblades and Ogryn.
One possibility that wouldn't impact things too much would be counting wounds caused to non-vehicle non-monster units instead of models killed +9 for each vehicle/monster for the Thin Their Ranks secondary objective. Aaaand my suggestion is already in the game, well that was fast.
I think it's a great way to get at stuff like hyper rezzing DA and attack bikes who have few angles you can interact with.
Agreed, I like these changes.
Daedalus81 wrote:Now watch people scramble to prevent W2 on CSM.
Xenomancers wrote: Kinda sad that literally the most important step for balance is treated in an "on the fly" manner.
That's not what that means. You should know that by now.
I am confused. You literally said this is done on the fly and I agree with you on that. Now it seems you suggesting they put serious time into this? All the while they will ignore 85% of the models in every army.
I mean that they don't need it sent to print months in advance.
Argive wrote: Didn't buy last CA not going to buy this one either. Its a complete waste of money, paper and ink.
Its going to be redundant and obsolete within a few months as new codex come out with new FAQs, points and faction-based secondaries. I guess this is just another kick in the teeth of the faction that didn't get a codex/ weapons upgrade..
The fact they still have the audacity to charge for "fixes" and people are willingly giving them money is insane.. This should be a free pdf/ FAQ.
I'll allow it if it updated the app.
So I wonder, if you are an app user, you will HAVE to pay for this in order to use up-to-date points?
You don't get this for points. The points are in essence freebie you get alongside real meat(which you need for tournaments and random pickup games)
It hasn't (Indomitus has only been out about 10 months, let alone the real launch and the 2020 CA). And even if it had, the last update was Feb. I'd definitely call 3 months 'so soon.'
I don't think the complaint is they're making changes to the flawed original product they put out last year, I think the complaint is they're charging everybody again for them.
alextroy wrote: Considering all the people demanding changes to Codex Drukhari after a month, I can't imagine how 3 months for a balance revision is too soon
More concerned about my Deathwatch, Grey Knights, Death Guard, Chaos Daemons, Guard and CSM armies.
With the lockdowns, haven't played a game of 9th. Having to update lists for a game I'm prevented from playing doesn't sit well.
Doesn't matter if the points go up or down. It's the fact I've never gotten to try what's there.
I just don't see a reason that CSM would get a point increase. Loyalists have an extra wound but cost the same as a lesser wound CSM same with a lot of other CSM/SM units. So, if there is a point increase then either CSM are that much more fierce than a SM or GW would be outright declaring that they favor SM over everyone CSM.
My guess no point increase for CSM unless there are new rules implemented for them even if they are given an extra wound like their loyalist counterparts.
alextroy wrote: Considering all the people demanding changes to Codex Drukhari after a month, I can't imagine how 3 months for a balance revision is too soon
More concerned about my Deathwatch, Grey Knights, Death Guard, Chaos Daemons, Guard and CSM armies.
With the lockdowns, haven't played a game of 9th. Having to update lists for a game I'm prevented from playing doesn't sit well.
Doesn't matter if the points go up or down. It's the fact I've never gotten to try what's there.
To be fair, there's almost no point in worrying about it if you're not playing the game anyway. I haven't bought a single thing for 9e and probably won't even get the ork codex until I feel comfortable hanging out at the game store again. (And I'm in a state with a vaccination rate around 30%, so it may be a while.)
While I don't love buying books that become obsolete (looking at you Psychic Awakening), I feel that I got my money's worth with the GT2020 Mission Pack based on using it at tourneys and pick-up Matched Play games. I prefer that they do this annual update to keep things fresh than sit with the same missions/secondaries for three years. I also don't mind paying for it. Its a handy little book that goes in my gaming bag and has all the rules you need at the table.
alextroy wrote: Considering all the people demanding changes to Codex Drukhari after a month, I can't imagine how 3 months for a balance revision is too soon
More concerned about my Deathwatch, Grey Knights, Death Guard, Chaos Daemons, Guard and CSM armies.
With the lockdowns, haven't played a game of 9th. Having to update lists for a game I'm prevented from playing doesn't sit well.
Doesn't matter if the points go up or down. It's the fact I've never gotten to try what's there.
To be fair, there's almost no point in worrying about it if you're not playing the game anyway. I haven't bought a single thing for 9e and probably won't even get the ork codex until I feel comfortable hanging out at the game store again. (And I'm in a state with a vaccination rate around 30%, so it may be a while.)
Yeah if you're not playing you can just... not buy stuff until you are playing again. You don't even have to pay attention to new updates until you start playing again. Letting go is an option
Leo_the_Rat wrote: I just don't see a reason that CSM would get a point increase. Loyalists have an extra wound but cost the same as a lesser wound CSM same with a lot of other CSM/SM units. So, if there is a point increase then either CSM are that much more fierce than a SM or GW would be outright declaring that they favor SM over everyone CSM.
My guess no point increase for CSM unless there are new rules implemented for them even if they are given an extra wound like their loyalist counterparts.
Why do you think CSM are getting a points increase? They need a drop of a minimum of 1 pt and probably 2.
Tactical Squads are 18 PPM, Chaos Space Marines are 14 PPM. SM have better abilities and an extra wound. The wound alone doubles their durability, that should be somewhere around a 33% decrease in points cost. The reason CSM cost 14 is because they used to cost 11 in 8th and everything went up 3 points.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: While I don't love buying books that become obsolete (looking at you Psychic Awakening), I feel that I got my money's worth with the GT2020 Mission Pack based on using it at tourneys and pick-up Matched Play games. I prefer that they do this annual update to keep things fresh than sit with the same missions/secondaries for three years. I also don't mind paying for it. Its a handy little book that goes in my gaming bag and has all the rules you need at the table.
Yep, same here. I feel like this is one of the few non-model things GW sells that is actually worth its money.
Yeah, this booklet is the best thing that GW sells, at least for those who actively play the game.
I hope the core rules inside are not the old version but the updated/FAQd ones.
I like seeing updates to point costs twice a year, as it theoretically means that the game is better balanced. If they do the same as they did in January, the points will be released for free on the website anyway.
What you're actually paying for is the new mission pack and the core rules booklet.
Aenar wrote: Yeah, this booklet is the best thing that GW sells, at least for those who actively play the game.
I hope the core rules inside are not the old version but the updated/FAQd ones.
I would bet money that the core rules inside are not updated.
vict0988 wrote: I think they changed the names so people don't confuse the old ones and the new ones.
Quasistellar wrote: I'm not 100% sure we "need" an anti-elite infantry secondary.
Are elite infantry factions doing so well that their opponents "need" to score more points against them? That's the question you need to ask. Just because that type of secondary doesn't yet exist, doesn't mean it "needs" to exist.
I agree, part of the reason why I don't think such a secondary should exist is the question why have secondaries in the first place? My answer to that question is that it's a good way to punish people for spamming similar units, playing against 100% horde or 100% vehicle can be an unfun experience unless you have 70% anti-horde or 70% anti-vehicle and if you have 100% anti-horde or anti-vehicle it will also be unfun because it will be too easy. Heavy infantry get countered by anti-infantry and anti-horde, there is no feels-bad in terms of wasting certain weapon profiles on them. There is no value in spamming them unless they simply happen to be undercosted relative to vehicle or horde units in your faction and the answer to that question is nerfing those units on pts. But gangbusters nerfs units that don't need nerfs, like Paladins, Wraithblades and Ogryn.
One possibility that wouldn't impact things too much would be counting wounds caused to non-vehicle non-monster units instead of models killed +9 for each vehicle/monster for the Thin Their Ranks secondary objective. Aaaand my suggestion is already in the game, well that was fast.
The issue is that it doesn't dissuade people from spamming in hordes. Guard get fethed by both secondaries, and so the only way to manage such is to limit the amount of points one could win off of that... that means spamming nothing but infantry.
Aenar wrote: Yeah, this booklet is the best thing that GW sells, at least for those who actively play the game.
I hope the core rules inside are not the old version but the updated/FAQd ones.
I would bet money that the core rules inside are not updated.
Aenar wrote: Yeah, this booklet is the best thing that GW sells, at least for those who actively play the game.
I hope the core rules inside are not the old version but the updated/FAQd ones.
I would bet money that the core rules inside are not updated.
That is a bet... I am not willing to take
Hopefully we will be pleasantly surprised.
Yeah, that would be typical of GW - updating all the missions and objectives but printing the same unerrate'ed BRB for the rest of the pages.
alextroy wrote: Considering all the people demanding changes to Codex Drukhari after a month, I can't imagine how 3 months for a balance revision is too soon
More concerned about my Deathwatch, Grey Knights, Death Guard, Chaos Daemons, Guard and CSM armies.
With the lockdowns, haven't played a game of 9th. Having to update lists for a game I'm prevented from playing doesn't sit well.
Doesn't matter if the points go up or down. It's the fact I've never gotten to try what's there.
To be fair, there's almost no point in worrying about it if you're not playing the game anyway. I haven't bought a single thing for 9e and probably won't even get the ork codex until I feel comfortable hanging out at the game store again. (And I'm in a state with a vaccination rate around 30%, so it may be a while.)
Yeah if you're not playing you can just... not buy stuff until you are playing again. You don't even have to pay attention to new updates until you start playing again. Letting go is an option
Thanks for sharing your perspective. I appreciate the suggestion to ignore the game and change my spending patterns, it's very helpful.
Probably be good for everyone to follow this advice.
Immortals are only 4 points more than Warriors right now...looks like all they did was remove the cost on the tesla. If that's one of the five biggest changes...
yukishiro1 wrote: Immortals are only 4 points more than Warriors right now...looks like all they did was remove the cost on the tesla. If that's one of the five biggest changes...
Not sure I'd qualify that change as "big" to be perfectly honest.
oh look the cut content supplement got another validation for existing....
Jokes aside, but the bloating for monetary sake is annoying and doesn't help the release schedule. as in the cut content first day DLC, not the dexes
But neither does the fact that GW didn't get the show on during the pandemic, kinda confused that they had this much logisitcal problems, considering other companies had to fight with the same problems yet still managed.
yukishiro1 wrote: Immortals are only 4 points more than Warriors right now...looks like all they did was remove the cost on the tesla. If that's one of the five biggest changes...
Not sure I'd qualify that change as "big" to be perfectly honest.
If you want to take 30 or 50 tesla Immortals it is definitely huge, that's 60-100 pts. Maybe that's just because I've been butthurt over GW giving me the finger after I just built 30 additional Immortals. Sautekh is going to be a non-option for them so I can't use them together with my unique characters but at least I can probably make them work as Szarekhan, Mephrit or a custom dynasty.
Still not sure what you're trying to say. The article is accurate: immortals are being changed to be 4 points more than warriors no matter what their loadout is, which is a change from before in that before they were 4 points more with gauss, or 6 points more with tesla.
It's ridiculous to call that a big change, but it is a change.
Or are you trying to say you've seen a leaked copy of the new MFM 2021 and the tesla carbine still costs 2 points, even though the article claims it doesn't?
yukishiro1 wrote: Still not sure what you're trying to say. The article is accurate: immortals are being changed to be 4 points more than warriors no matter what their loadout is, which is a change from before in that before they were 4 points more with gauss, or 6 points more with tesla.
It's ridiculous to call that a big change, but it is a change.
Or are you trying to say you've seen the new MFM 2021 and the tesla carbine still costs 2 points, even though the article claims it doesn't?
Exactly that. I've seen the book. Tesla carbines still cost 2 points. It wasn't an English one, so it could be a typo, but it was definitely 2 points.
The better new is TS & GK next and a new HQ for TS! Woot woot!
My lack of smarts hits me hard again. I see GW saying that a LR at 265pts is great, and I can't imagine why someone wouldn't just take an extra squads or more bodies in their squads. Specially when being inside one makes the unit do absolutly nothing for 1-2 turns, which is big for armies that can't have units do nothing.
But the good thing about it all is that GW tells me, a GK player in advance, that the points costs for my army are wrong in the entire book. Which probably means the books should have come out last year, and the TS/GK book should be out now. Yay for saving money, because of covid delays.
Plus I wonder which MK of power armour are those GK strikes wearing, because this isn't the armour regular GK strikes have now
Not Online!!! wrote: oh look the cut content supplement got another validation for existing....
Jokes aside, but the bloating for monetary sake is annoying and doesn't help the release schedule. as in the cut content first day DLC, not the dexes
But neither does the fact that GW didn't get the show on during the pandemic, kinda confused that they had this much logisitcal problems, considering other companies had to fight with the same problems yet still managed.
Considering GW hasn’t been able to open their model factory for over half the last year due to the series of uk lockdowns, it’s surprising we aren’t further behind...
Not Online!!! wrote: oh look the cut content supplement got another validation for existing....
Jokes aside, but the bloating for monetary sake is annoying and doesn't help the release schedule. as in the cut content first day DLC, not the dexes
But neither does the fact that GW didn't get the show on during the pandemic, kinda confused that they had this much logisitcal problems, considering other companies had to fight with the same problems yet still managed.
Considering GW hasn’t been able to open their model factory for over half the last year due to the series of uk lockdowns, it’s surprising we aren’t further behind...
This is exaggeration, right? I thought they were closed 3 months. When was it over half a year?
ETA: Not that 3 months is insignificant and it makes sense that they'd have delays, but still.
I have been re reading the article, and I don't understand one thing. If GK and 1ksons were ment to already be out. Then why aren't the next two books them, but instead admecha, orks and SoB?
Karol wrote: I have been re reading the article, and I don't understand one thing. If GK and 1ksons were ment to already be out. Then why aren't the next two books them, but instead admecha, orks and SoB?
They were supposed to do 2 per month. Around Dec/Jan they said they could only do 1 due to COVID. So likely AdMech + Druks then Orks + Sisters and we would've had 4-6 more Codices after that before reaching present point.
Karol wrote: I have been re reading the article, and I don't understand one thing. If GK and 1ksons were ment to already be out. Then why aren't the next two books them, but instead admecha, orks and SoB?
Because they’re about 3-4 months behind and they originally planned to release 2 books a month. All 5 of the books you listed should have been out by now.
The better new is TS & GK next and a new HQ for TS! Woot woot!
My lack of smarts hits me hard again. I see GW saying that a LR at 265pts is great, and I can't imagine why someone wouldn't just take an extra squads or more bodies in their squads. Specially when being inside one makes the unit do absolutly nothing for 1-2 turns, which is big for armies that can't have units do nothing.
But the good thing about it all is that GW tells me, a GK player in advance, that the points costs for my army are wrong in the entire book. Which probably means the books should have come out last year, and the TS/GK book should be out now. Yay for saving money, because of covid delays.
Plus I wonder which MK of power armour are those GK strikes wearing, because this isn't the armour regular GK strikes have now
@Karol GW only gives high quality advice for improving each player's enjoyment of the game.
The fact they also sell you the model has no bearing on what GW tells you.
The better new is TS & GK next and a new HQ for TS! Woot woot!
Hopefully the price drop on Land Raiders and Storm Speeders is a sign that a lot of vehicles will be getting a price cut. Most vehicles are currently overpriced. I'll definitely be cranky if all Land Raiders don't get a cut. It'll be interesting to compare the prices in the MFM for 1ksons and GK with their upcoming codexes and the ones without them. Give us an idea of how much better everything will be getting. Or worse.
yukishiro1 wrote:You can also tell from the GK/TS points values that they aren't doing anything about multi-meltas.
No, you can tell they aren't doing anything to multi-meltas on vehicles. Those aren't a problem. I don't think anyone is complaining about multi-meltas on dreadnoughts or as pintle mounted weapons on Land Raiders.
@Karol GW only gives high quality advice for improving each player's enjoyment of the game.
The fact they also sell you the model has no bearing on what GW tells you.
Learn to love the game and stop hating.
I ain't disliking GW, because unless it is obvious I can't make up army tactics or builds on my own. I just can't imagine how a 265pts tanks is suppose to work, specially as without the new codex, it wouldn't have any of the rules updates the regular marine land raiders have. And I still have the memory of 8th ed first IA book in my mind, where in the right up to it GW wrote that multiple units, including termintors and paladins were suppose to become good for GK, but they didn't. And in case of termintors they never did, and paladins became very good under ITC terrain rules after the PA book for GK droped.
Not understanding something doesn't equal to hate. I don't get the majority of things that happen in other countries, but I don't hate most of them. And those that I do, I understand very well.
The better new is TS & GK next and a new HQ for TS! Woot woot!
My lack of smarts hits me hard again. I see GW saying that a LR at 265pts is great, and I can't imagine why someone wouldn't just take an extra squads or more bodies in their squads. Specially when being inside one makes the unit do absolutly nothing for 1-2 turns, which is big for armies that can't have units do nothing.
But the good thing about it all is that GW tells me, a GK player in advance, that the points costs for my army are wrong in the entire book. Which probably means the books should have come out last year, and the TS/GK book should be out now. Yay for saving money, because of covid delays.
Plus I wonder which MK of power armour are those GK strikes wearing, because this isn't the armour regular GK strikes have now
I dont know if theyre great, but I take a regular lascannon/hb land raider in my deathwatch pretty commonly in place of something like a lascannon dev squad or other upfront turn 1 firepower. I usually put the squad of longer-range deathwatch vets I have inside it to keep them from being targeted turn 1, and then just hop them out and take a shot at something on my first turn, I don't actually use it as a transport to get units from point A to point B.
Rihgu wrote: Regular marine Land Raiders have Smokescreen has a stratagem, and Power of the Machine Spirit as a stratagem.
They have vengeance of the machine spirit and old smoke launchers instead. And all four of those things contribute nothing to what a landraider is trying to do.
Transport/shield a unit for a turn, provide saturation for armored stuff and supporting firepower. If you don't need all of those options the LR isn't a great option. I take it everytime with my SW, the Crusade variant as I need anti infantry firepower, a ride/shield for 15 Blood Claws and a cheap character (typically a Wolf Priest or a Battle Leader) and saturation for my other tanks/flyer and TWC.
Rihgu wrote: Regular marine Land Raiders have Smokescreen has a stratagem, and Power of the Machine Spirit as a stratagem.
They have vengeance of the machine spirit and old smoke launchers instead. And all four of those things contribute nothing to what a landraider is trying to do.
....the ability to ignore the vehicle damage chart and the ability to be -1 to hit from shooting for 1cp does nothing to contribute to what a landraider is trying to do?
Man, they sure have been handy for what MY land raider has been trying to do, I must have been using it all wrong. I use those stratagems when my opponent tries to kill my land raider to stop it from firing lascannons and heavy bolters at things, and they help it to not get killed and not get reduced in effectiveness as it loses wounds.
Typically, it's the only big heavy thing present in my army, so my opponent starts by hitting it with any lascannons, missiles, d6 damage weapons and such that he has, and obviously immediately I use the smoke strat. Usually the T8 and the 2+ base save makes it surprisingly tough, so my opponent ends up flinging stuff like supercharged plasma at it to try and take it out or bracket it since theyve already sunk cost into shooting it, which means they arent shooting those things at my marines.
I have not played a Codex: Space Marines Land Raider, no.
My Land Raiders still have to sacrifice shooting to get -1 to hit and can't do it reactively.
Also curious as to what "trivial anti tank fire" is.
Like, it takes 5 Multimeltas to on average kill a Land Raider. 7 if you pop smoke. That doesn't feel trivial to me. 15 lascannons... that's half of all the lascannons in my list! Before smoke is popped.
Jidmah wrote: Transporting melee troops into combat and providing them with support fire.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rihgu wrote: Okay, I'm confused. I was told that Smokescreen and Power of the Machine Spirit don't help what a land raider is trying to do?
Have you ever played a landraider?
It goes like this:
You pop smoke, the landraider dies to trivial anti tank fire. The end.
6 multi-melta attack bikes in melta range to kill a smoke-popped land raider doesn't seem like particularly trivial antitank firepower to me, particularly given that those bikes are among the most efficient antitank choices in the game atm.
Jidmah wrote: You pop smoke, the landraider dies to trivial anti tank fire. The end.
I find this to be an exaggeration. If I could pop smoke like marines I'd use mine. It would take 9 DAMM attack bikes to kill it on average - 6 if they were w/i 12". That isn't a trivial amount of AT and considering I can be careful about trades and since they don't usually all deploy on the same area ( if I have multiple threats or more drops ) I have an advantage. Toss on a 5++, drop the price of warpflamers and I'll be happy to shove them in people's faces.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Nobody in my group bought the GT Mission pack and I'm not even sure if more than half of the people even know it exists. If this CA is only about tournament missions noone will care about it. Updated points? Yeah, well, we get these from Battlescribe one week later if GW can't be bothered to update their pdf. I guess after the crusade books the tournament crowd wants to have something too, but I'm not part of that group.
Honestly, considering all their delays at this point I think they should have scrapped the whole thing and instead put out a codex with their ressources. The tournament players got along with their boring ITC missions for years, I'm sure they would have been okay with a longer lifespan of the first pack, especially since most parts of the World didn't even have a lot of tournaments in the last 1,5 years...
Edit: thinking about it I'd say that stuff would have a good place in a WD, just like the Maelstrom missions. Didn't they even have the points pdf only last months in there only to make that invalid now?
Generally we have one exemplar of a supplementary release in the gaming store.
I guess my DG landraiders are more fagile than yours. I wonder why no one is playing those totally awesome invincible gunboats then?
And yes, I was obviously exaggerating. However, if you use the LR to transport anything of worth, it tends be prioritized because it is a large chunk of your army. If you don't, you just pay a lot of points for four lascannons and two heavy bolters.
The best I can hope for it to do is to survive turn 1 severely damaged and then unload terminators or marines somewhere midfield.
Jidmah wrote: I guess my DG landraiders are more fagile than yours then. I wonder why no one is playing those totally awesome invincible gunboats then?
And yes, I was obviously exaggerating. However, if you use the LR to transport anything of worth, it tends be prioritized because it is a large chunk of your army. If you don't, you just pay a lot of points for four lascannons and two heavy bolters.
Nobody is claiming them to be invincible gunboats. In fact, they're only claiming that the stratagem access newer books (DG, SM) have helps support them in their intended roles. Because you initially claimed that they did not.
This is all because Karol pointed out that Codex: Space Marine Land raiders and Codex: Grey Knight Land Raiders are going to cost the same despite the Space Marine one having immediately obvious advantages, so even if being priced at 265 points somehow made them viable or even just reasonable to take rather than a points sink, it still wouldn't be viable or reasonable for GK as they'd be paying the same points for a less effective model.
And my point is that neither the new smoke (GK still has the old one) nor the ability to fire your guns a full capacity really change anything about why the LR is bad. Power of the machine spirit also is a horrible stratagem, do you seriously consider wasting 2 CP to gain 1 or 2 BS? I'm not to sure what GK can do, but I'd be surprised if they don't have anything better to do with their CP.
So there are no "immediately obvious advantages", just a smoke sidegrade and a stratagem you won't be using anyways.
It's the same dumb brick with the same dumb problems for the same dumb price tag.
Jidmah wrote: I guess my DG landraiders are more fagile than yours. I wonder why no one is playing those totally awesome invincible gunboats then?
And yes, I was obviously exaggerating. However, if you use the LR to transport anything of worth, it tends be prioritized because it is a large chunk of your army. If you don't, you just pay a lot of points for four lascannons and two heavy bolters.
The best I can hope for it to do is to survive turn 1 severely damaged and then unload terminators or marines somewhere midfield.
I think, usually, turn 1 is safe, but then you aren't moving much. The important point is to use the guns against something before it gets popped. It'd be cool if DG could buff it to T9, but alas.
At present I don't have smokescreen and I don't want to spend the spell on it for that. I also can't go top bracket. Getting two to three solid rounds of shooting, delivering something good right where it needs to be, and taking a lot of heat sounds acceptable for 265.
Jidmah wrote: do you seriously consider wasting 2 CP to gain 1 or 2 BS?
Well only 1 for DG. That's what I'd expect for other books. Not sure what marines got shafted on theirs. Super heavies, I guess?
Death Guard have access to all of the same Super Heavys as loyalists, minus the Astraeus. But none of them have Machine Spirit, but are the same price, infuriatingly.
Jidmah wrote: I guess my DG landraiders are more fagile than yours. I wonder why no one is playing those totally awesome invincible gunboats then?
Sometimes I wonder why I even bother replying to posts on this forum. People don't even bother responding to anything on the actual original subject of what was said and just respond with kind of a weird fantasy version of what you actually secretly MEANT in their mind.
I just described what I use a land raider for in my Deathwatch army. I didn't say it was a "totally awesome invincible gunboat." I said its there to fill a specific role in my army, some downrange firepower turn 1 to take advantage of Devastator doctrine, and as a metal box to keep my one unit of marines that starts on the board without Storm Shield coverage from getting singled out and targeted with my opponent's high AP long range weaponry. Because it has +1T, +1Sv and +25% wounds compared to any other "standard" marine vehicle, it tends to last longer than people expect, and I've seen that translate into an advantage several times, when my opponent flings whatever dedicated AT firepower they've got at it and rather than killing it they only get it down to 1/2 or 2/3 hp, and they try to finish it off or bracket it with some of the anti-elite weapons that would have otherwise gone into my marines.
never said it was amazing, awesome, the best thing ever, SpAm ThIs OnE wEiRd UnIt FoR fReE wInS!!!1 OP, I just said I use it in my army and it tends to do well.
Jidmah wrote: do you seriously consider wasting 2 CP to gain 1 or 2 BS?
Well only 1 for DG. That's what I'd expect for other books. Not sure what marines got shafted on theirs. Super heavies, I guess?
Death Guard have access to all of the same Super Heavys as loyalists, minus the Astraeus. But none of them have Machine Spirit, but are the same price, infuriatingly.
They do get access to a mark (all choas LR) which can give them additional benifits.
Which Mark can give Chaos Land Raiders additional benefits?
Endless Cacophony, Fury of Khorne, and Grandfather's Blessing target INFANTRY or BIKERS. Tzeentch's Mark Stratagem targets Psykers.
In CSM, I guess a Daemon Prince can allow a Chaos Land Raider to re-roll 1s to hit, but that doesn't work in Death Guard.
Jidmah wrote: I guess my DG landraiders are more fagile than yours. I wonder why no one is playing those totally awesome invincible gunboats then?
Sometimes I wonder why I even bother replying to posts on this forum. People don't even bother responding to anything on the actual original subject of what was said and just respond with kind of a weird fantasy version of what you actually secretly MEANT in their mind.
I just described what I use a land raider for in my Deathwatch army. I didn't say it was a "totally awesome invincible gunboat." I said its there to fill a specific role in my army, some downrange firepower turn 1 to take advantage of Devastator doctrine, and as a metal box to keep my one unit of marines that starts on the board without Storm Shield coverage from getting singled out and targeted with my opponent's high AP long range weaponry. Because it has +1T, +1Sv and +25% wounds compared to any other "standard" marine vehicle, it tends to last longer than people expect, and I've seen that translate into an advantage several times, when my opponent flings whatever dedicated AT firepower they've got at it and rather than killing it they only get it down to 1/2 or 2/3 hp, and they try to finish it off or bracket it with some of the anti-elite weapons that would have otherwise gone into my marines.
never said it was amazing, awesome, the best thing ever, SpAm ThIs OnE wEiRd UnIt FoR fReE wInS!!!1 OP, I just said I use it in my army and it tends to do well.
To be fair, the thread worked the other way around as well.
I have tried to make it work multiple times to either cart deathshroud, blightlords or plague marines to the middle of the board, just because I like the model.
When it still could get 5+ FNP and a 5++ invul save from war of the spider it just barely managed to survive long enough to actually do its job of protecting and transporting the things inside and delivering that stuff into the enemy ranks. Heck even predators could at least somewhat do their job with those buffs.
But sadly, they were taken away and now my opponents actually race to destroy the landraider ASAP if I pack terminators inside because they want me to roll for casualties. So if I'm unlucky I roll a or two and lose two 40-50 points models on top of the almost 300 point tank. It's hard to take out a similar amount of points in DG by shooting anything else, and worst case I went second and I haven't even gotten any extra movement for my troubles. A unit disembarking on their own free will from the LR turn 2 is the best I could hope for and have yet for it to ever see it turn 3. Smokes or miasma have never really mattered, as it just gives a free pass to all my opponent's heavy weapons to move and shoot or line up shots through dense terrain, and your opponent can just roll in a way that -1 to hit does not affect him or buff +1 to hit or ignore modifiers. And let's not talk about facing armies like harlequins or daemons. I guess shooting at full power is situationally good, but it has never come up for me. Either the LR was not yet wounded, had already turned into a crater or there were simply better stratagems to spend my points on - especially the unit that had just disembarked from it.
Jidmah wrote: do you seriously consider wasting 2 CP to gain 1 or 2 BS?
Well only 1 for DG. That's what I'd expect for other books. Not sure what marines got shafted on theirs. Super heavies, I guess?
Death Guard have access to all of the same Super Heavys as loyalists, minus the Astraeus. But none of them have Machine Spirit, but are the same price, infuriatingly.
DGFW models also don't have contagions while loyalists have doctrines.
Rihgu wrote: Which Mark can give Chaos Land Raiders additional benefits?
Endless Cacophony, Fury of Khorne, and Grandfather's Blessing target INFANTRY or BIKERS. Tzeentch's Mark Stratagem targets Psykers.
In CSM, I guess a Daemon Prince can allow a Chaos Land Raider to re-roll 1s to hit, but that doesn't work in Death Guard.
I think it also unlocks a few psychic abilities. Could be wrong though.
I stated this in the CSM tactics thread, but I guess I will put it here to: LR really needs either T9 and/or a rule to allow disembark after moving. Until then it will just be a fun-sie vehicle for casual play, even if they dropped it another 20-50 points, especially in a DE dark lance meta.
The only semi-credible use I have had for it (other than more LC, although I prefer Hellbrutes for that) is putting a cheap and flimsy close combat unit in it and drive up the field (like Tgors or cheap CSM etc.) This way the flimsy CC unit can actually get somewhere where it might be useful, you are putting the transport capacity to use, but there isn't like 25% of your army in one target. That has worked for me a few times, but you are not winning a tournament with that strategy.
xeen wrote: I stated this in the CSM tactics thread, but I guess I will put it here to: LR really needs either T9 and/or a rule to allow disembark after moving. Until then it will just be a fun-sie vehicle for casual play, even if they dropped it another 20-50 points, especially in a DE dark lance meta.
The only semi-credible use I have had for it (other than more LC, although I prefer Hellbrutes for that) is putting a cheap and flimsy close combat unit in it and drive up the field (like Tgors or cheap CSM etc.) This way the flimsy CC unit can actually get somewhere where it might be useful, you are putting the transport capacity to use, but there isn't like 25% of your army in one target. That has worked for me a few times, but you are not winning a tournament with that strategy.
Rules don't matter as much as points. A 2200 pt model wins no tournaments even if it has an ability that gives you 100 VP. 150 pt Land Raiders would be amazing. Rules should only be changed for narrative or gameplay reasons (FNP on multi-wound multi-model units takes too long to resolve).
xeen wrote: I stated this in the CSM tactics thread, but I guess I will put it here to: LR really needs either T9 and/or a rule to allow disembark after moving. Until then it will just be a fun-sie vehicle for casual play, even if they dropped it another 20-50 points, especially in a DE dark lance meta.
The DE dark lance meta, where competitive DE lists bring nowhere near enough dark lances to kill a land raider turn 1, as opposed to any standard-statline marine vehicle where they bring just enough?
Competively you have to make the LR less than 250 points for it to be viable. Repuslors executioners need to be in the same area. Gladiator tanks need to drop by about the same amount. Doubt CA will even come close.
They did drop the storm speeders a respectable 25 points. If gladiators got the same % drop I think both of these units will be playable in certain builds.
Competively you have to make the LR less than 250 points for it to be viable. Repuslors executioners need to be in the same area. Gladiator tanks need to drop by about the same amount. Doubt CA will even come close.
They did drop the storm speeders a respectable 25 points. If gladiators got the same % drop I think both of these units will be playable in certain builds.
yeah, its pretty clear that they want the focus of space marines to be 'the marines themselves' and they want to try and move away from the eternal parking lots of 7th and earlier editions, but they massively overshot and instead of tanks being the intended 'sometimes food' it's just easier to leave them out entirely and not offer your opponent a good target for D6 damage guns.
Competively you have to make the LR less than 250 points for it to be viable. Repuslors executioners need to be in the same area. Gladiator tanks need to drop by about the same amount. Doubt CA will even come close.
They did drop the storm speeders a respectable 25 points. If gladiators got the same % drop I think both of these units will be playable in certain builds.
yeah, its pretty clear that they want the focus of space marines to be 'the marines themselves' and they want to try and move away from the eternal parking lots of 7th and earlier editions, but they massively overshot and instead of tanks being the intended 'sometimes food' it's just easier to leave them out entirely and not offer your opponent a good target for D6 damage guns.
Aye - exactly.
While dreads are core and competitive with space marine infantry - including them just gives your opponents targets. In order to introduce a new profile which is vulnerable to anti tank weapons those profiles need to do something exceptional. The only units that really comes close to that are the contemptor dread and redemptor dread.
Competively you have to make the LR less than 250 points for it to be viable. Repuslors executioners need to be in the same area. Gladiator tanks need to drop by about the same amount. Doubt CA will even come close.
They did drop the storm speeders a respectable 25 points. If gladiators got the same % drop I think both of these units will be playable in certain builds.
yeah, its pretty clear that they want the focus of space marines to be 'the marines themselves' and they want to try and move away from the eternal parking lots of 7th and earlier editions, but they massively overshot and instead of tanks being the intended 'sometimes food' it's just easier to leave them out entirely and not offer your opponent a good target for D6 damage guns.
Aye - exactly.
While dreads are core and competitive with space marine infantry - including them just gives your opponents targets. In order to introduce a new profile which is vulnerable to anti tank weapons those profiles need to do something exceptional. The only units that really comes close to that are the contemptor dread and redemptor dread.
The purpose of dreadnoughts makes absolute sense though - them being -1D makes D2 weaponry the complete opposite thing you want to take against them. The addition of that defense to all dreadnoughts is a fantastic inoculation of the marine lineup to people spamming the traditional Anti-MEQ weapons after bringing all firstborn marines up to the functional W2 statline (its been discussed to death in the past how loading so much gak into marines with a W1 statline really didnt work and made them feel super fragile, so I wont get into it here)
Sure, you've always got the chance in 40k to just skew your list into a single defensive profile, and many many many many competitive lists do that and will always do that because it's so often something that has no trade-offs. You just get to invalidate a whole class of opposing weaponry and you lose.....sometimes the ability to hold objectives well? Not if you're skewing into infantry profiles thugh. Sometimes the chance to target certain unit types effectively? not if you've got 57 choices of units within that defensive profile though. My deathwatch Kill Teams can ALL have the excellent T4 W2 3+ 4++ statline protecting them, with additional protection from T4 W3 2+ in case I happen to be out of cover and my opponent shoots antichaff guns at me or they spam D2. I can arm my marines with almost any conceivable combination of weapons, the only reason I take a tank at all is because I've got a squad that I don't want to have out in the open at the beginning of the game, and because I don't have every possible configuration of weapons on every model.
KurtAngle2 wrote: Points have leaked and the "Points Update" is so bad it makes me want to insult the actual writers of this BS.
Terrible product and another slap in the face of the consumers
The points update probably isn't going to make everyone happy, but either way, I think the primary "product" is actually the mission pack, and it is the part of the package that will determine whether or not the product has value.
I think for most people, the thing that makes or breaks the deal is the changes they make to secondaries. I don't really play matched, and I don't really pay too much attention to points, but from what I've read here and elsewhere, changing the secondaries is the thing that will have the greatest impact on the game.
Rihgu wrote: Which Mark can give Chaos Land Raiders additional benefits?
Endless Cacophony, Fury of Khorne, and Grandfather's Blessing target INFANTRY or BIKERS. Tzeentch's Mark Stratagem targets Psykers.
In CSM, I guess a Daemon Prince can allow a Chaos Land Raider to re-roll 1s to hit, but that doesn't work in Death Guard.
I think it also unlocks a few psychic abilities. Could be wrong though.
Right, bring an appropriately marked Sorcerer and you can give a Nurgle CSMLoW -1 to be hit (redundant on something that has an in-built strategem that does the same thing), or one marked Tzeentch a 5++ (loyalists can do the same thing with Psychic Fortress, except it affects everything within 6 of the psyker instead of just one unit, and isn't locked to a mark), or give one marked Slaanesh a 5+++ (damned good, I won't lie). But you have to pay the points for that Sorcerer in addition to your expensive LoW, and there's absolutely no guarantee that any of that will stick around once the 9th edition CSM codex rolls around. Machine Spirit isn't going anywhere for loyalists.
Jidmah wrote:DGFW models also don't have contagions while loyalists have doctrines.
Didn't know that. Just another kick in the teeth for the Legions.
Xenomancers wrote:Points is the issue.
Competively you have to make the LR less than 250 points for it to be viable. Repuslors executioners need to be in the same area. Gladiator tanks need to drop by about the same amount. Doubt CA will even come close.
They did drop the storm speeders a respectable 25 points. If gladiators got the same % drop I think both of these units will be playable in certain builds.
In addition to those it looks like Necron Doomsday Arks and the Custodes grav tanks are getting buffs. So maybe some overpriced vehicles are getting some attention.
There is another danger to running a Land Raider. If it dies, you better not hope it doesn't explode near any of your army. The LR explosion does d6MW wound on each unit within 6 inches. You absolutely do NOT want that thing exploding in the middle of your whole army. Would probably lose you the game right there.
Eldenfirefly wrote: There is another danger to running a Land Raider. If it dies, you better not hope it doesn't explode near any of your army. The LR explosion does d6MW wound on each unit within 6 inches. You absolutely do NOT want that thing exploding in the middle of your whole army. Would probably lose you the game right there.
And in 9th edition, you can't even use a Command Reroll to prevent it.
Nobody is claiming them to be invincible gunboats. In fact, they're only claiming that the stratagem access newer books (DG, SM) have helps support them in their intended roles. Because you initially claimed that they did not.
This is all because Karol pointed out that Codex: Space Marine Land raiders and Codex: Grey Knight Land Raiders are going to cost the same despite the Space Marine one having immediately obvious advantages, so even if being priced at 265 points somehow made them viable or even just reasonable to take rather than a points sink, it still wouldn't be viable or reasonable for GK as they'd be paying the same points for a less effective model.
This. I use GK dreadnoughts. But ours didn't get the -1D thing for example. So if suddenly GW decided that , like they did in the past with stuff like transport, that marine stuff is too OP, and that the fix to it is suppose to be a points hike, I wouldn't be very happy about it. On the other side of things, I would rather get the -1D rule on the dreads, then GW deciding that they should cost 5pts less, if GW decided that dreads cost too much.
Competively you have to make the LR less than 250 points for it to be viable. Repuslors executioners need to be in the same area. Gladiator tanks need to drop by about the same amount. Doubt CA will even come close.
They did drop the storm speeders a respectable 25 points. If gladiators got the same % drop I think both of these units will be playable in certain builds.
I disagree, 270-290ish points is appropriate for a T8 16W model with transport capacity and decent firepower. I think it simply should be more durable: invuln, abilities to reduce damage and/or enemy AP, nerfs to some OP anti tank units/combos, etc... and ruleswise marine infantries should be in the need of a ride somehow. Maybe eliminating deep strike/ouflank from the game and reducing infantries M values significantly. That's how a LR could be interesting.
Making everything cheaper is a terrible game deisgn, one of the best things about 9th was the 10%ish points hike. My feeling is the current standard game format and points costs already allow and push for too many models on the board, even for elite oriented armies, and I don't really like that.
Competively you have to make the LR less than 250 points for it to be viable. Repuslors executioners need to be in the same area. Gladiator tanks need to drop by about the same amount. Doubt CA will even come close.
They did drop the storm speeders a respectable 25 points. If gladiators got the same % drop I think both of these units will be playable in certain builds.
I disagree, 270-290ish points is appropriate for a T8 16W model with transport capacity and decent firepower. I think it simply should be more durable: invuln, abilities to reduce damage and/or enemy AP, nerfs to some OP anti tank units/combos, etc... and ruleswise marine infantries should be in the need of a ride somehow. Maybe eliminating deep strike/ouflank from the game and reducing infantries M values significantly. That's how a LR could be interesting.
Making everything cheaper is a terrible game deisgn, one of the best things about 9th was the 10%ish points hike. My feeling is the current standard game format and points costs already allow and push for too many models on the board, even for elite oriented armies, and I don't really like that.
The problem is that making things cheaper is the only option in the current GW paradigm. The only other option is for GW to release an overtly expensive campaign sourcebook with a new datasheet because they refuse to change their process.
At least in AoS the warscrolls are free on the GW store so if they update in a campaign sourcebook you can most often skip the book and just use the warscroll off their website.
Eldenfirefly wrote: There is another danger to running a Land Raider. If it dies, you better not hope it doesn't explode near any of your army. The LR explosion does d6MW wound on each unit within 6 inches. You absolutely do NOT want that thing exploding in the middle of your whole army. Would probably lose you the game right there.
And in 9th edition, you can't even use a Command Reroll to prevent it.
A LR and a suitable squad can cover a flank on their own usually.
Secondary objectives translated back from pictures of the french actual stuff.
MILITARY SUPREMACY
* Engage on all fronts
Score 2 VP at the end of your turn if you have 1+ units entirely in 3 different table quarters, and if all these units are more than 6" away from the table center. Score 3 VP if you have 1+ units in each table quarter, etc...
* Behind enemy lines
Score 2 VP at the end of your turn if 1 of your units is entirely in the opponent's deployment zone (excluding aircrafts). Score 4 VP instead if 2+ units of your army are entirely in the enemy deployment zone.
* Grasp
Score 3 VP at the end of your turn if you control 3+ objective markers, if you control more of them than the opponent.
NO MERCY, NO RESPITE
* No prisoners
Keep a tally of all loss points each time an enemy figurine is destroyed, at the exception of vehicles, monsters, characters. The number is equal to the wound characteristic of the destroyed figurine. If a figurine is ressucitated for any reason, then destroyed again, it can potentially give loss points that many times. At the end of the battle, divide by 10 the loss points total, the result is the VP you score (rounding down).
* Crush them
Score 3 VP at the end of the battle round if more of enemy units have been destroyed than yours, during this battle round.
* Until the last
Before the battle, identify 3 miniatures from your army that have the biggest point value on your army list. In case of equality, you can choose which. You score 5 VP for each miniature that is on the battlefield at the end of the battle. If a unit splits during the battle, all these separate units (excluding drones) must be on the battlefield for you to score 5 VP. If only some, but not all, of these separated units remain, you score 3 VP instead of 5.
SHADOW OPERATIONS
* Raise the banners high
The units of your army can accomplish the following action :
One infantry unit can begin this action at the end of your movement phase. Each of your units that does this action must be in range of an objective marker, on which no banner have been raised previously. A unit cannot begin this action while there are any enemy unit in the range of the same objective marker (excluding aircraft). The action is accomplished at the end of your turn. If this action is accomplished, consider that there is a banner on this objective marker. It is removed if your opponent controls the objective at the beginning of any phase. You score 1 VP at each of your command phases, and 1 VP at the end of the battle, for each of the objectives that has one of your banners on it.
* inspect the signal
Score 3 VP each time a unit of your army accomplishes the following action.
One infantry unit of your army can begin this action at the end of your movement phase, if it is entirely within 6" of the battlefield center, and if no enemy unit is within 6" of it (aircraft excluded). This action is accomplished at the end of your turn, as long as the unit attempting it is still entirely within 6" of the battlefield center, and if no enemy unit is within 6" of it (aircraft excluded).
* Retrieve the Octarius data.
If you choose this objective, keep a tally of the data retrieved, add 1 to it if a unit of your army accomplishes the following action.
One infantry unit (excluding characters) can begin this action at the end of your movement phase if it is entirely within one table quarter, without retrieved servo-skull (see below) and more distant than 6" of any other table quarter. this action is accomplished at the end of your turn, as long as the unit attempting it is still within the same table quarter. If the action is accomplished, the table quarter is considered to have a retrieved servo-skull.
At the end of the battle, score 4 VP if your tally of retrieved data is 2, or score 8 VP if your tally is 3, or score 12 VP if your tally is 4.
* Deploy teleport homers
The units of your army can accomplish the following action. One infantry or bike unit of your army can begin this action at the end of your movement phase if it is entirely within 12" of the enemy deployment zone. The action is accomplished at the end of your next command phase as long as the unit attempting it is still within 12" of the enemy deployment zone.
Each time a unit of your army accomplished this action, you score 2 VP. You score 4 VP instead if the unit accomplishing the action is entirely within the enemy deployment zone.
ELIMINATE THE ENEMY
* assassinate
Score 3 VP at the end of battle for each character figurine that has been destroyed. If the warlord has been slayed, you score an additional +1 VP.
* titan hunter
Score 10 VP at the end of battle if one titanic enemy unit has been destroyed. 12 VP if 2 titanic enemy units have been destroyed, or 15 VP if 3 etc...
* Bring it down
Score 1 VP at the end of battle for each enemy monster or vehicle with 10 W or less that has been destroyed. Score 2 VP at the end of battle for each enemy monster or vehicle with 11 to 19 W that has been destroyed. Score 3 VP at the end of battle for each enemy monster or vehicle with 20+ W that has been destroyed.
WARPCRAFT
* abhorr the wich
You cannot choose this secondary if your army includes any psyker unit. Score 5 VP at the end of battle for each psyker character that has been destroyed, and 3 VP for each pskyker unit that has been destroyed.
(edit, note : the numbers are 3 & 2 in the english version, edition feth up here).
* warp ritual
If you choose this secondary, keep a tally of the ritual. Add 1 to the tally each time a unit of your army accomplishes this psychic action. Warp charge 3. A psyker character of your army can accomplish this psychic action during your psy phase if he is within 6" of the battlefield center. At the end of battle, score 3 VP if your ritual tally is 1, score 7 VP if your ritual tally is 2, or 12 VP if it is 3+.
* Pierce the veil
Score 8 VP at the end of battle if one or more of your units have accomplished the following psychic action 2 times or more during the battle ; or 15 VP if the psychic action has been accomplished 4 times during the battle. Pierce the veil, psy action, warp charge 4. One psyker character of your army can attempt to accomplish this psychic action during your psy phase if he is within 6" of the enemy table edge and more than 6" of any enemy unit.
* Psychic interrogation
score 3 VP each time you accomplish the following psy action.
Psychic interrogation, warp charge 4. One psyker character of your army can attempt this psy action during your psy phase if he is within 24" of one or more visible enemy characters.
Ravajaxe wrote: Secondary objectives translated back from pictures of the french actual stuff.
MILITARY SUPREMACY
* Engage on all fronts
Score 2 VP at the end of your turn if you have 1+ units entirely in 3 different table quarters, and if all these units are more than 6" away from the table center. Score 3 VP if you have 1+ units in each table quarter, etc...
* Behind enemy lines
Score 2 VP at the end of your turn if 1 of your units is entirely in the opponent's deployment zone (excluding aircrafts). Score 4 VP instead if 2+ units of your army are entirely in the enemy deployment zone.
* Grasp
Score 3 VP at the end of your turn if you control 3+ objective markers, if you control more of them than the opponent.
NO MERCY, NO RESPITE
* No prisoners
Keep a tally of all loss points each time an enemy figurine is destroyed, at the exception of vehicles, monsters, characters. The number is equal to the wound characteristic of the destroyed figurine. If a figurine is ressucitated for any reason, then destroyed again, it can potentially give loss points that many times. At the end of the battle, divide by 10 the loss points total, the result is the VP you score (rounding down).
* Crush them
Score 3 VP at the end of the battle round if more of enemy units have been destroyed than yours, during this battle round.
* Until the last
Before the battle, identify 3 miniatures from your army that have the biggest point value on your army list. In case of equality, you can choose which. You score 5 VP for each miniature that is on the battlefield at the end of the battle. If a unit splits during the battle, all these separate units (excluding drones) must be on the battlefield for you to score 5 VP. If only some, but not all, of these separated units remain, you score 3 VP instead of 5.
CLANDESTINE OPERATIONS
* Raise the banners high
The units of your army can accomplish the following action :
One infantry unit can begin this action at the end of your movement phase. Each of your units that does this action must be in range of an objective marker, on which no banner have been raised previously. A unit cannot begin this action... (... ? light reflection ?... ) ...any enemy unit. The action is accomplished at the end of your turn. If this action is accomplished, consider that there is a banner on this objective marker. It is removed if your opponent controls the objective at the beginning of any phase. You score 1 VP at each of your command phases, and 1 VP at the end of the battle, for each of the objectives that has one of your banners on it.
* inspect the signal
Score 3 VP each time a unit of your army accomplishes the following action.
One infantry unit of your army can begin this action at the end of your movement phase, if it is entirely within 6" of the battlefield center, and if no enemy unit is within 6" of it (aircraft excluded). This action is accomplished at the end of your turn, as long as the unit attempting it is still entirely within 6" of the battlefield center, and if no enemy unit is within 6" of it (aircraft excluded).
* Retrieve the Octarius data.
If you choose this objective, keep a tally of the data retrieved, add 1 to it if a unit of your army accomplishes the following action.
One infantry unit (excluding characters) can begin this action at the end of your movement phase if it is entirely within one table quarter, without retrieved servo-skull (see below) and more distant than 6" of any other table quarter. this action is accomplished at the end of your turn, as long as the unit attempting it is still within the same table quarter. If the action is accomplished, the table quarter is considered to have a retrieved servo-skull.
At the end of the battle, score 4 VP if your tally of retrieved data is 2, or score 8 VP if your tally is 3, or score 12 VP if your tally is 4.
* Deploy teleport homers
The units of your army can accomplish the following action. One infantry or bike unit of your army can begin this action at the end of your movement phase if it is entirely within 12" of the enemy deployment zone. The action is accomplished at the end of your next command phase as long as the unit attempting it is still within 12" of the enemy deployment zone.
Each time a unit of your army accomplished this action, you score 2 VP. You score 4 VP instead if the unit accomplishing the action is entirely within the enemy deployment zone.
ELIMINATE THE ENEMY
* assassinate
Score 3 VP at the end of battle for each character figurine that has been destroyed. If the warlord has been slayed, you score an additional +1 VP.
* titan hunter
Score 10 VP at the end of battle if one titanic enemy unit has been destroyed. 12 VP if 2 titanic enemy units have been destroyed, or 15 VP if 3 etc...
* Bring it down
Score 1 VP at the end of battle for each enemy monster or vehicle with 10 W or less that has been destroyed. Score 2 VP at the end of battle for each enemy monster or vehicle with 11 to 19 W that has been destroyed. Score 3 VP at the end of battle for each enemy monster or vehicle with 20+ W that has been destroyed.
WARPCRAFT
* abhorr the wich
You cannot choose this secondary if your army includes any psyker unit. Score 5 VP at the end of battle for each psyker character that has been destroyed, and 3 VP for each pskyker unit that has been destroyed.
* warp ritual
If you choose this secondary, keep a tally of the ritual. Add 1 to the tally each time a unit of your army accomplishes this psychic action. Warp charge 3 (?? blurry, unsure). A psyker character of your army can accomplish this psychic action during your psy phase if he is within 6" of the battlefield center. At the end of battle, score 3 VP if your ritual tally is 1, score 7 VP if your ritual tally is 2, or 12 VP if it is 3+.
* Pierce the veil
Score 8 VP at the end of battle if one or more of your units have accomplished the following psychic action 2 times or more during the battle ; or 15 VP if the psychic action has been accomplished 4 times during the battle. Pierce the veil, psy action, warp charge 4. One psyker character of your army can attempt to accomplish this psychic action during your psy phase if he is within 6" of the enemy table edge and more than 6" of any enemy unit.
* Psychic interrogation
score 3 VP each time you accomplish the following psy action.
Psychic interrogation, warp charge 4. One psyker character of your army can attempt this psy action during your psy phase if he is within 24" of one or more visible enemy characters.
Score 5 VP at the end of battle for each psyker character that has been destroyed, and 3 VP for each pskyker unit that has been destroyed.
I run 3 characters and 7 units that are psykers. Servitors don't count as psykers and neither does the rhino. I hope that unit doesn't include dreadnoughts. But all in all it could be way worse.
The other secondaries look interesting all in all. Wish they did more to the other warcraft ones. They say if your unit accomplishes, but then the action can only be performed by a character. The other secondaries have no way of failing or being countered, while the warp craft ones, very much can, and for being harder to do they don't give subsentially higher VP rewards.
Score 5 VP at the end of battle for each psyker character that has been destroyed, and 3 VP for each pskyker unit that has been destroyed.
I run 3 characters and 7 units that are psykers. Servitors don't count as psykers and neither does the rhino. I hope that unit doesn't include dreadnoughts. But all in all it could be way worse.
The other secondaries look interesting all in all.
Here we have still a secondary objective that is usually overlooked, but as soon as one encounters Grey Knights or thousand Sons, it becomes an easy auto-take.
Maybe in the new codex only GK characters will be psykers, and the units will just have special abilities instead of options to cast a psychic power or spell. I could live with that.
Score 5 VP at the end of battle for each psyker character that has been destroyed, and 3 VP for each pskyker unit that has been destroyed.
I run 3 characters and 7 units that are psykers. Servitors don't count as psykers and neither does the rhino. I hope that unit doesn't include dreadnoughts. But all in all it could be way worse.
The other secondaries look interesting all in all. Wish they did more to the other warcraft ones. They say if your unit accomplishes, but then the action can only be performed by a character. The other secondaries have no way of failing or being countered, while the warp craft ones, very much can, and for being harder to do they don't give subsentially higher VP rewards.
So if they can deny you then, in general, they can't take abhor against you so you can plan on working whatever angle will work best against your opponent.
Score 5 VP at the end of battle for each psyker character that has been destroyed, and 3 VP for each pskyker unit that has been destroyed.
I run 3 characters and 7 units that are psykers. Servitors don't count as psykers and neither does the rhino. I hope that unit doesn't include dreadnoughts. But all in all it could be way worse.
The other secondaries look interesting all in all.
Here we have still a secondary objective that is usually overlooked, but as soon as one encounters Grey Knights or thousand Sons, it becomes an easy auto-take.
And you can still double dip with assassinate. Ugh.
Edit: And Dimachaereons up by 25 PPM? Can't Nids have anything nice?
Arachnofiend wrote: Abhor the Witch should just be moved to Purge the Enemy to be frank.
Agreed. That would fix the problem, just like having both Bring It Down and Titan Killer in the same category prevents double dipping with them.
Edit: Anything on CSM? I'm suddenly interested in the price of Sicarans after seeing the buff to the Custodes grav tank. Would be nice to know if the Achilles and Proteus got the same buff as standard Land Raiders as well.
Lol, did they actually, really revert Abhor back to its original ridiculous numbers, after having fixed it 6 months ago because it was so obviously broken?
Edit: No, no they didn't, at least not in the English version. It's 3VP per psyker character, and 2 per psyker unit.
Psychic ritual not having to be done by the same psyker three times also makes it much better, even if it maxes out at only 12 points. Though you still can't build around it because it's hard-countered by anyone with a 4+ dispel strat; whichever designer thought it was a good idea to allow those to be used on psychic actions really needs to be smacked with a large fish.
yukishiro1 wrote: Lol, did they actually, really revert Abhor back to its original ridiculous numbers, after having fixed it 6 months ago because it was so obviously broken?
In typical GW fashion we have some conflict between different languages it seems and this could be that.
Also, charging $40 for this when it's essentially exactly the same as the last one bar two pages of minorly tweaked secondaries takes some serious chutzpah, even by GW's normal standards.
yukishiro1 wrote: Also, charging $40 for this when it's essentially exactly the same as the last one bar two pages of minorly tweaked secondaries takes some serious chutzpah, even by GW's normal standards.
Yea - another book I'd advocate not buying unless you really like having the book handy.
Oh hey, I lied: it's three pages of minorly tweaked secondaries. This changes everything!
You gotta think the reason they didn't send out review copies of this junk was that they wanted to sell as many copies as possible before people realized what a ridiculous ripoff it is.
yukishiro1 wrote: Oh hey, I lied: it's three pages of minorly tweaked secondaries. This changes everything!
You gotta think the reason they didn't send out review copies of this junk was that they wanted to sell as many copies as possible before people realized what a ridiculous ripoff it is.
They could have at least given us some new missions. The points and secondaries changes should've been in a free PDF, like the last one. This is worse than PA. At least we got name generators in it.
Quasistellar wrote: Morven Vahl is a steal at 265 points. For reference, Guilleman is 380.
If sisters exorcists go indirect and have CORE watch out.
And repentia better get an emergency errata to their points lol.
GW shouldnt have even sent this joke to the printers. What were they thinking? Zero chance I'm paying money for this.
Well, there is zero chance exorcists are CORE and Repentia are likely nerfed in the new book, sooo...
Yeah. All the have to do to justify the Repentia buff is nerf Bloody Rose. Repentia are generally considered to be OP as Bloody Rose and not worth taking for any other Order.
Arachnofiend wrote: Abhor the Witch should just be moved to Purge the Enemy to be frank.
Why should it even exist? Is it because the insane strength of psychic actions is meant to be cancelled out by the ability to dispel? But Brimstone Horrors cannot do psychic actions so why should 5 Rubrics or 10 Brims award 2VP when 5 Intercessors or 10 Gretchin award 1VP?
Yeah it's just fundamentally a stupid secondary. That they still haven't realized after a whole year is a real indictment of their development process. If you couldn't use deny strats on psychic secondaries there might be justification for a special anti-psyker secondary, but the fact that you can makes them impossible to plan around, so there's no compelling reason to have an anti-psyker secondary either.
So if they can deny you then, in general, they can't take abhor against you so you can plan on working whatever angle will work best against your opponent.
If in the new codex the units stay being psykers, then with the new rules they can still do assasinate and abhore at the same time. And there is not much I can do about it, because killing 5 power armoured GK or 5 termintors isn't harder, maybe it will change with the +1W, but then again marine units with 2W die very fast too. And as the denys goes vs my own army, the new armies seem to get an option to do it with stratagems without a need for a psyker. And if it works, the game is done , because to give a regular number of VP the psychic secondaries have to work every turn. The main difference with witch craft secondaries was that if they worked, they worked instantly, you didn't have to wait for next turn to get any points. Now that objective scoring is checked at the end of your own turn, the adventage is gone. The other seconadaries are even easier to do, and that is good, but the witchcraft one didn't .
.And Dimachaereons up by 25 PPM? Can't Nids have anything nice?
Swarmy is down 30. So should off-set one Dimachareon at least, if you run that list. If you run two, you need to find 20 points.
Still surprised a Dima doesn't cost a CP like the Marine FW stuff does.
Abhor the Witch should maybe be a faction-specific secondary for running mono Black Templars or Khorne Daemonkin, but not really a secondary for everyone, IMO.
Attack Bikes up 5 PPM (nerf the unit, not the gun. Damn it gw )
Buffs to floaty tanks (but not Impulsors)
I'll let everyone else figure out the rest.
Now how about something for the boys with spikes on? And if they're buffing floaty tanks, how about the ones with treads?
Storm Shields up a point for Vanguard vets?
Ironically, it seems they fixed the "nerf the gun, not the unit" for Inceptors, which are down 5, but another 5 points more to add Plasma". I.e. Bolter Inceptors came down.
Also Eliminators down 5, and the las fusil down 5 as well.
yukishiro1 wrote: Also, charging $40 for this when it's essentially exactly the same as the last one bar two pages of minorly tweaked secondaries takes some serious chutzpah, even by GW's normal standards.
Yea - another book I'd advocate not buying unless you really like having the book handy.
Well I do like having the book handy and have defended it earlier, but as someone earlier pointed out, you can just turn it into the new book with a pen or by printing a few stickers.
I guess if the BRB part is updated with all the errata. I might buy it, but otherwise it's not worth my money.
Arachnofiend wrote: Abhor the Witch should just be moved to Purge the Enemy to be frank.
Why should it even exist? Is it because the insane strength of psychic actions is meant to be cancelled out by the ability to dispel? But Brimstone Horrors cannot do psychic actions so why should 5 Rubrics or 10 Brims award 2VP when 5 Intercessors or 10 Gretchin award 1VP?
It's because there are two armies that have 0 psychic powers, ot PSYKERS, and many armies can play without them if it's something that's important to the person playing it.
Arachnofiend wrote: Abhor the Witch should just be moved to Purge the Enemy to be frank.
Why should it even exist? Is it because the insane strength of psychic actions is meant to be cancelled out by the ability to dispel? But Brimstone Horrors cannot do psychic actions so why should 5 Rubrics or 10 Brims award 2VP when 5 Intercessors or 10 Gretchin award 1VP?
It's because there are two armies that have 0 psychic powers, ot PSYKERS, and many armies can play without them if it's something that's important to the person playing it.
1. There are significantly more than two factions without psykers. 2. Almost all those factions have alternative defense mechanisms against psychic powers. 3. The biggest difference between psychic powers and other abilities with similar effects is that they are a lot less reliable.
Arachnofiend wrote: Abhor the Witch should just be moved to Purge the Enemy to be frank.
Why should it even exist? Is it because the insane strength of psychic actions is meant to be cancelled out by the ability to dispel? But Brimstone Horrors cannot do psychic actions so why should 5 Rubrics or 10 Brims award 2VP when 5 Intercessors or 10 Gretchin award 1VP?
It's because there are two armies that have 0 psychic powers, ot PSYKERS, and many armies can play without them if it's something that's important to the person playing it.
I don't understand the bolded sentence, do you mean you can not take psykers if you don't want your opponent to take the secondary? The real reason not to take any psykers is to have access to easy VP against TS and GK. Why is an anti-psyker secondary objective needed? AdMech don't have flying transports, does that mean there needs to be an anti-flying transport secondary? Custodes don't have pre-game move abilities, does that mean there needs to be an anti pre-game move secondary?
Quasistellar wrote: Morven Vahl is a steal at 265 points. For reference, Guilleman is 380.
If sisters exorcists go indirect and have CORE watch out.
And repentia better get an emergency errata to their points lol.
GW shouldnt have even sent this joke to the printers. What were they thinking? Zero chance I'm paying money for this.
Well, there is zero chance exorcists are CORE and Repentia are likely nerfed in the new book, sooo...
Yeah. All the have to do to justify the Repentia buff is nerf Bloody Rose. Repentia are generally considered to be OP as Bloody Rose and not worth taking for any other Order.
I honestly don't understand the people who look at this and go 'OH, repentia/zephyrim/arcos/retributors OP!!!!' and miss the obvious implication that melee received across the board nerfs and retributors most likely lost move and shoot and/or storm of fire.
Morven Vahl will most likely never see play at 265. She's too many eggs in one basket for the way sisters of battle armies are built and you can get close enough performance out of a Benificence Canoness+Palantine for less than half the points. Add in retributors most likely receiving a significant nerf so her target buff isn't as useful and yeah, she'll likely be a pretty display piece and not much else.
Exorcists with the new profile, even with indirect fire and CORE(which they absolutely will not get CORE) are going to be trash at what they're at. Ap-2 is just bad for that low shot volume and when your opponent does eventually get return shots on them they're going to die fast at T7. The alternate shooting profile is even worse; who would voluntarily pay that many points for 3d6 heavy bolter shots? Nothing like buying 2 and half mortifiers to get half a mortifier worth of shots.
yukishiro1 wrote: Lol, did they actually, really revert Abhor back to its original ridiculous numbers, after having fixed it 6 months ago because it was so obviously broken?
Edit: No, no they didn't, at least not in the English version. It's 3VP per psyker character, and 2 per psyker unit.
Psychic ritual not having to be done by the same psyker three times also makes it much better, even if it maxes out at only 12 points. Though you still can't build around it because it's hard-countered by anyone with a 4+ dispel strat; whichever designer thought it was a good idea to allow those to be used on psychic actions really needs to be smacked with a large fish.
They seem to have reverted abhor the wich into the original numbers (5 & 3) in the french version. But I have just seen an english version and the numbers are indeed 3 and 2 like in the FAQ'ed 2020 document.
I can't belive they can feth up like that. In the french book, they seem to have copy / pasted the CA 2020 translated text !
yukishiro1 wrote: Lol, did they actually, really revert Abhor back to its original ridiculous numbers, after having fixed it 6 months ago because it was so obviously broken?
Edit: No, no they didn't, at least not in the English version. It's 3VP per psyker character, and 2 per psyker unit.
Psychic ritual not having to be done by the same psyker three times also makes it much better, even if it maxes out at only 12 points. Though you still can't build around it because it's hard-countered by anyone with a 4+ dispel strat; whichever designer thought it was a good idea to allow those to be used on psychic actions really needs to be smacked with a large fish.
They seem to have reverted abhor the wich into the original numbers (5 & 3) in the french version. But I have just seen an english version and the numbers are indeed 3 and 2 like in the FAQ'ed 2020 document.
I can't belive they can feth up like that. In the french book, they seem to have copy / pasted the CA 2020 translated text !
Do you really expect them to re-translate everything? That would mean new wordings and confusion over whether things that were meant to not be changed have changed because of translation differences. I'm more worried when the English version is bunk and translated versions are right.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Swarmy is down 30. So should off-set one Dimachareon at least, if you run that list. If you run two, you need to find 20 points.
Still surprised a Dima doesn't cost a CP like the Marine FW stuff does.
Abhor the Witch should maybe be a faction-specific secondary for running mono Black Templars or Khorne Daemonkin, but not really a secondary for everyone, IMO.
Martial Legacy has nothing to do with balance. It's a poorly implemented lore thing, that's why it only hits marines.
On a related note: All Imperial Guard super heavy tanks down 40 PPM. Now I really want to see the CSMfw points.
Edit: CSM leaks from B&C:
Cultists down 1 PPM to 5 PPM
Chosen down 1 PPM to 14 PPM (the same as standard CSM, weird)
Chosen down 1 PPM to 14 PPM (the same as standard CSM, weird)
Venom Crawler down 20 PPM
Oh lord, Thousand Sons Cultists are still 6 pts/model if I recall correctly. The Chosen thing makes perfect sense, it's the value of obsec vs +1 atk and options. Pretty equal. What's weird is that they aren't both either 12 or 13 pts/model.
Chosen down 1 PPM to 14 PPM (the same as standard CSM, weird)
Venom Crawler down 20 PPM
Oh lord, Thousand Sons Cultists are still 6 pts/model if I recall correctly. The Chosen thing makes perfect sense, it's the value of obsec vs +1 atk and options. Pretty equal. What's weird is that they aren't both either 12 or 13 pts/model.
TSons cultists in the pdf are 6pts
TSons cultists in the book are 5pts
Why GW didn't change their cost in the pdf like they did with Land Raiders is a mystery...
Chosen down 1 PPM to 14 PPM (the same as standard CSM, weird)
Venom Crawler down 20 PPM
Oh lord, Thousand Sons Cultists are still 6 pts/model if I recall correctly. The Chosen thing makes perfect sense, it's the value of obsec vs +1 atk and options. Pretty equal. What's weird is that they aren't both either 12 or 13 pts/model.
TSons cultists in the pdf are 6pts TSons cultists in the book are 5pts
Why GW didn't change their cost in the pdf like they did with Land Raiders is a mystery...
Maybe they are getting nerfed or limited the same way DG Cultists are in the TS codex, but Black Legion has way better Cultists than Thousand Sons so it looks like a mishap again. We have to remember GW nerfed Ogryn instead of Bullgryn when Bullgryn were taking tournaments and Ogryn were gak.
Quasistellar wrote: Morven Vahl is a steal at 265 points. For reference, Guilleman is 380.
Called it.
Once they've sold one to each SoB player they'll eventually nerf it.
Why? She's not anywhere near nerf territory. What Guilleman costs is irrelevant, comparing their physical statlines tells you very little about either. Both are far too expensive for the body alone to be worth anywhere near their points value, it's how they function as force multipliers that really matter.
Frankly, you can do what Morven does for 160pts cheaper with a Palantine and a BR canoness and you can do even more than what Morven does with the Triumph and a Palantine.
Unless she's got like a baller set warlord trait, she's mostly a display piece at 265.
Very annoying that none of these folks that keep taking pictures of the MFM don't seem to be interested in snapping one of the CSM or loyalists fw pages. Very, very, annoying. Nothing on Orks yet either?
Gadzilla666 wrote: Very annoying that none of these folks that keep taking pictures of the MFM don't seem to be interested in snapping one of the CSM or loyalists fw pages. Very, very, annoying. Nothing on Orks yet either?
What does it matter? It'll be out in a week anyways and then we'll get an errata a week or two after that.
Quasistellar wrote: Morven Vahl is a steal at 265 points. For reference, Guilleman is 380.
Called it.
Once they've sold one to each SoB player they'll eventually nerf it.
Why? She's not anywhere near nerf territory. What Guilleman costs is irrelevant, comparing their physical statlines tells you very little about either. Both are far too expensive for the body alone to be worth anywhere near their points value, it's how they function as force multipliers that really matter.
Frankly, you can do what Morven does for 160pts cheaper with a Palantine and a BR canoness and you can do even more than what Morven does with the Triumph and a Palantine.
Unless she's got like a baller set warlord trait, she's mostly a display piece at 265.
If I had a model with that statline, those weapons and those buff auras for 265 it would be the very first one I put in my list, every time. To me it looks bonkers, undercosted under 300.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Very annoying that none of these folks that keep taking pictures of the MFM don't seem to be interested in snapping one of the CSM or loyalists fw pages. Very, very, annoying. Nothing on Orks yet either?
What does it matter? It'll be out in a week anyways and then we'll get an errata a week or two after that.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Very annoying that none of these folks that keep taking pictures of the MFM don't seem to be interested in snapping one of the CSM or loyalists fw pages. Very, very, annoying. Nothing on Orks yet either?
What does it matter? It'll be out in a week anyways and then we'll get an errata a week or two after that.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Very annoying that none of these folks that keep taking pictures of the MFM don't seem to be interested in snapping one of the CSM or loyalists fw pages. Very, very, annoying. Nothing on Orks yet either?
What does it matter? It'll be out in a week anyways and then we'll get an errata a week or two after that.
Try 4, because GW has covid issues....
Or more. Still no FAQ for the Charadon book.
Homeoffice for the ruleswriters must be difficult, considering their collective efforts (of ignoring whatever the other dude does) are hindered. Oh wait... Considering DE and Their little cut content DLC, no it wouldn't change a thing. Maybee they could use the time productively they would've wasted via commuting to update some other factions rules... no wait. that would mean 2 W csm and GK before their dexes.... can't have that, must frustrate these players to buy into another army.
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah it's just fundamentally a stupid secondary. That they still haven't realized after a whole year is a real indictment of their development process. If you couldn't use deny strats on psychic secondaries there might be justification for a special anti-psyker secondary, but the fact that you can makes them impossible to plan around, so there's no compelling reason to have an anti-psyker secondary either.
All the armies that "spam" psykers do so because they have NO CHOICE. Psykers by their nature are anti spam.
If I play tsons my opponent gets 6vp for killing ANY HQ CHOICE IN MY ARMY. its just asinine.
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah it's just fundamentally a stupid secondary. That they still haven't realized after a whole year is a real indictment of their development process. If you couldn't use deny strats on psychic secondaries there might be justification for a special anti-psyker secondary, but the fact that you can makes them impossible to plan around, so there's no compelling reason to have an anti-psyker secondary either.
All the armies that "spam" psykers do so because they have NO CHOICE. Psykers by their nature are anti spam.
If I play tsons my opponent gets 6vp for killing ANY HQ CHOICE IN MY ARMY. its just asinine.
I see the flaws, but at the same time it is a balancing secondary that keeps psychic army from grabbing at a secondary with no opposition. Now, more and more armies have access to a 4+ deny for 1CP, but those are usually locked.
What I'd like to see is Abhor move to 'Eliminate the Enemy' or 'No Mercy' to make the choices less clear cut.
Now, Pierce was mentioned to be changed so that one is likely the wrong text we're looking at as well. But Ritual is much easier now. A 70 point shaman casting a WC3 spell 3 times in a 5 turn game for 12 points? That's pretty good. Interrogate I have to think about a little, but TS could do that one and be outside normal deny range.
Back to Abhor - it really comes down to the opponent needing to effectively table me to score full points. It also encourages me to build bigger units, which may be slightly intentional to keep MSU spam casting out of the mix.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So I've finally seen the official and Pierce is the same. Abhor is 3 and 2. Interrogate I would feel is a good pick if you're facing an army like DG the leans on a lot of elite characters that can't hang back for support.
Psychic secondaries can't be used against any army that has a 4+ deny strat. If you take a psychic secondary vs an army that has a 4+ deny, you are making a bad choice 99% of the time. You also cannot take psychic secondaries against an army that has psykers itself, except in very rare circumstances. In both cases, psychic secondaries are almost always a trap, because you are relying on RNG to score points, and that's fundamentally not a competitive choice. It may work out for you, because sometimes bad choices do. But that doesn't mean it was a good choice.
So it isn't balancing anything. It isn't balancing against skew, because you can't skew with psykers - either your army is a psyker-heavy army or it isn't. It isn't balancing against the psychic secondaries, because nobody can build around those because they can't be taken against maybe 1/4 to 1/3 of the game. So it's just straight-up punishing certain armies for no real reason. It's fundamentally not much different from having a secondary that gives you 2VP for each T'au unit you kill. It's just dumb.
yukishiro1 wrote: Psychic secondaries can't be used against any army that has a 4+ deny strat. If you take a psychic secondary vs an army that has a 4+ deny, you are making a bad choice 99% of the time. You also cannot take psychic secondaries against an army that has psykers itself, except in very rare circumstances. In both cases, psychic secondaries are almost always a trap, because you are relying on RNG to score points, and that's fundamentally not a competitive choice. It may work out for you, because sometimes bad choices do. But that doesn't mean it was a good choice.
So it isn't balancing anything. It isn't balancing against skew, because you can't skew with psykers - either your army is a psyker-heavy army or it isn't. It isn't balancing against the psychic secondaries, because nobody can build around those because they can't be taken against maybe 1/4 to 1/3 of the game. So it's just straight-up punishing certain armies for no real reason. It's fundamentally not much different from having a secondary that gives you 2VP for each T'au unit you kill. It's just dumb.
Are people going to dumpster their only deny for a 50/50 chance at blocking points? Let alone at least 3CP to make sure they don't fully succeed the whole game....on top of letting the opponents best spells ride?
I don't think so. Maybe if you go veil and they block a cast, but that's about it.
Are people going to dumpster their only deny for a 50/50 chance at blocking points?
Yes, they most certainly will, assuming both you and they are a competent player. Because if you are competent, you aren't going to be giving them a chance to use their deny strat on a key power that really has to go off if they know you have a 50/50 to deny it, and using it on a key power that has to go off is the only possible use of it that would make you think twice before using it to stop them from getting points.
The problem with psychic actions is because they are tied to specific points on the table and/or your opponent's models, realistically you cannot do them outside range of the deny strats. This makes deny strats far more useful for shutting down psychic actions than for shutting down powers.
Psychic actions are useful in very narrow situations, but they have so many ridiculous conditions tied to them - have to use all the psyker's casts, can be denied, can be strated, are tied to models you have a very limited number of in your army and can't be done if you lose those models, have to be in specific areas of the board or have to be close to the opponent's characters but not killing all their characters because then you zero yourself out, etc etc - that they are never something you can build around doing reliably. And a secondary that isn't reliable to build around is worth much less in this game than one you can build around.
I dunno, never having played against such a psyker heavy list, but if you gave me a 1CP 50/50 of "deny your enemy 2/3VP" every turn I'd bank 5CP every game just for that.
Castozor wrote: I dunno, never having played against such a psyker heavy list, but if you gave me a 1CP 50/50 of "deny your enemy 2/3VP" every turn I'd bank 5CP every game just for that.
Absolutely, and really it'll be more like 3CP in that case, because by T4 you're quite likely to have either denied them enough times and/or killed enough of their psyker characters that they can't realistically finish it, or failed your 4+ enough times that they already got it.
And of course in reality, you spend 0CP, because simply the threat of being able to do it means your opponent can't choose that secondary.
Castozor wrote: I dunno, never having played against such a psyker heavy list, but if you gave me a 1CP 50/50 of "deny your enemy 2/3VP" every turn I'd bank 5CP every game just for that.
Absolutely, and really it'll be more like 3CP in that case, because by T4 you're quite likely to have either denied them enough times and/or killed enough of their psyker characters that they can't realistically finish it, or failed your 4+ enough times that they already got it.
And of course in reality, you spend 0CP, because simply the threat of being able to do it means your opponent can't choose that secondary.
You won't be saying that when Draigo is about to lay out Inner Fire on a key unit or your obsec is about to get turned off. It will take 5 CP for a total 50/50 chance to prevent 5 points. Two will pass. Two will get denied. One is 50/50.
If someone is committing 5CP to stop 5 points I'm going to be way ahead in that resource game.
That obviously depends on the psychic secondaries being chosen, but if you prevent Ritual enough times it's 12VP down the drain for you. Well worth the CP. You're also assuming you're keeping all your psykers alive for all 5 turns, I might just need to try for 3 turns with how lethal the game is these days.
All in all the psychic Secondaries are just terribly designed compared to the rest of them. What others can be so easily denied? Raise the banners? Chances are if you lose your backfield banners you are losing the game already. Behind the lines? If you are so easily denied deepstrike/movement you chose the wrong secondary to begin with.
Castozor wrote: That obviously depends on the psychic secondaries being chosen, but if you prevent Ritual enough times it's 12VP down the drain for you. Well worth the CP. You're also assuming you're keeping all your psykers alive for all 5 turns, I might just need to try for 3 turns with how lethal the game is these days.
All in all the psychic Secondaries are just terribly designed compared to the rest of them. What others can be so easily denied? Raise the banners? Chances are if you lose your backfield banners you are losing the game already. Behind the lines? If you are so easily denied deepstrike/movement you chose the wrong secondary to begin with.
Ritual is changed. It is no longer all or nothing. It is now 3/7/12 ( and it is not locked to one model ).
Lol, I would most certainly be saying that if Draigo is inner firing me, because if that is happening that's not a game I'm worried about, it's a game I've realistically already won twice - first, in the list building stage, and second because if Draigo is in a position to inner fire me, that's right where I want him, and definitely not where you want him.
Your comment re: it being 5CP for 5VP shows a big misunderstanding of how averages shake out in the real world and how games of 40k go. If on T5 your opponent still has characters in position to do psychic secondaries, you have already either won or lost that game (usually lost) at least 95 out of 100 times. The amount of times you'd be spending a CP on T5 to stop a psychic action is miniscule - though if you were, you'd certainly be doing it, because at that point it's literally a 4+ to win the game, otherwise why are you bothering, and why on earth wouldn't you do that? So if you ever get to a position where spending that 5th CP makes sense, it is literally because the game is riding on it. So that would be the best CP you ever spent in the history of your 40k career.
Eh guess I should have gone back and read all the changes. Seems that one might actually be worth a look now for armies with cheap psykers. Still part 2 and 3 can be blocked by a single cp/deny denying you 4/5 VP each time.
yukishiro1 wrote: Lol, I would most certainly be saying that if Draigo is inner firing me, because if that is happening that's not a game I'm worried about, it's a game I've realistically already won twice - first, in the list building stage, and second because if Draigo is in a position to inner fire me, that's right where I want him, and definitely not where you want him.
Your comment re: it being 5CP for 5VP shows a big misunderstanding of how averages shake out in the real world and how games of 40k go. If on T5 your opponent still has characters in position to do psychic secondaries, you have already either won or lost that game (usually lost) at least 95 out of 100 times. The amount of times you'd be spending a CP on T5 to stop a psychic action is miniscule - though if you were, you'd certainly be doing it, because at that point it's literally a 4+ to win the game, otherwise why are you bothering, and why on earth wouldn't you do that? So if you ever get to a position where spending that 5th CP makes sense, it is literally because the game is riding on it. So that would be the best CP you ever spent in the history of your 40k career.
This, I feel, is really oversimplified. It will be interesting to see what secondaries pop up in the near future nonetheless.
Psychic ritual is definitely the best of a bad bunch now. But it's still a bad pick against anyone with a deny strat almost all the time, because leaving it up to RNG whether you score a secondary is not a competitive choice, and there's a wholly plausible chance you get only 2 from it if you do pick it against someone with a 4+ deny strat.
Competitive players don't leave it up to RNG whether they score 2 or 12 on a secondary.
You are welcome to feel it's oversimplified, but that's a content-free comment to which there is no meaningful response, essentially akin to "nuh uh, you're wrong," which people usually make because they have nothing else to say. So I assume the discussion is over.
yukishiro1 wrote: Psychic ritual is definitely the best of a bad bunch now. But it's still a bad pick against anyone with a deny strat almost all the time, because leaving it up to RNG whether you score a secondary is not a competitive choice, and there's a wholly plausible chance you get only 2 from it if you do pick it against someone with a 4+ deny strat.
Competitive players don't leave it up to RNG whether they score 2 or 12 on a secondary.
You are welcome to feel it's oversimplified, but that's a content-free comment to which there is no meaningful response, essentially akin to "nuh uh, you're wrong," which people usually make because they have nothing else to say. So I assume the discussion is over.
I'm not stating "nuh uh, you're wrong". I think both of us lack concrete evidence so I will opt to not push further until that point. Whether or not I use Ritual will also depend a lot on the TS secondaries.
Then what you are really saying is "I disagree, but I don't want to discuss it any more," not "that's really oversimplified." The latter is a way to save face by claiming victory while heading out the door.
It's totally fine to say you disagree but you don't want to discuss it any more. But if so, just say what you mean, it's more respectful to everyone.
yukishiro1 wrote: Then what you are really saying is "I disagree, but I don't want to discuss it any more," not "that's really oversimplified." The latter is a way to save face by claiming victory while heading out the door.
It's totally fine to say you disagree but you don't want to discuss it any more. But if so, just say what you mean, it's more respectful to everyone.
No, I still think it is oversimplified based on games that I've played and scenarios I've encountered using a deny from my own army along with recognizing how painful it was to reserve that CP when I needed it for other things as well as waiting for the spell I needed to tackle the most not knowing if it was going to succeed anyway.
Well, Chosen have one unique role (sort of). You can "spam" special weapons with a squad of them. And this just made them cheaper by a bit if you want such a unit. Like a unit of 6 flamers or a unit of 6 plasma guns or a unit of 6 meltas. Chosen are the only unit that can do that. Such a unit just got 6 points cheaper. Not gonna be gamebreaking. But I guess its better than nothing?
Terminators can also do that, and they're actually good at it, since they have a delivery mechanism. Chosen just die before they can do anything useful unless you put them in a rhino, and at that point, terminators cost the same but are way better. There is no reason I can think of that you'd ever actually want to take Chosen from a competitive point of view. Which doesn't mean you shouldn't do it if that's what you want to do. It just means they're pretty much the definition of a bad unit.
Hmm, ok I forgot about terminators lol. Well, you can put them in strategic reserve and save the Rhino points. If you are strapped for points. But I have never seen a competitive list using Chosen, so its probably not great. lol
Well I just commented in the Skiitari weapon thread but Terminators might lose their ability for so many special weapons. Not sure how the SM codex handles it, but DG terminators are now far more limited as to how many ranged special weapons they can take. CSM might follow suit, leaving Chosen with a unique niche within that codex.
Because gw won't give up that second wound? 2 wound Chosen would be just as tough as Intercessors, either standard or Assault, but with chainswords and combi-bolters would shoot like the standard variant and fight like the Assault variant. But at this point it's a crapshoot whether or not they'll even exist in the new codex considering they don't have models.
Well, except for not having obsec or transhuman, i.e. pretty much the reason to take intercessors.
Honestly, I don't really see how chosen will ever be anything other than bad as long as they have neither obsec nor any kind of in-built delivery mechanism (DS, pregame move, whatever).
yukishiro1 wrote: Well, except for not having obsec or transhuman, i.e. pretty much the reason to take intercessors.
Honestly, I don't really see how chosen will ever be anything other than bad as long as they have neither obsec nor any kind of in-built delivery mechanism (DS, pregame move, whatever).
You mean like INFILTRATE? The ability they used to have before gw took it away for "reasons"? Chosen, like most other CSM units, have been gutted by three successive garbage codexes. We make due with what we've got.
Castozor wrote: I dunno, never having played against such a psyker heavy list, but if you gave me a 1CP 50/50 of "deny your enemy 2/3VP" every turn I'd bank 5CP every game just for that.
Yeah, but then when the next psyker vaporizes someone, you've got no deny left, because you can only use the strat once per turn. And if I don't have enough psykers to play that trick, I probably wouldn't be trying to score a psychic agenda in the first place.
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah it's just fundamentally a stupid secondary. That they still haven't realized after a whole year is a real indictment of their development process. If you couldn't use deny strats on psychic secondaries there might be justification for a special anti-psyker secondary, but the fact that you can makes them impossible to plan around, so there's no compelling reason to have an anti-psyker secondary either.
All the armies that "spam" psykers do so because they have NO CHOICE. Psykers by their nature are anti spam.
If I play tsons my opponent gets 6vp for killing ANY HQ CHOICE IN MY ARMY. its just asinine.
I see the flaws, but at the same time it is a balancing secondary that keeps psychic army from grabbing at a secondary with no opposition. Now, more and more armies have access to a 4+ deny for 1CP, but those are usually locked.
What I'd like to see is Abhor move to 'Eliminate the Enemy' or 'No Mercy' to make the choices less clear cut.
There is plenty of opposition to psychic secondaries, kill the psykers, just like you would kill the non-character infantry for Scramblers and all the psychic secondaries are for CHARACTER psykers, so you can just pick Assassinate. There is literally no reason for it to exist, the bonus points for killing non-character psykers is asinine. I pay nothing for not taking psykers, it's simply not an option for Necrons. I have wargear that gives me a small chance to deny and a Strat on the anti-MW dynasty that lets me deny on a 4+.
Daedalus81 wrote: Are people going to dumpster their only deny for a 50/50 chance at blocking points? Let alone at least 3CP to make sure they don't fully succeed the whole game....on top of letting the opponents best spells ride?
I don't think so. Maybe if you go veil and they block a cast, but that's about it.
Interesting question, I would say yes. How much is Warptime worth in terms of VP? Are you really going to get 5VP or at least stop your opponent from getting 5VP off that one cast alone? Now if we are talking 3VP then you are probably right. But then, you've got some success with psychic secondaries and I've only have one of them used against me once, it went poorly for my opponent, especially because I happened to be playing the anti-MW Dynasty that game. I did deny a 3VP cast because I expected it to be a low-point game where 6 points might matter (4CP over 4 turns). Tournaments change things a bit because you don't just want to win, you want to win by as much as possible, at least in smaller tournaments, I guess in a 5-rounder you can torpedo your way up by getting a low-scoring win and facing an easier opponent round 2.
A good player doesn't cast warptime from a location you can deny it, whether with a strat or otherwise, if it's important that it goes off; if they can't cast it out of range, they're not going to go for a play that relies on it if they have a 50% chance to fail it. 4+ deny strats are more about space denial than actually denying powers; it's pretty rare you get to use them on something that really matters. They're good against things like Ezekiel trying to remove your ob-sec...but competitive DA lists only take Ezekiel, so there's not going to be a case of having to choose between denying that or denying a psychic action.
Using the 4+ on a psychic action is almost always a no-brainer for that reason. You can come up with theoryhammer examples where it wouldn't be, but they don't change the fact that taking a psychic secondary against a competent opponent who has denies is almost always a bad idea.
There are just way too many limitations on psychic actions right now to make them remotely viable as something to build around.
Interesting. I just saw a leak on the secondaries in the new Chapter Approved. Titan Hunter is now only 4VP for killing 1 Titanic and 9 for killing two.
Its not even going to be worthwhile taking Titan Hunter against one titanic model now. I think this will help all faction that want to soup in a titanic and even Knights too, since they can choose to run 2 Titanics and wardogs/amigers.
Eldenfirefly wrote: Interesting. I just saw a leak on the secondaries in the new Chapter Approved. Titan Hunter is now only 4VP for killing 1 Titanic and 9 for killing two.
Its not even going to be worthwhile taking Titan Hunter against one titanic model now. I think this will help all faction that want to soup in a titanic and even Knights too, since they can choose to run 2 Titanics and wardogs/amigers.
Yes, it's 4/9/15 for 1/2/3 titanic units killed. Still an autopick vs knights or lists with 3 superheavies, but lists with only 1 can ignore that risk now.
yukishiro1 wrote: Psychic ritual is definitely the best of a bad bunch now. But it's still a bad pick against anyone with a deny strat almost all the time, because leaving it up to RNG whether you score a secondary is not a competitive choice, and there's a wholly plausible chance you get only 2 from it if you do pick it against someone with a 4+ deny strat.
Competitive players don't leave it up to RNG whether they score 2 or 12 on a secondary.
Unless this book changed something, you can't use most/all deny strats on a psychic action because it doesn't manifest anything.
They FAQed that months ago to make clear that anything that can be used to deny a power can be used to deny a psychic action too. The only ones that don't work are the ones that require a specific unit to be targeted; I think Custodes and maybe one other faction has those (Custodes also have a generic one too). The generic 4+ to deny a power cast w/in 24" works just fine.
yukishiro1 wrote: They FAQed that months ago to make clear that anything that can be used to deny a power can be used to deny a psychic action too. The only ones that don't work are the ones that require a specific unit to be targeted; I think Custodes and maybe one other faction has those (Custodes also have a generic one too). The generic 4+ to deny a power cast w/in 24" works just fine.
I had no clue what you were talking about so I checked the GT book FAQ, which contains a copy of the rules and a definition of Psychic Actions, and there is no such FAQ or Errata.
Figuring you didn't make this up out of nothing, I checked BRB and the errata appears to be in there.
So now there is a bit of a fun academic question regarding which 'psychic action' you are doing but that's about it.
It wouldn't surprise me if GW screwed up and didn't put it in all the FAQs it should be in, that strikes me as par for the course.
It also wouldn't surprise me if it's missing from the new GT2021 book because they forgot to update the rules they put into it, again that would be classic GW.
Well, the thousand sons codex is coming "soon". So, maybe they will get such a devastating psychic list that if you had one or two denies, you absolutely have to use it to try and deny those or you would get wrecked. That's always a possibility.
Now I feel that against players with only one deny. Taking something like psychic ritual is a "guaranteed they will not interfere with your other psychic casting". This might backfire either ways of course. It could result in me losing the game on secondaries. Or it might backfire on my opponent too, because he might lose because he failed to stop my most devastating psychics.
Castozor wrote: I dunno, never having played against such a psyker heavy list, but if you gave me a 1CP 50/50 of "deny your enemy 2/3VP" every turn I'd bank 5CP every game just for that.
Yeah, but then when the next psyker vaporizes someone, you've got no deny left, because you can only use the strat once per turn. And if I don't have enough psykers to play that trick, I probably wouldn't be trying to score a psychic agenda in the first place.
Well you can only do it with characters, and the dude who does the ritual has to be in range and not do anything else. If your entire army rule set is build around characters casting multiple psychic powers, you may not have a second or third character to try to do it. At this is assuming opponent can't just kill some of your characters.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eldenfirefly wrote: Well, the thousand sons codex is coming "soon". So, maybe they will get such a devastating psychic list that if you had one or two denies, you absolutely have to use it to try and deny those or you would get wrecked. That's always a possibility.
Did they say soon, or did they say later this year. Because I think the article says later this year. And later this year can be many months. From what I understand chaos marine players are waiting for their soon legion books ,for multiple editions now.
Given that the only other list (Orks) we know is coming does not have its values printed in the MFM, I would place money on the fact that "soon" will mean "after sisters".
the_scotsman wrote: Given that the only other list (Orks) we know is coming does not have its values printed in the MFM, I would place money on the fact that "soon" will mean "after sisters".
It looks to me like GK and TSons were supposed to come out after sisters but before Orks, but they switched the order a while back. It would be downright bizarre for them to have been doing previews for Orks for almost a month now, while doing none for GK or TSons, only to then release GK and TSons before Orks.
Well they don't really have much to preview for either. Orks are getting a ton of new stuff. For 1ksons/GK it is just one character model. Maybe 1ksons get really lucky and their stuff is linked to some sneaky AoS tzeench demon model release.
I'm not stating "nuh uh, you're wrong". I think both of us lack concrete evidence so I will opt to not push further until that point. Whether or not I use Ritual will also depend a lot on the TS secondaries.
They would have to be really horrible for Ritual to be considered an option, and I mean like really bad. The only way I can imagine it to happen, is if it either required the use of multiple characters or sacrificing high cost units.
yukishiro1 wrote: It looks to me like GK and TSons were supposed to come out after sisters but before Orks, but they switched the order a while back. It would be downright bizarre for them to have been doing previews for Orks for almost a month now, while doing none for GK or TSons, only to then release GK and TSons before Orks.
Some people think that we will be getting the beastsnagga box, then TS/GK and then the actual codex release.
Just found out about the best thing in this book. If you have a Super Heavy Auxiliary Detachment, and it's from the same faction as your Warlord, it's now 1CP instead of 3CP. 13 barrels of Hell and 302 tons of ancient psychotic ceramite coming at ya!
Gadzilla666 wrote: Just found out about the best thing in this book. If you have a Super Heavy Auxiliary Detachment, and it's from the same faction as your Warlord, it's now 1CP instead of 3CP. 13 barrels of Hell and 302 tons of ancient psychotic ceramite coming at ya!
Gadzilla666 wrote: Just found out about the best thing in this book. If you have a Super Heavy Auxiliary Detachment, and it's from the same faction as your Warlord, it's now 1CP instead of 3CP. 13 barrels of Hell and 302 tons of ancient psychotic ceramite coming at ya!
It will now cost you 2CP less to take a monolith that can barely actually move on the table because it lacks fly and its movement characteristic is lower than its footprint!
Why in the Silent King's name did they make that idiotic change...
It's one of those incredible examples of a designer who clearly just didn't understand how their own game plays in the most basic of ways, and a "playtesting" program that is fundamentally broken if it allows something like that to make it into print. The fact that they haven't changed it in a year just shows a lack of caring on top of that.
yukishiro1 wrote: It will now cost you 2CP less to take a monolith that can barely actually move on the table because it lacks fly and its movement characteristic is lower than its footprint!
I understood it was 6×6, and moves 8, so it moves 2 more than it's footprint. Is that incorrect? It also has native deep strike. Agreed, taking FLY away was bad, especially since the big Aeldari grav tanks and the Astraeus got to keep it, but is it really that bad? Even if it costs 2CP less now?
Daedalus81 wrote: When I used a Monolith on TTS ( about 10 games ) it was pretty formidable.
I can see why it doesn't have fly, because dropping in and then charging over buildings would have been quite strong given its abilities.
Right, 6 S8 AP-3, D3 auto-hitting attacks is WAY better than what those aforementioned tanks can do in melee. So do you think this will make the Monolith more useful? 1CP is a lot better than 3CP. Going from costing 4CP to 2CP is definitely a big boost for my LoWs. Still annoying that it's twice the price of others though Martial Legacy *spits*
yukishiro1 wrote: It will now cost you 2CP less to take a monolith that can barely actually move on the table because it lacks fly and its movement characteristic is lower than its footprint!
I understood it was 6×6, and moves 8, so it moves 2 more than it's footprint. Is that incorrect? It also has native deep strike. Agreed, taking FLY away was bad, especially since the big Aeldari grav tanks and the Astraeus got to keep it, but is it really that bad? Even if it costs 2CP less now?
Yes, but the way terrain works is you have to pay movement up and down if it's over 1"...which conveniently adds up to 8". When you add in the fact that no terrain is monomolecularly thin, it means a monolith literally cannot move over a fence taller than 1". It bumps up against it and just sits there all game trying to get over it. And that's even before it degrades and moves even slower.
There are huge parts of the board the model just simply cannot traverse. Fences, any corridors between terrain less than 6" square, etc etc.
Daedalus81 wrote: When I used a Monolith on TTS ( about 10 games ) it was pretty formidable.
I can see why it doesn't have fly, because dropping in and then charging over buildings would have been quite strong given its abilities.
Right, 6 S8 AP-3, D3 auto-hitting attacks is WAY better than what those aforementioned tanks can do in melee. So do you think this will make the Monolith more useful? 1CP is a lot better than 3CP. Going from costing 4CP to 2CP is definitely a big boost for my LoWs. Still annoying that it's twice the price of others though Martial Legacy *spits*
I did feel CP starved. I'm noodling a list right now, actually.
Daedalus81 wrote: When I used a Monolith on TTS ( about 10 games ) it was pretty formidable.
I can see why it doesn't have fly, because dropping in and then charging over buildings would have been quite strong given its abilities.
FLY doesn't work in the charge phase on terrain.
Right - sorry - I should say moving over the building then charging instead of heaving to go around. That aside a Monolith jumping a building and then dropping a blob up to an inch away would be quite dirty.
It's easy enough to move block so I won't claim it is broken, but there are potentially strong interactions.
yukishiro1 wrote: It will now cost you 2CP less to take a monolith that can barely actually move on the table because it lacks fly and its movement characteristic is lower than its footprint!
I understood it was 6×6, and moves 8, so it moves 2 more than it's footprint. Is that incorrect? It also has native deep strike. Agreed, taking FLY away was bad, especially since the big Aeldari grav tanks and the Astraeus got to keep it, but is it really that bad? Even if it costs 2CP less now?
Yes, but the way terrain works is you have to pay movement up and down if it's over 1"...which conveniently adds up to 8". When you add in the fact that no terrain is monomolecularly thin, it means a monolith literally cannot move over a fence taller than 1". It bumps up against it and just sits there all game trying to get over it. And that's even before it degrades and moves even slower.
There are huge parts of the board the model just simply cannot traverse. Fences, any corridors between terrain less than 6" square, etc etc.
Maybe that's why gw added a rule that allows TITANIC units to ignore Difficult Ground up to 3 in height when moving in yesterday's FAQ. Just mark those barricades and such as Difficult Ground. Fixed. As for tight corridors, that's just part of using a big model. You learn to avoid those, just like things like 300+ ton tanks and giant floating ziggurats would in real life. Or you pay for it.
Edit: Ok, that doesn't exactly work. But you DO ignore anything 1 or less in height.
Daedalus81 wrote: When I used a Monolith on TTS ( about 10 games ) it was pretty formidable.
I can see why it doesn't have fly, because dropping in and then charging over buildings would have been quite strong given its abilities.
Right, 6 S8 AP-3, D3 auto-hitting attacks is WAY better than what those aforementioned tanks can do in melee. So do you think this will make the Monolith more useful? 1CP is a lot better than 3CP. Going from costing 4CP to 2CP is definitely a big boost for my LoWs. Still annoying that it's twice the price of others though Martial Legacy *spits*
I did feel CP starved. I'm noodling a list right now, actually.
No kidding. Try it when the LoW costs 1CP extra, as do all of your dreadnoughts and other tanks. And you play CSM.
My lists probably won't change much, but they'll have more resources.
the_scotsman wrote: Hover - ignore the difficult ground trait, can move over terrain pieces lower than 2" tall without losing any movement.
Fly - ignore all terrain, move over any terrain without losing any movement
Aircraft - as now.
Why does Hover need to exist? Why can't Monoliths just FLY?
Because leapfrogging buildings with a strong model might be a bit much
Yes, we have Magnus, but depending on the opponent he's doing 10 mortal wounds - the monolith will do a similar amount of damage or more depending on the target unless there is a good Gateway target. Their melee is about the same with the exception that Magnus wounds everything on a 2. Slap on a chronomancer and the monolith is about the same cost with better toughness, save, a bunch more wounds, dumps a bunch of models in the opponent's face, and deepstrikes.
It definitely has a hard time getting around on some tables, but again - deepstrike is an option. I feel like it would be better served by a middle ground ignore stuff 2" or less like mentioned above.
the_scotsman wrote: Hover - ignore the difficult ground trait, can move over terrain pieces lower than 2" tall without losing any movement.
Fly - ignore all terrain, move over any terrain without losing any movement
Aircraft - as now.
Why does Hover need to exist? Why can't Monoliths just FLY?
Because leapfrogging buildings with a strong model might be a bit much
Yes, we have Magnus, but depending on the opponent he's doing 10 mortal wounds - the monolith will do a similar amount of damage or more depending on the target unless there is a good Gateway target. Their melee is about the same with the exception that Magnus wounds everything on a 2. Slap on a chronomancer and the monolith is about the same cost with better toughness, save, a bunch more wounds, dumps a bunch of models in the opponent's face, and deepstrikes.
It definitely has a hard time getting around on some tables, but again - deepstrike is an option. I feel like it would be better served by a middle ground ignore stuff 2" or less like mentioned above.
Magnus has Movement 16 and is 5" long Monoliths have Movement 6 and are 6" long
Even with FLY Monoliths cannot hop over a building, they cannot even hop over a 1,5" tall fence without advancing, now that they don't have FLY they need a 4" advance to make it over a 1,5" fence like GW's barricades that were popular in 7th. At best Monoliths can hop on top of a building and sit there and hop down next turn, Magnus hops over and charges turn 1.
The drop in CP is nice for SHA. However - the detachment still doesn't get army traits. So it is still pretty bad. I'd rather spend the 3 CP and get freaking traits on the SH.
or two and lose two 40-50 points models on top of the almost 300 point tank. It's hard to take out a similar amount of points in 
)
