Its _really weird_. This can't be in response to the survey, as its way too soon to collate that information and develop a coherent response, let alone do a balance pass. Which makes me wonder the point of the survey was (a post-hoc justification for what they were already planning?)
As for the rest... mid-edition paradigm shift! Wooo!
But don't give chaos marines their second wound. That would be silly.
Core for Necrons makes me laugh. The reasons why they didn't have it were fluffy (insane things aren't a core part of the army), but it was just such a bad rules decision.
Voss wrote: Its _really weird_. This can't be in response to the survey, as its way too soon to collate that information and develop a coherent response. Which makes me wonder the point of the survey was (a post-hoc justification for what they were already planning?)
But don't give chaos marines their second wound. That would be silly.
Come on, it's been over a year since they promised that!
All other Marines already got their second wound, including God-specific Chaos Marines like Rubrics or Plague Marines.
Voss wrote: Its _really weird_. This can't be in response to the survey, as its way too soon to collate that information and develop a coherent response. Which makes me wonder the point of the survey was (a post-hoc justification for what they were already planning?)
As for the rest... mid-edition paradigm shift! Wooo!
But don't give chaos marines their second wound. That would be silly.
Core for Necrons makes me laugh. The reasons why they didn't have it were fluffy (insane things aren't a core part of the army), but it was just such a bad rules decision.
The Very Nice And Accurate Rumour List of Agnes Nutter points to CSM getting their full book pretty soon. So that’s…..something?
Huh, the AM stuff is certainly interesting. Multiple Orders, Orders on all Tanks and Russ's getting a 2+. Also, shocker that the "fix" for CSM does jack.
Voss wrote: Its _really weird_. This can't be in response to the survey, as its way too soon to collate that information and develop a coherent response. Which makes me wonder the point of the survey was (a post-hoc justification for what they were already planning?)
As for the rest... mid-edition paradigm shift! Wooo!
But don't give chaos marines their second wound. That would be silly.
Core for Necrons makes me laugh. The reasons why they didn't have it were fluffy (insane things aren't a core part of the army), but it was just such a bad rules decision.
The Very Nice And Accurate Rumour List of Agnes Nutter points to CSM getting their full book pretty soon. So that’s…..something?
It is something. SOON(tm) is one of my favorite somethings!
But if you're doing updates anyway and its definitely temporary until the soon-to-be-new codex... just throw that bone already.
Voss wrote: Its _really weird_. This can't be in response to the survey, as its way too soon to collate that information and develop a coherent response. Which makes me wonder the point of the survey was (a post-hoc justification for what they were already planning?)
As for the rest... mid-edition paradigm shift! Wooo!
But don't give chaos marines their second wound. That would be silly.
Core for Necrons makes me laugh. The reasons why they didn't have it were fluffy (insane things aren't a core part of the army), but it was just such a bad rules decision.
The Very Nice And Accurate Rumour List of Agnes Nutter points to CSM getting their full book pretty soon. So that’s…..something?
It is something. SOON(tm) is one of my favorite somethings!
But if you're doing updates anyway and its definitely temporary until the soon-to-be-new codex... just throw that bone already.
They did, but Karanak got all over excited and retrieved it.
The limit on planes is nice, but still having 2 will not affect orks or admech that much.
The admech and drukhari points changes will add up during full list design.
Buggy change not going to make a huge difference IMHO.
Voss wrote: Its _really weird_. This can't be in response to the survey, as its way too soon to collate that information and develop a coherent response, let alone do a balance pass. Which makes me wonder the point of the survey was (a post-hoc justification for what they were already planning?)
As for the rest... mid-edition paradigm shift! Wooo!
But don't give chaos marines their second wound. That would be silly.
Core for Necrons makes me laugh. The reasons why they didn't have it were fluffy (insane things aren't a core part of the army), but it was just such a bad rules decision.
Maybe this has been in the works for a while (It is 3 pages, 2 of which come directly from the next chapter approved) and is intended for the next codex's anyway (Which will already be finished) so other than the flier and Ork rule, it's just porting over.
Additionally, the balance update could have originally been intended as once per year, or 6 months and now from the survey it is going to be every 3 months etc.
Gert wrote:Huh, the AM stuff is certainly interesting. Multiple Orders, Orders on all Tanks and Russ's getting a 2+. Also, shocker that the "fix" for CSM does jack.
I wouldn't call an average increase of 7 attacks on the charge for a squad of 10 Warp Talons "jack", but it isn't really what CSM needed. Killing things isn't our problem, it's not getting killed ourselves. Nice to see that they finally are giving the Guards MBT the save it deserves though.
xttz wrote:I'm not seeing a ton of point changes for AdMech and DEldar
It’s…..it’s almost as if the amount of time they can spend playtesting is insignificant compared to the number of games played in the first month of an Edition or Codex’s release?
This is pretty nice, I'm quite happy with this update for the most part.
Ad Mech getting hit by points increases across the board and limited flyers I think this update will finally dethrone them.
The Dark Eldar seemed a much lighter touch than I was expecting, but we will see. The Aircraft nerf doesn't really affect them. We'll see if this update just means they stop taking raiders and move fully into venoms.
Ork nerfs seem like an elegant way to handle the problem, without points nerfs. We'll have to see if that's a enough.
The Buffs to Necrons is fantastic. Having Core on all of that opens up so many things!
Voss wrote: Core for Necrons makes me laugh. The reasons why they didn't have it were fluffy (insane things aren't a core part of the army), but it was just such a bad rules decision.
I kinda wish that the units with DESTROYER only gained CORE if one of the various Destroyer Lord options was taken.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: It’s…..it’s almost as if the amount of time they can spend playtesting is insignificant compared to the number of games played in the first month of an Edition or Codex’s release?
But it can’t be that. Can it.
well, if it would just be possible to keep a game around longer than 3 years, maybe if you had more time, like 6 or 9 years, there could be more games played and rules and balance fine tuned
but I guess this is impossible and it is better to start from scratch every 3-4 years without enough time to test the new stuff before it is released
Archon +10pts, Succubus +20pts, Wyches +2ppm, flyers up a bit
Archon: +5
Succubus: +20
Haemonculus: -10
Wyches: +2
Grotesques: -5
Incubi: +2
Ravager -10
Cronos +5
Talos -10
Raider +10, sneaky +15 because now the Disintegrator is +5 and Dark Lance is +10
so you have to choose either +5 or +10 to the point cost
Razorwing Jetfighter -10
and Voidraven -10
I think trueborn and bloodbrides +1? I'd have to check the book.
Archon +10pts, Succubus +20pts, Wyches +2ppm, flyers up a bit
That's a good thing. No more nerfhammer, but some adjustments up in cost to see if that helps curb them without cratering them.
Russe going up a save is nice, but the long term fix for vehicle survivability is to bump vehicle toughness across the board.
Agreed. With so many 8E codexes still around, I wonder how much bearing that has on the win rates for the dominant factions. It would be a shame for them to be heavily nerfed right now, and end up overly handicapped in 6-12 months time once most 9E books are out.
I much prefer GW keeping a lighter touch while also throwing a bone to struggling factions like this.
Sasori wrote: Ork nerfs seem like an elegant way to handle the problem, without points nerfs. We'll have to see if that's a enough.
They... just completely killed off the winning list? I wouldn't call that "elegant", especially since it effectively prevents the use of kustom jobs, one of the most liked ork mechanic of 8th.
They could just have made buggy units 1 model only for the same effect and cause less collateral damage.
Voss wrote: Core for Necrons makes me laugh. The reasons why they didn't have it were fluffy (insane things aren't a core part of the army), but it was just such a bad rules decision.
I kinda wish that the units with DESTROYER only gained CORE if one of the various Destroyer Lord options was taken.
Nah, that would actually make sense, can't have that.
Archon +10pts, Succubus +20pts, Wyches +2ppm, flyers up a bit
Archon: +5
Succubus: +20
Haemonculus: -10
Wyches: +2
Grotesques: -5
Incubi: +2
Ravager -10
Cronos +5
Talos -10
Raider +10, sneaky +15 because now the Disintegrator is +5 and Dark Lance is +10
so you have to choose either +5 or +10 to the point cost
Razorwing Jetfighter -10
and Voidraven -10
I think trueborn and bloodbrides +1? I'd have to check the book.
Trueborn and Bloodbrides +1 yea, but on top of the increase to wyches, you're now looking at 15ppm bloodbrides instead of 12!
Ork nerfs seem like an elegant way to handle the problem, without points nerfs. We'll have to see if that's a enough.
No! Cap! is the exact opposite of elegant to me. It may be a necessary stopgap, but honestly I'd rather a points adjustment than a voice on high simply screaming NO!
Its feels weird and sets a poor precedent. Consider what happens if Guard get slapped with a cap of 3 hellhounds, 3 Russes or 3 Basilisks. With maybe an out for 3 of the Russ variants and 3 Russ demolisher variants (if those are still a distinction the codex even makes anymore)
Sasori wrote: Ork nerfs seem like an elegant way to handle the problem, without points nerfs. We'll have to see if that's a enough.
They... just completely killed off the winning list? I wouldn't call that "elegant", especially since it effectively prevents the use of kustom jobs, one of the most liked ork mechanic of 8th.
They could just have made buggy units 1 model only for the same effect and cause less collateral damage.
Did they?
I mean, 2 wazboms, 3 squigbuggies, 3 scrapjets, 2 dragstas and 2 KBBs where does that get you?
Also, we did get the new army of renown which make the buggies defensively basically the perfect machine.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: It’s…..it’s almost as if the amount of time they can spend playtesting is insignificant compared to the number of games played in the first month of an Edition or Codex’s release?
But it can’t be that. Can it.
Funny how players spot issues in first reading. Gw can't take time to read book once?
Gw games aren't complicated. Broken list is found even before books gets releasea with just partial data. Gw makes sure its easy to see.
Sasori wrote: This is pretty nice, I'm quite happy with this update for the most part.
Ad Mech getting hit by points increases across the board and limited flyers I think this update will finally dethrone them.
The Dark Eldar seemed a much lighter touch than I was expecting, but we will see. The Aircraft nerf doesn't really affect them. We'll see if this update just means they stop taking raiders and move fully into venoms.
Ork nerfs seem like an elegant way to handle the problem, without points nerfs. We'll have to see if that's a enough.
The Buffs to Necrons is fantastic. Having Core on all of that opens up so many things!
Elegant? Typical crude bandaid solution. Don't fix, just limit damage it does.
Warhammer 40k is a thirty year old board game guys. All of these problems are monsters of their own creation. That ork codex just came out and they're already changing the course. These fixes indicate deep, deep flaws in the fundamental design principles of the game itself. Not sure why I have to be villain for pointing out that this looks like a giant circus.
Sasori wrote: Ork nerfs seem like an elegant way to handle the problem, without points nerfs. We'll have to see if that's a enough.
They... just completely killed off the winning list? I wouldn't call that "elegant", especially since it effectively prevents the use of kustom jobs, one of the most liked ork mechanic of 8th.
They could just have made buggy units 1 model only for the same effect and cause less collateral damage.
That probably would have worked too. I thought this would be a more pleasing solutions for Ork players since they can still take the units, but without a points hike.
I think no matter what option GW went with, people would complain about it.
Sasori wrote: Ork nerfs seem like an elegant way to handle the problem, without points nerfs. We'll have to see if that's a enough.
They... just completely killed off the winning list? I wouldn't call that "elegant", especially since it effectively prevents the use of kustom jobs, one of the most liked ork mechanic of 8th.
They could just have made buggy units 1 model only for the same effect and cause less collateral damage.
Did they?
I mean, 2 wazboms, 3 squigbuggies, 3 scrapjets, 2 dragstas and 2 KBBs where does that get you?
Also, we did get the new army of renown which make the buggies defensively basically the perfect machine.
From my experience, into a traffic jam that doesn't allow to cross the board or line up shots.
But the point is that you cannot put kustom jobs on units with multiple buggies in them, plus it doesn't scale with game size at all. That's not elegant by any means.
Sasori wrote: Ork nerfs seem like an elegant way to handle the problem, without points nerfs. We'll have to see if that's a enough.
They... just completely killed off the winning list? I wouldn't call that "elegant", especially since it effectively prevents the use of kustom jobs, one of the most liked ork mechanic of 8th.
They could just have made buggy units 1 model only for the same effect and cause less collateral damage.
That probably would have worked too. I thought this would be a more pleasing solutions for Ork players since they can still take the units, but without a points hike.
I think no matter what option GW went with, people would complain about it.
I think most orks were in favor of knocking out the buggy spam. They just didn't do it in a good way because it interacts badly with other rules in the army.
You literally have to decide between running 2/3 buggies of one kind OR getting a kustom job.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: On balance, if they were gonna make it so Buggies were capped at 3, I'd have rather have seen the unit size changed from 1-3 to just 1.
Same result, bit less arbitrary.
not the same result as currently you can have 1-3 in one slot instead of 3 taking separate slots. Capping it at 1 would just kill buggy lists as you'd easily just fill up the slots with 1 each.
Sasori wrote: Ork nerfs seem like an elegant way to handle the problem, without points nerfs. We'll have to see if that's a enough.
They... just completely killed off the winning list? I wouldn't call that "elegant", especially since it effectively prevents the use of kustom jobs, one of the most liked ork mechanic of 8th.
They could just have made buggy units 1 model only for the same effect and cause less collateral damage.
Did they?
I mean, 2 wazboms, 3 squigbuggies, 3 scrapjets, 2 dragstas and 2 KBBs where does that get you?
Also, we did get the new army of renown which make the buggies defensively basically the perfect machine.
From my experience, into a traffic jam that doesn't allow to cross the board or line up shots.
But the point is that you cannot put kustom jobs on units with multiple buggies in them, plus it doesn't scale with game size at all. That's not elegant by any means.
Maybe.
My ork speed freek list, which does not include many copies of the same buggy, is basically unaffected by the change. My drukhari list, depending on the setup, only managed to go up about 40 points. It seems like at least some effort was put in to insulate varied, casual lists from the effects of the changes while primarily impacting the highly competitive lists. That's a good thing, even if the solution wasn't perfect.
Oguhmek wrote: But there is no benefit to taking units of multiple buggies anyway, right? On the contrary, it's mostly drawbacks (morale etc.)
Did Orks really need this nerf?
I think it is worth noting that the infamous tournament list being discussed recently did include squigbuggies, skrapjets, dragstas and I believe KBBs, at least most of which were in units of more than 1.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: On balance, if they were gonna make it so Buggies were capped at 3, I'd have rather have seen the unit size changed from 1-3 to just 1.
Same result, bit less arbitrary.
not the same result as currently you can have 1-3 in one slot instead of 3 taking separate slots. Capping it at 1 would just kill buggy lists as you'd easily just fill up the slots with 1 each.
A patrol and two outriders can support 10 single buggies plus some bikers or koptas. Or at least could. No more!
Oguhmek wrote: But there is no benefit to taking units of multiple buggies anyway, right? On the contrary, it's mostly drawbacks (morale etc.)
Did Orks really need this nerf?
I think it is worth noting that the infamous tournament list being discussed recently did include squigbuggies, skrapjets, dragstas and I believe KBBs, at least most of which were in units of more than 1.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: On balance, if they were gonna make it so Buggies were capped at 3, I'd have rather have seen the unit size changed from 1-3 to just 1.
Same result, bit less arbitrary.
not the same result as currently you can have 1-3 in one slot instead of 3 taking separate slots. Capping it at 1 would just kill buggy lists as you'd easily just fill up the slots with 1 each.
A patrol and two outriders can support 10 single buggies plus some bikers or koptas. Or at least could. No more!
hey, you can still take 15 buggies and it only fills 1 Outrider detachment....CPs saved, bonus!
Sasori wrote: Ork nerfs seem like an elegant way to handle the problem, without points nerfs. We'll have to see if that's a enough.
They... just completely killed off the winning list? I wouldn't call that "elegant", especially since it effectively prevents the use of kustom jobs, one of the most liked ork mechanic of 8th.
They could just have made buggy units 1 model only for the same effect and cause less collateral damage.
I think it is a little hamfisted, but they can revisit it in 3 months. It will be interesting to see the lists now.
Of the 3 armies that got nerfs, I'm the least worried about the Orks dropping below 50%.
We still have yet to even see what people do with the new army of renown rules, which let me remind folks, turns the defensive profile of buggies to:
-T6
-4+ 5++
-subtract 1 from damage for any <S7 weaponry
In one man's humble opinion, that's still a pretty spicy meatball.>
Try building a list from that army with the new restrictions.
You essentially lose access to almost all the units that make buggies work and that you can no longer have more than two planes.
Interesting idea of them to do a balance change like this. I think it could be a good idea, but I find this first implementation rather lackluster. Ork change seems drastic and with the release of the new TS you'd think this would be the place to finally give my DG rhinos and predators DR as well but I guess no such luck this time around.
bullyboy wrote: hey, you can still take 15 buggies and it only fills 1 Outrider detachment....CPs saved, bonus!
That only works in theory
Squig buggies were spammable because they didn't need to go anywhere, that isn't true for any of the others. 9-10 is a hard cap for buggies (also countring wartrikes) in my experience, any more will end in a traffic jam that will cause you to lose the game.
Ork lists can still run 2x buggies per slot (I can see where 3 would make movement difficult, plus risk of morale, etc), 2 planes, plus extras. I don't see this as too much of an issue since most armies are restricted to 3 of a kind anyway (Orks just have to put them in a single unit). It's not the most elegant solution, but if it drops that list from being so obnoxious to play against, that's good for now. Revisit in a few months. I don't have a problem of spammers getting hit with rules adjustments.
I overall like the Ork change. Rule of 3 is as much something good for balance as it is for giving players reasonable purchase insurance. 9x of each buggies was always going to turn into an awful investment to breed resentment and I'm glad to see it was done in a way to keep the purchases reasonable, without limiting Ork Fast Attack entirely. The real problem was that it was allowed to fester this way for too many years before biting the bullet.
bullyboy wrote: hey, you can still take 15 buggies and it only fills 1 Outrider detachment....CPs saved, bonus!
That only works in theory
Squig buggies were spammable because they didn't need to go anywhere, that isn't true for any of the others. 9-10 is a hard cap for buggies (also countring wartrikes) in my experience, any more will end in a traffic jam that will cause you to lose the game.
bullyboy wrote: hey, you can still take 15 buggies and it only fills 1 Outrider detachment....CPs saved, bonus!
That only works in theory
Squig buggies were spammable because they didn't need to go anywhere, that isn't true for any of the others. 9-10 is a hard cap for buggies (also countring wartrikes) in my experience, any more will end in a traffic jam that will cause you to lose the game.
Yeah, I was just making a point, definitely don't see practical side of it. My buddy currently has 2-3 scrapjets, 2 squigbuggies, 2 dragsters, 2 KBB, 2 dakkajets in his list so he will now have to decide about squadron or replacing.
Perhaps they should have just limited it to 3 max of each buggy, regardless of in squadron or individual (people can squadron if they want to save CP, otherwise not). They're a little too big footprint wise to have to stay in coherency, especially with current table size and typical tournament terrain.
Of the 3 armies that got nerfs, I'm the least worried about the Orks dropping below 50%.
We still have yet to even see what people do with the new army of renown rules, which let me remind folks, turns the defensive profile of buggies to:
-T6
-4+ 5++
-subtract 1 from damage for any <S7 weaponry
In one man's humble opinion, that's still a pretty spicy meatball.>
Try building a list from that army with the new restrictions.
You essentially lose access to almost all the units that make buggies work and that you can no longer have more than two planes.
Aw man I lose access to the big mek in mega armor that stinks that was my once...per game...5++ on all my...oh right.
IIRC the restriction was "no infantry" so lets go with
2x outriders (Freebootas)
Deffkilla
Warboss on Warbike (killa klaw, BBK, could go for the squigosaur boss too tho)
3x3 bikers
3x Squigbuggies
1x Scrapjet
1x KBB 1x Dragsta
1x Wazbom with shield and tellyports
1x dakkajet with all the guns
6x rokkit koptas because you know i'm using that untargetable kopta stratagem
4x1 Kustom Mega Kannons
we're at about 1850 here. You could throw in more obsec bikers, or give your bikers more teeth since you do have that +1A bonus now which might be nice to have. Could up some of those singleton buggies to twofers, you've got space to play.
LunarSol wrote: I overall like the Ork change. Rule of 3 is as much something good for balance as it is for giving players reasonable purchase insurance. 9x of each buggies was always going to turn into an awful investment to breed resentment and I'm glad to see it was done in a way to keep the purchases reasonable, without limiting Ork Fast Attack entirely. The real problem was that it was allowed to fester this way for too many years before biting the bullet.
They didn't use the rule of 3 to fix this though. Instead, they invented a new rule that does everything worse than the rule of 3.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_scotsman wrote: Aw man I lose access to the big mek in mega armor that stinks that was my once...per game...5++ on all my...oh right.
IIRC the restriction was "no infantry" so lets go with
2x outriders (Freebootas)
Deffkilla Warboss on Warbike (killa klaw, BBK, could go for the squigosaur boss too tho)
3x3 bikers 3x Squigbuggies 1x Scrapjet 1x KBB 1x Dragsta 1x Wazbom with shield and tellyports 1x dakkajet with all the guns 6x rokkit koptas because you know i'm using that untargetable kopta stratagem 4x1 Kustom Mega Kannons
we're at about 1850 here. You could throw in more obsec bikers, or give your bikers more teeth since you do have that +1A bonus now which might be nice to have. Could up some of those singleton buggies to twofers, you've got space to play.
The restriction is only speed freeks, WAGONs (no FW kannowagons though) and planes.
Quarterly updates will lead to mass confusion. No one there at GW is thinking any of this through or considering the outcome.
1. Flyers should have had a dedicated detachment like fortifications from day one.
2. There is already a datasheet quantity cap. Buggies should just not be able to be in units of more than one.
3. An extra attack for CSM. Not an additional wound. WTF? I'm sorry for all the CSM players. Normally I'm tone def to your incessant whining, but even I felt the slap to the face on this one.
At this point I feel it's time to start making some personnel changes with the GW rules team. It's just one terrible, incompetent decision after another.
Sasori wrote: Ork nerfs seem like an elegant way to handle the problem, without points nerfs. We'll have to see if that's a enough.
They... just completely killed off the winning list? I wouldn't call that "elegant", especially since it effectively prevents the use of kustom jobs, one of the most liked ork mechanic of 8th.
They could just have made buggy units 1 model only for the same effect and cause less collateral damage.
That probably would have worked too. I thought this would be a more pleasing solutions for Ork players since they can still take the units, but without a points hike.
I think no matter what option GW went with, people would complain about it.
You assume no points hike..
According to rumors that is still coming in chapter approved we just get the luxury of paying for those nerfs unlike admech and drukari…
This was simply an emergency nerf because 2 weeks ago an ork list won a tournament after 6 months of ad mech and drukari dominance where they already planned a points hike for next month… orks get the luxury of a double nerf. A sloppy unit restriction and a points hike later. With the sloppy unit restriction doing little to stop ork first turn lethality. It did prevent mannys 18x buggy list but that was already out of preference. Remember socal list only had 3squigbuggies, 3scrapjets, 1 shokkjump, 1 kbb and 4 planes. (Down to 2)…
Outside of the plane restriction the list is the same.
So why all the restrictions on flyers?, as an ork player I’d just take a little point bump on dakkas and the same on admech ones. I don’t see why a guard player can’t take 3 Arvus lighters if they want.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: So why all the restrictions on flyers?, as an ork player I’d just take a little point bump on dakkas and the same on admech ones. I don’t see why a guard player can’t take 3 Arvus lighters if they want.
Because knee jerk…
2 weeks ago an ork won a tournament and this an emergency nerf needed to be made.
Quarterly updates will lead to mass confusion. No one there at GW is thinking any of this through or considering the outcome.
1. Flyers should have had a dedicated detachment like fortifications from day one.
2. There is already a datasheet quantity cap. Buggies should just not be able to be in units of more than one.
3. An extra attack for CSM. Not an additional wound. WTF? I'm sorry for all the CSM players. Normally I'm tone def to your incessant whining, but even I felt the slap to the face on this one.
At this point I feel it's time to start making some personnel changes with the GW rules team. It's just one terrible, incompetent decision after another.
There used to be a flyer detachment and it was abused. This is better.
I find most of these changes to be pretty great descisions, so, to each their own.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: So why all the restrictions on flyers?, as an ork player I’d just take a little point bump on dakkas and the same on admech ones. I don’t see why a guard player can’t take 3 Arvus lighters if they want.
Because it just prevents future issues. Just point bumping them would make them drop a buggy and the best lists would still stand. Same thing with Admech.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: So why all the restrictions on flyers?, as an ork player I’d just take a little point bump on dakkas and the same on admech ones. I don’t see why a guard player can’t take 3 Arvus lighters if they want.
Because knee jerk…
2 weeks ago an ork won a tournament and this an emergency nerf needed to be made.
Yeah, I know all about the ork list. The problem was more the interaction between speedwaaagh, freebootas, and how dakkajets work.
I’m just zogged that I can’t run my flya skwadron list anymore just cause gw hates planes.
Also on the topic: why aren’t raiders limited to only 1, or admech vehicles?
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: So why all the restrictions on flyers?, as an ork player I’d just take a little point bump on dakkas and the same on admech ones. I don’t see why a guard player can’t take 3 Arvus lighters if they want.
Because knee jerk…
2 weeks ago an ork won a tournament and this an emergency nerf needed to be made.
This entire thing just seems like the stereotypical evil villain sat in his gw balance throne looking at the internet and saying “ORKSSSS???, In myyyyyy meta?! Jenkins! send for the nerf team…”
Something like this always seems to happen when orks take the meta spotlight, still pourin one out for nob bikers.
LunarSol wrote: I overall like the Ork change. Rule of 3 is as much something good for balance as it is for giving players reasonable purchase insurance. 9x of each buggies was always going to turn into an awful investment to breed resentment and I'm glad to see it was done in a way to keep the purchases reasonable, without limiting Ork Fast Attack entirely. The real problem was that it was allowed to fester this way for too many years before biting the bullet.
They didn't use the rule of 3 to fix this though. Instead, they invented a new rule that does everything worse than the rule of 3.
It's the rule of 3 from a purchase standpoint. If they removed the unit and put it as strict rule of 3, it would really limit the Mad Max design with each buggy eating up a huge chunk of available Fast Attack. Honestly, I think its a solid solution that would work well applied to guard tank lists as well along with an overall boost to the tanks. You get an army of that style of unit while diversifying the kind of models used.
Quarterly updates will lead to mass confusion. No one there at GW is thinking any of this through or considering the outcome.
1. Flyers should have had a dedicated detachment like fortifications from day one.
2. There is already a datasheet quantity cap. Buggies should just not be able to be in units of more than one.
3. An extra attack for CSM. Not an additional wound. WTF? I'm sorry for all the CSM players. Normally I'm tone def to your incessant whining, but even I felt the slap to the face on this one.
At this point I feel it's time to start making some personnel changes with the GW rules team. It's just one terrible, incompetent decision after another.
There used to be a flyer detachment and it was abused. This is better.
I find most of these changes to be pretty great descisions, so, to each their own.
Yes, but the old flyer detachment was under a system where detachments granted Command Points. The 9th system has detachments cost command points. An off the cuff example... A Flyer detachment could cost 4 CP and be 1 to 3 flyers. There's already a cap on how many detachments can be taken based on game size. It's more elegant solution IMO.
On another note, to comment on the Necron change.
4. Destroyers should gain CORE only if a Destroyer Lord is taken. This is again, a more elegant solution IMO.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: This entire thing just seems like the stereotypical evil villain sat in his gw balance throne looking at the internet and saying “ORKSSSS???, In myyyyyy meta?! Jenkins! send for the nerf team…”
Something like this always seems to happen when orks take the meta spotlight, still pourin one out for nob bikers.
Jeebus criminy who are you people, have they released a new green chapter of space marines or craftworld eldar with a ramshackle skull and crossbones aesthetic?
Yes, but the old flyer detachment was under a system where detachments granted Command Points. The 9th system has detachments cost command points. An off the cuff example... A Flyer detachment could cost 4 CP and be 1 to 3 flyers. There's already a cap on how many detachments can be taken based on game size. It's more elegant solution IMO.
On another note, to comment on the Necron change.
Orks had CP to spare and they would happily eat that cost.
4. Destroyers should gain CORE only if a Destroyer Lord is taken. This is again, a more elegant solution IMO
Always a possible future change. They don't need to be perfect - just better.
Were flyers that much of a problem? For SM and GK at least, the vast majority of them were overcoated like most non-dreadnought vehicles are right now.
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: Were flyers that much of a problem? For SM and GK at least, the vast majority of them were overcoated like most non-dreadnought vehicles are right now.
While I broadly welcome any attempt to try and bring more focus on balancing a notoriously unbalanced game, I can't help feeling that it's going to be "what we need here is a screwdriver, shall I fetch it?" "No, let's keep using the hammer, but more often."
Azreal13 wrote: While I broadly welcome any attempt to try and bring more focus on balancing a notoriously unbalanced game, I can't help feeling that it's going to be "what we need here is a screwdriver, shall I fetch it?" "No, let's keep using the hammer, but more often."
I can't really complain about the admech and drukhari updates. They even buffed some of the underperformers in the drukhari dex to give us more tools to make use of instead of having to lean fully into 200+ points of nerfs.
The ork nerf was obviously pretty slapped together, and the guard and knight stuff was clearly just kind of intended to be a couple of people-pleasers more so than really getting those factions to be major contenders.
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: Were flyers that much of a problem? For SM and GK at least, the vast majority of them were overcoated like most non-dreadnought vehicles are right now.
Admech and then eventually Ork flyers were, yes.
yeah, if GK and SM were taking zero fliers until this nerf, exactly what has changed?
@ Gungo, stop being disingenuous regarding the buggies list, it's not a single occurrence. And yes, the Socal list will change because those buggies will now have to be in a single unit.
Voss wrote: Its _really weird_. This can't be in response to the survey, as its way too soon to collate that information and develop a coherent response, let alone do a balance pass. Which makes me wonder the point of the survey was (a post-hoc justification for what they were already planning?)
The biannual FAQ update was due in September, so I see this first balance dataslate as a substitute for that for the time being...
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: Were flyers that much of a problem? For SM and GK at least, the vast majority of them were overcoated like most non-dreadnought vehicles are right now.
Because of the way the flyers (with the airborne rule) interact with the move and charge rules, they basically operate as (sort of) impassable terrain for melee units. You can move through the bases, but you can't end up on or near them. So you can basically block off entire sections of the battlefield and make units unreachable.
This pretty much hard counters melee armies. So, yeah, aircraft spam is a problem.
But its 100% a rules problem, as its a huge bubble of 'can't end moves' in engagement range of a flyers entire base (which is a 1" bubble all around a ~4.5"x3.5" base). If you park a flyer in front of a friendly unit, you've got a 6.5" barrier that's over five inches wide where enemies just can't go, and you can spread out your units on the other side of the flyer base so enemy models just can't get in there to get into melee. Now do that with 3 or 4 flyers: have a 24" long 'wall' providing a 5" wide no-go zone for your enemy. Add a few more flyers and you've got enough to cycle the wall in and out regardless of minimum movement. And since vehicle position doesn't matter for shooting, it doesn't limit the flyers in any way.
And that's an extreme example, with even just a few flyers, you can stop units from getting to your soft stuff, because the flyer base is just so big.
Its crazy, and its entirely a rules abstraction that doesn't need to exist. Aircraft obviously don't have any ability to prevent ground movement. Suppressing fire sure, but that isn't what this is about.
This is another classic GW 'we didn't think people would actually do that with the rules we wrote.'
No, it doesn't matter for more expensive flyers in some faction. But its still an exploit that doesn't need to exist.
Though the proper fix is 'aircraft have no engagement range and don't block movement'
Voss wrote: Its _really weird_. This can't be in response to the survey, as its way too soon to collate that information and develop a coherent response, let alone do a balance pass. Which makes me wonder the point of the survey was (a post-hoc justification for what they were already planning?)
The biannual FAQ update was due in September, so I see this first balance dataslate as a substitute for that for the time being...
Meh? That update schedule hasn't been relevant for quite a while. That the image erratas its own spring update and September was two months ago says a lot.
Azreal13 wrote: While I broadly welcome any attempt to try and bring more focus on balancing a notoriously unbalanced game, I can't help feeling that it's going to be "what we need here is a screwdriver, shall I fetch it?" "No, let's keep using the hammer, but more often."
I can't really complain about the admech and drukhari updates. They even buffed some of the underperformers in the drukhari dex to give us more tools to make use of instead of having to lean fully into 200+ points of nerfs.
The ork nerf was obviously pretty slapped together, and the guard and knight stuff was clearly just kind of intended to be a couple of people-pleasers more so than really getting those factions to be major contenders.
I've been thinking that is exactly what knights needed to play the objective game instead of trying to push their faces in as fast as possible. It isn't a massive fix, but it does give incentive to the right things to make interesting lists ( of what you can make interesting with knights and baby knights ).
The guard stuff is more interesting and like Necrons opens up some interesting play.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: So why all the restrictions on flyers?, as an ork player I’d just take a little point bump on dakkas and the same on admech ones. I don’t see why a guard player can’t take 3 Arvus lighters if they want.
Because knee jerk…
2 weeks ago an ork won a tournament and this an emergency nerf needed to be made.
admech flyers have been dominating for a while.
I mean more to my point.. ad mech flyers for 6 months was abused..
They planned a point hike for next month regardless…
Orks won 2 weeks ago and they make an emergency fix
And released the planned ad mech point hike early…
This was a knee jerk to orks winning 2 weeks ago.
Yes there was several speed waaaghs that did well before none of them used 4 flyers until 2 weeks ago.
You know, I appreciate the effort, even if it's only partially successful. GW are aware that game balance is not in a great state, that players aren't happy about it, and that a fix is overdue, so they act. That's a good thing. It's not a great fix, though, and the Ork buggy restriction is very poorly thought out. A more elegant fix was right there - drop squads - and they missed it. Let's hope for the next update.
Voss wrote: This is another classic GW 'we didn't think people would actually do that with the rules we wrote.'
There isn't a simple solution to flyer bases. Putting models on top of them creates a problem when the flyer has to move. They could probably eliminate the 1" buffer for flyers though, but that could get confusing if say some assault marines were next to a flyer, but not actually in combat with it.
Yes, but the old flyer detachment was under a system where detachments granted Command Points. The 9th system has detachments cost command points. An off the cuff example... A Flyer detachment could cost 4 CP and be 1 to 3 flyers. There's already a cap on how many detachments can be taken based on game size. It's more elegant solution IMO.
On another note, to comment on the Necron change.
Orks had CP to spare and they would happily eat that cost.
OK, but there is a cost.
Lets put all of my suggestions together for the Orks.
- Flyers are removed from all other detachments and given a dedicated detachment that costs 4 CP and is 1 to 3 flyers. We can place a detachment restriction stating that your army can only have one Flyer Detachment. Keep in mind that Flyers are all already units of 1 and there's already a cap on detachment quantity based on game size.
- Buggies are changed to be units of one.
In my mind it works out to be a better solution and has a better overall effect.
The Ork player will have access to one additional Flyer for Incursion and Strike Force games, but has to pay Command Points for it and will have fewer Buggies overall due to unit size of one, datasheet caps and detachment quantity caps (which the detachment caps also play into the Flyer issue). When the two changes are together there's some costs and some trade offs that happens during army creation.
Having Flyers removed from all other detachments and given a dedicated detachment that costs 4 CP and is 1 to 3 flyers works across the whole game too.
Isn't there a Speed Freeks update in the new Warzone book or something? Hilarious if it allows the list that was removed today to be used again, for a fee.
Lets put all of my suggestions together for the Orks.
- Flyers are removed from all other detachments and given a dedicated detachment that costs 4 CP and is 1 to 3 flyers. We can place a detachment restriction stating that your army can only have one Flyer Detachment. Keep in mind that Flyers are all already units of 1 and there's already a cap on detachment quantity based on game size.
- Buggies are changed to be units of one.
In my mind it works out to be a better solution and has a better overall effect.
The Ork player will have access to one additional Flyer for Incursion and Strike Force games, but has to pay Command Points for it and will have fewer Buggies overall due to unit size of one, datasheet caps and detachment quantity caps (which the detachment caps also play into the Flyer issue). When the two changes are together there's some costs and some trade offs that happens during army creation.
Having Flyers removed from all other detachments and given a dedicated detachment that costs 4 CP and is 1 to 3 flyers works across the whole game too.
Flip side - you just made me pay 4 CP for a Heldrake, which I would never do.
lord_blackfang wrote: Isn't there a Speed Freeks update in the new Warzone book or something? Hilarious if it allows the list that was removed today to be used again, for a fee.
We already know the full contents of that book.
Essentially, this update kills the army of reknown before it has ever been played, as it will always result into the same nigh-identical army now with the only difference between them being how many warbikers you trade for extra buggies.
lord_blackfang wrote: Isn't there a Speed Freeks update in the new Warzone book or something? Hilarious if it allows the list that was removed today to be used again, for a fee.
We already know the full contents of that book.
Essentially, this update kills the army of reknown before it has ever been played, as it will always result into the same nigh-identical army now with the only difference between them being how many warbikers you trade for extra buggies.
He is correct. The army of renown is so limited (moreso now) that the list is basically going to be a close carbon copy of this. Essentially all this update did was make ork lists more cumbersome to build and less choices in design but just as strong and overpowered as it was (but with less of the gakky aircraft charge blocking shenanigans)
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: It’s…..it’s almost as if the amount of time they can spend playtesting is insignificant compared to the number of games played in the first month of an Edition or Codex’s release?
But it can’t be that. Can it.
Funny how players spot issues in first reading. Gw can't take time to read book once?
Gw games aren't complicated. Broken list is found even before books gets releasea with just partial data. Gw makes sure its easy to see.
Revisionist history GO!!!!
Just as many busted combos go completely unnoticed by the player base for weeks as get called out instantly. No one knew what to do with orkz for like a solid month after the whole book got spoiled and that's WITH 10000 armchair gamers taking every rule apart piece by piece.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: It’s…..it’s almost as if the amount of time they can spend playtesting is insignificant compared to the number of games played in the first month of an Edition or Codex’s release?
But it can’t be that. Can it.
Funny how players spot issues in first reading. Gw can't take time to read book once?
Gw games aren't complicated. Broken list is found even before books gets releasea with just partial data. Gw makes sure its easy to see.
Revisionist history GO!!!!
Just as many busted combos go completely unnoticed by the player base for weeks as get called out instantly. No one knew what to do with orkz for like a solid month after the whole book got spoiled and that's WITH 10000 armchair gamers taking every rule apart piece by piece.
I mean I can honestly say I never thought to abuse 4x flyers like the guy at socal did to place terrain and then completely wall off all assault with flyer bases… that was some abusive nonsense.
Just as many busted combos go completely unnoticed by the player base for weeks as get called out instantly. No one knew what to do with orkz for like a solid month after the whole book got spoiled and that's WITH 10000 armchair gamers taking every rule apart piece by piece.
I don't think this is right. People identified Speedfreaks damage was going to be off the chain in the first week. They did similar calculations on DE and I feel with Ad Mech.
Where Armchair generals have issue is movement tactics. So Grey Knights are harder to weigh up than just "I take unit X, I slap on special rule Y, Stratagem Z etc, and viola, expected damage output of 70%+ versus a range of targets from shooting/charging".
You tend to get people who argue "that's a gimmick list it won't work for reasons" (see liquifier spam before its nerf) - but its hard to work out why, because you can always win 40k by just annihilating your opponent in 2 turns.
3. An extra attack for CSM. Not an additional wound. WTF? I'm sorry for all the CSM players. Normally I'm tone def to your incessant whining, but even I felt the slap to the face on this one.
I can whine some more if it would make you feel better about this. But yeah they keep dropping the ball on that second wound XD not in the codex reprint, faq and errata, or balance updates. I’m not even mad anymore this is comical at this point.
It's a pity knights are big multi-model bricks now. That makes them even less interesting to play. Also, Tyranids are completely absent, because they do not exist.
I find it odd that Kabalite Warriors are now cheaper than Skitarii. I thought for sure they’d both go up. I suppose the nerf to Raiders and HQs is supposed to cover that?
IMO there was almost nothing in the drukhari army that was OVERpriced—just some units that were overshadowed by other units’ extreme efficiency. Yet, it looks like some things did get points decreases. We shall see, I suppose.
Flip side - you just made me pay 4 CP for a Heldrake, which I would never do.
You wouldn't do it right now, not with the current codex.
Fast mover than can put a tough profile onto an objective and force my opponent to deal with it and if they don't kill it I can fly it off the table to bring it back around later with an auto-hit weapon? Heck yea I would. Just not likely ever more than one.
lord_blackfang wrote: Isn't there a Speed Freeks update in the new Warzone book or something? Hilarious if it allows the list that was removed today to be used again, for a fee.
It doesn't.
But it would have (arguably) heavily buffed the powerful meta list, with the exception of having to give up kustom mega kannons in favor of more 5++sv buggies.
lord_blackfang wrote: Isn't there a Speed Freeks update in the new Warzone book or something? Hilarious if it allows the list that was removed today to be used again, for a fee.
It doesn't.
But it would have (arguably) heavily buffed the powerful meta list, with the exception of having to give up kustom mega kannons in favor of more 5++sv buggies.
Also no Freebootaz accuracy buff, since it requires Speed Freekz and/or changes out your kultur.
Quasistellar wrote: I find it odd that Kabalite Warriors are now cheaper than Skitarii. I thought for sure they’d both go up. I suppose the nerf to Raiders and HQs is supposed to cover that?
IMO there was almost nothing in the drukhari army that was OVERpriced—just some units that were overshadowed by other units’ extreme efficiency. Yet, it looks like some things did get points decreases. We shall see, I suppose.
I definitely disagree with you. Kabalite warriors should be cheaper than skitarii...because theyre not as good. The only edge kabalites have over skitarii is a better transport. So you nerf the transports instead of nerfing them, just makes sense.
in comparison between skitarii and kabalites, skitarii have:
-3 shots assault 18" S3 autowounds on a 6 to hit or 2 shots 30" S4 AP-1 instead of poison 4+ RF 1 24" range
-doctrina imperatives (kabalites get PFP but only really benefit from the 6++...which skitarii also get by default)
-pregame move on rangers and -1S -1T in engagement range on vanguard
-better, and more, special weapons
-better, and cheaper, or just way way way better in the case of the Manipulus, supporting HQs -a stratagem for each unit that's still borderline OP even post-nerf
and in exchange, kabalites get..a melee attack and a point of WS. Cool, this light shooting infantry unit with strength 3 Ap- gets 1 extra attack and WS3+...plus rerolling charges.
Skitarii are an amazing, possibly the ONLY functional light infantry unit in the game that can deploy on foot and actually try to compete in combat against elite infantry. Kabs you'd never take outside a transport, and their transport just got a 20% nerf.
lord_blackfang wrote: Isn't there a Speed Freeks update in the new Warzone book or something? Hilarious if it allows the list that was removed today to be used again, for a fee.
It doesn't.
But it would have (arguably) heavily buffed the powerful meta list, with the exception of having to give up kustom mega kannons in favor of more 5++sv buggies.
Also no Freebootaz accuracy buff, since it requires Speed Freekz and/or changes out your kultur.
it requires speed freeks, aircraft or wagons. Those last two can still be freebootas, and the speed freeks can trigger their freeboota buff. Plus, one of the most important weapons in the buggy list, the heavy squig launcha, is already at +1 to hit so doesnt actually benefit from freebootas...but definitely definitely would benefit from getting to advance every turn and from a 5++.
So in a world where planes and buggies aren't nerfed, all those planes would stay exactly the same, and the parts of the list you actually try to fight to gain board control (the buggies and bikers) would be getting a massive durability and mobility boost and a slight offensive boost as well, optionally, while the firepower coming out of your planes and your squigbuggies would be almost the same.
Realistically the skrapjets would be the only parts of the list you'd lose significant firepower from not having freebootas. The loss of firepower from bikers would be partially made up by the bonus melee attack at WS3+ (you drop from about 8 hits to about 7 hits on bikers. Not nothing, but you do get a 5++ out of it and you actually get to get your bikers into dakka range turn 1 reliably)
I think you had to do something to tap it pre-emptively. This is a bit sloppy and weird, you could have just point nerfed buggies and planes, but tbh they werent actually that problematic in non-freeboota buggy spam shooting list contexts.
lord_blackfang wrote: Isn't there a Speed Freeks update in the new Warzone book or something? Hilarious if it allows the list that was removed today to be used again, for a fee.
It doesn't.
But it would have (arguably) heavily buffed the powerful meta list, with the exception of having to give up kustom mega kannons in favor of more 5++sv buggies.
Also no Freebootaz accuracy buff, since it requires Speed Freekz and/or changes out your kultur.
This is not true… dakkajets are not speedfreaks and allowed in the speedmob
Speedmob is still klan freebooter but don’t benefit from the kultur
However freebooter only requires a klan unit to trigger the buff (like mek guns people used)
So the army of renown can trigger the ability and give 2 aircraft in an outrider detachment +1 to hit.
Look at this list for guidance.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/801817.page#11250428
Again all this buggy nerf did was make kustom jobs useless and make mannys 18x buggy spam list unplayable which the meta already moved away from.
The aircraft nerf did nerf the recent socal 4 aircraft list (and this entire emergency update was a knee jerk to that tournament) but again that was a specific outlier on a tournament that allowed the player to funnel terrain placement like he did. (Again knee jerk reaction update with poor thought out non-fixes to buggies)
Voss wrote: This is another classic GW 'we didn't think people would actually do that with the rules we wrote.'
There isn't a simple solution to flyer bases. Putting models on top of them creates a problem when the flyer has to move. They could probably eliminate the 1" buffer for flyers though, but that could get confusing if say some assault marines were next to a flyer, but not actually in combat with it.
It's not that complex an issue though.
Measure range to the target thats blocked behind the flier.
Lets say it's a true 7" charge to a unit that is hiding behind a flier base.
So you need a 7" roll on the die to make engagement with that unit, however you move it as close as possible up until it contacts the flier base, then you fight over the flier base as if it's actually the target units base.
Basically treat flier bases as if they are a friendly model in the units involved in the melee.
After the flier moves on you pile in the units starting with the unit that charged.
Not perfect, but better then stacking bases or the odd abstraction we have now where the fliers are blocking ground movement.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Quasistellar wrote: I find it odd that Kabalite Warriors are now cheaper than Skitarii. I thought for sure they’d both go up. I suppose the nerf to Raiders and HQs is supposed to cover that?
IMO there was almost nothing in the drukhari army that was OVERpriced—just some units that were overshadowed by other units’ extreme efficiency. Yet, it looks like some things did get points decreases. We shall see, I suppose.
Kabalites can't hold a candle to admech infantry lol. It's night and day.
There are some head scratchers though. Like incubi going to 18 ppm while hellions are 17...
Glad Grots went back down, 40 was a bit steep compared to things like termies and blade guard vets.
Planes should just have to start the game in strategic reserve so they can't alpha strike. They should also not zone out reinforcements nor should they force enemies to stay outside of engagement range when moving.
Dendarien wrote: Planes should just have to start the game in strategic reserve so they can't alpha strike. They should also not zone out reinforcements nor should they force enemies to stay outside of engagement range when moving.
This essentially gives aircraft the better tactical advantage by forcing the opponent to move before it comes in and also keeping it safe without having to spend CP - a more tantalizing prospect the bigger the flyer gets. Removing engagement ranges also makes it somewhat easier for them to slide in and snipe characters. If you restrict its first move to be like other reserves it will have less to game in regards to sniping, but not targeting.
Dendarien wrote: Planes should just have to start the game in strategic reserve so they can't alpha strike. They should also not zone out reinforcements nor should they force enemies to stay outside of engagement range when moving.
This essentially gives aircraft the better tactical advantage by forcing the opponent to move before it comes in and also keeping it safe without having to spend CP - a more tantalizing prospect the bigger the flyer gets. Removing engagement ranges also makes it somewhat easier for them to slide in and snipe characters. If you restrict its first move to be like other reserves it will have less to game in regards to sniping, but not targeting.
The number 1 problem with aircraft has been alpha strike. Forcing them to start off the board at least ameliorates that. I don't like the approach to fixing planes to be just pricing them to absurdity. I mean a wazbom is already 190 points, how high can you push it?
With regards to taking up space just make aircraft have to respect opponent's models then. It's stupid that you can drive a flyer 50+ inches turn 1 and park right outside your opponent and say sorry you can't move because my aircraft thousands of feet up in the air is blocking you.
Dendarien wrote: Planes should just have to start the game in strategic reserve so they can't alpha strike. They should also not zone out reinforcements nor should they force enemies to stay outside of engagement range when moving.
This essentially gives aircraft the better tactical advantage by forcing the opponent to move before it comes in and also keeping it safe without having to spend CP - a more tantalizing prospect the bigger the flyer gets. Removing engagement ranges also makes it somewhat easier for them to slide in and snipe characters. If you restrict its first move to be like other reserves it will have less to game in regards to sniping, but not targeting.
The number 1 problem with aircraft has been alpha strike. Forcing them to start off the board at least ameliorates that. I don't like the approach to fixing planes to be just pricing them to absurdity. I mean a wazbom is already 190 points, how high can you push it?
With regards to taking up space just make aircraft have to respect opponent's models then. It's stupid that you can drive a flyer 50+ inches turn 1 and park right outside your opponent and say sorry you can't move because my aircraft thousands of feet up in the air is blocking you.
Ultimately I agree. I'm just wary of unintended consequences.
The Newman wrote: I know the Tau codex is supposed to be out in January, but you couldn't throw them a bone to get through the next two months GW? Really?
That one actually makes some sense to me. This update would have happened in parallel or overlapping with the planned release of the Tau codex. It'd be pointless to have done a stopgap at the same time (especially not having the foggiest notion of what a Tau stopgap would be).
And it wouldn't have been of any quality, and there's enough non-quality updates here.
I realise some don't like it - but imo Planes just needed to be treated as fast skimmers and be done with it. Make them about M20" and accept that they are glorified helicopters. They are not real flyers - thats how they manage to stay over the battlefield for more than about 2~ seconds.
You then give them rules and point them appropriately like every other unit in the game. I'm a bit negative on this "thy shalt have only 2 flyers" just because they happened to release Ad Mech and Ork ones with overpowered rules. Most of the flyers in the game are rubbish.
It more has to do with large impassable bases not because a unit is undercosted or overcosted.
But instead of a more elegant fix (which I realize there isn’t a great one) they just sorta fix this issue but don’t since 2 flyer bases can still block a large area from assault.
Dendarien wrote: Planes should just have to start the game in strategic reserve so they can't alpha strike. They should also not zone out reinforcements nor should they force enemies to stay outside of engagement range when moving.
This essentially gives aircraft the better tactical advantage by forcing the opponent to move before it comes in and also keeping it safe without having to spend CP - a more tantalizing prospect the bigger the flyer gets. Removing engagement ranges also makes it somewhat easier for them to slide in and snipe characters. If you restrict its first move to be like other reserves it will have less to game in regards to sniping, but not targeting.
The number 1 problem with aircraft has been alpha strike. Forcing them to start off the board at least ameliorates that. I don't like the approach to fixing planes to be just pricing them to absurdity. I mean a wazbom is already 190 points, how high can you push it?
With regards to taking up space just make aircraft have to respect opponent's models then. It's stupid that you can drive a flyer 50+ inches turn 1 and park right outside your opponent and say sorry you can't move because my aircraft thousands of feet up in the air is blocking you.
Ultimately I agree. I'm just wary of unintended consequences.
Wasn't trying to sound aggressive or anything - you made fair points about unintended consequences. I just think flyers really need a rework with how they interact with the game instead of being hard to interact with damage machines.
I don’t even get what peoples problems with fliers are. We have units that deepstrike with perfect accuracy, not interacting with terrain, units with minuses to hit, and units that put our way too much firepower. Fliers are just another unit in the 40k arsenal.
Kinda just seems like something witchunted.
Ah, life in mediocrity! Such is the destiny of all chaos marine players.
Jokes on you my chaos space marine bolter boys are counts as tactical squads. And my legends bike lord is a bike captain... I already have my 2w chaos space marines!
In the end, the game was supposed to be about ground combat. Flyers add flavour, but it was still supposed to be a predominantly ground battle. Once you have too many planes it always skews stuff because planes have so many wonky rules. And if you make them interactive with ground units, then it just breaks the realism hard. Because how did this squad of berserkers jump up into the sky, pull down and destroyed this plane...
They might relook flyers again in 10th ed. But for now, their fix seems to be to just limit the number of flyers you can bring. Which is fine for most situations. I mean, you can still bring 2 in a 2000 point game.
There is a separate game called Aeronautica if you like spamming planes so much.
Ah, life in mediocrity! Such is the destiny of all chaos marine players.
Switch to DG and TS until the 9th ed codex drops! That's what I did! To me, DG and TS are still chaos space marines. They are just chaos space marines dedicated to Nurgle and Tzeentch respectively.
I'm of the opinion that flyers, as in full-on airplane style, just won't work. There is no way to have that be functional within the game's mechanics. IMO treat them all as if they are flying like helicopters. Even if they canonically can go faster it is assumed they have adopted a hover mode to take part in the context of the battle. Actual aircraft flying could be represented by stratagems to do bombing runs & the like, but only if they are in reserve.
I think out of line of sight guns should be similarly restricted like what they did with flyers because if they can be spammed, they also "break" the game since they bypass terrain which is so important in 9th ed.
Like with all these changes, suddenly, the army that comes to mind that is going to absolutely shoot up the meta now is Tyranids. And the main reason for that is because of their Hive Guard. Like when one artillery unit Hive Guard makes the difference whether an entire codex is viable or possible top dog now (because of Drukhari, Admech and Orks got nerfed). I think its speaks volumes about the problem of out of line shooting artillery.
Its all about degree. When your artillery can only blow up a unit or two (say 10%) of an army in one turn, its perfectly fine. But once your artillery can blow up 25% of an army a turn, your opponent now only has 4 turns to play. And once your artillery can blow up 33% of an army a turn, now your opponent only has 3 turns to play.
You are literally on a clock here. Because artillery can just hide behind obscuring and keep on firing away.
I'm of the opinion that flyers, as in full-on airplane style, just won't work. There is no way to have that be functional within the game's mechanics. IMO treat them all as if they are flying like helicopters. Even if they canonically can go faster it is assumed they have adopted a hover mode to take part in the context of the battle. Actual aircraft flying could be represented by stratagems to do bombing runs & the like, but only if they are in reserve.
Also let units move under them, because duh.
You can move through their base presently. It's just a very large space to clear.
Eldenfirefly wrote: I think out of line of sight guns should be similarly restricted like what they did with flyers because if they can be spammed, they also "break" the game since they bypass terrain which is so important in 9th ed.
If the FoC meant something, and having more than 3HS slots in a standard sized game required significant expenditure of strategic resources, this wouldn't be a problem.
Eldenfirefly wrote: I think out of line of sight guns should be similarly restricted like what they did with flyers because if they can be spammed, they also "break" the game since they bypass terrain which is so important in 9th ed.
If the FoC meant something, and having more than 3HS slots in a standard sized game required significant expenditure of strategic resources, this wouldn't be a problem.
Well ... 3 squads of max Hive Guard are pretty oppressive. And again, its oppressive because they are out of line of sight guns. And one unit can shoot twice. So effectively that's 4 units. That's the equivalent of 24 hive guard shooting each turn, which is 48 shots of Str 8 that ignore cover and do D3 damage each. So, we are looking at a potential of 48 to 144 damage per turn. And all unmitigated by terrain. See how spamming out of line of sight artillery causes problems ? Like I wouldn't care if all these potential damage wasn't out of line of sight shooting. But once it is, it just changes the entire equation.
I feel your pain. I never liked the Valkirie, but dreamed of using somekind of Dune ornithopter as a count as. Now that Dune is out, GW killed my dream.
Eldenfirefly wrote: Well ... 3 squads of max Hive Guard are pretty oppressive. And again, its oppressive because they are out of line of sight guns. And one unit can shoot twice. So effectively that's 4 units. That's the equivalent of 24 hive guard shooting each turn, which is 48 shots of Str 8 that ignore cover and do D3 damage each. So, we are looking at a potential of 48 to 144 damage per turn. And all unmitigated by terrain. See how spamming out of line of sight artillery causes problems ? Like I wouldn't care if all these potential damage wasn't out of line of sight shooting. But once it is, it just changes the entire equation.
Yeah I fought Hive Guard squads before the warzone book and they were very painful, can only imagine what it's like now.
Miguelsan wrote: Not that it was a top table army, but say goodbye to fluffy IG AirCav lists. All three of you that still used them I salute you.
M.
That's what makes one size fits all rules so hard with the units in this damn game. Like Remoras suffer, but thankfully no one was using them anyway....
Maybe they'll switch to units instead of models at some point.
Eh, by the time I play admech their codex will be completely not as written lol. This is the issue with all this, you pay top dollar for a codex now sure to be relative trash before its life span is over.
I'm happy for the balance touches but less so about paying top money for junk each edition now it seems. As well losing access to all my valks sucks big time, but at least my ground guard are buffed.
I guess you can't ever hope for GW to give without taking away.
Its nice to see that GW has finally decided to join the rest of the wargaming world in doing regular updates/living rules. Some observations that you need to think about that could make this go sideways.
1) What is GW going to do about keeping all its rules and codexes up straight if they are going to do updates every 4 months? Books, card etc will be out of date very quickly so will this all go digital? GW will have to get all their apps up straight and more useful. Your going to need something a-la Warroom for WM/H or the M3E app for Malifaux where all rules, cards, list building, scenario building and tracking in game can be done in one place.
2) In some cases, living rules can encourage a company to do less rules testing, resulting in rules for new releases being above the power curve, sometimes resulting in higher initial sales of those new models. The company then can dial it back 4-8 months later through a rules update.
3) Living rules and regular updates can be captured by the competitive meta cycle. It also encourages more of a formal competitive scene. Do GW players want all the rules and updates to be driven by the top 10% of competitive players or tournament results?
Sunno wrote: 1) What is GW going to do about keeping all its rules and codexes up straight if they are going to do updates every 4 months? Books, card etc will be out of date very quickly so will this all go digital?
That was already a thing since 8th Ed thanks to Day 1 FAQs. It's one of the big complaints for some people here.
Sunno wrote: 2) In some cases, living rules can encourage a company to do less rules testing, resulting in rules for new releases being above the power curve, sometimes resulting in higher initial sales of those new models. The company then can dial it back 4-8 months later through a rules update.
People already accuse them of this, hence the constant mocking of their claim that it's "the most playtested version ever".
Sunno wrote: 3) Living rules and regular updates can be captured by the competitive meta cycle. It also encourages more of a formal competitive scene. Do GW players want all the rules and updates to be driven by the top 10% of competitive players or tournament results?
9th Ed is literally driven by tournament meta. The Secondaries are lifted near straight from the 8th Ed ITC rule set, the ITC guys are well known to have been in the playtests since before 8th,etc. Pretty much every FAQ/Errata release has had things in it that have been very clearly added as the result of tournament metas(nerfing the Castellan in 8th being an obvious example).
One of the big issues I think is the sheer scale of things in the game now (Units, Options, wargear, etc) that playtesting and balance are impossible in 40k as it stands. There are just far too many interactions between various things that GW can not accommodate a rule set that has all the stuff tested.
It isn't just rules bloat, but bloat in general that creates the mess.
Best option would be to scale back to more simple things like 3rd edition did to 2nd edition.
So infantry would have a generic stat line which is modified here and there to help reflect unit differences. Same for vehicles and other stuff.
I understand the desire for 'flavour', but adding all the flavours just makes any meal into an unpalatable mess.
stonehorse wrote: One of the big issues I think is the sheer scale of things in the game now (Units, Options, wargear, etc) that playtesting and balance are impossible in 40k as it stands. There are just far too many interactions between various things that GW can not accommodate a rule set that has all the stuff tested.
It isn't just rules bloat, but bloat in general that creates the mess.
Best option would be to scale back to more simple things like 3rd edition did to 2nd edition.
So infantry would have a generic stat line which is modified here and there to help reflect unit differences. Same for vehicles and other stuff.
I understand the desire for 'flavour', but adding all the flavours just makes any meal into an unpalatable mess.
Unfortunately that's not possible, the boat has already sailed. In 3rd we had a fraction of the units we now had and to return to that scale GW would have to axe more than half the existing units, which would cause uproar. One interesting option to limit imbalance cause by spamming the most effective units could be enforcing "highlander style" of listbuilding with just 1 of each unit, or sometimes 2, wherever possible. Which is basically what I currently do anyway.
It's not a matter of flavour, it's a matter of having tons of existing models that would be phased out crippling lots of players' collections, if not making them flat out illegal. Current state of 40k is far from being an unpalatable mess, despite its massive bloat, as the game is quite popular at the moment, probably even at one it its peaks.
tneva82 wrote: If book+errata disagrees with app the app loses.
that is a community decision, as by GW the App has priority
the same app that still has multiple errors to unit entries, regardless how many damn times I email
Yeah I gave up on pointing out errors after about 6 months. They either don't have enough staff, or don't have competent staff to fix it. I'm leaning towards both.
Eldenfirefly wrote: I think out of line of sight guns should be similarly restricted like what they did with flyers because if they can be spammed, they also "break" the game since they bypass terrain which is so important in 9th ed.
If the FoC meant something, and having more than 3HS slots in a standard sized game required significant expenditure of strategic resources, this wouldn't be a problem.
Well ... 3 squads of max Hive Guard are pretty oppressive. And again, its oppressive because they are out of line of sight guns. And one unit can shoot twice. So effectively that's 4 units. That's the equivalent of 24 hive guard shooting each turn, which is 48 shots of Str 8 that ignore cover and do D3 damage each. So, we are looking at a potential of 48 to 144 damage per turn. And all unmitigated by terrain. See how spamming out of line of sight artillery causes problems ? Like I wouldn't care if all these potential damage wasn't out of line of sight shooting. But once it is, it just changes the entire equation.
One thing I would say though, is if I was a Tyranid player I would not be buying 18 Hive Guard any time soon. Either the 9th edition codex drops the max unit size to 3, they get costed appropriately in the codex (least likely given GW's history) or they run rampant for 3 months and then a "balance dataslate" will be released saying you can only take one unit of Hive Guard.
I would definitely buy 6 but I am torn as to whether I would hypothetically get 9 or 12 if they are very strong.
I've had a similar dilemma with CSM/DG/TS where VolCons look really good, but I don't want to buy more than one to have them nerfed out of existence, also with Daemons where the Greater Daemons look great but I'm convinced they'll get a one per detachment rule in their 9th edition codex (and could easily swing back to being the weak part of the codex to be replaced by big units of something).
gungo wrote: Well BattleScribe is reportedly in life support and isn’t going to get anymore major updates to the system… so you better get use to that GW app :p
gungo wrote: Well BattleScribe is reportedly in life support and isn’t going to get anymore major updates to the system… so you better get use to that GW app :p
Really? I know there was a hoax DMCA on Spikeybitz a while back, but I've not seen anything recently.
I don’t like the idea that they can invalidate the money people spent on something 3 months after a book releases and the price gougers have sold at greater than MSRP.
gungo wrote: Well BattleScribe is reportedly in life support and isn’t going to get anymore major updates to the system… so you better get use to that GW app :p
Quasistellar wrote: I find it odd that Kabalite Warriors are now cheaper than Skitarii. I thought for sure they’d both go up. I suppose the nerf to Raiders and HQs is supposed to cover that?
IMO there was almost nothing in the drukhari army that was OVERpriced—just some units that were overshadowed by other units’ extreme efficiency. Yet, it looks like some things did get points decreases. We shall see, I suppose.
I definitely disagree with you. Kabalite warriors should be cheaper than skitarii...because theyre not as good. The only edge kabalites have over skitarii is a better transport. So you nerf the transports instead of nerfing them, just makes sense.
in comparison between skitarii and kabalites, skitarii have:
-3 shots assault 18" S3 autowounds on a 6 to hit or 2 shots 30" S4 AP-1 instead of poison 4+ RF 1 24" range
-doctrina imperatives (kabalites get PFP but only really benefit from the 6++...which skitarii also get by default)
-pregame move on rangers and -1S -1T in engagement range on vanguard
-better, and more, special weapons
-better, and cheaper, or just way way way better in the case of the Manipulus, supporting HQs -a stratagem for each unit that's still borderline OP even post-nerf
and in exchange, kabalites get..a melee attack and a point of WS. Cool, this light shooting infantry unit with strength 3 Ap- gets 1 extra attack and WS3+...plus rerolling charges.
Skitarii are an amazing, possibly the ONLY functional light infantry unit in the game that can deploy on foot and actually try to compete in combat against elite infantry. Kabs you'd never take outside a transport, and their transport just got a 20% nerf.
I just looked again -- there was an increase in Trueborn upgrade. Now it makes more sense.
I just now think Drukhari will still be top dogs due to price cuts on less taken units (that were already good). The fact that very few were taking Ravagers at 140 points competitively, when almost every other army in the game would kill for that unit, and they are now only 130 points is pretty crazy to me. The nerfs to AdMech were way tougher with much less balancing done to the stuff that wasn't good. There's just so many weird rules and interactions with AdMech though that they could prove me wrong.
In the end it doesn't bother me all that much as I'm not a tourney player anyway, and it's not like the actual nerfs themselves weren't reasonable, I just wasn't expecting any cuts at all to Drukhari units (except maybe the haemunculus).
gungo wrote: Well BattleScribe is reportedly in life support and isn’t going to get anymore major updates to the system… so you better get use to that GW app :p
What are you talking about?
Presumably the developer hasn't worked on it in 18 or so months. The people who work on data are still active.
gungo wrote: Well BattleScribe is reportedly in life support and isn’t going to get anymore major updates to the system… so you better get use to that GW app :p
gungo wrote: Well BattleScribe is reportedly in life support and isn’t going to get anymore major updates to the system… so you better get use to that GW app :p
The main dev is MIA and hasn’t made any major system changes in over a year…
It is indeed a bad situation. The people who run the subreddit and/or write the data are now actively telling users to NOT give money unless they absolutely need or want the benefits you get for sponsoring it. It kind of speaks volumes when the hard working data curators are literally telling users to not give money, as 18 months of MiA is quite serious from a developer standpoint.
From what I can gather, a crew of them are creating another 'BattleScribe' (with a different name/UI etc.) that when released, they will stop doing data updates for the original battlescribe.
I'm of the opinion that flyers, as in full-on airplane style, just won't work. There is no way to have that be functional within the game's mechanics. IMO treat them all as if they are flying like helicopters. Even if they canonically can go faster it is assumed they have adopted a hover mode to take part in the context of the battle. Actual aircraft flying could be represented by stratagems to do bombing runs & the like, but only if they are in reserve.
Also let units move under them, because duh.
Fliers absolutely can work but need to be heavily abstracted.
Back in 3rd with the vehicle design rules, you could make fliers however they entered the table from your board edge every turn to make a strafing run and then immediately left. How they worked it was that the units on the ground could trade their next turns shooting attack to intercept the incoming aircraft.
I actually think this could still work as an option.
Another would be to have fliers make attack runs along the table edge. Pick an edge in your deployment zone and fly it down in one direction to represent it's direction from high above, and how far down field it is. Again, you would abstract its attacks and just let it attack indirectly in the direction of it's vector, so draw a line across the table from where the plane is on the edge and it can attack anywhere within (x) inches measured either way from that line.
You could also only allow weapon with a minimum (x) range to shoot them but you don't measure to the model since it;s supposed to be so high.
Whats silly is having super sonic fliers circle the airspace over a football pitch all game.
Certain fliers also could also have the option to enter the airspace in hover mode and just be treated like a skimmer until they leave airspace as a flier again in another turn.
In the end, this all adds a bit of complexity to the game though, which I think GW is pretty clearly adverse to. Heck, it's the reason tank no longer have facings or firing archs and also can be blocked by a few well spaced grots. Which is also very stupid.
Personally I am all for adding back additional layered rules for vehicles and fliers. Those enrich the game much more adding endless stratagems, warzone armies of renown and supplements IMHO.
Doing it that way makes it too attractive to not use a miniature for the aircraft and just have a marker instead, GW wouldn't go for it. So while I agree it is an option in a vacuum, it isn't really a realistic path they would ever take.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Doing it that way makes it too attractive to not use a miniature for the aircraft and just have a marker instead, GW wouldn't go for it. So while I agree it is an option in a vacuum, it isn't really a realistic path they would ever take.
People who like the miniatures wouldn't go for it. It also kills the idea of transport fliers and the heldrake.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Doing it that way makes it too attractive to not use a miniature for the aircraft and just have a marker instead, GW wouldn't go for it. So while I agree it is an option in a vacuum, it isn't really a realistic path they would ever take.
People who like the miniatures wouldn't go for it. It also kills the idea of transport fliers and the heldrake.
Neither of those things are true.
Nothing stops you from using a pop can now as your drop pod, and I made a point about choosing a vector to enter as a skimmer.
On wh40k’s Facebook someone complained about how tyranids are still unplayable and their response was “buy the tyranid supplement.” They actually believe these supplements are valid get-you-by patches and substitutes for functioning codices. These things are terrible for the state of the game but they think they are a fix...
macluvin wrote: On wh40k’s Facebook someone complained about how tyranids are still unplayable and their response was “buy the tyranid supplement.” They actually believe these supplements are valid get-you-by patches and substitutes for functioning codices. These things are terrible for the state of the game but they think they are a fix...
Supplements are terrible and they shouldn't be charging for it, but yes those rules are a stop gap codex update. Who knows what the Chapter Approved will do for nids though and whether or not it considers that supplement.
Quarterly updates are great, but there's still a big mess to dig out of.
One of the times I played most was during 5th-6th edition, where they came out with:
-Valkyrie: nice, very cool, but fething gigantic. Putting two on the battlefield near each other? Good luck. Transporting 9 of them? Hah.
-Ugly as feth space marine flyers: does anyone actually like these?
-token flyers for every faction: hit or miss
Playing in 8th and 9th and seeing 3-6 flyers on the other side of the board is like.... why am I even playing this game? The opponent can at a whim basically block movement to 80% of my army by creating a traffic jam. It's hard to hit the flyers and if they're eldar I hope you like stacking -1 to hit debuffs (thankfully gone now, rest in poo stacking -1 to hit modifiers)
NinthMusketeer wrote: Doing it that way makes it too attractive to not use a miniature for the aircraft and just have a marker instead, GW wouldn't go for it. So while I agree it is an option in a vacuum, it isn't really a realistic path they would ever take.
People who like the miniatures wouldn't go for it. It also kills the idea of transport fliers and the heldrake.
Neither of those things are true.
Nothing stops you from using a pop can now as your drop pod, and I made a point about choosing a vector to enter as a skimmer.
May have misunderstood; it isn't that the models have no place with such rules, rather that using tokens becomes a much more attractive option. There is a big difference between something that never needs to come onto the board and something that must be on the board, interacting with other models. Using a proxy does not carry the same break of immersion.
I love my stormtalon and use it all the time, it looks good for what it is, a predator that flies.
In game I use it like an Apache.
One thing about aircraft is that they always hit on their BS irrespective of if they are super/sub sonic.
Like if you're flying supersonic and you are shooting something stationary on the ground it should be harder to hit than if you're hovering unless you have a specific ground attack rule. Same thing goes for shooting something supersonic with a bolter/shoota, etc it should be harder to hit them unless you have AAA.
H.B.M.C. wrote: They gave Flayed Ones the 'Core' keyword. I mean... *SMH*
And did they increase the cost of AdMech chicken walkers again?
No need to crab bucket here. Flayed Ones were really, really bad and completely without a purpose without CORE. It's not like this is the first instance of CORE going out the window from a fluff perspective; it's been a rules-based mechanism for several codices now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nurglitch wrote: Tyranids are playable, they're just boring and one-dimensional, and you have to be a masochist to enjoy it.
Yep, and if Hive Guard are as OP as people claim (I dunno... 1 unit will punch way, way above what it should, I think 2/3 is just going to be diminishing returns and not worth the points), then Nids will probably get bonked by the nerfhammer. And maybe we'll deserve it but there are just so few parts of that book that are usable now, it's like the halcyon days of 7e and the Hive Fleet Detachment.
Nurglitch wrote: Tyranids are playable, they're just boring and one-dimensional, and you have to be a masochist to enjoy it.
My personal favorite part of that codex is where the apex predator, the Carnifex only hits in melee on a 4+ and it's usually a 5+ due to all of the silly +1/-1 running around in the game. I've had so many gunline players tell me this is fair because 'If a carnifex that hit on a 2 or 3 made it to combat, it would wreck their gunline." Well, if you make it to combat, you should wreck the gunline. That's the whole point!
H.B.M.C. wrote: They gave Flayed Ones the 'Core' keyword. I mean... *SMH*
And did they increase the cost of AdMech chicken walkers again?
No need to crab bucket here. Flayed Ones were really, really bad and completely without a purpose without CORE. It's not like this is the first instance of CORE going out the window from a fluff perspective; it's been a rules-based mechanism for several codices now.
Agreed. Revered Space Marine heroes who are interred in dreadnoughts are CORE, but the Joe Shmoe Battle Bro driving an Invictor isn't. CORE hasn't really been about fluff since day one.
Togusa wrote: My personal favorite part of that codex is where the apex predator, the Carnifex only hits in melee on a 4+ and it's usually a 5+ due to all of the silly +1/-1 running around in the game. I've had so many gunline players tell me this is fair because 'If a carnifex that hit on a 2 or 3 made it to combat, it would wreck their gunline." Well, if you make it to combat, you should wreck the gunline. That's the whole point!
H.B.M.C. wrote: They gave Flayed Ones the 'Core' keyword. I mean... *SMH*
And did they increase the cost of AdMech chicken walkers again?
No need to crab bucket here. Flayed Ones were really, really bad and completely without a purpose without CORE. It's not like this is the first instance of CORE going out the window from a fluff perspective; it's been a rules-based mechanism for several codices now.
Agreed. Revered Space Marine heroes who are interred in dreadnoughts are CORE, but the Joe Shmoe Battle Bro driving an Invictor isn't. CORE hasn't really been about fluff since day one.
Agree. CORE and the giving of the -1 to damage to Dreadnaughts made them so much better than vehicles (general) that only the best vehicles like PBC are ever used. Most of the time, people just use Dreadnaughts nowadays.
To be fair Dreadnaughts are a very iconic look for Space Marines. If I had to choose one or the other I'd rather see more walking murder coffins than super soldiers driving tanks personally.
I can get dreads being core because they are, in essence, a dude in armor. The armor is a walking tank, but that is their body now. That's different from a dude driving a vehicle that is a separate entity from himself.
Nurglitch wrote: Tyranids are playable, they're just boring and one-dimensional, and you have to be a masochist to enjoy it.
My personal favorite part of that codex is where the apex predator, the Carnifex only hits in melee on a 4+ and it's usually a 5+ due to all of the silly +1/-1 running around in the game. I've had so many gunline players tell me this is fair because 'If a carnifex that hit on a 2 or 3 made it to combat, it would wreck their gunline." Well, if you make it to combat, you should wreck the gunline. That's the whole point!
I've mentioned this in other threads in the past (I played against Nids a lot in 2nd edition), but Carnifex's should be terrifying. They would probably need a point increase once they get everything they should get, but they should not be easily taken down, at all. They should need dedicated anti-tank and more than one of them. However, shrug damage, very hard to kill and an absolute blender once they get into combat. I wouldn't be opposed to them getting a max wound cap per phase to be honest. Points increase, possible limitations on the amount you can take but absolute scary as feth and hard to kill.
Nurglitch wrote: Tyranids are playable, they're just boring and one-dimensional, and you have to be a masochist to enjoy it.
My personal favorite part of that codex is where the apex predator, the Carnifex only hits in melee on a 4+ and it's usually a 5+ due to all of the silly +1/-1 running around in the game. I've had so many gunline players tell me this is fair because 'If a carnifex that hit on a 2 or 3 made it to combat, it would wreck their gunline." Well, if you make it to combat, you should wreck the gunline. That's the whole point!
I've mentioned this in other threads in the past (I played against Nids a lot in 2nd edition), but Carnifex's should be terrifying. They would probably need a point increase once they get everything they should get, but they should not be easily taken down, at all. They should need dedicated anti-tank and more than one of them. However, shrug damage, very hard to kill and an absolute blender once they get into combat. I wouldn't be opposed to them getting a max wound cap per phase to be honest. Points increase, possible limitations on the amount you can take but absolute scary as feth and hard to kill.
Graah no max wound cap. That's just annoying rule. Rather give them silly amount of wounds like 30 if you don't want them to die easily.
Carnifexes have always been something of a joke ever since I've played Tyranids (since 3rd/4th edition). Outside of their point cost, they've never actually been dangerous in melee--unless you give them so many upgrades you're doubling or even tripling their costs. Mediocre toughness, wounds, armor saves, and speed makes them less tough than a naked squad of marines through most editions, unless you piled on so many upgrades that their costs went right out the window.
The only time I remember people actually being inconvenienced by carnifexes was in, I want to say 4th or 5th when they could take dakkafexes as elites in the FoC--because Tyranids had abolutely awful elites in that edition. But that was less about carnifexes being dangerous and more that they were a platform for weapons that were dangerous--they still had all the old vulnerabilities.
One thing I've found kind of baffling is that GW went out of their way to uncap the S and T... and then did absolutely nothing with it.
Why did you uncap it, then, if you're not willing to give (let's say) T14 to the stuff that needs it? If stuff is tough, there's (supposed to be) multiple ways to show it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Altima wrote: Carnifexes have always been something of a joke ever since I've played Tyranids (since 3rd/4th edition). Outside of their point cost, they've never actually been dangerous in melee--unless you give them so many upgrades you're doubling or even tripling their costs. Mediocre toughness, wounds, armor saves, and speed makes them less tough than a naked squad of marines through most editions, unless you piled on so many upgrades that their costs went right out the window.
The only time I remember people actually being inconvenienced by carnifexes was in, I want to say 4th or 5th when they could take dakkafexes as elites in the FoC--because Tyranids had abolutely awful elites in that edition. But that was less about carnifexes being dangerous and more that they were a platform for weapons that were dangerous--they still had all the old vulnerabilities.
Bumping the toughness of vehicles and monsters would help a lot with survivability without having to give everything invulnerable saves or a ton of extra wounds, just by bringing them above various thresholds.
Put the new soft cap on toughness at 12 for knights, land raiders, baneblades, storm surges, gorkanauts, and monoliths. It used to take a 5 to glance AV 14 with a S9 lascannon.
T10 for the slightly less durable but still tough things like leman russes, battle wagons, tyrannofexes, greater daemons, riptides
T9 for mainline vehicles like predators, castigators, dreadnoughts, carnifexes, hammerheads, onagers
T8 for rhinos, chimeras, Falcons, wave serpents, devil fish, ravagers, most fliers.
T7 and T6 for the light but fast stuff like ork buggies, dark eldar transports, sentinel scouts.
Melta used to be better at armor pen at close range, but now just does extra damage. But if toughness boosted, melta could go from +2 damage at short range to +1 to wound instead, making it better vs high toughness while reducing its effectiveness vs multiwound infantry which shouldn't be quite so easy targets for it.
MajorWesJanson wrote: Bumping the toughness of vehicles and monsters would help a lot with survivability without having to give everything invulnerable saves or a ton of extra wounds, just by bringing them above various thresholds.
Spoiler:
Put the new soft cap on toughness at 12 for knights, land raiders, baneblades, storm surges, gorkanauts, and monoliths. It used to take a 5 to glance AV 14 with a S9 lascannon.
T10 for the slightly less durable but still tough things like leman russes, battle wagons, tyrannofexes, greater daemons, riptides
T9 for mainline vehicles like predators, castigators, dreadnoughts, carnifexes, hammerheads, onagers
T8 for rhinos, chimeras, Falcons, wave serpents, devil fish, ravagers, most fliers.
T7 and T6 for the light but fast stuff like ork buggies, dark eldar transports, sentinel scouts.
Melta used to be better at armor pen at close range, but now just does extra damage. But if toughness boosted, melta could go from +2 damage at short range to +1 to wound instead, making it better vs high toughness while reducing its effectiveness vs multiwound infantry which shouldn't be quite so easy targets for it.
While I don't really agree with the unit distribution, I don't think such detail matters for the point you are trying to make.
I think this idea is probably the best one long term, but kind of unrealistic to see implemented. Currently multiple factions have to rely on S8 shooting for anti-tank, so essentially what would be required is a full overhaul of toughness and weapon strength. Considering the whole CSM fiasco and that there clearly is no intention to do rules index style, stat updates of that magnitude would probably leave use with a ruined game for years where some codices simply wouldn't be allowed to play until they get their book.
not to worry only ~18 months until 10th edition, a slightly new codex philosophy and most importantly a new marine codex. Us CSM players wont be happy for long
The Red Hobbit wrote: To be fair Dreadnaughts are a very iconic look for Space Marines. If I had to choose one or the other I'd rather see more walking murder coffins than super soldiers driving tanks personally.
This times a thousand. Doesn't really excuse the incredibly poor balance state of SM tanks, but yeah. If I had to choose, I'd choose Dreadnoughts 110% of the time.
And I think we should not mistake dreadnoughts being the only viable tank-like vehicle for SM with dreadnoughts being overpowered -- they're very clearly not overpowered. They're just the only thing with a stat line like that that actually works.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Doing it that way makes it too attractive to not use a miniature for the aircraft and just have a marker instead, GW wouldn't go for it. So while I agree it is an option in a vacuum, it isn't really a realistic path they would ever take.
People who like the miniatures wouldn't go for it. It also kills the idea of transport fliers and the heldrake.
Neither of those things are true.
Nothing stops you from using a pop can now as your drop pod, and I made a point about choosing a vector to enter as a skimmer.
May have misunderstood; it isn't that the models have no place with such rules, rather that using tokens becomes a much more attractive option. There is a big difference between something that never needs to come onto the board and something that must be on the board, interacting with other models. Using a proxy does not carry the same break of immersion.
Yea it was a misunderstanding. I totally agree with that statement but ironically its the models interaction that is wrecking the game. Fliers need to be abstracted at the 40k scale based on how they designed the models and bases etc.
I also agree with the sentiment that GW would never go that route.
So I was thinking of getting a Heavy Primaris unit and then I tried reading their rules and got a headache and decided it wasn't worth it.
For a bit I thought GW was following the business model of Lockheed Martin and the F-35, sell a broken product and double your sales by selling fixes.
But since they gave these rules away I guess that's not it.
It's just the tension that's been there since Rogue Trader between this being an RPG where Sgt Sven's choice of rifle is Very Important, vs. a wargame where Sgt Sven is just one among hundreds and no one cares if he has a Heavy Bolter, a Heavy Bolt Rifle, a Very Heavy Bolter, a Somewhat Heavy Bolter or a Medium Rare Bolt Carbine with Fries.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: ...a Somewhat Heavy Bolter or a Medium Rare Bolt Carbine with Fries.
Nice one!
I really preferred having a simple "Bolter" profile representing all kinds of bolters with fancy bolters reserved for your HQ or Deathwatch. The endless varieties of bolters isn't something I've been too keen on.
Just needs to be one dataslate with two weapons; Gravis Devastators, equip unit with heavy bolters or multi meltas. Yeah the weapons look different; Cawl did some redesigns to better sync with the new armour, but the output is is broadly the same. Save the bespoke stats for kill team.
Making a Carnifex harder to kill and more killy isn't going to change that fielding one is going to be boring. Either it's going to charge at the enemy shooting or charge at the enemy and try to kill it, and that it does both badly isn't a huge issue. I mean, it sucks that you can't do much with Tyranids you can't do better with another army, but what really sucks is you can't do anything you can do with another army.
One of the cool things about the Tyranids back in 2nd edition was that the Tyranids were the bizzaro outliers, having their own missions (like the Tyranid Attack recycling dead units back onto the board) and disrupting opponent armies.
Allowing synapse to chain auras and whatnot together is kind of cool, but seeing stuff like Tyranids being able to recycle dead units back onto the board would go a long way to (a) making them play differently to other armies, and (b) make up for balancing them and making them less comparatively expensive to collect. Plus, it's their main theme.
The inane amount of different bolter profiles is stupid, certainly. But honestly, it's the same with almost anything, it's just that the bolters, being the weapons of the SMs are affected by them having a thousand different units, but it would be exactly the same if eldars had had many with shuriken weapons, I suspect, or anyone else.
Seriously GW, we don't need a thousand weapon profiles, FFS.
For all that's holy, melon-fething BATTLETECH has thousands, literal thousands of mechs, and still there are less weapon profiles (even though they have added a whole lot as of lately).
The other problem with having tons of different weapon variations (bolters, shurikens, or otherwise) is that it tends to devalue the older profiles as new weapons are released. Case in point the iconic standard bolter has become rather bland and underwhelming compared to every new bolter that's been released.
Who knew power creep could be such a sales driver!
Nurglitch wrote: Making a Carnifex harder to kill and more killy isn't going to change that fielding one is going to be boring.
The Carnifex being worth taking sure sounds less boring to me.
Nurglitch wrote: Either it's going to charge at the enemy shooting or charge at the enemy and try to kill it...
Is... is that an actual argument? Everything does either of those. Or both.
Nurglitch wrote: ... and that it does both badly isn't a huge issue.
No. It is a big issue. It's unit that doesn't perform very well, isn't very durable, and sucks at what it's meant to do. It's also an iconic Tyranid unit. It being bad at everything is a big issue.
You know, I think I feel a 40K thread coming on….one where The Sad Old Git Society can tell the whippersnappers what used to be scary, and how certain units have kind of lost their teeth.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: You know, I think I feel a 40K thread coming on….one where The Sad Old Git Society can tell the whippersnappers what used to be scary, and how certain units have kind of lost their teeth.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: You know, I think I feel a 40K thread coming on….one where The Sad Old Git Society can tell the whippersnappers what used to be scary, and how certain units have kind of lost their teeth.
Not just units... Weapons, 2nd edition assault cannons? OHHHH LORDY!
Models for them don't really exist any more, but the humble Ork snotling had the potential to be the scariest thing on a battlefield.... When pair with a Shokk Attack Gun
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Given my well documented “people probably don’t believe I don’t play CWE” thoughts on Aspect Warriors, I suspect you’re telling a naughty fib there!
It's more that everyone else got uplifts whilst they remained broadly static, with only Reapers and Spears seeing much play (and that was largely down to Ynnari), Warp Spiders kept flip flopping for the last few editions in the usual kneejerk over fix dogma
Nurglitch wrote: Making a Carnifex harder to kill and more killy isn't going to change that fielding one is going to be boring.
The Carnifex being worth taking sure sounds less boring to me.
Nurglitch wrote: Either it's going to charge at the enemy shooting or charge at the enemy and try to kill it...
Is... is that an actual argument? Everything does either of those. Or both.
Nurglitch wrote: ... and that it does both badly isn't a huge issue.
No. It is a big issue. It's unit that doesn't perform very well, isn't very durable, and sucks at what it's meant to do. It's also an iconic Tyranid unit. It being bad at everything is a big issue.
Yes, it is an actual argument that a Carnifex that only does the generic things allowed by the basic rules is boring. Tyranids, when they finally became a coherent army in 2nd edition (and Epic Space Marine), were notable by really shaking things up with special rules. It's not really an issue that the Carnifex is currently a bad conventional unit, but an issue that it is a conventional unit doing conventional boring things. It should be doing interesting Tyranid things that disrupts a conventional army's game play loop. I like the Without Number rules from 7th precisely because they discouraged picking off units one by one in the traditional Warhammer concentration of fire; you wanted to spread your firepower around to slow and weaken the Tyranids rather than eliminating them and returning them to the board in perfect condition.
If you're hung up on going to go the conventional route, maybe wildly underprice them, so you can get 2-3 for the price of a conventional box on legs? You know, so they match the 'quantity has a quality all its own' of the Tyranid ethos?
Nurglitch wrote: Making a Carnifex harder to kill and more killy isn't going to change that fielding one is going to be boring.
The Carnifex being worth taking sure sounds less boring to me.
Nurglitch wrote: Either it's going to charge at the enemy shooting or charge at the enemy and try to kill it...
Is... is that an actual argument? Everything does either of those. Or both.
Nurglitch wrote: ... and that it does both badly isn't a huge issue.
No. It is a big issue. It's unit that doesn't perform very well, isn't very durable, and sucks at what it's meant to do. It's also an iconic Tyranid unit. It being bad at everything is a big issue.
Yes, it is an actual argument that a Carnifex that only does the generic things allowed by the basic rules is boring. Tyranids, when they finally became a coherent army in 2nd edition (and Epic Space Marine), were notable by really shaking things up with special rules. It's not really an issue that the Carnifex is currently a bad conventional unit, but an issue that it is a conventional unit doing conventional boring things. It should be doing interesting Tyranid things that disrupts a conventional army's game play loop. I like the Without Number rules from 7th precisely because they discouraged picking off units one by one in the traditional Warhammer concentration of fire; you wanted to spread your firepower around to slow and weaken the Tyranids rather than eliminating them and returning them to the board in perfect condition.
If you're hung up on going to go the conventional route, maybe wildly underprice them, so you can get 2-3 for the price of a conventional box on legs? You know, so they match the 'quantity has a quality all its own' of the Tyranid ethos?
When everything is special, nothing is special anymore, which is kind of the situation we're in, currently, with all the bespoke rules for everything.
Make a game that fething works for everything (or as much as popssible at least), first, and then add some special rules to some stuff to sprinkle up. The current paradigm is stupid.
As to the carnifex, just making it so that It. Just. Can't. fething. Die. would make it a lot better, as long as it was able to actually shoot or fight decently enough for what it is.
Nurglitch wrote: Making a Carnifex harder to kill and more killy isn't going to change that fielding one is going to be boring.
The Carnifex being worth taking sure sounds less boring to me.
Nurglitch wrote: Either it's going to charge at the enemy shooting or charge at the enemy and try to kill it...
Is... is that an actual argument? Everything does either of those. Or both.
Nurglitch wrote: ... and that it does both badly isn't a huge issue.
No. It is a big issue. It's unit that doesn't perform very well, isn't very durable, and sucks at what it's meant to do. It's also an iconic Tyranid unit. It being bad at everything is a big issue.
Yes, it is an actual argument that a Carnifex that only does the generic things allowed by the basic rules is boring. Tyranids, when they finally became a coherent army in 2nd edition (and Epic Space Marine), were notable by really shaking things up with special rules. It's not really an issue that the Carnifex is currently a bad conventional unit, but an issue that it is a conventional unit doing conventional boring things. It should be doing interesting Tyranid things that disrupts a conventional army's game play loop. I like the Without Number rules from 7th precisely because they discouraged picking off units one by one in the traditional Warhammer concentration of fire; you wanted to spread your firepower around to slow and weaken the Tyranids rather than eliminating them and returning them to the board in perfect condition.
If you're hung up on going to go the conventional route, maybe wildly underprice them, so you can get 2-3 for the price of a conventional box on legs? You know, so they match the 'quantity has a quality all its own' of the Tyranid ethos?
When everything is special, nothing is special anymore, which is kind of the situation we're in, currently, with all the bespoke rules for everything.
Make a game that fething works for everything (or as much as popssible at least), first, and then add some special rules to some stuff to sprinkle up. The current paradigm is stupid.
As to the carnifex, just making it so that It. Just. Can't. fething. Die. would make it a lot better, as long as it was able to actually shoot or fight decently enough for what it is.
Yes, well, it's hard to revert to a structure in which each army has its own take on a set of core rules when the train left that building years ago. Having everything being special in its own way is tricky when there's so many factions and differences to represent, let alone sub-factions, etc. Giving the Carnifex a rule like Guilliman or Saint Celestine seems like the easiest way to do it, and plays into the notion of Old One Eye as an uber-fex (getting a better regenerate roll or something). It might work out if, every turn, you need to spend time putting down the Carnifexes before blowing the rest of the army off the table.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I think people don’t appreciate just how bloody terrifying Carnifexes were in the past.
Particularly in 2nd Ed, they were absolute sods to deal with.
Carnifexes are kind of the ultimate example to me of the limitations of stat based rules. They are either too efficient and terrifying or just another stat block to replace with whatever is numerically more efficient. They need to do something cool and iconic to do, not just be a generic beater.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I think people don’t appreciate just how bloody terrifying Carnifexes were in the past.
Particularly in 2nd Ed, they were absolute sods to deal with.
This, a thousand times this.
I remember those days, using bio-morphs to increase the Toughness to 9. Lascanons needing a 4+ to wound was hilarious, well for me as a Tyranids player, not so much for the opponent I imagine.
Their Crush Attack was also fantastic, one big giant hug... of death!
People can't compare current carnifexes with 2nd edition carnifexes. Back then they were the centrepiece models of the army, with the current standards they're just a regular unit. Hence they can't really be terrifying on their own like they used to be.
Unfortunately the scale of the game changed drastically. A carnifex should definitely be improved because the current one sucks, but it's more like a tyranid regular dread now, nothing more.
Blackie wrote: People can't compare current carnifexes with 2nd edition carnifexes. Back then they were the centrepiece models of the army, with the current standards they're just a regular unit. Hence they can't really be terrifying on their own like they used to be.
Unfortunately the scale of the game changed drastically. A carnifex should definitely be improved because the current one sucks, but it's more like a tyranid regular dread now, nothing more.
Well, that is sort of true... but somehow, a tank is still a tank.
Blackie wrote: People can't compare current carnifexes with 2nd edition carnifexes. Back then they were the centrepiece models of the army, with the current standards they're just a regular unit. Hence they can't really be terrifying on their own like they used to be.
Blackie wrote: People can't compare current carnifexes with 2nd edition carnifexes. Back then they were the centrepiece models of the army, with the current standards they're just a regular unit. Hence they can't really be terrifying on their own like they used to be.
Boy that sure sounds like moving the goalposts...
Why? I said they should be buffed. And I'd love them to be buffed, they're great models.
But I don't agree with the comparison with 2nd carnifexes, when they were a massive threat on their own. Several units of the same scale were extremely good back then, and now just supportive units. I don't understand why carnifexes should be any different now. They are the same scale of a regular dreadnought or even an ork buggy, they can even be squadroned as well. They really are nothing more.
Also, how many points should a carnifex cost? They're 100ish points models, that can also be squadroned, and should act like 100ish points models.
Blackie wrote: But I don't agree with the comparison with 2nd carnifexes, when they were a massive threat on their own. Several units of the same scale were extremely good back then, and now just supportive units. I don't understand why carnifexes should be any different now. They are the same scale of a regular dreadnought or even an ork buggy, they can even be squadroned as well. They really are nothing more.
They never were "on the same scale" with dreadnoughts and even less so with buggies. They were the Tyranid tank-equivalent.
And tanks can also be squadroned, so...
But going with the dreadnought equivalent, how are currently carnifexes when compared with astartes dreadnoughts, especially the primaris ones?
Thing is, their background hasn’t changed. They’re still described as living wrecking balls, and near unstoppable without dedicated anti-tank firepower.
That they’re less survivable than a Rhino APC is just daft. Like, completely daft.
These are living engines of destruction, described as being able to charge through the walls of bunkers, and flip tanks by ramming them.
Whilst it’s not necessarily realistic to bring them back to 2nd Ed stats, if I set them out it might help.
First, they were strong. It’s been years since I read the Codex, but I think they may have been strength 10?
Toughness 8 with a lot of wounds, and crucially a 3+ save on 2D6.
Many small arms couldn’t even wound them, and when they could, the armour save basically negated most of it. If you got locked in combat with one, you’d seriously struggle. Enemy Dreadnoughts in particular had a rough time, as the Carnifex would just rip bits and bobs off them.
For reference, let's all remember that you could blow a Rhino up with a single lucky bolter shot, whereas the carnie was basically immune to small arms fire.
I’m broadly ok with them not having a whole lot of attacks. But a brood should be something you can stick down one flank and be a serious cause for concern for your opponent. Not necessarily unstoppable, but something they can’t ignore or just deal with in a half arsed way.
As ever I’m super ignorant of the current rules, but I reckon some kind charge related Mortal Wounds feels in order. Give them a literal impact.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I’m broadly ok with them not having a whole lot of attacks. But a brood should be something you can stick down one flank and be a serious cause for concern for your opponent. Not necessarily unstoppable, but something they can’t ignore or just deal with in a half arsed way.
As ever I’m super ignorant of the current rules, but I reckon some kind charge related Mortal Wounds feels in order. Give them a literal impact.
They already do: after finishing a charge, on 4+, one enemy unit within 1" suffers a mortal wound. Feels like that can be increased a bit...
Also, what about moving them to Elite? Right now, they're competing with so many other units for Heavy slots. Make them Elite and watch them flood the field, while the enemy has to really decide what to shoot at.
Albertorius wrote: But going with the dreadnought equivalent, how are currently carnifexes when compared with astartes dreadnoughts, especially the primaris ones?
IMO the redemptor dreadnought (that's the primaris one) is about as durable as a carnifex should be. However, I wonder if nid playes would be happy with ~175 point carnifexes.
I'd certainly prefer a 175ppm good unit instead of a 100ppm worthless one.
I don't belong to the same crowd of people that desire to spam and max out their favorite unit though. One carnifex or two should be ok as a legit option, not necessarily 3-6 of them.
I'm not a nid player, but many of my regular opponents used to be. Nowadays, a warboss tears one apart with next to no effort. It just feels wrong. I still remember the times where I threw a warboss and two units of orks at a carnifex and it took out almost all of them before going down. That's how they should feel in my opinion.
However, I can see people who own 9 carnifexes being unhappy when they are suddenly told to shelf more than half of them.
Jidmah wrote: I'm not a nid player, but many of my regular opponents used to be. Nowadays, a warboss tears one apart with next to no effort. It just feels wrong. I still remember the times where I threw a warboss and two units of orks at a carnifex and it took out almost all of them before going down. That's how they should feel in my opinion.
However, I can see people who own 9 carnifexes being unhappy when they are suddenly told to shelf more than half of them.
Of course, but you can't have a unit that takes down a warboss and two units of boyz for just 100 points, that'd be OP. During those times tyrands players fielded one of two carnifexes, three at most.
If you want to bring 9, and defend GW's choice to let players bring 9 at standard sized games for less than half budget, you have to accept that they are just "regular" dudes then.
Pretty sure Jid already covered the points side of thing. And obviously it wouldn't be 9 per army if they were suddenly very, very good units. Why is that even a question?
And back when 'Fexes were good (as they'd just got a new model and Nidzilla was the order of the day), most people brought the max amount, which was 6. That's probably more reasonable than 9.
9 or 6 doesn't really matter. GW nerfed lists that brought more than 3 scrapjets and/more than 3 squigbuggies.
Jidmah made a very good point when it compared it to the primaris dread. Carnifexes in order to be good to the level people want them to be good they need a massive points hike.
You get a regular unit for reasonably cheap or a very good one for an expensive price, like 175-200 points. Either one of those options, not a super scary heavy hitter for 100 points.
At the moment they're bland and cheap, there are two options to buff them. They can be a bit less bland for the same points but still quite bland overall, or they can be really threatening but for a much higher price. Or something in the middle, maybe with a cap on the max models people can take. Even before the patch other units have been capped with 9th codexes, mek gunz for example have been halved from 18 to 9 max. Captains and their equivalents have been limited to max 1 per detachment, etc...
Dysartes wrote: They're at least better than Rhinos in close combat, aren't they?
...aren't they?
The Carnifex is a better fighter than a Rhino - things would be truly terrible if they weren't - but it comes down to the durability.
T7 W10 Sv3+ vs T7 W8 Sv3+.
Blackie wrote: At the moment they're bland and cheap, there are two options to buff them.
At the moment they're not even worth their low points cost. That's the problem. This isn't some cheap unit that's kinda ok at what it does. It's a unit that's terrible. We want it to be better.
Generally when it comes to changing something you either:
1. Make it worth its cost. 2. Make it cost its worth.
Right now I'd prefer to make Carnifexes worth their cost, and then go a bit beyond that (with the requisite points increase to match). I also acknowledge that they're not the biggest things on the block when it comes to the 'Nids these days, so they shouldn't have stat lines that match the biggest creatures and tanks. What so many 'Nid players want is something that plays a bigger role in the army than just being a distraction. The idea that they'd suddenly be 200 point monstrosities that GW would limit is silly.
It just sounds like you trying to find excuses to not change things, which is an odd phenomena at this board whenever someone suggests a change: people crop up with silly reasons why it shouldn't be done, or can't be tried.
Well, I've said that I want carnifexes to be buffed. Twice already. Now it's three times .
I just think that making them as terrifying as they used to be in 2nd doesn't reflect the status of a 100ish points unit in 9th. That's it. You might want a 100-120ish points unit that is worthy of that cost, I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask for a much more expensive unit if someone misses the 2nd version of the carnifex, remembering the impact it had on the game. Personally I'd prefer going with something close to the latter, a much better unit than what it is now but also considerably more expensive.
The idea of limiting units that can be spammed but arguably shouldn't be spammed (and that's entirely on GW wether they are intended to be spammed or not, see planes) is not mine, it's something we've already witnessed. It might be silly for someone, to me it's silly to defend spam. Do you like tyranid monsters? Their codex has plenty of options to go with a lot of big dudes, there's no need to bring 6+ carnifexes for a proper nidzilla list. It's the same reason why I praised GW patch about speedwaaagh lists: do you want to go full vehicles? Ork codex has a vast array of those, there aren't just dakkajets, scrapjets and squigbuggies to choose from.
I 100% want changes, and for tyranids in general not just about carnifexes, but good ones. I definitely wouldn't want an OP 100ppm model that can be spammed in 6-9 as an autotake.
Jidmah wrote: IMO the redemptor dreadnought (that's the primaris one) is about as durable as a carnifex should be. However, I wonder if nid playes would be happy with ~175 point carnifexes.
Blackie wrote: I'd certainly prefer a 175ppm good unit instead of a 100ppm worthless one.
Jidmah wrote: However, I can see people who own 9 carnifexes being unhappy when they are suddenly told to shelf more than half of them.
Your friendly neighbourhood Games Workshop Man here! I've heard your pleas. The 9th edition codex will feature:
Five new kinds of Carnifex.
All under 100ppm.
Can be taken in squads of 3.
T6 8 wounds -1 damage against S1~7 attacks.
We may give them a supplement that gives them a 5++, we'll see, we might be at the planned power creep level of needing 4++s by then.
The first shooty kind of Carnifex will have 3d6 S5 AP2 D2 out of line of sight shots.
The second shooty kind of Carnifex will have 3d3 S8 AP2 D3 shots.
They both still get 4 S7/8 AP2 D2/Dd3 attacks so they can slap back a little.
Spoiler:
Caution: We may wait a couple of months for you to buy nine of each then bring in a rule of 1 for each Carnifex data sheet. Increase the points instead? No no no, that makes no sense to me.
Nice one!
- but it comes down to the durability.