"Change the Death to the False Emperor ability to read:
‘Each time a model with this ability makes a melee
attack, a hit roll of 6+ scores one additional hit’."
Finally! This dumb narrative restriction is gone. This feels like it's a legitimately huge buff for CSMs. Not like, fixing the codex, but a legitimately great one.
Very happy for Necrons players. I still think they have a good Codex which was castrated by a poor implementation of the <CORE> keyword (I still think this keyword is a joke).
Also happy for IG players. Leman Russ needed this 2+ save desperately. Now if only GW could revisit most of the other tanks / monsters ...
The CSM change is a complete joke, but we are used to.
The rest is pretty good. Curious how the changes to aircrafts/buggies/points will shake the meta (or not).
secretForge wrote: First amusing thing I've noticed. at 2k Tau cant actually field their fliers as each selection is actually 3 aircraft models.
I don't understand what you mean. AX3 Razorshark Strike Fighters are single models. I don't think the two drones of the AX39 Sun Shark Bomber count as independent flyers here. Or what are you refering to?
I had started a thread too, but this was up by the time I finished, so I snipped mine out.
These balance dataslates are a new quarterly feature! I don't have the same engagement with competitive meta that most Dakkanaughts have, nor do I prize balance as highly as many of you do, however, from my limited perspective, this seems like an extraordinary addition to the tool box, since it isn't typically going to be points adjustments, but rules updates (Note: This first installment DOES include points updates, but the article makes it clear that going forward, that will be an exception, not the rule).
Guard stuff seems interesting, CSM stuff doesn't fix any of the issues I've been experiencing with CSM. Extra CC attacks don't help when you aren't durable enough nor have good delivery methods to get there.
I think the minor changes to the CSM is likely a reflection of their due early next year codex, so they don't feel the need to do more now. Yes, I know, give them 2 wounds already, I fully agree its been too flipping long a gap, but that's why I think they haven't.
secretForge wrote: First amusing thing I've noticed. at 2k Tau cant actually field their fliers as each selection is actually 3 aircraft models.
I don't understand what you mean. AX3 Razorshark Strike Fighters are single models. I don't think the two drones of the AX39 Sun Shark Bomber count as independent flyers here. Or what are you refering to?
My bad thought they all had drones. The Faq just says models, so until its fixed Raw, you cant use the Bomber in a 2k game (Of course this is unintentional, and no one in their right mind would attempt to apply it this way in the real world)
PenitentJake wrote: I had started a thread too, but this was up by the time I finished, so I snipped mine out.
Sorry, I wanted to get the word out ASAP I think it is good that they finally came to the conclusion that actual rules changes are needed on top of points updates. I would like to have it more often than every 3 months if the need arises, but it is a good start.
PenitentJake wrote: I had started a thread too, but this was up by the time I finished, so I snipped mine out.
Sorry, I wanted to get the word out ASAP I think it is good that they finally came to the conclusion that actual rules changes are needed on top of points updates. I would like to have it more often than every 3 months if the need arises, but it is a good start.
3 months is the sweet spot. Faster than that and it becomes even harder to stay on top of things.
Be interesting to see what this does to DE. I was going to say RIP* - but I think the fact there are points drop to Talos (which went through a period of being the DE unit you don't take - but have been making a reappearance recently) might swing it back the other way.
*And if you were running a lot of wyches+incubi in raiders, I think it might still be.
Daedalus81 wrote: 3 months is the sweet spot. Faster than that and it becomes even harder to stay on top of things.
What I mean is: The quarterly patch drops today and tomorrow Dhrukari and their supplement are released. I think people would appreciate a response after the first two weekends of sweeping GT victories instead of waiting 3 months.
I'm not sure about these particular changes, but I am gratified to see GW finally bite the bullet and admit that only changing datasheets every 3+ years was a disaster and that the game badly needs quarterly balance patches at the very least. This feels like the first positive step in 40k since February, assuming they take it seriously going forward and it's not just a short-term PR gimmick.
Now if only they'd follow that to its logical conclusion and just do away with the absurd paper-based rules system in the first place...
Once again CSM get screwed over. Easily the least improved out of the buffs. The contempt for that faction is very clear at this point. Most of the other seemed good though.
Tyel wrote: Be interesting to see what this does to DE. I was going to say RIP* - but I think the fact there are points drop to Talos (which went through a period of being the DE unit you don't take - but have been making a reappearance recently) might swing it back the other way.
*And if you were running a lot of wyches+incubi in raiders, I think it might still be.
Also no changes to hellions or venoms. Wych change is a huge deal if you were running wyches in raiders, but only 10pts to the squad if youre running 5 in a venom to get some No Escape and quick objective clearing.
I think drukhari will still be pulling over 50%. probably not a ton, but we'll be fine. People will pull out the units that were previously the B-team - Taloi, Ravagers, Voidravens, etc.
Daedalus81 wrote: 3 months is the sweet spot. Faster than that and it becomes even harder to stay on top of things.
What I mean is: The quarterly patch drops today and tomorrow Dhrukari and their supplement are released. I think people would appreciate a response after the first two weekends of sweeping GT victories instead of waiting 3 months.
At most you wait 3 months for something to be reigned in.
And the best news is that it will be a digital update, since there is no chance for them to print, ship and sell books to provide quarterly updates. It means that they are not going to fix the problems of six months and further in the past, since they needed the time to physically produce the books.
Hopefully it means that they are able to stay on top of things and update the game in a timely manner.
Daedalus81 wrote: 3 months is the sweet spot. Faster than that and it becomes even harder to stay on top of things.
What I mean is: The quarterly patch drops today and tomorrow Dhrukari and their supplement are released. I think people would appreciate a response after the first two weekends of sweeping GT victories instead of waiting 3 months.
Oh, right. Well, they did DE a month after. I don't know if this will prevent emergency patches in the future, but I doubt it. Hopefully they can just write the books a little better.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
evil_kiwi_60 wrote: Once again CSM get screwed over. Easily the least improved out of the buffs. The contempt for that faction is very clear at this point. Most of the other seemed good though.
CSM still have a lot of jank and do "ok" especially compared to the lower tier armies right now. T'au got nothing here as well, but they're due out pretty soon.
evil_kiwi_60 wrote: Once again CSM get screwed over. Easily the least improved out of the buffs. The contempt for that faction is very clear at this point. Most of the other seemed good though.
CSM still have a lot of jank and do "ok" especially compared to the lower tier armies right now. T'au got nothing here as well, but they're due out pretty soon.
I think the reaction to the new DTTFE is kinda funny. Some CSM players think it's "meh" others are loving it. I think it comes down to which Legion you play. Black Legion, Iron Warriors, and Alpha Legion? Emperor's Children, World Eaters, and Night Lords? Word Bearers....I guess it depends on how many Possessed you have.
evil_kiwi_60 wrote: Once again CSM get screwed over. Easily the least improved out of the buffs. The contempt for that faction is very clear at this point. Most of the other seemed good though.
CSM still have a lot of jank and do "ok" especially compared to the lower tier armies right now. T'au got nothing here as well, but they're due out pretty soon.
I think the reaction to the new DTTFE is kinda funny. Some CSM players think it's "meh" others are loving it. I think it comes down to which Legion you play. Black Legion, Iron Warriors, and Alpha Legion? Emperor's Children, World Eaters, and Night Lords? Word Bearers....I guess it depends on how many Possessed you have.
Do Black Legion not love this? Abaddon means 33% of our attacks are actually 2 hits. That's pretty good! Discolord in Abaddon's aura is getting 2 hits for each 4+ so that's great.
Also glad to see GW trying to reach an industry standard for their game upkeep. How this shakes out we'll see though. After the first few times they did their Big FAQ in 8th it kind of just quietly went away.
Daedalus81 wrote: 3 months is the sweet spot. Faster than that and it becomes even harder to stay on top of things.
What I mean is: The quarterly patch drops today and tomorrow Dhrukari and their supplement are released. I think people would appreciate a response after the first two weekends of sweeping GT victories instead of waiting 3 months.
At most you wait 3 months for something to be reigned in.
And the best news is that it will be a digital update, since there is no chance for them to print, ship and sell books to provide quarterly updates. It means that they are not going to fix the problems of six months and further in the past, since they needed the time to physically produce the books.
Hopefully it means that they are able to stay on top of things and update the game in a timely manner.
Well that assumes gwdev's aren't total morons. If they aren't they know problems well before it's even released so could be producing next quarter lhanges well in advance.
evil_kiwi_60 wrote: Once again CSM get screwed over. Easily the least improved out of the buffs. The contempt for that faction is very clear at this point. Most of the other seemed good though.
CSM still have a lot of jank and do "ok" especially compared to the lower tier armies right now. T'au got nothing here as well, but they're due out pretty soon.
I think the reaction to the new DTTFE is kinda funny. Some CSM players think it's "meh" others are loving it. I think it comes down to which Legion you play. Black Legion, Iron Warriors, and Alpha Legion? Emperor's Children, World Eaters, and Night Lords? Word Bearers....I guess it depends on how many Possessed you have.
Do Black Legion not love this? Abaddon means 33% of our attacks are actually 2 hits. That's pretty good! Discolord in Abaddon's aura is getting 2 hits for each 4+ so that's great.
secretForge wrote: First amusing thing I've noticed. at 2k Tau cant actually field their fliers as each selection is actually 3 aircraft models.
I don't understand what you mean. AX3 Razorshark Strike Fighters are single models. I don't think the two drones of the AX39 Sun Shark Bomber count as independent flyers here. Or what are you refering to?
My bad thought they all had drones. The Faq just says models, so until its fixed Raw, you cant use the Bomber in a 2k game (Of course this is unintentional, and no one in their right mind would attempt to apply it this way in the real world)
The document says AIRCRAFT models so you're wrong there, too.
Daedalus81 wrote: 3 months is the sweet spot. Faster than that and it becomes even harder to stay on top of things.
What I mean is: The quarterly patch drops today and tomorrow Dhrukari and their supplement are released. I think people would appreciate a response after the first two weekends of sweeping GT victories instead of waiting 3 months.
At most you wait 3 months for something to be reigned in.
And the best news is that it will be a digital update, since there is no chance for them to print, ship and sell books to provide quarterly updates. It means that they are not going to fix the problems of six months and further in the past, since they needed the time to physically produce the books.
Hopefully it means that they are able to stay on top of things and update the game in a timely manner.
Well that assumes gwdev's aren't total morons. If they aren't they know problems well before it's even released so could be producing next quarter lhanges well in advance.
It's more like "they both see too much and not enough of the balance picture (as in, they know what's coming next down the pipe and theyre trying to balance against it, but they also dont know how what has gone to presses but hasnt gone to players will actually impact the meta) " and also "theyre probably working on extremely tight timelines" because thats a sure bet in basically any field.
I really hope this means fewer desperate meta chasers, seeing how completely the ork buggies/flyers got nerfed. Players with 4+ planes and 9(9!) scrapjets will now have fancy decorations. I hope a lot of players will hesitate to pick up those maxed possible squads of overtuned models in the future.
Daedalus81 wrote: 3 months is the sweet spot. Faster than that and it becomes even harder to stay on top of things.
What I mean is: The quarterly patch drops today and tomorrow Dhrukari and their supplement are released. I think people would appreciate a response after the first two weekends of sweeping GT victories instead of waiting 3 months.
At most you wait 3 months for something to be reigned in.
And the best news is that it will be a digital update, since there is no chance for them to print, ship and sell books to provide quarterly updates. It means that they are not going to fix the problems of six months and further in the past, since they needed the time to physically produce the books.
Hopefully it means that they are able to stay on top of things and update the game in a timely manner.
Well that assumes gwdev's aren't total morons. If they aren't they know problems well before it's even released so could be producing next quarter lhanges well in advance.
Occam's famous prhase should be renamed "Nottingham's Razor".
Tyel wrote: Be interesting to see what this does to DE. I was going to say RIP* - but I think the fact there are points drop to Talos (which went through a period of being the DE unit you don't take - but have been making a reappearance recently) might swing it back the other way.
*And if you were running a lot of wyches+incubi in raiders, I think it might still be.
Also no changes to hellions or venoms. Wych change is a huge deal if you were running wyches in raiders, but only 10pts to the squad if youre running 5 in a venom to get some No Escape and quick objective clearing.
I think drukhari will still be pulling over 50%. probably not a ton, but we'll be fine. People will pull out the units that were previously the B-team - Taloi, Ravagers, Voidravens, etc.
Don't forget, Venoms got 10pts cheaper So if you were running MSU Wyches in Venoms...your list is literally the same price
Didn't impact my army at all thankfully but meta chasers are going to be pissed. With that said, this is yet another swathe of ork units GW is actively disincentivizing you from buying. I have maxed out units from previous editions, GW arbitrarily made those units smaller meaning I had TOO many models to play a legal game with. They just did this to probably the best selling kits they had on the market, Buggies. This will hit their bottom line and they will go into another period of "Orkz don't buy!" which after this years releases....I can stand for a few years, we need some more love spread around to the other xenos factions like Eldar and Nidz. I am officially saying Orkz have enough new stuff for a bit
EmperorForearm wrote: I really hope this means fewer desperate meta chasers, seeing how completely the ork buggies/flyers got nerfed. Players with 4+ planes and 9(9!) scrapjets will now have fancy decorations. I hope a lot of players will hesitate to pick up those maxed possible squads of overtuned models in the future.
Nice I might actually pick one of the cast-offs from tourney players jumping ship...
EmperorForearm wrote: I really hope this means fewer desperate meta chasers, seeing how completely the ork buggies/flyers got nerfed. Players with 4+ planes and 9(9!) scrapjets will now have fancy decorations. I hope a lot of players will hesitate to pick up those maxed possible squads of overtuned models in the future.
That isn't how this works. It means a new meta and a new round of sales, maybe a sudden temporary influx of ork stuff on ebay.
Meta shifts are a normal part of the process, they just generally don't suddenly put a hard cap on sales of specific models.
EmperorForearm wrote: I really hope this means fewer desperate meta chasers, seeing how completely the ork buggies/flyers got nerfed. Players with 4+ planes and 9(9!) scrapjets will now have fancy decorations. I hope a lot of players will hesitate to pick up those maxed possible squads of overtuned models in the future.
I own 3 buggies total. 3 scrapjets from 8th edition. I was going to buy another 3 this year or next year at some point because I love the model (I hate all the other buggies) and thought it would be fun to play a scrapjet skwadron with some biker support. All this did was turn me off from buying full unit sizes in the future.
I do have to say, I am a bit floored with how quickly GW came out with the nerf hammer to beat the orkz into submission. The meta hasn't even evolved to target orkz yet and they already killed them. The SOCAL open where Orkz forced the Dark Eldar to concede turn 1 or 2, the DE Player even admitted his list was the exact OPPOSITE of what he would need to face that ork list. I think he said he only had like 5 blasters for anti-tank/vehicle ranged fire in his entire army.
That is like bringing 18 Las Chickens to a game and then complaining because you didn't have enough low strength firepower to deal with the 300+ infantry your opponent brought.
SemperMortis wrote: I do have to say, I am a bit floored with how quickly GW came out with the nerf hammer to beat the orkz into submission. The meta hasn't even evolved to target orkz yet and they already killed them. The SOCAL open where Orkz forced the Dark Eldar to concede turn 1 or 2, the DE Player even admitted his list was the exact OPPOSITE of what he would need to face that ork list. I think he said he only had like 5 blasters for anti-tank/vehicle ranged fire in his entire army.
That is like bringing 18 Las Chickens to a game and then complaining because you didn't have enough low strength firepower to deal with the 300+ infantry your opponent brought.
I don't think GW was even thinking about Ork aircraft on this one. It was probably the big buggy lists of September that caught their attention.
SemperMortis wrote: I do have to say, I am a bit floored with how quickly GW came out with the nerf hammer to beat the orkz into submission. The meta hasn't even evolved to target orkz yet and they already killed them. The SOCAL open where Orkz forced the Dark Eldar to concede turn 1 or 2, the DE Player even admitted his list was the exact OPPOSITE of what he would need to face that ork list. I think he said he only had like 5 blasters for anti-tank/vehicle ranged fire in his entire army.
That is like bringing 18 Las Chickens to a game and then complaining because you didn't have enough low strength firepower to deal with the 300+ infantry your opponent brought.
I really think it's due to the unknown impact of the speed waaagh AOR they just dropped. If this thing was already dunking on a top meta army, and they're also nerfing that top meta army, buffing the exact thing that just dunked on them extremely hard seems like a recipe for another codex drukhari 70% winrate PR disaster.
EmperorForearm wrote: I really hope this means fewer desperate meta chasers, seeing how completely the ork buggies/flyers got nerfed. Players with 4+ planes and 9(9!) scrapjets will now have fancy decorations. I hope a lot of players will hesitate to pick up those maxed possible squads of overtuned models in the future.
Nice I might actually pick one of the cast-offs from tourney players jumping ship...
exactly my thought - hopefully nicely painted ones
SemperMortis wrote: I do have to say, I am a bit floored with how quickly GW came out with the nerf hammer to beat the orkz into submission. The meta hasn't even evolved to target orkz yet and they already killed them. The SOCAL open where Orkz forced the Dark Eldar to concede turn 1 or 2, the DE Player even admitted his list was the exact OPPOSITE of what he would need to face that ork list. I think he said he only had like 5 blasters for anti-tank/vehicle ranged fire in his entire army.
That is like bringing 18 Las Chickens to a game and then complaining because you didn't have enough low strength firepower to deal with the 300+ infantry your opponent brought.
I really think it's due to the unknown impact of the speed waaagh AOR they just dropped. If this thing was already dunking on a top meta army, and they're also nerfing that top meta army, buffing the exact thing that just dunked on them extremely hard seems like a recipe for another codex drukhari 70% winrate PR disaster.
Except that the Speedwaaagh thing makes them lose their kulture. You take away Freeboota from that buggy list and its going to struggle to do anything. So the new army of renown nonsense was a non-issue from the start. Scrapjets are good, when they are BS4 is when they become a bit too good. Giving them +1 attack and a 5++ if they advance...but hten can't charge....isn't going to be a big deal
SemperMortis wrote: I do have to say, I am a bit floored with how quickly GW came out with the nerf hammer to beat the orkz into submission. The meta hasn't even evolved to target orkz yet and they already killed them. The SOCAL open where Orkz forced the Dark Eldar to concede turn 1 or 2, the DE Player even admitted his list was the exact OPPOSITE of what he would need to face that ork list. I think he said he only had like 5 blasters for anti-tank/vehicle ranged fire in his entire army.
That is like bringing 18 Las Chickens to a game and then complaining because you didn't have enough low strength firepower to deal with the 300+ infantry your opponent brought.
Also, full context of the player's quote here, because you are massively misquoting what he actually said:
(OrdoSean Writes)
"I mean drukhari are a strong army. But they’re winning events by avoiding Orks. Or playing bad ork lists. They aren’t tearing up ork lists. Also they’re win percentage has dropped in the high 50’s low 60’s the last few months. Admech are the king of win percentage right now and largely one of the few armies that can use their regular build to beat Orks.
Anyway. People can argue I made a mistake. Or I left myself out there. Really I don’t care. But the ork player had already turn one or turn 2 crushed two other drukhari players who both had more guns and higher toughness vehicles than I. So I could have run out and hoped to pass an overwhelming number of saves and then make some charges and still get tabled by the way. Or I could hide and still get tabled. Or really do whatever and still get tabled. One of those choices would be over the fastest while presenting the highest chance of victory. So I took it.
Also if you think my list was built for turn one assaults you’re wrong. My list doesn’t do real turn one damage. It’s a counter play charge list built in incubi combat. Which by the way does nothing to ork vehicles.
It was a bad matchup. Likely the most lopsided game of 40K I’ve ever been involved in. And sadly speaks to a style of 40K I don’t particularly enjoy. Because the counter measures for me involve playing lists that are boring. But it is what it is."
Note the "crushed 2 other drukhari player who both had more guns and higher toughness vehicles than I" - this doesn't seem like "i took the wrong things in my army" as much as "I took the wrong army" to me.
SemperMortis wrote: I do have to say, I am a bit floored with how quickly GW came out with the nerf hammer to beat the orkz into submission. The meta hasn't even evolved to target orkz yet and they already killed them. The SOCAL open where Orkz forced the Dark Eldar to concede turn 1 or 2, the DE Player even admitted his list was the exact OPPOSITE of what he would need to face that ork list. I think he said he only had like 5 blasters for anti-tank/vehicle ranged fire in his entire army.
That is like bringing 18 Las Chickens to a game and then complaining because you didn't have enough low strength firepower to deal with the 300+ infantry your opponent brought.
I really think it's due to the unknown impact of the speed waaagh AOR they just dropped. If this thing was already dunking on a top meta army, and they're also nerfing that top meta army, buffing the exact thing that just dunked on them extremely hard seems like a recipe for another codex drukhari 70% winrate PR disaster.
Except that the Speedwaaagh thing makes them lose their kulture. You take away Freeboota from that buggy list and its going to struggle to do anything. So the new army of renown nonsense was a non-issue from the start. Scrapjets are good, when they are BS4 is when they become a bit too good. Giving them +1 attack and a 5++ if they advance...but hten can't charge....isn't going to be a big deal
You really actually think that there's no potential balance problem in exchanging speed freeks (which doesnt affect Heavy Squig Launchas or Wing Missiles incidentally) for granting an essentially always-on 5++ invuln on vehicles that ALSO get ramshackle? Really? especially when you still get Freebootas on your planes/nonspeedfreeks and the speed freeks can trigger it for them?
I think youre completely blinded by faction bias if you dont see "What if Raiders, but -1 damage to S7 and lower and no bracketerino and strat for basically army wide -1 to hit" as a potential balance snafu at least somewhat.
Voss wrote:
That isn't how this works. It means a new meta and a new round of sales, maybe a sudden temporary influx of ork stuff on ebay.
Meta shifts are a normal part of the process, they just generally don't suddenly put a hard cap on sales of specific models.
I understand some people will always chase the meta, but if this results in fewer people spamming I'm all for it. I definitely enjoy both playing, watching, and reading about games with more variety.
SemperMortis wrote:
I own 3 buggies total. 3 scrapjets from 8th edition. I was going to buy another 3 this year or next year at some point because I love the model (I hate all the other buggies) and thought it would be fun to play a scrapjet skwadron with some biker support. All this did was turn me off from buying full unit sizes in the future.
While I agree the scrapjet is definitely the best looking (and coincidentally also the only buggy that I own), I think 3 of a model as big as a buggy is already a healthy spot for the game. I like the idea that armies need to dip into multiple datasheets. I was a big fan of the rule of 3 when that dropped, and this feels very much in the same vein. 4-6 squigbuggies and/or 4-6 scrapjets feels exactly like 4-6 hive tyrants did when that blew up. I've seen your list and respect that you do not field a list like that, I'm just saying.
This is a nice move by GW, with some pretty surprising adjustments.
Leman Russes to 2+ is dope. Necron CORE keyword to various units is great.
The Ork adjustment comes as a real surprise. That's a pretty unprecedented restriction. I can see the spirit/merit of it, but it's still a bit heavy handed. I have mixed feelings about it.
SemperMortis wrote: I do have to say, I am a bit floored with how quickly GW came out with the nerf hammer to beat the orkz into submission. The meta hasn't even evolved to target orkz yet and they already killed them. The SOCAL open where Orkz forced the Dark Eldar to concede turn 1 or 2, the DE Player even admitted his list was the exact OPPOSITE of what he would need to face that ork list. I think he said he only had like 5 blasters for anti-tank/vehicle ranged fire in his entire army.
That is like bringing 18 Las Chickens to a game and then complaining because you didn't have enough low strength firepower to deal with the 300+ infantry your opponent brought.
Also, full context of the player's quote here, because you are massively misquoting what he actually said:
You really actually think that there's no potential balance problem in exchanging speed freeks (which doesnt affect Heavy Squig Launchas or Wing Missiles incidentally) for granting an essentially always-on 5++ invuln on vehicles that ALSO get ramshackle? Really? especially when you still get Freebootas on your planes/nonspeedfreeks and the speed freeks can trigger it for them?
I think youre completely blinded by faction bias if you dont see "What if Raiders, but -1 damage to S7 and lower and no bracketerino and strat for basically army wide -1 to hit" as a potential balance snafu at least somewhat.
I actually wasn't "Massively misquoting what he actually said" what I was doing was talking about a private conversation I had with him on the matter on facebook I have a bunch of friends who are on the GT scene and as such i have access to a lot of these players indirectly through my friends who I help get ready for GTs.
And as far as the Army of Renown, yes, there was a possibility it could create an issue, but not to this extent. The Dmg output goes down but durability/speed go up. And the fact that some of the buffs actively work against one another helps justify my belief that it wouldn't have been too bad compared to the current meta list. +1 attack in CC is good...except when you can't charge because to get that 5++ you had to advance and therefore aren't eligible to charge. As far as the 5++ stacking with Ramshackle...I honestly haven't had too many chances to even use ramshackle this edition. Its either pointless (1dmg weapons) or S8+ weapons like lascannons and melta. So the big buff would have just been getting the 5++ which is a hefty durability boost for sure, but it comes at the cost of losing 50% of your dmg output from ranged weapons that AREN'T heavy squiglaunchas and Wing missiles.
SemperMortis wrote: I do have to say, I am a bit floored with how quickly GW came out with the nerf hammer to beat the orkz into submission. The meta hasn't even evolved to target orkz yet and they already killed them. The SOCAL open where Orkz forced the Dark Eldar to concede turn 1 or 2, the DE Player even admitted his list was the exact OPPOSITE of what he would need to face that ork list. I think he said he only had like 5 blasters for anti-tank/vehicle ranged fire in his entire army.
That is like bringing 18 Las Chickens to a game and then complaining because you didn't have enough low strength firepower to deal with the 300+ infantry your opponent brought.
Also, full context of the player's quote here, because you are massively misquoting what he actually said:
You really actually think that there's no potential balance problem in exchanging speed freeks (which doesnt affect Heavy Squig Launchas or Wing Missiles incidentally) for granting an essentially always-on 5++ invuln on vehicles that ALSO get ramshackle? Really? especially when you still get Freebootas on your planes/nonspeedfreeks and the speed freeks can trigger it for them?
I think youre completely blinded by faction bias if you dont see "What if Raiders, but -1 damage to S7 and lower and no bracketerino and strat for basically army wide -1 to hit" as a potential balance snafu at least somewhat.
I actually wasn't "Massively misquoting what he actually said" what I was doing was talking about a private conversation I had with him on the matter on facebook I have a bunch of friends who are on the GT scene and as such i have access to a lot of these players indirectly through my friends who I help get ready for GTs.
And as far as the Army of Renown, yes, there was a possibility it could create an issue, but not to this extent. The Dmg output goes down but durability/speed go up. And the fact that some of the buffs actively work against one another helps justify my belief that it wouldn't have been too bad compared to the current meta list. +1 attack in CC is good...except when you can't charge because to get that 5++ you had to advance and therefore aren't eligible to charge. As far as the 5++ stacking with Ramshackle...I honestly haven't had too many chances to even use ramshackle this edition. Its either pointless (1dmg weapons) or S8+ weapons like lascannons and melta. So the big buff would have just been getting the 5++ which is a hefty durability boost for sure, but it comes at the cost of losing 50% of your dmg output from ranged weapons that AREN'T heavy squiglaunchas and Wing missiles.
or planes, or KMKs, or dragstas because theyre 3+ to hit going to 2+ to hit so the Freebootas bonus matters a bit less.
The +1A is largely pointless, yes, except on the biker killer klaw warboss you can take in the list as your second HQ because you dont need a KFF mek anymore (and cant take him anyway) and it allows the min (now obsec) biker squads to eat enemy objective holder/action doer squads more effectively. Its not much, but its not nothing.
The real star of the show is exchanging the freebootas bonus on, realistically:
in exchange for a massive durability boost and slight mobility boost on almost your entire army, and the entire part of your army that your opponent was actually trying to attack to control objectives.
Come on. You know a version of that competitive list with the flyers still getting the freeboota bonus and an always-on 5++ on all your buggies and bikers would have been fething absurd, and you'd have to take weird super skewed lists like all stormshield all infantry deathwatch to actually be able to have a game against it.
or planes, or KMKs, or dragstas because theyre 3+ to hit going to 2+ to hit so the Freebootas bonus matters a bit less.
The +1A is largely pointless, yes, except on the biker killer klaw warboss you can take in the list as your second HQ because you dont need a KFF mek anymore (and cant take him anyway) and it allows the min (now obsec) biker squads to eat enemy objective holder/action doer squads more effectively. Its not much, but its not nothing.
The real star of the show is exchanging the freebootas bonus on, realistically:
in exchange for a massive durability boost and slight mobility boost on almost your entire army, and the entire part of your army that your opponent was actually trying to attack to control objectives.
Come on. You know a version of that competitive list with the flyers still getting the freeboota bonus and an always-on 5++ on all your buggies and bikers would have been fething absurd, and you'd have to take weird super skewed lists like all stormshield all infantry deathwatch to actually be able to have a game against it.
You can't take KMKs or Mek gunz in general anymore with that army. Which is also probably the biggest nerf portion of that army of renown. not necessarily the Mek guns specifically, but that you are extremely limited now in what you can take. No more kommandos, no more stormboyz, no more mek gunz, dreadz, kanz, tankbustas, gitz, no more footsloggin warbosses or beastbosses. So you are extremely limited here.
As far as those Warbikers you mention are concerned, they get +1 attack on the charge if they didn't advance but they also lose BS4 on their guns. That means during a regular turn at half range they went from 5 hits per bike to 3.3 that is as mentioned, a 50% reduction in hits. And what do they get to make up for that loss? 1 extra S4 attack at WS3.
I think its comparable to the competitive level of the current freeboota buggy spam list but I don't think its better.
Must say the more I think about it the less I like the Ork change. Seems like a rather heavy handed approach that invalidates people's collections for no reason. When my DG "buggies" got nerfed, people who bought 9 MBH got shafted but could still technically run all of them. Not so much with the Ork buggies now. That and as I said in the other thread I'm disappointed this was not used to update DG Legion vehicles to have DR in line with the TS codex or to give CSM their second wound.
Well intentioned but another squandered opportunity as always with GW.
evil_kiwi_60 wrote: Once again CSM get screwed over. Easily the least improved out of the buffs. The contempt for that faction is very clear at this point. Most of the other seemed good though.
Technically you're correct. Because orks were the only faction to get a nerf and no buffs.
I keep saying it but you want to massively buff the chaos space marine codex? You want 2w marines? You want a functional codex? You want an insane amount of customizability with the rules for your models? Then counts as loyalists might be the strategy for you. Want world eaters? With berserker dreadnoughts? Then space Wolves is for you! They also produce magnificent possessed via the wulfen models and make for awesome word bearers equivelents too. How about blobs of bullet sponges to eat wounds for your space marines like we wish we could do with our cultists? Sounds like you want to run black Templar’s with cultist models being counts as neophytes. They got something for every legion or conceivable warband you could possibly want!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Alternatively blood angels make for wonderful world eaters proxy as well... look the loyalist source material currently gives chaos way more to work with with its 120 datasheets than the chaos codex ever will. Only downside is you can’t rock your daemon engines. Unless someone else knows something in that codex that works for daemon engines.
But eventually that pendulum is going to swing back just as hard as they pushed it. Then it's just guesswork on whether it hits them in the face, or us.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Glad to see that the internet agitation succeeded, hopefully people won't let up and we can continue to pressure GW to actually fix their game.
This is good.
Expect they didn't really fix some of it, Buggies are limit to 3 and flyers to 2, which is a bad way to balance the game if the idea is to play what you want. I'd rather they just nerf the points or datasheet changes.
So IDK if i like this fix honestly. What else are they goig to do in the future if 1 thing is too strong? Whats next Dreadknights and Dreadnoughts limited to 2 per army?
I must be horrifying if you think that limitations on what you can put in your army is a bad idea. Every time we turn around GW is adding more and more limitations to Matched Play and Battle-Forged armies.
All Relics are unique
Can't duplicate Warlord Traits
"The Rule of Three"
One Command Squad per commander
Limiting the number of commanders per detachment (Space Marine Captains, Chaos Lords, Canoness, etc. and so on)
Limited upgrades units
Only 1 of each Buggy unit per army
Only 2 Aircraft for army
Unit1126PLL wrote: Glad to see that the internet agitation succeeded, hopefully people won't let up and we can continue to pressure GW to actually fix their game.
This is good.
Expect they didn't really fix some of it, Buggies are limit to 3 and flyers to 2, which is a bad way to balance the game if the idea is to play what you want. I'd rather they just nerf the points or datasheet changes.
So IDK if i like this fix honestly. What else are they goig to do in the future if 1 thing is too strong? Whats next Dreadknights and Dreadnoughts limited to 2 per army?
There are plenty of similar restrictions like Warbosses, Daemon Princes, Commanders, chaff to core infantry ratios, and Rule of 3. This is nothing new.
Daedalus81 wrote: 3 months is the sweet spot. Faster than that and it becomes even harder to stay on top of things.
What I mean is: The quarterly patch drops today and tomorrow Dhrukari and their supplement are released. I think people would appreciate a response after the first two weekends of sweeping GT victories instead of waiting 3 months.
At most you wait 3 months for something to be reigned in.
And the best news is that it will be a digital update, since there is no chance for them to print, ship and sell books to provide quarterly updates. It means that they are not going to fix the problems of six months and further in the past, since they needed the time to physically produce the books.
Hopefully it means that they are able to stay on top of things and update the game in a timely manner.
Well that assumes gwdev's aren't total morons. If they aren't they know problems well before it's even released so could be producing next quarter lhanges well in advance.
Occam's famous prhase should be renamed "Nottingham's Razor".
Thing is they have been deliberately pulling up nose of the "tsport" fans for ages. The players don't actually want balance and are just chasing meta lists so GW figured out good way to exploit that for £££££. Make something OP, nerf it later, make another thing OP. Things go in circles and tsport wannabe's just keep chasing the newest hotness spending more cash. And GW goes "just as planned".
You think this was unintended from GW? Things are going just as planned.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Glad to see that the internet agitation succeeded, hopefully people won't let up and we can continue to pressure GW to actually fix their game.
This is good.
Expect they didn't really fix some of it, Buggies are limit to 3 and flyers to 2, which is a bad way to balance the game if the idea is to play what you want. I'd rather they just nerf the points or datasheet changes.
So IDK if i like this fix honestly. What else are they goig to do in the future if 1 thing is too strong? Whats next Dreadknights and Dreadnoughts limited to 2 per army?
There are plenty of similar restrictions like Warbosses, Daemon Princes, Commanders, chaff to core infantry ratios, and Rule of 3. This is nothing new.
There is not, those rules work completely differently and orks are literally asking for buggies to work like those rules instead of having the arbitrarily limited by a rule that is worse in every possible way.
tneva82 wrote: You think this was unintended from GW? Things are going just as planned.
This.
Lots of otherwise quite smart people still seem to be under the impression that GW's goal is to create a "balanced game". It's not. Their priority is getting you to buy more product. Which means they can't allow you to just use the same models for years and years. GW wants you to feel the need to buy new models regularly because they've made your existing models uncompetitive or even flat-out unusable.
A quarterly "balance patch" isn't to benefit you the customer/player, it's to benefit GW's bottom line. Your armies now have a three-month lifespan before you need to re-jig them and (hopefully, from GW's POV) buy new models to keep them functional.
And before anybody jumps in to defend the poor, abused, multi-million-pound, FTSE-250-listed corporate behemoth, none of this is intended as any kind of moral judgement. It's just how capitalism works. GW aren't your friends, they're just a business.
GWs lack of balance or interesting gameplay made me stop buying models from them though. When I did enjoy the game I'd buy redundant models and start new armies all the time, so their plan isn't working.
Only read the rules affecting orks and I like this patch.
Capping flyers to 1 or 2 was something I've always wanted and the buggy patch could have been handled a bit better by restricting the number of models for each buggy variant to 3 per army rather than one unit of 1-3 models per army but I'm ok with that as well.
I'd honestly like to see more limitations like these ones in the future.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Glad to see that the internet agitation succeeded, hopefully people won't let up and we can continue to pressure GW to actually fix their game.
This is good.
In the same breath there are some people on the internets claiming this is worse because books are outdated faster, they can't keep track etc. so impossible to please everyone. Just glad they made these optional so it's down to each group how current they stay.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: Can’t run all my mek guns, can’t run all my buggies, can’t run all my war bosses.
I guess next edition I’ll only be able to take 10 boyz?
They can throw the "balance card" but it's just another way to push players to buy more kits, for those units they don't have. Although I think GW shouldn't have allowed that amount of spam in the first place. Older editions of 40k, before allowing multiple detachments, all had a cap of 9 artillery models or buggies and 2 warbosses.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: Can’t run all my mek guns, can’t run all my buggies, can’t run all my war bosses.
I guess next edition I’ll only be able to take 10 boyz?
They can throw the "balance card" but it's just another way to push players to buy more kits, for those units they don't have. Although I think GW shouldn't have allowed that amount of spam in the first place. Older editions of 40k, before allowing multiple detachments, all had a cap of 9 artillery models or buggies and 2 warbosses.
The squadrons of buggies didn't really make sense to begin with, they were pretty much asking for people to spam 9 of the best one. If they did want to squadron them to enable speed freek style lists, they should just have called the datasheet a "buggy mob" and then allow 0-1 for each of them, or add a rule like the DG's Foetid Virion.
I agree, those are models with a base size of a knight basically, just one inch smaller.
The moment GW decided they all needed a separate datasheet they should have never been allowed in squadrons, but the same thing can be said for a plethora of other vehicles that shouldn't be squadrons as well, and those buggies were the shiny new models; GW wanted to sell them as much as possible.
Blackie wrote: I agree, those are models with a base size of a knight basically, just one inch smaller.
The moment GW decided they all needed a separate datasheet they should have never been allowed in squadrons, but the same thing can be said for a plethora of other vehicles that shouldn't be squadrons as well, and those buggies were the shiny new models; GW wanted to sell them as much as possible.
And now they've determined that sales of 2/3 of those buggy kits need a boost.
tneva82 wrote: You think this was unintended from GW? Things are going just as planned.
This.
Lots of otherwise quite smart people still seem to be under the impression that GW's goal is to create a "balanced game". It's not. Their priority is getting you to buy more product. Which means they can't allow you to just use the same models for years and years. GW wants you to feel the need to buy new models regularly because they've made your existing models uncompetitive or even flat-out unusable.
A quarterly "balance patch" isn't to benefit you the customer/player, it's to benefit GW's bottom line. Your armies now have a three-month lifespan before you need to re-jig them and (hopefully, from GW's POV) buy new models to keep them functional.
And before anybody jumps in to defend the poor, abused, multi-million-pound, FTSE-250-listed corporate behemoth, none of this is intended as any kind of moral judgement. It's just how capitalism works. GW aren't your friends, they're just a business.
Long time players should have realised by now that spammed units have a short expiration date. "Rule of 2" isn't working just for the Sith .
It is more the game's fault than on the players, as one factor or another incentivises spamming the best units, but if you limit yourself, neither these balance patches nor any codex update will effect you much.
Long time players should have realised by now that spammed units have a short expiration date. "Rule of 2" isn't working just for the Sith .
It is more the game's fault than on the players, as one factor or another incentivises spamming the best units, but if you limit yourself, neither these balance patches nor any codex update will effect you much.
Exactly. The ork roster is so wide that you can reach over 10k of stuff without having more than 3 of the same single model units or more than 3 maxed out infantry units. Probably even just 2 of each choice in the codex. Not even counting Forge World.
And since average ork model is quite cheap that already means a bazillion of models before start spamming stuff.
Insectum7 wrote: This is a nice move by GW, with some pretty surprising adjustments.
Leman Russes to 2+ is dope. Necron CORE keyword to various units is great.
The Ork adjustment comes as a real surprise. That's a pretty unprecedented restriction. I can see the spirit/merit of it, but it's still a bit heavy handed. I have mixed feelings about it.
Yeah I don't like some of the changes, even if the buggies were a pain in the butt. All it means is people should be real leery of picking up more than an average amount of any unit that isn't troops. It would be like them taking away tank squadrons for guard now, I'd have so many wasted tanks, I'd probably rage pretty hard. They already did that with heavy weapon squads, now valks, and commissars which could at one time be taken as a squad upgrade leaving me with a ton of useless commissars.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Glad to see that the internet agitation succeeded, hopefully people won't let up and we can continue to pressure GW to actually fix their game.
This is good.
In the same breath there are some people on the internets claiming this is worse because books are outdated faster, they can't keep track etc. so impossible to please everyone. Just glad they made these optional so it's down to each group how current they stay.
Some people, like me, just don't want to charged through the nose for books rendered into trash twice a year now, by the time you reach the end of an edition will almost anything in a written codex even be accurate at that point ? While I appreciate balance, the books better cost a hell of a lot less soon or they should expect 90% of the player base to pirate. ( I'm not saying they should btw but they are then charging you top dollar for junk at that point. )
Unit1126PLL wrote: Glad to see that the internet agitation succeeded, hopefully people won't let up and we can continue to pressure GW to actually fix their game.
This is good.
Expect they didn't really fix some of it, Buggies are limit to 3 and flyers to 2, which is a bad way to balance the game if the idea is to play what you want. I'd rather they just nerf the points or datasheet changes.
So IDK if i like this fix honestly. What else are they goig to do in the future if 1 thing is too strong? Whats next Dreadknights and Dreadnoughts limited to 2 per army?
nerfing points means we're simply waiting for the next OP plane to show up. The aircraft rules themselves are a problem. Since a full redesign of the rules is beyond what GW wants from this emergency update the logical choice is to limit all aircraft until such a time as the aircraft rules can be changed.
By degrees I'd like the codexes to remain accurate as long as possible - and not effectively be wrong 2 weeks on release. I do feel 40k is hard to keep up with unless you are effectively living it day in, day out.
In practice however I know that keeping the codexes sacrosanct just produces a terribly balanced game which usually ceases to be fun to play.
I feel a 3 month take on the meta is probably about right. I know there are people who expect GW to make very rapid changes to the game, almost reacting to each week of grand tournaments, (i.e. X was a bit good in the finals on Sunday, so someone in Nottingham needs to get in the office and nerf it on Monday) but I just don't think is realistic - or necesarilly sensible.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Glad to see that the internet agitation succeeded, hopefully people won't let up and we can continue to pressure GW to actually fix their game.
This is good.
Expect they didn't really fix some of it, Buggies are limit to 3 and flyers to 2, which is a bad way to balance the game if the idea is to play what you want. I'd rather they just nerf the points or datasheet changes.
So IDK if i like this fix honestly. What else are they goig to do in the future if 1 thing is too strong? Whats next Dreadknights and Dreadnoughts limited to 2 per army?
nerfing points means we're simply waiting for the next OP plane to show up. The aircraft rules themselves are a problem. Since a full redesign of the rules is beyond what GW wants from this emergency update the logical choice is to limit all aircraft until such a time as the aircraft rules can be changed.
No, just raise the points and then work on a faq later, this effects all players, what about guard that uses Scions and 6 flyers? Its a bad way to balance the game. Are flyer rules broken? Maybe, but if they were so broken why do we not see every list with flyers and not just the 2 that are 40-50pts under costed? Look at DE, their flyers went down and yet no one still wants to take them.
This is showing me that GW can't handle their own game.
PS: Yes nerfing points ALWAYS means waiting for the next op thing...... thats how 40k has always worked, take the best thing for the points..... it most likely will be GK Dreadknights now.
The current state of my Drukhari codex which has been "rendered trash" is... One page of errata printed, folded and inserted in the front and one page of points changes likewise printed, folded and inserted in the points chart section.
Strangely, I do not find this taxing to work with and well worth the price in effort to get a "somewhat-live" treatment of the game's more egregious peaks and valleys.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Glad to see that the internet agitation succeeded, hopefully people won't let up and we can continue to pressure GW to actually fix their game.
This is good.
In the same breath there are some people on the internets claiming this is worse because books are outdated faster, they can't keep track etc. so impossible to please everyone. Just glad they made these optional so it's down to each group how current they stay.
Those people have a point too.
GW should release balanced codexes from the start so they don't HAVE to invalidate them with a balance patch.
That argument is not inconsistent with "well they did a gakky job on the dexes so a balance patch is good". It's just the next step: "maybe don't do a gakky job on the dexes."
Long time players should have realised by now that spammed units have a short expiration date. "Rule of 2" isn't working just for the Sith .
It is more the game's fault than on the players, as one factor or another incentivises spamming the best units, but if you limit yourself, neither these balance patches nor any codex update will effect you much.
Exactly. The ork roster is so wide that you can reach over 10k of stuff without having more than 3 of the same single model units or more than 3 maxed out infantry units. Probably even just 2 of each choice in the codex. Not even counting Forge World.
And since average ork model is quite cheap that already means a bazillion of models before start spamming stuff.
I can third this. If your codex is sufficiently well balanced having one or two of every choice not just protects you from GW swinging the banhammer around, it also makes for more enjoyable games.
Jidmah wrote: There is not, those rules work completely differently and orks are literally asking for buggies to work like those rules instead of having the arbitrarily limited by a rule that is worse in every possible way.
We agree that it could have been handled differently. Daemon Princes saw a similar, but lighter consequence in 8th, because of the extra "data sheets". Again not the same, but it was something that needs addressing. I don't think it's great to expect Ork players to own 9 of a buggy and GW needs to just tweak the data sheet.
tneva82 wrote: You think this was unintended from GW? Things are going just as planned.
This.
Lots of otherwise quite smart people still seem to be under the impression that GW's goal is to create a "balanced game". It's not. Their priority is getting you to buy more product. Which means they can't allow you to just use the same models for years and years. GW wants you to feel the need to buy new models regularly because they've made your existing models uncompetitive or even flat-out unusable.
A quarterly "balance patch" isn't to benefit you the customer/player, it's to benefit GW's bottom line. Your armies now have a three-month lifespan before you need to re-jig them and (hopefully, from GW's POV) buy new models to keep them functional.
And before anybody jumps in to defend the poor, abused, multi-million-pound, FTSE-250-listed corporate behemoth, none of this is intended as any kind of moral judgement. It's just how capitalism works. GW aren't your friends, they're just a business.
Oh man. I dearly missed this pile on confirmation bias. So we figure GW made all the sales of buggies it wanted in two months when they can barely keep up with the new releases? Solid capitalism right there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: That argument is not inconsistent with "well they did a gakky job on the dexes so a balance patch is good". It's just the next step: "maybe don't do a gakky job on the dexes."
Baby steps. We just need to kill the supplement craze.
a_typical_hero wrote: Long time players should have realised by now that spammed units have a short expiration date. "Rule of 2" isn't working just for the Sith .
It is more the game's fault than on the players, as one factor or another incentivises spamming the best units, but if you limit yourself, neither these balance patches nor any codex update will effect you much.
*laughs in 40+ Warbikers*
Honestly, i have an above average collection of ork models, I am well aware of that. But I am not happy with some of my units getting retroactively cut into pieces. This edition I lost the ability to take some of my warbikers, mek gunz, flyers and stormboyz. I have 3 buggies total in my army, all scrapjetz, because I think the rest look like crap and I am somewhat big on aesthetics for my army. I had planned on getting another skwadron of Scrapjets and another flyer or two eventually. I had also planned on getting more mek gunz to get to the old maximum of 18. All of those plans have since been cancelled because I don't want to add units I can't use to my army when I have units I can use but don't own yet.
Weird, the skrapjet is honestly among my least favorite buggies. I love the Boomdakka Snazzwagon and boosta-blasta.
BDSW is to me exactly what the essential ork buggy should be, the only flaw is the two elements that are too distinctive of the ork about to fling a molotov cocktail and the grot strapped to the front (though he can at least easily be left off the model, you have to do a bit more work to alter the gunner)
Long time players should have realised by now that spammed units have a short expiration date. "Rule of 2" isn't working just for the Sith .
It is more the game's fault than on the players, as one factor or another incentivises spamming the best units, but if you limit yourself, neither these balance patches nor any codex update will effect you much.
Exactly. The ork roster is so wide that you can reach over 10k of stuff without having more than 3 of the same single model units or more than 3 maxed out infantry units. Probably even just 2 of each choice in the codex. Not even counting Forge World.
And since average ork model is quite cheap that already means a bazillion of models before start spamming stuff.
Orks have literally been “spamming” stuff since third edition. Orks just kinda skew, it’s how you do well with them. Taking a rounded ork list results in big deff.
It’s not even that we’re limited to 3 of one type, it’s that you have to keep knight bases in cohesion up the table.
Long time players should have realised by now that spammed units have a short expiration date. "Rule of 2" isn't working just for the Sith .
It is more the game's fault than on the players, as one factor or another incentivises spamming the best units, but if you limit yourself, neither these balance patches nor any codex update will effect you much.
Exactly. The ork roster is so wide that you can reach over 10k of stuff without having more than 3 of the same single model units or more than 3 maxed out infantry units. Probably even just 2 of each choice in the codex. Not even counting Forge World.
And since average ork model is quite cheap that already means a bazillion of models before start spamming stuff.
Orks have literally been “spamming” stuff since third edition. Orks just kinda skew, it’s how you do well with them. Taking a rounded ork list results in big deff.
It’s not even that we’re limited to 3 of one type, it’s that you have to keep knight bases in cohesion up the table.
Theyre not knight sized tho. And just have them be in a line, easy coherency since you can't get to 6 models and get fethed by the 9th ed coherency rules.
And orks needing to spam stuff is still a gak way for the codex to be.
But yeah, GW probably shouldve just upped the cost of the buggies A LOT.
Listen, I’ve picked up some armigers to loot, these things are knight sized.
Also, if you’re all concerned about orks shooting things off turn one, prepare for when Tau come out
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: Listen, I’ve picked up some armigers to loot, these things are knight sized.
Also, if you’re all concerned about orks shooting things off turn one, prepare for when Tau come out
At least you'll be able to hide from Tau's firepower considering their only non-LOS guns are the Airburst and smart missiles, both of which don't have real AP or Damage
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: Listen, I’ve picked up some armigers to loot, these things are knight sized.
Also, if you’re all concerned about orks shooting things off turn one, prepare for when Tau come out
At least you'll be able to hide from Tau's firepower considering their only non-LOS guns are the Airburst and smart missiles, both of which don't have real AP or Damage
I bet you they get some shenanigans. Maybe guard then?, gonna be one of the last codexes, and oh boy, the basilisks…
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: Listen, I’ve picked up some armigers to loot, these things are knight sized.
Also, if you’re all concerned about orks shooting things off turn one, prepare for when Tau come out
At least you'll be able to hide from Tau's firepower considering their only non-LOS guns are the Airburst and smart missiles, both of which don't have real AP or Damage
I bet you they get some shenanigans. Maybe guard then?, gonna be one of the last codexes, and oh boy, the basilisks…
guard for sure is gonna be annoying, but so far the artillery in the game seems to have been taken down a notch (rukkatrukks being the exception) compared to 8th. I wouldnt be surprised if basilisks didnt receive massive buffs, especially not now that GW seems to have realised that ignoring terrain is kind of OP (which we know they do because of the changes to planes)
The terrain rules in 9th are kind of stupid tbh, I kind of wish they’d go back to the old system of doing it.
Was playing a game with my first time friend and it was really confusing for him.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: The terrain rules in 9th are kind of stupid tbh, I kind of wish they’d go back to the old system of doing it.
Was playing a game with my first time friend and it was really confusing for him.
Out of curiosity, what part was confusing for him?
He was able to physically see some orks with some guardsmen, but then it was marked as obscuring so he technically couldn’t. He had kinda positioned himself to shoot a lot of stuff like that, but couldn’t.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: He was able to physically see some orks with some guardsmen, but then it was marked as obscuring so he technically couldn’t. He had kinda positioned himself to shoot a lot of stuff like that, but couldn’t.
Then allowing them to move differently was the play.
i much prefer the current terrain rules personally
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: He was able to physically see some orks with some guardsmen, but then it was marked as obscuring so he technically couldn’t. He had kinda positioned himself to shoot a lot of stuff like that, but couldn’t.
Then allowing them to move differently was the play.
i much prefer the current terrain rules personally
I offered that but he just said it was stupid and moved on. I kinda agree, having it only hide models if it hides the models feels better.
Daedalus81 wrote: So we figure GW made all the sales of buggies it wanted in two months when they can barely keep up with the new releases? Solid capitalism right there.
If you're going to strawman as pathetically as that, then please don't waste both our time by replying to my posts.
Daedalus81 wrote: So we figure GW made all the sales of buggies it wanted in two months when they can barely keep up with the new releases? Solid capitalism right there.
If you're going to strawman as pathetically as that, then please don't waste both our time by replying to my posts.
And if you're going to make up data then please don't bother posting.
Daedalus81 wrote: So we figure GW made all the sales of buggies it wanted in two months when they can barely keep up with the new releases? Solid capitalism right there.
If you're going to strawman as pathetically as that, then please don't waste both our time by replying to my posts.
And if you're going to make up data then please don't bother posting.
Well if that were the criteria for posting this place would be empty....
I just figured they noticed that sales figures for 2/3 of the buggies were way down & weren't happy about that. The only "balance" involved is the bottom line.
The subject has been beaten to death and it doesn't matter what GW does. Someone will always claim it was for sales of particular models.
WHC has 4.7M unique users. About 3,000 people played 12 or more games in ITC in 2019 and a ton of those won't be meta chasers. If every single one of those people spent $5,000 directly to GW each year ( no printing or secondary market ) it would account for 3% of their sales.
the_scotsman wrote: Weird, the skrapjet is honestly among my least favorite buggies. I love the Boomdakka Snazzwagon and boosta-blasta.
BDSW is to me exactly what the essential ork buggy should be, the only flaw is the two elements that are too distinctive of the ork about to fling a molotov cocktail and the grot strapped to the front (though he can at least easily be left off the model, you have to do a bit more work to alter the gunner)
Actually, the gunner is super easy to replace as he is only attached to the gun by the trigger. The BW gunners, the one from the gorkanaut and really any other ork holding any gun by its grip can replace him. The driver takes a bit more work because you have to flatten the joint to fit arns from other kits, but head swap is easy as well. If you buy a SJD, KBB or squigbuggy in pair with it (SJD works best), there are also a lot of engine and armor bits and gretchin you can swap around, plus all buggy tires fit each other buggy.
My fav is prob the scrapjet as it somehow feels the most generic?, it also has a classic 3rd Ed style ork head instead of the new gakky ones. Just wish I could run my two seperate, instead of having to keep their massive bases in cohesion.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Glad to see that the internet agitation succeeded, hopefully people won't let up and we can continue to pressure GW to actually fix their game.
This is good.
In the same breath there are some people on the internets claiming this is worse because books are outdated faster, they can't keep track etc. so impossible to please everyone. Just glad they made these optional so it's down to each group how current they stay.
Those people have a point too.
GW should release balanced codexes from the start so they don't HAVE to invalidate them with a balance patch.
That argument is not inconsistent with "well they did a gakky job on the dexes so a balance patch is good". It's just the next step: "maybe don't do a gakky job on the dexes."
I genuinely want someone to show me a game that was perfectly balanced from the start. Because I want to see this unicorn.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: He was able to physically see some orks with some guardsmen, but then it was marked as obscuring so he technically couldn’t. He had kinda positioned himself to shoot a lot of stuff like that, but couldn’t.
Then allowing them to move differently was the play.
i much prefer the current terrain rules personally
I offered that but he just said it was stupid and moved on. I kinda agree, having it only hide models if it hides the models feels better.
The part I don't get is why can't they just shoot the stuff you can see?
How about this, if you can see 2 out of the 10 models in a unit you can shoot at them and those 2 models would need to take the saves?
The models being shot at would still get their cover save and would be the only possible casualties. Punishes the unit being shot at & makes positioning Infantry scale models more important.
It always felt wrong that if you can see a single barrel, you can shoot at the whole unit.
Eldarain wrote: It has previously led to rhino sniping but if the player taking the casualties gets to pick which models die I'd be in favour of that change.
Just have it so friendly models never count as blocking your line of sight while they can block the enemy’s
I'm coming at it from the frustration of individual model placement minutia in a 40k game that has sprawled well past it's skirmish roots.
Personally I'd like to see things further abstracted along the lines of Apoc/Epic to better suit the model count/range of units represented (grot-Warlord Titan)
they couldn't fix the outlier planes, no.. feth planes entirely i guess.
Indeed that would be less of an issue if all armies had an AA unit, or a plane... alas can't have that.. better to throw the missile launcher no bone at all and remain ardent that AA missiles are an stratagem....
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: Just have it so friendly models never count as blocking your line of sight while they can block the enemy’s
That has Fish of Fury-esque abuse written all over it- use tanks to block LOS to your units but shoot right through them. Maybe say friendly models normally block LOS, but not for the purpose of casualty selection. This is getting complicated and I'm sure there would still be edge cases; maybe better to just accept that Rhino sniping could be a thing but would be a lot less powerful if the defender could still choose which model is eliminated.
Or just embrace area terrain and abstract LOS, given the size of the game nowadays.
they couldn't fix the outlier planes, no.. feth planes entirely i guess.
Indeed that would be less of an issue if all armies had an AA unit, or a plane... alas can't have that.. better to throw the missile launcher no bone at all and remain ardent that AA missiles are an stratagem....
My airmobile Scion list is now no longer playable, so yeah I feel you.
My airmobile Scion list is now no longer playable, so yeah I feel you.
The irony is that i Just played a tournament with my Alphork Strike list and went 3 and 0. My closest game was against a Scion Air mobile list because he basically took away most of my 1st turn targets since I have very little ranged firepower.
Super fluffy and it was a blast to play against. another ham fisted move by GW.
My airmobile Scion list is now no longer playable, so yeah I feel you.
The irony is that i Just played a tournament with my Alphork Strike list and went 3 and 0. My closest game was against a Scion Air mobile list because he basically took away most of my 1st turn targets since I have very little ranged firepower.
Super fluffy and it was a blast to play against. another ham fisted move by GW.
Same here, I have a small scion army that is basically 3 scion squads all in Valkyries and a Vulture for support, super fun and fluffy, and in no way OP. Illegal now.
they couldn't fix the outlier planes, no.. feth planes entirely i guess.
Indeed that would be less of an issue if all armies had an AA unit, or a plane... alas can't have that.. better to throw the missile launcher no bone at all and remain ardent that AA missiles are an stratagem....
My airmobile Scion list is now no longer playable, so yeah I feel you.
atleast my R&H only have 2 valkyries.... right.. ....ah well who am i kidding that list wouldn't even work if you subtracted 25% on all units in it
My airmobile Scion list is now no longer playable, so yeah I feel you.
The irony is that i Just played a tournament with my Alphork Strike list and went 3 and 0. My closest game was against a Scion Air mobile list because he basically took away most of my 1st turn targets since I have very little ranged firepower.
Super fluffy and it was a blast to play against. another ham fisted move by GW.
Same here, I have a small scion army that is basically 3 scion squads all in Valkyries and a Vulture for support, super fun and fluffy, and in no way OP. Illegal now.
Well, you can always avoid matched play.
Or house rule... but it still kinda stinks that GW rather uses the sledge hammer method to avoid fixing the models instead.
Eldarain wrote: It has previously led to rhino sniping but if the player taking the casualties gets to pick which models die I'd be in favour of that change.
Just have it so friendly models never count as blocking your line of sight while they can block the enemy’s
No. That's type of abstraction is just stupid.
This isn't rocket science. It's a game played with 3d models & terrain. 99% of the time you can clearly see what blocks what.
callocx wrote: So.. more inconsistency from GW. Leman Russes are Sv 2+... unless of course a heretic, renegade or genestealer cultist is driving it. Then 3+.
Makes sense. I guess the Emperor protects!
Not sure about GSC, but R&H use the Guard datasheet for our Leman Russes. So, apparently, the Corpse God doesn't do that much after all.
callocx wrote: So.. more inconsistency from GW. Leman Russes are Sv 2+... unless of course a heretic, renegade or genestealer cultist is driving it. Then 3+.
Makes sense. I guess the Emperor protects!
Not sure about GSC, but R&H use the Guard datasheet for our Leman Russes. So, apparently, the Corpse God doesn't do that much after all.
99% sure that GSC has their own LR datasheet, so that's a problem.
callocx wrote: So.. more inconsistency from GW. Leman Russes are Sv 2+... unless of course a heretic, renegade or genestealer cultist is driving it. Then 3+.
Makes sense. I guess the Emperor protects!
Not sure about GSC, but R&H use the Guard datasheet for our Leman Russes. So, apparently, the Corpse God doesn't do that much after all.
99% sure that GSC has their own LR datasheet, so that's a problem.
If it's 2+ in the new book that at least tells us this quarterly thing was in the works for a while.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: I genuinely want someone to show me a game that was perfectly balanced from the start. Because I want to see this unicorn.
Ah. There's that word again. "Perfectly".
Again, who's calling for "perfect" balance?
The words used
GW should release balanced codexes from the start so they don't HAVE to invalidate them with a balance patch
Now I won't use perfect since you decided to focus entirely on that instead of actually answering the question. Has there been a game that has been balanced without the need for patches down the line?
callocx wrote: So.. more inconsistency from GW. Leman Russes are Sv 2+... unless of course a heretic, renegade or genestealer cultist is driving it. Then 3+.
Makes sense. I guess the Emperor protects!
Not sure about GSC, but R&H use the Guard datasheet for our Leman Russes. So, apparently, the Corpse God doesn't do that much after all.
99% sure that GSC has their own LR datasheet, so that's a problem.
Well, GSC's codex is about a month away, so hopefully they'll fix it there. That, along with the price increase to Dark Lances and Admech Laser Chickens could mean that gw realizes that they've made vehicles too squishy. The increases on Dark Lances and Laser Chickens were good, now let's see if they do the same with multi-meltas......
Well, GSC's codex is about a month away, so hopefully they'll fix it there. That, along with the price increase to Dark Lances and Admech Laser Chickens could mean that gw realizes that they've made vehicles too squishy. The increases on Dark Lances and Laser Chickens were good, now let's see if they do the same with multi-meltas......
Multi-melta is so rare in the competitive scene. At this point its volcons all the way down, but those are a crutch keeping marines floating. I wouldn't be surprised to see Eradicator points go back down at this point.
Well, GSC's codex is about a month away, so hopefully they'll fix it there. That, along with the price increase to Dark Lances and Admech Laser Chickens could mean that gw realizes that they've made vehicles too squishy. The increases on Dark Lances and Laser Chickens were good, now let's see if they do the same with multi-meltas......
Multi-melta is so rare in the competitive scene. At this point its volcons all the way down, but those are a crutch keeping marines floating. I wouldn't be surprised to see Eradicator points go back down at this point.
No one is leaving their tanks at home because of volcons. The boost to the Leman Russ's save shows that GW knows that they need help in the durability department, and the increase in price to Dark Lances and Laser Chickens shows that they know that the new AT weapons are too cheap. Multi-meltas are too cheap. Period. It doesn't matter if tournament players are spamming them or not. And we know tournament players "build for the meta". If nobody is bringing heavy armour, they won't be bringing anything to deal with it. Multi-meltas being rare at tournaments doesn't mean they need a buff, it just means there's no reason for tournament players to bring it.
callocx wrote: So.. more inconsistency from GW. Leman Russes are Sv 2+... unless of course a heretic, renegade or genestealer cultist is driving it. Then 3+.
Makes sense. I guess the Emperor protects!
Not sure about GSC, but R&H use the Guard datasheet for our Leman Russes. So, apparently, the Corpse God doesn't do that much after all.
99% sure that GSC has their own LR datasheet, so that's a problem.
Well, GSC's codex is about a month away, so hopefully they'll fix it there. That, along with the price increase to Dark Lances and Admech Laser Chickens could mean that gw realizes that they've made vehicles too squishy. The increases on Dark Lances and Laser Chickens were good, now let's see if they do the same with multi-meltas......
Odds are pretty good that the GSC codex already went to print, their Russes are a 3+ save, and will need to be fixed in the 'day 1' FAQ that comes out a month later.
Voss wrote: Odds are pretty good that the GSC codex already went to print, their Russes are a 3+ save, and will need to be fixed in the 'day 1' FAQ that comes out a month later.
callocx wrote: So.. more inconsistency from GW. Leman Russes are Sv 2+... unless of course a heretic, renegade or genestealer cultist is driving it. Then 3+.
Makes sense. I guess the Emperor protects!
Not sure about GSC, but R&H use the Guard datasheet for our Leman Russes. So, apparently, the Corpse God doesn't do that much after all.
99% sure that GSC has their own LR datasheet, so that's a problem.
Well, GSC's codex is about a month away, so hopefully they'll fix it there. That, along with the price increase to Dark Lances and Admech Laser Chickens could mean that gw realizes that they've made vehicles too squishy. The increases on Dark Lances and Laser Chickens were good, now let's see if they do the same with multi-meltas......
At the risk of cutting my own throat (it's okay, I left a sample with the Haemonculus), dark lances could probably do with being more expensive than disintegrators across all platforms rather than just the Raider...
callocx wrote: So.. more inconsistency from GW. Leman Russes are Sv 2+... unless of course a heretic, renegade or genestealer cultist is driving it. Then 3+.
Makes sense. I guess the Emperor protects!
Not sure about GSC, but R&H use the Guard datasheet for our Leman Russes. So, apparently, the Corpse God doesn't do that much after all.
99% sure that GSC has their own LR datasheet, so that's a problem.
Well, GSC's codex is about a month away, so hopefully they'll fix it there. That, along with the price increase to Dark Lances and Admech Laser Chickens could mean that gw realizes that they've made vehicles too squishy. The increases on Dark Lances and Laser Chickens were good, now let's see if they do the same with multi-meltas......
Odds are pretty good that the GSC codex already went to print, their Russes are a 3+ save, and will need to be fixed in the 'day 1' FAQ that comes out a month later.
I'd pretty much guarantee it's already gone to print. But it's possible that the change to the Leman Russ's save is already in there, and they're just giving it to the Guard now, same as they updated heavy bolters, meltas, lighting claws, etc to coincide with the loyalist codex. But in the codex, or "day 1" FAQ, GSC will probably get it when their codex drops.
callocx wrote: So.. more inconsistency from GW. Leman Russes are Sv 2+... unless of course a heretic, renegade or genestealer cultist is driving it. Then 3+.
Makes sense. I guess the Emperor protects!
Not sure about GSC, but R&H use the Guard datasheet for our Leman Russes. So, apparently, the Corpse God doesn't do that much after all.
Do they change out the "ASTRA MILITARUM" keyword for something appropriate to their faction, though, in either case?
On the upside, the way everything seems to be phrased on page 1 of the PDF, it looks like the save change and the TC orders change would both apply to appropriate Forge World vehicles, which is an improvement on their normal approach to these patches.
No one is leaving their tanks at home because of volcons. The boost to the Leman Russ's save shows that GW knows that they need help in the durability department, and the increase in price to Dark Lances and Laser Chickens shows that they know that the new AT weapons are too cheap. Multi-meltas are too cheap. Period. It doesn't matter if tournament players are spamming them or not. And we know tournament players "build for the meta". If nobody is bringing heavy armour, they won't be bringing anything to deal with it. Multi-meltas being rare at tournaments doesn't mean they need a buff, it just means there's no reason for tournament players to bring it.
More dark lances (and more multimeltas for imperium armies) would have made impossible for the ork player to 1 shot his opponents.
What's better than dedicated anti tank to bring down vehicle based lists? According to the internet Freeboota Speedwaaagh lists are (or were) OP as hell, so why leaving effective anti tank at home? Because it's overpriced and almost useless against other armies?
Welcome to the rock/paper/scissor attitude. Multimeltas are definitely too cheap.
callocx wrote: So.. more inconsistency from GW. Leman Russes are Sv 2+... unless of course a heretic, renegade or genestealer cultist is driving it. Then 3+.
Makes sense. I guess the Emperor protects!
Not sure about GSC, but R&H use the Guard datasheet for our Leman Russes. So, apparently, the Corpse God doesn't do that much after all.
Do they change out the "ASTRA MILITARUM" keyword for something appropriate to their faction, though, in either case?
On the upside, the way everything seems to be phrased on page 1 of the PDF, it looks like the save change and the TC orders change would both apply to appropriate Forge World vehicles, which is an improvement on their normal approach to these patches.
R&H trade out IMPERIUM for CHAOS, and <REGIMENT> for <RENEGADES AND HERETICS>, but bizarrely, keep ASTRA MILITARUM on any units that we can take from the Asta Milatarum codex or their Imperial Armour Compendium list.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Glad to see that the internet agitation succeeded, hopefully people won't let up and we can continue to pressure GW to actually fix their game.
This is good.
In the same breath there are some people on the internets claiming this is worse because books are outdated faster, they can't keep track etc. so impossible to please everyone. Just glad they made these optional so it's down to each group how current they stay.
Those people have a point too.
GW should release balanced codexes from the start so they don't HAVE to invalidate them with a balance patch.
That argument is not inconsistent with "well they did a gakky job on the dexes so a balance patch is good". It's just the next step: "maybe don't do a gakky job on the dexes."
I genuinely want someone to show me a game that was perfectly balanced from the start. Because I want to see this unicorn.
Well I know warhammer is a totally new game made but a totally new company so yeah it takes awhile to find balance...wait a minute....
they couldn't fix the outlier planes, no.. feth planes entirely i guess.
Indeed that would be less of an issue if all armies had an AA unit, or a plane... alas can't have that.. better to throw the missile launcher no bone at all and remain ardent that AA missiles are an stratagem....
Dude, you know AA missiles are so rare and powerful they could only be a strat, duh. Just like a vehicles smoke launchers, surely such high tech gubbins couldn't be used more than once a turn. It would lead to mass hysteria !
My airmobile Scion list is now no longer playable, so yeah I feel you.
The irony is that i Just played a tournament with my Alphork Strike list and went 3 and 0. My closest game was against a Scion Air mobile list because he basically took away most of my 1st turn targets since I have very little ranged firepower.
Super fluffy and it was a blast to play against. another ham fisted move by GW.
Same here, I have a small scion army that is basically 3 scion squads all in Valkyries and a Vulture for support, super fun and fluffy, and in no way OP. Illegal now.
callocx wrote: So.. more inconsistency from GW. Leman Russes are Sv 2+... unless of course a heretic, renegade or genestealer cultist is driving it. Then 3+.
Makes sense. I guess the Emperor protects!
Not sure about GSC, but R&H use the Guard datasheet for our Leman Russes. So, apparently, the Corpse God doesn't do that much after all.
99% sure that GSC has their own LR datasheet, so that's a problem.
The GSC rip off the extra armor because they are crazy, there's your fluff. You're welcome.
Blackie wrote: More dark lances (and more multimeltas for imperium armies) would have made impossible for the ork player to 1 shot his opponents.
What's better than dedicated anti tank to bring down vehicle based lists? According to the internet Freeboota Speedwaaagh lists are (or were) OP as hell, so why leaving effective anti tank at home? Because it's overpriced and almost useless against other armies?
Welcome to the rock/paper/scissor attitude. Multimeltas are definitely too cheap.
The issue is that ravagers were just bad.
Shoot say a 140 point 3 lance ravager at a Dakkajet.
3 shots. 1.5 hits. 1 wound. 5 damage. So 50 points for 140=35% return.
Dakkajet by contrast into a ravager: 42 shots, 14 hits, 7 wounds, 4.66 damage, so 59.4 damage for 120 points - just shy of 50% return.
Freebooters potentially lifts that Ork score to 75% - I think the blackheart reroll pushes the ravager up to about 45%.
The points reduction on the ravager changes improve things a bit - i.e. the ravager goes up to a 38.5% return, and the Dakkajet goes down to a 45% return - but throwing in Freebooters and the gap could still be considerable.
Shooting at say a buggy with a 5++ is much the same but worse - meanwhile ramshackle makes the disintegrator completely worthless.
Its classic 40k creep. The hard anti-tank has rendered a range of *bad* vehicles (relatively expensive with no defenses like invuls and minuses to hit) unplayable. Speedwaaagh however is powerful precisely because it has a decent chance to shrug this stuff off (either by going first and just killing it - or being lucky on going second). They will however die to a range of other things which are being thrown up the curve.
35% isn't exactly a low return. It is what you expect on average.
Now, here we are looking at darklances shooting into a sub T8 vehicle without invul, which is pretty much the ideal target, even if the -1 to hit isn't nice. The ravager is also a quite glassy model (but long ranged),so 55-60% return wouldn't be that strange.
Spoletta wrote: 35% isn't exactly a low return. It is what you expect on average.
Now, here we are looking at darklances shooting into a sub T8 vehicle without invul, which is pretty much the ideal target, even if the -1 to hit isn't nice. The ravager is also a quite glassy model (but long ranged),so 55-60% return wouldn't be that strange.
I'm not sure things having 55-60% returns is good for the game - but if that's where the power curve currently lies, units which aren't putting that out are unlikely to be competitive.
Spoletta wrote: 35% isn't exactly a low return. It is what you expect on average.
Now, here we are looking at darklances shooting into a sub T8 vehicle without invul, which is pretty much the ideal target, even if the -1 to hit isn't nice. The ravager is also a quite glassy model (but long ranged),so 55-60% return wouldn't be that strange.
I'm not sure things having 55-60% returns is good for the game - but if that's where the power curve currently lies, units which aren't putting that out are unlikely to be competitive.
55-60% are perfectly fine for a specialized weapon into its target. Depending how safe you are after taking the shot, even 100% is fine.
It has been like this at least since I started playing in 5th edition, so it's not really a recent thing.
How much return did you have with melta pods in 5th? Yeah, higher than 100%. That was a specialized weapon into its intended target which was very unsafe after taking the shot. Those metrics never really changed.
Blackie wrote: More dark lances (and more multimeltas for imperium armies) would have made impossible for the ork player to 1 shot his opponents.
What's better than dedicated anti tank to bring down vehicle based lists? According to the internet Freeboota Speedwaaagh lists are (or were) OP as hell, so why leaving effective anti tank at home? Because it's overpriced and almost useless against other armies?
Welcome to the rock/paper/scissor attitude. Multimeltas are definitely too cheap.
The issue is that ravagers were just bad.
Shoot say a 140 point 3 lance ravager at a Dakkajet.
3 shots. 1.5 hits. 1 wound. 5 damage. So 50 points for 140=35% return.
Dakkajet by contrast into a ravager: 42 shots, 14 hits, 7 wounds, 4.66 damage, so 59.4 damage for 120 points - just shy of 50% return.
Freebooters potentially lifts that Ork score to 75% - I think the blackheart reroll pushes the ravager up to about 45%.
The points reduction on the ravager changes improve things a bit - i.e. the ravager goes up to a 38.5% return, and the Dakkajet goes down to a 45% return - but throwing in Freebooters and the gap could still be considerable.
Shooting at say a buggy with a 5++ is much the same but worse - meanwhile ramshackle makes the disintegrator completely worthless.
Its classic 40k creep. The hard anti-tank has rendered a range of *bad* vehicles (relatively expensive with no defenses like invuls and minuses to hit) unplayable. Speedwaaagh however is powerful precisely because it has a decent chance to shrug this stuff off (either by going first and just killing it - or being lucky on going second). They will however die to a range of other things which are being thrown up the curve.
Ravager has never been bad. A lot of armies would kill for 140 points ravagers, let alone 130ppm ones .
Dakkajet is definitely undercosted and also a flyer, not exactly the same thing. And they shouldn't be compared in damage output either unless assuming the ravager is kitted with dis cannons, as lances are pure anti tank. Before tools to enhance the shots a ravager gets 2 hits with S8 AP-4 D3+3 while the dakkajet gets 12 S6 AP-1 D1 hits. Vs T7/8 models ravagers are much better than dakkajets.
Spoletta wrote: 35% isn't exactly a low return. It is what you expect on average.
Now, here we are looking at darklances shooting into a sub T8 vehicle without invul, which is pretty much the ideal target, even if the -1 to hit isn't nice. The ravager is also a quite glassy model (but long ranged),so 55-60% return wouldn't be that strange.
I'm not sure things having 55-60% returns is good for the game - but if that's where the power curve currently lies, units which aren't putting that out are unlikely to be competitive.
55-60% returns is very good. Of course in army full of OP stuff it might not look that good .
Spoletta wrote: 35% isn't exactly a low return. It is what you expect on average.
Now, here we are looking at darklances shooting into a sub T8 vehicle without invul, which is pretty much the ideal target, even if the -1 to hit isn't nice. The ravager is also a quite glassy model (but long ranged),so 55-60% return wouldn't be that strange.
I'm not sure things having 55-60% returns is good for the game - but if that's where the power curve currently lies, units which aren't putting that out are unlikely to be competitive.
55-60% are perfectly fine for a specialized weapon into its target. Depending how safe you are after taking the shot, even 100% is fine.
It has been like this at least since I started playing in 5th edition, so it's not really a recent thing.
How much return did you have with melta pods in 5th? Yeah, higher than 100%. That was a specialized weapon into its intended target which was very unsafe after taking the shot. Those metrics never really changed.
If you need less than 3xpoints to deal with unit you have game that's too lethal.
50% is too good. 75% is ridiculous. 100% is bonker noob game designer level.
Jidmah wrote: Comparing what two units deal do each other is a worthless metric, because not every unit is equally good against every target.
You need to have both shoot the same thing to compare them. Traditional, you use GEQ, MEQ and rhinos for this.
We've had this debate before - but I don't really agree, because two armies end up shooting each other on the table.
So if one is expecting to get 50-60% returns, and the other 30-40% returns, its not a huge surprise the former has an advantage in the matchup.
Its telling you different things than a comparison of how many guardsmen/intercessors/rhinos you'd expect to two different units to kill.
I raise the Ravagers because Blackie (and others) have been telling people in numerous threads on Speedwaaagh/SoCal Final, "ho ho ho, venoms deserve to die to Speedwaaagh, what can you expect, if the DE player had taken anti-tank he'd have been fine". I've hopefully demonstrated that Ravagers would not be *fine* - they'd die just as quickly without expecting to contribute all that much. And people don't take them because they just aren't that good unless your opponent were to bring units that are generally considered bad (i.e. Predator tier stuff)
The fact a ravager is say twice as good versus rhinos than a dakkajet would only really matter if you were regularly running into rhinos in games.
Spoletta wrote: 35% isn't exactly a low return. It is what you expect on average.
Now, here we are looking at darklances shooting into a sub T8 vehicle without invul, which is pretty much the ideal target, even if the -1 to hit isn't nice. The ravager is also a quite glassy model (but long ranged),so 55-60% return wouldn't be that strange.
I'm not sure things having 55-60% returns is good for the game - but if that's where the power curve currently lies, units which aren't putting that out are unlikely to be competitive.
55-60% are perfectly fine for a specialized weapon into its target. Depending how safe you are after taking the shot, even 100% is fine.
It has been like this at least since I started playing in 5th edition, so it's not really a recent thing.
How much return did you have with melta pods in 5th? Yeah, higher than 100%. That was a specialized weapon into its intended target which was very unsafe after taking the shot. Those metrics never really changed.
If you need less than 3xpoints to deal with unit you have game that's too lethal.
50% is too good. 75% is ridiculous. 100% is bonker noob game designer level.
Nope, you are confusing average lethality with instant lethality.
Average lethality over 33% is indeed an issue.
Instant lethality can be 100% without issues.
All point based games I can think of have cases of instant lethality at 100% or even well over it.
I don't think that all the games I played were bonker noob game design level.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: Listen, I’ve picked up some armigers to loot, these things are knight sized.
Also, if you’re all concerned about orks shooting things off turn one, prepare for when Tau come out
...I mean, they are not. Armigers are on big round bases IIRC, and the proper knights are on bigger oval bases.
Before this devolves into a math-hammer comparison between a unit knitted out for AT and another kitted out for anti-infantry, does anyone else think that the updates for Guard, Knights, and CSM look less like "get you by" rules and more like "some of your 9th edition codex rules early"? These look a lot like what you'd expect to make those factions work in 9th edition games, especially Knights.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Before this devolves into a math-hammer comparison between a unit knitted out for AT and another kitted out for anti-infantry, does anyone else think that the updates for Guard, Knights, and CSM look less like "get you by" rules and more like "some of your 9th edition codex rules early"? These look a lot like what you'd expect to make those factions work in 9th edition games, especially Knights.
I dont think so. knights maybe, but to use CSM as an example Tsons and DG both got rid of DTTFE - as well as shock assault, they just gave them all +1A.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Before this devolves into a math-hammer comparison between a unit knitted out for AT and another kitted out for anti-infantry, does anyone else think that the updates for Guard, Knights, and CSM look less like "get you by" rules and more like "some of your 9th edition codex rules early"? These look a lot like what you'd expect to make those factions work in 9th edition games, especially Knights.
I dont think so. knights maybe, but to use CSM as an example Tsons and DG both got rid of DTTFE - as well as shock assault, they just gave them all +1A.
Right, but DG got what is basically "+1 to wound in melee" against most other infantry to compensate, and 1ksons aren't generally considered a "stabby" Legion. I'm thinking CSM lose Hateful Assault, get +1A, and get the "new DTTFE". If CSM lose Hateful Assault and DTTFE with no other compensation, then they'll be a less melee focused faction than DG, and on equal footing with the magic and ranged focused 1ksons. That doesn't feel right.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Before this devolves into a math-hammer comparison between a unit knitted out for AT and another kitted out for anti-infantry, does anyone else think that the updates for Guard, Knights, and CSM look less like "get you by" rules and more like "some of your 9th edition codex rules early"? These look a lot like what you'd expect to make those factions work in 9th edition games, especially Knights.
I dont think so. knights maybe, but to use CSM as an example Tsons and DG both got rid of DTTFE - as well as shock assault, they just gave them all +1A.
I think it is possible that CSM will get +1W +1A in many of their datasheets. But then also get the new DTTFE as their super doctrine for going pure CSM.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Before this devolves into a math-hammer comparison between a unit knitted out for AT and another kitted out for anti-infantry, does anyone else think that the updates for Guard, Knights, and CSM look less like "get you by" rules and more like "some of your 9th edition codex rules early"? These look a lot like what you'd expect to make those factions work in 9th edition games, especially Knights.
I dont think so. knights maybe, but to use CSM as an example Tsons and DG both got rid of DTTFE - as well as shock assault, they just gave them all +1A.
I think it is possible that CSM will get +1W +1A in many of their datasheets. But then also get the new DTTFE as their super doctrine for going pure CSM.
Hoo boy, if that's true there's going to be a lot of pleased blood donors and skull stackers.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Before this devolves into a math-hammer comparison between a unit knitted out for AT and another kitted out for anti-infantry, does anyone else think that the updates for Guard, Knights, and CSM look less like "get you by" rules and more like "some of your 9th edition codex rules early"? These look a lot like what you'd expect to make those factions work in 9th edition games, especially Knights.
It might be because Covid seems to have genuinely messed up the release schedule something fierce. GK/TS were meant to be out in March I think one playtester said? The way things are going, some armies won't get their 9th codexes until a few months before 10th (although I'm sure GW would be fine with that) and with the seemingly intentional power creep to 9th codexes so many of them would be left all but unplayable as to hurt sales something fierce, even by GW's usual shoddy writing standards.
With all respect for companies like GW who took this seriously, COVID has been around for a bit now, and they have been back to operating regularly for some time now. They staggered for 4 months or so, and then went back to business as usual.
They managed to have indexes with datasheets ready for every single color of loyalist, even for those who got their books a few months later. If there was no pandemic, CSM players would still have waited over a year for their second wound, while GW went through extra effort to make sure that Space Wolves didn't fall behind for the three months unit they got their supplement.
Oh there's no question the release schedule has been completely thrown out the window.
All the more reason to have all codexes drop at the beginning of an edition change (which will never happen until GW can get the app subscriptions locked down, and even then maybe not).
If all codexes dropped at once, I think there'd be a lot less complaint about the campaign supplements with rules, as those would be providing the flavor through the edition, and they'd probably actually sell a LOT more of those in that case. I know I'll never buy one again (unless they make these changes).
I get the appeal of having army rules for the start of an edition but I don't think it would solve many problems.
5th Ed Necrons had a Codex release that didn't actually come with all of the units it featured and it was quite a while before they were all released. 4th Ed Orks had the problem where new models were released and were in things like White Dwarf until 7th Ed. The current system sucks and I have been avoiding using my CSM against 9th armies but I'll take waiting for all my rules/models than half measures of both.
As for rules in Campaign books, that's a lose-lose situation IMO. Someone is going to bite the bullet first and either get super good rules soon after the Codex or absolute garbage right after the Codex, with another faction getting super good rules later on. Maybe if the rules were disallowed at tournaments or something, then maybe there would be less outcry.
Gert wrote: I get the appeal of having army rules for the start of an edition but I don't think it would solve many problems.
5th Ed Necrons had a Codex release that didn't actually come with all of the units it featured and it was quite a while before they were all released. 4th Ed Orks had the problem where new models were released and were in things like White Dwarf until 7th Ed. The current system sucks and I have been avoiding using my CSM against 9th armies but I'll take waiting for all my rules/models than half measures of both.
It's almost like the solution is unbelievably easy: just release the rules for free in pdf form (or in the app w/ subscription) when you release the new models that weren't originally in the codex.
It's almost like the solution is unbelievably easy: just release the rules for free in pdf form (or in the app w/ subscription) when you release the new models that weren't originally in the codex.
Which doesn't actually help because then I still need other documents outside of my Codex to use certain units in my army.
HH is a pain in the butt because a good number of units are released with PDF rules and don't get proper rules inclusions for ages, recently not at all for many.
Blackie wrote: More dark lances (and more multimeltas for imperium armies) would have made impossible for the ork player to 1 shot his opponents.
What's better than dedicated anti tank to bring down vehicle based lists? According to the internet Freeboota Speedwaaagh lists are (or were) OP as hell, so why leaving effective anti tank at home? Because it's overpriced and almost useless against other armies?
Welcome to the rock/paper/scissor attitude. Multimeltas are definitely too cheap.
The issue is that ravagers were just bad.
Shoot say a 140 point 3 lance ravager at a Dakkajet.
3 shots. 1.5 hits. 1 wound. 5 damage. So 50 points for 140=35% return.
Dakkajet by contrast into a ravager: 42 shots, 14 hits, 7 wounds, 4.66 damage, so 59.4 damage for 120 points - just shy of 50% return.
Freebooters potentially lifts that Ork score to 75% - I think the blackheart reroll pushes the ravager up to about 45%.
The points reduction on the ravager changes improve things a bit - i.e. the ravager goes up to a 38.5% return, and the Dakkajet goes down to a 45% return - but throwing in Freebooters and the gap could still be considerable.
Shooting at say a buggy with a 5++ is much the same but worse - meanwhile ramshackle makes the disintegrator completely worthless.
Its classic 40k creep. The hard anti-tank has rendered a range of *bad* vehicles (relatively expensive with no defenses like invuls and minuses to hit) unplayable. Speedwaaagh however is powerful precisely because it has a decent chance to shrug this stuff off (either by going first and just killing it - or being lucky on going second). They will however die to a range of other things which are being thrown up the curve.
Non-invuln vehicles can be taken. You just can't take more than one or two of them unless they're transports.
A Ravager kills a Dakkajet 6% of the time. And produces a really funky result set:
Spoiler:
A Dakkajet will kill a Ravager 0.5% of the time and has a smooth result set:
Spoiler:
If the Ravager pops LFR then the DJ is a huge wet noodle. Freebootas would return it to the previous table. With no LFR and a FB bonus the DJ gets to an 8% kill chance.
Spoiler:
Eradicators have a 32% change to kill a DJ. Stacking an extra minus to hit on the Heavy MM since they'd have to move would change that quite a bit. They have an 19% chance to kill a Ravager with LFR and a 39% chance to kill a Predator with Smoke or Dense, which isn't wildly out of range from the DJ given it is basically the extra wound on the DJ giving it an edge.
A Gladiator with smoke? 19% Eradicators and 6% Ravager.
If Orks can take multiple DJs who can't hide at all and die more easily or at the same rate as other non-invuln vehicles then people can absolutely take a tank that can be hidden behind terrain.
Blackie wrote: More dark lances (and more multimeltas for imperium armies) would have made impossible for the ork player to 1 shot his opponents.
What's better than dedicated anti tank to bring down vehicle based lists? According to the internet Freeboota Speedwaaagh lists are (or were) OP as hell, so why leaving effective anti tank at home? Because it's overpriced and almost useless against other armies?
Welcome to the rock/paper/scissor attitude. Multimeltas are definitely too cheap.
The issue is that ravagers were just bad.
Shoot say a 140 point 3 lance ravager at a Dakkajet.
3 shots. 1.5 hits. 1 wound. 5 damage. So 50 points for 140=35% return.
Dakkajet by contrast into a ravager: 42 shots, 14 hits, 7 wounds, 4.66 damage, so 59.4 damage for 120 points - just shy of 50% return.
Freebooters potentially lifts that Ork score to 75% - I think the blackheart reroll pushes the ravager up to about 45%.
The points reduction on the ravager changes improve things a bit - i.e. the ravager goes up to a 38.5% return, and the Dakkajet goes down to a 45% return - but throwing in Freebooters and the gap could still be considerable.
Shooting at say a buggy with a 5++ is much the same but worse - meanwhile ramshackle makes the disintegrator completely worthless.
Its classic 40k creep. The hard anti-tank has rendered a range of *bad* vehicles (relatively expensive with no defenses like invuls and minuses to hit) unplayable. Speedwaaagh however is powerful precisely because it has a decent chance to shrug this stuff off (either by going first and just killing it - or being lucky on going second). They will however die to a range of other things which are being thrown up the curve.
Non-invuln vehicles can be taken. You just can't take more than one or two of them unless they're transports.
A Ravager kills a Dakkajet 6% of the time. And produces a really funky result set:
Spoiler:
A Dakkajet will kill a Ravager 0.5% of the time and has a smooth result set:
Spoiler:
If the Ravager pops LFR then the DJ is a huge wet noodle. Freebootas would return it to the previous table. With no LFR and a FB bonus the DJ gets to an 8% kill chance.
Spoiler:
Eradicators have a 32% change to kill a DJ. Stacking an extra minus to hit on the Heavy MM since they'd have to move would change that quite a bit. They have an 19% chance to kill a Ravager with LFR and a 39% chance to kill a Predator with Smoke or Dense, which isn't wildly out of range from the DJ given it is basically the extra wound on the DJ giving it an edge.
A Gladiator with smoke? 19% Eradicators and 6% Ravager.
If Orks can take multiple DJs who can't hide at all and die more easily or at the same rate as other non-invuln vehicles then people can absolutely take a tank that can be hidden behind terrain.
The paranoia over anti-tank is overstated.
We're actually at a point where anti-tank is efficient enough that it's becoming a problem...for anti-tank stuff. People generally don't load up their entire armies with vehicles anymore so in response a lot of people have been bringing only the bare minimum of anti-tank to deal with armor. The rest goes into either generalist weapons like heavy bolters or w/e or straight up anti-infantry in order to avoid waste.
This has lead to more people bringing either more armor or the proliferation of things with mediocre invuls and damage reduction (ala contemptors/buffed redemptors) that under older damage spreads would be incredibly vulnerable but can survive the 'exactly as much AT as I need and no more' mentality people have been in since basically the multimelta change.
ERJAK wrote: We're actually at a point where anti-tank is efficient enough that it's becoming a problem...for anti-tank stuff. People generally don't load up their entire armies with vehicles anymore so in response a lot of people have been bringing only the bare minimum of anti-tank to deal with armor.
I don't think that statement is entirely true, but YMMV.
There are tons of high priority vehicles when facing Orks, Admech, DE, and GK all with varying defensive profiles. Marines can drag around a bunch of dreadnoughts as well.
There is more than enough vehicles to shoot. DE have tons of vehicles, but little in the way of AT. Admech can solve some AT with volume and the rest with efficiency. Orks have lots of low BSAT.
Marines are leaning more into the plasma Redemptors, because Volcons aren't very good against buggies. Eradicators with a -1 on the MM kills a Ravager 24% of the time and a Volcon w/ ML is 35% ( 17% without CML). Three attack bikes cost more than a contemptor with CML and do fewer shots than the eradicators.
I think in general the mission makes it hard to take everything you want and over tuning into things like multi-meltas gets you a really bad day when you face GK and they teleport the DK away or go up to a 3++. People need a diverse set of weapons and units to tackle targets that come up and to play objectives while also not over exposing their list to easy secondary picks.
People are finally bringing moderate amounts of AT and vehicles instead of either avoiding/spamming and we complain? If lists have 1-3 vehicles and 1-3 AT dedicated units, then it is ideal.
Jidmah wrote: With all respect for companies like GW who took this seriously, COVID has been around for a bit now, and they have been back to operating regularly for some time now. They staggered for 4 months or so, and then went back to business as usual.
They managed to have indexes with datasheets ready for every single color of loyalist, even for those who got their books a few months later. If there was no pandemic, CSM players would still have waited over a year for their second wound, while GW went through extra effort to make sure that Space Wolves didn't fall behind for the three months unit they got their supplement.
A fair point, but a little different, because the core marine book was already done.
Jidmah wrote: With all respect for companies like GW who took this seriously, COVID has been around for a bit now, and they have been back to operating regularly for some time now. They staggered for 4 months or so, and then went back to business as usual.
They managed to have indexes with datasheets ready for every single color of loyalist, even for those who got their books a few months later. If there was no pandemic, CSM players would still have waited over a year for their second wound, while GW went through extra effort to make sure that Space Wolves didn't fall behind for the three months unit they got their supplement.
A fair point, but a little different, because the core marine book was already done.
The new supplements had stand-alone books at that time, they could just have told them to use those until their supplements come out. Or just to the "use the most recent datasheet"-flowchart. They definitely went above and beyond that (which is good), but they also just should have done that for the CSM units in power and terminator armor. There aren't that many of those, most likely less than SW characters
We're actually at a point where anti-tank is efficient enough that it's becoming a problem...for anti-tank stuff. People generally don't load up their entire armies with vehicles anymore so in response a lot of people have been bringing only the bare minimum of anti-tank to deal with armor. The rest goes into either generalist weapons like heavy bolters or w/e or straight up anti-infantry in order to avoid waste.
This has lead to more people bringing either more armor or the proliferation of things with mediocre invuls and damage reduction (ala contemptors/buffed redemptors) that under older damage spreads would be incredibly vulnerable but can survive the 'exactly as much AT as I need and no more' mentality people have been in since basically the multimelta change.
This is still the old rock/paper/scissor mentality. What about bringin TAC lists with a bit of everything?
Jidmah wrote: With all respect for companies like GW who took this seriously, COVID has been around for a bit now, and they have been back to operating regularly for some time now. They staggered for 4 months or so, and then went back to business as usual.
They managed to have indexes with datasheets ready for every single color of loyalist, even for those who got their books a few months later. If there was no pandemic, CSM players would still have waited over a year for their second wound, while GW went through extra effort to make sure that Space Wolves didn't fall behind for the three months unit they got their supplement.
A fair point, but a little different, because the core marine book was already done.
The new supplements had stand-alone books at that time, they could just have told them to use those until their supplements come out. Or just to the "use the most recent datasheet"-flowchart. They definitely went above and beyond that (which is good), but they also just should have done that for the CSM units in power and terminator armor. There aren't that many of those, most likely less than SW characters
No unfortunately that was not the case. GW had officially squatted BA, SW, DA and DW datasheets with the release of the SM codex. They were as illegal on the table as the actual squat models. Squats had rules at a certain point in history, right?. If I put squat models on the table, would a TO accept them in an event on the basis of "Use most recent datasheet"? I don't think so. That was the situation of dozens of datasheets.
Would it have been a nice thing to also get some pdf for Chaos? Yeah, no doubt. But they were legal on the table, just old. Not the same situation. So, let's be quite clear on priorities here. Snowflake marine pdf were a strict necessity to re introduce back into the game dozens of datasheets which were currently no longer part of the game. Chaos marines pdf were a nice to have.
I'm not sure "here are my Squats who never even got a 2nd edition codex, I can play them right" is a fair comparison with "here's my 8th edition Blood Angels book, there's no logical reason this is any more squatted than literally every other faction that doesn't have a 9th edition codex yet".
GW could have released a one-line FAQ to that effect.
Equally they could have released a two-three page FAQ that says "btw, CSM stats are now X, note the extra wound and attack on most profiles, also they cost Y points now. Bye".
It would take a few hours draft. Instead pushing 18 months into the edition its still "wait for the codex, we need to sell you the codex, buy the codex". Its pathetic.
Jidmah wrote: It was not necessary at all. They could have use Codex:SM for all generic units and their old books for all chapter specific ones.
Terrible solution.
That meant that all new players of those very popular factions (and you have a lot of those at the start of an edition) would be forced to buy an outdated book which was going to be invalidated in a few months.
No thanks.
Edit: By the way, it wasn't even possible. There were broken interactions between old supplements and the 9th edition dex. CORE definitions are the first that come to mind.
I genuinely want someone to show me a game that was perfectly balanced from the start. Because I want to see this unicorn.
What is your criteria for the games (wholly original, should they be miniatures based, etc.), what counts as the start (commercial release?) and what do you consider perfectly balanced (so for example if the two sides have different chances of success but you play twice, once each side and the result is cumulative, does that count as balanced?).
Same here, I have a small scion army that is basically 3 scion squads all in Valkyries and a Vulture for support, super fun and fluffy, and in no way OP. Illegal now.
That argument is not inconsistent with "well they did a gakky job on the dexes so a balance patch is good". It's just the next step: "maybe don't do a gakky job on the dexes."
I genuinely want someone to show me a game that was perfectly balanced from the start. Because I want to see this unicorn.
Its not about perfect, but there is a reasonable expectation.
Here are a couple with DE (sense im in DE community and I know DE really well).
The instant the book was out, within a couple hours players (not just one but MANY players) saw DT as a problem, a big problem. DE players were expecting DT to get removed or nerf bc in 8th it was the main way to play, they instead BUFFED IT. The reasonable expectation was to remove it, or at least nerf it not buff it. Any player could tell you that with little experience.
CoS supplement, literally everyone understood and figure out the best Succubus build within an hour with Competitive Edge, this WL trait should not have been anything like it is, why is it not just re-roll failed hits/wounds if they wanted it to be a better hitting/wounds WL trait? There is a reasonable expectation to not have insane super combos that breaks the game. Also everyone can tell you that the Succubus by her self is not very good, well worth only 60pts sadly, its when you add a WLT and a Relic that is magnifies her damage to insane levels. Imagine if they set her up to be 90-100pts, better main stats, maybe 2D weapon option that is worth a damn and really viable melee character without relics/WLT but the combos are much weaker when combine, something like re-rolls and a couple bonus attacks, now they are much more damage and options to make a middle of the line melee hero. The succubus is either not worth a damn or way too over powerful. You can not balance that at all. GW chose to write the rules in this way.
Those are minor examples of a reasonable expectation, we are not asking for perfect not at all. We are asking GW not to have a unit that is spammable with massive Speed, ignore LoS guns, insane shooting, with insane bonuses to shooting while also being cheap.
Flyers can be a problem sure, but point them more aggressively, you don't see DE flyers outside of fun games for a reason, same with Marines, and many other armies, or those few guys with full Air forces in Guard, the lists are terrible but they are more cool than your army most likely, and yet its not game breaking, so when 3-4 units only in 2 armies are game breaking, don't change the rules of the game, change those units and points.
That argument is not inconsistent with "well they did a gakky job on the dexes so a balance patch is good". It's just the next step: "maybe don't do a gakky job on the dexes."
I genuinely want someone to show me a game that was perfectly balanced from the start. Because I want to see this unicorn.
Its not about perfect, but there is a reasonable expectation.
The funny thing is I'm not disagreeing with this. I was disagreeing with someone else's statement within that said
GW should release balanced codexes from the start so they don't HAVE to invalidate them with a balance patch.
I am in favor of balance updates and properly checking things. There was just some moment that seemed bizarre to me where some people were against updating afterwords so as to avoid invalidating books.
What is your criteria for the games (wholly original, should they be miniatures based, etc.), what counts as the start (commercial release?) and what do you consider perfectly balanced (so for example if the two sides have different chances of success but you play twice, once each side and the result is cumulative, does that count as balanced?).
I don't exactly have an idea of perfectly balanced, but given what the other person was saying it needs to be a game that from the start was both balanced and never had any sort of patch, balancing, or errata afterwords
Amishprn86 wrote: Also everyone can tell you that the Succubus by her self is not very good, well worth only 60pts sadly, its when you add a WLT and a Relic that is magnifies her damage to insane levels. Imagine if they set her up to be 90-100pts, better main stats, maybe 2D weapon option that is worth a damn and really viable melee character without relics/WLT but the combos are much weaker when combine, something like re-rolls and a couple bonus attacks, now they are much more damage and options to make a middle of the line melee hero. The succubus is either not worth a damn or way too over powerful. You can not balance that at all. GW chose to write the rules in this way.
I'm glad you brought this particular point up as I was thinking along similar lines.
I can't help but think that Artefacts (and probably Warlord Traits as well) should really cost points instead of CPs. That way, there's an actual reason to take pistols and other, weaker, relics over the stronger ones.
Maybe it's not so bad for some armies (Necrons certainly comes to mind). However, the difference between an Archon with no artefacts and warlord traits (or one with any of the myriad of bad artefacts and warlord traits) and an Archon with a particular combination of warlord trait and relic is substantial. In one scenario, he's throwing out 7 S4 AP-3 D3 attacks that reroll all hits and wounds, in another he's throwing out 5 S3 AP-3 D2 attacks with no rerolls and maybe has a crappy Ld aura. Same with the Succubus - with one set of traits she throws out 10 Poison 2+ AP-3 D2 attacks that inflict 2 Mortal wounds on a roll of 6 to hit, but with another she throws out 5 S5 AP-3 D1 attacks with no Mortal Wounds and maybe has some crappy pistol shots or is slightly harder to wound.
Because all warlord traits and artefacts cost the exact same amount, there's no way to balance these differences. So all GW can do is cost the models as though they all have the most powerful combination of traits, at the expense of anyone who tried to go for a less powerful (but fluffy) loadout.
Given the apparent intent to balance the game better, it seems very strange to have an ever-growing section of it that is literally designed to preclude any possibility of balance.
Then again, this also seems to be in no small part due to the abysmal design of DEHQs to basically be entirely reliant on artefacts and warlord traits in order to be worth a damn. e.g. as a point of comparison a Necron Warscythe has a decent profile with S+2 AP-4 D2, and a Blood Scythe artefact augments this with 2 additional attacks. A Canoness' Blessed Blade similarly has a good profile with S+2 AP-3 D2, and the Blade of Saint Ellynor artefact just ups its damage to 3. However, an Archon's Huskblade starts off with an utterly abysmal profile S: User (on a S3 character!) AP-3 D2, and the Djin Blade artefact adds 2 attacks and a point of strength and a point of damage.
Same deal with the Succubus. A normal Agoniser has a very mediocre S- AP-3 D1 Poison 4+ profile, but the Triptych Whip adds 3 attacks and ups it to Poison 2+ and makes it D2. Why put so much extra weight into the one aspect of HQs that can't be balanced in any way? Why can't these weapons start off decent, like the ones above, and just have the artefacts improve one element of them? As above, it locks GW in a situation where either they assume, as they have with this "balance patch", that Archons and Succubi all have Djin Blades and Triptych Whips (sucks to be them if they don't) or else they cost them based on their normal stats and equipment (which are garbage), which inevitably resulted in the ones that did take the Djin Blades and Whips being markedly undercosted for their damage output.
Amishprn86 wrote: Also everyone can tell you that the Succubus by her self is not very good, well worth only 60pts sadly, its when you add a WLT and a Relic that is magnifies her damage to insane levels. Imagine if they set her up to be 90-100pts, better main stats, maybe 2D weapon option that is worth a damn and really viable melee character without relics/WLT but the combos are much weaker when combine, something like re-rolls and a couple bonus attacks, now they are much more damage and options to make a middle of the line melee hero. The succubus is either not worth a damn or way too over powerful. You can not balance that at all. GW chose to write the rules in this way.
I'm glad you brought this particular point up as I was thinking along similar lines.
I can't help but think that Artefacts (and probably Warlord Traits as well) should really cost points instead of CPs. That way, there's an actual reason to take pistols and other, weaker, relics over the stronger ones.
Maybe it's not so bad for some armies (Necrons certainly comes to mind). However, the difference between an Archon with no artefacts and warlord traits (or one with any of the myriad of bad artefacts and warlord traits) and an Archon with a particular combination of warlord trait and relic is substantial. In one scenario, he's throwing out 7 S4 AP-3 D3 attacks that reroll all hits and wounds, in another he's throwing out 5 S3 AP-3 D2 attacks with no rerolls and maybe has a crappy Ld aura. Same with the Succubus - with one set of traits she throws out 10 Poison 2+ AP-3 D2 attacks that inflict 2 Mortal wounds on a roll of 6 to hit, but with another she throws out 5 S5 AP-3 D1 attacks with no Mortal Wounds and maybe has some crappy pistol shots or is slightly harder to wound.
Because all warlord traits and artefacts cost the exact same amount, there's no way to balance these differences. So all GW can do is cost the models as though they all have the most powerful combination of traits, at the expense of anyone who tried to go for a less powerful (but fluffy) loadout.
Given the apparent intent to balance the game better, it seems very strange to have an ever-growing section of it that is literally designed to preclude any possibility of balance.
Then again, this also seems to be in no small part due to the abysmal design of DEHQs to basically be entirely reliant on artefacts and warlord traits in order to be worth a damn. e.g. as a point of comparison a Necron Warscythe has a decent profile with S+2 AP-4 D2, and a Blood Scythe artefact augments this with 2 additional attacks. A Canoness' Blessed Blade similarly has a good profile with S+2 AP-3 D2, and the Blade of Saint Ellynor artefact just ups its damage to 3. However, an Archon's Huskblade starts off with an utterly abysmal profile S: User (on a S3 character!) AP-3 D2, and the Djin Blade artefact adds 2 attacks and a point of strength and a point of damage.
Same deal with the Succubus. A normal Agoniser has a very mediocre S- AP-3 D1 Poison 4+ profile, but the Triptych Whip adds 3 attacks and ups it to Poison 2+ and makes it D2. Why put so much extra weight into the one aspect of HQs that can't be balanced in any way? Why can't these weapons start off decent, like the ones above, and just have the artefacts improve one element of them? As above, it locks GW in a situation where either they assume, as they have with this "balance patch", that Archons and Succubi all have Djin Blades and Triptych Whips (sucks to be them if they don't) or else they cost them based on their normal stats and equipment (which are garbage), which inevitably resulted in the ones that did take the Djin Blades and Whips being markedly undercosted for their damage output.
Honestly I am in 100% favor of making them cost points over CP, but also at the same time, from a balancing PoV (in general) how can you come up with an idea for a Succubus being so weak and sad but then relics beyond insanity for her, Then have a pistol relic that isn't even worth it even if it was free? I think GW is taking the CP/WLT/Relic system too far with trying to create a cool character concept instead of just that character the options in general and balancing it correctly.
The imbalances in many of the books (many good examples within the DE book) is a huge problem that is honestly not hard to mess up and yet GW has messed it up. Why is the Huskblade user str? Well now I feel like I am forced to take insane Relics/WL combo to make my Archon even remotely viable, but now he is too good able to kill units 4x his cost... wtf.
I'm glad you brought this particular point up as I was thinking along similar lines.
I can't help but think that Artefacts (and probably Warlord Traits as well) should really cost points instead of CPs. That way, there's an actual reason to take pistols and other, weaker, relics over the stronger ones.
I don't object to this- in fact I think it's a very strong idea. But it is a very Matched-Centric solution. The status quo, while possibly not the best fit for Matched, does have the advantage of also working for Matched and Open.
Perhaps a hybrid solution might be best, where the points are in addition to other limitations, and explicitly only apply in Matched?
Because all warlord traits and artefacts cost the exact same amount, there's no way to balance these differences. So all GW can do is cost the models as though they all have the most powerful combination of traits, at the expense of anyone who tried to go for a less powerful (but fluffy) loadout.
I also feel like the limitations to the number that are allowed to be included in any army are also a factor here? Even with various requisition strats that allow you to take multiple Relics/ WL Traits, each option can still only be taken once. It can certainly still be a balance issue, for sure, but the limitations do provide some damage control in terms of limiting how much these imbalances can be exploited.
Then again, this also seems to be in no small part due to the abysmal design of DEHQs to basically be entirely reliant on artefacts and warlord traits in order to be worth a damn. e.g. as a point of comparison a Necron Warscythe has a decent profile with S+2 AP-4 D2, and a Blood Scythe artefact augments this with 2 additional attacks. A Canoness' Blessed Blade similarly has a good profile with S+2 AP-3 D2, and the Blade of Saint Ellynor artefact just ups its damage to 3. However, an Archon's Huskblade starts off with an utterly abysmal profile S: User (on a S3 character!) AP-3 D2, and the Djin Blade artefact adds 2 attacks and a point of strength and a point of damage.
Honestly I am in 100% favor of making them cost points over CP, but also at the same time, from a balancing PoV (in general) how can you come up with an idea for a Succubus being so weak and sad but then relics beyond insanity for her, Then have a pistol relic that isn't even worth it even if it was free? I think GW is taking the CP/WLT/Relic system too far with trying to create a cool character concept instead of just that character the options in general and balancing it correctly.
In terms of power, there's a really bizarre trend wherein all the DE artefacts seem to have been made exceptionally weak . . . except for the melee artefacts (where the design philosophy was apparently 'go nuts').
The book is full of stuff like 4+ FNP that can only be taken on a character that already has 5+ FNP.
Then there are the pistols, which (as you already alluded to) were hardly the highlight of the book back in 8th, and certainly 9th made no effort to change that. The Soul-Seeker was in dire need of an extra shot but instead gained just -1AP and, in exchange, lost its ability to ignore line of sight. So it's currently a range 18" character sniper that struggles to put even 2 wounds on a Platoon Commander, and now doesn't even offer the catharsis of shooting through walls. The Parasite's Kiss has a slightly better profile but is stuck with a pathetic 12" range. So I can take an outstanding melee weapon that combos perfectly with my Archon/Succubus' main function, or I can take a crappy pistol that I have to be in melee range to fire? Hmmm.
The imbalances in many of the books (many good examples within the DE book) is a huge problem that is honestly not hard to mess up and yet GW has messed it up. Why is the Huskblade user str? Well now I feel like I am forced to take insane Relics/WL combo to make my Archon even remotely viable, but now he is too good able to kill units 4x his cost... wtf.
Yeah, this is what has frustrated me since the book launched. I feel like Archons and Succubi have to take artefacts just to be good at their core roles. In 8th, I could take a relic pistol or defensive item on an Archon and still have half-decent melee to fall back on. Now I have to take a melee artefact to not completely suck at melee, even though he's literally been given no other role in the army.
I don't object to this- in fact I think it's a very strong idea. But it is a very Matched-Centric solution. The status quo, while possibly not the best fit for Matched, does have the advantage of also working for Matched and Open.
Perhaps a hybrid solution might be best, where the points are in addition to other limitations, and explicitly only apply in Matched?
I also feel like the limitations to the number that are allowed to be included in any army are also a factor here? Even with various requisition strats that allow you to take multiple Relics/ WL Traits, each option can still only be taken once. It can certainly still be a balance issue, for sure, but the limitations do provide some damage control in terms of limiting how much these imbalances can be exploited.
To an extent but then that also works both ways.
If your characters are priced assuming that they'll have the best artefact and warlord trait combinations, but you only can only do that combination on one character, it means all subsequent characters are going to suck because they're priced based on wargear they can't take.
Similarly, it also means that the weaker options (even if they're very fluffy) are unlikely to ever see the light of day because the limited slots mean you're always better off just taking the best options possible.
Unfortunately, the trend of "Warlords+Relics amp up the power level of character by 2x-3x" is something thats actually ramping up instead of ramping down, too, unlike the power conveyed by Stratagems vs base unit stats.
lets take Sicarian Ruststalkers for an example:
19pts per model for 4 pretty high-AP attacks that can also cause mortal wounds. Pretty scary! but only T3 4+ meaning their drawback is obviously their defenses, as they can be cut down by low strength low AP weapons like lasguns quite easily.
Out of the box tho, thy have Wasteland Stalkers, which allows them to have a 2+ instead of a 3+ in cover, so the picture of how were supposed to use these guys becomes clear: Theyre a glass cannon, and they should lurk in cover until its time to jump out and attack something, but you also have to be wary about interrupts less they be cut down by an opponent's melee dangerous unit.
That all works, that all makes sense, that all seems fair.
Oh, but wait...now you can give them Warlord traits and Relics via a stratagem on their Alpha!
And oh look! A relic that grants them a fight-last effect! And a warlord trait that makes them ALWAYS COUNT IN COVER.
THAT changes the ball game on this unit, doesn't it? Suddenly all those drawbacks...poof! Theyre gone!
Spoletta wrote: People are finally bringing moderate amounts of AT and vehicles instead of either avoiding/spamming and we complain? If lists have 1-3 vehicles and 1-3 AT dedicated units, then it is ideal.
In fairness, that isn't how Ork armies have traditionally worked. We are the official skew/overload faction. Depending on edition/rules: 1 Blob of 30 boyz is good, 6 of them is great. (green tide list). A speedy Warbike unit is good, 3 of them backed up by fast trukkz is great (Speed freak/trukk boyz) 1 Battlewagon is durable, 3-6 of them is great! (Wagon rush) 1 unit of Meganobz is good, 3 blobs of them are great! (Bullyboys) That is literally how everyone competitive ork list has been built for as long as I can remember.
At the moment my competitive list which is undefeated so far this edition is spamming T5 models that can get into CC turn 1. Alphork strike would not work if I mixed in a bunch of units that didn't synergize with that mindset. Same is true with statlines and types. A Green tide list doesn't work if you have 60 boyz and a bunch of vehicles. The Current Freeboota list that scared everyone to hell and back was just spamming the same vehicle profile over and over again, with different weapon loadouts.
Just to throw more fuel on SemperMortis's excellent list, there was also Nob Bikerz in 5th, who were pretty good as one unit but absolutely oppressive as several. (Well, 2 maximum sized ones but it was spending as many points on them as could be spent)
the_scotsman wrote: Unfortunately, the trend of "Warlords+Relics amp up the power level of character by 2x-3x" is something thats actually ramping up instead of ramping down, too, unlike the power conveyed by Stratagems vs base unit stats.
lets take Sicarian Ruststalkers for an example:
19pts per model for 4 pretty high-AP attacks that can also cause mortal wounds. Pretty scary! but only T3 4+ meaning their drawback is obviously their defenses, as they can be cut down by low strength low AP weapons like lasguns quite easily.
Out of the box tho, thy have Wasteland Stalkers, which allows them to have a 2+ instead of a 3+ in cover, so the picture of how were supposed to use these guys becomes clear: Theyre a glass cannon, and they should lurk in cover until its time to jump out and attack something, but you also have to be wary about interrupts less they be cut down by an opponent's melee dangerous unit.
That all works, that all makes sense, that all seems fair.
Oh, but wait...now you can give them Warlord traits and Relics via a stratagem on their Alpha!
And oh look! A relic that grants them a fight-last effect! And a warlord trait that makes them ALWAYS COUNT IN COVER.
THAT changes the ball game on this unit, doesn't it? Suddenly all those drawbacks...poof! Theyre gone!
Wait, you can give alphas warlord traits and relics in the new codex???? holy gak this is dumb lmao.
I genuinely want someone to show me a game that was perfectly balanced from the start. Because I want to see this unicorn.
What is your criteria for the games (wholly original, should they be miniatures based, etc.), what counts as the start (commercial release?) and what do you consider perfectly balanced (so for example if the two sides have different chances of success but you play twice, once each side and the result is cumulative, does that count as balanced?).
Same here, I have a small scion army that is basically 3 scion squads all in Valkyries and a Vulture for support, super fun and fluffy, and in no way OP. Illegal now.
I have an Inquisitorial Storm Trooper Air Cav army - 60-odd Kasrkin and 6 Valks. They love these rules.
My somewhat more conservative 1 squadron of 3 valks with 1 vulture in support are also nixed, and it wasn't like they were particularly powerful!
They could (and I hope *will*) fix this by shunting the transports into the Dedicated Transport slot and leave the Flyer slot for actual gunships and the like. I'm all for letting an opponent do that anyway, the, since as noted, guard air cav is a rad as feth concept that deserves, er, wings.
the_scotsman wrote: Unfortunately, the trend of "Warlords+Relics amp up the power level of character by 2x-3x" is something thats actually ramping up instead of ramping down, too, unlike the power conveyed by Stratagems vs base unit stats.
lets take Sicarian Ruststalkers for an example:
19pts per model for 4 pretty high-AP attacks that can also cause mortal wounds. Pretty scary! but only T3 4+ meaning their drawback is obviously their defenses, as they can be cut down by low strength low AP weapons like lasguns quite easily.
Out of the box tho, thy have Wasteland Stalkers, which allows them to have a 2+ instead of a 3+ in cover, so the picture of how were supposed to use these guys becomes clear: Theyre a glass cannon, and they should lurk in cover until its time to jump out and attack something, but you also have to be wary about interrupts less they be cut down by an opponent's melee dangerous unit.
That all works, that all makes sense, that all seems fair.
Oh, but wait...now you can give them Warlord traits and Relics via a stratagem on their Alpha!
And oh look! A relic that grants them a fight-last effect! And a warlord trait that makes them ALWAYS COUNT IN COVER.
THAT changes the ball game on this unit, doesn't it? Suddenly all those drawbacks...poof! Theyre gone!
Wait, you can give alphas warlord traits and relics in the new codex???? holy gak this is dumb lmao.
Not really something new.
SM 2.0 dex in 8th already allowed that.
All of the 9th edition dexes can too.
At least the relic.
Admech could be the only ones that can do that with traits though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_scotsman wrote: Unfortunately, the trend of "Warlords+Relics amp up the power level of character by 2x-3x" is something thats actually ramping up instead of ramping down, too, unlike the power conveyed by Stratagems vs base unit stats.
lets take Sicarian Ruststalkers for an example:
19pts per model for 4 pretty high-AP attacks that can also cause mortal wounds. Pretty scary! but only T3 4+ meaning their drawback is obviously their defenses, as they can be cut down by low strength low AP weapons like lasguns quite easily.
Out of the box tho, thy have Wasteland Stalkers, which allows them to have a 2+ instead of a 3+ in cover, so the picture of how were supposed to use these guys becomes clear: Theyre a glass cannon, and they should lurk in cover until its time to jump out and attack something, but you also have to be wary about interrupts less they be cut down by an opponent's melee dangerous unit.
That all works, that all makes sense, that all seems fair.
Oh, but wait...now you can give them Warlord traits and Relics via a stratagem on their Alpha!
And oh look! A relic that grants them a fight-last effect! And a warlord trait that makes them ALWAYS COUNT IN COVER.
THAT changes the ball game on this unit, doesn't it? Suddenly all those drawbacks...poof! Theyre gone!
This is true, but it doesn't exactly come free.
You are spending 2 CP for that.
Now, it is always hard to assign a point value to a CP, but we can for sure assume that a CP is worth at least 25 points.
This is making those 19 ppm models into either 24 or even 29 ppm models, depending on the size of the squad.
Kind of mixed because I like the idea that characters should be tooled up with warlord traits and relics - but I think you need a system that just recognises that (it could just be wargear with a 0-1 option), and the current one doesn't really. I'm not sure you can say CP are "worth 25 points" - its a much more marginal, interesting situation than that because of the way you spend and regenerate them.
I think it might send the playerbase running for the hills - but I really thing there's an argument GW should bring in variable point pricing (not that I'd trust them to do it - but still).
I.E. rather than having say "thy shalt take 2 flyers and that is it the end" - you'd have the first Dakkajet cost 120 points, and the next one cost 150 points, and the one after that 180. So you can take 3 if you want - but there's a downside to doing so. Arguably this just changes the list-building side of the game and people would still find solutions - but it potentially allows for units to feel powerful in themselves - but not just lead to "okay this is the best, I should take 3 until they get nerfed or something else gets buffed".
Catulle wrote: They could (and I hope *will*) fix this by shunting the transports into the Dedicated Transport slot and leave the Flyer slot for actual gunships and the like. I'm all for letting an opponent do that anyway, the, since as noted, guard air cav is a rad as feth concept that deserves, er, wings.
Unless they remove the AIRCRAFT keyword from the Valkyries, this doesn't change anything (and doing so creates more rules problems, I imagine) - the restriction isn't on the use of Flyer slots, it is on AIRCRAFT models...
vipoid wrote: Maybe it's not so bad for some armies (Necrons certainly comes to mind). However, the difference between an Archon with...
A reminder that an Overlord with a S+2 AP-4 D2 costs the same as one with a S+1 AP-3 D1 weapon. There are absolutely traps when building a Necrons HQ.
If each army has 1 relic and WL trait then balance there isn't that important compared to so many other places and I think finding combos can be a fun thing to do, as long as every relic fulfills its promise then it's okay if it is never seen in competitive lists, as long as you can feel good about using your pistol lady. Both pistols and melee weapons for Company Commander level characters can be balanced by having auxiliary effects unrelated to the damage caused by the weapon, the sword of a hero might be inspiring, a pistol might come with special ammo for nearby friendly units once per game. A relic chainsword needs to be almost as good as a relic power sword, the point difference is probably only around 5 pts, but there is the base cost of the character to consider in addition to the relic slot. Most of these probably aren't tested and the designers probably don't want to copy themselves too much (that'd be admitting that multiple factions might be able to share WL traits for example). I think points costs for relics makes them too ordinary and supports the creation of cheap do-nothing relics.
Tyel wrote: I think it might send the playerbase running for the hills - but I really thing there's an argument GW should bring in variable point pricing (not that I'd trust them to do it - but still).
9th Age (fanmade spiritual successor of WHFB) did it. If you have something like Battlescribe to handle the back-end then it doesn't have to be a headache. If the points are right then you don't have to worry about whether you should take a bad combo because it's undercosted versus avoiding a strong combo because it is overcosted, you can just take whichever one fits your playstyle, but it is pretty Utopian.
vipoid wrote: Maybe it's not so bad for some armies (Necrons certainly comes to mind). However, the difference between an Archon with...
A reminder that an Overlord with a S+2 AP-4 D2 costs the same as one with a S+1 AP-3 D1 weapon. There are absolutely traps when building a Necrons HQ..
I didn't say that there weren't traps. What I said is that there didn't seem to be the same disconnect in terms of builds with and without artefacts.
The fact that Warscythe Overlords pay barely any extra over Voidblade Overlords is certainly silly, but it's something GWcould fix - as both of those items cost points. Meanwhile, differences in artefact or warlord trait power can't be fixed because they all cost 1 CP.
Catulle wrote: They could (and I hope *will*) fix this by shunting the transports into the Dedicated Transport slot and leave the Flyer slot for actual gunships and the like. I'm all for letting an opponent do that anyway, the, since as noted, guard air cav is a rad as feth concept that deserves, er, wings.
Unless they remove the AIRCRAFT keyword from the Valkyries, this doesn't change anything (and doing so creates more rules problems, I imagine) - the restriction isn't on the use of Flyer slots, it is on AIRCRAFT models...
That is a very valid distinction, maybe they should change up what is considered aircraft vs just fly?
vipoid wrote: Maybe it's not so bad for some armies (Necrons certainly comes to mind). However, the difference between an Archon with...
A reminder that an Overlord with a S+2 AP-4 D2 costs the same as one with a S+1 AP-3 D1 weapon. There are absolutely traps when building a Necrons HQ..
I didn't say that there weren't traps. What I said is that there didn't seem to be the same disconnect in terms of builds with and without artefacts.
The fact that Warscythe Overlords pay barely any extra over Voidblade Overlords is certainly silly, but it's something GWcould fix - as both of those items cost points. Meanwhile, differences in artefact or warlord trait power can't be fixed because they all cost 1 CP.
Just to correct the record, warscythes do cost more, it's staves of light that are much more cost efficient than voidblades/hyperphase swords, it's not as easy a comparison as I made it out to be though. GW fixed one of the Drukhari WL traits. If they tested all the WL traits prior to release and mathed out the effects and compared them they'd be able to release reasonably balanced relics and WL traits.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Just to throw more fuel on SemperMortis's excellent list, there was also Nob Bikerz in 5th, who were pretty good as one unit but absolutely oppressive as several. (Well, 2 maximum sized ones but it was spending as many points on them as could be spent)
Not really the same. Biker nobz worked in conjunction with any possible archetype. Not just biker based lists.
In SemperMortis's list all those units were at best ok outside spamming them, and only in casual games. I don't think spamming multiple units of biker nobz has ever been a competitive build actually, I don't remember people bringing more than one 5-6 man squad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SemperMortis wrote: The Current Freeboota list that scared everyone to hell and back was just spamming the same vehicle profile over and over again, with different weapon loadouts.
Exactly. Freebooterz Speedwaaagh lists from average/common but pretty complete collections of models don't scare anyone, they can be good and optimized TAC lists but far from being OP. Not everyone owns 4+ planes and 9+ buggies. Just getting one of each option from the ork catalogue means a 7-8k points collection.
And Freebooterz trait is probably the worst one in the entire codex when playing smaller games, or multi-klan armies, since it's hard to trigger and the majority of the army could not have a klan bonus at all.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Just to throw more fuel on SemperMortis's excellent list, there was also Nob Bikerz in 5th, who were pretty good as one unit but absolutely oppressive as several. (Well, 2 maximum sized ones but it was spending as many points on them as could be spent)
Not really the same. Biker nobz worked in conjunction with any possible archetype. Not just biker based lists.
In SemperMortis's list all those units were at best ok outside spamming them, and only in casual games. I don't think spamming multiple units of biker nobz has ever been a competitive build actually, I don't remember people bringing more than one 5-6 man squad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SemperMortis wrote: The Current Freeboota list that scared everyone to hell and back was just spamming the same vehicle profile over and over again, with different weapon loadouts.
Exactly. Freebooterz Speedwaaagh lists from average/common but pretty complete collections of models don't scare anyone, they can be good and optimized TAC lists but far from being OP. Not everyone owns 4+ planes and 9+ buggies. Just getting one of each option from the ork catalogue means a 7-8k points collection.
And Freebooterz trait is probably the worst one in the entire codex when playing smaller games, or multi-klan armies, since it's hard to trigger and the majority of the army could not have a klan bonus at all.
Two max size mobs of nob bikers with cybork bodies, a painboy and different equipment on each model to abuse wound allocation was THE list for orks for a while in 5e.
Yeah spending as many points as possible on Nob Bikerz and leaving everything else at home was a major factor in 5th edition.
As mentioned, it abused wound allocation, but it also had big cover saves and invlns sometimes thanks to Turbo-Boost, and T5 meant the bikes were rather hard to instant death (strength 10 guns were rare).
I'm well aware of their benefits, I played biker nobz everytime! But just a single 5 man squad on a 1500 points list (we all played that format back then), which was exactly 350 points. Already a massive points sink, while two larger squads would have cost 1000 points.
Which I don't think was something optimized to field as a few bad rolls and too many enemy bodies to deal with could cause hard times for the ork list. Biker nobz were a staple in my area during 5th, I just don't remember lists that brought multiple squads. 1000 points of nob bikers in a 2000 points lists could have been much more optimized as a choice though.
Nob bikers suffered from instant death at S8, because their toughness was 4(5).
Spoiler:
Which was precisely the reason why 2x 10 nob bikers in 5th was a noob stomper army but imploded against any serious opponent - especially IG with their manticores, battle cannons, melta vets, vendettas and battle cannons, space wolves with their long fangs spam, and later GK with their psyfleman dreads could easily wipe them out. But also eldar had no issues tearing them apart with lances and various fusion weapons and all flavors of marines had suicide melta.
There was a consensus that bringing one unit of 5-9 nob bikers was the way to go, usually as part of the battlewagon bash list. This had both the advantage of providing them with a KFF, but also allowing them to hide from sight behind the wagons.
I don't think that making WLT or Relics cost points will really do anything worthwhile. A lot of relics also replace things that you are paying paying points for, so...
H.B.M.C. wrote: I don't think that making WLT or Relics cost points will really do anything worthwhile. A lot of relics also replace things that you are paying paying points for, so...
Its needed for balance, there are relics that no one takes even if they are free and you are allowed to take a 3rd, or 4th relic for free bc they are that bad, but then you have others are 4x a characters damage.
Emperor's Children, World Eaters, and Night Lords? 
Word Bearers....I guess it depends on how many Possessed you have.
So if you were running 
but meta chasers are going to be pissed. With that said, this is yet another swathe of ork units 
No one is leaving their tanks at home because of volcons. The boost to the Leman Russ's save shows that 
