Does not affect me at all. (Although it probably will affect the warhammer channels I follow on youtube etc.)
They will also tweak rules and/or rules every 3 months. I REALLY like that. It is so good! Also so exiting that they even will update rules, like adding core etc.
Crispy78 wrote: "Raaaaah! Death To The False Emperor!" *CSM fights harder*
"Dude, we're Eldar..."
How... counter-fluffy...
Frankly its shocking they haven't just given them the +1W stat boost this entire time. I think that would have been more impactful than a boost to CC that will only make a marginal difference in most CSM lists.
Here's my CSM mini-patch if anyone is frustrated by the lack of 2W csm.
Following on from the DG and Tsons 'dexes, this actually ditches current DTFE for +1A and changes DTFE to a simple little basic doctrine equivalent, but CSM-themed (you get to declare Maim Burn or Kill! How cute. Just like in Dawn of War)
Other than that, it's simple minor points adjustments and copy/pastes of the daemon engine and prince changes from Codex Tsons along with their corresponding points values.
If you for some reason need a third party to arbitrate your rules for your very very expensive model collections, then blame some donkey-cave on the internet instead of some donkey-cave at a company somewhere.
alextroy wrote: Two wound CSM is not a rules tweak. They will get them with their codex like all the other marines.
Is modifying an armor save (Leman Russ Tanks) a "rules tweak"? Looks like a stat change to me!
Imo there's no excuse for not having given CSM 2W by now.
W2 CSM come with points and strat issues and it's nutty that people keep ignoring this.
At present you can take a 20 man block. 20 man MEQ seem to be going away. But if you grant 40 wounds to a unit, give them Slaanesh and AL and a 5++ FNP from the priest on top of their -1 to be hit. You can do Forward Operatives and then if you get first turn Warptime that massive brick into the opponent.
alextroy wrote: Two wound CSM is not a rules tweak. They will get them with their codex like all the other marines.
So what is a rules tweak?
And why did the LR save go to 2+ now as opposed to whenever the Guard codex arrives?
Or does it depend upon where on the statline the changing # is?
alextroy wrote: Two wound CSM is not a rules tweak. They will get them with their codex like all the other marines.
Is modifying an armor save (Leman Russ Tanks) a "rules tweak"? Looks like a stat change to me!
Imo there's no excuse for not having given CSM 2W by now.
W2 CSM come with points and strat issues and it's nutty that people keep ignoring this.
At present you can take a 20 man block. 20 man MEQ seem to be going away. But if you grant 40 wounds to a unit, give them Slaanesh and AL and a 5++ FNP from the priest on top of their -1 to be hit. You can do Forward Operatives and then if you get first turn Warptime that massive brick into the opponent.
Damn, that sounds like something that might just kill a couple of raiders, maybe require an admech list to spend 1cp to move a unit of serberys out of the way of the charge...if they get first turn and dont go second and get dumpstered before all their buffs go up, lol.
this is really a nothing, dude. They changed strats and abilities with the day 1 SMfaqs as well, it's OK to admit this gak is just inexcusable at this point. The amount of effort that went into the drukhari or admech points tweaks is more than enough to have not created problems with a CSM wound tweak.
alextroy wrote: Two wound CSM is not a rules tweak. They will get them with their codex like all the other marines.
So what is a rules tweak?
And why did the LR save go to 2+ now as opposed to whenever the Guard codex arrives?
Or does it depend upon where on the statline the changing # is?
LR going from 3+ to 2+ will not affect the game balance by much. giving every CSM another wound will affect balance way more, like someone already mentioned with 40W blobs making single unit durability buffs twice as potent, for example.
If they'd just push that out, people would be complaining that it's unbalanced / untested / how could they do that without considering strat X, buff Y or charakter Zs ability. They very clearly said it's going to happen in the Codex, and that's how it's going to be. I totally understand the frustration that the codex isn't already out, by the way. But I don't get how people are disappointed every single time something is released that's NOT the CSM codex and miraculously does not contain the +1W.
alextroy wrote: Two wound CSM is not a rules tweak. They will get them with their codex like all the other marines.
Is modifying an armor save (Leman Russ Tanks) a "rules tweak"? Looks like a stat change to me!
Imo there's no excuse for not having given CSM 2W by now.
W2 CSM come with points and strat issues and it's nutty that people keep ignoring this.
At present you can take a 20 man block. 20 man MEQ seem to be going away. But if you grant 40 wounds to a unit, give them Slaanesh and AL and a 5++ FNP from the priest on top of their -1 to be hit. You can do Forward Operatives and then if you get first turn Warptime that massive brick into the opponent.
Yeah. Don't care. You know what might happen in that case? CSMs showing up in a CSM army. Ohs nohs!
alextroy wrote: Two wound CSM is not a rules tweak. They will get them with their codex like all the other marines.
Is modifying an armor save (Leman Russ Tanks) a "rules tweak"? Looks like a stat change to me!
Imo there's no excuse for not having given CSM 2W by now.
W2 CSM come with points and strat issues and it's nutty that people keep ignoring this.
At present you can take a 20 man block. 20 man MEQ seem to be going away. But if you grant 40 wounds to a unit, give them Slaanesh and AL and a 5++ FNP from the priest on top of their -1 to be hit. You can do Forward Operatives and then if you get first turn Warptime that massive brick into the opponent.
I could be wrong because I don't pay much attention to Marine stuff but didn't Imperial marines get blanket 2 wounds and no other changes. So Grey Knights, all unique types of Blood Angels, Dark Angels etc all went up before they got their codex?
alextroy wrote: Two wound CSM is not a rules tweak. They will get them with their codex like all the other marines.
Is modifying an armor save (Leman Russ Tanks) a "rules tweak"? Looks like a stat change to me!
Imo there's no excuse for not having given CSM 2W by now.
W2 CSM come with points and strat issues and it's nutty that people keep ignoring this.
At present you can take a 20 man block. 20 man MEQ seem to be going away. But if you grant 40 wounds to a unit, give them Slaanesh and AL and a 5++ FNP from the priest on top of their -1 to be hit. You can do Forward Operatives and then if you get first turn Warptime that massive brick into the opponent.
I could be wrong because I don't pay much attention to Marine stuff but didn't Imperial marines get blanket 2 wounds and no other changes. So Grey Knights, all unique types of Blood Angels, Dark Angels etc all went up before they got their codex?
Not sure about GK, but Im pretty sure that the extra wound for all the regular marines were updated when the SM codex came out (which included DA,BA, SW and DW and updated rules pdfs for all their unique models).
Damn, that sounds like something that might just kill a couple of raiders, maybe require an admech list to spend 1cp to move a unit of serberys out of the way of the charge...if they get first turn and dont go second and get dumpstered before all their buffs go up, lol.
this is really a nothing, dude. They changed strats and abilities with the day 1 SMfaqs as well, it's OK to admit this gak is just inexcusable at this point. The amount of effort that went into the drukhari or admech points tweaks is more than enough to have not created problems with a CSM wound tweak.
You know damn well there's more to it.
If a Strike is 22 with a Psilencer then a Noise Marine with a Sonic Blaster is going to be less. And you can take 20 of those with exploding hits on 5s.
With Chainswords that's 4 attacks. 10 of them would kill 18 skitari with no buffs what so ever.
alextroy wrote: Two wound CSM is not a rules tweak. They will get them with their codex like all the other marines.
Is modifying an armor save (Leman Russ Tanks) a "rules tweak"? Looks like a stat change to me!
Imo there's no excuse for not having given CSM 2W by now.
W2 CSM come with points and strat issues and it's nutty that people keep ignoring this.
At present you can take a 20 man block. 20 man MEQ seem to be going away. But if you grant 40 wounds to a unit, give them Slaanesh and AL and a 5++ FNP from the priest on top of their -1 to be hit. You can do Forward Operatives and then if you get first turn Warptime that massive brick into the opponent.
If that's a problem they could as well reduce the squadsize to 5-10, as easy as that. And/ or throw 2 points on each CSM. It's really not that complicated...
Yea, I mean they already printed 2 army lists, they could have easily done a "Chaos Space Marines, Chosen, Terminators, etc get +1W" and printed a 3rd army list, with modified points and unit sizes...
Sgt. Cortez wrote: If that's a problem they could as well reduce the squadsize to 5-10, as easy as that. And/ or throw 2 points on each CSM. It's really not that complicated...
There's just way more to it than that. Few armies have a 5+++ readily available to any unit. What about Plague Marines? Daemon engines buffed to the standard of TS & DG with the LD buffs as present or no?
I'm sure they could do it, but it is more involved than just "simply" adding an extra wound.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: Don't reduce CSM potential squad size. They've been able to take 20-man squads for at least 25 years.
Yes that's their thing being non-codex, but TS lost it so unless they get creative CSM will probably lose it, too.
Damn, that sounds like something that might just kill a couple of raiders, maybe require an admech list to spend 1cp to move a unit of serberys out of the way of the charge...if they get first turn and dont go second and get dumpstered before all their buffs go up, lol.
this is really a nothing, dude. They changed strats and abilities with the day 1 SMfaqs as well, it's OK to admit this gak is just inexcusable at this point. The amount of effort that went into the drukhari or admech points tweaks is more than enough to have not created problems with a CSM wound tweak.
You know damn well there's more to it.
If a Strike is 22 with a Psilencer then a Noise Marine with a Sonic Blaster is going to be less. And you can take 20 of those with exploding hits on 5s.
With Chainswords that's 4 attacks. 10 of them would kill 18 skitari with no buffs what so ever.
Not sure what the Strike and Psilencer are about, but off the top of my head. . . I believe Assault Intercessors themselves get 4 attacks each with Chainswords on the charge, and come in squads of ten.
Insectum7 wrote: Not sure what the Strike and Psilencer are about, but off the top of my head. . . I believe Assault Intercessors themselves get 4 attacks each with Chainswords on the charge, and come in squads of ten.
Right, but no real special rules where Noise Marines can throw a grenade into combat on death and get exploding 5s now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: Well I'll put throw that right into the "reasons why 9th is the worst edition ever" bucket I keep next to my desk.
Insectum7 wrote: Not sure what the Strike and Psilencer are about, but off the top of my head. . . I believe Assault Intercessors themselves get 4 attacks each with Chainswords on the charge, and come in squads of ten.
Right, but no real special rules where Noise Marines can throw a grenade into combat on death and get exploding 5s now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: Well I'll put throw that right into the "reasons why 9th is the worst edition ever" bucket I keep next to my desk.
Do note that it's just speculation on my part.
A 10-Man Intercessor squad, with the right buffs, can one-round a Questoris Knight.
And no, not Assault Intercessors. The shooty ones can do it.
alextroy wrote: Two wound CSM is not a rules tweak. They will get them with their codex like all the other marines.
Is modifying an armor save (Leman Russ Tanks) a "rules tweak"? Looks like a stat change to me!
Imo there's no excuse for not having given CSM 2W by now.
W2 CSM come with points and strat issues and it's nutty that people keep ignoring this.
At present you can take a 20 man block. 20 man MEQ seem to be going away. But if you grant 40 wounds to a unit, give them Slaanesh and AL and a 5++ FNP from the priest on top of their -1 to be hit. You can do Forward Operatives and then if you get first turn Warptime that massive brick into the opponent.
So do an update that gives:
CSM/Rubrics/Noise Marines/Berzerkers/Plague Marines/Chosen/Raptors/Warp Talons/Fallen/Havocs 2W but limit max squad size to 10 for those that were over 10 before.
Possesed stay 2W. Oblits stay 4W. Mutilators stay 3W.
Terminators/Bikers go to 3W.
There is a current unit in the CSM codex, they have 2W each, power armour, you can take 20 of them in a unit, they can have the -1 to hit chapter tactic, the -1 to hit priest buff, the 5+++ FNP spell and already have an in built 5++, they can use Forward Operatives and Warptime (they also move 7" not 6" so benefit even more from Warptime and are a melee focused unit already)... Don't see many of them currently do we?
There is a new unit in the Black Templars supplement, they have 2W each, 9 in power armour, 11 in scout armour, they can take 20 in a unit, they can be buffed with a 5++, can't be wounded on 1s and 2s, a 5+++, immune to all psychic and to top it off they can if they want spend CP to can't be wounded on 3s too. This unit is also not wrecking the gaming tables.
JNAProductions wrote: A 10-Man Intercessor squad, with the right buffs, can one-round a Questoris Knight.
And no, not Assault Intercessors. The shooty ones can do it.
Yes and that's a whole lotta buffs and considerations in a math-hammer vacuum. Iron Warriors grant full reroll wounds for 1 CP. VotLW is still 1 CP. The prayer is +1 to wound. Prescience and a lord for essentially auto-hits and the exploding 5s.
Insectum7 wrote: Not sure what the Strike and Psilencer are about, but off the top of my head. . . I believe Assault Intercessors themselves get 4 attacks each with Chainswords on the charge, and come in squads of ten.
Right, but no real special rules where Noise Marines can throw a grenade into combat on death and get exploding 5s now.
Oh that rule, yeah that's irritating. Buuuuut guess what? With this latest update GW has given us a format where they are capable of making tweaks and adjustments for handling weird balance edge cases. Throw a limit to the amount of on-death grenade attacks a unit can make, or whatever.
Insectum7 wrote: Well I'll put throw that right into the "reasons why 9th is the worst edition ever" bucket I keep next to my desk.
Do note that it's just speculation on my part.
Understood, but I don't like where it's going.
See, to me, the current crime is in the failure to make appropriate adjustments around very foundational aspects of unit identity . . . but the reason is because of some weird edge case that happens because of the modern Strat/Aura/buff paradigm? It's terrible! Foundational unit-character stuff should be the thing you prioritize above everything else. If loyalists are on 2w CSMs should be on 2w, end of story. Handle any unaccounted-for fallout after making the appropriate adjustments to the foundational unit characteristics.
EightFoldPath wrote: There is a new unit in the Black Templars supplement, they have 2W each, 9 in power armour, 11 in scout armour, they can take 20 in a unit, they can be buffed with a 5++, can't be wounded on 1s and 2s, a 5+++, immune to all psychic and to top it off they can if they want spend CP to can't be wounded on 3s too. This unit is also not wrecking the gaming tables.
Quite a few omissions in this statement.
In any case I'm not saying they couldn't. I'm saying it isn't a simple 'here's an extra wound and you're good'.
JNAProductions wrote: A 10-Man Intercessor squad, with the right buffs, can one-round a Questoris Knight.
And no, not Assault Intercessors. The shooty ones can do it.
Yes and that's a whole lotta buffs and considerations in a math-hammer vacuum. Iron Warriors grant full reroll wounds for 1 CP. VotLW is still 1 CP. The prayer is +1 to wound. Prescience and a lord for essentially auto-hits and the exploding 5s.
So, a squad of 20 Noise Marines, with full rerolls to wound, gets...
60 shots
2,100/36 or 175/3 hits at S4 AP0 D1, with +1 to-wound and rerolls to wound. Ignoring cover too. Close enough to 60 for Government work, so call it 60 hits.
Against GEQ, you'd deal just shy of 39 wounds-that's pretty shredding!
Against MEQ, you'd deal just shy of 18 wounds-or, you'd body a full squad, once morale is accounted for, most likely.
Against TEQ, you'd deal just shy of 9 wounds-that's three Terminators.
Against Gravis, you'd deal 15 wounds on the nugget (well, assuming 60 hits)-that's close to a full squad.
Against Knights or other T8 3+ targets, you'd deal just over 11 wounds-not enough to bracket a Knight even.
So, for the cost of 490 points (20 Noise Marines, naked Lord, naked Sorcerer) and two CP, you can do what's listed above.
If you fail Prescience, you're looking at losing 20% of the damage.
You're also Iron Warriors, who are anti-synergistic with Noise Marines owing to granting them two instances of Ignoring Cover.
Admittedly, you can double tap for 2 more CP, so for a full third of your CP, you can kill a whole two max squads of Marines! Or one squad of Terminators!
Now, for 460 points, you can get a naked Captain, naked Master of Sanctity, nkaed Lieutenant, and 10 AutoBolt Intercessors. Put them in Tactical T1 with a strat (2 CP, if I recall correctly), give them +1 to-hit, and +1 to-wound the nearest target (from the Chaplain) as well as RR1s to-hit and wound. Shoot again for 2 CP, by the way.
Without +1 to-wound, you deal the following, assuming 30 hits:
Insectum7 wrote: See, to me, the current crime is in the failure to make appropriate adjustments around very foundational aspects of unit identity . . . but the reason is because of some weird edge case that happens because of the modern Strat/Aura/buff paradigm?
To be fair I had forgotten about Crusaders completely so it isn't without possibility. I don't know how codex compliant DG & TS were though.
JNAProductions wrote: A 10-Man Intercessor squad, with the right buffs, can one-round a Questoris Knight.
And no, not Assault Intercessors. The shooty ones can do it.
Yes and that's a whole lotta buffs and considerations in a math-hammer vacuum. Iron Warriors grant full reroll wounds for 1 CP. VotLW is still 1 CP. The prayer is +1 to wound. Prescience and a lord for essentially auto-hits and the exploding 5s.
So, a squad of 20 Noise Marines, with full rerolls to wound, gets...
60 shots
2,100/36 or 175/3 hits at S4 AP0 D1, with +1 to-wound and rerolls to wound. Ignoring cover too. Close enough to 60 for Government work, so call it 60 hits.
Against GEQ, you'd deal just shy of 39 wounds-that's pretty shredding!
Against MEQ, you'd deal just shy of 18 wounds-or, you'd body a full squad, once morale is accounted for, most likely.
Against TEQ, you'd deal just shy of 9 wounds-that's three Terminators.
Against Gravis, you'd deal 15 wounds on the nugget (well, assuming 60 hits)-that's close to a full squad.
Against Knights or other T8 3+ targets, you'd deal just over 11 wounds-not enough to bracket a Knight even.
So, for the cost of 490 points (20 Noise Marines, naked Lord, naked Sorcerer) and two CP, you can do what's listed above.
If you fail Prescience, you're looking at losing 20% of the damage.
You're also Iron Warriors, who are anti-synergistic with Noise Marines owing to granting them two instances of Ignoring Cover.
Admittedly, you can double tap for 2 more CP, so for a full third of your CP, you can kill a whole two max squads of Marines! Or one squad of Terminators!
Now, for 460 points, you can get a naked Captain, naked Master of Sanctity, nkaed Lieutenant, and 10 AutoBolt Intercessors. Put them in Tactical T1 with a strat (2 CP, if I recall correctly), give them +1 to-hit, and +1 to-wound the nearest target (from the Chaplain) as well as RR1s to-hit and wound. Shoot again for 2 CP, by the way.
Without +1 to-wound, you deal the following, assuming 30 hits:
That unit in melee with chainswords does a minimum of 20 to a knight and I'm not going to bother trying to optimize a hypothetical. CSM have viable ways to devastate knights with ranged weapons.
EightFoldPath wrote: There is a new unit in the Black Templars supplement, they have 2W each, 9 in power armour, 11 in scout armour, they can take 20 in a unit, they can be buffed with a 5++, can't be wounded on 1s and 2s, a 5+++, immune to all psychic and to top it off they can if they want spend CP to can't be wounded on 3s too. This unit is also not wrecking the gaming tables.
Quite a few omissions in this statement.
In any case I'm not saying they couldn't. I'm saying it isn't a simple 'here's an extra wound and you're good'.
I reread how you wrote it and I took something as innate rather than buffs so I retract my exaggerated language, but --
No cover (dense, heavy or light) from the passion and 5+++ is 6" aura rather than 18" psychic for CSM. There's no deepstrike, redeploy, or transport capable of carrying that unit through. The move bonus on Push is only 3".
How has the chaos space marine tactics page not devolved into what to counts as your chaos models as in the loyalist codex... like that’s what I am considering at this point.
macluvin wrote: How has the chaos space marine tactics page not devolved into what to counts as your chaos models as in the loyalist codex... like that’s what I am considering at this point.
alextroy wrote: Two wound CSM is not a rules tweak. They will get them with their codex like all the other marines.
So what is a rules tweak?
And why did the LR save go to 2+ now as opposed to whenever the Guard codex arrives?
Or does it depend upon where on the statline the changing # is?
LR going from 3+ to 2+ will not affect the game balance by much. giving every CSM another wound will affect balance way more, like someone already mentioned with 40W blobs making single unit durability buffs twice as potent, for example.
If they'd just push that out, people would be complaining that it's unbalanced / untested / how could they do that without considering strat X, buff Y or charakter Zs ability. They very clearly said it's going to happen in the Codex, and that's how it's going to be. I totally understand the frustration that the codex isn't already out, by the way. But I don't get how people are disappointed every single time something is released that's NOT the CSM codex and miraculously does not contain the +1W.
They know it's coming. And we know it's coming. And it's coming "soon" isn't it, as in 1st quarter of '22? Clearly they also know what strat & buff changes are coming.
But.... If a 20 man 2w buffed squad would be a problem for the few months now-then? Well, there's a simple fix. CSM players just get told that the new unit size is now capped at 10. There, you're problem of the uber-buff CSM squad has been solved.
alextroy wrote: Two wound CSM is not a rules tweak. They will get them with their codex like all the other marines.
Is modifying an armor save (Leman Russ Tanks) a "rules tweak"? Looks like a stat change to me!
Imo there's no excuse for not having given CSM 2W by now.
And if GW was to just say "all CSM have 2 Wounds" it would be as simple as the Leman Russ rule. But let's not pretend they wouldn't need to revise the point level of every impacted unit, not to mention possibly other rules (Plague Marines, Rubric Marines, and Death Guard Possessed have all had their maximum unit size decreased). We are talking new datasheets, new Power Levels, and new Matched Play points levels. So you aren't asking for a simple errata (the LR is gaining the 2+ armor with no other adjustments include PL and Points), but a major codex revision. So CSM have to wait for their new codex. I'm sure it is frustrating, but it is reasonable given the scale of the changes required.
waefre_1 wrote:
alextroy wrote: Two wound CSM is not a rules tweak. They will get them with their codex like all the other marines.
Would this "all the other marines" include those marines that got a, what was it, week-0 emergency FAQ to give them 2W?
The get-you-by Codex Supplements for Deathwatch, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Blood Angels, and Black Templars were necessary since their codexes has been superseded by the new Codex Space Marines. They were no longer valid, but GW didn't want to leave the players unable to play the units from those books until their new supplements were released. That was not the case for Death Guard, Thousand Sons, or Chaos Space Marines. Doesn't feel great for CSM players, but it's simply not the same situation.
alextroy wrote: Two wound CSM is not a rules tweak. They will get them with their codex like all the other marines.
Is modifying an armor save (Leman Russ Tanks) a "rules tweak"? Looks like a stat change to me!
Imo there's no excuse for not having given CSM 2W by now.
And if GW was to just say "all CSM have 2 Wounds" it would be as simple as the Leman Russ rule. But let's not pretend they wouldn't need to revise the point level of every impacted unit, not to mention possibly other rules (Plague Marines, Rubric Marines, and Death Guard Possessed have all had their maximum unit size decreased). We are talking new datasheets, new Power Levels, and new Matched Play points levels. So you aren't asking for a simple errata (the LR is gaining the 2+ armor with no other adjustments include PL and Points), but a major codex revision. So CSM have to wait for their new codex. I'm sure it is frustrating, but it is reasonable given the scale of the changes required.
Did you not see the new point levels released for Admech and Drukari armies?
Glad to see they're willing to do across the board balance updates, shame they ignored 2W space marines, that's the biggest gut-punch lore wise for me.
alextroy wrote: Two wound CSM is not a rules tweak. They will get them with their codex like all the other marines.
So what is a rules tweak?
And why did the LR save go to 2+ now as opposed to whenever the Guard codex arrives?
Or does it depend upon where on the statline the changing # is?
alextroy wrote: Two wound CSM is not a rules tweak. They will get them with their codex like all the other marines.
Is modifying an armor save (Leman Russ Tanks) a "rules tweak"? Looks like a stat change to me!
Imo there's no excuse for not having given CSM 2W by now.
W2 CSM come with points and strat issues and it's nutty that people keep ignoring this.
At present you can take a 20 man block. 20 man MEQ seem to be going away. But if you grant 40 wounds to a unit, give them Slaanesh and AL and a 5++ FNP from the priest on top of their -1 to be hit. You can do Forward Operatives and then if you get first turn Warptime that massive brick into the opponent.
Eh...points and squad sizes are not in datasheet but in those pages at the back of book. That's already written. Just put it along like admech/drukhari. they are already done anyway so it's simple copy&paste.
At least that wasnt' doubling damage output for free like GW did before with errataes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
alextroy wrote: And if GW was to just say "all CSM have 2 Wounds" it would be as simple as the Leman Russ rule. But let's not pretend they wouldn't need to revise the point level of every impacted unit, not to mention possibly other rules (Plague Marines, Rubric Marines, and Death Guard Possessed have all had their maximum unit size decreased). We are talking new datasheets, new Power Levels, and new Matched Play points levels. So you aren't asking for a simple errata (the LR is gaining the 2+ armor with no other adjustments include PL and Points), but a major codex revision. So CSM have to wait for their new codex. I'm sure it is frustrating, but it is reasonable given the scale of the changes required.
So? You think PDF's are limited in pages they can add? GW's server space soooooooooo full they can't add page or two?
They already HAVE the updated page sheet done. Just put it in. It can't put CSM into worse position they are already.
Did you even bother to read the update they put out yesterday? It genuinely looks like you didn't since you missed the point updates it had...
JNAProductions wrote: A 10-Man Intercessor squad, with the right buffs, can one-round a Questoris Knight.
And no, not Assault Intercessors. The shooty ones can do it.
Yes and that's a whole lotta buffs and considerations in a math-hammer vacuum. Iron Warriors grant full reroll wounds for 1 CP. VotLW is still 1 CP. The prayer is +1 to wound. Prescience and a lord for essentially auto-hits and the exploding 5s.
So, a squad of 20 Noise Marines, with full rerolls to wound, gets...
60 shots
2,100/36 or 175/3 hits at S4 AP0 D1, with +1 to-wound and rerolls to wound. Ignoring cover too. Close enough to 60 for Government work, so call it 60 hits.
Against GEQ, you'd deal just shy of 39 wounds-that's pretty shredding!
Against MEQ, you'd deal just shy of 18 wounds-or, you'd body a full squad, once morale is accounted for, most likely.
Against TEQ, you'd deal just shy of 9 wounds-that's three Terminators.
Against Gravis, you'd deal 15 wounds on the nugget (well, assuming 60 hits)-that's close to a full squad.
Against Knights or other T8 3+ targets, you'd deal just over 11 wounds-not enough to bracket a Knight even.
So, for the cost of 490 points (20 Noise Marines, naked Lord, naked Sorcerer) and two CP, you can do what's listed above.
If you fail Prescience, you're looking at losing 20% of the damage.
You're also Iron Warriors, who are anti-synergistic with Noise Marines owing to granting them two instances of Ignoring Cover.
Admittedly, you can double tap for 2 more CP, so for a full third of your CP, you can kill a whole two max squads of Marines! Or one squad of Terminators!
Now, for 460 points, you can get a naked Captain, naked Master of Sanctity, nkaed Lieutenant, and 10 AutoBolt Intercessors. Put them in Tactical T1 with a strat (2 CP, if I recall correctly), give them +1 to-hit, and +1 to-wound the nearest target (from the Chaplain) as well as RR1s to-hit and wound. Shoot again for 2 CP, by the way.
Without +1 to-wound, you deal the following, assuming 30 hits:
That unit in melee with chainswords does a minimum of 20 to a knight and I'm not going to bother trying to optimize a hypothetical.
And it still can under the current rules, it'll just get torn to pieces after it does it. And it's a very expensive and overly complicated way for CSM to kill a knight in melee. I can, and have, kill a knight with just 2 models (one costing 160 points +1
CP, the other 115, and the first could be done for 145 + 1CP, I just use equipment that isn't required for the particular task) and no strategems. And it only involves getting one 60mm base in engagement range of the knight, not 20 32mm's.
CSM have viable ways to devastate knights with ranged weapons.
Yup, plenty. Killing Knights, or most anything else, isn't a problem for CSM, at range or in melee. Which is what is annoying about this update: it ups our lethality, which we have plenty of, but not our durability, which our infantry lacks. CSM aren't supposed to be glass cannons, but that's what our infantry is becoming. And in the ever increasing lethality of 9th, that just means less actual Chaos Space Marines on the board, and more of our vehicles.
Someday the world will realize that warhammer 40,000 is just a game youre playing with another person, usually alone in a room and GW isn't there. You want CSM to have 2 wounds? you want tanks to be good? That sounds fun to you? Find exactly one (1) other human being that also sounds fun to, and have that fun.
A buddy of mine just finished a gorgeous land raider and was like 'oh man im so sad im going to have to wait to use this until next edition' and its like...why. Here, pick whatever you think makes the most sense:
1) units in a land raider can disembark after moving but cant move further in the movement phase
2) land raiders can ignore enemy models in engagement range when making shooting attacks (same rule as Baneblade)
or
1) land raiders subtract 1 from all damage taken
2) land raiders get D3+3 damage "heavy lascannons"
alextroy wrote: Two wound CSM is not a rules tweak. They will get them with their codex like all the other marines.
Is modifying an armor save (Leman Russ Tanks) a "rules tweak"? Looks like a stat change to me!
Imo there's no excuse for not having given CSM 2W by now.
And if GW was to just say "all CSM have 2 Wounds" it would be as simple as the Leman Russ rule. But let's not pretend they wouldn't need to revise the point level of every impacted unit, not to mention possibly other rules (Plague Marines, Rubric Marines, and Death Guard Possessed have all had their maximum unit size decreased). We are talking new datasheets, new Power Levels, and new Matched Play points levels. So you aren't asking for a simple errata (the LR is gaining the 2+ armor with no other adjustments include PL and Points), but a major codex revision. So CSM have to wait for their new codex. I'm sure it is frustrating, but it is reasonable given the scale of the changes required.
waefre_1 wrote:
alextroy wrote: Two wound CSM is not a rules tweak. They will get them with their codex like all the other marines.
Would this "all the other marines" include those marines that got a, what was it, week-0 emergency FAQ to give them 2W?
The get-you-by Codex Supplements for Deathwatch, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Blood Angels, and Black Templars were necessary since their codexes has been superseded by the new Codex Space Marines. They were no longer valid, but GW didn't want to leave the players unable to play the units from those books until their new supplements were released. That was not the case for Death Guard, Thousand Sons, or Chaos Space Marines. Doesn't feel great for CSM players, but it's simply not the same situation.
It isn't, in fact, the same situation. Its a worse one. The loyalists could have played straight out of the basic book with no supplement required. Chaos gets effectively teased with the second wound for... 14 months and counting. The basic army being bunk is a lot
different from playing your super special whatever veterans as regular veterans for a month.
Plus its just straight up false to suggest they couldn't have done a similar FAQ for Chaos. Nothing stopped GW from supporting chaos armies with a FAQ except themselves.
The 'scale of the changes required' is +1 W for +3 points. Done. Or whatever the cost difference is between the 8.5 codex and 9e codex for tac marines. Its just as simple an errata as what they just did, either points adjustments for some factions or just rewriting Death to the False Emperor to 'additional hits on 6s to everybody!' with no other changes. Its just as imperfect as all these other changes, but no longer feels like chaos marines are uninvited to the entire edition.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think the change to Death to the False Emperor is really strange given that Death Guard and 1KSons don't have the rule and instead got +1A.
So... why not give CSMs +1A?
DG & TS just had hateful assault get baked in. Whether or not CSM does that in addition to the new DttFE will be interesting. Here's hoping it becomes unmodified hits eventually.
the_scotsman wrote: Someday the world will realize that warhammer 40,000 is just a game youre playing with another person, usually alone in a room and GW isn't there. . .
Because tournament-adjacent metas are a thing, as is a basic desire for some "officialdom".
alextroy wrote: Two wound CSM is not a rules tweak. They will get them with their codex like all the other marines.
Is modifying an armor save (Leman Russ Tanks) a "rules tweak"? Looks like a stat change to me!
Imo there's no excuse for not having given CSM 2W by now.
And if GW was to just say "all CSM have 2 Wounds" it would be as simple as the Leman Russ rule. But let's not pretend they wouldn't need to revise the point level of every impacted unit, not to mention possibly other rules (Plague Marines, Rubric Marines, and Death Guard Possessed have all had their maximum unit size decreased). We are talking new datasheets, new Power Levels, and new Matched Play points levels. So you aren't asking for a simple errata (the LR is gaining the 2+ armor with no other adjustments include PL and Points), but a major codex revision. So CSM have to wait for their new codex. I'm sure it is frustrating, but it is reasonable given the scale of the changes required.
waefre_1 wrote:
alextroy wrote: Two wound CSM is not a rules tweak. They will get them with their codex like all the other marines.
Would this "all the other marines" include those marines that got a, what was it, week-0 emergency FAQ to give them 2W?
The get-you-by Codex Supplements for Deathwatch, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Blood Angels, and Black Templars were necessary since their codexes has been superseded by the new Codex Space Marines. They were no longer valid, but GW didn't want to leave the players unable to play the units from those books until their new supplements were released. That was not the case for Death Guard, Thousand Sons, or Chaos Space Marines. Doesn't feel great for CSM players, but it's simply not the same situation.
It isn't, in fact, the same situation. Its a worse one. The loyalists could have played straight out of the basic book with no supplement required. Chaos gets effectively teased with the second wound for... 14 months and counting. The basic army being bunk is a lot
different from playing your super special whatever veterans as regular veterans for a month.
Plus its just straight up false to suggest they couldn't have done a similar FAQ for Chaos. Nothing stopped GW from supporting chaos armies with a FAQ except themselves.
The 'scale of the changes required' is +1 W for +3 points. Done. Or whatever the cost difference is between the 8.5 codex and 9e codex for tac marines. Its just as simple an errata as what they just did, either points adjustments for some factions or just rewriting Death to the False Emperor to 'additional hits on 6s to everybody!' with no other changes. Its just as imperfect as all these other changes, but no longer feels like chaos marines are uninvited to the entire edition.
The loyalist could have played straight to of the book? You do realize that multiple units in the various supplements (priorly codexes) are not in the current Codex Space Marines? No Deathwatch Veterans or Kill Teams. No Blood Angels Death Company or Sanguinary Guard. No Dark Angels Black Knights or Deathwing Terminators Squads. No Black Templar Crusader Squads. These were all in books invalided by C:SM. GW either had to give them a get-you-by supplement or tell them they couldn't use those units until they got around to publishing the supplement.
Now tell me what publication has superseded Codex Chaos Space Marines while also dropping units that are in it? The Space Marine chapters that had codexes were in a much worst position than Chaos Space Marine players who are frustrated about not yet getting their addition wound. It sucks, but they haven't pulled the rules to any of your units. Not liking the official rules is not worst than not having official rules.
We all know that GW just doesn't do FAQ/Erratas that drastic these days without a solid reason. I'm sure that if GW publishes Codex Chaos Space Marines and pulls all the Legion specific characters because they are going into Supplement that they will produce get-you-by rules for them on day 1. Until then, you are demanding something you should know by now that you are never going to get.
I don't see how doing a 'get you by' update for CSM isn't something GW could have done.
They managed to update all the weapons that changed at the start of 9th, so what's so hard about "Add +1 Wound and +3ppm to the following CSM units..."?
H.B.M.C. wrote: I don't see how doing a 'get you by' update for CSM isn't something GW could have done.
They managed to update all the weapons that changed at the start of 9th, so what's so hard about "Add +1 Wound and +3ppm to the following CSM units..."?
This is absolutely 100% true.
There are a lot of people saying this, and I agree with all of them about this. And it's funny, because it might be the ONLY thing that I agree with where some of those people are concerned- which is why I had to mention how vehemently I agree. Hopefully recognizing the places where we do share common ground will help us avoid getting too terribly aggressive about the points where we don't agree.
Honestly, the chaos dex can't come fast enough for me. GW's handling of the disparity between loyalists and CSM is easily THE most egregious problem with this edition (from my POV- the opinions and experience of others may vary).
I will say, as a marine player, the game is literally full of damage 2+ weapons right now. My marines might as well have one wound for how fast they die. Chaos marines are just as durable against those weapons, and get a discount.
But, I agree chaos marines should have gotten a hold over faq like the loyalist supplements did.
As a chaos space marine player supplements in general are the most egregious problem with the edition. The layer of rules to layer on top of your layers of layers of rules...
Also when your army hasn’t had a codex a supplement kind of comes off as a slap to the face. You are half right though. Reprinting all the 8th edition material and selling it back to us instead of a codex or even the 8th edition rules with 2 wound marines is the beyond insulting...
alextroy wrote: Two wound CSM is not a rules tweak. They will get them with their codex like all the other marines.
Is modifying an armor save (Leman Russ Tanks) a "rules tweak"? Looks like a stat change to me!
Imo there's no excuse for not having given CSM 2W by now.
And if GW was to just say "all CSM have 2 Wounds" it would be as simple as the Leman Russ rule. But let's not pretend they wouldn't need to revise the point level of every impacted unit, not to mention possibly other rules (Plague Marines, Rubric Marines, and Death Guard Possessed have all had their maximum unit size decreased). We are talking new datasheets, new Power Levels, and new Matched Play points levels. So you aren't asking for a simple errata (the LR is gaining the 2+ armor with no other adjustments include PL and Points), but a major codex revision. So CSM have to wait for their new codex. I'm sure it is frustrating, but it is reasonable given the scale of the changes required.
waefre_1 wrote:
alextroy wrote: Two wound CSM is not a rules tweak. They will get them with their codex like all the other marines.
Would this "all the other marines" include those marines that got a, what was it, week-0 emergency FAQ to give them 2W?
The get-you-by Codex Supplements for Deathwatch, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Blood Angels, and Black Templars were necessary since their codexes has been superseded by the new Codex Space Marines. They were no longer valid, but GW didn't want to leave the players unable to play the units from those books until their new supplements were released. That was not the case for Death Guard, Thousand Sons, or Chaos Space Marines. Doesn't feel great for CSM players, but it's simply not the same situation.
It isn't, in fact, the same situation. Its a worse one. The loyalists could have played straight out of the basic book with no supplement required. Chaos gets effectively teased with the second wound for... 14 months and counting. The basic army being bunk is a lot
different from playing your super special whatever veterans as regular veterans for a month.
Plus its just straight up false to suggest they couldn't have done a similar FAQ for Chaos. Nothing stopped GW from supporting chaos armies with a FAQ except themselves.
The 'scale of the changes required' is +1 W for +3 points. Done. Or whatever the cost difference is between the 8.5 codex and 9e codex for tac marines. Its just as simple an errata as what they just did, either points adjustments for some factions or just rewriting Death to the False Emperor to 'additional hits on 6s to everybody!' with no other changes. Its just as imperfect as all these other changes, but no longer feels like chaos marines are uninvited to the entire edition.
The loyalist could have played straight to of the book? You do realize that multiple units in the various supplements (priorly codexes) are not in the current Codex Space Marines? No Deathwatch Veterans or Kill Teams. No Blood Angels Death Company or Sanguinary Guard. No Dark Angels Black Knights or Deathwing Terminators Squads. No Black Templar Crusader Squads. These were all in books invalided by C:SM. GW either had to give them a get-you-by supplement or tell them they couldn't use those units until they got around to publishing the supplement.
I do realize. I don't care. Most of those have equivalents, most of the supplements came out in short order, and they did do the FAQs (and most of us were in lockdown anyway). Its a non-issue.
Now tell me what publication has superseded Codex Chaos Space Marines while also dropping units that are in it?
9e Core rulebook. Or depending on your perspective, several editions of CSM Codexes (up to 5). How long, for example, did that traitor legions book last? 6 months?
We all know that GW just doesn't do FAQ/Erratas that drastic these days without a solid reason. I'm sure that if GW publishes Codex Chaos Space Marines and pulls all the Legion specific characters because they are going into Supplement that they will produce get-you-by rules for them on day 1. Until then, you are demanding something you should know by now that you are never going to get.
Nonsense. They literally just proved they do FAQs/Erratas without a solid reason or any sense of proportion. And something this simple and obvious should have been done day one, not 'never.' And clearly would have been had they been loyalist marines.
macluvin wrote: As a chaos space marine player supplements in general are the most egregious problem with the edition. The layer of rules to layer on top of your layers of layers of rules...
Also when your army hasn’t had a codex a supplement kind of comes off as a slap to the face. You are half right though. Reprinting all the 8th edition material and selling it back to us instead of a codex or even the 8th edition rules with 2 wound marines is the beyond insulting...
You can have layers and layers of rules without the need for supplements. Just look at the AdMech book.
Supplements aren't the cause of the problem. They're just a symptom.
Because many things are likely to change when the CSM codex drops. Its not just 2W. They are probably adding one attack at least on every single unit. But death to the false emperor will go away (or be radically changed). And all the points would have to be adjusted upwards to reflect all these.
So yeah ... I guess its so much changes they would rather just release all these in a new 9th ed CSM codex instead.
Eldenfirefly wrote: Because many things are likely to change when the CSM codex drops. Its not just 2W. They are probably adding one attack at least on every single unit. But death to the false emperor will go away (or be radically changed). And all the points would have to be adjusted upwards to reflect all these.
So yeah ... I guess its so much changes they would rather just release all these in a new 9th ed CSM codex instead.
And none of that needs to happen all at once. They could have added the +1 wound and requisite points bump at any time since the loyalist codex was released, including in this "update", but they haven't. Nobody is asking for all of that, just the additional wound, and nobody expects it to come without an increase in points.
macluvin wrote: As a chaos space marine player supplements in general are the most egregious problem with the edition. The layer of rules to layer on top of your layers of layers of rules...
Also when your army hasn’t had a codex a supplement kind of comes off as a slap to the face. You are half right though. Reprinting all the 8th edition material and selling it back to us instead of a codex or even the 8th edition rules with 2 wound marines is the beyond insulting...
You can have layers and layers of rules without the need for supplements. Just look at the AdMech book.
Supplements aren't the cause of the problem. They're just a symptom.
They are aggravating factors and they are barriers. Many problems would go away if supplements went away.
Everyone is welcome to their opinion on an extra Wound Errata for CSM, but only GW's opinion matters. Gnashing your teeth every time they do and FAQ and don't do what you want is a waste of your time. They aren't going to start now 14 months after they release Codex Space Marines.
There are many things we can have an interesting discussion on. Why GW won't produce an FAQ increase CSM Infantry models to 2 wounds 14 months after the release of Codex Space Marines is not going to be very interesting. Just a bunch of opinions about what is reasonable when GW has already shown us what they think is reasonable (aka not doing it).
How about we discuss something they actually did in this Balance Dataslate?
Damn, that sounds like something that might just kill a couple of raiders, maybe require an admech list to spend 1cp to move a unit of serberys out of the way of the charge...if they get first turn and dont go second and get dumpstered before all their buffs go up, lol.
this is really a nothing, dude. They changed strats and abilities with the day 1 SMfaqs as well, it's OK to admit this gak is just inexcusable at this point. The amount of effort that went into the drukhari or admech points tweaks is more than enough to have not created problems with a CSM wound tweak.
You know damn well there's more to it.
If a Strike is 22 with a Psilencer then a Noise Marine with a Sonic Blaster is going to be less. And you can take 20 of those with exploding hits on 5s.
With Chainswords that's 4 attacks. 10 of them would kill 18 skitari with no buffs what so ever.
Why would a Noise Marine with a sonic blaster have to cost less than a Strike with a psilencer? A huge part of the power budget might just be in combo potential. With how terribly balanced the recent releases have been the excuse of wanting to keep the game balanced just doesn't work, GW are releasing crazy rules and crazy day 1 supplements, they are not playing it safe and ensuring good balance. I would love if GW played it safe and updated matched play rules once a year, but you cannot say that while AdMech and Drukhari have been riding the meta like a whore CSM have to patiently sit in the church so the meta doesn't get shaken up.
alextroy wrote: Everyone is welcome to their opinion on an extra Wound Errata for CSM, but only GW's opinion matters. Gnashing your teeth every time they do and FAQ and don't do what you want is a waste of your time. They aren't going to start now 14 months after they release Codex Space Marines.
"Everybody is welcome to their opinion of grass-flavour ice cream, but only Ben&Jerries opinion matters..." the company will notice If nobody buys the flavour. You should not buy the ice cream if you don't like the flavour. Like if a +1S AP-3 D1 weapon cost the same as a +2S AP-4 D2 weapon I wouldn't buy the ice cream.
I think some people are overly zealous in their rhetoric, CSM aren't bad if you build a competitive FW list. 1W is to me a fluff issue first (they should have it because SM have it) and game design issue second (they should have it because they shouldn't be glass cannons), balance issue third (the faction is underwhelming at the moment and CA20 overcosted 1W Marines).
Now tell me what publication has superseded Codex Chaos Space Marines while also dropping units that are in it?
9e Core rulebook. Or depending on your perspective, several editions of CSM Codexes (up to 5). How long, for example, did that traitor legions book last? 6 months?
I'm curious about this claim regarding the 9e core rulebook - where in there has it said that certain datasheets from Codex: CSM 2.0 can't be used?
+ + +
My current working theory is that every time a post is made bitching about the lack of a +1W errata for CSM, GW push the release back another month At this rate, I think the schedule is for it to come out in the year 3,000...
alextroy wrote: Everyone is welcome to their opinion on an extra Wound Errata for CSM, but only GW's opinion matters. Gnashing your teeth every time they do and FAQ and don't do what you want is a waste of your time. They aren't going to start now 14 months after they release Codex Space Marines.
Something something. Gnashing your teeth every time somebody makes a legitimate complaint about GW's ineptitude is a waste of your time. Et cetera and so on.
Now tell me what publication has superseded Codex Chaos Space Marines while also dropping units that are in it?
9e Core rulebook. Or depending on your perspective, several editions of CSM Codexes (up to 5). How long, for example, did that traitor legions book last? 6 months?
I'm curious about this claim regarding the 9e core rulebook - where in there has it said that certain datasheets from Codex: CSM 2.0 can't be used?
I'm not sure exactly where the other poster is going with their line of reasoning, but when did Vigilus Ablaze's specialist detachment content become forbidden?
Now tell me what publication has superseded Codex Chaos Space Marines while also dropping units that are in it?
9e Core rulebook. Or depending on your perspective, several editions of CSM Codexes (up to 5). How long, for example, did that traitor legions book last? 6 months?
I'm curious about this claim regarding the 9e core rulebook - where in there has it said that certain datasheets from Codex: CSM 2.0 can't be used?
I'm not sure exactly where the other poster is going with their line of reasoning, but when did Vigilus Ablaze's specialist detachment content become forbidden?
Now tell me what publication has superseded Codex Chaos Space Marines while also dropping units that are in it?
9e Core rulebook. Or depending on your perspective, several editions of CSM Codexes (up to 5). How long, for example, did that traitor legions book last? 6 months?
I'm curious about this claim regarding the 9e core rulebook - where in there has it said that certain datasheets from Codex: CSM 2.0 can't be used?
I'm not sure exactly where the other poster is going with their line of reasoning, but when did Vigilus Ablaze's specialist detachment content become forbidden?
The GT mode explicitly forbids their use. All other game modes (crusade, regular matched play, eternal war) still allow them unless you are running an Army of Reknown. It's not really clear how to purchase specialist detachments in crusade though.
Crusade doesn't allow them (or rather, there is no way to employ them. Pre-battle stratagems are forbidden, and the requisition to use them instead explicitly forbids using Specialist Detachments).
Jarms48 wrote: I do really like the balance datasheet they released. Though I think it was too harsh on aircraft. I think they should have altered detachments.
- Patrols, Vanguard, Spearhead, and Outriders reduced to 0 - 1 flyer slots.
- Battalions and Brigades remain at 2.
So the only way to get 6 planes is minimum triple battalion. That's a lot of CP as well as a lot of wasted points on HQ and Troop tax.
I also wish they made Brigades more interesting. Give them 0 - 1 LoW and 0 - 1 fortification slots.
That is still way too easy to get 3 fliers, which was where the core problem existed.
Now tell me what publication has superseded Codex Chaos Space Marines while also dropping units that are in it?
9e Core rulebook. Or depending on your perspective, several editions of CSM Codexes (up to 5). How long, for example, did that traitor legions book last? 6 months?
I'm curious about this claim regarding the 9e core rulebook - where in there has it said that certain datasheets from Codex: CSM 2.0 can't be used?
I'm not sure exactly where the other poster is going with their line of reasoning, but when did Vigilus Ablaze's specialist detachment content become forbidden?
'Superceded' has a pretty general meaning: ie, being made useless or irrelevant. When other marines (and a pile of weapons) were upgraded, chaos marines were left behind. Which has been the perennial story for multiple editions now.
'Datasheets can't be used' isn't the whole story, sometimes GW leaves armies as abandonware for a decade or so.
Agree, the limit for fliers is probably one of the better ideas GW had. There have been issues with spamming some of them going all the way back to 5th edition when they first became available for regular games.
Blackie wrote: 2 flyers in a 2000 points game is still a lot of flyers IMHO.
Doesn't that really depend on the flyer itself?
You'd think.
Probably also depends some upon the force they're being used against.
For ex; My buddies run his 3 Stormtalon Gunships (he loves those ugly little things) against my Necrons plenty of times. They've yet to be overly effective. Somewhat annoying at times, but never to the "Oh GW, save me & nerf his flyers!" point.
The rule of 3 was born because one flyrant was manageable but 7 were not. There was no way to fix that by points, since those kind of models have more impact the more they are.
This is the same situation. Flyers can go into critical mass, since they move block very effectively and can perform surgical strikes with no interaction with the opponent.
Limiting the overall number of flyers so that they can't reach critical mass is IMO a good approach.
Blackie wrote: 2 flyers in a 2000 points game is still a lot of flyers IMHO.
Doesn't that really depend on the flyer itself?
No, because we're not talking about limiting OP models, we're talking about limiting specific kinds of units. Flyers are like LoWs or superheroes, some of them aren't even good at all. But spamming them can easily bring problems.
As even GW itself pointed out if you want to bring lots of those play Aereonautica Imperialis or Adeptus Titanicus. They aknowledged that the game could easily get broken by making possible to bring multiple flyers to regular 40k games and they tried to fix it. Flyers, just like leading heroes (who have been capped to max 1 per detachment) or LoWs, were supposed to be centrepiece models. LoWs are harder to spam due to their much higher points costs but if one or more of those become spammable and bring mechanics issues, like flyers, GW will certainly put a cap on them as well.
Blackie wrote: No, because we're not talking about limiting OP models, we're talking about limiting specific kinds of units. Flyers are like LoWs or superheroes, some of them aren't even good at all. But spamming them can easily bring problems.
I don't ever remember a time when Air Cav was bringing "problems" to the game.
This seems like a general solution to a specific problem. If Ork and AdMech jets are causing issues, fix those issues. Don't feth over every other army with flyers because you made two factions too powerful.
This is why so many of us can't stand the way GW writes rules, and especially how they "balance" them. It's a hard swing of the mighty pendulum. As stated above, the reason the Rule of Three exists is because of people taking masses of Hive Tyrants with wings. Their solution? Limit what everyone can take rather than fixing the actual problem.
If GW was a school nurse, she'd amputate your leg if you came in with a grazed knee.
Blackie wrote: As even GW itself pointed out if you want to bring lots of those play Aereonautica Imperialis or Adeptus Titanicus.
Then that's the dumbest thing they've said in a while, and anyone who thinks that that's a genuine or reasonable solution, then, well, Dakka has politeness rules.
Blackie wrote: 2 flyers in a 2000 points game is still a lot of flyers IMHO.
Doesn't that really depend on the flyer itself?
You'd think.
Probably also depends some upon the force they're being used against.
For ex; My buddies run his 3 Stormtalon Gunships (he loves those ugly little things) against my Necrons plenty of times. They've yet to be overly effective. Somewhat annoying at times, but never to the "Oh GW, save me & nerf his flyers!" point.
personally, the stormtalon should just not have the supersonic rules and be classed as a hover gunship. Then your friend could play with all 3.
I still think it's a good fix, but I would gladly play vs a 3 stormtalon list or aircav list etc, ignoring matched play rules won't get you kicked out of any special club.
The more elegant solution would surely be to limit flyers using the force oganisation chart?
I think that a lot of 40k's spam problems could be solved by restricting the force orgs more. For example limiting any army to just one of any type of force organisation chart and then limiting the more generalist charts so that they allowed less freedom to field all the specialist elements by reducing the allowance by one across the board. Then cap all force org charts to a max of one flier. That allows armies to lean into particular directions but prevents a complete skew.
For an air cav theme army, just let the guard take valkyries as dedicated transports.
I'm not sure where that leaves the ork list but if there are still problems with particular units, reduce the unit size caps or allow them to only be taken on a one to one basis with bikes, or require one unit of each type of buggy before taking a second of any one type, or just change the points/ rules for the offending models to prevent invalidating armies already bought.
GW have gone for a quick fix, which is fine in the short term, but I hope when they take another pass in 3 months they come up with some more elegant solutions.
That is a good idea Black Adder, a max of 1 Vanguard/Outrider/Spearhead would dampen quite a few spam/skew lists.
H.B.M.C. wrote: This is why so many of us can't stand the way GW writes rules, and especially how they "balance" them. It's a hard swing of the mighty pendulum. As stated above, the reason the Rule of Three exists is because of people taking masses of Hive Tyrants with wings. Their solution? Limit what everyone can take rather than fixing the actual problem.
If GW was a school nurse, she'd amputate your leg if you came in with a grazed knee.
Probably the wrong leg too.
After the initial euphoria of getting a patch, I am not too happy with the way they've fixed several rules. I do hope these are emergency bandages and that they plan to peel them off and heal them properly in more detail later.
I'd like to see the 2 Aircraft MODEL limit be reverted and a more detailed reduction in the flyer slots being made. 0 slots in all patrols/outriders/vanguard/spearheads/battalions/brigades (I think that is all of them that give flyer slots), but then have a detachment bonus if your warlord is in the detachment of 1 flyer in a patrol, 2 in a battalion, 3 in a brigade.
I'd like to also see the Ork buggy change reverted. They need points increased and a change from 1~3 per unit to 1 per unit. That would limit each buggy to 3 of and the points increases would provide the remaining balance. Despite owning 6 Myphytic Blight Haulers I would not complain if they did away with vehicle squadrons, they feel like a balance nightmare for even a competent team of rules writers. I am assuming that they slapped this emergency rule in to the PDF because there are no points increases planned for Orks (so they couldn't just bring them forward like DE/AM) so if they hadn't done something we would have been looking at 9 months of buggy spam.
The Imp Guard, CSM, Knights changes all feel like they might get changed in the 9th edition codexes anyway.
A Baneblade is now officially easier to damage with a lasgun than a Leman Russ.
but it's okay, I'm sure making vehicles vulnerable to small arms could have no weird, immersion breaking repercussions and I definitely didn't say so when it happened.
Blackie wrote: 2 flyers in a 2000 points game is still a lot of flyers IMHO.
Gotta disagree. 240pts of Dakkajets in a 2k point game isn't that much. "Oh no! its 120pts for 10 wounds 4+ save T6 that has -1 to hit!" at best that means dakkajetz are slightly under priced, but it absolutely doesn't mean you need to limit them to 2. I think 3 or 1/5th your army (To a minimum of 1 unit), whichever is less, would have been better. So at 2kpts you could take 3 flyers if they totaled less than 400pts. In the case of Orkz, the problem was people taking 2 dakkajetz and 2 Wazbomz. this limit would mean you COULD take 3 dakkajetz, but you couldn't afford a wazbom unless you only took 1 dakkajet.
Unit1126PLL wrote: A Baneblade is now officially easier to damage with a lasgun than a Leman Russ.
but it's okay, I'm sure making vehicles vulnerable to small arms could have no weird, immersion breaking repercussions and I definitely didn't say so when it happened.
And it still is a complete useless argument. No one is killing tanks, be it LR or Baneblades, with small arms fire.
If you are losing your Baneblades to basic guardsman you have WAY bigger issues then the supposed vulnerability of a baneblade.
Unit1126PLL wrote: A Baneblade is now officially easier to damage with a lasgun than a Leman Russ.
but it's okay, I'm sure making vehicles vulnerable to small arms could have no weird, immersion breaking repercussions and I definitely didn't say so when it happened.
And it still is a complete useless argument. No one is killing tanks, be it LR or Baneblades, with small arms fire.
If you are losing your Baneblades to basic guardsman you have WAY bigger issues then the supposed vulnerability of a baneblade.
It's only useless if you care about immersion.
Besides, a 3+ save is worse than a 2+ save, no doubt about it - even against real anti-tank weapons. I suppose a reword of my post for those who are "THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IS THE RULES AND NOT IMMERSION" folks would say:
"And now a Baneblade is easier to damage than a Leman Russ with any given AT weapon"
Oh right, but it has more wounds. We should just make it T3 6+ with 144 wounds for all the amount anyone seems to care about other defensive stats.
Morkanauts aren’t low lol. They might have been placed there, but they’re heavy supports. They didn’t even give the main gun the kmb buffs, should be 3d3 d3 shots
I don't think Jidmah likes LoW in 40k, which is a different perspective than I have but is nonetheless an understandable and respectable opinion.
I wouldn't mind going back to the way I'm using my LOW in 4th, which is as a second detachment of 1-3 and only in games of 2500 points or more. (i.e. the core 4th edition way to field baneblade companies)
H.B.M.C. wrote: Then that's the dumbest thing they've said in a while, and anyone who thinks that that's a genuine or reasonable solution, then, well, Dakka has politeness rules.
No, I think that honor goes to thier comments about why they F* over a bunch of Ork players buggy wise.
At least with the aircraft they implied there were mechanics issues (not that they explained what those were).
But they buggies? They invalidate hundreds of $ worth of models in peoples collections simply because they didn't like how people's armies LOOKED on the table??
you GW. And anyone who agrees with them.
Blackie wrote: 2 flyers in a 2000 points game is still a lot of flyers IMHO.
Gotta disagree. 240pts of Dakkajets in a 2k point game isn't that much. "Oh no! its 120pts for 10 wounds 4+ save T6 that has -1 to hit!" at best that means dakkajetz are slightly under priced, but it absolutely doesn't mean you need to limit them to 2. I think 3 or 1/5th your army (To a minimum of 1 unit), whichever is less, would have been better. So at 2kpts you could take 3 flyers if they totaled less than 400pts. In the case of Orkz, the problem was people taking 2 dakkajetz and 2 Wazbomz. this limit would mean you COULD take 3 dakkajetz, but you couldn't afford a wazbom unless you only took 1 dakkajet.
pretty sure you mean 120pts for 12 wounds, 4+ save, T6 with 40 S6 Ap-2 shots....yeah, no problem to keep adding them in!
Super happy with a Matched Play restriction of 2 flyers. Narrative or games with friends? Sure, bring your aircav list, I'm all game for that!
Leman russes being buffed to 2+ had nothing to do with actually buffing AM. It was just to avoid the backlash now that the GSC dex comes out with 2+ russes.
vipoid wrote: As someone who's been out of the loop for a while, could someone enlighten me as to what the flier changes were aimed at?
Flyers in general, last edition we had Craftworld Flyers running amok, this edition it was two recent Codex releases, Orks and AdMech. Stratoraptors and Fusilaves mainly. The problem is they can fly so fast that it doesn't really matter how much terrain you use, they're gonna find line of sight and shoot you, this increases lethality in the game and the game is absurdly lethal at the moment. The second problem is their bases can block where units can end their movement and you cannot engage them in melee with most melee units which can make them stupid to play against for some lists.
Spoletta wrote: Baneblades will be buffed to 2+ with the codex.
Leman russes being buffed to 2+ had nothing to do with actually buffing AM. It was just to avoid the backlash now that the GSC dex comes out with 2+ russes.
That's a theory I hadn't considered. Seems plausible.
vipoid wrote: As someone who's been out of the loop for a while, could someone enlighten me as to what the flier changes were aimed at?
Specifically Admech and Orks aircraft, but aircraft in general is absurdly toxic to play against when good and forcing you to take less of them helps solve that problem.
Scions should probably get an exemption for their Valkyries which are mostly glorified transports, but they are fluffy for Scion armies and it is a shame they were a casualty of this otherwise very necessary update.
Blackie wrote: 2 flyers in a 2000 points game is still a lot of flyers IMHO.
Doesn't that really depend on the flyer itself?
The user you're talking to seems to have... issues with certain unit types, HBMC, so don't expect that rational a discussion.
Absolutely, I think flyers and superheavies don't belong to 40k, so IMHO even 1 or 2 is still too many .
Bringing multiple of those has been a problem in the past and in the present, due to their mechanics not just stats. Some (most?) of them aren't really competitive but that's not the point. GW's fix is for competitive gaming, if you want to bring your fluffy skew list you still can, just in the most appropriate setting, which isn't matched play. Matched play isn't the only way of playing 40k.
Blackie wrote: 2 flyers in a 2000 points game is still a lot of flyers IMHO.
Gotta disagree. 240pts of Dakkajets in a 2k point game isn't that much. "Oh no! its 120pts for 10 wounds 4+ save T6 that has -1 to hit!" at best that means dakkajetz are slightly under priced, but it absolutely doesn't mean you need to limit them to 2. I think 3 or 1/5th your army (To a minimum of 1 unit), whichever is less, would have been better. So at 2kpts you could take 3 flyers if they totaled less than 400pts. In the case of Orkz, the problem was people taking 2 dakkajetz and 2 Wazbomz. this limit would mean you COULD take 3 dakkajetz, but you couldn't afford a wazbom unless you only took 1 dakkajet.
72 shots with S6 AP-1 BS5+ from 2 superfast platforms with the profile of a tank that can't be assaulted but can snipe anything is definitely something for 240 points. 84 shots with S6 AP-2 BS4+ is definitely A LOT for 240 points.
vipoid wrote: As someone who's been out of the loop for a while, could someone enlighten me as to what the flier changes were aimed at?
With the loss of fire arcs a flyer can move across the entire board in a single turn and can draw light of sight from any point, even a wing tip so its impossible to hide.
Combined with a native -1 to hit for protection and charge immunity from a lot of models its a very good base.
The only thing holding flyers back is that a lot of them have bad weapons or cost to much. But that also means that whenever GW gets the numbers wrong flyers quickly become oppressive. Admech did it with their flyers, Orks did it with their flyers and any future codex with a half-way decent flyer would do the same.
Spoletta wrote: Baneblades will be buffed to 2+ with the codex.
Leman russes being buffed to 2+ had nothing to do with actually buffing AM. It was just to avoid the backlash now that the GSC dex comes out with 2+ russes.
That would solve a lot of problems. I just hope the codex is sooner than 2023, phrrrrbt.
The wait for dexes between the 3.5 edition IG and 5th edition IG was also six years.
Blackie wrote: 2 flyers in a 2000 points game is still a lot of flyers IMHO.
Gotta disagree. 240pts of Dakkajets in a 2k point game isn't that much. "Oh no! its 120pts for 10 wounds 4+ save T6 that has -1 to hit!" at best that means dakkajetz are slightly under priced, but it absolutely doesn't mean you need to limit them to 2. I think 3 or 1/5th your army (To a minimum of 1 unit), whichever is less, would have been better. So at 2kpts you could take 3 flyers if they totaled less than 400pts. In the case of Orkz, the problem was people taking 2 dakkajetz and 2 Wazbomz. this limit would mean you COULD take 3 dakkajetz, but you couldn't afford a wazbom unless you only took 1 dakkajet.
pretty sure you mean 120pts for 12 wounds, 4+ save, T6 with 40 S6 Ap-2 shots....yeah, no problem to keep adding them in!
Super happy with a Matched Play restriction of 2 flyers. Narrative or games with friends? Sure, bring your aircav list, I'm all game for that!
My apologies, you are correct its 12 wounds not 10... but its also not 40 S6 AP-2 Shots, its 36 AP-1 Shots which also hit on 5s. So it averages 12 hits a turn. You can use a once a game buff to make it 42 S6 AP-2 shots, but basing points value off a buffed unit is a bit ridiculous, which is also why Lootas were terrible in 8th once hte loota bomb went away. Heck, they just got better this edition and are still ranked in garbage tier because of how crap they are.
Dakkajets weren't breaking the game, at best, under optimal circumstances, with WAAAAGH and freeboota kulture proc'ing you could get 42 shots, 21 hits, 14 wounds and 9dmg vs a Marine profile. Under normal circumstances its 4dmg.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Or just limit the flyers that are the problem rather than trying to fix a specific problem with a general solution.
But what do I know...
And if flyers in general can be a problem and points aren't the only way to solve things? Like all flyers move block and I haven't seen someone put up a fool proof solution to all the mechanics needed to make flyers unobtrusive.
I think LOW are fine as a centerpiece model. Very impressive center piece models they make. But spamming them would be a problem.
I would rather make LOW limited to just 1 per army, and only knight armies can bring a max of 3. Then make them feel appropriate as the center piece units they are. They are supposed to be center pieces no matter where they show up on the battlefield. To me, somehow, a 2000 point army other than knights should only be able to field 1. Because they are only supposed to show up in a big army. So having an army with 3 LOWs (because points allowed it), and then with just a bare bones skirmish force (again because points) just doesn't feel right.
I want my Lord of skulls to feel like a proper centerpiece model, with scary rules and stuff, but I want it to be there along with the rest of my appropriately big army. Lord of skulls are supposed to generate a huge following around it as CSM and cultists alike follow in its wake of destruction. Are three Lord of skulls supposed to just show up in a force with a token force?
Its just like the Baneblade. IG treats each baneblade as much more precious than a dozen leman Russ. So, given how many men and tanks that IG has, I can picture a Baneblade showing up in an IG army, but it would be absolutely surrounded by tons and tons of IG armor and troops. Can I picture 3 Baneblades by themselves with token IG troops around them ? I can't. It literally makes zero sense.
So, I would vote for making LOW appropriately powerful as befitting their status, and yet, still remain at the points they cost today. But I would want a bump in their abilities/stats while keeping them limited to 1 per army except for knights.
Like give all ground based LOW a 2+ armor save that ignores AP1. But limit them to 1 per army.
Blackie wrote: 2 flyers in a 2000 points game is still a lot of flyers IMHO.
Gotta disagree. 240pts of Dakkajets in a 2k point game isn't that much. "Oh no! its 120pts for 10 wounds 4+ save T6 that has -1 to hit!" at best that means dakkajetz are slightly under priced, but it absolutely doesn't mean you need to limit them to 2. I think 3 or 1/5th your army (To a minimum of 1 unit), whichever is less, would have been better. So at 2kpts you could take 3 flyers if they totaled less than 400pts. In the case of Orkz, the problem was people taking 2 dakkajetz and 2 Wazbomz. this limit would mean you COULD take 3 dakkajetz, but you couldn't afford a wazbom unless you only took 1 dakkajet.
pretty sure you mean 120pts for 12 wounds, 4+ save, T6 with 40 S6 Ap-2 shots....yeah, no problem to keep adding them in!
Super happy with a Matched Play restriction of 2 flyers. Narrative or games with friends? Sure, bring your aircav list, I'm all game for that!
My apologies, you are correct its 12 wounds not 10... but its also not 40 S6 AP-2 Shots, its 36 AP-1 Shots which also hit on 5s. So it averages 12 hits a turn. You can use a once a game buff to make it 42 S6 AP-2 shots, but basing points value off a buffed unit is a bit ridiculous, which is also why Lootas were terrible in 8th once hte loota bomb went away. Heck, they just got better this edition and are still ranked in garbage tier because of how crap they are.
Dakkajets weren't breaking the game, at best, under optimal circumstances, with WAAAAGH and freeboota kulture proc'ing you could get 42 shots, 21 hits, 14 wounds and 9dmg vs a Marine profile. Under normal circumstances its 4dmg.
The turn it matters the most they are 42 S6 AP-2 shots that most likely hit on 4+ that the opponent can't hide from. The turn after there are "only" 36 shots but they are still AP-2 and hit on 4+. Turn 3 or later they are most likely dead or the opponent is then dead so if they are alive they are only AP-1 and only hit on 5+ because nothing can trigger the bonus to hit.
When it comes to alpha strike lists the average damage a unit makes during the later turns is mostly irrelevant. Especially in a lethal game like 40k where most units often only get one full turn to really unleash their damage before they are wiped in the return fire.
Daedalus81 wrote: And if flyers in general can be a problem and points aren't the only way to solve things? Like all flyers move block and I haven't seen someone put up a fool proof solution to all the mechanics needed to make flyers unobtrusive.
I don't remember mentioning points as the solution to this, so it's odd that you'd counter with that.
And "move block" hasn't been the recent problem with flyers, and it's certainly not why GW is trying to limit them now. "I have lots of flyers and go anywhere on the table and can see you no matter what and annihilate you on turn one" has been the problem.
Eldenfirefly wrote: I would rather make LOW limited to just 1 per army, and only knight armies can bring a max of 3.
Arbitrary restrictions are arbitrary. So 0-1 LoW whether it's a 500 point game or a 5000 point game?
The FoC has to mean something, and it has to scale with points values. That's how you build limitations into the rules.
H.B.M.C. wrote: And "move block" hasn't been the recent problem with flyers, and it's certainly not why GW is trying to limit them now. "I have lots of flyers and go anywhere on the table and can see you no matter what and annihilate you on turn one" has been the problem.
It's absolutely a compounding problem when you block their avenue to move forward, take the board, and get angles on softer units.
Daedalus81 wrote: It's absolutely a compounding problem when you block their avenue to move forward, take the board, and get angles on softer units.
*sigh*
"And 'move block' hasn't been the recent problem with flyers..."
Who cares about move blocking when you no longer have an army before your second turn?
I can certainly see how move blocking could be a problem for mass planes - no doubt about it! - but, again, that's not what I was saying, and not what the issue at hand is about.
Daedalus81 wrote: It's absolutely a compounding problem when you block their avenue to move forward, take the board, and get angles on softer units.
*sigh*
"And 'move block' hasn't been the recent problem with flyers..."
Who cares about move blocking when you no longer have an army before your second turn?
I can certainly see how move blocking could be a problem for mass planes - no doubt about it! - but, again, that's not what I was saying, and not what the issue at hand is about.
Sure it is. It's more a problem than ever before in an objective based mission set. Just because a couple tournaments meme'd the table wipe problem doesn't mean there wasn't also other problems.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The FoC has to mean something, and it has to scale with points values. That's how you build limitations into the rules.
The lack of scaling for large games is another minor quibble with the Matched Play rules - Onslaught caps out at 3k, when it wouldn't've taken much space to include some copy about "For every 1,000 points beyond this, increase detachment limit by 1", etc.
That, or the implication is that the Matched Play format breaks down after 3k, which is possible.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The FoC has to mean something, and it has to scale with points values. That's how you build limitations into the rules.
The lack of scaling for large games is another minor quibble with the Matched Play rules - Onslaught caps out at 3k, when it wouldn't've taken much space to include some copy about "For every 1,000 points beyond this, increase detachment limit by 1", etc.
That, or the implication is that the Matched Play format breaks down after 3k, which is possible.
Well, you can stretch it to 4k by just playing onslaught, but at 6k (2vs2 with each player running an onslaught force) the game definitely falls apart and not in a glorious way like old apoc games did. You run out of deployment space, any objective about holding the center is impossible, having units in a table quarter/deployment zone becomes trivial, kill secondaries max out by default and it's all the stratagems all the time.
Detachments, however, are the least problem you have. Worst case you are forced to bring some troops to form a battalion or a brigade as one of your detachments, but four spearheads, vanguards, outrider or super-heavy detachments can already hold a lot of points to bring whatever your collection allows.
Matched play is intended to be tournament play, which can't be 2500-3000 points games, let alone higher formats. In fact most TOs even enforce time limitations, because 2000 points games are already massive and not optimal to handle.
Outside matched play there's no cap on flyers or ork buggies.
Blackie wrote: Matched play is intended to be tournament play, which can't be 2500-3000 points games, let alone higher formats. In fact most TOs even enforce time limitations, because 2000 points games are already massive and not optimal to handle.
Outside matched play there's no cap on flyers or ork buggies.
I think the main reason for TO to use 1000/20000 is that the GT packs don't support onslaught.
Blackie wrote: Matched play is intended to be tournament play, which can't be 2500-3000 points games, let alone higher formats. In fact most TOs even enforce time limitations, because 2000 points games are already massive and not optimal to handle.
Outside matched play there's no cap on flyers or ork buggies.
I think the main reason for TO to use 1000/20000 is that the GT packs don't support onslaught.
Do you have any reasoning for that? Because the incredibly obvious answer is Time and the inability to fit 3 3000 point games within a day and 2 games being not enough for a variety of reasons.
Dysartes wrote: So... these changes have been out in the wild for a week now - anyone managed to get any games in with them? If so, how did you find them?
Well, it sucks that my second SJD is a display piece now, but outside of that my usual list is mostly unaffected. I rarely ran more than two planes anyways, and if I really want to bring down the hammer from above I can still run double wazzboms.
Dysartes wrote: So... these changes have been out in the wild for a week now - anyone managed to get any games in with them? If so, how did you find them?
The only change that had an impact on my games was the cap on buggies. I don't like playing planes (the only model I was willing to get is a still WIP scratch built project), let alone 3+, and never field more than 4-5 buggies anyway.
I typically run three solo scrapjets, so without changing anything I just crammed all three vehicles into a single unit to satisfy the new requirements. Problem is those buggies really need to move and 150mm bases are massive. Squigbuggies couldn't really care about squadron since they don't need line of sight, unless they get tagged perhaps, but moving a squadron of buggies that want to have good line of sight and possibly a clear path to assault is pretty hard. It's not really game changing but I'm not sure I now want to bring three scrapjets.
Next games I'll probably try to reduce the squadron to two models and I'll trade the third model with a different kind of buggy that will go solo, a snazzwagon I think.
Voss wrote: Or just a basic desire for common ground, without people's oh-so-convenient houserules. "oh, I didn't realize it gave me that much of an advantage"
Right, common ground...between two people.If you think a rule gives too much of an advantage...alter it. Who cares. Games workshop's rules quite blatantly give players unfair advantages, we complain about it literally all the time. The only difference when doing it between two people is it might actually take one of those players' collections actually into account and be more balanced, and it wont make GW money.
Dysartes wrote: So... these changes have been out in the wild for a week now - anyone managed to get any games in with them? If so, how did you find them?
I played Black Legion vs Astra Militarum on Friday. It was nice, but none of the new rules really came into effect. I think a couple of group move-move-move orders and a tank commander telling some heavy mortars to shoot harder.
Dysartes wrote: So... these changes have been out in the wild for a week now - anyone managed to get any games in with them? If so, how did you find them?
GT this weekend so I'll post again Sunday if I see anything notable. One Admech player mentioned having to cut 250 points from his list.
Its just like the Baneblade. IG treats each baneblade as much more precious than a dozen leman Russ. So, given how many men and tanks that IG has, I can picture a Baneblade showing up in an IG army, but it would be absolutely surrounded by tons and tons of IG armor and troops. Can I picture 3 Baneblades by themselves with token IG troops around them ? I can't. It literally makes zero sense.
It's called a super-heavy company and it 100% exists in lore. There should absolutely be rules to represent this, similar to Knight Lances.
Its just like the Baneblade. IG treats each baneblade as much more precious than a dozen leman Russ. So, given how many men and tanks that IG has, I can picture a Baneblade showing up in an IG army, but it would be absolutely surrounded by tons and tons of IG armor and troops. Can I picture 3 Baneblades by themselves with token IG troops around them ? I can't. It literally makes zero sense.
It's called a super-heavy company and it 100% exists in lore. There should absolutely be rules to represent this, similar to Knight Lances.
There are rules and I do field it fairly routinely. I just don't talk about it here because people hate the idea of it. XD
Dysartes wrote: So... these changes have been out in the wild for a week now - anyone managed to get any games in with them? If so, how did you find them?
I got a game in with Post-nerf Drukhari with my Tsons and it was like night and day. The caveat being that this was still a typical heavy wych/incubi build and was not the new coven build.
Dysartes wrote: So... these changes have been out in the wild for a week now - anyone managed to get any games in with them? If so, how did you find them?
I got a game in with Post-nerf Drukhari with my Tsons and it was like night and day. The caveat being that this was still a typical heavy wych/incubi build and was not the new coven build.
This is highly dependent on the list. I had Bloodbrides, taking them out and making them normal wyches equaled the points. I also had Trueborn + raider (that I was already thinking about taking out for a Ravager) are now taken out and replaced with a Ravager, saving me 120pts. My list did not go up in points after that at all, actually it went down 40pts after the 2 Succubus, 15 Incubi, and other Wyches so I added a unit of Wracks.
Over all I did lose 5 wounds, 2 blasters, +1BS/WS to a couple units, and that was it. But I will be modifying it a little more to add in Talos and maybe Grots. Aotf Grots/Talos has been good all 9th but they were just a little out classed, now they are for sure worth it with the points drop.
Just to let people know Trueborn + Raider was already questionable, they are over costed now. You can instead have 2 Ravagers for 1 TB+Raider unit, this is a net gain in general. And Bloodbrides were already consider over costed, they didn't need to be +1pt more than what they were on top of the Wych +2pts. You will never see BB's again unless its for fun/playing down.
I am happy for my army to be nerf, I just wish they did it a smarter/better way on a couple units. Like Nerfing some of the WL traits and Relics, and not Bloodbrides....
Voss wrote: Or just a basic desire for common ground, without people's oh-so-convenient houserules. "oh, I didn't realize it gave me that much of an advantage"
Right, common ground...between two people.If you think a rule gives too much of an advantage...alter it. Who cares. Games workshop's rules quite blatantly give players unfair advantages, we complain about it literally all the time. The only difference when doing it between two people is it might actually take one of those players' collections actually into account and be more balanced, and it wont make GW money.
I have never had a good experience with house rules. Ever, no matter the system, in 30+ years. Not one. It has certainly never, ever been 'more balanced.' People have poor judgement when it comes to that sort of thing, and its much, much worse when its their own.
Asking people to tone it down gets a puzzled look, incomprehension (feigned or not) and a 'No.' Its just easier to just... not deal with it.
Dysartes wrote: So... these changes have been out in the wild for a week now - anyone managed to get any games in with them? If so, how did you find them?
I played Black Legion vs Astra Militarum on Friday. It was nice, but none of the new rules really came into effect. I think a couple of group move-move-move orders and a tank commander telling some heavy mortars to shoot harder.
Voss wrote: I have never had a good experience with house rules. Ever, no matter the system, in 30+ years. Not one. It has certainly never, ever been 'more balanced.' People have poor judgement when it comes to that sort of thing, and its much, much worse when its their own.
Asking people to tone it down gets a puzzled look, incomprehension (feigned or not) and a 'No.' Its just easier to just... not deal with it.
This, so much. Even if the majority of a group agrees on a house rule, it just takes one or two people to exploit/oppose it for it to completely fall appart.
Most other games where you play against an opponent don't need house rules to function, there is no reason why 40k should be an exception.
Dysartes wrote: So... these changes have been out in the wild for a week now - anyone managed to get any games in with them? If so, how did you find them?
Sadly have stopped me using my small storm trooper air cav (Troopers in Valks supported by a vulture). Probably a good thing as they weren't very good... Still means I would have to paint other stuff if I wanted to use them, so 40k is shelved for the indefinite future whilst I play other games instead.
I'd like to see the 2 Aircraft MODEL limit be reverted and a more detailed reduction in the flyer slots being made. 0 slots in all patrols/outriders/vanguard/spearheads/battalions/brigades (I think that is all of them that give flyer slots), but then have a detachment bonus if your warlord is in the detachment of 1 flyer in a patrol, 2 in a battalion, 3 in a brigade.
That would still suck for transport planes. I wonder if making transports exempt would be ok? So Blackstars, Valks, that stupid looking marine one. Etc.
Scions should probably get an exemption for their Valkyries which are mostly glorified transports, but they are fluffy for Scion armies and it is a shame they were a casualty of this otherwise very necessary update.
Dysartes wrote: So... these changes have been out in the wild for a week now - anyone managed to get any games in with them? If so, how did you find them?
I got a game in with Post-nerf Drukhari with my Tsons and it was like night and day. The caveat being that this was still a typical heavy wych/incubi build and was not the new coven build.
Did you win ? I would have thought incubi would still wreck a TS player's day. Was it more a raider heavy build or a venom build (venom builds seem so skewed to me, you just auto lose to so many oppononts now IMHO) ?
I am facing ad mech saturday, and I still don't have a good answer to the Temporcopia Rustalkers and all their skitari vet cohort friends... I still think myu orks have a nearly 40% chance of winning, but things need to go my way a bit. Still feels a lot better now than two weeks ago !!
Dysartes wrote: So... these changes have been out in the wild for a week now - anyone managed to get any games in with them? If so, how did you find them?
I played Black Legion vs Astra Militarum on Friday. It was nice, but none of the new rules really came into effect. I think a couple of group move-move-move orders and a tank commander telling some heavy mortars to shoot harder.
You can't group order a move-move-move.
Ah, it may have been Forwards! For the Emperor! then. It was one of the mobility orders but I don't remember exactly.
.
you 
