TTL and Stranglehold are gone.
Banners doesn't require a clear objective.
Interrogate changes, but I don't understand it yet.
Starting CP is 6 now. You gain 1 cp per player turn (2 per battle round)
Warlord Traits and Relics must now be bought with a new requisition stratagem - you no longer get a free one of each with your warlord, but must pay 1cp for each ( OUCH ).
Most secondaries have changed, most categories only have 2 secondaries, except for the psychic secondary pack. Some have been folded into others (titan hunters into Bring it Down).
Daedalus81 wrote: Warlord Traits and Relics must now be bought with a new requisition stratagem - you no longer get a free one of each with your warlord, but must pay 1cp for each ( OUCH )
That seems like an over-correction, so, pretty on-brand for GW.
Yikes, that is some BAD news. Especially for armies like Orks that rely on good relics for our herohammer, this not only makes taking multiple warbosses a pain in the arse, but making them even more CP intensive than they already are? Whelp, guess more Tempest of War it is for me, what a joke.
Ironically I believe that Orkz will be the winners of this change.
Yes, they will be able to get less relics and detachments with only 6 CP, but they are also the faction which cares less about stratagems in a world which is now going to start at 0 CP on most lists.
Spoletta wrote: Ironically I believe that Orkz will be the winners of this change.
Yes, they will be able to get less relics and detachments with only 6 CP, but they are also the faction which cares less about stratagems in a world which is now going to start at 0 CP on most lists.
No offense but this really highlights your ignorance of how Orks currently work. Not when pretty much all Orks lists burn through 6-7 CP on multiple detachments so we can have relics/warlord traits and additional Warbosses. Now its handicapping us from bringing our main heavy hitters.
With these changes I hope they change the CP refund for detechments to just refund the cost for any detechment your Warlord is in, otherwise White scars (and others) beeing played as they are described are screwed
Well basic white scars are basic foot troops. Pre-primaris standard white scar most numerous was tac squad in rhino. All bike lists wasn't fluffy ws force but waac's min-maxing.
That's sound so much like absolute crap. Well, another scam book I will not buy. Without point changes not depending on the GT book anymore, there is no need for every 6 months a new mission book with even more bad ideas.
Spoletta wrote: Ironically I believe that Orkz will be the winners of this change.
Yes, they will be able to get less relics and detachments with only 6 CP, but they are also the faction which cares less about stratagems in a world which is now going to start at 0 CP on most lists.
We generally don't care much for our stratagems, true. However we are hugely reliant on multiple detachments for warbosses, and heavily reliant on relics and WL traits.
With starting CP being halved and me having to pay for my initial relic and trait, my list starts with a whopping 0CP. My list only has two detachments and thus two warbosses, and one of those bosses doesn't have a trait because I want the CP for the few strats I do actually use. In an ideal world I would have three detachments for three bosses and they would all be tooled up. My list is already not ideal for these reasons.
I would say it's very realistic that most competitive Ork lists now are illegal, just by virtue of not having the CP to exist.
I'm calling Orks going to the very bottom of the meta withing two weeks of the Nephilim release.
Lord_Valorion wrote: That's sound so much like absolute crap. Well, another scam book I will not buy. Without point changes not depending on the GT book anymore, there is no need for every 6 months a new mission book with even more bad ideas.
Expand: what makes it a bad idea?
Not saying it's a good idea, I just want to know the thought process.
Lord_Valorion wrote: You will never see the not absolutely best traits or relics. Only the same Best of the Best if they cost CP.
I hate these tournament CAs.
How is it any different to now? People take the best one for free, if it's good enough they'll pay a CP for it.
It's definitely different. Now WLT and relics are luxury. Even in a really friendly setting you are now incentivised to only take those who will make your list work.
I am probably in the minority, but I like that traits and relics cost CP now.
Mostly because I never liked that you got something for free, especially when relics and traits tend vary wildly across books. However, the caveat is that this might make named characters more attractive as they tend to have trait/relic abilities built into their datasheet.
Otherwise I am excited about these changes as they appear to be almost a completely different game and it will be interesting to see how the meta/game evolves going forward. I would also mention that this is a nerf/change that is affecting every army so if you think you are screwed the other player might also be kind of screwed. We probably won't see the final picture until the dust settles. I do hope I get some secondaries I can pick now for Death Guard since TTL and Strangle are gone.
I do hope the point changes are sensible this time around.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lord_Valorion wrote: You will never see the not absolutely best traits or relics. Only the same Best of the Best if they cost CP.
I hate these tournament CAs.
It has been mentioned on reddit that the new CA rules only apply to GT games so if you are playing Tempest or any other variant these new rules will not apply to them. That is at least how the rumor goes.
Eldarsif wrote: I am probably in the minority, but I like that traits and relics cost CP now.
Mostly because I never liked that you got something for free, especially when relics and traits tend vary wildly across books. However, the caveat is that this might make named characters more attractive as they tend to have trait/relic abilities built into their datasheet.
Otherwise I am excited about these changes as they appear to be almost a completely different game and it will be interesting to see how the meta/game evolves going forward. I would also mention that this is a nerf/change that is affecting every army so if you think you are screwed the other player might also be kind of screwed. We probably won't see the final picture until the dust settles. I do hope I get some secondaries I can pick now for Death Guard since TTL and Strangle are gone.
I do hope the point changes are sensible this time around.
I like these changes too, running into an army that spent five or six CP up front to turn all it's characters into absolute monsters and then burning another five or six on first-turn combo-wombos to delete big chunks of your army is the bad feels. Now you have to really weigh those relics and warlord traits against your turn one shenanigans.
Generating a CP on your opponent's turn is a fantastic change too, "you're out of CP so I can charge you with impunity" is also a bad feels.
Lord_Valorion wrote: You will never see the not absolutely best traits or relics. Only the same Best of the Best if they cost CP.
I hate these tournament CAs.
It has been mentioned on reddit that the new CA rules only apply to GT games so if you are playing Tempest or any other variant these new rules will not apply to them. That is at least how the rumor goes.
I have a feeling people are going to want to use those CP generation rules in Tempest anyway once they've actually tried it, 6+2 per turn makes for a better game.
Eldarsif wrote: I am probably in the minority, but I like that traits and relics cost CP now.
Mostly because I never liked that you got something for free, especially when relics and traits tend vary wildly across books. However, the caveat is that this might make named characters more attractive as they tend to have trait/relic abilities built into their datasheet.
But they all cost the same, so that doesn’t change anything to do with them varying between books.
Eldarsif wrote: I am probably in the minority, but I like that traits and relics cost CP now.
Mostly because I never liked that you got something for free, especially when relics and traits tend vary wildly across books. However, the caveat is that this might make named characters more attractive as they tend to have trait/relic abilities built into their datasheet.
Otherwise I am excited about these changes as they appear to be almost a completely different game and it will be interesting to see how the meta/game evolves going forward. I would also mention that this is a nerf/change that is affecting every army so if you think you are screwed the other player might also be kind of screwed. We probably won't see the final picture until the dust settles. I do hope I get some secondaries I can pick now for Death Guard since TTL and Strangle are gone.
I do hope the point changes are sensible this time around.
I like these changes too, running into an army that spent five or six CP up front to turn all it's characters into absolute monsters and then burning another five or six on first-turn combo-wombos to delete big chunks of your army is the bad feels. Now you have to really weigh those relics and warlord traits against your turn one shenanigans.
Generating a CP on your opponent's turn is a fantastic change too, "you're out of CP so I can charge you with impunity" is also a bad feels.
Lord_Valorion wrote: You will never see the not absolutely best traits or relics. Only the same Best of the Best if they cost CP.
I hate these tournament CAs.
It has been mentioned on reddit that the new CA rules only apply to GT games so if you are playing Tempest or any other variant these new rules will not apply to them. That is at least how the rumor goes.
I have a feeling people are going to want to use those CP generation rules in Tempest anyway once they've actually tried it, 6+2 per turn makes for a better game.
Lord_Valorion wrote: You will never see the not absolutely best traits or relics. Only the same Best of the Best if they cost CP.
I hate these tournament CAs.
How is it any different to now? People take the best one for free, if it's good enough they'll pay a CP for it.
It's definitely different. Now WLT and relics are luxury. Even in a really friendly setting you are now incentivised to only take those who will make your list work.
OK... but currently, with a free trait and relic, I still take the one that makes my list work the best. So nothing changes I just have to spend a CP if I want it?
I think you're missing my point, people lists won't be different in terms of what traits and relic they'd pick, it's simply whether they choose to buy them now.
Eldarsif wrote: I am probably in the minority, but I like that traits and relics cost CP now.
Mostly because I never liked that you got something for free, especially when relics and traits tend vary wildly across books. However, the caveat is that this might make named characters more attractive as they tend to have trait/relic abilities built into their datasheet.
But they all cost the same, so that doesn’t change anything to do with them varying between books.
Which is a GW problem. Relics and traits should have varying costs and should probably have point cost instead of CP cost.
This is more that if you are running a force that really doesn't have any attractive traits/relics you can technically skip on that. Some of the armies I have been running can actually skip the increased cost because I have no use of certain warlord traits on my warlord. It's a small change and one that probably takes time for players to leverage in the long run. In short, I like the extra dimension it gives even if I agree that the implementation could have been better.
The Newman wrote:I have a feeling people are going to want to use those CP generation rules in Tempest anyway once they've actually tried it, 6+2 per turn makes for a better game.
For pick up games I'll admit that it is a possibility, although I think if you are playing PUG then people are probably going to gravitate more towards using the GT ruleset instead of Tempest. In my experience Tempest missions are something I have only been able to play with well known friends where as the rest just wants GT. Everybody always training for the big tournament ahead regardless of whether they intend to join it or not.
I like these changes too, running into an army that spent five or six CP up front to turn all it's characters into absolute monsters and then burning another five or six on first-turn combo-wombos to delete big chunks of your army is the bad feels. Now you have to really weigh those relics and warlord traits against your turn one shenanigans.
Generating a CP on your opponent's turn is a fantastic change too, "you're out of CP so I can charge you with impunity" is also a bad feels.
I think the new CP changes are very good and have the potential of curbing the stratagem use a lot of dakka users complain about. They now actually feel like a resource you must manage instead of something you can burn up in a debilitating alpha strike.
tneva82 wrote: Well basic white scars are basic foot troops. Pre-primaris standard white scar most numerous was tac squad in rhino. All bike lists wasn't fluffy ws force but waac's min-maxing.
Thank you for the insult (waac min maxing) without knowing anything.
I play WS since 3rd when they received their Rules in WD. Till this day i still play them by that standard. No Dreads, no unit with movement less then 12 and if it is less it needs a transport. That was, and for me still is, their fluff and rules.
Oh and my command squad is with melee only and all have different weapons because i like the look of it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: White Scars are a Codex Chapter. The idea that they're an all biker army isn't a reality.
True not an all biker but high mobility, and thus mostly biker, transports or Speeder. That changed after I decided to start them in 3rd edition. I still keep that canon otherwise they are just white SM, and get out maneuvered and out run by a mere company, which I can not stand to witness.
Daedalus81 wrote: TTL and Stranglehold are gone.
Banners doesn't require a clear objective.
Interrogate changes, but I don't understand it yet.
Starting CP is 6 now. You gain 1 cp per player turn (2 per battle round)
Warlord Traits and Relics must now be bought with a new requisition stratagem - you no longer get a free one of each with your warlord, but must pay 1cp for each ( OUCH ).
Most secondaries have changed, most categories only have 2 secondaries, except for the psychic secondary pack. Some have been folded into others (titan hunters into Bring it Down).
No new missions.
Let's see, my tanks cost me CP. My dreadnoughts cost me CP. And now my Warlord's trait and relic cost me CP. And I start with half as much. Lovely. All my lists are either at 0-2 starting CP, or just illegal. Gods, Martial Legacy is such a great rule./s
This really makes all of those "extra relic/warlord trait" strategems pretty redundant, doesn't it?
Eldarsif wrote: I am probably in the minority, but I like that traits and relics cost CP now.
Mostly because I never liked that you got something for free, especially when relics and traits tend vary wildly across books. However, the caveat is that this might make named characters more attractive as they tend to have trait/relic abilities built into their datasheet.
Otherwise I am excited about these changes as they appear to be almost a completely different game and it will be interesting to see how the meta/game evolves going forward. I would also mention that this is a nerf/change that is affecting every army so if you think you are screwed the other player might also be kind of screwed. We probably won't see the final picture until the dust settles. I do hope I get some secondaries I can pick now for Death Guard since TTL and Strangle are gone.
I do hope the point changes are sensible this time around.
I like these changes too, running into an army that spent five or six CP up front to turn all it's characters into absolute monsters and then burning another five or six on first-turn combo-wombos to delete big chunks of your army is the bad feels. Now you have to really weigh those relics and warlord traits against your turn one shenanigans.
Generating a CP on your opponent's turn is a fantastic change too, "you're out of CP so I can charge you with impunity" is also a bad feels.
Lord_Valorion wrote: You will never see the not absolutely best traits or relics. Only the same Best of the Best if they cost CP.
I hate these tournament CAs.
It has been mentioned on reddit that the new CA rules only apply to GT games so if you are playing Tempest or any other variant these new rules will not apply to them. That is at least how the rumor goes.
I have a feeling people are going to want to use those CP generation rules in Tempest anyway once they've actually tried it, 6+2 per turn makes for a better game.
The broken armies tend to be broken because of army/unit rules and undercosted models. Not Strats. So this will make the broken armies still broken, while 'lesser' armies that could try to compete and mitigate damage through strats are now fethed.
I predict with this CP change that the good stay good and everyone else gets worse.
As for the person saying this is only for GT missions, the same is true for Nachmund and was true for Octarius before that. People will still play this as the new 'standard' because that is what the community generally does. If your local community doesn't, ofcourse more power to you but most pick up games will follow this.
Also the idea that turn 1 alpha strikes are a problem is so outdated and again, is down to specific armies if it does still happen.
If anything the big kick-off damage dealing in 40k, in GT games at least, happens in turn 2 and usually 3 in which these new generation changes means they'll still be able to do their big wombo combo buff stacking moves.
It's a fix for a non-existent problem and it doesn't even really fix what it is intended to.
Daedalus81 wrote: Warlord Traits and Relics must now be bought with a new requisition stratagem - you no longer get a free one of each with your warlord, but must pay 1cp for each ( OUCH )
That seems like an over-correction, so, pretty on-brand for GW.
So what the hell's in the book. Why would you buy it?
I'm unsure how I feel about the CP thing still. It seems like it benefits named characters potentially.
Definitely time to transition the whole book to free and digital.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grimskul wrote: No offense but this really highlights your ignorance of how Orks currently work. Not when pretty much all Orks lists burn through 6-7 CP on multiple detachments so we can have relics/warlord traits and additional Warbosses. Now its handicapping us from bringing our main heavy hitters.
It may depend on the points adjustments you get, which might let you lean away from forcing two warbosses.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gadzilla666 wrote: This really makes all of those "extra relic/warlord trait" strategems pretty redundant, doesn't it?
Not redundant, but it definitely forces down the maximum number of relics and traits available. Thousand Sons have a bit of an edge here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ordana wrote: The broken armies tend to be broken because of army/unit rules and undercosted models. Not Strats.
It varies. Admech was definitely a strat army. Harlequins not as much.
The you have to pay CP for WLT and relics is a stealth buff to Necrons. All of our traits and relics(maybe the veil is still worth it) are pretty terrible so if everyone has to pay for their sweet cool abilities we'll just start with more CP than them now cause ours are definitely not worth a CP.
Daedalus81 wrote: Warlord Traits and Relics must now be bought with a new requisition stratagem - you no longer get a free one of each with your warlord, but must pay 1cp for each ( OUCH )
That seems like an over-correction, so, pretty on-brand for GW.
So what the hell's in the book. Why would you buy it?
I'm unsure how I feel about the CP thing still. It seems like it benefits named characters potentially.
Definitely time to transition the whole book to free and digital.
H.B.M.C is right, it's an over correction. And they have a bad habit about it. The CP change would have been enough, but they had to take one more step.
And it probably will benefit named characters, and hurt subfactions without named characters.
You're right about this needing to be 100% free and digital though.
Gadzilla666 wrote: This really makes all of those "extra relic/warlord trait" strategems pretty redundant, doesn't it?
Not redundant, but it definitely forces down the maximum number of relics and traits available. Thousand Sons have a bit of an edge here.
How, exactly? Are you referring to the Legion Command stuff?
Cute how you just ignored my point about how this is going to hit any Astartes players that like using the "wrong" (at least in gw's opinion) models, too.
Punisher wrote: The you have to pay CP for WLT and relics is a stealth buff to Necrons. All of our traits and relics(maybe the veil is still worth it) are pretty terrible so if everyone has to pay for their sweet cool abilities we'll just start with more CP than them now cause ours are definitely not worth a CP.
Which is kind of what I figured as I have a Necron army.
However, the downside of the new system is that it makes named characters that much more attractive in most armies as they have trait/relic type stuff already built into their profile. So I wonder if those characters will get a point increase.
The way I see it, it gives armies without good traits/relics the option of giving them up for extra CP and that is a good thing. In regards to a situation like Orks, I feel the problem is not in this change making them unable to build a certain way but rather that they need to build that way in the first place. We shouldn't fault global changes for the flaws in army-specific design.
Another wild swing in the dark to overcorrect. It's beautiful in a way that they truly have no idea what they're doing and just putting out fires with no concern for the overarching consequences...
Their goal is to make people replace units and armies with new. If people get new units to have the new op'ness then their goal accomplished and they proved you wrong. They do know what they are doing.
They don't aim for balance. Opposite actually as balance hurts profits as try-hards don't have to replace units and armies all the time
Grimtuff wrote: Another wild swing in the dark to overcorrect. It's beautiful in a way that they truly have no idea what they're doing and just putting out fires with no concern for the overarching consequences...
It isn't a wild swing.
It's removing the front loading of CP either via relics/traits, detachments, or strat use.
Different amies will react in their own way, but all will be required to make tough choices.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: Their goal is to make people replace units and armies with new. If people get new units to have the new op'ness then their goal accomplished and they proved you wrong. They do know what they are doing.
They don't aim for balance. Opposite actually as balance hurts profits as try-hards don't have to replace units and armies all the time
Ok great. What units are they trying to sell with this again?
Grimtuff wrote: Another wild swing in the dark to overcorrect. It's beautiful in a way that they truly have no idea what they're doing and just putting out fires with no concern for the overarching consequences...
It isn't a wild swing.
It's removing the front loading of CP either via relics/traits, detachments, or strat use.
Different amies will react in their own way, but all will be required to make tough choices.
And via playing the "wrong" units. If this rumour is true, then Martial Legacy either needs to die or be changed to something sensible.
Edit: Triple post. Sorry folks, wonky internet today.
Lord_Valorion wrote: You will never see the not absolutely best traits or relics. Only the same Best of the Best if they cost CP.
I hate these tournament CAs.
How is it any different to now? People take the best one for free, if it's good enough they'll pay a CP for it.
Previously I would have Righteous Rage, Burning Ire and the options to take Indomitable belief for more resilient troops or Pure of Will for anti-psychic.
Similarly with Relics I would have the option to pick a damage relic, a support relic, and even a 'comfy-ness' relic like Book of St' Lucius.
Now...not gonna lie, I probably just won't take any relics or Warlord traits anymore. Every Bloody Rose list NEEDS 2CP to start for our pregame move strat, and giving up all of our turn 1 CP for the sake of relics/warlord traits seems stupidly wasteful. Especially if the model you elect as your warlord is still forced to take your first warlord trait.
This increases the bar for how good a warlord trait must be to an insanely high level. ESPECIALLY if they don't change the 'you don't get CP at the start of the command phase unless X' missions.
Your Warlord Trait or Relic previously had to be good enough to justify 1/12th of your CP total being invested into it. NOW, it needs to be worth as much as 1/4th depending on how many 'first turn ultra strats' you have. Most books have MAYBE 1 warlord trait OR relic that's good enough to see play under these conditions. Really great books (or books like Orkz that have terrible strats) might have more, but on average you're reducing most Warlord Trait+Relic lists down to 1-2 entries.
And no, it DOESN'T matter that they increased the amount of CP you get during the game and those points AREN'T counted towards your total CP because A. You won't get them every mission anyway and B. CP you get after turn 1 carry a small fraction of the value of the CP you get BEFORE turn 1.
If there was a way to trade your 3rd, 4th, and 5th round CP (even under the current doubling of CP per battle round) for ONE pregame CP, I would take that in a heartbeat.
Oh, this also makes rules supplements like OoML and Bloody Rose had nearly useless because their only content is stratagems and warlord traits because GW needed 4 pages for the goddam PHOTO SPREAD and couldn't be bothered to print actual rules. Is anyone going to take the Blade of Sacrifice/Martyr's Strength Canoness now that they have half the CP to use? No. No they will not.
Grimtuff wrote: Another wild swing in the dark to overcorrect. It's beautiful in a way that they truly have no idea what they're doing and just putting out fires with no concern for the overarching consequences...
It isn't a wild swing.
It's removing the front loading of CP either via relics/traits, detachments, or strat use.
Different amies will react in their own way, but all will be required to make tough choices.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: Their goal is to make people replace units and armies with new. If people get new units to have the new op'ness then their goal accomplished and they proved you wrong. They do know what they are doing.
They don't aim for balance. Opposite actually as balance hurts profits as try-hards don't have to replace units and armies all the time
Ok great. What units are they trying to sell with this again?
It can ABSOLUTELY be both of those. They are not in ANY WAY mutually exclusive.
What they've done here is they're reduced the amount of CP in strikeforce match by 2/3rds. We had 12 CP and a free warlord trait/relic previously. If you wanted to start the game with exactly that, you'd be at 4. (The CP you get during the game DO NOT MATTER. The value of a turn 1 CP is a fraction of the value of a pregame CP. The value of a turn 2 CP is a fraction of the value of a turn 1CP, the value of turn 3 CP is a fraction of the value of the turn 2CP, and turn 4 or turn 5 CP is essentially worthless. Also, again, some missions your opponent can easily stop you from getting the 'per turn' CP.)
Going from 12CP to 4CP per game is world shaking. It's almost impossible to predict how the meta will shake out except 'really goddamn badly'. Under those conditions, you're looking at a massive inflation of power to armies that have extremely strong army special rules and datasheets and an absolute nose-dive for any faction that relied heavily on stratagems, warlord traits, or additional detachments.
Harlequins, Aeldari, and possibly Nids are likely going to be back up into the 80% winrate range. Yes, they have good stratagems but they also have point for point some of the best unit datasheets and army special rules in the game (Light Saedath, Hail of Doom/Masterful Shots, Leviathan, Fate Dice, luck of the laughing god which is essentially 5 extra free CP per turn, etc) making their Hive-Tyrant pay for Reaper of Obliterax is not going to be enough to keep their raw point efficiency from making them even better than they already are.
Eldar are even WORSE. Yes, they have amazing stratagems and some really amazing warlord traits/relics but Harlequins don't need them to win 65% of games NOW. Imagine how it will be when you can't CP your way past their defenses. Regular Aeldari...Masterful Shots/Hail of Doom into armies that can't afford to pay for their defensive techs anymore? Not going to end well.
They were ONE decent balance patch away from a good, fun format and they're throwing it out the window for hilariously short-sided overcorrection to a problem THEY created.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
blaktoof wrote: This will improve the game, by limiting alpha strike power on the first turn.
Removing WT and relic Aura stacking with some multiple stratagems turn one will decrease lethality on the first turn.
For Guard, sure. It's not going to stop Eldar, Harlequins, or Nids. Also, a lot of armies use their aura stacking defensively to deal with the alphastrike armies LIKE eldar can do 'acoustically'. If anything, this will increase the relative lethality of alphastrikes by decreasing the relative defense of most armies.
Punisher wrote: The you have to pay CP for WLT and relics is a stealth buff to Necrons. All of our traits and relics(maybe the veil is still worth it) are pretty terrible so if everyone has to pay for their sweet cool abilities we'll just start with more CP than them now cause ours are definitely not worth a CP.
Which is kind of what I figured as I have a Necron army.
However, the downside of the new system is that it makes named characters that much more attractive in most armies as they have trait/relic type stuff already built into their profile. So I wonder if those characters will get a point increase.
They shouldn't. Most named characters had built in Warlord traits. A Morvenn Vahl that doesn't reroll in combat is not worth anywhere near as many points as one that DOES.
In fact, all things considered, I think characters should drop in points across the board. Why pay even 65pts for a Canoness when it costs 2 of your 4 available per game CP to actually get her to do anything useful?
It kinda sounds like you agree that being able to spam relics and traits and instead making them being a tough choice is a good thing to change however. You're now engaged in decision making over resources rather than just by default taking all of the toys.
It kinda sounds like you agree that being able to spam relics and traits and instead making them being a tough choice is a good thing to change however. You're now engaged in decision making over resources rather than just by default taking all of the toys.
Or you can just reign in the troublesome Warlord Traits and Relics. There isn't a lot of those.
If this truly is GW's solution to 'spamming' relics/traits, then as usual they've gone too far.
Wouldn't it have been better to find a middle ground? First relic/trait as normal, but then 2CP for every one after that? Or even 1 for the next, two the one after that, and so on.
There has to be more than GW hurling that Pendlum of Endless Overcorrection every time they want to fix something.
And if it's to 'reign in' relics/traits that are 'troublesome', then why not fix those rules then take yet anothet general approach to specific problems?
I think some sort of constraint on CP usage in the first couple of turns would be a good thing.
But I fear the effects of this are just going to further skew the currently good books. Which were possibly drafted with the view something like this might be on the cards.
Going from having say 6-8~ CP turn 1 to having... 1-2 represents a massive change.
Is cp per turn dependant on warlord being on the board?
I mean orks are already one of the worst 9th codexs why stop nerfing then now. They made 1 warboss/beastboss per detachment. They increased the prices of popular units like breastboss on squig cause it was strong w relics and warlord traits until it was barely played might as well make it a single tax unit per army. I’m sure orks wasn’t the reason for this change but it’s not like the playtest or competitive community cares about orks balance.
...But I fear the effects of this are just going to further skew the currently good books. Which were possibly drafted with the view something like this might be on the cards...
Yeah... I think too. The monstrous books right now are strong because of army wide rules and some very strong units. Not because of Relics/Warlord traits combos.
I am quite willing to level the overcorrection criticism at GW, but I am having trouble seeing that as the case with relics. It went from the first one being free to costing... 1CP. There isn't a middle ground between those two numbers. Further relics already cost CP so no change there. What it really is, is giving players the option of not taking them, as well as simplifying the system and removing the need for the related stratagems to exist. If it proves to be too burdensome overall they can always increase the starting CP by 1 or 2 to compensate.
As for moving towards more of an income approach to CP than front loaded, I think that is a good decision in general. It affects alpha strike yes, but it also broadly cuts back on the amount of stuff happening in early rounds when there is already quite a lot happening. Maybe it means people will wait until round 2 before enacting the same strategy, but that is still a round spent doing positioning and setting up tactics, which IMO the game needs more of. Quite subjective though, so I'm more speculative on this bit.
...But I fear the effects of this are just going to further skew the currently good books. Which were possibly drafted with the view something like this might be on the cards...
Yeah... I think too. The monstrous books right now are strong because of army wide rules and some very strong units. Not because of Relics/Warlord traits combos.
80% of the currently "unfair" Eldar list's power is in Masterful Shots/Hail of Doom and some aggressively pointed datasheets.
Harlequins are powerful because of Light/Dark Saedath, luck of the laughing god, and the 4++ with no rerolls the army hands out being backed up by very efficient damage output.
Nids have some of the best Points Per Wound in the game and while their uber combos are generally more CP intensive than Eldar, a Nid Army without stratagems vs. something like a Tsons army without stratagems is EVEN MORE in Nids favor than it is currently.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: I am quite willing to level the overcorrection criticism at GW, but I am having trouble seeing that as the case with relics. It went from the first one being free to costing... 1CP. There isn't a middle ground between those two numbers. Further relics already cost CP so no change there. What it really is, is giving players the option of not taking them, as well as simplifying the system and removing the need for the related stratagems to exist. If it proves to be too burdensome overall they can always increase the starting CP by 1 or 2 to compensate.
As for moving towards more of an income approach to CP than front loaded, I think that is a good decision in general. It affects alpha strike yes, but it also broadly cuts back on the amount of stuff happening in early rounds when there is already quite a lot happening. Maybe it means people will wait until round 2 before enacting the same strategy, but that is still a round spent doing positioning and setting up tactics, which IMO the game needs more of. Quite subjective though, so I'm more speculative on this bit.
The problem is that as much as this decreases offense(for some armies) it also decreases DEFENSE for a lot of armies. Sister's of battle, for example, often buy a warlord trait that increases their invul in an aura, and a relic that increases the range of that aura. With this change, I can't afford those anymore so I have to dedicate my strategy EVEN MORE to turn 1 to 2 all-ins.
There's an argument to be made that this will result in even MORE alphastrike as armies now generally lack the resources to transhuman+Defensive relic+defensive warlord trait+Pop Smoke in the first turn to prevent damage.
If I only need 4 CP to do my big megadeath combo but you need 7 CP to survive it, I'm now even more incentivized to try and kill you as hard as I can early.
H.B.M.C. wrote: If this truly is GW's solution to 'spamming' relics/traits, then as usual they've gone too far.
Except it's also them trying to stretch the game play past Turns 2/3, which has been a huge problem at events due to a combination of damage output combined with front loading all your strats. So yes, it seems like an over-reach if you're looking at it as just addressing WLT/Relics, but it's not.
The problem is that as much as this decreases offense(for some armies) it also decreases DEFENSE for a lot of armies. Sister's of battle, for example, often buy a warlord trait that increases their invul in an aura, and a relic that increases the range of that aura. With this change, I can't afford those anymore so I have to dedicate my strategy EVEN MORE to turn 1 to 2 all-ins.
Boo-hoo, how terrible you have to actually make meaningful decisions in the game and list building instead of being able to take all the toys AND get your front-loaded strats.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I am quite willing to level the overcorrection criticism at GW, but I am having trouble seeing that as the case with relics. It went from the first one being free to costing... 1CP.
And halving the available CPs. Hence "overcorrection". They could have done one, or the other, but did both.
It's definitely a big shift from the start of 9th edition. Remember, one of the things that they advertised about 9th was: "Everyone likes having LOTS of CP! So we're going to give everyone 12CP to start in a 2000 point game! And you get another 1CP every turn!". Now it's: "Oh crap! People are starting with too many CP! We have to reduce it somehow!". Definitely a big pendulum swing.
H.B.M.C. wrote: If this truly is GW's solution to 'spamming' relics/traits, then as usual they've gone too far.
Except it's also them trying to stretch the game play past Turns 2/3, which has been a huge problem at events due to a combination of damage output combined with front loading all your strats. So yes, it seems like an over-reach if you're looking at it as just addressing WLT/Relics, but it's not.
The problem is that as much as this decreases offense(for some armies) it also decreases DEFENSE for a lot of armies. Sister's of battle, for example, often buy a warlord trait that increases their invul in an aura, and a relic that increases the range of that aura. With this change, I can't afford those anymore so I have to dedicate my strategy EVEN MORE to turn 1 to 2 all-ins.
Boo-hoo, how terrible you have to actually make meaningful decisions in the game and list building instead of being able to take all the toys AND get your front-loaded strats.
If you knew how the game worked, you'd know that I'm describing a situation which is counter to what most people are hoping for when they ask for 'more decisions' and 'less stratagem nonsense', which is a net INCREASE in lethality.
Decisions are fine. Decisions that result in Eldar tabling you on turn 2 because you can no longer afford any of the tools you have to stop them, are not.
People like you are imagining some pie-in-the-sky dream where reducing the number of CP means you can leave your assault marines out in the open without a dire avenger squad picking up the whole unit.
The truth is: Dire Avengers don't need to use CP to pick up a full unit of marines in one round of shooting, but marines ABSOLUTELY need CP to NOT get picked up.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I am quite willing to level the overcorrection criticism at GW, but I am having trouble seeing that as the case with relics. It went from the first one being free to costing... 1CP.
And halving the available CPs. Hence "overcorrection". They could have done one, or the other, but did both.
Functionally, they've reduced CP by 2/3rds. Very few armies really won't bring ANY warlord traits or ANY relics so you'll get 4.
Also, Recover the Relics will be pretty much unplayable if it denies the losing player two CP per turn. You very easily end up in a position in the end game where your opponent got 16CP to your 6-8.
Starting CP is 6 now. You gain 1 cp per player turn (2 per battle round)
Warlord Traits and Relics must now be bought with a new requisition stratagem - you no longer get a free one of each with your warlord, but must pay 1cp for each ( OUCH ).
This is just... this is just fething awful.
Mostly because I never liked that you got something for free, especially when relics and traits tend vary wildly across books.
Well, presumably all relics and warlord traits will cost 1 CP each, which doesn't actually fix or address your presumed concern with them having all been free despite their variable power and utility. They are equally as unbalanced all costing 1CP each as they are costing 0CP each.
It has been mentioned on reddit that the new CA rules only apply to GT games so if you are playing Tempest or any other variant these new rules will not apply to them. That is at least how the rumor goes.
lol, thats how it works in theory. In practice, everyone will follow whatever CA says is the "correct" way to play.
H.B.M.C is right, it's an over correction. And they have a bad habit about it. The CP change would have been enough, but they had to take one more step.
Overcorrection is basically GWs M.O. Its the only way the know how to do things, they can never just go with a subtle change and sew aht happens, they always have to go the extra mile and "double tap" what they perceive as overpowered game mechanics to make sure its dead and can't be abused anymore. In the process, they just end up breaking the game worse.
NinthMusketeer wrote: The way I see it, it gives armies without good traits/relics the option of giving them up for extra CP and that is a good thing. In regards to a situation like Orks, I feel the problem is not in this change making them unable to build a certain way but rather that they need to build that way in the first place. We shouldn't fault global changes for the flaws in army-specific design.
They could have achieved the same thing by letting Relics and WLTs continue to be free, but giving players the option to trade them in for the extra CP if they didn't want them. Accomplishes basically the same thing without the "feelsbadman" element to it, you're not taking something away from the playerbase, you're giving them more options for how they configure "their dudes".
H.B.M.C. wrote: If this truly is GW's solution to 'spamming' relics/traits, then as usual they've gone too far.
Except it's also them trying to stretch the game play past Turns 2/3
LOL this is a serious comment too.
The best armies aren't reliant on their Warlord Traits and Relics I hate to tell you.
Nids have the best offensive relic in the game in Reaper of Obliterax and still probably wouldn't miss it too much. It's good enough that they'd pay a CP for it but if they didn't it's not like someone's Oops all Reivers casual list is suddenly going to get to see turn 3 because they don't have it.
chaos0xomega wrote: They could have achieved the same thing by letting Relics and WLTs continue to be free, but giving players the option to trade them in for the extra CP if they didn't want them. Accomplishes basically the same thing without the "feelsbadman" element to it, you're not taking something away from the playerbase, you're giving them more options for how they configure "their dudes".
We now move onto the "Rebate Phase" of the game.
Actually I like this idea. Tyranids had that with the special adaptations - rather than taking a Warlord Trait you could take an Adaptation on something.
Gadzilla666 wrote: It's definitely a big shift from the start of 9th edition. Remember, one of the things that they advertised about 9th was: "Everyone likes having LOTS of CP! So we're going to give everyone 12CP to start in a 2000 point game! And you get another 1CP every turn!". Now it's: "Oh crap! People are starting with too many CP! We have to reduce it somehow!". Definitely a big pendulum swing.
Spoletta wrote: Rumors are that secondary objectives will now grant CPs, so we may end up having more CPs in total.
Just not frontloaded. Can't say that it is a bad thing if the action gets moved from earlier turns to later turns.
That's pretty nasty for some factions though which require frontloading. Cue orks as already mentioned, and arguably GSC, especially since you want some relics in there.
Otoh, if true this will benefit factions with far too strong stratagems aswell. May see certain CSM builds reaper and with that the cacophony syndrom on units.
Friend (who has been reliable in the past rumorwise) is saying that Sisters are seeing big points drops in the new CA. He's thinking they could well end up being the most powerful faction in the game based on points cuts (he was one of the top ranked sisters players in ITC last season and is close to many of the other top sisters players, so I trust his word on this), but I don't know that hes taking the change to CP, secndaries, etc. into effect in his analysis.
chaos0xomega wrote: Friend (who has been reliable in the past rumorwise) is saying that Sisters are seeing big points drops in the new CA. He's thinking they could well end up being the most powerful faction in the game based on points cuts (he was one of the top ranked sisters players in ITC last season and is close to many of the other top sisters players, so I trust his word on this), but I don't know that hes taking the change to CP, secndaries, etc. into effect in his analysis.
...Hmm...As the most annoying Sisters player on the forum, I can't NOT chime in on this.
Sisters are, in general, towards the top of the most stratagem reliant factions. We also have excellent warlord traits and relics that will suck to lose out on. That said...if they're keeping Armor of Contempt for Nephilim, we'd still probably be fine. Our matchups into Eldar and Nids get worse but all the 'fair' factions drop alongside us.
To give us significant drops, especially coupled with meaningful nerfs to specifically Eldar, is almost definitely overkill.
Reverting the CA 2022 points nerfs (especially with Morvenn's WT costing a CP now) would likely be enough. Going further than that invites...problems.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote: Rumors are that secondary objectives will now grant CPs, so we may end up having more CPs in total.
Just not frontloaded. Can't say that it is a bad thing if the action gets moved from earlier turns to later turns.
So if you're winning you get bonus CP to win EVEN HARDER. Why not just make a rule: If your army is currently above a 50% winrate, you get 4 additional CP?
Every change they've made so far just makes me think: "Man, I better frontload my damage because if I don't get the advantage early, it's going to be impossible to come back!"
Celestians at 12 still aren't good, but it's the right direction. Sacresants definitely need a drop after the balance update.
I don't think the rumored CP change will really hurt sisters all that much. Sisters play a battalion very comfortably and don't tend to drop a ton of CP on any given turn. Will have to cut a few relics and WLTs, but most aren't game changers for my lists. Just nice to have.
Not suprised to see Stranglehold go, it was an auto-take, similar thing happend from ROD to RND.
Not happy about having to pay for the first WLT and Relic. I could get behind the smaller CP bonus if that wasn't the case, but both of them at the same time was way too much of an overcorrection.
I mean the one really great thing about not Printing point changes 3 to 6 months in advance is even if playtesters had sister point cuts… it doesn’t mean the final pdf that is posted on the community site will have that change IF the GWdevs are paying attention to the current sisters tournament placings.
On the other hand I think the mission changes are going to be vast and have a much bigger impact than point changes on the army.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I am quite willing to level the overcorrection criticism at GW, but I am having trouble seeing that as the case with relics. It went from the first one being free to costing... 1CP.
And halving the available CPs. Hence "overcorrection". They could have done one, or the other, but did both.
Oh I agree halving the starting CP is an overcorrection, I just think it is such entirely of its own accord. The 2CP penalty (aside from armies who'd rather the CP than the trait/relic) is already down to a net 1 by turn two due to the increased CP income, and erased by turn 3. It hurts more because of the other change, but I think halving the starting CP would still be too much. I think if players are getting the starting CP reduced it should be more than made up for from income during the game, since CPs only gained in later rounds are worth progressively less.
Spoletta wrote: Rumors are also claiming ork buffs and a few nerfs around, so don't base yourself on the current meta.
Any details on the Ork stuff?
I mean I can’t even fathom what else they can nerf on orks? They are essentially nerfing warbosses and squigboss with the no free warlord or relics.. there is no auto take units in the army…
To sort of address all the posts about strong armies getting out in a better position...
Harlequins look to be spending 4CP for their current configuration. That leaves them with 3CP and Prismatic Blur is 2CP so they'll be on just 1 CP. I don't think they ever take extra detachments, but elf soup will take that hit.
Some Tyranids are 2 extra relics, extra trait, and an extra detachment. That's 8 CP normally. Or they're just base relic and trait and a detachment, which is still 5 CP. Others go full tilt on relics and traits plus detachment.
Both Harlies and Nids have strats that push their army forward really quickly as well as defensive stuff like TransNid.
I wouldn't be quick to assume that OP books will come out ahead ( especially with point nerfs ).
And what about Knights, who generally (in my experience) spend 4 CP pre-game to give their big toys the tools they need to do their jobs (or simply, y'know, maybe survive to turn 2)?
So now, we're looking at starting with 0 CP, and our best defensive stratagem now costs 2CP for anything bigger than an Armiger/War Dog.
The 5-1 CK list at Bugeater spent 2 CP The 4-1 IK at London Open spent 3
IK 4-1 @ Summer Showdown - 6
CK 4-1 @ same - 4
IK 4-1 @ same - 4
CK 4-1 @ Portal - 4
IK 4-1 @ Saffron - 6
Knights will definitely need to peel back, but at the same time if Tyranids and Elves are nerfed on top of Knights having decent win rates ( both 52% last week ) I don't really feel like they'll be worse off. Spending 5 will get you 2 if you go second, so you can still react.
Daedalus81 wrote: The 5-1 CK list at Bugeater spent 2 CP The 4-1 IK at London Open spent 3
IK 4-1 @ Summer Showdown - 6
CK 4-1 @ same - 4
IK 4-1 @ same - 4
CK 4-1 @ Portal - 4
IK 4-1 @ Saffron - 6
Knights will definitely need to peel back, but at the same time if Tyranids and Elves are nerfed on top of Knights having decent win rates ( both 52% last week ) I don't really feel like they'll be worse off. Spending 5 will get you 2 if you go second, so you can still react.
Yeah, I'm going to have to peel back an artifact and WLT likely on my CK. You need to have 2 CP turn 1 to be able to rotate or use some other strat. CK are a very CP hungry army, so I'm not thrilled about this, but if Tau and Nids get nerfed we'll be in pretty good shape. Tau seem to be the worst matchup for both flavors, so if they are nerfed enough that will solve one of the biggest problems.
The Sisters points drops are a bit concerning, they are doing okay right now since AoC, I don't think they need steep drops.
Necrons.... Necrons need some help. They need an anti-AOC rule or something.
Necrons.... Necrons need some help. They need an anti-AOC rule or something.
A rule that says "this weapon ignores Armor of Contempt" or a blanket additional point of AP to all Necron weapons is basically an encapsulation of the silliness that got us to this point.
I go back to a previous rules proposal I made - "Armor Quality" ("AQ") should be a stat alongside Armor Save. Whereas Sv represents the roll that the model needs to make (modified by the AP value of the weapon being used to wound it) in order to avoid taking damage, AQ represents the amount of AP that the model can ignore when modifying its Sv. That way you get rid of Armor of Contempt and can more generally apply the idea that not all saves of the same value are the same. I.E. a guardsman in carapace armor might have Sv 4+ AQ 0, meaning that its completely at the mercy of AP mods, whereas a tau firewarrior might have Sv 4+ AQ 1, meaning that it reduces AP values by 1 (so AP -1 becomes 0, AP -2 becomes 1, etc.), and an Aeldar Guardian might have Sv 4+ AQ 2, meaning it reduces AP values by 2, etc.
IMO its a sort of nice halfway point between the current AP modifier system and the old "all or nothing" AP system, and gives a lot of room for more varied unit design and stat differentiation without needing to have a million different special rules indicating how different models/units ignore or modify AP values like we do now. You could go a step further and introduce a "Resilience" ("RS") stat alongside toughness that does the same thing for damage reduction (i.e. instead of a special rule that says a model reduces damage by 1 to a minimum of 1, you just give them RS 1 that indicates the same thing).
I would propose use the full spectrum of the no range that you opened up with 8th edition. Why stop at T8 or 9? Why stop at a 2+sv? Why does a marine have to have a 3+ save?
I think if you would just increase the values that are assigned to units you can make enough of a difference without the need for a further value.
Fwlshadowalker wrote: I would propose use the full spectrum of the no range that you opened up with 8th edition. Why stop at T8 or 9? Why stop at a 2+sv? Why does a marine have to have a 3+ save?
I think if you would just increase the values that are assigned to units you can make enough of a difference without the need for a further value.
Oh, yeah if that's all. Zephyrim are going to be EVERYONE'S problem now but other than that those are all fair or maybe even less than you need.
those aren't the only changes, just the only ones my source would tell me
...Maybe they saw something in playtesting? Many Sisters lists really like having pregame CP, but it's not strictly necessary in every matchup. The list that won that big GT only had 1 additional relic. He brought the Blade of ST. Estalia, Double Hymn relic, and Morvenn's WT. Realistically we could have cut that down to just Morvenn's WT and not lost too much.
Dropping Seraphim, Zephyrim, and Sacresants gives lists a little bit of wiggle room while Celestians were just inarguably overpriced. Going too far beyond that seems risky. UNLESS they're hitting repentia (reasonable, if unfortunate) at which point these are mostly just going to offset that bump.
It feels like it is going to be very hard to maintain a set of coherent points costs for more casual meet up games in stores when how Command Points work is so fundamentally different between the main game and tournament play.
GW needs to accept that you can't really do that I think - either the matched play rules have to be universal or they don't.
tneva82 wrote: GW doesn't consider CP's in point costs anyway.
No, they don't. The obvious example is everything with Martial Legacy. Would any of those units be "underpriced" if the CP tax was removed? No, because it isn't a factor that gw seems to consider in their prices. Even without Martial Legacy, many would still be overpriced compared to similar units.
The Phazer wrote: It feels like it is going to be very hard to maintain a set of coherent points costs for more casual meet up games in stores when how Command Points work is so fundamentally different between the main game and tournament play.
GW needs to accept that you can't really do that I think - either the matched play rules have to be universal or they don't.
They have, this is the grand tournament mission pack, you use base matched play rules otherwise. not to "blame the playerbase" but it's the community deciding every pick up game is a tournament match. Regards points they shouldn't alter too much as others noted.
Both Crons and Orks desperately need buffs, not only on points but also rules wise.
They have suffered as any other army the AoC as they rely on saturation of low ap.
Comparing Ork boys, grot or snaggas to any other basic troop in the game is kind of a joke. As long as saves are high and #wounds keep increasing, massed attacks will keep dropping in efficiency. Bad times.
Crons have a similar problem. Their basic troops don't cut the chase.
tneva82 wrote: GW doesn't consider CP's in point costs anyway.
No, they don't. The obvious example is everything with Martial Legacy. Would any of those units be "underpriced" if the CP tax was removed? No, because it isn't a factor that gw seems to consider in their prices. Even without Martial Legacy, many would still be overpriced compared to similar units.
The same applies to many Superheavy units. Even with the detachment bonus they added it's still 1CP to add a unit to your army that often isn't strong enough to compensate for the fact it's a huge vulnerable target.
However I suspect the fact that these costs exist has nothing to do with balance and more to do with GW wanting to actively discourage skew lists with lots of large 'rare' units, much like they now discourage hordes by hiking the base model cost and adding mediocre buffs.
Orkimedez_Atalaya wrote: Both Crons and Orks desperately need buffs, not only on points but also rules wise.
They have suffered as any other army the AoC as they rely on saturation of low ap.
Comparing Ork boys, grot or snaggas to any other basic troop in the game is kind of a joke. As long as saves are high and #wounds keep increasing, massed attacks will keep dropping in efficiency. Bad times.
Crons have a similar problem. Their basic troops don't cut the chase.
Increase durability not offensive power though, how would a 10 point T4 2w Ork feel? Likewise if Dakka weapons gained the assault runes for advance and fire, then make choppas ap value always apply and never be modified, or any combo of the above. Sadly no big rules changes will likely happen until another codex.
Orkimedez_Atalaya wrote: Both Crons and Orks desperately need buffs, not only on points but also rules wise.
They have suffered as any other army the AoC as they rely on saturation of low ap.
Comparing Ork boys, grot or snaggas to any other basic troop in the game is kind of a joke. As long as saves are high and #wounds keep increasing, massed attacks will keep dropping in efficiency. Bad times.
Crons have a similar problem. Their basic troops don't cut the chase.
Increase durability not offensive power though, how would a 10 point T4 2w Ork feel? Likewise if Dakka weapons gained the assault runes for advance and fire, then make choppas ap value always apply and never be modified, or any combo of the above. Sadly no big rules changes will likely happen until another codex.
I am afraid they suffer from both as they are correlated. If other stuff(AoC) becomes more resilient, you kill less therefore the next turn you receive the reply from a larger portion of your opponents army. That in turns reduces your durability.
Orks have two very straight ways of playing. AoR with buggies, or melee oriented. Buggies are having a hard time since their anti-tank bounces with -2ap from marine armour. CC does a little better but after waagh 1st turn, looses steam like crazy.
tneva82 wrote: GW doesn't consider CP's in point costs anyway.
No, they don't. The obvious example is everything with Martial Legacy. Would any of those units be "underpriced" if the CP tax was removed? No, because it isn't a factor that gw seems to consider in their prices. Even without Martial Legacy, many would still be overpriced compared to similar units.
The same applies to many Superheavy units. Even with the detachment bonus they added it's still 1CP to add a unit to your army that often isn't strong enough to compensate for the fact it's a huge vulnerable target.
However I suspect the fact that these costs exist has nothing to do with balance and more to do with GW wanting to actively discourage skew lists with lots of large 'rare' units, much like they now discourage hordes by hiking the base model cost and adding mediocre buffs.
The LoW limitation is because gw doesn't want anyone fielding multiple LoWs besides Knights. Martial Legacy is different because it only applies to certain "rare" Astartes units, while ignoring many other rare units that exist. It also assumes that all of those in units are equally "rare" for all Astartes, so you get the weird situation where a HH era tank is just as easy for a new Primaris founding loyalist chapter to field as a warband of Iron Warriors that can still remember the Siege of Terra. It's a poorly implemented and arbitrary rule.
Ah, good. Almost time to get it over with and see if the various leaks were true. And to see if free digital points means that they'll do a better/more up to date job on them, or if they'll just be free/digital, with the same poor balance based off of months old metas.
That would be 10 pounds less than the Nachmund books, which is actually quite reasonable. A rarity for GW! Hopefully this change was caused by the poor sales results of the previous CA and negative feedback on it. At least that'd mean we have some form of influence over GW's output.
Gadzilla666 wrote: No, they don't. The obvious example is everything with Martial Legacy. Would any of those units be "underpriced" if the CP tax was removed? No, because it isn't a factor that gw seems to consider in their prices. Even without Martial Legacy, many would still be overpriced compared to similar units.
I like how you latch onto simple point efficiency ignoring the other, far more valid point, namely rules interactions with units far more durable and shooty than things they were designed with. For example, Iron Hands in 8th so many people with little clue screamed were ""OP"" - when the actual broken "IH" lists were all full of FW gak, contemptor and leviathan spam for weeks, with zero actual, Codex, plastic IH units on table. Well, maybe there was a token techmarine to fill HQ slot and repair dreads, plus throwaway Intercessor unit to dump AT shots targeting dreads onto with stratagem. Besides that, it was 95% points in ""totes not OP"" resin units abusing IH trait interaction.
And the best part was GW's reaction to the problem - instead of tagging broken FW gak with nerf hammer, they destroyed IH rules instead ruining them for people who used actual IH plastic armies instead of bringing cherrypicked WAAAC resin recast dump. IH trait was not problematic with box dreads with at worst two lascannon and one missile shot. That unit could be removed easily even with FNP. It was completely different story with insanely durable brick with 2+, ++, +++, and more wounds than any three other SM units put together and zillion autocannon shots (with 2+ BS because FRAK YOU) that was insanely efficient when it came to buffing, stratagems, and inability to remove it from table before it was healed to full. And that's even if we generously assume it was, like you say, ""overpriced"" (which is nonsense but clearly shows raw points are only a very tiny piece of actual picture).
It took GW long enough but what we have now is vastly preferable and more balanced than the gak that was 8th (and first 1/3 of 9th) where you had zero incentive to use actual SM/CSM units and could just spam whatever was most OP from FW stuff. Now the rules abuse has actual, tangible drawbacks and results in armies that started to resemble fluff a bit more than insane concentrations of stuff that would make even HH legions stare in disbelief, never mind factions in 40K for whom these are priceless, irreplaceable relics.
Gadzilla666 wrote: so you get the weird situation where a HH era tank is just as easy for a new Primaris founding loyalist chapter to field as a warband of Iron Warriors that can still remember the Siege of Terra
Yep, I have no idea why 10.000 old Admech character second only to Martian High Lord/Fabricator General in faction importance might have access to said tanks, and give them to his pet creation. It's inconceivably less likely than IW (who lost all their gear running from Terra, then lost whatever remained in Scouring, then lost even more in huge blame shift CSM wars in Eye that followed, then finally ruined whatever scraps they had left when Perturabo ordered ruinous IW civil war out of boredom) having them. And that is literally the only CSM legion that actually knew how the stuff worked and had the knowledge base to maintain such vehicles unlike the other psychopaths who ran out on Terra and since then had to loot single bolter shells and armor gloves off dead enemies as they are incapable of producing even most basic pieces of wargear and need to resort to putting daemons in crude machines that only work due to warp frakkery in order to have any semblance of working heavy support.
Gadzilla666 wrote: No, they don't. The obvious example is everything with Martial Legacy. Would any of those units be "underpriced" if the CP tax was removed? No, because it isn't a factor that gw seems to consider in their prices. Even without Martial Legacy, many would still be overpriced compared to similar units.
I like how you latch onto simple point efficiency ignoring the other, far more valid point, namely rules interactions with units far more durable and shooty than things they were designed with. For example, Iron Hands in 8th so many people with little clue screamed were ""OP"" - when the actual broken "IH" lists were all full of FW gak, contemptor and leviathan spam for weeks, with zero actual, Codex, plastic IH units on table. Well, maybe there was a token techmarine to fill HQ slot and repair dreads, plus throwaway Intercessor unit to dump AT shots targeting dreads onto with stratagem. Besides that, it was 95% points in ""totes not OP"" resin units abusing IH trait interaction.
And the best part was GW's reaction to the problem - instead of tagging broken FW gak with nerf hammer, they destroyed IH rules instead ruining them for people who used actual IH plastic armies instead of bringing cherrypicked WAAAC resin recast dump. IH trait was not problematic with box dreads with at worst two lascannon and one missile shot. That unit could be removed easily even with FNP. It was completely different story with insanely durable brick with 2+, ++, +++, and more wounds than any three other SM units put together and zillion autocannon shots (with 2+ BS because FRAK YOU) that was insanely efficient when it came to buffing, stratagems, and inability to remove it from table before it was healed to full. And that's even if we generously assume it was, like you say, ""overpriced"" (which is nonsense but clearly shows raw points are only a very tiny piece of actual picture).
It took GW long enough but what we have now is vastly preferable and more balanced than the gak that was 8th (and first 1/3 of 9th) where you had zero incentive to use actual SM/CSM units and could just spam whatever was most OP from FW stuff. Now the rules abuse has actual, tangible drawbacks and results in armies that started to resemble fluff a bit more than insane concentrations of stuff that would make even HH legions stare in disbelief, never mind factions in 40K for whom these are priceless, irreplaceable relics.
Gadzilla666 wrote: so you get the weird situation where a HH era tank is just as easy for a new Primaris founding loyalist chapter to field as a warband of Iron Warriors that can still remember the Siege of Terra
Yep, I have no idea why 10.000 old Admech character second only to Martian High Lord/Fabricator General in faction importance might have access to said tanks, and give them to his pet creation. It's inconceivably less likely than IW (who lost all their gear running from Terra, then lost whatever remained in Scouring, then lost even more in huge blame shift CSM wars in Eye that followed, then finally ruined whatever scraps they had left when Perturabo ordered ruinous IW civil war out of boredom) having them. And that is literally the only CSM legion that actually knew how the stuff worked and had the knowledge base to maintain such vehicles unlike the other psychopaths who ran out on Terra and since then had to loot single bolter shells and armor gloves off dead enemies as they are incapable of producing even most basic pieces of wargear and need to resort to putting daemons in crude machines that only work due to warp frakkery in order to have any semblance of working heavy support.
Oh wait
that first paragraph is incorrect. double repulsor executioner was as common and roughly as good as the leviathan lists.
Gadzilla666 wrote: No, they don't. The obvious example is everything with Martial Legacy. Would any of those units be "underpriced" if the CP tax was removed? No, because it isn't a factor that gw seems to consider in their prices. Even without Martial Legacy, many would still be overpriced compared to similar units.
I like how you latch onto simple point efficiency ignoring the other, far more valid point, namely rules interactions with units far more durable and shooty than things they were designed with. For example, Iron Hands in 8th so many people with little clue screamed were ""OP"" - when the actual broken "IH" lists were all full of FW gak, contemptor and leviathan spam for weeks, with zero actual, Codex, plastic IH units on table. Well, maybe there was a token techmarine to fill HQ slot and repair dreads, plus throwaway Intercessor unit to dump AT shots targeting dreads onto with stratagem. Besides that, it was 95% points in ""totes not OP"" resin units abusing IH trait interaction.
And the best part was GW's reaction to the problem - instead of tagging broken FW gak with nerf hammer, they destroyed IH rules instead ruining them for people who used actual IH plastic armies instead of bringing cherrypicked WAAAC resin recast dump. IH trait was not problematic with box dreads with at worst two lascannon and one missile shot. That unit could be removed easily even with FNP. It was completely different story with insanely durable brick with 2+, ++, +++, and more wounds than any three other SM units put together and zillion autocannon shots (with 2+ BS because FRAK YOU) that was insanely efficient when it came to buffing, stratagems, and inability to remove it from table before it was healed to full. And that's even if we generously assume it was, like you say, ""overpriced"" (which is nonsense but clearly shows raw points are only a very tiny piece of actual picture).
It took GW long enough but what we have now is vastly preferable and more balanced than the gak that was 8th (and first 1/3 of 9th) where you had zero incentive to use actual SM/CSM units and could just spam whatever was most OP from FW stuff. Now the rules abuse has actual, tangible drawbacks and results in armies that started to resemble fluff a bit more than insane concentrations of stuff that would make even HH legions stare in disbelief, never mind factions in 40K for whom these are priceless, irreplaceable relics.
Gadzilla666 wrote: so you get the weird situation where a HH era tank is just as easy for a new Primaris founding loyalist chapter to field as a warband of Iron Warriors that can still remember the Siege of Terra
Yep, I have no idea why 10.000 old Admech character second only to Martian High Lord/Fabricator General in faction importance might have access to said tanks, and give them to his pet creation. It's inconceivably less likely than IW (who lost all their gear running from Terra, then lost whatever remained in Scouring, then lost even more in huge blame shift CSM wars in Eye that followed, then finally ruined whatever scraps they had left when Perturabo ordered ruinous IW civil war out of boredom) having them. And that is literally the only CSM legion that actually knew how the stuff worked and had the knowledge base to maintain such vehicles unlike the other psychopaths who ran out on Terra and since then had to loot single bolter shells and armor gloves off dead enemies as they are incapable of producing even most basic pieces of wargear and need to resort to putting daemons in crude machines that only work due to warp frakkery in order to have any semblance of working heavy support.
Oh wait
that first paragraph is incorrect. double repulsor executioner was as common and roughly as good as the leviathan lists.
Well, that was when Repulsor Executioners could shoot twice, fly, had constant grav repulsion for anti-charge (instead of a strat), fit conveniently on the airpad terrain piece, and no 9th edition terrain rules (e.g. obscuring).
You are right though that he's incorrect about no plastic -- the best IH lists were Levis, a chappy dread, and intercessor hoards with melee weapons to abuse the mid-board and broken cogitated martyrdom/leviathan/ironstone interaction.
Really they could undo all of the nerfs to IH except cogitated martyrdom and 5+ FnP and they'd probably be just fine in 9th. Certainly not Nids/Drukhari/AdMech broken.
Gadzilla666 wrote: No, they don't. The obvious example is everything with Martial Legacy. Would any of those units be "underpriced" if the CP tax was removed? No, because it isn't a factor that gw seems to consider in their prices. Even without Martial Legacy, many would still be overpriced compared to similar units.
I like how you latch onto simple point efficiency ignoring the other, far more valid point, namely rules interactions with units far more durable and shooty than things they were designed with. For example, Iron Hands in 8th so many people with little clue screamed were ""OP"" - when the actual broken "IH" lists were all full of FW gak, contemptor and leviathan spam for weeks, with zero actual, Codex, plastic IH units on table. Well, maybe there was a token techmarine to fill HQ slot and repair dreads, plus throwaway Intercessor unit to dump AT shots targeting dreads onto with stratagem. Besides that, it was 95% points in ""totes not OP"" resin units abusing IH trait interaction.
And the best part was GW's reaction to the problem - instead of tagging broken FW gak with nerf hammer, they destroyed IH rules instead ruining them for people who used actual IH plastic armies instead of bringing cherrypicked WAAAC resin recast dump. IH trait was not problematic with box dreads with at worst two lascannon and one missile shot. That unit could be removed easily even with FNP. It was completely different story with insanely durable brick with 2+, ++, +++, and more wounds than any three other SM units put together and zillion autocannon shots (with 2+ BS because FRAK YOU) that was insanely efficient when it came to buffing, stratagems, and inability to remove it from table before it was healed to full. And that's even if we generously assume it was, like you say, ""overpriced"" (which is nonsense but clearly shows raw points are only a very tiny piece of actual picture).
It took GW long enough but what we have now is vastly preferable and more balanced than the gak that was 8th (and first 1/3 of 9th) where you had zero incentive to use actual SM/CSM units and could just spam whatever was most OP from FW stuff. Now the rules abuse has actual, tangible drawbacks and results in armies that started to resemble fluff a bit more than insane concentrations of stuff that would make even HH legions stare in disbelief, never mind factions in 40K for whom these are priceless, irreplaceable relics.
Irbis, Irbis, Irbis. I'm used to you throwing softballs, but this is T-ball.
The very fact that you repeatedly go back to "fw units broken in "Loyalist Scum Iron Hands 2.0" over and over, without showing that they were broken in any other Legion/chapter, shows that the problem was Iron Hands, and not the fw units that had existed for years in 8th edition without any major problems. People were calling the Iron Hands supplement broken the second that the rules were known, and they were just as broken with plastic gw models as fw models. And gw wrote those broken Iron Hands rules, not fw.
Gadzilla666 wrote: so you get the weird situation where a HH era tank is just as easy for a new Primaris founding loyalist chapter to field as a warband of Iron Warriors that can still remember the Siege of Terra
Yep, I have no idea why 10.000 old Admech character second only to Martian High Lord/Fabricator General in faction importance might have access to said tanks, and give them to his pet creation. It's inconceivably less likely than IW (who lost all their gear running from Terra, then lost whatever remained in Scouring, then lost even more in huge blame shift CSM wars in Eye that followed, then finally ruined whatever scraps they had left when Perturabo ordered ruinous IW civil war out of boredom) having them. And that is literally the only CSM legion that actually knew how the stuff worked and had the knowledge base to maintain such vehicles unlike the other psychopaths who ran out on Terra and since then had to loot single bolter shells and armor gloves off dead enemies as they are incapable of producing even most basic pieces of wargear and need to resort to putting daemons in crude machines that only work due to warp frakkery in order to have any semblance of working heavy support.
Oh wait
Yeah, this is just more of your typical cherry-picking from very specific examples that support your terrible understanding of everything in the lore, while conveniently ignoring the vast amount of things that don't. Including the multiple official rule books that detail just how the Legions and Dark Mechanicum both maintain and even sometimes still produceHH era equipment.
It's also quite telling that you mention how the Dark Mechanicum "put daemons" into machines and use "Warp frakkery", completely ignoring that the fact that they do such is exactly one of the many ways that they keep HH equipment working, which obviously isn't available to the superstitious, hidebound, and innovation averse Adeptus Mechanicus.
Gadzilla666 wrote: No, they don't. The obvious example is everything with Martial Legacy. Would any of those units be "underpriced" if the CP tax was removed? No, because it isn't a factor that gw seems to consider in their prices. Even without Martial Legacy, many would still be overpriced compared to similar units.
I like how you latch onto simple point efficiency ignoring the other, far more valid point, namely rules interactions with units far more durable and shooty than things they were designed with. For example, Iron Hands in 8th so many people with little clue screamed were ""OP"" - when the actual broken "IH" lists were all full of FW gak, contemptor and leviathan spam for weeks, with zero actual, Codex, plastic IH units on table. Well, maybe there was a token techmarine to fill HQ slot and repair dreads, plus throwaway Intercessor unit to dump AT shots targeting dreads onto with stratagem. Besides that, it was 95% points in ""totes not OP"" resin units abusing IH trait interaction.
And the best part was GW's reaction to the problem - instead of tagging broken FW gak with nerf hammer, they destroyed IH rules instead ruining them for people who used actual IH plastic armies instead of bringing cherrypicked WAAAC resin recast dump. IH trait was not problematic with box dreads with at worst two lascannon and one missile shot. That unit could be removed easily even with FNP. It was completely different story with insanely durable brick with 2+, ++, +++, and more wounds than any three other SM units put together and zillion autocannon shots (with 2+ BS because FRAK YOU) that was insanely efficient when it came to buffing, stratagems, and inability to remove it from table before it was healed to full. And that's even if we generously assume it was, like you say, ""overpriced"" (which is nonsense but clearly shows raw points are only a very tiny piece of actual picture).
It took GW long enough but what we have now is vastly preferable and more balanced than the gak that was 8th (and first 1/3 of 9th) where you had zero incentive to use actual SM/CSM units and could just spam whatever was most OP from FW stuff. Now the rules abuse has actual, tangible drawbacks and results in armies that started to resemble fluff a bit more than insane concentrations of stuff that would make even HH legions stare in disbelief, never mind factions in 40K for whom these are priceless, irreplaceable relics.
Gadzilla666 wrote: so you get the weird situation where a HH era tank is just as easy for a new Primaris founding loyalist chapter to field as a warband of Iron Warriors that can still remember the Siege of Terra
Yep, I have no idea why 10.000 old Admech character second only to Martian High Lord/Fabricator General in faction importance might have access to said tanks, and give them to his pet creation. It's inconceivably less likely than IW (who lost all their gear running from Terra, then lost whatever remained in Scouring, then lost even more in huge blame shift CSM wars in Eye that followed, then finally ruined whatever scraps they had left when Perturabo ordered ruinous IW civil war out of boredom) having them. And that is literally the only CSM legion that actually knew how the stuff worked and had the knowledge base to maintain such vehicles unlike the other psychopaths who ran out on Terra and since then had to loot single bolter shells and armor gloves off dead enemies as they are incapable of producing even most basic pieces of wargear and need to resort to putting daemons in crude machines that only work due to warp frakkery in order to have any semblance of working heavy support.
Oh wait
that first paragraph is incorrect. double repulsor executioner was as common and roughly as good as the leviathan lists.
Ibris just has a hateboner to FW for whatever reason. No logic in their post.
Daedalus81 wrote: Individual CSM chapters getting their own secondaries:
Spoiler:
Isn't blade pistol leg lady oop?
Yes and no.
She's on a shared sprue with the rest of the "Escalation/Combat Arena" characters. That would be the Technoarcheologist(who's in the AdMech codex no less now!)+Servitor, Crusader, and her--5 models.
Combat Arena still randomly gets restocked at B&N sometimes. But Escalation's gone for the time being.
Daedalus81 wrote: Individual CSM chapters getting their own secondaries:
Spoiler:
Isn't blade pistol leg lady oop?
Yes and no.
She's on a shared sprue with the rest of the "Escalation/Combat Arena" characters. That would be the Technoarcheologist(who's in the AdMech codex no less now!)+Servitor, Crusader, and her--5 models.
Combat Arena still randomly gets restocked at B&N sometimes. But Escalation's gone for the time being.
Ahh yes, that doesn't exist in the UK so she's functionally oop from a UK perspective.
Interesting that they seem to be setting out at least a page on the subject of what Battle Ready looks like - something that I'd say should've been in the core rulebook.
tneva82 wrote: Well whatever they are remember goal isn't balance. Just change what's imbalanced
"Do not attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity." We have no reason to assume intent over simply being bad at balancing.
That saying really shouldn't apply to corporations, given the sheer lenghts they've been proven to go for profit time and time again.
Overstatement of the year. Is the "sheer lengths" that one guy who said to drop the points of the wraithknight?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dysartes wrote: Interesting that they seem to be setting out at least a page on the subject of what Battle Ready looks like - something that I'd say should've been in the core rulebook.
It was in there, but it was a bit more brief than this.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: I was talking about corporations in general. Have you ever looked into just how far they'll go, or how manipulative they can be for profit?
Yea, sure that's fair, but I'm not sure it's a warranted caution in this instance though I can't fault vigilance.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: I was talking about corporations in general. Have you ever looked into just how far they'll go, or how manipulative they can be for profit?
Yea, sure that's fair, but I'm not sure it's a warranted caution in this instance though I can't fault vigilance.
Daedalus81 wrote: Individual CSM chapters getting their own secondaries:
Spoiler:
That's interesting, but I want to know does the Core Rules include all the current Errata, Rare Rules, and the Glossary? If it does, I'll put down my money for this.
Daedalus81 wrote: Individual CSM chapters getting their own secondaries:
Spoiler:
That's interesting, but I want to know does the Core Rules include all the current Errata, Rare Rules, and the Glossary? If it does, I'll put down my money for this.
Press X to doubt. It isn't in their MO, but I guess we'll find out!
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: I was talking about corporations in general. Have you ever looked into just how far they'll go, or how manipulative they can be for profit?
Yea, sure that's fair, but I'm not sure it's a warranted caution in this instance though I can't fault vigilance.
at this point it is just hard to tell, as for example "it is the costumers responsibility" is a common theme on corporations to defend terrible decisions in the name of profit
in case of GW, I would say it is the mix of trying to get stuff done as cheap and fast as possible while at the same time just being bad at rules because they don't play their own game (and there is always something that sounds good on paper but will be terrible on the table, but if you never play you never find out)
Daedalus81 wrote: Individual CSM chapters getting their own secondaries:
Spoiler:
That's interesting, but I want to know does the Core Rules include all the current Errata, Rare Rules, and the Glossary? If it does, I'll put down my money for this.
Daedalus81 wrote: Individual CSM chapters getting their own secondaries:
Spoiler:
That's interesting, but I want to know does the Core Rules include all the current Errata, Rare Rules, and the Glossary? If it does, I'll put down my money for this.
Of course not. The BRB core rules are on pg. 194-233. Thats pretty close to number of pages in nephilim, which are 95-136. It will probably also have the rare rules/glosssary. And of course it will not have the updated core rules.
However, you can now take a Super-Heavy Auxiliary Detachment at no CP cost if it matches your WARLORD’s faction – great news for Knight players in Incursion games.
If someone can explain why that helps knights I'm all ears.
Nice to see it's including the core rules too. Could actually be tempted to pick this up rather than make a word doc of the various small changes since the last CA! See that GW, make a good and user friendly product and I'll actually spend money on it!
The cherry on top would it being spiral bound. *crosses fingers*
However, you can now take a Super-Heavy Auxiliary Detachment at no CP cost if it matches your WARLORD’s faction – great news for Knight players in Incursion games.
If someone can explain why that helps knights I'm all ears.
Only explanation I can think of is that it lets you take an additional LoW slot as part of a second detachment, though I can't figure out for the life of me what the advantage of doing so might be, other than if you need an extra slot because you're spamming war dogs/armigers and ran out of space in the 5 you get in your normal detachment?
However, you can now take a Super-Heavy Auxiliary Detachment at no CP cost if it matches your WARLORD’s faction – great news for Knight players in Incursion games.
If someone can explain why that helps knights I'm all ears.
Take 2 SHADs for 2 LoW slots, rather than trying to cram 3 in? (Incursion is 500-1k points, right?)
MY favorite part is how they cut us down by 8CP in the pregame and then try to pretended like worthless round 4 or round 5 CP 'balances it out' like we don't know how the game works.
I'd trade 20 round 5 CP for even just your first warlord trait to be free.
I doubt anyone thinks having more CP in round 4 and 5 is a balance for having less starting CP, but I'm all for this change. Having CP be a drip fed resource for both players will be much better than being on the receiving end of a 3 stratagem combo alpha strike on the first turn. Have you seen the new Knight codex with its 4CP all damage turns to MWs on a wound roll of 6 strat? Turn 1 saw my full squad of Blightlord terminators deleted by a single knight!
Fergie0044 wrote: I doubt anyone thinks having more CP in round 4 and 5 is a balance for having less starting CP, but I'm all for this change. Having CP be a drip fed resource for both players will be much better than being on the receiving end of a 3 stratagem combo alpha strike on the first turn. Have you seen the new Knight codex with its 4CP all damage turns to MWs on a wound roll of 6 strat? Turn 1 saw my full squad of Blightlord terminators deleted by a single knight!
Won't that... still happen with these changes? Not familiar with the exact combo but if it only costs 4CP, they'll easily be able to have that much for turn 1.
The CP changes will probably just make people more vulnerable to alpha strikes. You won’t have as much cp to defend yourself and you won’t be able to push back as hard against armies that pressure you.
Indeed, but much less likely on turn 1 unless my opponents doesn't want any relics, war lord traits or any other stratagems that turn. Which is a fair compromise.
However, you can now take a Super-Heavy Auxiliary Detachment at no CP cost if it matches your WARLORD’s faction – great news for Knight players in Incursion games.
Well, that's a big load of . My LoWs will still cost me 1CP apiece, because "REASONS". Same for my dreadnoughts and "standard" tanks.
Fergie0044 wrote: I doubt anyone thinks having more CP in round 4 and 5 is a balance for having less starting CP, but I'm all for this change. Having CP be a drip fed resource for both players will be much better than being on the receiving end of a 3 stratagem combo alpha strike on the first turn. Have you seen the new Knight codex with its 4CP all damage turns to MWs on a wound roll of 6 strat? Turn 1 saw my full squad of Blightlord terminators deleted by a single knight!
Won't that... still happen with these changes? Not familiar with the exact combo but if it only costs 4CP, they'll easily be able to have that much for turn 1.
Will still happen, but it also means the resource is depleted for a few rounds and you can't have a single player do the combo first 2-3 rounds a game.
Personally I am happy with the CP changes. Puts the game more in line with the AoSCP system which I like.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dendarien wrote: The CP changes will probably just make people more vulnerable to alpha strikes. You won’t have as much cp to defend yourself and you won’t be able to push back as hard against armies that pressure you.
Do you have any scenarios in mind? Remember that both players now start with the smaller pool so technically both are still at equal grounds(depending on who is spending more on traits and relics). You also have to remember that most stratagems are limited to once per phase and usually apply to a single unit). Transhuman is something you benefit from proccing twice a round at most.
However, you can now take a Super-Heavy Auxiliary Detachment at no CP cost if it matches your WARLORD’s faction – great news for Knight players in Incursion games.
Well, that's a big load of . My LoWs will still cost me 1CP apiece, because "REASONS". Same for my dreadnoughts and "standard" tanks.
Well, that's 1cp less than now. As a regular user of a Kytan I'm not upset to be at 0cp.
However, you can now take a Super-Heavy Auxiliary Detachment at no CP cost if it matches your WARLORD’s faction – great news for Knight players in Incursion games.
If someone can explain why that helps knights I'm all ears.
Take 2 SHADs for 2 LoW slots, rather than trying to cram 3 in? (Incursion is 500-1k points, right?)
Yeah that's my only thought but then neither of them get house bonuses etc.
However, you can now take a Super-Heavy Auxiliary Detachment at no CP cost if it matches your WARLORD’s faction – great news for Knight players in Incursion games.
Well, that's a big load of . My LoWs will still cost me 1CP apiece, because "REASONS". Same for my dreadnoughts and "standard" tanks.
Depends on the exact wording. If it literally sets the CP cost of the detachment to 0, which is 6 + 1 from Martial Legacy, then it eats Martial Legacy. I guess that might depend on the order you're supposed to apply those (my bet is they won't consider that detail at all and we'll need an FAQ)
Fergie0044 wrote: I doubt anyone thinks having more CP in round 4 and 5 is a balance for having less starting CP, but I'm all for this change. Having CP be a drip fed resource for both players will be much better than being on the receiving end of a 3 stratagem combo alpha strike on the first turn. Have you seen the new Knight codex with its 4CP all damage turns to MWs on a wound roll of 6 strat? Turn 1 saw my full squad of Blightlord terminators deleted by a single knight!
Won't that... still happen with these changes? Not familiar with the exact combo but if it only costs 4CP, they'll easily be able to have that much for turn 1.
Sure. If they don't have like 6+ warlord traits/relics. Knights like those.
Dendarien wrote: Yeah someone pushes 27 tyranid warriors with transhuman into the middle of the table.
Or someone pushes 14 chaos knight war dogs into the center of the table.
They don’t need cp or relics or traits to do that. Just good cost efficient data sheets.
Efficient datasheets are a separate problem from starting CP.
Plus not a lot of books seem to have a plethora of defensive stratagems so for someone on the defensive these CP changes are not going to change that much.
Personally I am in the wait and see mode before judging if this is all trash or not. A lot of matched play changes and potentially quite a few point changes mean the landscape is about to shift a lot.
Dendarien wrote: The CP changes will probably just make people more vulnerable to alpha strikes. You won’t have as much cp to defend yourself and you won’t be able to push back as hard against armies that pressure you.
This is my thinking. CP is currently much more necessary for defense then offense. Tau, Eldar, and Nids don't NEED strats to pick up entire enemy units, they mostly use them to hedge against unfavorable dice.
Anything they're shooting at NEEDS CP to have a reasonable expectation of survival. This whole change seems like it's pushing for even more aggressive alphastrike and it heavily favors already strong armies.
Boyz -1
Gretchin same
Beast Boyz same
Wazbomm +10
Nobz -1
"few buggies" -5
"HQ got a 5-10 point cut across the board"
Source is apparently a guy with a PDF at a FLGS, so don't lose your sleep over these amazing buffs just yet.
The sad part is that I can see GW doing this and patting themselves on the back and thinking that this is what Orks need. Given how out of touch they are for the Ork ruleset, I'm afraid that we may not even get away with this.
However, you can now take a Super-Heavy Auxiliary Detachment at no CP cost if it matches your WARLORD’s faction – great news for Knight players in Incursion games.
Well, that's a big load of . My LoWs will still cost me 1CP apiece, because "REASONS". Same for my dreadnoughts and "standard" tanks.
Depends on the exact wording. If it literally sets the CP cost of the detachment to 0, which is 6 + 1 from Martial Legacy, then it eats Martial Legacy. I guess that might depend on the order you're supposed to apply those (my bet is they won't consider that detail at all and we'll need an FAQ)
It'll probably be a Command Benefit. I.E.: "+3 Command Points if the unit in this detachment is from the same FACTION as your WARLORD". Similar to Patrols, Battalions, and the Supreme Command Detachment. So, Martial Legacy will still penalize you for using the "wrong models".
However, you can now take a Super-Heavy Auxiliary Detachment at no CP cost if it matches your WARLORD’s faction – great news for Knight players in Incursion games.
Well, that's a big load of . My LoWs will still cost me 1CP apiece, because "REASONS". Same for my dreadnoughts and "standard" tanks.
Depends on the exact wording. If it literally sets the CP cost of the detachment to 0, which is 6 + 1 from Martial Legacy, then it eats Martial Legacy. I guess that might depend on the order you're supposed to apply those (my bet is they won't consider that detail at all and we'll need an FAQ)
It'll probably be a Command Benefit. I.E.: "+3 Command Points if the unit in this detachment is from the same FACTION as your WARLORD". Similar to Patrols, Battalions, and the Supreme Command Detachment. So, Martial Legacy will still penalize you for using the "wrong models".
Yea, I can see it going both ways. If WarCom didn't have a history of not quite understanding the rulesets they talk about, I'd say the wording they use "at no CP cost" is important. "At no CP cost" in the context of the ruleset is quite a bit different than "refunding" or however you'd word what actually happens.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, Gad, but there's currently two different costs in you taking a FW LOW with your CSM force, isn't there?
There's the Command Cost of 3CP for selecting a SHAD, and then there's the Martial Legacy element of the datasheet which charges you a CP for taking the unit.
As far as I'm aware, Martial Legacy doesn't modify the Command Cost of a detachment to take it, so I don't see why you think a change to the SHAD would get around Martial Legacy, Rihgu.
Dysartes wrote: Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, Gad, but there's currently two different costs in you taking a FW LOW with your CSM force, isn't there?
There's the Command Cost of 3CP for selecting a SHAD, and then there's the Martial Legacy element of the datasheet which charges you a CP for taking the unit.
As far as I'm aware, Martial Legacy doesn't modify the Command Cost of a detachment to take it, so I don't see why you think a change to the SHAD would get around Martial Legacy, Rihgu.
The rule Martial Legacy is
MARTIAL LEGACY
If your army is Battle-forged, then when this unit is included in a Detachment, increase that Detachment’s Command Cost by 1CP.
Although I guess there is an implicit Order of Operations here.
Add Detachment -> Cost Set to 0(??? depends on exact wording)
Add unit to Detachment, Increase Cost by 1.
So alas, I don't think we're getting past Martial Legacy.
Dysartes wrote: Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, Gad, but there's currently two different costs in you taking a FW LOW with your CSM force, isn't there?
There's the Command Cost of 3CP for selecting a SHAD, and then there's the Martial Legacy element of the datasheet which charges you a CP for taking the unit.
As far as I'm aware, Martial Legacy doesn't modify the Command Cost of a detachment to take it, so I don't see why you think a change to the SHAD would get around Martial Legacy, Rihgu.
Basically what tneva82 said. Actual rule:
"If your army is Battle-forged, then when this unit is included in a Detachment, increase that Detachment's Command Cost by 1CP."
So it basically comes down to the rule in the Nephalim CA either making the detachment "free", or changing the Command Benefit, as they have typically done.
One of my long time friends really summed it up the other day when I asked if he'd like to get a game in this week.
He said: "I don't have the energy to learn 9th edition, and I don't even know where all of my rules for my Imperial Guard are, how many books do I need? Maybe we can play some other time." Pretty much sums up the state of the game. HH can't release soon enough.
Now we're up to having to pay command points for Warlord Traits and Relics because? WHY?
Togusa wrote: One of my long time friends really summed it up the other day when I asked if he'd like to get a game in this week.
He said: "I don't have the energy to learn 9th edition, and I don't even know where all of my rules for my Imperial Guard are, how many books do I need? Maybe we can play some other time." Pretty much sums up the state of the game. HH can't release soon enough.
Now we're up to having to pay command points for Warlord Traits and Relics because? WHY?
Why not? More importantly for your example, is your guard buddy playing tournament 40k? If not, ignore this book, you don't have to pay for traits and relics.
They can play with just their codex and rulebook if they wanted, they'd be at a disadvantage admittedly, but nothing stopping it.
Also important to note the actual wording in the Warcom article:
However, you can now take a Super-Heavy Auxiliary Detachment at no CP cost if it matches your WARLORD’s faction – great news for Knight players in Incursion games.
So it at least sounds (remembering that Warcom doesn't always get the wording right) like it only makes the detachment "free", not the actual unit. And even if it did, still no help for any Martial Legacy unit that isn't a LoW.
So...does this kill the majority of warlord traits and relics?
And I'm not talking about second or third WTs or 2nd or 3rd Relics, I'm talking about killing off people taking their FIRST warlord trait and FIRST relic.
Looking at Sisters of Battle: Any list that isn't Bloody rose or Our Martyrd Lady doesn't really need a warlord trait. Indomitable belief for the extra invul is nice but not really necessary, especially if running vehicles like Paragons.
For relics, Book of Saint Lucius and Sigil Ecclesiastus are common picks, but those are 'comfort' takes that aren't strictly necessary. Chaplet of Sacrifice has the benefit of being CP neutral (gives a free strat) while also being decent offensively. The rest are all defensive relics on characters that aren't worth spending 1/6th of your total CP on.
Realistically on Non-BR, Non- OoML list will probably only take Chaplet of Sacrifice and that's only because it's 'free' and does offer a small boost. You might take righteous rage on Vahl but...honestly...probably not?
For BR, Every BR list absolutely MUST have 2 CP available for their pregame scout move with Repentia. It's easily the most powerful strat BR have, so you're not going to give that up for any relic/WT.
You really want a Word of the Emperor/Rapturous blows canoness to get into combat, so Burning Ire will get taken most of the time, but again, isn't NECESSARY. A melee relic is nice, but honestly even in bloody rose the Blade of Saint Estallia or the Blade of Saint Mina aren't...great. You might take Chaplet of Sacrifice because it's 'free' and gives rerolls and fight on death.
Indomitable Belief is very much something that can be dropped and Book of ST. Lucius and sigil ecclesiastus are pure comfort picks you absolutely cannot afford here.
So BR will AT MOST be taking Burning Ire, Chaplet of Sacrifice, and Righteous Rage on Morvenn Vahl. Realistically, you'll probably see one of those 3. MAYBE 2 if people really lean into the 'free' aspect of Chaplet.
OoML: The mortal wound Canoness is dead. She was mostly a gimmick anyway but now she's well and truly dead (in Morvenn Vahl Builds. Exemplar of the Order giving 2 traits might be enough to bring her back). Candela scroll made them the only SoB faction that might reasonably be expected to take an imagifier...we'll see how that goes now. Righteous Rage on Morvenn is probably out of their price range. Book of St' Lucius and Indomitable belief were really only useful for Zephyrim heavy lists. Realistically, you MIGHT take either Candela Scroll or Indomitable belief or you MIGHT take Righteous Rage on Morvenn. You could very easily argue not taking any relics/Warlord traits at all, though.
So across 3 distinct subfaction groups (2 of which had supplement books that added over a dozen additional WT and Relics) you have 2 'probably?' takes (Righteous Rage on Morvenn and Chaplet of Sacrifice because it's 'free') 5 'maybe?' takes (Burning Ire, Indomitable Belief, Book of St. Lucius, Candela Scroll, Sigil Ecclesiastus), and 50 'nopes'.
We'll likely average 2 total WT/Relics and that's only because Chaplet of Sacrifice is CP neutral. How many other factions are going to skip out on not just extra relics/WTs, but ANY?
Togusa wrote: One of my long time friends really summed it up the other day when I asked if he'd like to get a game in this week.
He said: "I don't have the energy to learn 9th edition, and I don't even know where all of my rules for my Imperial Guard are, how many books do I need? Maybe we can play some other time." Pretty much sums up the state of the game. HH can't release soon enough.
Now we're up to having to pay command points for Warlord Traits and Relics because? WHY?
Why not? More importantly for your example, is your guard buddy playing tournament 40k? If not, ignore this book, you don't have to pay for traits and relics.
They can play with just their codex and rulebook if they wanted, they'd be at a disadvantage admittedly, but nothing stopping it.
I think the issue is with the rules having changed ten times over since launch. He and I usually only play matched play as he prefers it.
You've got to admit that the current rules are a god awful mess.
Togusa wrote: One of my long time friends really summed it up the other day when I asked if he'd like to get a game in this week.
He said: "I don't have the energy to learn 9th edition, and I don't even know where all of my rules for my Imperial Guard are, how many books do I need? Maybe we can play some other time." Pretty much sums up the state of the game. HH can't release soon enough.
Now we're up to having to pay command points for Warlord Traits and Relics because? WHY?
Why not? More importantly for your example, is your guard buddy playing tournament 40k? If not, ignore this book, you don't have to pay for traits and relics.
They can play with just their codex and rulebook if they wanted, they'd be at a disadvantage admittedly, but nothing stopping it.
I think the issue is with the rules having changed ten times over since launch. He and I usually only play matched play as he prefers it.
You've got to admit that the current rules are a god awful mess.
Core rules are fine and the Codexes were one significant balance patch away from being fine(Nerf Tau, Eldar, Nids; Buff...everybody else). No idea why they decided to reinvent the wheel when they were close to a decent format.
So...does this kill the majority of warlord traits and relics?
And I'm not talking about second or third WTs or 2nd or 3rd Relics, I'm talking about killing off people taking their FIRST warlord trait and FIRST relic.
Looking at Sisters of Battle: Any list that isn't Bloody rose or Our Martyrd Lady doesn't really need a warlord trait. Indomitable belief for the extra invul is nice but not really necessary, especially if running vehicles like Paragons.
For relics, Book of Saint Lucius and Sigil Ecclesiastus are common picks, but those are 'comfort' takes that aren't strictly necessary. Chaplet of Sacrifice has the benefit of being CP neutral (gives a free strat) while also being decent offensively. The rest are all defensive relics on characters that aren't worth spending 1/6th of your total CP on.
Realistically on Non-BR, Non- OoML list will probably only take Chaplet of Sacrifice and that's only because it's 'free' and does offer a small boost. You might take righteous rage on Vahl but...honestly...probably not?
For BR, Every BR list absolutely MUST have 2 CP available for their pregame scout move with Repentia. It's easily the most powerful strat BR have, so you're not going to give that up for any relic/WT.
You really want a Word of the Emperor/Rapturous blows canoness to get into combat, so Burning Ire will get taken most of the time, but again, isn't NECESSARY. A melee relic is nice, but honestly even in bloody rose the Blade of Saint Estallia or the Blade of Saint Mina aren't...great. You might take Chaplet of Sacrifice because it's 'free' and gives rerolls and fight on death.
Indomitable Belief is very much something that can be dropped and Book of ST. Lucius and sigil ecclesiastus are pure comfort picks you absolutely cannot afford here.
So BR will AT MOST be taking Burning Ire, Chaplet of Sacrifice, and Righteous Rage on Morvenn Vahl. Realistically, you'll probably see one of those 3. MAYBE 2 if people really lean into the 'free' aspect of Chaplet.
OoML: The mortal wound Canoness is dead. She was mostly a gimmick anyway but now she's well and truly dead (in Morvenn Vahl Builds. Exemplar of the Order giving 2 traits might be enough to bring her back). Candela scroll made them the only SoB faction that might reasonably be expected to take an imagifier...we'll see how that goes now. Righteous Rage on Morvenn is probably out of their price range. Book of St' Lucius and Indomitable belief were really only useful for Zephyrim heavy lists. Realistically, you MIGHT take either Candela Scroll or Indomitable belief or you MIGHT take Righteous Rage on Morvenn. You could very easily argue not taking any relics/Warlord traits at all, though.
So across 3 distinct subfaction groups (2 of which had supplement books that added over a dozen additional WT and Relics) you have 2 'probably?' takes (Righteous Rage on Morvenn and Chaplet of Sacrifice because it's 'free') 5 'maybe?' takes (Burning Ire, Indomitable Belief, Book of St. Lucius, Candela Scroll, Sigil Ecclesiastus), and 50 'nopes'.
We'll likely average 2 total WT/Relics and that's only because Chaplet of Sacrifice is CP neutral. How many other factions are going to skip out on not just extra relics/WTs, but ANY?
I don't think you're wrong. We'll probably see a lot fewer WTs and relics with this change, and only the absolute "best" ones, at that.
What I wonder, is how many HQs essentially become "tax units" without WTs and relics, and will therefore be taken less often. My Chaos Lord is essentially just a trumped up Warp Talon without his. If he's not going to have them, I don't see much reason to pay the points for him, instead of just bringing an extra Sorcerer, or something.
Well I was hoping the new generic trait & relic ones would also replace the generic ones in each codex and at least organize things a bit better, oh well. It does seem to make the cut to starting CP a bit steep though, I think 4/9 would have been more reasonable given the amount of pre-game upgrade strats there are.
Credit where due though, GW doing the points updates for free is a good step. Yes, yes they should have always been that way, it's not enough, and so on. But it is a definite improvement and should be noted as such.
I don't know if you have seen the new Warhammer Community Article. It has an image with the secondaries for the Astra Militarum.
I guess the rule of only one faction secondary is still in effect, because it it wasn't I would see the guard really moving up in the rankings. {It seems this is gone}
The "Inflexible Command" secondary (No Mercy, No Respite) is very, very tasty.
At the end of your turn you score +2 victory points if all your infantry are within 6' of a friendly officer.
Score 1 victory point if every vehicle is within 12' of a vehicle officer unit.
Score 1 victory point if if any units were destroyed by a unit that had an order on it.
As an interesting note it also goes on that if the officer is in a transport, that transport is assumed to have the officer keyword.
It also goes on to state that infantry units with a vox caster is within 24' of an officer it counts as being within 6' if the officer is within 1' of a friendly command squad.
This one should be easy to max. Incidentally did you know the Master of Ordinance also has the officer keyword? As does the master of the Fleet. It doesn't seem to be <Regiment> Locked either.
The secondary "By Lasgun and Bayonet" (Purge the Enemy) is 1vp for enemy untis destroyed within range of an objective marker is less good.
The "Boots on the Ground" (Battlefield Supremacy) is also interesting as you get 1 vp for each table quarter with a <Regiment> infantry unit wholly within in. You also get 1vp if a unit with a Regimental standard is wholly within 6' of the board centre. It should also be easy to max this out.
The "Special Orders" (Shadow Operations) secondary is also interesting. It is an action that any infantry unit within 12' of an officer and in range of an objective can do. It allows for a CP to be gained on a roll of a +6 but is worth 2vp if you did it on one objective 5vp if on two objectives 10vp if on three obectives and 15pts if done on 4 objectives.
So in other words if you can can move 4 infantry units (not regiment) into range of an objective, start an action at the end of their movement phase and bam, victory points.
It will be nice to be able to score some victory points easily.
There are quite a few WLTs and Relics I would consider paying CP for in certain builds... but in listbuilding theres also lots of situations in which I'm taking WLTs and Relics simply because I more or less have to, and not because I actually think they are doing something to make my army better.
Dirk Reinecke wrote: I don't know if you have seen the new Warhammer Community Article. It an image with the secondaries for the Astra Militarum.
I guess the rule of only one faction secondary is still in effect, because it it wasn't I would see the guard really moving up in the rankings.
Apparently you looked at the image without reading the text directly below it:
"Another change – there are no limits when it comes to faction secondary objectives. If you want to pick two objectives specific to your faction, or even all three, go right ahead – so long as they’re all from a different category."
I think in most cases you'd want to make one HQ good via WLT/Relics, because as pointed out, a lot of them are an obligatory tax otherwise. As people have said, what this probably does is really pushes special characters.
I guess factions who really want multiple detachments may vary. But I'm not convinced 7 CP turn 1 is better than 5 CP+WLT+Relic for most factions.
Dirk Reinecke wrote: I don't know if you have seen the new Warhammer Community Article. It an image with the secondaries for the Astra Militarum.
I guess the rule of only one faction secondary is still in effect, because it it wasn't I would see the guard really moving up in the rankings.
Apparently you looked at the image without reading the text directly below it:
"Another change – there are no limits when it comes to faction secondary objectives. If you want to pick two objectives specific to your faction, or even all three, go right ahead – so long as they’re all from a different category."
You are right, I just saw the image and immediately went to try and decipher it. That makes it even better. I now know which three secondaries I will be taking. I was already making a very infantry heavy brigade so this is just gravy. At least 3vp per turn just by existing (and of course proper placement)
Tyel wrote: I think in most cases you'd want to make one HQ good via WLT/Relics, because as pointed out, a lot of them are an obligatory tax otherwise. As people have said, what this probably does is really pushes special characters.
I guess factions who really want multiple detachments may vary. But I'm not convinced 7 CP turn 1 is better than 5 CP+WLT+Relic for most factions.
And what if your options are:
7CP
3CP+WLT+Relic +2 dreadnoughts/tanks
5CP+WLT+Relic no dreadnoughts/tanks, or 2 dreadnoughts/tanks noWLT+Relic?
Personally I like the change and will probably incorporate it into the Tempest games I play. I always thought that armies started with to much CP, and the net effect of this is you are really going to have to think when to use a stratagem or if you really need all those relics/WL traits. Also I think this will really curb the Command Re-rolls as you can't just use it willy nilly anymore, which I love #nocpreroll (shout out to TTT). I wish you got a free WL trait though as that makes who is your warlord meaningful, where here if you are not taking a trait, who is the warlord really doesn't have much effect on the game.
Now if they would just make it so units could not be under the effect of multiple stratagems at the same time with this, I think Stratagems would be much better balanced.
Now if they would just make it so units could not be under the effect of multiple stratagems at the same time with this, I think Stratagems would be much better balanced.
QFT!
Just having a unit only able to be affected by a single stratagem per phase would go a long way to preventing the wombo combos.
There would still be a few ways round it by using auras etc, but it would be heavily mitigated
xeen wrote: Personally I like the change and will probably incorporate it into the Tempest games I play. I always thought that armies started with to much CP, and the net effect of this is you are really going to have to think when to use a stratagem or if you really need all those relics/WL traits. Also I think this will really curb the Command Re-rolls as you can't just use it willy nilly anymore, which I love #nocpreroll (shout out to TTT). I wish you got a free WL trait though as that makes who is your warlord meaningful, where here if you are not taking a trait, who is the warlord really doesn't have much effect on the game.
Now if they would just make it so units could not be under the effect of multiple stratagems at the same time with this, I think Stratagems would be much better balanced.
Also free points yah!
"or if you really need all those relics/WL traits". You mean THAT Warlord trait OR Relic. Only factions with unusable strats like Orkz are likely to make more than 1 of either.
Much like Hammer of the Emperor, the asinine Indirect Fire changes, and arbitrary flyer limitations, I am going to fully ignore this tournament bull gak.
NinthMusketeer wrote: It does seem to make the cut to starting CP a bit steep though, I think 4/9 would have been more reasonable given the amount of pre-game upgrade strats there are.
Like I've been saying: It's an overcorrection. They found two ways to deal with an 'abundance' of starting CPs, and rather than picking one they just went with both. This is after greatly expanding how many CPs you get because people didn't have enough in 8th.
These buffoons don't know what they're doing.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Credit where due though, GW doing the points updates for free is a good step.
I don't think they should get credit for ending a gakky consumer unfriendly practice.
H.B.M.C. wrote:Much like Hammer of the Emperor, the asinine Indirect Fire changes, and arbitrary flyer limitations, I am going to fully ignore this tournament bull gak.
This is my position. If I play a tournament, I'll abide by its rules. Otherwise, all of these new, ridiculous rules will have nothing to do with my matched play games.
Dirk Reinecke wrote: I don't know if you have seen the new Warhammer Community Article. It has an image with the secondaries for the Astra Militarum.
I guess the rule of only one faction secondary is still in effect, because it it wasn't I would see the guard really moving up in the rankings. {It seems this is gone}
The "Inflexible Command" secondary (No Mercy, No Respite) is very, very tasty.
At the end of your turn you score +2 victory points if all your infantry are within 6' of a friendly officer.
Score 1 victory point if every vehicle is within 12' of a vehicle officer unit.
Score 1 victory point if if any units were destroyed by a unit that had an order on it.
As an interesting note it also goes on that if the officer is in a transport, that transport is assumed to have the officer keyword.
It also goes on to state that infantry units with a vox caster is within 24' of an officer it counts as being within 6' if the officer is within 1' of a friendly command squad.
This one should be easy to max. Incidentally did you know the Master of Ordinance also has the officer keyword? As does the master of the Fleet. It doesn't seem to be <Regiment> Locked either.
I think this will be a lot less easy to max than you think. The opponent just has to focus down your tank commanders to immediately deny you 5-10 points from it (because which infantry unit with an order are you going to be reliably destroying units with?)
I’m surprised how mad everyone seems to be about this tbh. CP adjustment seems to me like a reasonable way of limiting the extent to which you can stack stratagems, which was always my least favourite aspect of the strats system. I do feel though like the relic/WLT adjustment on top of that is a classic bit of GW overcorrection, and also think it’s a shame that a couple of things that essentially served as a nice bit of characterful garnish are now looking a lot less likely to be considered.
Nazrak wrote: I’m surprised how mad everyone seems to be about this tbh. CP adjustment seems to me like a reasonable way of limiting the extent to which you can stack stratagems, which was always my least favourite aspect of the strays system. I do feel though like the relic/WLT adjustment on top of that is a classic bit of GW overcorrection, and also think it’s a shame that a couple of things that essentially served asa nice bit of characterful garnish are now looking a lot less likely to be considered.
People probably wouldn't be as cranky if it was only the CP change. The WLT/Relic change in addition to that is what seems to be generating the most ill will. So, I think you understand just fine.
Dendarien wrote: Yeah someone pushes 27 tyranid warriors with transhuman into the middle of the table.
Or someone pushes 14 chaos knight war dogs into the center of the table.
They don’t need cp or relics or traits to do that. Just good cost efficient data sheets.
You presume there will be no point changes to nids. Also, I don't see 14 armigers fitting all that well and they die pretty easily most days.
At the same time those nids won't have two tyrants and may have fewer relics and similarly for the knights their durability enhancements come at a cost.
Dendarien wrote: Yeah someone pushes 27 tyranid warriors with transhuman into the middle of the table.
Or someone pushes 14 chaos knight war dogs into the center of the table.
They don’t need cp or relics or traits to do that. Just good cost efficient data sheets.
You presume there will be no point changes to nids. Also, I don't see 14 armigers fitting all that well and they die pretty easily most days.
At the same time those nids won't have two tyrants and may have fewer relics and similarly for the knights their durability enhancements come at a cost.
Yeah, but since things still seem to be judged by how quickly it can kill a Knight, Knights need those enhancements.
Dendarien wrote: Yeah someone pushes 27 tyranid warriors with transhuman into the middle of the table.
Or someone pushes 14 chaos knight war dogs into the center of the table.
They don’t need cp or relics or traits to do that. Just good cost efficient data sheets.
You presume there will be no point changes to nids. Also, I don't see 14 armigers fitting all that well and they die pretty easily most days.
At the same time those nids won't have two tyrants and may have fewer relics and similarly for the knights their durability enhancements come at a cost.
You clearly haven't faced the war dog spam yet. It's very real.
Seems like every other change. People claim it’s the end of the world and the. 2-3 weeks later find that games are ending up more fun when factoring in all the changes instead of just one aspect.
But we will see, I know I don’t have enough information to reach a conclusion right now.
I don't see anyone calling it the "end of the world", more just discussion of how it's another (sadly typical) overcorrection by GW as they lurch from one style of game design to another as they can't into game design.
EviscerationPlague wrote: Same reason an army won't have two Captains or two Crisis Commanders: GW can't balance for gak.
Well those armies can have two if they take a second detachment.
D might have been getting at something else that I'm missing.
I think Daed is assuming that most Nids players won't want to pay the CP for a second detachment to get a second Hive Tyrant because of this over-correction.
I mean Strats probably should be a lot more limited. 1 use per game, can’t use more then 1 strat on a unit a turn… or something similar to age of sigmar…
Make relics cost points again…
And 1 warlord trait for your 1 warlord….
Let’s be honest 9th Ed has a rules bloat problem and Strats are one of the main reasons.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Credit where due though, GW doing the points updates for free is a good step.
I don't think they should get credit for ending a gakky consumer unfriendly practice.
I think they deserve criticism when they end a customer friendly practice, so it logically follows that they deserve credit for ending a customer unfriendly one. I'm not exactly gushing with praise either; they went from shooting five toes off their own foot to four.
If anything that is the comedy of the matter; putting points for free online benefits all parties involved and if anything benefits GW more. Customers get a convenient source for free points, but we definitely had the points for free either way. GW actually saves money that would have been spent printing out the extra booklet with all the point costs. It wasn't even a customer-unfriendly move so much as hurting both sides for no gain whatsoever.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Credit where due though, GW doing the points updates for free is a good step.
I don't think they should get credit for ending a gakky consumer unfriendly practice.
I think they deserve criticism when they end a customer friendly practice, so it logically follows that they deserve credit for ending a customer unfriendly one. I'm not exactly gushing with praise either; they went from shooting five toes off their own foot to four.
If anything that is the comedy of the matter; putting points for free online benefits all parties involved and if anything benefits GW more. Customers get a convenient source for free points, but we definitely had the points for free either way. GW actually saves money that would have been spent printing out the extra booklet with all the point costs. It wasn't even a customer-unfriendly move so much as hurting both sides for no gain whatsoever.
I keep having to bring this up because people keep acting like the only "GW approved" source of points was the paid book when the app updated for free. Free points already existed if you bought a legitimate first hand codex.
You don't even need the codex to get access to points. I can get custodian points via app. Never bought custodian codex. Don't have custodian army. No need.
Don't recall when it started but app has provided points for all codexes for quite a while.
tneva82 wrote: You don't even need the codex to get access to points. I can get custodian points via app. Never bought custodian codex. Don't have custodian army. No need.
Don't recall when it started but app has provided points for all codexes for quite a while.
Good afternoon, is there any information about changes in the prices of Custodians: points, stratagems, nerfs?
Dudeface wrote: I keep having to bring this up because people keep acting like the only "GW approved" source of points was the paid book when the app updated for free. Free points already existed if you bought a legitimate first hand codex.
Dudeface wrote: I keep having to bring this up because people keep acting like the only "GW approved" source of points was the paid book when the app updated for free. Free points already existed if you bought a legitimate first hand codex.
That's not free.
And some of us don't want their lousy app.
How is that not free given you need a codex to use the army? It doesn't matter if you don't want the free app, the points were free on there if you could tolerate using it for 10 minutes.
Dudeface wrote: I keep having to bring this up because people keep acting like the only "GW approved" source of points was the paid book when the app updated for free. Free points already existed if you bought a legitimate first hand codex.
That's not free.
And some of us don't want their lousy app.
How is that not free given you need a codex to use the army? It doesn't matter if you don't want the free app, the points were free on there if you could tolerate using it for 10 minutes.
Considering the waste of space the app is... no it isn't free it costs space on my phone / tablet.
jokes aside, the core issue is, that if you look outside of 40k you basically see free rules and rulesupdates as common norm, or if sold are at a cheaper price and of better quality.
Mind i don't want them to stop producing codices and books, especially their well done ones like IA13 or some other codices but i'd like them to make these into actual objects for collectors, worth the price they are asking for them and not the current system.
H.B.M.C. wrote: If you have to buy a Codex, it's not free. Period.
More over, updating points is a patch, and one should never have to pay for patches.
Also there is that issue.
arguably the same can and should be said about secondaries and changes to core missions since they are fundamental game mechanics.
Not even EA gets a pass on monetising a patch, why should GW?
H.B.M.C. wrote: If you have to buy a Codex, it's not free. Period.
More over, updating points is a patch, and one should never have to pay for patches.
So what patches you are paying then? Points? As said multiple time already GW provides point updates free of charge. Has been doing so for months as bare minimum. Likely last year.
H.B.M.C. wrote: If you have to buy a Codex, it's not free. Period.
More over, updating points is a patch, and one should never have to pay for patches.
If you don't buy the codex how are you playing your army? I don't really feel it's valid to level criticism at GW because you didn't get the same free stuff as someone who doesn't pirate.
Up until this newest Chapter Approved Tournament Pack, points were paid for. That was a patch. A paid patch.
How did you not garner that from the conversation?
Because they're assuming you needed the codex to play, hence got them for free (or in some instances without the codex) via the app. If you're in a position where you're refusing to pay for the codex but complaining about the points being in a paid-for book, which you then pirate, what grounds is the complaint based on? That you'll have to pirate a book you would never buy anyway.
EviscerationPlague wrote: Same reason an army won't have two Captains or two Crisis Commanders: GW can't balance for gak.
Well those armies can have two if they take a second detachment.
D might have been getting at something else that I'm missing.
I think Daed is assuming that most Nids players won't want to pay the CP for a second detachment to get a second Hive Tyrant because of this over-correction.
I think you will see a lot less two detachment armies.
The Nids specifically have been taking 2 patrol detachments, 2 broken to excellent relics, 2 excellent warlord traits. That would be the Nids starting on 0 CP (+1 for the first turn) for Nephilim.
There are plenty of other factions that have got a similar issue though. The TSons 2 CP to forward deploy a Rubric squad strategem looks expensive and the 3 CP reduce shooting damage by 1 on a 6+ squad strategem is eye watering (although against Tyranids you luckily don't have to use it as a thoughtful rules writer handed out D4 like candy to their guns).
Up until this newest Chapter Approved Tournament Pack, points were paid for. That was a patch. A paid patch.
How did you not garner that from the conversation?
Because they're assuming you needed the codex to play, hence got them for free (or in some instances without the codex) via the app. If you're in a position where you're refusing to pay for the codex but complaining about the points being in a paid-for book, which you then pirate, what grounds is the complaint based on? That you'll have to pirate a book you would never buy anyway.
You're wasting your time.
As tneva82 posted twice above, point values for all datasheets have been freely in the app without any codex code or purchase for some time. Of course both of those posts were completely ignored.
The complaint is based on bad faith debate and flat out ignoring any inconvenient facts. Nothing else.
Voss wrote: Its not bad faith for anyone who doesn't use the app. (which AFAIK is most people)
Does the fact they chose not to use it invalidate that GW provided free points via the app?
Does GW not advertising that the points are updated in the app when they advertise the new book have something to do with it?
I mean the app is still terrible and most probably still wouldn't choose to use it even if they did know, but the point still stands. Especially when most other companies would still provide a free pdf anyway in addition to a free app update.
"It's free, but not in the specific format I want, so therefore it's not free."
--same old dakka people
I mean I can't blame people for not knowing the points have been free in the app for like a year and a half, because the app is still hot garbage and they probably uninstalled it. But to argue that it's not actually free (i.e. no money exchanged) is next level dakka.
Voss wrote: Its not bad faith for anyone who doesn't use the app. (which AFAIK is most people)
Does the fact they chose not to use it invalidate that GW provided free points via the app?
What gibberish is this?
At no point should _anyone_ be peer pressured or harassed into accepting corporate software on their devices for 'free stuff.'
If they want to make it free, they can put up a frickin' document. Even GW has finally realized that's the bare minimum. Why can't you?
GW should in fact be mailing me the points updates on printed paper for free to a PO box not associated with my name, lest I be peer-pressured into going onto their website (where they can collect info from me) and downloading PDFs (which can execute malicious code on my system).
Voss wrote: Its not bad faith for anyone who doesn't use the app. (which AFAIK is most people)
Does the fact they chose not to use it invalidate that GW provided free points via the app?
What gibberish is this?
At no point should _anyone_ be peer pressured or harassed into accepting corporate software on their devices for 'free stuff.'
If they want to make it free, they can put up a frickin' document. Even GW has finally realized that's the bare minimum. Why can't you?
There still is a difference between claiming that GW is not providing points for free and GW not providing points for free in a way you prefer.
And that's from someone who thinks that the 40k app is absolute amateur garbage that any half-decent app studio with zero knowledge of 40k could sell you for ~$50k.
Voss wrote: Its not bad faith for anyone who doesn't use the app. (which AFAIK is most people)
Does the fact they chose not to use it invalidate that GW provided free points via the app?
What gibberish is this?
At no point should _anyone_ be peer pressured or harassed into accepting corporate software on their devices for 'free stuff.'
If they want to make it free, they can put up a frickin' document. Even GW has finally realized that's the bare minimum. Why can't you?
GW should in fact be mailing me the points updates on printed paper for free to a PO box not associated with my name, lest I be peer-pressured into going onto their website (where they can collect info from me) and downloading PDFs (which can execute malicious code on my system).
OK, since I apparently have to explain this, Dudeface is going for peer-pressure, since he pushes the app at people every time the topic of points comes up.
GW just wants people to sign up for their terrible and pointless app.
Voss wrote: OK, since I apparently have to explain this, Dudeface is going for peer-pressure, since he pushes the app at people every time the topic of points comes up. GW just wants people to sign up for their terrible and pointless app.
Considering how everyone and their dog uses battlescribe to manage those freely available points, how exactly is anyone peer pressured into using the app?
Or is this a philosophical thing about those five people still writing their lists by hand while cross-referencing a physical copy of the munitorium manual?
Dirk Reinecke wrote: I don't know if you have seen the new Warhammer Community Article. It has an image with the secondaries for the Astra Militarum.
I guess the rule of only one faction secondary is still in effect, because it it wasn't I would see the guard really moving up in the rankings. {It seems this is gone}
The "Inflexible Command" secondary (No Mercy, No Respite) is very, very tasty.
At the end of your turn you score +2 victory points if all your infantry are within 6' of a friendly officer.
Score 1 victory point if every vehicle is within 12' of a vehicle officer unit.
Score 1 victory point if if any units were destroyed by a unit that had an order on it.
As an interesting note it also goes on that if the officer is in a transport, that transport is assumed to have the officer keyword.
It also goes on to state that infantry units with a vox caster is within 24' of an officer it counts as being within 6' if the officer is within 1' of a friendly command squad.
This one should be easy to max. Incidentally did you know the Master of Ordinance also has the officer keyword? As does the master of the Fleet. It doesn't seem to be <Regiment> Locked either.
I think this will be a lot less easy to max than you think. The opponent just has to focus down your tank commanders to immediately deny you 5-10 points from it (because which infantry unit with an order are you going to be reliably destroying units with?)
I really like the concept of these. Application may vary, but I look forward to the other secondaries.
Voss wrote: Its not bad faith for anyone who doesn't use the app. (which AFAIK is most people)
Does the fact they chose not to use it invalidate that GW provided free points via the app?
What gibberish is this?
At no point should _anyone_ be peer pressured or harassed into accepting corporate software on their devices for 'free stuff.'
If they want to make it free, they can put up a frickin' document. Even GW has finally realized that's the bare minimum. Why can't you?
GW should in fact be mailing me the points updates on printed paper for free to a PO box not associated with my name, lest I be peer-pressured into going onto their website (where they can collect info from me) and downloading PDFs (which can execute malicious code on my system).
OK, since I apparently have to explain this, Dudeface is going for peer-pressure, since he pushes the app at people every time the topic of points comes up.
GW just wants people to sign up for their terrible and pointless app.
What am I peer-pressuring you into? I bring it up a lot because people spout false statements a lot.
Voss wrote: OK, since I apparently have to explain this, Dudeface is going for peer-pressure, since he pushes the app at people every time the topic of points comes up.
GW just wants people to sign up for their terrible and pointless app.
Considering how everyone and their dog uses battlescribe to manage those freely available points, how exactly is anyone peer pressured into using the app?
Or is this a philosophical thing about those five people still writing their lists by hand while cross-referencing a physical copy of the munitorium manual?
No, no Jidmah, I specifically am peer pressuring everyone else into installing the app apparently, my simple fact stating is enough to sway weak minds it seems.
Voss wrote: Its not bad faith for anyone who doesn't use the app. (which AFAIK is most people)
Does the fact they chose not to use it invalidate that GW provided free points via the app?
I wouldn't trust the points on the App to be correct if it was the only source of that information. Ignoring any moralistic view on it, the App is a garbage product that is often (extremely often) incorrect or even simply just broken.
LunarSol wrote: The drop to 6 CP seems like a solid change. The removal of the basic WLT and Relic seems like an overcorrection.
Is it weird I'd almost go the other way? I.E. let every character unlock a WLT/Relic.
I have a feeling this is going to get FAQed in a few weeks when there's a big internet hate campaign. HQs without toys are incredibly boring, and in a lot of cases very weak.
No kidding, oni. I especially love how I'll have to pay more for my Hive Tyrants because some tournament people in the US brought one HT configuration that I had never even though of over and over and over again.
Daedalus81 wrote: Not that they can't, but they'll be less inclined.
Ah, ok. Thanks for clarifying.
xttz wrote: The complaint is based on bad faith debate and flat out ignoring any inconvenient facts. Nothing else.
Of course you would say that.
GW made you pay for points updates. They've been doing it with Chapter Approved for quite a while now. They've only just stopped doing that with this upcoming CA because people complained about it enough for them to take notice.
That's not "bad faith". That's not "inconvenient facts". That's just what they did. It was part of the Chapter Approved pack - the second booklet that came with the main book.
H.B.M.C. wrote: No kidding, oni. I especially love how I'll have to pay more for my Hive Tyrants because some tournament people in the US brought one HT configuration that I had never even though of over and over and over again.
Daedalus81 wrote: Not that they can't, but they'll be less inclined.
Ah, ok. Thanks for clarifying.
xttz wrote: The complaint is based on bad faith debate and flat out ignoring any inconvenient facts. Nothing else.
Of course you would say that.
GW made you pay for points updates. They've been doing it with Chapter Approved for quite a while now. They've only just stopped doing that with this upcoming CA because people complained about it enough for them to take notice.
That's not "bad faith". That's not "inconvenient facts". That's just what they did. It was part of the Chapter Approved pack - the second booklet that came with the main book.
But... I got all the points updates without paying for a chapter approved....
H.B.M.C. wrote: No kidding, oni. I especially love how I'll have to pay more for my Hive Tyrants because some tournament people in the US brought one HT configuration that I had never even though of over and over and over again.
Daedalus81 wrote: Not that they can't, but they'll be less inclined.
Ah, ok. Thanks for clarifying.
xttz wrote: The complaint is based on bad faith debate and flat out ignoring any inconvenient facts. Nothing else.
Of course you would say that.
GW made you pay for points updates. They've been doing it with Chapter Approved for quite a while now. They've only just stopped doing that with this upcoming CA because people complained about it enough for them to take notice.
That's not "bad faith". That's not "inconvenient facts". That's just what they did. It was part of the Chapter Approved pack - the second booklet that came with the main book.
But... I got all the points updates without paying for a chapter approved....
Aha! But you see, you have fallen into my trap! You pay for Warhammer+, correct? Ignore, for a moment, that Warhammer+ is a number of services that happens to also include points updates - IT INCLUDES POINTS UPDATES! Therefore, you admit, that you have paid for points updates!
H.B.M.C. wrote: No kidding, oni. I especially love how I'll have to pay more for my Hive Tyrants because some tournament people in the US brought one HT configuration that I had never even though of over and over and over again.
Daedalus81 wrote: Not that they can't, but they'll be less inclined.
Ah, ok. Thanks for clarifying.
xttz wrote: The complaint is based on bad faith debate and flat out ignoring any inconvenient facts. Nothing else.
Of course you would say that.
GW made you pay for points updates. They've been doing it with Chapter Approved for quite a while now. They've only just stopped doing that with this upcoming CA because people complained about it enough for them to take notice.
That's not "bad faith". That's not "inconvenient facts". That's just what they did. It was part of the Chapter Approved pack - the second booklet that came with the main book.
But... I got all the points updates without paying for a chapter approved....
Aha! But you see, you have fallen into my trap! You pay for Warhammer+, correct? Ignore, for a moment, that Warhammer+ is a number of services that happens to also include points updates - IT INCLUDES POINTS UPDATES! Therefore, you admit, that you have paid for points updates!
Whilst I do, you do not need warhammer+ for the points, they are free, my brothers ork codex has been updating without the subscription.
Dudeface wrote: Whilst I do, you do not need warhammer+ for the points, they are free, my brothers ork codex has been updating without the subscription.
The majority of people got their points update via paid-for booklet. Stop trying to pretend otherwise. That's arguing in bad faith, and you damn-well know it.
Dudeface wrote: Whilst I do, you do not need warhammer+ for the points, they are free, my brothers ork codex has been updating without the subscription.
The majority of people got their points update via paid-for booklet. Stop trying to pretend otherwise. That's arguing in bad faith, and you damn-well know it.
Personally I feel like it's less bad faith than arguing that you were required or obligated to buy the booklet, and suggesting that points updates were available via no other method.
I never suggested they weren't, but none of them were "free". They were "free" in the sense that the toy that comes with a Happy Meal is "free"; you can't get one without paying for it.
Claiming that you didn't really have to pay for points updates is intellectually dishonest.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I never suggested they weren't, but none of them were "free". They were "free" in the sense that the toy that comes with a Happy Meal is "free"; you can't get one without paying for it.
Soooo again, how do you plan on playing without a codex?
GW made you pay for points updates. They've been doing it with Chapter Approved for quite a while now. They've only just stopped doing that with this upcoming CA because people complained about it enough for them to take notice.
Strictly speaking, no, you never suggested that they weren't. But you did outright state that they "made you pay for points updates".
The policy has merely changed from making you pay for points and getting updates for free, to not making you pay for either.
GW made you pay for points updates. They've been doing it with Chapter Approved for quite a while now. They've only just stopped doing that with this upcoming CA because people complained about it enough for them to take notice.
Strictly speaking, no, you never suggested that they weren't. But you did outright state that they "made you pay for points updates".
The policy has merely changed from making you pay for points and getting updates for free, to not making you pay for either.
And as we well know, most of the people comlaining about paying for points, didn't likely pay for the points, or the updates.
GW made you pay for points updates. They've been doing it with Chapter Approved for quite a while now. They've only just stopped doing that with this upcoming CA because people complained about it enough for them to take notice.
Strictly speaking, no, you never suggested that they weren't. But you did outright state that they "made you pay for points updates".
The policy has merely changed from making you pay for points and getting updates for free, to not making you pay for either.
And as we well know, most of the people comlaining about paying for points, didn't likely pay for the points, or the updates.
I actually wouldn't go so far to say that. I think (with no real evidence, honestly), that most people did pay for points and the updates. Anecdotally, from my group, almost everybody buys Chapter Approved when it releases even if they play 40k once every 6 months. I think they must just like to list build.
GW made you pay for points updates. They've been doing it with Chapter Approved for quite a while now. They've only just stopped doing that with this upcoming CA because people complained about it enough for them to take notice.
Strictly speaking, no, you never suggested that they weren't. But you did outright state that they "made you pay for points updates".
The policy has merely changed from making you pay for points and getting updates for free, to not making you pay for either.
And as we well know, most of the people comlaining about paying for points, didn't likely pay for the points, or the updates.
I actually wouldn't go so far to say that. I think (with no real evidence, honestly), that most people did pay for points and the updates. Anecdotally, from my group, almost everybody buys Chapter Approved when it releases even if they play 40k once every 6 months. I think they must just like to list build.
You're a more trusting soul in that case. I don't play tournament games so never bothered with it, just got the points via the app as needed and as long as they matched whatever I built my list in that was good enough for me and my group.
I only mention that as many of the posters on here regularly criticise GW publications and admit to not buying their printed media, yet are here complaining about the printed media they did not and will not buy.
Dudeface wrote: But... I got all the points updates without paying for a chapter approved....
OK, basic Economics 101- While there is no direct cost for the app it is not free. The cost of the app is built into everything that GW sells. It's a hidden cost to whatever you're buying.
Dudeface wrote: But... I got all the points updates without paying for a chapter approved....
OK, basic Economics 101- While there is no direct cost for the app it is not free. The cost of the app is built into everything that GW sells. It's a hidden cost to whatever you're buying.
So the upcoming points updates won't be free, either? Darn it, I thought GW was finally doing a good thing
Dudeface wrote: But... I got all the points updates without paying for a chapter approved....
OK, basic Economics 101- While there is no direct cost for the app it is not free. The cost of the app is built into everything that GW sells. It's a hidden cost to whatever you're buying.
That's of course true, whenever you buy their products your contribute to that greater funding pot.
Dysartes wrote: And just to muddy the waters a bit more, the last MFM was made available on WHC for free, too - as long as you're OK with it being in French.
Applying the logic from Leo_the_Rat to muddy further, every plastic kit you buy helps pay for them to make more books, write more of those bad rules and develop that garbage app, even if you actively avoid supporting those thing.
I actually wouldn't go so far to say that. I think (with no real evidence, honestly), that most people did pay for points and the updates. Anecdotally, from my group, almost everybody buys Chapter Approved when it releases even if they play 40k once every 6 months. I think they must just like to list build.
Anecdotal, but my experience is that the novelty of CA gradually wore off from 2017 and each year fewer and fewer people at my local club paid for it. By the time Nachmund rolled around only one person had begrudgingly bought a copy because he had an upcoming tournament. Of course he wasn't happy that the event required him to own it.
I actually wouldn't go so far to say that. I think (with no real evidence, honestly), that most people did pay for points and the updates. Anecdotally, from my group, almost everybody buys Chapter Approved when it releases even if they play 40k once every 6 months. I think they must just like to list build.
Anecdotal, but my experience is that the novelty of CA gradually wore off from 2017 and each year fewer and fewer people at my local club paid for it. By the time Nachmund rolled around only one person had begrudgingly bought a copy because he had an upcoming tournament. Of course he wasn't happy that the event required him to own it.
Most people I know just use battlescribe.
Spiralbound with the full rules in it, it's JUST BARELY worth getting for the convenience.
Rihgu wrote: I actually wouldn't go so far to say that. I think (with no real evidence, honestly), that most people did pay for points and the updates. Anecdotally, from my group, almost everybody buys Chapter Approved when it releases even if they play 40k once every 6 months. I think they must just like to list build.
In our group, I doubt that there are more than two copies of the last installation between all of us. I bought the previous one and looked at it twice at most. You simple never need a book with points updates once battlescribe has updated.
oni wrote: I don't know how to even play this fething game anymore. It's literally changing every few months.
Warhammer Tourney-K is fething awesome; best edition ever.
It isn't changing dramatically. You still have secondaries, but now they'll all be printed in one spot. The mission mechanics aren't difficult, either. The only thing you have to "do" is rewrite your list with less good stuff.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyel wrote: Is it weird I'd almost go the other way? I.E. let every character unlock a WLT/Relic.
Gross. No.
I have a feeling this is going to get FAQed in a few weeks when there's a big internet hate campaign. HQs without toys are incredibly boring, and in a lot of cases very weak.
Also no.
Maybe it could get rolled back in 6 months, but that should depend on the impact and not the fickle whims of the mob.
oni wrote: I don't know how to even play this fething game anymore. It's literally changing every few months.
Warhammer Tourney-K is fething awesome; best edition ever.
It isn't changing dramatically. You still have secondaries, but now they'll all be printed in one spot. The mission mechanics aren't difficult, either. The only thing you have to "do" is rewrite your list with less good stuff.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyel wrote: Is it weird I'd almost go the other way? I.E. let every character unlock a WLT/Relic.
Gross. No.
I have a feeling this is going to get FAQed in a few weeks when there's a big internet hate campaign. HQs without toys are incredibly boring, and in a lot of cases very weak.
Also no.
Maybe it could get rolled back in 6 months, but that should depend on the impact and not the fickle whims of the mob.
We could also have just let the Autarch situation slide and see what happened in 6 months instrad of letting the Eldar mob take over.
OR we can look at a situation, know GW is making a stupid decision, and call them out on it. The change isn't good, please just stop defending it.
I guess we'll see.
Case in point, Vipoid always argues the DE characters suck and have no flavour. I disagree, because WLT/Relics allow for buff Archon/choppy archon, multiple choppy Succubi and... well Haemis are a bit meh outside the AoR but vexator mask say is okay etc.
But without this they are just rubbish. An Archon doesn't kill a marine.
And this is true for many other factions. It may not impact tounaments - and perhaps therefore more casual players will just start with few/zero CP. But I think it will obviously make characters lame, and the game less fun as a result.
That isn't a problem with this change though, that is a problem with the characters not being designed well in the first place. No character should NEED artifacts or traits to be viable, regardless of how much they cost or how many players have.
It feels like some armies are being punished hard for the abuses of others.
In my experience, Chaos Knights really want to load up on warlord traits and relics because they just aren't killy/survivable enough without them, given the sheer volume of crazy buffs others can pile on. Now, I have to decide between important upgrades or having enough CP to do basic things like rotate shields (which now costs 2CP for anything bigger than a War Dog). All because Tyranids drop 3 stratagems on a unit at once?
My relationship with tournaments was tenuous, at best. I think I'm done.
In my experience, Chaos Knights really want to load up on warlord traits and relics because they just aren't killy/survivable enough without them, given the sheer volume of crazy buffs others can pile on. Now, I have to decide between important upgrades or having enough CP to do basic things like rotate shields (which now costs 2CP for anything bigger than a War Dog). All because Tyranids drop 3 stratagems on a unit at once?
My relationship with tournaments was tenuous, at best. I think I'm done.
Tyranids don't really do that. In fact, none of the big 3 do. Their datasheets are so good that there's no REASON to waste 3 strats on one unit. Very few units in the game will survive a full dire avenger squad with just 1 buff strat.
The only time you see one of the big meta threats combo strats is if they're firing into a unit with a big DEFENSIVE combo.
The 'people are dumping CP into huge turn 1 alphastrikes!' is mostly a myth at this point.
The Grand Tournament books are actually the only books I buy (plus a single codex despite playing 4 factions in the last year - but I only bring the one faction to tournaments).
Reason:
As a tournament player, I want to signal to GW that I want regular updates to the matched play rules and I'm willing to give them my hard earned cash for those updates.
I also find it easier to look at the maps and missions.
I do however bring my GT2020 (maybe 21?) book as well as my Nachmund because that book has rules in it too. Gee Dubs please fix.
My tournament going buddy doesn't buy the GT books (or codexes) but does know how to spell wahapedia.
Therefore, I am reasonably confident none of the tournaments we go to require the books or he would have been booted out by now.
But, most tournament players on the tables around me have bought the GT book (and usually have their codex too).
Now, on to the points are currently free debate. My understanding is this (question marks for those parts I don't understand):
I buy the Ork codex.
I get a free(?) Warhammer app subscription.
I put the Ork codex code in.
I get Ork points updates.
I don't get to see Dark Eldar or Grey Knights points updates?
I would need to ask to scroll through my Dark Eldar or Grey Knight opponent's Warhammer app subscription to see their points?
Therefore it sounds like things are going to get better for those people not pirating points when this new PDF drops. Some wag might even use the phrase "I am happy that the points are now free" and in a technical way they are correct.
Also, it sounds like the GT pack will be cheaper now that the points book isn't included. This sounds good for me too.
NinthMusketeer wrote: That isn't a problem with this change though, that is a problem with the characters not being designed well in the first place. No character should NEED artifacts or traits to be viable, regardless of how much they cost or how many players have.
If they're good WITHOUT traits/relics they're OP WITH them. The only reason that doesn't happen in Sigmar is because most characters are bad at fighting and most relics are terrible. 'Select one melee weapon you HERO is equipped with..." might as well read 'skip this entry' for how often they're useful.
In my experience, Chaos Knights really want to load up on warlord traits and relics because they just aren't killy/survivable enough without them, given the sheer volume of crazy buffs others can pile on. Now, I have to decide between important upgrades or having enough CP to do basic things like rotate shields (which now costs 2CP for anything bigger than a War Dog). All because Tyranids drop 3 stratagems on a unit at once?
My relationship with tournaments was tenuous, at best. I think I'm done.
Your concerns are relative to the current state of affairs. You have not processed points, secondaries, missions, or even the dataslate that will come out with all of this.
oni wrote: I don't know how to even play this fething game anymore. It's literally changing every few months.
Warhammer Tourney-K is fething awesome; best edition ever.
It isn't changing dramatically. You still have secondaries, but now they'll all be printed in one spot. The mission mechanics aren't difficult, either. The only thing you have to "do" is rewrite your list with less good stuff.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyel wrote: Is it weird I'd almost go the other way? I.E. let every character unlock a WLT/Relic.
Gross. No.
I have a feeling this is going to get FAQed in a few weeks when there's a big internet hate campaign. HQs without toys are incredibly boring, and in a lot of cases very weak.
Also no.
Maybe it could get rolled back in 6 months, but that should depend on the impact and not the fickle whims of the mob.
We could also have just let the Autarch situation slide and see what happened in 6 months instrad of letting the Eldar mob take over.
OR we can look at a situation, know GW is making a stupid decision, and call them out on it. The change isn't good, please just stop defending it.
Generic characters are more than 30$ now and you have to buy multiples unless you magnetize. There's 0 monetary advantage to a player buying 1 55$ Celestine vs. 2-4 40$ Canonesses.
We could also have just let the Autarch situation slide and see what happened in 6 months instrad of letting the Eldar mob take over.
OR we can look at a situation, know GW is making a stupid decision, and call them out on it. The change isn't good, please just stop defending it.
Apples and oranges, dude.
No it's not. It's the same apathetic "wait and see" attitude when it doesn't take someone smarter than a 6th grader to determine "hey GW did the double tap for balance again and it's bad a usual". There's nothing to WAIT AND SEE for. Name one time GW did a double tap for balance and it was a good idea.
NinthMusketeer wrote: That isn't a problem with this change though, that is a problem with the characters not being designed well in the first place. No character should NEED artifacts or traits to be viable, regardless of how much they cost or how many players have.
If they're good WITHOUT traits/relics they're OP WITH them. The only reason that doesn't happen in Sigmar is because most characters are bad at fighting and most relics are terrible. 'Select one melee weapon you HERO is equipped with..." might as well read 'skip this entry' for how often they're useful.
That issue is one that is worked around by proper design. By keeping an eye on traits/artifacts being multiplicative or additive relative to what kind of characters they are going on is is a problem managed quite readily. It isn't all that difficult to design bonuses that do not run into this problem.
Also, to put it diplomatically... maybe avoid using AoS examples.
In my experience, Chaos Knights really want to load up on warlord traits and relics because they just aren't killy/survivable enough without them, given the sheer volume of crazy buffs others can pile on. Now, I have to decide between important upgrades or having enough CP to do basic things like rotate shields (which now costs 2CP for anything bigger than a War Dog). All because Tyranids drop 3 stratagems on a unit at once?
My relationship with tournaments was tenuous, at best. I think I'm done.
Just go to tournaments and use the stratagem for 1CP. If they catch you go 'oops I got a rule wrong' then go back to 1CP the next game. There's no punishment.
LunarSol wrote: The drop to 6 CP seems like a solid change. The removal of the basic WLT and Relic seems like an overcorrection.
Is it weird I'd almost go the other way? I.E. let every character unlock a WLT/Relic.
I have a feeling this is going to get FAQed in a few weeks when there's a big internet hate campaign. HQs without toys are incredibly boring, and in a lot of cases very weak.
If all things were equal...sure.
Of course that would make factions with good traits/relics even better.
The new system at least helps factions who have bad relics/traits as they can skip them, not lose much and comparatively to others gain CP.
Bad is then when datasheets so bad they need relics/traits to work...
LunarSol wrote: The drop to 6 CP seems like a solid change. The removal of the basic WLT and Relic seems like an overcorrection.
Is it weird I'd almost go the other way? I.E. let every character unlock a WLT/Relic.
I have a feeling this is going to get FAQed in a few weeks when there's a big internet hate campaign. HQs without toys are incredibly boring, and in a lot of cases very weak.
I'd be happier if relics were unlimited (any character can have one) but just had points values instead. There's no reason for items like Shardgullet to be the same cost to the player as something like Gestation Sac, and come from the same limited pool.
It also seems like a bit of a waste printing 10-20 relics per faction if people are just taking the same one or two in every game as they're a limited resource.
NinthMusketeer wrote: That isn't a problem with this change though, that is a problem with the characters not being designed well in the first place. No character should NEED artifacts or traits to be viable, regardless of how much they cost or how many players have.
If they're good WITHOUT traits/relics they're OP WITH them. The only reason that doesn't happen in Sigmar is because most characters are bad at fighting and most relics are terrible. 'Select one melee weapon you HERO is equipped with..." might as well read 'skip this entry' for how often they're useful.
That issue is one that is worked around by proper design. By keeping an eye on traits/artifacts being multiplicative or additive relative to what kind of characters they are going on is is a problem managed quite readily. It isn't all that difficult to design bonuses that do not run into this problem.
Also, to put it diplomatically... maybe avoid using AoS examples.
In my experience, Chaos Knights really want to load up on warlord traits and relics because they just aren't killy/survivable enough without them, given the sheer volume of crazy buffs others can pile on. Now, I have to decide between important upgrades or having enough CP to do basic things like rotate shields (which now costs 2CP for anything bigger than a War Dog). All because Tyranids drop 3 stratagems on a unit at once?
My relationship with tournaments was tenuous, at best. I think I'm done.
Just go to tournaments and use the stratagem for 1CP. If they catch you go 'oops I got a rule wrong' then go back to 1CP the next game. There's no punishment.
I just find it interesting how people can make definitive claims about one aspect having X impact on the meta, when we have at least two other big changes in the pipe that we have next to zero information about.
Wait and see is “let’s get the whole picture before judging it based on the bottom left corner”. I fully admit I am not a fan of the no free wlt and relic, but I am a fan of the 6CP limit. I think overall it will be healthier for the game, and the free wlt/relic can be walked back in the next 6 months if people are still upset about it after 3 weeks.
Any further restrictions are always going to hit certain armies more than others, however I genuinely think this will be better for the health of the game in the long run.
We could also have just let the Autarch situation slide and see what happened in 6 months instrad of letting the Eldar mob take over.
OR we can look at a situation, know GW is making a stupid decision, and call them out on it. The change isn't good, please just stop defending it.
Apples and oranges, dude.
No it's not. It's the same apathetic "wait and see" attitude when it doesn't take someone smarter than a 6th grader to determine "hey GW did the double tap for balance again and it's bad a usual". There's nothing to WAIT AND SEE for. Name one time GW did a double tap for balance and it was a good idea.
We could also have just let the Autarch situation slide and see what happened in 6 months instrad of letting the Eldar mob take over.
OR we can look at a situation, know GW is making a stupid decision, and call them out on it. The change isn't good, please just stop defending it.
Apples and oranges, dude.
No it's not. It's the same apathetic "wait and see" attitude when it doesn't take someone smarter than a 6th grader to determine "hey GW did the double tap for balance again and it's bad a usual". There's nothing to WAIT AND SEE for. Name one time GW did a double tap for balance and it was a good idea.
Tyel wrote: Is it weird I'd almost go the other way? I.E. let every character unlock a WLT/Relic.
Gross. No.
Then again you said this. Heaven forbid the characters have some actual flavor behind them!
Getting GW to revise a model's datasheet is not comparable to the community having a gak fit over rules that they haven't even tried.
And nothing is stopping characters from having flavor. You just can't give ALL of them EVEYRTHING. Heaven forbid people have to make descisions.
Decisions would've been made with one fix. It's the same double tap that you've still not given an example where GW was correct on it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also the two examples are completely comparable since you didn't actually try the rules for the limited types of Autarchs you could run. Or did you and found that the wings were too broken with access to the other options?
Leth wrote: I just find it interesting how people can make definitive claims about one aspect having X impact on the meta, when we have at least two other big changes in the pipe that we have next to zero information about.
Wait and see is “let’s get the whole picture before judging it based on the bottom left corner”. I fully admit I am not a fan of the no free wlt and relic, but I am a fan of the 6CP limit. I think overall it will be healthier for the game, and the free wlt/relic can be walked back in the next 6 months if people are still upset about it after 3 weeks.
Any further restrictions are always going to hit certain armies more than others, however I genuinely think this will be better for the health of the game in the long run.
That's part of the problem. They're changing so many things at once it's impossible to tell what did what and how to fix it if it creates problems.
Say Eldar shoot up to 80% winrate after this; is it the mission changes, secondary changes, point changes, cp changes, or relic/wt changes that did it?
Leth wrote: I just find it interesting how people can make definitive claims about one aspect having X impact on the meta, when we have at least two other big changes in the pipe that we have next to zero information about.
Wait and see is “let’s get the whole picture before judging it based on the bottom left corner”. I fully admit I am not a fan of the no free wlt and relic, but I am a fan of the 6CP limit. I think overall it will be healthier for the game, and the free wlt/relic can be walked back in the next 6 months if people are still upset about it after 3 weeks.
Any further restrictions are always going to hit certain armies more than others, however I genuinely think this will be better for the health of the game in the long run.
That's part of the problem. They're changing so many things at once it's impossible to tell what did what and how to fix it if it creates problems.
Say Eldar shoot up to 80% winrate after this; is it the mission changes, secondary changes, point changes, cp changes, or relic/wt changes that did it?
Whilst I understand all of this and agree if you look at what 40k fans complain about:
- Too many strats stacking buffs
- Complex army building
- Stale missions
- Late turns not mattering
- Imbalanced Secondaries
- Unbalanced lists
They've basically gone down that list and ticked them off.
Leth wrote: I just find it interesting how people can make definitive claims about one aspect having X impact on the meta, when we have at least two other big changes in the pipe that we have next to zero information about.
Wait and see is “let’s get the whole picture before judging it based on the bottom left corner”. I fully admit I am not a fan of the no free wlt and relic, but I am a fan of the 6CP limit. I think overall it will be healthier for the game, and the free wlt/relic can be walked back in the next 6 months if people are still upset about it after 3 weeks.
Any further restrictions are always going to hit certain armies more than others, however I genuinely think this will be better for the health of the game in the long run.
That's part of the problem. They're changing so many things at once it's impossible to tell what did what and how to fix it if it creates problems.
Say Eldar shoot up to 80% winrate after this; is it the mission changes, secondary changes, point changes, cp changes, or relic/wt changes that did it?
You know, this is a very good point. Robin Cruddace apparently has a PhD in physics. Yet he has demonstrated repeatedly that he (and the rest of the rules team) has a very tenuous grasp on probability and statistics, and now, it seems he (and the rest of the rules team) don't have much in the way of comprehension of the scientific method either.
Why is it that GW throws the incrementalism out the window when it affects all factions? It seems to me they have it backwards. I'd rather see significant nerfs/buffs to individual factions (and especially datasheets) and incremental changes to the core rules. That seems like the way to make a living edition IMO.
Leth wrote: I just find it interesting how people can make definitive claims about one aspect having X impact on the meta, when we have at least two other big changes in the pipe that we have next to zero information about.
Wait and see is “let’s get the whole picture before judging it based on the bottom left corner”. I fully admit I am not a fan of the no free wlt and relic, but I am a fan of the 6CP limit. I think overall it will be healthier for the game, and the free wlt/relic can be walked back in the next 6 months if people are still upset about it after 3 weeks.
Any further restrictions are always going to hit certain armies more than others, however I genuinely think this will be better for the health of the game in the long run.
That's part of the problem. They're changing so many things at once it's impossible to tell what did what and how to fix it if it creates problems.
Say Eldar shoot up to 80% winrate after this; is it the mission changes, secondary changes, point changes, cp changes, or relic/wt changes that did it?
You know, this is a very good point. Robin Cruddace apparently has a PhD in physics. Yet he has demonstrated repeatedly that he (and the rest of the rules team) has a very tenuous grasp on probability and statistics, and now, it seems he (and the rest of the rules team) don't have much in the way of comprehension of the scientific method either.
Why is it that GW throws the incrementalism out the window when it affects all factions? It seems to me they have it backwards. I'd rather see significant nerfs/buffs to individual factions (and especially datasheets) and incremental changes to the core rules. That seems like the way to make a living edition IMO.
GW doesn't want a living edition.
They want us dissatisfied enough with the current edition to welcome a new all-different issues version every 3 years.
Leth wrote: I just find it interesting how people can make definitive claims about one aspect having X impact on the meta, when we have at least two other big changes in the pipe that we have next to zero information about.
Wait and see is “let’s get the whole picture before judging it based on the bottom left corner”. I fully admit I am not a fan of the no free wlt and relic, but I am a fan of the 6CP limit. I think overall it will be healthier for the game, and the free wlt/relic can be walked back in the next 6 months if people are still upset about it after 3 weeks.
Any further restrictions are always going to hit certain armies more than others, however I genuinely think this will be better for the health of the game in the long run.
That's part of the problem. They're changing so many things at once it's impossible to tell what did what and how to fix it if it creates problems.
Say Eldar shoot up to 80% winrate after this; is it the mission changes, secondary changes, point changes, cp changes, or relic/wt changes that did it?
Whilst I understand all of this and agree if you look at what 40k fans complain about:
- Too many strats stacking buffs
- Complex army building
- Stale missions
- Late turns not mattering
- Imbalanced Secondaries
- Unbalanced lists
They've basically gone down that list and ticked them off.
They've TRIED to tick them off. Cutting down CP doesn't necessarily mean stacking strats is gone, it just means it happens less often in a single game. It's entirely possible that buff stacking becomes the ONLY use of stratagems after this change (which, contrary to popular opinions, is not the case right now) as it's generally the most efficient way to spend points.
Complex army building...well I guess "1 Battalion, no seasoning" is less complex.
Stale missions: We haven't seen the new missions yet, and rumors are they're doing 'get X CP for doing Y thing' to them, which in my opinion would make them worse.
Late Turns not Mattering: This is 100% intent, not execution. There's just as much of an argument that games will be decided even faster (less defensive aura relics, less transhumans, easier to drain resources, easier to flop an alphastrike and get your teeth knocked out on the crackback). My personal opinion is that games will be decided a half turn faster than before, but that remains to be seen.
Imbalanced Secondaries: This one seems pretty successful so far. TTL and Stranglehold were balls to deal with against some lists and the previewed faction ones seem fine. The best change I've seen so far.
Unbalanced lists: Unfortunately, the CP changes combine with the point changes in such a way that it's completely impossible to predict if the game will end up more or less balanced than before. Nerfs could be canceled out by being on the favorable end of the CP changes, buffs could be canceled out by lacking relics/WTs or 'win more' mission design, etc.
Decisions would've been made with one fix. It's the same double tap that you've still not given an example where GW was correct on it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also the two examples are completely comparable since you didn't actually try the rules for the limited types of Autarchs you could run. Or did you and found that the wings were too broken with access to the other options?
I have absolutely no idea what this double tap thing is you're asking me to give an example on.
GW promoted the autarch as fitting with the old kit and gave art that showcased it, but rules that were polar opposite from that. It has nothing to do with the power of the model.
Decisions would've been made with one fix. It's the same double tap that you've still not given an example where GW was correct on it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also the two examples are completely comparable since you didn't actually try the rules for the limited types of Autarchs you could run. Or did you and found that the wings were too broken with access to the other options?
I have absolutely no idea what this double tap thing is you're asking me to give an example on.
GW promoted the autarch as fitting with the old kit and gave art that showcased it, but rules that were polar opposite from that. It has nothing to do with the power of the model.
GW hits something with the nerf hammer twice, never just once. It's been talked about in this thread, and many others.
You know, this is a very good point. Robin Cruddace apparently has a PhD in physics. Yet he has demonstrated repeatedly that he (and the rest of the rules team) has a very tenuous grasp on probability and statistics, and now, it seems he (and the rest of the rules team) don't have much in the way of comprehension of the scientific method either.
Why is it that GW throws the incrementalism out the window when it affects all factions? It seems to me they have it backwards. I'd rather see significant nerfs/buffs to individual factions (and especially datasheets) and incremental changes to the core rules. That seems like the way to make a living edition IMO.
Look at how mad people continue to be about DE not getting more heavily nerfed earlier on.
Incremental change for individual items is good. Sweeping change for all is also fine. Did Ro3 hurt everyone in the same way?
There's a lot of supposition that the changes help the better factions without knowing what else those factions face for hurdles.
If the edition had started with no free relic and WLT we wouldn't be discussing this, because everyone would be starting from that position. And they're STILL starting from the same position, but some people simply don't like change.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EviscerationPlague wrote: GW hits something with the nerf hammer twice, never just once. It's been talked about in this thread, and many others.
I guess I missed the part of the conversation.
I don't quite understand the concern with multiple passes on balance changes to try and prevent over correcting as it seems they have done with Admech and Custodes ( to a lesser degree ).
In my experience, Chaos Knights really want to load up on warlord traits and relics because they just aren't killy/survivable enough without them, given the sheer volume of crazy buffs others can pile on. Now, I have to decide between important upgrades or having enough CP to do basic things like rotate shields (which now costs 2CP for anything bigger than a War Dog). All because Tyranids drop 3 stratagems on a unit at once?
My relationship with tournaments was tenuous, at best. I think I'm done.
Just go to tournaments and use the stratagem for 1CP. If they catch you go 'oops I got a rule wrong' then go back to 1CP the next game. There's no punishment.
Did... you just suggest cheating?
Combination of tongue-in-cheek and exasperation at how much of the tourney scene condones cheating in all but name.
EviscerationPlague wrote: GW hits something with the nerf hammer twice, never just once. It's been talked about in this thread, and many others.
I guess I missed the part of the conversation.
I don't quite understand the concern with multiple passes on balance changes to try and prevent over correcting as it seems they have done with Admech and Custodes ( to a lesser degree ).
In this case, the question is whether the swing is too far on the CP side of things.
Two changes have been applied in this GT pack:
- Reduction in the starting number of CPs - Free WLT & Relic replaced with 1CP stratagems for each
If you were talking about taking multiple passes to balance things out, you'd normally start with one or the other, not both - then assess the impact of that change. Has balance improved sufficiently? Awesome, move on. If not, try the other, probably rolling back the first. If, following another test cycle, you're still not happy, then you try both.
If you drop both changes at the same time, it makes it hard to see which is having what impact on the game - and that's before factoring the various other changes in the pack (like the secondaries and points).
I mean you can do that type of nitpicking separation if you like. However if the change is “starting with significantly less CP” then it is one goal via multiple changes.
Like the dataslate was “reduced lethality in the game” and so that was accomplished via multiple changes at the same time.
It’s fine to not like a change, it’s an opinion overall. I don’t like it, but I also can see why overall it *helps* with solving a lot of problems that we see in competitive play: which is who the tournament pack is designed for.
If it goes to far? Can be reverted in 6 months or via a dataslate sooner. I would rather see what happens since we don’t even know what lists will look like(don’t even have points or secondaries yet). Hard for me to take any declarations of outcomes seriously.
Whole point of the mission packs is to mix things up and prevent it from getting stale. Did people think everyone other than them would be the one doing the changes?
Leth wrote: I just find it interesting how people can make definitive claims about one aspect having X impact on the meta, when we have at least two other big changes in the pipe that we have next to zero information about.
Wait and see is “let’s get the whole picture before judging it based on the bottom left corner”. I fully admit I am not a fan of the no free wlt and relic, but I am a fan of the 6CP limit. I think overall it will be healthier for the game, and the free wlt/relic can be walked back in the next 6 months if people are still upset about it after 3 weeks.
Any further restrictions are always going to hit certain armies more than others, however I genuinely think this will be better for the health of the game in the long run.
That's part of the problem. They're changing so many things at once it's impossible to tell what did what and how to fix it if it creates problems.
Say Eldar shoot up to 80% winrate after this; is it the mission changes, secondary changes, point changes, cp changes, or relic/wt changes that did it?
You know, this is a very good point. Robin Cruddace apparently has a PhD in physics. Yet he has demonstrated repeatedly that he (and the rest of the rules team) has a very tenuous grasp on probability and statistics, and now, it seems he (and the rest of the rules team) don't have much in the way of comprehension of the scientific method either.
Why is it that GW throws the incrementalism out the window when it affects all factions? It seems to me they have it backwards. I'd rather see significant nerfs/buffs to individual factions (and especially datasheets) and incremental changes to the core rules. That seems like the way to make a living edition IMO.
Most of the games industry is like this these days (or seems to be). Sometimes I think its a reaction to nerdy 'origins' of the modern games industry in the 70s/80s (yes, yes, wargames are older, but I'm talking about the modern businesses), and an industry-wide move away from accounting and statistics as a core part of games. Paizo actively suspended (and in a few cases, banned) people from their forums for focusing on the math and statistics of the playtests of pathfinder 1 and 2, and demanded play anecdotes instead. WotC did so poorly with 4th edition D&D's skill challenge system that they revised it at least 7 times before admitting they didn't actually use that system in house.
I find it baffling to not focusing on the statistics of the math parts of a system, but I keep seeing it, particularly in the bigger companies in the industry.
I think a big part of it is that we kind of saw the limits of pushing how "fair" we can make games. As much as I am a competitive player at heart, I've come to recognize that when you focus too much on mathematical balance, its easy to lose sight of game feel and end up with something that might be fair, but isn't really all the fun. You narrow your design options down to very safe choices and drain the experience of a lot of its excitement.
As much as the hardcore crowd drives the game and keeps it in the spotlight, it doesn't really thrive unless it charms the masses and unfortunately, the hardcore crowd tends to demand a lot of the charm be stripped away. For example, I've been getting back to fighting games and while streamed matches are fun to watch, when you get to playing and realize that no one will play on anything other than training stage or else they might have a slightly suboptimal chance of victory.... it kind of kills some of the fun.
I think the whole gaming industry kind of experienced this as of late, whether it be e-sports, or miniatures, or tabletop RPGs. The pursuit of technical perfection not really being worth the investment. Right now, we seem to be seeing a lot of attempts at finding a middle ground. Currently that seems to be a lot of Flavor of the Month design, but I think the real solution seems to be a lot looser overall structure that relies more on game feel than hard numbers.
Leth wrote: I mean you can do that type of nitpicking separation if you like. However if the change is “starting with significantly less CP” then it is one goal via multiple changes.
Like the dataslate was “reduced lethality in the game” and so that was accomplished via multiple changes at the same time.
It’s fine to not like a change, it’s an opinion overall. I don’t like it, but I also can see why overall it *helps* with solving a lot of problems that we see in competitive play: which is who the tournament pack is designed for.
If it goes to far? Can be reverted in 6 months or via a dataslate sooner. I would rather see what happens since we don’t even know what lists will look like(don’t even have points or secondaries yet). Hard for me to take any declarations of outcomes seriously.
Whole point of the mission packs is to mix things up and prevent it from getting stale. Did people think everyone other than them would be the one doing the changes?
You're kind of sidestepping the point. CP isn't the only thing that changed. We'll be having changes to Points, missions, and secondaries as well. If the game gets less balance as a result of the changes, specifically if it gets DANGEROUSLY less balanced like pre-nerf harlequins or Nids if they hadn't axed Crusher Stampede, what change do they revert? What screwed up the balance? How do they tell definitively?
If Nids suddenly start scoring 40-45 secondary points consistently across all lists is that because the rebalanced secondaries are too easy or is it because the changes to mission primary facilitate the Nids gameplan enough that they don't need to invest as many resources in scoring it and can focus more energy on secondaries?
EviscerationPlague wrote: GW hits something with the nerf hammer twice, never just once. It's been talked about in this thread, and many others.
I guess I missed the part of the conversation.
I don't quite understand the concern with multiple passes on balance changes to try and prevent over correcting as it seems they have done with Admech and Custodes ( to a lesser degree ).
In this case, the question is whether the swing is too far on the CP side of things.
Two changes have been applied in this GT pack:
- Reduction in the starting number of CPs - Free WLT & Relic replaced with 1CP stratagems for each
If you were talking about taking multiple passes to balance things out, you'd normally start with one or the other, not both - then assess the impact of that change. Has balance improved sufficiently? Awesome, move on. If not, try the other, probably rolling back the first. If, following another test cycle, you're still not happy, then you try both.
If you drop both changes at the same time, it makes it hard to see which is having what impact on the game - and that's before factoring the various other changes in the pack (like the secondaries and points).
That helps to clarify - thanks.
I think this logic is working on the expectation that these two changes hold the same goal. One reduces the pool of CP available at the start of a game. The other reduces the prevalence of relics and traits. That buying into traits and relics also reduces your starting CP is a consequence, but not necessarily the ultimate goal since you as a player have the choice to not reduce your CP pool further.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ERJAK wrote: You're kind of sidestepping the point. CP isn't the only thing that changed. We'll be having changes to Points, missions, and secondaries as well. If the game gets less balance as a result of the changes, specifically if it gets DANGEROUSLY less balanced like pre-nerf harlequins or Nids if they hadn't axed Crusher Stampede, what change do they revert? What screwed up the balance? How do they tell definitively?
If Nids suddenly start scoring 40-45 secondary points consistently across all lists is that because the rebalanced secondaries are too easy or is it because the changes to mission primary facilitate the Nids gameplan enough that they don't need to invest as many resources in scoring it and can focus more energy on secondaries?
The common outcome seems to be that secondaries will be less likely to be maxed. The armies that could max them would be the ones who had easy ways to remove models off an objective and quick units to score stranglehold. Additionally, the interactivity of the secondaries is increasing like with the Guard stuff or with Engage requiring a deeper committal to the table quarter.
This tells me that secondaries aren't likely to throw the game for a loop.
Missions are pretty faction agnostic and I don't expect any element there to upset the game even if one or two are stinkers since we have 9 to choose from.
So that leaves points and that only becomes problematic if GW goes too heavy or to light depending on faction.
Daedalus81 wrote: I think this logic is working on the expectation that these two changes hold the same goal. One reduces the pool of CP available at the start of a game. The other reduces the prevalence of relics and traits. That buying into traits and relics also reduces your starting CP is a consequence, but not necessarily the ultimate goal since you as a player have the choice to not reduce your CP pool further.
I think these aren't even both changes intended to reduce the starting CP Rule, although they have the complimentary effect.
Making all Warlord Traits and Relics cost CP is a way of reducing the power level of the game since taking the first one of each cost a limited resource. The fact that that resource is even more precious than it was before could easily be seen as a bonus effect. Is this relic worth 1/6 of your starting CP is a much bigger question than is it worth 1/12 of your starting CP.
Then there is the extra constraint regarding that detachment choice. Spending half your CP budget to avoid having a Patrol, Battalion or Brigade is a much costlier decision. So is adding that second detachment if the main purpose was to bring a second one-per-detachment model and stacking Warlord Traits and Relics on it.
Daedalus81 wrote: I think this logic is working on the expectation that these two changes hold the same goal. One reduces the pool of CP available at the start of a game. The other reduces the prevalence of relics and traits. That buying into traits and relics also reduces your starting CP is a consequence, but not necessarily the ultimate goal since you as a player have the choice to not reduce your CP pool further.
I think these aren't even both changes intended to reduce the starting CP Rule, although they have the complimentary effect.
Making all Warlord Traits and Relics cost CP is a way of reducing the power level of the game since taking the first one of each cost a limited resource. The fact that that resource is even more precious than it was before could easily be seen as a bonus effect. Is this relic worth 1/6 of your starting CP is a much bigger question than is it worth 1/12 of your starting CP.
Then there is the extra constraint regarding that detachment choice. Spending half your CP budget to avoid having a Patrol, Battalion or Brigade is a much costlier decision. So is adding that second detachment if the main purpose was to bring a second one-per-detachment model and stacking Warlord Traits and Relics on it.
I think the problem is you are fighting a subjective opinion.
My opposition isn't in balance. Its in interest. Freely available WLT/Relics allowed for making characters "your dudes", since the scope for doing so had largely been taken out of the datasheets.
"Its fine, in competitive games you only ever saw the same combos and 90% might never have been printed" isn't really a response either. If you want a reduction in power, nerf the good ones. (This arguably also applies to people using a bunch of CP over turns 1 and 2.)
Instead we are doubling down on the cookie cutter or nothing.
There is a good chance these include typos, like - being flipped to + There also is a non-zero chance that the marine one is a troll post as it has been made by a different account than the others.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Same poster as DG and Custodes:
SoB point changes
40k Discussion
Battle Sisters -1
Repentias +2
Battle Sisters -1
Dogmata+5
Imagifier-10
Repentias +2
Seraphim -2
Zephyrim -2
Sacresants -1
Celestians -1
Immolator -5
Decent changes, an average list going down in points or staying the same despite top armies getting nerfed.
Tyel wrote: I think the problem is you are fighting a subjective opinion.
My opposition isn't in balance. Its in interest. Freely available WLT/Relics allowed for making characters "your dudes", since the scope for doing so had largely been taken out of the datasheets.
"Its fine, in competitive games you only ever saw the same combos and 90% might never have been printed" isn't really a response either. If you want a reduction in power, nerf the good ones. (This arguably also applies to people using a bunch of CP over turns 1 and 2.)
Instead we are doubling down on the cookie cutter or nothing.
But that isn't correct. You can still take them. You just need to deal with the cost of going all in on them.
The points aside from the marines look sane though I am not sure how I feel about the PBC being cheaper than my Vindicator, but it isn't crazy.
Custodes points were anticipated - those lists were doing well, BUT here's hoping maybe they peel back something from the dataslate. If any of this is true, of course.
Let's see, my tanks cost me 
. My 
