40509
Post by: G00fySmiley
https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/UeSNmXryOfMolf39.pdf
As an ork player. the waagh was an unexpected buff, and the buggy changes were great no more clunky vehicle squadrons just plain rule of 3 with extra steps. Still nothing addressing morale issues which is very frustrating. I think we have the mortal wound spam list getting better, the goff list a big winner here... but codex internal balance still terrible and most units and builds are F tier. I look at what they did with space marines with armor of contempt and these changes, plus other armies like Necrons that got some huge buffs and wonder why GW will not put the effort into Orks (or listening to their play testers telling them what orks need and ignoring all feedback)
105913
Post by: MinscS2
I'm more inclined to give my IG another go, but the core problem remains (playing around objectves), and probably won't be fixed until they get a new codex.
I don't fault GW for not being able to fix them with just some bandaid-slates and pointadjustments though.
13740
Post by: Valkyrie
Had 2 Baneblades, an Octoblade and a Stormhammer collecting dust for years, looks like it's the best time to run a Super-Heavy Detachment.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
MinscS2 wrote:I'm more inclined to give my IG another go, but the core problem remains (playing around objectves), and probably won't be fixed until they get a new codex.
I don't fault GW for not being able to fix them with just some bandaid-slates and pointadjustments though.
I think the secondaries will give IG some life.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
They reversed one of the most fluffy Tyranid rules ever devised, and made is so that if our Warlord is killed we lose one of our armies key army wide abilities.
95410
Post by: ERJAK
No balance slate nerfs and some reasonable points drops alongside good secondary selection.
More than I could have hoped for after the dumpster fire that Feb-March were.
I am content.
97198
Post by: Nazrak
I'm not overly fussy about "competitiveness" or whatever, but for my Necrons I'm going to bother paying attention to Command Protocols for the first time, and – combined with the point changes – I'm feeling inclined to dig out my Orks for the first time since the 9E Codex arrived.
120227
Post by: Karol
The NDKs, a model I don't own, don't want to own and don't like, still does not get AoC. Not much balancing, specialy of the stuff I like, but at the same time no nerf, which is a huge plus.
65298
Post by: Afrodactyl
Compared to the kicking Orks took a little while back, we've done very well over the last two announcements.
It could be better, but it's a big step toward getting us out of low WR% hell.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Afrodactyl wrote:Compared to the kicking Orks took a little while back, we've done very well over the last two announcements.
It could be better, but it's a big step toward getting us out of low WR% hell.
And the more important takeaway, I think is that GW is willing to walk back nerfs.
106383
Post by: JNAProductions
I play Daemons, so…
7637
Post by: Sasori
Not a fan of what they did to Nids, but overall I'm pretty happy. They reigned in a lot of issues, and gave out some very generous boosts between this + Points + Secondaries to a lot of armies.
Overall, I'm pretty happy that they are taking this kind of an active role and are not afraid to make major changes.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Daemons are potentially the only red headed step child. GSC were poor into Nids and Harlies, but great into Elves and ok into Tau.
Pure daemons were also rough with the top 3, but did well into Elves and really well into other lower tier armies. It gets muddy when you throw in soup. It could be that with secondaries the army will be survivable with WR currently in the 43%ish bracket.
With the nerfs to the top they could be "fine", but not great.
121430
Post by: ccs
Nazrak wrote:I'm not overly fussy about "competitiveness" or whatever, but for my Necrons I'm going to bother paying attention to Command Protocols for the first time,
I'm in the same boat. I think I've run a Noble twice here in 9e. So I've spent the last two years paying virtually zero attention to the Protocols.
I also have to go measure my old 3e Monolith. See if I can squeeze it + a character into the "wholly within range" of a VoD.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
The new monolith is pretty similar in dimensions to the old one so I would think Veil is likely still no go there.
121430
Post by: ccs
Daedalus81 wrote:The new monolith is pretty similar in dimensions to the old one so I would think Veil is likely still no go there.
Still, it doesn't cost me anything to check when I get home.
131792
Post by: CadianSgtBob
2+ save AoC Baneblades, I'll take it. Maybe they won't be a complete liability even in casual games now?
53939
Post by: vipoid
Let's see:
Dark Eldar - zzzzzzZZZZZ. No changes to their characters even though the CP change cripples them because they're absolute garbage without relics or warlord traits (a fact many posters here repeatedly assured me was irrelevant bEcAuSe WhY wOuLdN't YoU gIvE tHeM rElIcS?). I hope you all like Drazhar because I suspect you'll be seeing an awful lot more of him (albeit not from me because I have no interest special characters). Also no help for the units that never see play, but I guess that's a given at this point.
They were my favourite army for a long time but it's really getting hard to maintain any enthusiasm for them. However strong they might be, the rules continue to bore me to sleep.
Necrons - Command Protocols are a good deal less obnoxious, which is very nice. I also like that you can choose one bonus and leave it on for the entire game, for when you don't feel like faffing about. Also got some nice point drops (albeit ones that make certain wargear entirely pointless). Funnily enough, Necrons have almost the opposite problem as DE - too many HQs I want to use, not enough slots for them.
Very tempted to give them a shot.
Ynnari - No chance, still unplayable.
113969
Post by: TangoTwoBravo
Scions getting Hammer of the Emperor is a nice change, along Armour of Contempt counting for Astra Militarum vehicles.
119380
Post by: Blndmage
*CACKLES IN RAD WREATHED SPYDERS AND SCARABS*
Melt before me!!!!!
3*3 Spyders w/ beamers
3*9 Scarabs
3*3 Technomancer
That's only 64PL!!
OMG...
Command Protocols don't require BATTLEFORGED!!!
I CAN RUN ALL MY SCARABS
9*9 SCARABS
1*3 SCARABS
56PL
+SPYDERS
+TECHNOMANCER
106PL
Ok, drop one full Scarab squad
and it's under 2,000 points!
I'll gladly never have to deal with CPs or Strats to run all my Scarabs! Automatically Appended Next Post: ccs wrote: Daedalus81 wrote:The new monolith is pretty similar in dimensions to the old one so I would think Veil is likely still no go there.
Still, it doesn't cost me anything to check when I get home.
There's a rare rules section that covers this, you can do it!
45234
Post by: Void__Dragon
Daedalus81 wrote:
Daemons are potentially the only red headed step child. GSC were poor into Nids and Harlies, but great into Elves and ok into Tau.
Pure daemons were also rough with the top 3, but did well into Elves and really well into other lower tier armies. It gets muddy when you throw in soup. It could be that with secondaries the army will be survivable with WR currently in the 43%ish bracket.
With the nerfs to the top they could be "fine", but not great.
Yeah right, after Nephilim just gutted their builds more than any other faction on top of not giving them a single buff to a codex unit I'm sure they'll be doing "okay".
121430
Post by: ccs
Blndmage wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ccs wrote: Daedalus81 wrote:The new monolith is pretty similar in dimensions to the old one so I would think Veil is likely still no go there.
Still, it doesn't cost me anything to check when I get home.
There's a rare rules section that covers this, you can do it!
I don't think you understand what's being discussed/joked about.
If the rule you're alluding to is the one concerning large models disembarking? No, it will not work. Because there is no disembarking going on when using a VoD.
119380
Post by: Blndmage
ccs wrote: Blndmage wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ccs wrote: Daedalus81 wrote:The new monolith is pretty similar in dimensions to the old one so I would think Veil is likely still no go there.
Still, it doesn't cost me anything to check when I get home.
There's a rare rules section that covers this, you can do it!
I don't think you understand what's being discussed/joked about.
If the rule you're alluding to is the one concerning large models disembarking? No, it will not work. Because there is no disembarking going on when using a VoD.
There's a rule about setting up large models and them not being able to shoot and basically do much aside from abilities for the turn.
11
Post by: ph34r
So, does this mean Armageddon Steel Legion vehicles count AP -2 as AP 0 because armor of contempt means AP -2 is treated as AP -1 and the doctrine Armageddon: Industrial Efficiency AP -1 is treated as AP 0?
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Void__Dragon wrote: Daedalus81 wrote:
Daemons are potentially the only red headed step child. GSC were poor into Nids and Harlies, but great into Elves and ok into Tau.
Pure daemons were also rough with the top 3, but did well into Elves and really well into other lower tier armies. It gets muddy when you throw in soup. It could be that with secondaries the army will be survivable with WR currently in the 43%ish bracket.
With the nerfs to the top they could be "fine", but not great.
Yeah right, after Nephilim just gutted their builds more than any other faction on top of not giving them a single buff to a codex unit I'm sure they'll be doing "okay".
There's a person from almost every faction saying that they were totally screwed over by the CP changes, so...you'll have to forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical of the doomposting.
120227
Post by: Karol
there is screwed over, being forced to rebuild and army. And there is not being able to build a working army. IF got screwed over by 9th. Imperial Knights got killed by 9th ed.
Having 6CP as GK or Custodes and having to pay for warlord traits is bad, but the same thing for knights, specialy if someone had an army build around multiple traits is an army killer.
116670
Post by: Ordana
Daemon got screwed but atleast they still have a codex coming.
GW just completely forgot GSC existed.
Again.
106125
Post by: JakeSiren
Daedalus81 wrote: Void__Dragon wrote: Daedalus81 wrote:
Daemons are potentially the only red headed step child. GSC were poor into Nids and Harlies, but great into Elves and ok into Tau.
Pure daemons were also rough with the top 3, but did well into Elves and really well into other lower tier armies. It gets muddy when you throw in soup. It could be that with secondaries the army will be survivable with WR currently in the 43%ish bracket.
With the nerfs to the top they could be "fine", but not great.
Yeah right, after Nephilim just gutted their builds more than any other faction on top of not giving them a single buff to a codex unit I'm sure they'll be doing "okay".
There's a person from almost every faction saying that they were totally screwed over by the CP changes, so...you'll have to forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical of the doomposting.
The big issue for Chaos Daemons is that the competitive builds focused around spamming Exalted Greater Daemons. The limitation to 6CP drastically reigns that option in. Competitive Chaos Daemons don't have any other viable builds.
In my experience, trying to play a well rounded list with Chaos Daemons just feels bad. Guard and Tau shoot you off the table before you can do anything. Space Marines have less shooting, but many close combat attacks - point for point, Intercessors out punch Bloodcrushers. Intercessors aren't even a dedicated Melee unit and Bloodcrushers are!
94850
Post by: nekooni
ph34r wrote:So, does this mean Armageddon Steel Legion vehicles count AP -2 as AP 0 because armor of contempt means AP -2 is treated as AP -1 and the doctrine Armageddon: Industrial Efficiency AP -1 is treated as AP 0?
Unless I'm missing something: No - Armageddon vehicles do not get AoC due to their trait.
Aoc excludes "Models that are under the effects of any other rule that worsens or reduces the Armour Penetration characteristic of an attack".
All Armageddon vehicles have a rule that reduces AP.
That's why all the other AoC subfactions (eg Salamanders) got similar traits replaced with "you can't reroll a wound reroll vs units of this subfaction" basically.
That being said I expect them to fix this rather quickly, this has to be accidental. I expect them to get the same no-rerolls-rule as everyone else got
27903
Post by: Leo_the_Rat
ph34r wrote:So, does this mean Armageddon Steel Legion vehicles count AP -2 as AP 0 because armor of contempt means AP -2 is treated as AP -1 and the doctrine Armageddon: Industrial Efficiency AP -1 is treated as AP 0?
No. Check the last exception to Armor of Contempt. If your model already has a rule to reduce AP then you can't use AoC. In your example you can't use AoC since you already have a rule to reduce AP (as you wrote it).
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
Lol rip Armageddon
94850
Post by: nekooni
Worst tanks of the Imperial Guard now - not sure how they missed that, though
121430
Post by: ccs
Blndmage wrote:ccs wrote: Blndmage wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ccs wrote: Daedalus81 wrote:The new monolith is pretty similar in dimensions to the old one so I would think Veil is likely still no go there.
Still, it doesn't cost me anything to check when I get home.
There's a rare rules section that covers this, you can do it!
I don't think you understand what's being discussed/joked about.
If the rule you're alluding to is the one concerning large models disembarking? No, it will not work. Because there is no disembarking going on when using a VoD.
There's a rule about setting up large models and them not being able to shoot and basically do much aside from abilities for the turn.
There isn't. At least nothing that will get around the VoD "wholly within" stipulations.
If you continue to claim otherwise then show it to me. A link to the relevant Wahapedia section, a link to the FAQ/Designers Commentary/Errata, a scan of the page from the book where it appears, or cite the specific book/page#/& rule.
11
Post by: ph34r
Maybe it's splitting hairs, but Armageddon Steel Legion doesn't "reduce" AP but but rather treats 1 as 0.
Otherwise being Armageddon makes you weaker against AP because AoC works on all AP not just -1?
I guess maybe that's just how it is, don't take Armageddon? Hah
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
And remember kids: Contempt will make your armour stronger, unless you have a shield. Shields are the natural enemy of contempt!
113031
Post by: Voss
nekooni wrote:
Worst tanks of the Imperial Guard now - not sure how they missed that, though
Eight guesses about who _isn't_ going to be in the next codex, but I suspect you'll only need one.
---
Really, though. I don't think the new codex will have the existing <regiments>. They don't sell most of those models anymore, and frankly paint=rules is bad enough. Uniform design=rules is even worse.
Yeah, its an oversight for now, but I don't think they care very much.
45234
Post by: Void__Dragon
Daedalus81 wrote:
There's a person from almost every faction saying that they were totally screwed over by the CP changes, so...you'll have to forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical of the doomposting.
You'd have to be on some next-level GW-shilling delusion to not think an army that spent at minimum like five CP before Nephilim won't be disproportionately impacted by a ruleset that cuts starting CP in half and forces you to pay a CP for your first WT and Relic. There's playing devil's advocate and then there's accusing people concerned that their already bad nearly monobuild army that didn't get a single buff in the balance dataslate or points update got further nerfed by Nephilim are "doomposting".
Try to be objective for once in your life and admit that Daemons players (and GSC players tbh) have every right to be pissed off about how their army is being treated.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Void__Dragon wrote: Daedalus81 wrote:
There's a person from almost every faction saying that they were totally screwed over by the CP changes, so...you'll have to forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical of the doomposting.
You'd have to be on some next-level GW-shilling delusion to not think an army that spent at minimum like five CP before Nephilim won't be disproportionately impacted by a ruleset that cuts starting CP in half and forces you to pay a CP for your first WT and Relic. There's playing devil's advocate and then there's accusing people concerned that their already bad nearly monobuild army that didn't get a single buff in the balance dataslate or points update got further nerfed by Nephilim are "doomposting".
Try to be objective for once in your life and admit that Daemons players (and GSC players tbh) have every right to be pissed off about how their army is being treated.
Objective. " GW-shilling delusion". No irony there.
Of all the people not being objective I would imagine it's the ones concerned about their personal army.
Everyone is under the same guidelines and GSC were not bottom of the barrel win rates like Admech. If GSC loses some tools and other armies lose some tools and also take a bunch of nerfs...
Maybe you'll be right. Time will tell.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Just because you phrase it differently doesn't mean you aren't just saying "Wait and see".
43573
Post by: vict0988
H.B.M.C. wrote:Just because you phrase it differently doesn't mean you aren't just saying "Wait and see".
I don't think what Daedalus said is the same thing as saying that underpowered Daemons units shouldn't have been buffed. There are probably quite a few that could get a 10% price reduction without much risk and a small number where 20% wouldn't be a problem. Like Brimstone Horrors, the godawful anti-Psyker thing is still in the new mission set right?
113031
Post by: Voss
H.B.M.C. wrote:And remember kids: Contempt will make your armour stronger, unless you have a shield. Shields are the natural enemy of contempt!
Sure. If you're hiding behind a shield, its proof that you're afraid, not contemptuous.
120478
Post by: ArcaneHorror
Personally, I think that giving the Death Guard terminators obsec at least partially makes up for the increase in points price, as now it will be much easier for the Death Guard to hold objectives.
119289
Post by: Not Online!!!
Ordana wrote:Daemon got screwed but atleast they still have a codex coming.
GW just completely forgot GSC existed.
Again.
TBF, the implant being basically obligatory as were multiple trait stacking wasn't particulary healthy.
Further we actually still have upgrades and quasi traits behind points. So i'd say it could've been worse, when gw f.e. would state that said points upgrades would now also cost cp-.-
108848
Post by: Blackie
H.B.M.C. wrote:And remember kids: Contempt will make your armour stronger, unless you have a shield. Shields are the natural enemy of contempt!
Shields already had a built in AoC. Unless they're (improved) bespoke shields like Arjac's one which gives him 3++ but no bonus to his armour save.
Sure they should have changed shields' bonus to a flat invuln and no buff to the armour and then apply AoC to everyone. But honestly it didn't worth the effort, we would have got the same result we currently have anyway.
45234
Post by: Void__Dragon
Daedalus81 wrote:
Objective. " GW-shilling delusion". No irony there.
Of all the people not being objective I would imagine it's the ones concerned about their personal army.
Not a single thing I just said was untrue. This isn't that one Sisters player saying the AoC patch will be a net nerf to sisters. There has not been a single compensation for the direct nerfs Daemons got last patch (except I think what, flamers being given a small point decrease then? Something like that), nor for the fact that for an army that at minimum takes like a five CP hit BEFORE Nephilim being forced to have six CP to start with not only cripples the early game of most builds it makes any list that took both a warlord trait/relic and a second detachment (which is to say, the majority of them) illegal.
You refusing to address these points gives up your game my friend.
Everyone is under the same guidelines and GSC were not bottom of the barrel win rates like Admech. If GSC loses some tools and other armies lose some tools and also take a bunch of nerfs...
Maybe you'll be right. Time will tell.
"Everyone is under the same guidelines" lol, whatever you say man. That must be why Deathwatch has barely gotten gak while Blood Angels, a better Marine subfaction, have made out like fething bandits. Though sure, GSC are doing better than, say, Daemons or quite a few other factions.
109034
Post by: Slipspace
Daedalus81 wrote:
Everyone is under the same guidelines and GSC were not bottom of the barrel win rates like Admech. If GSC loses some tools and other armies lose some tools and also take a bunch of nerfs...
All this does is highlight why blanket changes in the middle of an edition are a bad idea. Most armies use CP in a fairly similar way. They maybe buy an extra detachment and take some number of WLTs and relics. All those armies are affected in roughly similar ways by this change and all will have to adapt in similar ways. That's why I'm sceptical of people complaining too much about - for example - their SM armies being nerfed as they can no longer take 3 relics and 4 WLT.
Daemons are different. Their list building was centred around using CPs to buff their army pre-game. Not in the way that it's nice to be able to have a Selfless Healer Apothecary and an Imperium's Sword Captain, while also regenerating CPs with you Adept of the Codex in a SM army. No, Daemons need their extra detachments if they want to run anything other than mono-god, otherwise they lose their sub-faction bonus. The Greater Daemons have been designed with the Exalted upgrade in mind. We know this because prior to getting it Greater Daemons were almost never taken and now they're the lynchpin of Daemon armies. GW decided to make that cost CP because at the time that was actually a fairly reasonable thing to do. Now it makes the army borderline unplayable.
Again, this isn't a case of "maybe you need to adapt and not run multiple detachments". It literally runs counter to how the army was designed. GW could have solved this in the points update and dataslate by making the Exalted upgrade cost points instead of CP and/or altering how mixed god armies work. They chose not to, probably because they don't really seem to think through their changes properly - as we see from the Steel Legion conversation above.
109576
Post by: Karhedron
Eldar got away with only a light tap from the nerf bat. Hail of Doom was becoming a default choice so I can see the reason for making this your only selection. The price increases for the HQs seem unnecessary but at least they are not extortionate.
Marines got around 10% off most of their vehicles. Combined with AoC, this might be enough to make 2+ save tanks like the Vindicator viable (not sure about Land Raiders). While not power-houses. They are decent for their points and actually require a bit more effort now on the part of the opponent to remove.
Sanguinary Guard and Death Company point went down 2ppm so my Blood Angels have an extra 20 points to spend on something.
106125
Post by: JakeSiren
Slipspace wrote: Daedalus81 wrote:
Everyone is under the same guidelines and GSC were not bottom of the barrel win rates like Admech. If GSC loses some tools and other armies lose some tools and also take a bunch of nerfs...
All this does is highlight why blanket changes in the middle of an edition are a bad idea. Most armies use CP in a fairly similar way. They maybe buy an extra detachment and take some number of WLTs and relics. All those armies are affected in roughly similar ways by this change and all will have to adapt in similar ways. That's why I'm sceptical of people complaining too much about - for example - their SM armies being nerfed as they can no longer take 3 relics and 4 WLT.
Daemons are different. Their list building was centred around using CPs to buff their army pre-game. Not in the way that it's nice to be able to have a Selfless Healer Apothecary and an Imperium's Sword Captain, while also regenerating CPs with you Adept of the Codex in a SM army. No, Daemons need their extra detachments if they want to run anything other than mono-god, otherwise they lose their sub-faction bonus. The Greater Daemons have been designed with the Exalted upgrade in mind. We know this because prior to getting it Greater Daemons were almost never taken and now they're the lynchpin of Daemon armies. GW decided to make that cost CP because at the time that was actually a fairly reasonable thing to do. Now it makes the army borderline unplayable.
Again, this isn't a case of "maybe you need to adapt and not run multiple detachments". It literally runs counter to how the army was designed. GW could have solved this in the points update and dataslate by making the Exalted upgrade cost points instead of CP and/or altering how mixed god armies work. They chose not to, probably because they don't really seem to think through their changes properly - as we see from the Steel Legion conversation above.
Exactly this. Unfortunately there isn't much we can do as players about the lack of changes to Chaos Daemons right now. GW are explicitly soliciting feedback, so I recommend putting something through official channels (40kFAQ@gwplc.com). The more considered and well laid out your feedback is, the more likely it is to be read.
With that said, the reality is most probably that Daemon players will have to wait until the codex is released. Given the lack of leaks it seems unlikely for the Daemon codex to be next after CSM.
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
We will probably receive the Daemon army list for the new 30k edition before we see it for the 40k edition.
39309
Post by: Jidmah
Ork changed were... good. Not great, not meh, just good. Which is far more than I expected from GW.
Footsloggers ork lists lost 5-10 points on pretty much every unit and the Waaagh! potentially allows non-goff boyz to not be complete garbage.
The terrible buggy nerf was changed to the best possible wording, can't complain here.
For competitive, Goff Pressure got their kill rig back and a ton of extra points to mess with.
Can't really tell how far this will get orks, but for now at least it's no longer all doom and gloom.
For death guard... holy moly. So many point drops everywhere, I should be able to fit an extra unit into pretty much every army.
I especially like the change to plague marines. I really liked toying around with specialized plague marine squads accompanied by special characters, but it never really worked out because their gear was just eating up too many points.
Honorable mentions to Pathogens, dropping them makes them much more interesting as gap-fillers.
129388
Post by: Jarms48
Still find it funny they dropped Gretchins. Gretchins were terrible, but just dropping them does promote Ork players to take Boys. They’ll just take more Gretchin to save more points on tax.
40509
Post by: G00fySmiley
H.B.M.C. wrote:They reversed one of the most fluffy Tyranid rules ever devised, and made is so that if our Warlord is killed we lose one of our armies key army wide abilities.
yea that one is annoying i liked the synapse creatures giving special sauce to units under its control. it was the most tyranady thing they got matches the lore and makes the army very unique. forcing it into warlord being alive seem like a ham handed nerf that will only effect more casual players while not effecting the high level tournament players much. worst kind of nerf imo
119289
Post by: Not Online!!!
Jarms48 wrote:Still find it funny they dropped Gretchins. Gretchins were terrible, but just dropping them does promote Ork players to take Boys. They’ll just take more Gretchin to save more points on tax.
well, if boys were actually a decent unit, say if they got a better SV? Maybee via an upgrade? and cheaper? (say 6 pts and 8 with a 4+ SV), then we may well would see a tad more of them on the field.
Alas, unit upgrades and options are going the way of the dodo, and ork boys not being a joke is something many players dislike.
19296
Post by: Da-Rock
Having purchased Rogue Trader back in 1985 and seeing the game grow to 9th edition over the many years, I am still blown away by Human Nature.....
* GW doesn't do anything, they are not flexible, can't make changes when chages are needed....I'm gonna quit this is so stupid.
* GW shouldn't make changes like this, it was better the old way, I'm gonna quit.
This is literally the flow of fans for decades.
113031
Post by: Voss
Different people have different options.
Who knew?
I'm impressed you bought it before it was published, though.
116670
Post by: Ordana
Karhedron wrote:Eldar got away with only a light tap from the nerf bat. Hail of Doom was becoming a default choice so I can see the reason for making this your only selection. The price increases for the HQs seem unnecessary but at least they are not extortionate.
Marines got around 10% off most of their vehicles. Combined with AoC, this might be enough to make 2+ save tanks like the Vindicator viable (not sure about Land Raiders). While not power-houses. They are decent for their points and actually require a bit more effort now on the part of the opponent to remove.
Sanguinary Guard and Death Company point went down 2ppm so my Blood Angels have an extra 20 points to spend on something.
Hail of Doom will actually stay the default choice because nothing about it was changed. Not being able to pick a second trait doesn't change that the trait itself is so bonkers broken that it needs nothing else to be the best option.
Instead of removing the second trait they should have nerfed Hail of Doom itself so that it isn't the best thing always.
117111
Post by: TwinPoleTheory
Daedalus81 wrote:Everyone is under the same guidelines and GSC were not bottom of the barrel win rates like Admech. If GSC loses some tools and other armies lose some tools and also take a bunch of nerfs...
Maybe you'll be right. Time will tell.
I don't know, TS seems to have skated by just fine, I'd say we came out of the last two balance pass/points updates stronger than before. As usual, GW forgets the existence of TS, and for once, it's a good thing.
Assume I feel all the appropriate levels of empathy for everyone else's armies, carry on.
131821
Post by: Agentdenton
The new necron rules are an absolute godsend, they're almost enough to make me think about hating gw a little less.
One thing, they really hose player made dynasties that can't pick a protocol to use all thru the game and get both the aspects of it.
As is I might have to switch to Szarakhen but it's still one bloody hell of an improvement.
Might take to keeping a hexmark in reserve to beam down if I lose all otgerr characters now.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
40509
Post by: G00fySmiley
Da-Rock wrote:Having purchased Rogue Trader back in 1985 and seeing the game grow to 9th edition over the many years, I am still blown away by Human Nature.....
* GW doesn't do anything, they are not flexible, can't make changes when chages are needed....I'm gonna quit this is so stupid.
* GW shouldn't make changes like this, it was better the old way, I'm gonna quit.
This is literally the flow of fans for decades.
Probably some of the same people complaining there. I do not plan to quit but have realized after playing since 3rd there are a few red headed GW step children that will not get fixes and only nerfs. Chaos Demons and Orks are near the top of that GW will not fix and see them as NPC factions. Tyranids got a great book this time but as they get nerfed I doubt much gets done to keep them a good faction, GSC is in the same boat NPC status. my answer was simply to sadly keep buying, painting and modeling my favorite NPC armies and play them casually sometimes expecting them to lose and be far behind the power curve and then sometimes bring a non terrible army like my Eldar, custodes, or marines
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Slipspace wrote: Daedalus81 wrote:
Everyone is under the same guidelines and GSC were not bottom of the barrel win rates like Admech. If GSC loses some tools and other armies lose some tools and also take a bunch of nerfs...
All this does is highlight why blanket changes in the middle of an edition are a bad idea. Most armies use CP in a fairly similar way. They maybe buy an extra detachment and take some number of WLTs and relics. All those armies are affected in roughly similar ways by this change and all will have to adapt in similar ways. That's why I'm sceptical of people complaining too much about - for example - their SM armies being nerfed as they can no longer take 3 relics and 4 WLT.
Daemons are different. Their list building was centred around using CPs to buff their army pre-game. Not in the way that it's nice to be able to have a Selfless Healer Apothecary and an Imperium's Sword Captain, while also regenerating CPs with you Adept of the Codex in a SM army. No, Daemons need their extra detachments if they want to run anything other than mono-god, otherwise they lose their sub-faction bonus. The Greater Daemons have been designed with the Exalted upgrade in mind. We know this because prior to getting it Greater Daemons were almost never taken and now they're the lynchpin of Daemon armies. GW decided to make that cost CP because at the time that was actually a fairly reasonable thing to do. Now it makes the army borderline unplayable.
Again, this isn't a case of "maybe you need to adapt and not run multiple detachments". It literally runs counter to how the army was designed. GW could have solved this in the points update and dataslate by making the Exalted upgrade cost points instead of CP and/or altering how mixed god armies work. They chose not to, probably because they don't really seem to think through their changes properly - as we see from the Steel Legion conversation above.
The Steel Legion conversation is a non sequitur. There are models that do not have AoC that still benefit from the old trait - as crappy as it is in comparison.
Don't get me wrong - I feel for Daemon players more than GSC.
21358
Post by: Dysartes
Daedalus81 wrote:The Steel Legion conversation is a non sequitur. There are models that do not have AoC that still benefit from the old trait - as crappy as it is in comparison.
Not following you here, Daed - if all IMPERIAL GUARD VEHICLE units gain AoC (as per the dataslate), how can any of them benefit from the Armageddon vehicle doctrine?
The INFANTRY part is fine, no arguments there, but the VEHICLE element is either disabled by AoC or disables it, one or the other. That part of the doctrine should've gotten the same swap out as the Salamanders or that one SoB Order did when they started to benefit from AoC.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
I get that and certainly they could have reworded the entire trait so that only vehicle catch no reroll wounds, but it isn't something that they wanted to bother thinking about for a book that's long overdue. I don't imagine Steel Legion was high on the priority list to make sure the game was in a healthy state.
106383
Post by: JNAProductions
Daedalus81 wrote:I get that and certainly they could have reworded the entire trait so that only vehicle catch no reroll wounds, but it isn't something that they wanted to bother thinking about for a book that's long overdue. I don't imagine Steel Legion was high on the priority list to make sure the game was in a healthy state.
It would take five minutes, if that.
21358
Post by: Dysartes
Yeah, adding a similar bullet to the one in the Adepta Sororitas or Space Marines section would have taken so long. Here, I've drafted it in two minutes...
"Replace the second sentence in the second paragraph of the Armageddon: Industrial Efficiency trait on page 134 with ‘Each time an attack is made against a VEHICLE unit with this regimental trait, that attack’s wound roll cannot be re-rolled.' "
Might need to switch "trait" for "doctrine", but that's close enough for a draft version.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
You're talking about a faction that can take all T8 tanks for their army. Now with AoC and 2+ saves...I'm not entirely sure that giving no reroll wounds would be particularly balanced. "But but marines" - their vehicle choices have been worse in general than IG's and I don't see Salamanders running lots of tanks with any sort of synergy.
131792
Post by: CadianSgtBob
Daedalus81 wrote:You're talking about a faction that can take all T8 tanks for their army.
Sure, if you want to pretty much auto-lose because you have no screening elements to keep them from getting locked in combat by turn 2 at the latest and your single-model obsec units can't hold objectives against more than token opposition. LRBT spam has fundamental issues that make it a non-option no matter how many durability buffs it gets.
106383
Post by: JNAProductions
Daedalus81 wrote:You're talking about a faction that can take all T8 tanks for their army. Now with AoC and 2+ saves...I'm not entirely sure that giving no reroll wounds would be particularly balanced. "But but marines" - their vehicle choices have been worse in general than IG's and I don't see Salamanders running lots of tanks with any sort of synergy.
That would cause damage to be 6/7ths of what it is for RR1s to-wound.
If you were gonna win, but doing 15% less damage on some units caused you to lose, that sounds like a close game. That’s what we want, isn’t it?
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
CadianSgtBob wrote: Daedalus81 wrote:You're talking about a faction that can take all T8 tanks for their army.
Sure, if you want to pretty much auto-lose because you have no screening elements to keep them from getting locked in combat by turn 2 at the latest and your single-model obsec units can't hold objectives against more than token opposition. LRBT spam has fundamental issues that make it a non-option no matter how many durability buffs it gets.
I wouldn't advise pure tanks, but you could get a lot of mileage out of 'By Lasgun and Bayonet' and 'Inflexible Command'. 'Boots on the Ground' is pretty straightforward also - keep a couple blocks out of LOS in your corners and stick a CC in a Chimera near a Command Squad. Have a backup Command Squad inside. Use LRBTs to sight block.
2 TC
CC
4x IS w/ Vox
2x 10 Scions
2x Command Squads with Standard and Vox
2x2 LRBTs
Manticore
Chimera
And you still have 250 or so points left. Domination missions might be tough, but I couldn't say one way or another. You could also do 'Special Orders' with more Scions to drop in using the CC in the Chimera to get them scoring.
Yes, the reroll wounds might not ultimately be significant, but IG did take on decent buffs. There's a lot of factors at play and trying to scry the future is impossible.
21358
Post by: Dysartes
Daedalus81 wrote:CadianSgtBob wrote: Daedalus81 wrote:You're talking about a faction that can take all T8 tanks for their army.
Sure, if you want to pretty much auto-lose because you have no screening elements to keep them from getting locked in combat by turn 2 at the latest and your single-model obsec units can't hold objectives against more than token opposition. LRBT spam has fundamental issues that make it a non-option no matter how many durability buffs it gets.
I wouldn't advise pure tanks, but you could get a lot of mileage out of 'By Lasgun and Bayonet' and 'Inflexible Command'. 'Boots on the Ground' is pretty straightforward also - keep a couple blocks out of LOS in your corners and stick a CC in a Chimera near a Command Squad. Have a backup Command Squad inside. Use LRBTs to sight block.
Make your mind up, Daed - first your concern is that the Guard could field a tank company, then as soon as someone points out that doesn't work in this edition, you're saying you wouldn't suggest someone should do so. Yes, an IG Tank Company with T8, 2+ save, AoC & no re-roll wounds would be a skew, for sure, but in 9th it probably doesn't function that well. Might be interesting to see it tested, though.
My point is about consistency in rules implementation. In three out of four cases where AoC affects a sub-faction that previously reduced AP-1 to AP0 (Salamanders, Iron Warriors and Order of the Valorous Heart), the sub-faction's rules have been changed (even though one of them is apparently going to be getting T9, 2+ save Land Raiders in the book releasing on Saturday, if what I'm seeing on here is accurate). There's no reason to leave one of them unchanged, even if the change doesn't end up being the exact same as the other three - my draft was assuming that it would be, but the designers might do something different.
129388
Post by: Jarms48
I’m pretty excited, going to test my scion list with Hammer. If that doesn’t work out it’s TC, Sentinel, and Infantry Squad spam time.
131794
Post by: hardcore1six
H.B.M.C. wrote:And remember kids: Contempt will make your armour stronger, unless you have a shield. Shields are the natural enemy of contempt!
The full quote "My armour is contempt, my shield is disgust, my sword is my hatred"
So maybe they're cooking a rule in about shields being disgustingly resilient
109034
Post by: Slipspace
Daedalus81 wrote:You're talking about a faction that can take all T8 tanks for their army.
Daedalus81 wrote:
I wouldn't advise pure tanks...
Uh...so, which is it? Are you worried about all tanks or not?
Seems liker a weird stance to take that a sub-faction with the same rule that has been re-written in other sub-factions so as not to invalidate it shouldn't get the same treatment, especially given IG are one of the worst factions in the game right now.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
The list I posted is 75% tanks so I'm not sure you guys pointing at my inconsistency is that relevant.
I'm not making a judgement on if GW should or should not have made that change, but offering reasons as to why I think they might not have wanted to. Armageddon is a pretty small faction and so likely easy to miss beyond any rationalization.
105713
Post by: Insectum7
I haven't spent too much quality time with the points updates yet, but it looks like Lascannon armed vehicles have gotten a discount. The Razorback, Predator Annihilator and Land Raider got cuts. Interestingly in the case of the Razorback, they specifically increased the cost of the Assault Cannon while dropping the price of the Razorback.
108848
Post by: Blackie
Insectum7 wrote: Interestingly in the case of the Razorback, they specifically increased the cost of the Assault Cannon while dropping the price of the Razorback.
Yeah, I noticed but I still bring twin assault cannons since I consider them much more useful than lascannons. For the models I have, at least.
119949
Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn
Given the fact that Custodes will have next to no starting CP now, I feel it's an overboard nerf to us, given how much pre-game CP we spend. Making several of our best strats once per game, really went overboard. But then I don't play competitive, so who cares. I just think nerfing us further was unwarranted.
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:Given the fact that Custodes will have next to no starting CP now, I feel it's an overboard nerf to us, given how much pre-game CP we spend. Making several of our best strats once per game, really went overboard. But then I don't play competitive, so who cares. I just think nerfing us further was unwarranted.
The changes to starting CP are in the matched play rulebook and don't apply to Crusade.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Blackie wrote: Insectum7 wrote: Interestingly in the case of the Razorback, they specifically increased the cost of the Assault Cannon while dropping the price of the Razorback.
Yeah, I noticed but I still bring twin assault cannons since I consider them much more useful than lascannons. For the models I have, at least.
I doubt Assault Cannons will be an option come the new Marine 'Dex.
119380
Post by: Blndmage
Good thing Legends exists.
53939
Post by: vipoid
Ah yes, Legends. Where wargear goes to die.
105713
Post by: Insectum7
Yeah, it's not the solution.
107700
Post by: alextroy
It is GW's solution
It is certainly better than them saying models are no longer supported for play in any way. They have already made it clear they are not necessarily going to carry something forward just because it was at one point a legal option/model/unit.
105713
Post by: Insectum7
alextroy wrote:It is GW's solution
It is certainly better than them saying models are no longer supported for play in any way. They have already made it clear they are not necessarily going to carry something forward just because it was at one point a legal option/model/unit.
Well in return it's my solution to stop giving GW my money and start supporting competing systems instead.
107700
Post by: alextroy
A valid solution... you have any Adepta Sororitas units you need to unload?
119380
Post by: Blndmage
And Legends are still valid for Matched Play.
21358
Post by: Dysartes
alextroy wrote:It is GW's solution
It is certainly better than them saying models are no longer supported for play in any way. They have already made it clear they are not necessarily going to carry something forward just because it was at one point a legal option/model/unit.
It would be a better solution if they were prepared to update the files when things get removed - it is two and a half years since anything was added to the non- FW Legends files, and a year and a half for the FW file, despite a number of units having disappeared from books in the meantime.
53939
Post by: vipoid
Dysartes wrote: alextroy wrote:It is GW's solution
It is certainly better than them saying models are no longer supported for play in any way. They have already made it clear they are not necessarily going to carry something forward just because it was at one point a legal option/model/unit.
It would be a better solution if they were prepared to update the files when things get removed - it is two and a half years since anything was added to the non- FW Legends files, and a year and a half for the FW file, despite a number of units having disappeared from books in the meantime.
Or, you know, they could just not remove those options from the codex in the first place.
131792
Post by: CadianSgtBob
In theory. In practice most people don't allow them, both because tournament rules are treated as the de facto standard and because they recognize that legends rules were a poor quality rush job to begin with and have not been updated despite various units/rules no longer functioning. Automatically Appended Next Post: vipoid wrote:Or, you know, they could just not remove those options from the codex in the first place.
Yes, obviously that would be preferred. But if GW is going to remove them they need to at least treat legends rules like real rules and continue to update them as the game changes.
24409
Post by: Matt.Kingsley
Not to mention that GW doesn't even update Legends frequently enough with the options they've been removing
39309
Post by: Jidmah
Not to mention GW doesn't even properly update the friggin' FW book they sold us this edition.
23306
Post by: The_Real_Chris
vipoid wrote:
Or, you know, they could just not remove those options from the codex in the first place.
Nooooooo current model noooooooo rules. Conversions are not what we can sell! Automatically Appended Next Post: Daedalus81 wrote:You're talking about a faction that can take all T8 tanks for their army. Now with AoC and 2+ saves...I'm not entirely sure that giving no reroll wounds would be particularly balanced. "But but marines" - their vehicle choices have been worse in general than IG's and I don't see Salamanders running lots of tanks with any sort of synergy.
Also a faction whose special order and fluff is Chimera.
108848
Post by: Blackie
Conversions at least may require buying other official kits... for example I saw plenty of warbosses in megarmour converted from the orruk AoS boss when the warboss in megarmour didn't have an official model, but keeping models/options that were part of the catalogue once and now they're OOP is even worse for GW as there might be nothing they sell to cover those options even through conversions.
Take assault cannons on razorbacks, no one is going to buy two kits just to get a single assault cannon out of each of those and be able to convert ONE of their razorbacks with the twin assault cannon option. I made mine (6 cannons for 3 tanks) since I got the bitz for a really ridicolous price, from someone that had lots of dreads and didn't need the ass cannons. FW official model I think it's long gone. So there's no way GW can make money out of conversions to get razorbacks with assault cannons.
24409
Post by: Matt.Kingsley
If only they sold the upgrade sprue that had the Assault Cannon on it seperately like they used to...
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
You get a Razorback-compatible TL-Donkey Cannon from the Crusader kit.
53939
Post by: vipoid
The_Real_Chris wrote: vipoid wrote:
Or, you know, they could just not remove those options from the codex in the first place.
Nooooooo current model noooooooo rules. Conversions are not what we can sell!
Apart from, you know, the conversions that they literally do sell. Like the Dreadknight Grand Master, or whatever it was called. The "official model" was literally a kitbash, but it was still allowed to exist in the rules.
108848
Post by: Blackie
H.B.M.C. wrote:You get a Razorback-compatible TL-Donkey Cannon from the Crusader kit.
Yep, but then you won't have a complete Crusader model. And that thing is very hard to get separately, let alone multiples of it.
It's much safer to magnetize the turret from the actual razorback kit with both standard options (heavy bolter and lascannon) and magnetize the assault cannons later when you have/find some spared bitz, mostly from dreads or terminators kits. It requires sawing off the barrels of the guns but at least it gives you "always legal" models.
121430
Post by: ccs
Dysartes wrote: alextroy wrote:It is GW's solution
It is certainly better than them saying models are no longer supported for play in any way. They have already made it clear they are not necessarily going to carry something forward just because it was at one point a legal option/model/unit.
It would be a better solution if they were prepared to update the files when things get removed - it is two and a half years since anything was added to the non- FW Legends files, and a year and a half for the FW file, despite a number of units having disappeared from books in the meantime.
I'm certain that my Red Gobbo on squig is more recent than 2.5 years ago.
39309
Post by: Jidmah
I'm fairly sure that the only reason why they put them there is because it's the worst possible way to publish those ork rules without not publishing them. Imperium promotional or limited gak simply gets printed into books.
21358
Post by: Dysartes
ccs wrote: Dysartes wrote: alextroy wrote:It is GW's solution
It is certainly better than them saying models are no longer supported for play in any way. They have already made it clear they are not necessarily going to carry something forward just because it was at one point a legal option/model/unit.
It would be a better solution if they were prepared to update the files when things get removed - it is two and a half years since anything was added to the non- FW Legends files, and a year and a half for the FW file, despite a number of units having disappeared from books in the meantime.
I'm certain that my Red Gobbo on squig is more recent than 2.5 years ago.
He may well be - but he isn't in the Ork Legends PDF, as you can see if you check them here.
In fact, I just checked my notes from when I emailed the 40k FAQ email address a few months back, and the Red Gobbo on Bounca was one of the models I'd listed as missing from the Legends PDFs...
|
|