Tyranids have to pay reinforcement points to seed Spore mines, but no longer require a Synapse creature to have LOS to the target so that e.g. a Biovore can fire at it indirectly.
I mean, it's clear that they understand how points should be used to balance things - they've given Boneswords and Deathspitters a cost now - but then they do and make all Marine squad upgrades (bar Thunder Hammers and Multi-Meltas) free.
A Lascannon shouldn't be free.
And they left the points on Warriors the same as they were after the last bump, which means that 2xScyTal Warriors are still grossly overpriced.
Seems Necrons didn't receive any significant changes.
Which is a pity, considering how the previous changes in the last balance update rendered Phylacterine Hive and Severed useless.
H.B.M.C. wrote: One step sideways, three steps back, as always.
I mean, it's clear that they understand how points should be used to balance things - they've given Boneswords and Deathspitters a cost now - but then they do and make all Marine squad upgrades (bar Thunder Hammers and Multi-Meltas) free.
A Lascannon shouldn't be free.
And they left the points on Warriors the same as they were after the last bump, which means that 2xScyTal Warriors are still grossly overpriced.
Hammers and meltas are free in most squads - just not the ones where they are most spammable.
Tac squad with all the meltas and hammer sergeant - flat 18ppm.
If you have to pay reinforcement points for Spore Mines, why didn't the costs of Biovores and Sporocysts go down? Surely their ability to generate spore mines was baked into their cost, no? They've lost utility. They've lost power. Shouldn't their cost therefore be reflective of that reduced power?
And how did Hive Guard, of all things, get an increase? This is GW still trying to "balance" a unit that was powerful in a different edition under a different Codex.
Insularum wrote: Tac squad with all the meltas and hammer sergeant - flat 18ppm.
Wonderful, but my point remains the same: None of it should be free!
Big oof to Harlequins, I feel bad for the guys, that's a pretty damn big nerf.
While I don't mind the significant price cut for Flash Gitz, I feel like the point changes to Nobz squad weapons really won't do much. Also weird that they made Painboyz cheaper but not the Painboss or Nob with WAAAGH! Banner? I guess people will be taking more Killa Kanz in some lists.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Seems Necrons didn't receive any significant changes.
Which is a pity, considering how the previous changes in the last balance update rendered Phylacterine Hive and Severed useless.
Ad Mech got an overall buff, which is nice.
Early Necron predictions based on pretty much nothing but gut feeling: they're screwed. They have generally terrible datasheets and losing both the ObSekh Dynasty and their overpowered secondaries with no real compensation is going to be a major problem for them.
Free wargear for SM makes sense up to a point but I think they've gone too far now, especially on units like Deathwatch Veterans. I'd have preferred to see SM squads like Tacticals with "free" Heavy Bolter/Missile Launcher and Flamer, but other options as cheaper upgrades.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I really wish they would mark what's new and what's not. It's pretty hard to tell what the changes actually are.
They do. Points changes are a different color. The Balance sheet just removes anything old that's no longer relevant.
Yeah, but the balance sheet also doesn't mark anything that's new.
If it weren't for the above post I wouldn't know about the changes to the Ad Mech.
That said, I was incorrect about the points sheet.
The new values are indeed in red and necrons did get some love after all.
DDA : 160 -> 145
Warriors : 13 -> 11
Monolith : 300 -> 270
Deathmarks : 15 -> 13
Triarch Stalker : 120 -> 110
Tomb Blades : 20 -> 18
Ghost Ark : 130->115
Praetortians : 22 -> 20
Obelisk : 300 -> 270
Grimskul wrote: Big oof to Harlequins, I feel bad for the guys, that's a pretty damn big nerf.
While I don't mind the significant price cut for Flash Gitz, I feel like the point changes to Nobz squad weapons really won't do much. Also weird that they made Painboyz cheaper but not the Painboss or Nob with WAAAGH! Banner? I guess people will be taking more Killa Kanz in some lists.
There's some lowkey changes to LOWs here I'm pumped for. 'orkanaut points dropped by 10%, as well as several FW units. Combined with the new detachment rules that let you take 1-3 LOWs without a CP cost and they benefit from faction traits, we might actually see them on the tabletop more often.
Same applies to World Eaters too, things like the Brass Scorpion & Kytan got cheaper.
Agusto wrote: Besides some free weapons and gear, where are the massive points drops to compensate for SM losing AoC?
They also gained sticky objectives as part of the payoff, which is really hard to equate a point cost too, but some people are saying their lists are 20-30% or so cheaper elsewhere.
Did a quick count on my Dark Angels list and I think that the list went down about 120p with "free" gear. For some reason, my Veterans still has to pay full price for everything. Will do a proper sit-down and re-do my math, but I would rather have AoC than free gear tbh.
Agusto wrote: Besides some free weapons and gear, where are the massive points drops to compensate for SM losing AoC?
Most characters are -10, most units are -2 per model and most gear is free.
Some lovely consistency across factions too..
Imperial SM terminators (tactical/assault/relic variants), 33ppm and free gear
Chaos SM terminators, 36ppm and all gear is unchanged in cost
"Traditional" squad of 4 fists and a power weapon leader, 165 for imperials, 200 for chaos. Seems like the baddies are costed around taking black run of damnation.
Wonder if the free wargear is driven by them just realising tweaking stuff up/down by less than 5 points isn't worth it if they know someone will just take "the best" option anyway, so just point out the outliers, let the casual people do what they like and accept the meta people will just default to an option anyway and adding 3 points to their weapon X won't mean much in the long run.
Stems back to the thread in general really I suppose.
Just realized they removed the dataslate entries for Mirror Architect and Favour of Cegorach from the harlequins dataslate, so not everything is terrible. those unnerfed are very nice to have.
Grimskul wrote: Big oof to Harlequins, I feel bad for the guys, that's a pretty damn big nerf.
While I don't mind the significant price cut for Flash Gitz, I feel like the point changes to Nobz squad weapons really won't do much. Also weird that they made Painboyz cheaper but not the Painboss or Nob with WAAAGH! Banner? I guess people will be taking more Killa Kanz in some lists.
There's some lowkey changes to LOWs here I'm pumped for. 'orkanaut points dropped by 10%, as well as several FW units. Combined with the new detachment rules that let you take 1-3 LOWs without a CP cost and they benefit from faction traits, we might actually see them on the tabletop more often.
Same applies to World Eaters too, things like the Brass Scorpion & Kytan got cheaper.
Now if they would just drop the Stompa and FW Lords of War to more reasonable points
Agusto wrote: Besides some free weapons and gear, where are the massive points drops to compensate for SM losing AoC?
Most characters are -10, most units are -2 per model and most gear is free.
Some lovely consistency across factions too..
Imperial SM terminators (tactical/assault/relic variants), 33ppm and free gear
Chaos SM terminators, 36ppm and all gear is unchanged in cost
"Traditional" squad of 4 fists and a power weapon leader, 165 for imperials, 200 for chaos. Seems like the baddies are costed around taking black run of damnation.
Yeah, it's stupid. This is a classic case of a situation where points fixes aren't the answer. Chaos Terminators, in isolation, are fine. 33 points for a combi-bolter and accursed weapon is OK, even if Imperial ones are a bit better now, trading the accursed weapon for a PF. What pushes Chaos Terminators over the edge is the stacking of MoS (now more expensive, so fair enough), Illusory Supplication, Delightful Agonies and the Black Rune, maybe even Mutated Invigoration for good measure. The problem isn't the unit, it's the stacking buffs from multiple sources. I'm genuinely surprised the Dark Apostle didn't get a points increase. Looks like GW just threw their hands up and went "eh, 3ppm increase should be fine". Sucks if you want to try to experiment with not-meta Terminator combos. They even seem to have missed Obliterators being criminally overcosted. Like Hive Guard, I suspect they're paying for the sins of previous editions.
Necron characters continue to be insanely expensive and someone at GW must have played against Doomstalkers that were using loaded dice. It's the only explanation I can come up with for their cost.
Insularum wrote: Some lovely consistency across factions too..
Imperial SM terminators (tactical/assault/relic variants), 33ppm and free gear
Chaos SM terminators, 36ppm and all gear is unchanged in cost
"Traditional" squad of 4 fists and a power weapon leader, 165 for imperials, 200 for chaos. Seems like the baddies are costed around taking black run of damnation.
Except we already pay a CP for the rune so that's just pilinng on.
My EC army increased in cost by 55 points (3/Terminator x 10) plus 5 per mark 3 HQ and the Terminators. What did I gain out of either update? The loss of AoC. Can someone explain to me why the mark was increased in price? I just can't see any justification.
Insularum wrote: Some lovely consistency across factions too..
Imperial SM terminators (tactical/assault/relic variants), 33ppm and free gear
Chaos SM terminators, 36ppm and all gear is unchanged in cost
"Traditional" squad of 4 fists and a power weapon leader, 165 for imperials, 200 for chaos. Seems like the baddies are costed around taking black run of damnation.
Except we already pay a CP for the rune so that's just pilinng on.
My EC army increased in cost by 55 points (3/Terminator x 10) plus 5 per mark 3 HQ and the Terminators. What did I gain out of either update? The loss of AoC. Can someone explain to me why the mark was increased in price? I just can't see any justification.
It was used too much by winning lists and/because it's arguably the "best" mark.
Well I wish someone would have told me my mark was so good vs DG being able to deny my charge and fight first abilities and/or Tsons spamming MWs all over my, basically, defenseless units.
Insularum wrote: "Traditional" squad of 4 fists and a power weapon leader, 165 for imperials, 200 for chaos. Seems like the baddies are costed around taking black run of damnation.
Except for the fact that Chaos Terminator Squads can't bring 4 Fists in a squad because... *eye twitches* ... there aren't four fists on the sprue.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: Well I wish someone would have told me my mark was so good vs DG being able to deny my charge and fight first abilities and/or Tsons spamming MWs all over my, basically, defenseless units.
Ok, which of those has anything to do with the relative ability of the mark of slaanesh against the other 3 regards internal balance?
Insularum wrote: "Traditional" squad of 4 fists and a power weapon leader, 165 for imperials, 200 for chaos. Seems like the baddies are costed around taking black run of damnation.
Except for the fact that Chaos Terminator Squads can't bring 4 Fists in a squad because... *eye twitches* ... there aren't four fists on the sprue.
Genestealer Cult Neophytes no longer have to pay for special weapons - so webbers are suddenly good, expect to see a lot more of them.
But it goes to show how you need points for internal balance, because webbers are good as they used to be expensive, flamers are still useful utility, but now grenade launchers in the hands of BS4 troops are completely crap, and you can't change their statline without breaking them for Guard (or having two different types of grenade launchers with different stats please no). Atalan Jackals with power weapons now seem quite a viable glass cannon?
Patriarch needed a buff it didn't get. Aberrants and the Abominant basically get their inexplicable price hike undone which is good but still doesn't explain why it happened in the first place.
Brood Brothers can't take any new guard toys, even the artillery. Bizarre, basically seems like the only reason you'd take them now is for a Baneblade if you need a superheavy in a big game.
Edit: Oh, saws are back down to 5 points, so... they're an autotake again?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Agusto wrote: Besides some free weapons and gear, where are the massive points drops to compensate for SM losing AoC?
Hammerfall Bunkers went down a lot and are now the SM meta.
I don't think I'm kidding tbh. They went from nearly useless to pretty good.
The Phazer wrote: Brood Brothers can't take any new guard toys, even the artillery. Bizarre, basically seems like the only reason you'd take them now is for a Baneblade if you need a superheavy in a big game.
Spoiler warning for future - Brood Brothers are 100% not going to exist. They will almost certainly be removed in 10th.
Brood Brothers can't take any new guard toys, even the artillery. Bizarre, basically seems like the only reason you'd take them now is for a Baneblade if you need a superheavy in a big game.
Where are you getting that?
Ahhh an FAQ dropped, didn't spot that on the post.
usernamesareannoying wrote: votann went up almost across the board again... is the hekaton really worth 310 points?
Was discussing this with a mate of mine; some things need to go down but nothing needs to go up. If anything they need a couple of entries in the Balance sheet, such as the Forge Master's ability affecting the first failed save, not one of your choice.
Nevelon wrote: Not being forced to advance doctrines is also nice. Devastator chapters probably doing a happy dance over that.
Not if they're paying attention. Expect that change to vanish like AoC did.
Agusto wrote:Did a quick count on my Dark Angels list and I think that the list went down about 120p with "free" gear. For some reason, my Veterans still has to pay full price for everything. Will do a proper sit-down and re-do my math, but I would rather have AoC than free gear tbh.
Not going to lie, the Veteran unit entry hits me like a red flag. One that basically reads 'unit not appearing in next codex'
A lot of these unit costs seem random and poorly thought out (though I get that tacs are the 'same' base cost because weapons got warped in). Some of them I can't figure out at all (most 'basic' marines went to 18, but reivers are 16 and infiltrators are 20 and assault intercessors 17, because... something. Death company intercessors are 18, but death company marines are 20... without jump packs).
I am amused that only veterans and predators are penalized for taking lascannons. That basically sums up how I feel about this new style of doing points- free is stupid and paying for gear now feels like an arbitrary punishment for making a 'wrong choice' (in the eyes of the developers)
Souleater wrote: I’d be very surprised to see Brood Brothers going away. It’s been a key part of GSC since their original WD army list.
They might be reduced to basic infamy or the odd LR only.
I'd wager them being rolled back into the book again to prevent weird interactions like we've been seeing. GSC don't have enough really imo to their book without the brood brothers padding them out a little. Yes, I know other factions have it worse.
Souleater wrote: I’d be very surprised to see Brood Brothers going away. It’s been a key part of GSC since their original WD army list.
They might be reduced to basic infamy or the odd LR only.
I'd wager them being rolled back into the book again to prevent weird interactions like we've been seeing. GSC don't have enough really imo to their book without the brood brothers padding them out a little. Yes, I know other factions have it worse.
Yeah, other factions have it worse, but Brood Brothers in some form are baked into the army at the conceptual level and are written with the idea they'll be included. I too see them being rolled back into the book itself.
Agusto wrote:Did a quick count on my Dark Angels list and I think that the list went down about 120p with "free" gear. For some reason, my Veterans still has to pay full price for everything. Will do a proper sit-down and re-do my math, but I would rather have AoC than free gear tbh.
Not going to lie, the Veteran unit entry hits me like a red flag. One that basically reads 'unit not appearing in next codex'
I'm fairly sure the problem with the Veterans entry is the unit can literally be only 2 models, so it's more difficult to bake the cost of upgrades into the minimum cost of the unit. It's odd that they're still paying full price for everything, though. I'd have expected some discounts on the more expensive upgrades.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: Well I wish someone would have told me my mark was so good vs DG being able to deny my charge and fight first abilities and/or Tsons spamming MWs all over my, basically, defenseless units.
Ok, which of those has anything to do with the relative ability of the mark of slaanesh against the other 3 regards internal balance?
I'm not sure what you are asking about. I am pointing out that compared to other marked units noise marines don't fare that well. DG get extra toughness and FNP they have a model that negates charges and makes an enemy unit fight last all with a 6" radius. Tsons just sit back with their multitude of psykers and MWs noise marines to death while also being, for all practicle matters, immune to deny the witch rolls and basically nullify any psyker(s) that I can bring to the table. I can't say anything about World Eaters since I haven't faced them.
In regards to the marks as they pertain to units in the Codex, it seems to me, that the Mark of Nurgle is what you would want for most HQs since it means that your models last longer via the -1 to wound. I would think that that would be more valuable over the course of the game as opposed to being able to fight first in melee (Mk of Slaanesh). Obviously your model has to be able to get to the opponent before he can fight. And even then if you got the charge off then you will still be fighting first. So, overall, I just don't see the justification of the MoS being more valuable than say the MoN.
"I am amused that only veterans and predators are penalized for taking lascannons". Guess who plays with expensive Vets and a Predator Annihilator with extra Lascannon sponsons... At least the sponsons became cheaper.
Did my math again. In total 165p cheaper list. So admit I was a bit off. Still, yes, I get sticky objectives and can stay in Doctrine, but I would much, much rather have an army wide +1 to save over the extra unit I now can afford.
Souleater wrote: I’d be very surprised to see Brood Brothers going away. It’s been a key part of GSC since their original WD army list.
They might be reduced to basic infamy or the odd LR only.
I'd wager them being rolled back into the book again to prevent weird interactions like we've been seeing. GSC don't have enough really imo to their book without the brood brothers padding them out a little. Yes, I know other factions have it worse.
Clarified in the FAQ for now at least. They can still take IG stuff if it is regimental, but not if it is from a named regiment (e.g. Cadian), named character, or "external" Imperium like preachers, advisors, or (I assume) scions or Valkyries. For some reason they can't also take the new ordnance batteries; apparently a PDF couldn't get these, but it could get a Baneblade.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: Well I wish someone would have told me my mark was so good vs DG being able to deny my charge and fight first abilities and/or Tsons spamming MWs all over my, basically, defenseless units.
Ok, which of those has anything to do with the relative ability of the mark of slaanesh against the other 3 regards internal balance?
I'm not sure what you are asking about. I am pointing out that compared to other marked units noise marines don't fare that well. DG get extra toughness and FNP they have a model that negates charges and makes an enemy unit fight last all with a 6" radius. Tsons just sit back with their multitude of psykers and MWs noise marines to death while also being, for all practicle matters, immune to deny the witch rolls and basically nullify any psyker(s) that I can bring to the table. I can't say anything about World Eaters since I haven't faced them.
In regards to the marks as they pertain to units in the Codex, it seems to me, that the Mark of Nurgle is what you would want for most HQs since it means that your models last longer via the -1 to wound. I would think that that would be more valuable over the course of the game as opposed to being able to fight first in melee (Mk of Slaanesh). Obviously your model has to be able to get to the opponent before he can fight. And even then if you got the charge off then you will still be fighting first. So, overall, I just don't see the justification of the MoS being more valuable than say the MoN.
As a standalone Mark, MoS is the best of the 4, especially in an army that's generally melee focussed. MoS also unlocks some really good strats. It probably deserves to be the most expensive Mark. Striking first is a massive boost to any close combat unit and it also pairs well with Delightful Agonies and the Advance and charge prayer your MoP and DA get for being Slaanesh.
I do somewhat agree on the Plague Marine/Noise Marine comparison. PM get loads of free kit and really good defensive buffs. Noise Marines get an offensive buff that's good, but not too easy for them to take advantage of, and the excellent Blastmaster. I feel like they should probably have reduced the cost of Sonic Blasters, as nobody takes them at all right now, and they're supposed to be the iconic weapon of the unit. It's kind of weird seeing Noise Marines as weird semi-Devastator units.
I am ultimately not against upgrades being free, but that now needs to be the model going forward. I have 3 Death Shrouds and every single one has different setup because they keep changing the datasheet. I have one sergeant with two flamers and a chime, I have one sergeant with two flamers, and I have one sergeant with one flamer. On the brightside the one with one flamer is now officially demoted.
Ultimately the problem is that upgrades can at best cost around 5-10% of the model cost. As soon as it goes above that the weapons start to matter less and you want more bodies on the floor most of the time. They seem to have learned that the hard way with Space Marines.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: Well I wish someone would have told me my mark was so good vs DG being able to deny my charge and fight first abilities and/or Tsons spamming MWs all over my, basically, defenseless units.
Ok, which of those has anything to do with the relative ability of the mark of slaanesh against the other 3 regards internal balance?
I'm not sure what you are asking about. I am pointing out that compared to other marked units noise marines don't fare that well. DG get extra toughness and FNP they have a model that negates charges and makes an enemy unit fight last all with a 6" radius. Tsons just sit back with their multitude of psykers and MWs noise marines to death while also being, for all practicle matters, immune to deny the witch rolls and basically nullify any psyker(s) that I can bring to the table. I can't say anything about World Eaters since I haven't faced them.
In regards to the marks as they pertain to units in the Codex, it seems to me, that the Mark of Nurgle is what you would want for most HQs since it means that your models last longer via the -1 to wound. I would think that that would be more valuable over the course of the game as opposed to being able to fight first in melee (Mk of Slaanesh). Obviously your model has to be able to get to the opponent before he can fight. And even then if you got the charge off then you will still be fighting first. So, overall, I just don't see the justification of the MoS being more valuable than say the MoN.
- You didn't mention noise marines, you talked about terminators
- MoS is best for many units in the book and can be applied to a lot of deadly melee units
- Plague marines don't get a FNP - You can't compare a single upgrade to an entire buff character
- Tsons are priced to encompass their abilities (in theory) and are not immune to deny the witch
- Characters don't benefit from MoN unless they've been targeted as well which is in reality most likely melee
- If you are charged or the combat extends beyond 1 round, the MoS allows you to force decisions and interact with the fight phase better
Souleater wrote: I’d be very surprised to see Brood Brothers going away. It’s been a key part of GSC since their original WD army list.
They might be reduced to basic infamy or the odd LR only.
I'd wager them being rolled back into the book again to prevent weird interactions like we've been seeing. GSC don't have enough really imo to their book without the brood brothers padding them out a little. Yes, I know other factions have it worse.
Yeah, other factions have it worse, but Brood Brothers in some form are baked into the army at the conceptual level and are written with the idea they'll be included. I too see them being rolled back into the book itself.
With the keyword and detachment system firmly in place, they could do something like a 'lost and the damned' codex where you have all sorts of multi-purpose stuff like PDF units, traitor guard, corrupted governor w/retinue, mutant rabble and so on, with the option to pick the matching keywords to make that part of a chaos cult uprising, genestealer thralls and so on. In that way you'd at least have all the rules for the allied forces in one place, and would need a maximum of two books for any combination of LotD detachment and main army detachment. Otherwise you'll always have weird interactions like having to use an OOP codex or being arbitrarily limited in equipment choices and so on, or needing mountains of Q&A.
Possibly overstating it, but triple Gladiator Lancers could be interesting at just 125 points a model. Sure, don't really synergise with much (basically always the issue of Marine tanks), but 125 points for 12 T8 3+ wounds, and 2 S10 dark lances (with +1 to hit), potentially 12 S4 shots and a slightly odd autocannon seems kind of reasonable.
Meanwhile 30 point aggressors also feels... aggressively cheap.
Grimskul wrote: Big oof to Harlequins, I feel bad for the guys, that's a pretty damn big nerf.
While I don't mind the significant price cut for Flash Gitz, I feel like the point changes to Nobz squad weapons really won't do much. Also weird that they made Painboyz cheaper but not the Painboss or Nob with WAAAGH! Banner? I guess people will be taking more Killa Kanz in some lists.
There's some lowkey changes to LOWs here I'm pumped for. 'orkanaut points dropped by 10%, as well as several FW units. Combined with the new detachment rules that let you take 1-3 LOWs without a CP cost and they benefit from faction traits, we might actually see them on the tabletop more often.
Same applies to World Eaters too, things like the Brass Scorpion & Kytan got cheaper.
Best keep it lowkey because this doesn't change how useless the Orkanauts are. dropping 35pts on a 350pt model isn't going to make them better. And the fact is that a single -1 to hit renders the Morkanaut functionally useless. By which I mean, it has a better chance to hurt itself than the enemy with its main gun. Realistically the Orkanauts need to drop another 50-70pts before they are even remotely competitive and even then you would have to bake a rule into them that makes them ignore - to hit modifiers otherwise their guns are garbage. The Stompa is at least 200pts over priced still, but don't worry GW realized their mistake and dropped the Kustom stompa which was 25pts MORE than the regular stompa to....*Checks notes* The same price as the Stompa....
Agusto wrote: Besides some free weapons and gear, where are the massive points drops to compensate for SM losing AoC?
I love the mindset of Marine Players. Besides getting hundreds of points for free in upgrades and units becoming cheaper almost across the board....what other compensation do I get for losing a crap rule that was Crap from the start?
A Lascannon Devastator squad just went from 155pts to 115 AND you can now equip the Sgt with a Thunder Hammer or other weapons for FREE. So literally another 20pts of free upgrades.
But what if you don't have a unit of Lascannon Devs or a bunch of extra magnetized Thunderhammers? Making a few, specific, unit upgrades broken by making them free is not a good way to make an army better. All it will do is make EVERY unit look exactly the same until SM 10th Ed drops. And then the latest hots will be cold again. If you are a tournament player and find it ok to always change gear/units/lists, well, I guess there are ways to make this update really, really good. But even us casual player would have liked to have our lists at least slightly improved. I play 5 armies for 40K, and by far the one I enjoy the most is my Dark Angels one. But playing an Old Marine Greenwing (not all DA are pure Deathwing!) had me at a straight 15 lose streak. AoC gave my ordinary tactical squads and such stuff as Assault Marines just that amount of staying power needed to do something.
Will there be SM-lists that will become stronger? Will certain units become broken? Absolutely! Will SM win tournaments? Most likely. I just wish that SM had become stronger over all. AoC gave us this, and now that that is gone, we are down to spamming Lascannons and Thunderhammers. Oh, and also, only play Primaris because... money. But that became clear years and years ago.
Dudeface wrote: Tsons are priced to encompass their abilities (in theory) and are not immune to deny the witch
They can make it so that you are not allowed to take a deny the witch roll (or something equivilant to that) and with all the bonii they get as a practical matter it is difficult to deny what would otherwise be a middling dice roll (like a 7 being rolled but it counts as a 9). Also they usually have so many psykers on the table that unless you're using some special character they will probably be able to deny your abilities while you, at best get to try to negate 1 or 2 of theirs.
Agusto wrote: But what if you don't have a unit of Lascannon Devs or a bunch of extra magnetized Thunderhammers? Making a few, specific, unit upgrades broken by making them free is not a good way to make an army better. All it will do is make EVERY unit look exactly the same until SM 10th Ed drops. And then the latest hots will be cold again. If you are a tournament player and find it ok to always change gear/units/lists, well, I guess there are ways to make this update really, really good. But even us casual player would have liked to have our lists at least slightly improved. I play 5 armies for 40K, and by far the one I enjoy the most is my Dark Angels one. But playing an Old Marine Greenwing (not all DA are pure Deathwing!) had me at a straight 15 lose streak. AoC gave my ordinary tactical squads and such stuff as Assault Marines just that amount of staying power needed to do something.
Will there be SM-lists that will become stronger? Will certain units become broken? Absolutely! Will SM win tournaments? Most likely. I just wish that SM had become stronger over all. AoC gave us this, and now that that is gone, we are down to spamming Lascannons and Thunderhammers. Oh, and also, only play Primaris because... money. But that became clear years and years ago.
Only play Primaris....
Intercessors went from 20ppm to 18ppm. Tac Marines (old Marines) stayed at 18ppm. Ready for the difference? Intercessors gained...nothing. In fact they lost AoC, so dropping 2ppm isn't even that bad considering. On the flip side of this, those Tac Marines which didn't get a points drop? Yeah, they just gained a free Heavy weapon/Special Weapon and free upgrades on the Sgt. So those 5 Intercessors are as good as before (sgt gets his free upgrades) but those 5 Tac Marines? They get a 20pt Multi-melta for free. So before 90pts of Tac Marines wasn't really that great, its now equipped with a MM and a kitted out Sgt for 90pts, compared to the intercessors whose only real advantage is +1 attack but are now as cheap as the Tac Marines. So you can take 5 Intercessors for the same price as 5 Tac Marines but the difference is the Intercessors get +5 attacks where as the Tac marines get a Multi-Melta or Plasma Cannon, Missile Launcher, Lascannon, Heavy Bolter or a Grav Cannon. I would call that a ridiculously good trade off.
As far as your other concern? This is a competitive 40k update, GW has publicly stated multiple times that these updates are for competitive 40k, IE the tournament scene, not casual play. You are under no obligations to play by these rules, you can stick to AoC, you can stick to 7th you can do whatever you like. The point is that this was meant to level the playing field and realistically it just tilted the ice completely in favor of Marines. (My opinion).
"As far as your other concern? This is a competitive 40k update, GW has publicly stated multiple times that these updates are for competitive 40k, IE the tournament scene, not casual play. You are under no obligations to play by these rules, you can stick to AoC, you can stick to 7th you can do whatever you like. The point is that this was meant to level the playing field and realistically it just tilted the ice completely in favor of Marines. (My opinion) "
Agree with you 100%
Still think that AoC was a better way of leveling the playing field. (My opinion)
And yes, Intercessors might be even worse than Tacs right now, but given how many points the rest of the Primaris line are getting, I still think that they will be in a better spot than Old Marines.
Also, still think that free Thunderhammers and Lascannons is a really lazy, and bad, way to create balance.
When is the last time you've seen someone take a LC on a squad though?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grimskul wrote: Big oof to Harlequins, I feel bad for the guys, that's a pretty damn big nerf.
I'm really curious to see how much of an effect it will have. Clearly they still were dominating. Will people just drop them instead of giving it a whirl?
Agusto wrote: "As far as your other concern? This is a competitive 40k update, GW has publicly stated multiple times that these updates are for competitive 40k, IE the tournament scene, not casual play. You are under no obligations to play by these rules, you can stick to AoC, you can stick to 7th you can do whatever you like. The point is that this was meant to level the playing field and realistically it just tilted the ice completely in favor of Marines. (My opinion) "
Agree with you 100%
Still think that AoC was a better way of leveling the playing field. (My opinion)
And yes, Intercessors might be even worse than Tacs right now, but given how many points the rest of the Primaris line are getting, I still think that they will be in a better spot than Old Marines.
Also, still think that free Thunderhammers and Lascannons is a really lazy, and bad, way to create balance.
It is lazy, it is bad, and ironically it didn't balance the game at all. I honestly predict Marines to run away on the tournament scene like they did at the end of 8th. But to your other point about Primaris, they got points cuts but its still damn good for old Marines.
Eradicators get Free MM and Heavy Melta Rifles. on a Max squad of 6 that is 40pts of free stuff. So the unit went from 310pts to 270pts. Those Devastators went from 165 to 115. And again, the Sgt gets up to 20pts of Free upgrades on top of that if you want. So compare the two units, both have ROUGHLY the same mission albeit from difference angles. Eradicators dropped 13% in price, Devastators dropped 24.25% and if you equip the Sgt they dropped 32.4%
Terminators just dropped 5ppm and get free upgrades now, So a squad of 5 just went from 220pts with a Cyclone missile Launcher and Teleport Homer to 165pts. 55pts cut or a 25% price reduction. I can keep going, but the point is that from what I can see, Old Marines got the better deal.
When is the last time you've seen someone take a LC on a squad though?
Honestly? Not this edition. The better question you should ask though is how often you see Marine players taking Token 5man troop squads to fill out requirements? Well, now those same units can have 30-40pts of Free upgrades because reasons. If we applied your logic to Ork units, how often did you see ANY heavy weapon on an Ork boyz squad? The answer is NEVER. So what did GW do? They made the Big shoota free...its actually a side grade to a choppa at best...and since we want to be in CC its a nerf and they made the Rokkit 5ppm instead of 10. So they brought it back to the old points value it used to have and even then it was rarely seen since BS5 in a game where -1 to hit is all over the place means its just not worth it. So why didn't my Rokkit become free? Why didn't they buff big shootas to be Dakka 5/8?
Grimskul wrote: Big oof to Harlequins, I feel bad for the guys, that's a pretty damn big nerf.
I'm really curious to see how much of an effect it will have. Clearly they still were dominating. Will people just drop them instead of giving it a whirl?
Honestly I think this will kill them outright, they relied exclusively on -1 to hit and army wide 4+ invuln to have durability. With it going to a 5+ they should have gotten at least a couple points drops
I love how in the 40m "Metawatch" video they point out that the Tyranid changes are there to emphasise the "horde" nature of the faction, and to encourage people to take more of the little bugs.
Except that Termagants and Hormagaunts stayed 7 and 8 points a piece (respectively), and the one HQ that's meant to go with/supplement/fit thematically with them - the Tervigon - went up 20 points.
First good Codex in 5 editions (at least) and they've done nothing but rip it apart ever since...
Daedalus81 wrote: When is the last time you've seen someone take a LC on a squad though?
How is that your response? You know this isn't about Lascannons specifically. Lascannons are just an example. I could have picked any weapon option available to any squad that suddenly doesn't have to pay points for it.
They're upgrades. They shouldn't be free. The only time an upgrade should be free is if its a lateral shift in power (ie. giving up something for something that's different but generally equal in power). Boltgun to Lascannon is not a lateral shift.
"It is lazy, it is bad, and ironically it didn't balance the game at all. I honestly predict Marines to run away on the tournament scene like they did at the end of 8th"
I honestly fear that we are one step away from GW beginning with free units again, like with the transports for the SM Demi-Company. Once you start handing out free gear, free units aren't impossible.
"Hey Steve, do you know what would make us sell a lot more more Primaris Repulsors?"
"I don't know Gary, perhaps make the rules bett..."
"Exactly Steve, make them cost zero points in any SM list!"
Tyel wrote: Possibly overstating it, but triple Gladiator Lancers could be interesting at just 125 points a model. Sure, don't really synergise with much (basically always the issue of Marine tanks), but 125 points for 12 T8 3+ wounds, and 2 S10 dark lances (with +1 to hit), potentially 12 S4 shots and a slightly odd autocannon seems kind of reasonable.
Meanwhile 30 point aggressors also feels... aggressively cheap.
I can see marines doing well. Game is certainly more deadly now, which kind of sucks.
Death Guard got screwed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: How is that your response? You know this isn't about Lascannons specifically. Lascannons are just an example. I could have picked any weapon option available to any squad that suddenly doesn't have to pay points for it.
They're upgrades. They shouldn't be free. The only time an upgrade should be free is if its a lateral shift in power (ie. giving up something for something that's different but generally equal in power). Boltgun to Lascannon is not a lateral shift.
That's sound logic, in general. The thing is that a lascannon wasn't a shift in power, because it robbed from elsewhere in the army and so was never taken.
When is the last time you've seen someone take a LC on a squad though?
The flip side of this will soon become "when did you last see a flamer or chainsword?" The answer is never as objectively better free gear will always be taken.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I love how in the 40m "Metawatch" video they point out that the Tyranid changes are there to emphasise the "horde" nature of the faction, and to encourage people to take more of the little bugs.
Except that Termagants and Hormagaunts stayed 7 and 8 points a piece (respectively), and the one HQ that's meant to go with/supplement/fit thematically with them - the Tervigon - went up 20 points.
First good Codex in 5 editions (at least) and they've done nothing but rip it apart ever since...
Daedalus81 wrote: When is the last time you've seen someone take a LC on a squad though?
How is that your response? You know this isn't about Lascannons specifically. Lascannons are just an example. I could have picked any weapon option available to any squad that suddenly doesn't have to pay points for it.
They're upgrades. They shouldn't be free. The only time an upgrade should be free is if its a lateral shift in power (ie. giving up something for something that's different but generally equal in power). Boltgun to Lascannon is not a lateral shift.
The point is that this was meant to level the playing field and realistically it just tilted the ice completely in favor of Marines. (My opinion).
Marines were still well below 50% win rate with AoC from any metric I've seen recently. Much better than without AoC, but still below average.
What this update does well is prop up trash tier units (eg Lascan Devastators, Repulsors) and boost Devastator doctrine chapters.
What this update also is most likely to do is bring the while faction down. roughly 10% in points drops will not make up for AoC, especially when the best units aren't dropping by 10%.
IH and BA might be fine (+-5% from 50% WR), but everyone else?
When is the last time you've seen someone take a LC on a squad though?
The flip side of this will soon become "when did you last see a flamer or chainsword?" The answer is never as objectively better free gear will always be taken.
The better pointed gear was always taken. The answer is to simply not have intentionally bad guns in the first place
H.B.M.C. wrote: I love how in the 40m "Metawatch" video they point out that the Tyranid changes are there to emphasise the "horde" nature of the faction, and to encourage people to take more of the little bugs.
Except that Termagants and Hormagaunts stayed 7 and 8 points a piece (respectively), and the one HQ that's meant to go with/supplement/fit thematically with them - the Tervigon - went up 20 points.
First good Codex in 5 editions (at least) and they've done nothing but rip it apart ever since...
Daedalus81 wrote: When is the last time you've seen someone take a LC on a squad though?
How is that your response? You know this isn't about Lascannons specifically. Lascannons are just an example. I could have picked any weapon option available to any squad that suddenly doesn't have to pay points for it.
They're upgrades. They shouldn't be free. The only time an upgrade should be free is if its a lateral shift in power (ie. giving up something for something that's different but generally equal in power). Boltgun to Lascannon is not a lateral shift.
Conversely would 14 ppmtac marines be sensible?
Well you basically get that with new darlings Votaan.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also only thirty I get from this is that Black Templars make use of that free 5++ again. In fact, I think a majority of my list got a point cut. Aggressors at 30 is bonkers.
When is the last time you've seen someone take a LC on a squad though?
The flip side of this will soon become "when did you last see a flamer or chainsword?" The answer is never as objectively better free gear will always be taken.
Chainswords are just standard equipment. Basic flamers still need some solving as even with D6+3 shots you really wouldnt use them much unless you could equip the whole unit. Same reason why four lascannons don't do much to the old ork horde. They're very "optimized" weapons.
I'm liking it, with my TWarriors points costs making sense rather than just being worse than sword/spits for no benefit I can bring them into boarding actions without feeling screwed. Good time to be devourer/rendyclaws!
I honestly predict Marines to run away on the tournament scene like they did at the end of 8th.
I'm unconvinced. They still have extremely weak datasheets, specially without AoC.
Ready for a wonderfully stupid list that exemplifies how ridiculous this is? Please note I don't play Marines and am relying on Battlescribe for legality.
Tac Marines: Multi-Melta, Sgt W/Combi-Melta and TH - 90pts Tac Marines: Multi-Melta, Sgt W/Combi-Melta and TH - 90pts Tac Marines: Multi-Melta, Sgt W/Combi-Melta and TH - 90pts
Sternguard Vet Squad: 2 Combi-Melta, 2 Multi-Melta and Sgt W/ Combi-Melta and PF 100pts Sternguard Vet Squad: 2 Combi-Melta, 2 Multi-Melta and Sgt W/ Combi-Melta and PF 100pts Sternguard Vet Squad: 2 Combi-Melta, 2 Multi-Melta and Sgt W/ Combi-Melta and PF 100pts
Bike Squad: 2xMeltagun Sgt W/combi-Melta 90pts (Possibly a free attack Bike since it doesn't assign pts value, though I doubt it) Bike Squad: 2xMeltagun Sgt W/combi-Melta 90pts Bike Squad: 2xMeltagun Sgt W/combi-Melta 90pts
That is 1,360pts. In Battlescribe that is 2,000pts currently. That means I can take another 640pts of stuff, so lets take this further. I'll use detachment shenanigans to give myself more slots, so lets take 3 more Tac Squads for 270pts and then finish off with 2 squads of Terminators for funsies. I'll give each one a Cyclone missile Launcher for free and a teleport homer and 1 squad will have 6 instead of 5. That puts me at 1993pts.
Tac Marines: Multi-Melta, Sgt W/Combi-Melta and TH - 90pts Tac Marines: Multi-Melta, Sgt W/Combi-Melta and TH - 90pts Tac Marines: Multi-Melta, Sgt W/Combi-Melta and TH - 90pts
Terminator Squad: 4x w/sgt and Cyclone Missile Launcher 165pts Terminator Squad: 5x w/sgt and Cyclone Missile Launcher 198pts
In battlescribe though, that puts me at 2883pts.
So to summarize, that is 6 Tac squads with 6 Multi-Meltas and 6 Combi Meltas, 3 Sternguard Squads with 6 Multi-Meltas and 9 Combi-Meltas, 3 Bike Squads with 3 Combi Meltas, 3 Devastator squads with 12 Lascannons and 2 Terminator squads with 2 Cyclone Missile launchers. Oh, and 6 Free Thunder Hammers, 3 Free powerfists and 3 free Plasma Pistols.
Grand total is 12 Multi-Meltas, 19 Combi-Meltas, 6 meltas, 12 Lascannons, 2 cyclone Missile Launchers and a partridge in a pear tree. 883 free points of upgrades in a 2kpt game. But yeah, i get why you are "unconvinced"
I love how the Tyranids Warriors Barbed Strangler option got a 5pts increase (from 5 to 10pts), but the Venom Cannon stayed at 5pts each. Maybe I didn't see it and Barbed was the new hot stuff in the competitive front? The Venom is a clearly better option in my view! Otherwise it's fine that they priced some wargear on the Warriors instead of the base cost (but still weird as everyone and their mother get free upgrades now), but I hate that simplistic "multiple of 5" way they do it now.
Raveners never looked like they were consistent pick either, why such a harsh cost bump? They look decent, but every time I consider taking them I'm always thinking "why not just Warriors instead". Same for other stuff that got nerfed randomly. Tervigon, Hive Guards (what?), Trygon. Zoanthrope I can understand but again, they went too hard instead of going small then seeing how it plays out. Guess end-of-edition made them go "whatever" and they swung hard just because.
The spore mine thing is weird. Tervigon can still spawn 10 Termagants "for free". If spamming free spore mine is an issue, there's other way to fix that than this. Without a price cut for at least Biovores and Sporocysts, that's a bad fix.
Also another weird discrepancy, all tanks (at least for Thousand Sons) got the upgrade Combi-Bolter and Havoc Launcher for free (Rhino, both Predators, Land Raider, even the Defiler), except the Vindicator. Why? What have Vindicator done to get that!
The spore mine thing is weird. Tervigon can still spawn 10 Termagants "for free". If spamming free spore mine is an issue, there's other way to fix that than this. Without a price cut for at least Biovores and Sporocysts, that's a bad fix.
As I understand there was a meta list that involved spamming free spore mines to prevent an opponent's movement, which was obviously unpleasant to play against.
The same kind of shenanigans aren't possible with the once-per-game new gaunt unit, although the Tervigon still did eat a points increase ( probably to discourage taking multiples).
I honestly predict Marines to run away on the tournament scene like they did at the end of 8th.
I'm unconvinced. They still have extremely weak datasheets, specially without AoC.
Ready for a wonderfully stupid list that exemplifies how ridiculous this is? Please note I don't play Marines and am relying on Battlescribe for legality.
Tac Marines: Multi-Melta, Sgt W/Combi-Melta and TH - 90pts
Tac Marines: Multi-Melta, Sgt W/Combi-Melta and TH - 90pts
Tac Marines: Multi-Melta, Sgt W/Combi-Melta and TH - 90pts
Sternguard Vet Squad: 2 Combi-Melta, 2 Multi-Melta and Sgt W/ Combi-Melta and PF 100pts
Sternguard Vet Squad: 2 Combi-Melta, 2 Multi-Melta and Sgt W/ Combi-Melta and PF 100pts
Sternguard Vet Squad: 2 Combi-Melta, 2 Multi-Melta and Sgt W/ Combi-Melta and PF 100pts
Bike Squad: 2xMeltagun Sgt W/combi-Melta 90pts (Possibly a free attack Bike since it doesn't assign pts value, though I doubt it)
Bike Squad: 2xMeltagun Sgt W/combi-Melta 90pts
Bike Squad: 2xMeltagun Sgt W/combi-Melta 90pts
That is 1,360pts. In Battlescribe that is 2,000pts currently. That means I can take another 640pts of stuff, so lets take this further. I'll use detachment shenanigans to give myself more slots, so lets take 3 more Tac Squads for 270pts and then finish off with 2 squads of Terminators for funsies. I'll give each one a Cyclone missile Launcher for free and a teleport homer and 1 squad will have 6 instead of 5. That puts me at 1993pts.
Tac Marines: Multi-Melta, Sgt W/Combi-Melta and TH - 90pts
Tac Marines: Multi-Melta, Sgt W/Combi-Melta and TH - 90pts
Tac Marines: Multi-Melta, Sgt W/Combi-Melta and TH - 90pts
Terminator Squad: 4x w/sgt and Cyclone Missile Launcher 165pts
Terminator Squad: 5x w/sgt and Cyclone Missile Launcher 198pts
In battlescribe though, that puts me at 2883pts.
So to summarize, that is 6 Tac squads with 6 Multi-Meltas and 6 Combi Meltas, 3 Sternguard Squads with 6 Multi-Meltas and 9 Combi-Meltas, 3 Bike Squads with 3 Combi Meltas, 3 Devastator squads with 12 Lascannons and 2 Terminator squads with 2 Cyclone Missile launchers. Oh, and 6 Free Thunder Hammers, 3 Free powerfists and 3 free Plasma Pistols.
Grand total is 12 Multi-Meltas, 19 Combi-Meltas, 6 meltas, 12 Lascannons, 2 cyclone Missile Launchers and a partridge in a pear tree. 883 free points of upgrades in a 2kpt game. But yeah, i get why you are "unconvinced"
No offense but that list sounds boring af. Maybe that list wins games, no idea, would never field it nor play against one. Cheese will always be cheese
It's basically a mixed battle company + veteran company, a very fluffy marine list. Based on equipment, seems like they're fighting a very mechanized enemy force - possibly a stompa mob or traitor tank force? something like that.
If it's boring, it's because space marines are boring, I guess. My guess would be that it wouldn't win top-level games.
That list wasn't even worth the 2883 words it took to explain in a post.
At any rate GWs stance is that it WAS worth probably ~2500 points with AoC (Marines having underperformed and needing a slight buff) and now is worth about 2k without. Given the simple numbers game of how AoC affects durability I can see it... but will wait to look at the results.
The spore mine thing is weird. Tervigon can still spawn 10 Termagants "for free". If spamming free spore mine is an issue, there's other way to fix that than this. Without a price cut for at least Biovores and Sporocysts, that's a bad fix.
As I understand there was a meta list that involved spamming free spore mines to prevent an opponent's movement, which was obviously unpleasant to play against.
The same kind of shenanigans aren't possible with the once-per-game new gaunt unit, although the Tervigon still did eat a points increase ( probably to discourage taking multiples).
Yeah I heard a bit about that too (I don't follow the meta that closely so only saw it once in other comments), and like I said, there's most likely a better way to fix that than what was done here. They got that right with Biovores in the book I think by having it done via an action, so only 1 unit (of maximum 3 models) per turn could do it. They could have implemented a cap of spawned mines per turn from all sources or something like that so you'd have a way to spawn some still, but had to choose from who and where. Paying points just kills those units. Having that option was fun IMO and quite unique and characterful to the Nids and those units, but not "reserving 150 pts" for it fun.
Also another fun observation, all the Marines got their big guns for free, yet Termagants still have to pay 1pt to downgrade their weapon to a Devourer
H.B.M.C. wrote: And now WarCom presents a story in three parts:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Whoops!
(I post this here as WarCom has a tendency to quickly go back and edit areas where they're clearly wrong.)
Indeed, another case when either WarCom lied or GW needs to immediately errata their errata
So you think they deliberately said it so? Rather than...make mistake?
Gretty big accusation. Got any actual proof?
It's lying only when intentional.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Agusto wrote: But what if you don't have a unit of Lascannon Devs or a bunch of extra magnetized Thunderhammers? Making a few, specific, unit upgrades broken by making them free is not a good way to make an army better. All it will do is make EVERY unit look exactly the same until SM 10th Ed drops. And then the latest hots will be cold again. If you are a tournament player and find it ok to always change gear/units/lists, well, I guess there are ways to make this update really, really good. But even us casual player would have liked to have our lists at least slightly improved. I play 5 armies for 40K, and by far the one I enjoy the most is my Dark Angels one. But playing an Old Marine Greenwing (not all DA are pure Deathwing!) had me at a straight 15 lose streak. AoC gave my ordinary tactical squads and such stuff as Assault Marines just that amount of staying power needed to do something.
Will there be SM-lists that will become stronger? Will certain units become broken? Absolutely! Will SM win tournaments? Most likely. I just wish that SM had become stronger over all. AoC gave us this, and now that that is gone, we are down to spamming Lascannons and Thunderhammers. Oh, and also, only play Primaris because... money. But that became clear years and years ago.
You just highlighted why these aren't balance patches.
Just gw's marketing ploys while tournament try hards eat the hook pretending playing competively. Like emperor with his new clothes
The spore mine thing is weird. Tervigon can still spawn 10 Termagants "for free". If spamming free spore mine is an issue, there's other way to fix that than this. Without a price cut for at least Biovores and Sporocysts, that's a bad fix.
As I understand there was a meta list that involved spamming free spore mines to prevent an opponent's movement, which was obviously unpleasant to play against.
The same kind of shenanigans aren't possible with the once-per-game new gaunt unit, although the Tervigon still did eat a points increase ( probably to discourage taking multiples).
Yeah I heard a bit about that too (I don't follow the meta that closely so only saw it once in other comments), and like I said, there's most likely a better way to fix that than what was done here. They got that right with Biovores in the book I think by having it done via an action, so only 1 unit (of maximum 3 models) per turn could do it. They could have implemented a cap of spawned mines per turn from all sources or something like that so you'd have a way to spawn some still, but had to choose from who and where. Paying points just kills those units. Having that option was fun IMO and quite unique and characterful to the Nids and those units, but not "reserving 150 pts" for it fun.
Also another fun observation, all the Marines got their big guns for free, yet Termagants still have to pay 1pt to downgrade their weapon to a Devourer
That sort of rule would be bad for scalability. Especially bad when game's supposed to have multiple point sizes.
I honestly predict Marines to run away on the tournament scene like they did at the end of 8th.
I'm unconvinced. They still have extremely weak datasheets, specially without AoC.
Ready for a wonderfully stupid list that exemplifies how ridiculous this is? Please note I don't play Marines and am relying on Battlescribe for legality.
Tac Marines: Multi-Melta, Sgt W/Combi-Melta and TH - 90pts
Tac Marines: Multi-Melta, Sgt W/Combi-Melta and TH - 90pts
Tac Marines: Multi-Melta, Sgt W/Combi-Melta and TH - 90pts
Sternguard Vet Squad: 2 Combi-Melta, 2 Multi-Melta and Sgt W/ Combi-Melta and PF 100pts
Sternguard Vet Squad: 2 Combi-Melta, 2 Multi-Melta and Sgt W/ Combi-Melta and PF 100pts
Sternguard Vet Squad: 2 Combi-Melta, 2 Multi-Melta and Sgt W/ Combi-Melta and PF 100pts
Bike Squad: 2xMeltagun Sgt W/combi-Melta 90pts (Possibly a free attack Bike since it doesn't assign pts value, though I doubt it)
Bike Squad: 2xMeltagun Sgt W/combi-Melta 90pts
Bike Squad: 2xMeltagun Sgt W/combi-Melta 90pts
That is 1,360pts. In Battlescribe that is 2,000pts currently. That means I can take another 640pts of stuff, so lets take this further. I'll use detachment shenanigans to give myself more slots, so lets take 3 more Tac Squads for 270pts and then finish off with 2 squads of Terminators for funsies. I'll give each one a Cyclone missile Launcher for free and a teleport homer and 1 squad will have 6 instead of 5. That puts me at 1993pts.
Tac Marines: Multi-Melta, Sgt W/Combi-Melta and TH - 90pts
Tac Marines: Multi-Melta, Sgt W/Combi-Melta and TH - 90pts
Tac Marines: Multi-Melta, Sgt W/Combi-Melta and TH - 90pts
Terminator Squad: 4x w/sgt and Cyclone Missile Launcher 165pts
Terminator Squad: 5x w/sgt and Cyclone Missile Launcher 198pts
In battlescribe though, that puts me at 2883pts.
So to summarize, that is 6 Tac squads with 6 Multi-Meltas and 6 Combi Meltas, 3 Sternguard Squads with 6 Multi-Meltas and 9 Combi-Meltas, 3 Bike Squads with 3 Combi Meltas, 3 Devastator squads with 12 Lascannons and 2 Terminator squads with 2 Cyclone Missile launchers. Oh, and 6 Free Thunder Hammers, 3 Free powerfists and 3 free Plasma Pistols.
Grand total is 12 Multi-Meltas, 19 Combi-Meltas, 6 meltas, 12 Lascannons, 2 cyclone Missile Launchers and a partridge in a pear tree. 883 free points of upgrades in a 2kpt game. But yeah, i get why you are "unconvinced"
Most of these units weren't getting much playtime on the table to begin with. More or less all of them were relegated to "trash tier".
Now, you might say "Well, they could have lowered the points on those units!" to which I would have replied: "Yes, but I don't think anyone wants to see a 11 point space marine."
Truth be told but 2000 points is a horrible metric for large scale battles like these if you want to take into account point costs of individual upgrades. Even WarCry starts at 1000 points.
...maybe exclusively playing 30k has warped my sense of what's good or not, but how how is that Marines list that Semper posted good? Why would you not just stay out of range turn 1, alpha most of the list away (the meta is very deadly and the Marines are even less tanky than they were before), and win the game due to having a lot more than your opponent after that?
Yes, that's an example of a list that costs way fewer points post-CA than it did before. That and a quarter will get you a gumball.
I honestly predict Marines to run away on the tournament scene like they did at the end of 8th.
I'm unconvinced. They still have extremely weak datasheets, specially without AoC.
Ready for a wonderfully stupid list that exemplifies how ridiculous this is? Please note I don't play Marines and am relying on Battlescribe for legality.
Tac Marines: Multi-Melta, Sgt W/Combi-Melta and TH - 90pts
Tac Marines: Multi-Melta, Sgt W/Combi-Melta and TH - 90pts
Tac Marines: Multi-Melta, Sgt W/Combi-Melta and TH - 90pts
Sternguard Vet Squad: 2 Combi-Melta, 2 Multi-Melta and Sgt W/ Combi-Melta and PF 100pts
Sternguard Vet Squad: 2 Combi-Melta, 2 Multi-Melta and Sgt W/ Combi-Melta and PF 100pts
Sternguard Vet Squad: 2 Combi-Melta, 2 Multi-Melta and Sgt W/ Combi-Melta and PF 100pts
Bike Squad: 2xMeltagun Sgt W/combi-Melta 90pts (Possibly a free attack Bike since it doesn't assign pts value, though I doubt it)
Bike Squad: 2xMeltagun Sgt W/combi-Melta 90pts
Bike Squad: 2xMeltagun Sgt W/combi-Melta 90pts
That is 1,360pts. In Battlescribe that is 2,000pts currently. That means I can take another 640pts of stuff, so lets take this further. I'll use detachment shenanigans to give myself more slots, so lets take 3 more Tac Squads for 270pts and then finish off with 2 squads of Terminators for funsies. I'll give each one a Cyclone missile Launcher for free and a teleport homer and 1 squad will have 6 instead of 5. That puts me at 1993pts.
Tac Marines: Multi-Melta, Sgt W/Combi-Melta and TH - 90pts
Tac Marines: Multi-Melta, Sgt W/Combi-Melta and TH - 90pts
Tac Marines: Multi-Melta, Sgt W/Combi-Melta and TH - 90pts
Terminator Squad: 4x w/sgt and Cyclone Missile Launcher 165pts
Terminator Squad: 5x w/sgt and Cyclone Missile Launcher 198pts
In battlescribe though, that puts me at 2883pts.
So to summarize, that is 6 Tac squads with 6 Multi-Meltas and 6 Combi Meltas, 3 Sternguard Squads with 6 Multi-Meltas and 9 Combi-Meltas, 3 Bike Squads with 3 Combi Meltas, 3 Devastator squads with 12 Lascannons and 2 Terminator squads with 2 Cyclone Missile launchers. Oh, and 6 Free Thunder Hammers, 3 Free powerfists and 3 free Plasma Pistols.
Grand total is 12 Multi-Meltas, 19 Combi-Meltas, 6 meltas, 12 Lascannons, 2 cyclone Missile Launchers and a partridge in a pear tree. 883 free points of upgrades in a 2kpt game. But yeah, i get why you are "unconvinced"
On a whole pile of W2 models with most of their range being 18 to 24" with a move penalty.
I'll agree that it's pretty silly. I'm not certain that it will be busted.
Rihgu wrote: It's basically a mixed battle company + veteran company, a very fluffy marine list. Based on equipment, seems like they're fighting a very mechanized enemy force - possibly a stompa mob or traitor tank force? something like that.
If it's boring, it's because space marines are boring, I guess. My guess would be that it wouldn't win top-level games.
A marine list with only bikes and infantry horde is fluffy? Maybe if this was 30K and you were running White Scars. So lets agree to disagree
Gene St. Ealer wrote: ...maybe exclusively playing 30k has warped my sense of what's good or not, but how how is that Marines list that Semper posted good? Why would you not just stay out of range turn 1, alpha most of the list away (the meta is very deadly and the Marines are even less tanky than they were before), and win the game due to having a lot more than your opponent after that?
Yes, that's an example of a list that costs way fewer points post-CA than it did before. That and a quarter will get you a gumball.
In the magic world where you actually buy and assemble the models for all that stuff, everything is magically in melta range in turn 1, the enemy just does nothing but sit in the open and take it, and cover, target priority, unit placement and objectives don't matter.
Stuff changed, sky is falling, game is ruined, yadda yadda, same time next week?
I honestly predict Marines to run away on the tournament scene like they did at the end of 8th.
I'm unconvinced. They still have extremely weak datasheets, specially without AoC.
Ready for a wonderfully stupid list that exemplifies how ridiculous this is? Please note I don't play Marines and am relying on Battlescribe for legality.
Tac Marines: Multi-Melta, Sgt W/Combi-Melta and TH - 90pts
Tac Marines: Multi-Melta, Sgt W/Combi-Melta and TH - 90pts
Tac Marines: Multi-Melta, Sgt W/Combi-Melta and TH - 90pts
Sternguard Vet Squad: 2 Combi-Melta, 2 Multi-Melta and Sgt W/ Combi-Melta and PF 100pts
Sternguard Vet Squad: 2 Combi-Melta, 2 Multi-Melta and Sgt W/ Combi-Melta and PF 100pts
Sternguard Vet Squad: 2 Combi-Melta, 2 Multi-Melta and Sgt W/ Combi-Melta and PF 100pts
Bike Squad: 2xMeltagun Sgt W/combi-Melta 90pts (Possibly a free attack Bike since it doesn't assign pts value, though I doubt it)
Bike Squad: 2xMeltagun Sgt W/combi-Melta 90pts
Bike Squad: 2xMeltagun Sgt W/combi-Melta 90pts
That is 1,360pts. In Battlescribe that is 2,000pts currently. That means I can take another 640pts of stuff, so lets take this further. I'll use detachment shenanigans to give myself more slots, so lets take 3 more Tac Squads for 270pts and then finish off with 2 squads of Terminators for funsies. I'll give each one a Cyclone missile Launcher for free and a teleport homer and 1 squad will have 6 instead of 5. That puts me at 1993pts.
Tac Marines: Multi-Melta, Sgt W/Combi-Melta and TH - 90pts
Tac Marines: Multi-Melta, Sgt W/Combi-Melta and TH - 90pts
Tac Marines: Multi-Melta, Sgt W/Combi-Melta and TH - 90pts
Terminator Squad: 4x w/sgt and Cyclone Missile Launcher 165pts
Terminator Squad: 5x w/sgt and Cyclone Missile Launcher 198pts
In battlescribe though, that puts me at 2883pts.
So to summarize, that is 6 Tac squads with 6 Multi-Meltas and 6 Combi Meltas, 3 Sternguard Squads with 6 Multi-Meltas and 9 Combi-Meltas, 3 Bike Squads with 3 Combi Meltas, 3 Devastator squads with 12 Lascannons and 2 Terminator squads with 2 Cyclone Missile launchers. Oh, and 6 Free Thunder Hammers, 3 Free powerfists and 3 free Plasma Pistols.
Grand total is 12 Multi-Meltas, 19 Combi-Meltas, 6 meltas, 12 Lascannons, 2 cyclone Missile Launchers and a partridge in a pear tree. 883 free points of upgrades in a 2kpt game. But yeah, i get why you are "unconvinced"
That's a horrible list, and you've forced the issue with pointless (hah) upgrades like the fists and hammers. Yes, on paper that's 883 free points of upgrades, but you're sitting on an absolute glasscannon of an army with close to zero mobility, and a very short ranged one at that. Most of the units you picked were bottom of the barrel in the codex and needed a buff for internal balance. I'm still not over Lascan Devastators being the big bad evil, of all things.
Do the same with units that were used successfully before the update, and you won't get 900 points of "free stuff".
And Marines NEED something more than the doctrine change to mitigate AoC, I hope you agree with that. Point drops across the board are the attempt to do that, so of course a 10% drop will give us 400pts "extra" because stuff would be overprized w/o AoC.
11 point Necron Warriors are a joke. They're only just hovering above trash-tier points now. They used to be 20% more expensive than Tactical Marines...
Gene St. Ealer wrote: ...maybe exclusively playing 30k has warped my sense of what's good or not, but how how is that Marines list that Semper posted good?
It's not, and that why it's hilarious. They're specifically using the previously most expensive option(which isn't even the best pick for those units) to inflate the "free points" nor taking into account why those units weren't being played to begin with. I
Gene St. Ealer wrote: ...maybe exclusively playing 30k has warped my sense of what's good or not, but how how is that Marines list that Semper posted good?
It's not, and that why it's hilarious. They're specifically using the previously most expensive option(which isn't even the best pick for those units) to inflate the "free points" nor taking into account why those units weren't being played to begin with. I
Yep.
Assuming 1 thunderhammer is equally valuable in devastator squad(where sergeant is generally first to die with 5 bodies...) as 1 in dedicated assault unit with multiples and better stats is rather hilarious
If that's the best marines got then marines are screwed. They were what sub-40% before? Wonder if they break sub-30% then That or Semper's lists are just so bad he's facing 0-5 in every tournament.
Gene St. Ealer wrote: ...maybe exclusively playing 30k has warped my sense of what's good or not, but how how is that Marines list that Semper posted good? Why would you not just stay out of range turn 1, alpha most of the list away (the meta is very deadly and the Marines are even less tanky than they were before), and win the game due to having a lot more than your opponent after that?
Yes, that's an example of a list that costs way fewer points post-CA than it did before. That and a quarter will get you a gumball.
short answer: it isn't.
longer answer: it was chosen to maximise the amount of "free" stuff that could get shoved into a list now, to highlight the contrast between what was considered "fair" 6 months ago on the last revision, and now.
theirs two ways to look at this. Either:
1) marines were significantly over costed in the modern meta, and needed points reductions in the order of hundreds of points to make them effective again.
or
2) the codex creep has gotten so bad that the marine codex that launched the edition now needs hundreds of points of "free" stuff bolted on to compete.
i realise that pretty much the same thing form two different angles, but it is the crux of the debate: that in order for marines to compete now, they need a lot more "stuff" than was true a year ago.
At a 50% win rate (likely using very very limited builds), CSM really feels like they got the shaft here especially since we lost AoC. Plus side, guess AP 2 is good again lol
ikeulhu wrote: Indeed, another case when either WarCom lied or GW needs to immediately errata their errata
So you think they deliberately said it so? Rather than...make mistake?
Gretty big accusation. Got any actual proof?
It's lying only when intentional.
They removed that from the article fast enough that it does not seem intentional, so "lied" is probably a bit harsh and was said more in jest (hence the ). That being said, listing a specific unit including a hyperlink to the store page in an article on an official GW site only to then have to remove it later is still an extremely incompetent misrepresentation of facts.
I'm not convinced the changes to marines will make them any better. The added survivability from AOC was really significant once the marines were in cover. My White Scars felt like they had reasonable survivability against ranged attacks and they even got a 5+ save against power swords and my terminators had a decent 4+. I expect them to fall prey hard against my friend's custodes now.
Perhaps being able to move off objectives will prove more of a boon than I think but I'm not convinced. That bonus does only take effect with troops and only triggers at the end of my command phase only. This gives my opponent a turn to remove my now defensively weaker unit before I can fully secure the objective. The rules also encourage the use of troops which still don't feel strong for marines so I'm uncertain how much utility players will actually get from the rule.
My adeptus mechanics on the other hand feel like they're a force to be reckoned with. Improved invulnerable saves plus lots of freebies and improved kataphrons feels like a big win.
Does anybody know why they're picking on the necron doomstalker and still refusing to give it CORE? It feels like real outlier. Surely giving it CORE isn't any more busted than giving it to both heavy destroyers and the doomsday ark...
There's more serious problems than the stalker not having core, sadly.
- Phylacterine Hive is useless. They gave a bunch of units core, but Hive was supposed to allow the cryptek to heal those units that became core. It's completely redundant.
- Likewise, the Severed trait has been rendered completely obsolete after they made protocols battlefield wide.
- Destroyer Lords of both varieties do not have the noble trait. Which means they cannot benefit from strats and objectives that specify nobles.
So no Ressurection Protocols and no secondaries.
- RP punishes multiwound models. If you don't roll 3 5s you aren't getting a destroyer back. I get that GW doesn't want a bunch of single wound models but it's still fairly punishing, especially when Necron damage dealers tend to have multiple wounds.
Eldarain wrote: Does it seem odd the "mitigate AoC removal" changes didn't really make it to CSM outside of their troop unit?
My Emperor's Children seem to have been kicked in the nuts. Lost AoC and MoS went up 5 points ... but noise marines are still paying 5 points/model for sonic blasters? I can't see what I've gained to offset losing AoC.
For CSM they really should have waited to see exactly how lose of AoC affected terminators before upping their points. I know they were the hot ticket item, but without AoC I think they are a lot easier to deal with, even fully buffed.
Eldarain wrote: Does it seem odd the "mitigate AoC removal" changes didn't really make it to CSM outside of their troop unit?
My Emperor's Children seem to have been kicked in the nuts. Lost AoC and MoS went up 5 points ... but noise marines are still paying 5 points/model for sonic blasters? I can't see what I've gained to offset losing AoC.
Sisters gained nothing to offset AoC either. The difference, Sisters and Chaos Marines had that 50% win rate and bringing the top armies down should allow them to rise. In theory, at least.
SemperMortis wrote: 883 free points of upgrades in a 2kpt game. But yeah, i get why you are "unconvinced"
Thank you, Semper, for so succinctly putting into words exactly why this change is so utterly absurd.
883 points worth of stuff for free. It's a shame that people can't see past "But that's a bad list!" without realising that the lists power doesn't matter: The fact that it suddenly gets damn near 900 points worth of upgrades for free is the problem. That sort of gak shouldn't be free.
Taking thunder hammers and plasma pistols everywhere shouldn't happen because it's stupid - and it's certainly not effective in things like Dev Squads - but you can because it's free and why the hell not? You don't lose anything for taking them because you're not making a choice. You're not giving anything up. You're not paying for the upgrade.
Any system where the sacrifice is meaningless is a bad system. I've been saying this since the second 3rd Ed Guard Codex came out (20 years ago this year!). In order to get the best Doctrines in that book, you had to give up a bunch of units, units that were generally recognised to be terrible anyway. And if you're giving up something you were never going to take in the first place, and get an advantage for "giving up" that thing, then you're not really giving anything up. You're just getting an advantage, for free, with no consequences.
Free upgrades sits in the same area. It's terrible game design and 100% on brand for the writers at GW who still, after 36 years of this, can't manage to be at all consistent for even a full edition...
tauist wrote: No offense but that list sounds boring af. Maybe that list wins games, no idea, would never field it nor play against one. Cheese will always be cheese
Sounds boring as feth...ok, the point was to show that Marines can now take almost 50% more points then before if they so choose. The reason they even give points updates per GW themselves is to balance the game COMPETITIVELY.
Gene St. Ealer wrote: ...maybe exclusively playing 30k has warped my sense of what's good or not, but how how is that Marines list that Semper posted good? Why would you not just stay out of range turn 1, alpha most of the list away (the meta is very deadly and the Marines are even less tanky than they were before), and win the game due to having a lot more than your opponent after that?
Yes, that's an example of a list that costs way fewer points post-CA than it did before. That and a quarter will get you a gumball.
Probably because at the competitive level you have to get to mid field and hold objectives to win. I love it when my opponents choose to stay back off the midfield and sit back and shoot long range. It means I max out my secondaries quickly and hold primaries for at least 2-3 turns.
As far as "Less Tanky" The last SM list that placed had 22 models in it including a Super Heavy, girlyman and 3 Dreads. The ridiculous list I built to highlight how stupid these free upgrades are contains 82 models but all infantry. You really want to argue that 22 models with AoC is more durable than 82 models?
On a whole pile of W2 models with most of their range being 18 to 24" with a move penalty.
I'll agree that it's pretty silly. I'm not certain that it will be busted.
Very true...except the meltas and combi meltas don't have a movement penalty, So in reality its just the 12 multi-meltas with a movement penalty since the Lascannons won't be moving much with their 48' range. And going back to that last SM list that placed, he had a grand total of 4 models with long range heavy weapons...and that is being generous. 3 Redemptor dreads with Heavy Onslaught Gatling Cannons (30' Heavy 12 S6 -1 1dmg) and an astraeus with twin Plasma eradicators and Macro Accelerators. I will happily agree that the winning list has more dakka at long range (48+) but i'll point out that its only real dmg output is caused by those 4 units and the BS list I built would utterly destroy it at medium range and in a real game.
You can insult the list to your hearts content, it has more dakka, more dmg output and more durability than the last SM list to place.
That will never see the field of battle again, because everything that's better than them is now free. Do you understand this point yet? Are we getting through?
Daedalus81 wrote: The thing is that a lascannon wasn't a shift in power, because it robbed from elsewhere in the army and so was never taken.
Daedalus81 wrote: Same reason why four lascannons don't do much to the old ork horde. They're very "optimized" weapons.
You don't seem to get it. You're focusing on the "Lascannon" part of this too much. Again: This isn't about the Lascannon. The Lascannon is just an example. The point isn't "Lascannons shouldn't be free", the point is "Any upgrade to basic weaponry shouldn't be free".
"But you just said Lascannons shouldn't be..."
Yes, I did, as an example of the overall point. Do you want me to exhaustively list every possible upgrade with "... shouldn't be free!" after it to make it clear I was talking about everything, not just the three weapons I did list?
10 man Tactical Marines are now cheaper than 10 man Hearthkyn units when equipped similarly. That just feels wrong. The Votann are slightly more killy, but not by much. Marines are faster and more durable and more flexible.
SemperMortis wrote: 883 free points of upgrades in a 2kpt game. But yeah, i get why you are "unconvinced"
Thank you, Semper, for so succinctly putting into words exactly why this change is so utterly absurd.
883 points worth of stuff for free. It's a shame that people can't see past "But that's a bad list!" without realising that the lists power doesn't matter: The fact that it suddenly gets damn near 900 points worth of upgrades for free is the problem. That sort of gak shouldn't be free.
Taking thunder hammers and plasma pistols everywhere shouldn't happen because it's stupid - and it's certainly not effective in things like Dev Squads - but you can because it's free and why the hell not? You don't lose anything for taking them because you're not making a choice. You're not giving anything up. You're not paying for the upgrade.
Any system where the sacrifice is meaningless is a bad system. I've been saying this since the second 3rd Ed Guard Codex came out (20 years ago this year!). In order to get the best Doctrines in that book, you had to give up a bunch of units, units that were generally recognised to be terrible anyway. And if you're giving up something you were never going to take in the first place, and get an advantage for "giving up" that thing, then you're not really giving anything up. You're just getting an advantage, for free, with no consequences.
Free upgrades sits in the same area. It's terrible game design and 100% on brand for the writers at GW who still, after 36 years of this, can't manage to be at all consistent for even a full edition...
It's always been a meaningless choice though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
usernamesareannoying wrote: Noob question, sorry guys.
Armor of contempt is gone?
Where was it even added, the last update?
I forget.
cuda1179 wrote: Marines are faster and more durable and more flexible.
More durable is debatable since Votann get AP reduction and Marines don't.
Warriors start at a 4+, though.
In an edition of the game where even Fleshborers have an AP value?
Yeah, a 4+ with -1AP incoming and no reroll to wound allowed is a lot better than a 3+.
cuda1179 wrote: Marines are faster and more durable and more flexible.
More durable is debatable since Votann get AP reduction and Marines don't.
Warriors start at a 4+, though.
In an edition of the game where even Fleshborers have an AP value? Yeah, a 4+ with -1AP incoming and no reroll to wound allowed is a lot better than a 3+.
You do realize that a 3+ against -1 AP is the same as a 4+?
The ONLY durability benefit they have built-in baseline is no rerolling wounds.
But, lemme put it this way. Assuming a S5 AP-1 D1 weapon hitting on a 4+, like the aforementioned Fleshborer, you'd need 120 shots to kill 10 MEQ. You'd need 66 shots to kill 10 Hearthkyn. If you give them RR1s to wound, that drops to 103 shots to kill the MEQ. If you give them FULL rerolls to-wound, that drops to 90 shots.
Notice how 90 is bigger than 66.
Edit: A S4 AP-1 D1 weapon is a bit better, if full rerolls to-wound are granted. The numbers are 80 hits (no rerolls, MEQ), 54 (full rerolls, MEQ) and 44 (Warriors).
A S3 AP-1 D1 weapon is even better, relatively. 120 hits, 72 hits, and 66 hits.
And finally, a S1 or S2 AP-1 D1 weapon... 240 hits, 131 hits, and 132 hits.
So, if the weapon is both wounding them on 6s AND has full rerolls to wound while being AP-1 or better, the Marines are less durable to a D1 weapon. Care to find an example of that?
Whenever the GW team remembers it's their job
And whenever the intern they hand it off to gets spare time between coffee runs and being the dartboard for rules-changes after that
cuda1179 wrote: Marines are faster and more durable and more flexible.
More durable is debatable since Votann get AP reduction and Marines don't.
Warriors start at a 4+, though.
In an edition of the game where even Fleshborers have an AP value?
Yeah, a 4+ with -1AP incoming and no reroll to wound allowed is a lot better than a 3+.
You do realize that a 3+ against -1 AP is the same as a 4+?
The ONLY durability benefit they have built-in baseline is no rerolling wounds.
But, lemme put it this way. Assuming a S5 AP-1 D1 weapon hitting on a 4+, like the aforementioned Fleshborer, you'd need 120 shots to kill 10 MEQ. You'd need 66 shots to kill 10 Hearthkyn.
If you give them RR1s to wound, that drops to 103 shots to kill the MEQ.
If you give them FULL rerolls to-wound, that drops to 90 shots.
Notice how 90 is bigger than 66.
Edit: A S4 AP-1 D1 weapon is a bit better, if full rerolls to-wound are granted.
The numbers are 80 hits (no rerolls, MEQ), 54 (full rerolls, MEQ) and 44 (Warriors).
A S3 AP-1 D1 weapon is even better, relatively.
120 hits, 72 hits, and 66 hits.
And finally, a S1 or S2 AP-1 D1 weapon...
240 hits, 131 hits, and 132 hits.
So, if the weapon is both wounding them on 6s AND has full rerolls to wound while being AP-1 or better, the Marines are less durable to a D1 weapon.
Care to find an example of that?
You're not taking into account the fact that even Fleshborers are AP-1.
AP- is legit rarer than AP-1. You're paying for a 3+ that's negated. The bump to 13 points a model helps alleviate that, but make no mistake that, without AoC, a single Tactical or Intercessor is absolutely not worth two Votaan that are near the same price.
Sledgehammer wrote: Does anyone know if Forgeworld data sheets ever get updated? The vendetta is still sitting at bs4 when the new valkyrie i at bs3.
Be careful what you wish for. Next thing you know the Hierodules will be back to being Lords of War...
Exactly. On the onew hand I would wish that they update the artillery pieces, now that GW was finally bothered to give us actual artillery rules (as giant Heavy Weapons Team). But then I remember that accoding to FW, the difference between the self propelled Basilisk and its stationary counterpart, that has only half the hitpoints, less toughness and no mobility at all, is a meagre 10pts discount. Yes the occasional good or even OP rules do happen. But in general you are being punished if FW updates something.
Ever since they've moved to this endlessly shifting points format I've had zero interest in playing 40k. I want a codex that works. I don't want to have to find if there's a random "rebalancing" every 27 minutes.
Sledgehammer wrote: Does anyone know if Forgeworld data sheets ever get updated? The vendetta is still sitting at bs4 when the new valkyrie i at bs3.
Be careful what you wish for. Next thing you know the Hierodules will be back to being Lords of War...
Given they're not really any bigger or heavier armed than a tyrannofex, that'd be a head scratcher.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Moopy wrote: Ever since they've moved to this endlessly shifting points format I've had zero interest in playing 40k. I want a codex that works. I don't want to have to find if there's a random "rebalancing" every 27 minutes.
Thank god for HH.
Define work? The codex does work, all these changes are technically optional anyway and HH sadly doesn't represent any xenos.
Sledgehammer wrote: Does anyone know if Forgeworld data sheets ever get updated? The vendetta is still sitting at bs4 when the new valkyrie i at bs3.
They haven't really been changing IA unit statlines like this during an edition. The only revisions these units get are bare minimum amendments to keywords & abilities so they work with new codexes as they're replaced.
I expect the next IAFAQ will be done after the guard and/or WE codexes is released.
Moopy wrote: Ever since they've moved to this endlessly shifting points format I've had zero interest in playing 40k. I want a codex that works. I don't want to have to find if there's a random "rebalancing" every 27 minutes.
Thank god for HH.
Well I have stopped 40K for different reasons, but I wouldn't mind this point if 1) The App wasn't garbage and 2) would actually reflect all those changes on time and 3) the changes would at least be consistent. Compare Terminators, Chaos Terminators and Bullgryns and you can see a clear bias.It's good that they monitor external and internal balance. Previously if your codex was bad you had to wait 4 years to have a meaningful update. But I think there is something wrong with their statistic models.
What I see a lot more worrying though is that increasingly squads get their entire loadout for free. We are slowly aproaching AoS first edition levels of balancing.
Well, deathwatch vets are kinda fethed as a unit now. Because they’re 27 (!) points a model now it basically makes their already useless bolters (cause special issue ammo wasn’t dumpstered enough in 9th) way worse, the shotgun garbage, and the sniper garbage. Unless you’re spamming out storm shield thunder hammer/combi weapon vets they just kinda suck.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: Well, deathwatch vets are kinda fethed as a unit now. Because they’re 27 (!) points a model now it basically makes their already useless bolters (cause special issue ammo wasn’t dumpstered enough in 9th) way worse, the shotgun garbage, and the sniper garbage. Unless you’re spamming out storm shield thunder hammer/combi weapon vets they just kinda suck.
Deathwatch are unfortunately a prime candidate for getting the axe in the next edition - they do not really have a unique presence on the board outside of their flyer, and that can easily be rolled into sth. like an inquisition/agents codex or even made available to all marines. As it stands now, they're just another 'Marines+' force that does not have much going for them, specifically. Shame, because their background is awesome and they could be made worthwhile, but some pruning of the MEQ factions is probably necessary.
We all know these changes really aren't optional. The vast majority of people are going to take it as an errata/update whether they play tournaments or in a mate's garage. This is why balancing over the most degenerate of competitive lists is awful for the game. Just a constant treadmill of chasing their own tail for people who don't give a gak and will just jump to the next FOTM.
Whole I think losing AoC is ultimately a bad thing I like that there's no more having to look at an online only document for a critical rule. They need to stop that crap. The game's convoluted enough without having to hunt various places for the rules.
Wayniac wrote: We all know these changes really aren't optional. The vast majority of people are going to take it as an errata/update whether they play tournaments or in a mate's garage. This is why balancing over the most degenerate of competitive lists is awful for the game. Just a constant treadmill of chasing their own tail for people who don't give a gak and will just jump to the next FOTM.
Whole I think losing AoC is ultimately a bad thing I like that there's no more having to look at an online only document for a critical rule. They need to stop that crap. The game's convoluted enough without having to hunt various places for the rules.
It certainly looks like they're in the process of giving up on even trying to balance stuff by individual points costs of options and gearing up for a more 'power level'-like modus of balance. In practice that means mostly that the only thing that hampers a rapid devolution towards the most 'meta' lists is the real-world cost of modelling and painting the most powerful combinations. That's just lazy game design and overall bad for competitive play, and probably bad for more relaxed play, secondary market and modelling projects too.
Wayniac wrote: We all know these changes really aren't optional. The vast majority of people are going to take it as an errata/update whether they play tournaments or in a mate's garage. This is why balancing over the most degenerate of competitive lists is awful for the game. Just a constant treadmill of chasing their own tail for people who don't give a gak and will just jump to the next FOTM.
Whole I think losing AoC is ultimately a bad thing I like that there's no more having to look at an online only document for a critical rule. They need to stop that crap. The game's convoluted enough without having to hunt various places for the rules.
Every modern game has critical rule updates online. I don't understand the hostility towards fixing problems that are missed in development...
If they're gonna do that then just make the wargear free but limit it to what's in the box. Would be better than having "options" that are free but the comp players will just spam the next anyway
Wayniac wrote: We all know these changes really aren't optional. The vast majority of people are going to take it as an errata/update whether they play tournaments or in a mate's garage. This is why balancing over the most degenerate of competitive lists is awful for the game. Just a constant treadmill of chasing their own tail for people who don't give a gak and will just jump to the next FOTM.
Whole I think losing AoC is ultimately a bad thing I like that there's no more having to look at an online only document for a critical rule. They need to stop that crap. The game's convoluted enough without having to hunt various places for the rules.
Every modern game has critical rule updates online. I don't understand the hostility towards fixing problems that are missed in development...
due to HOW they do it. They're only balancing based on whatever tournament lists do "too well"
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: Well, deathwatch vets are kinda fethed as a unit now. Because they’re 27 (!) points a model now it basically makes their already useless bolters (cause special issue ammo wasn’t dumpstered enough in 9th) way worse, the shotgun garbage, and the sniper garbage. Unless you’re spamming out storm shield thunder hammer/combi weapon vets they just kinda suck.
Deathwatch are unfortunately a prime candidate for getting the axe in the next edition - they do not really have a unique presence on the board outside of their flyer, and that can easily be rolled into sth. like an inquisition/agents codex or even made available to all marines. As it stands now, they're just another 'Marines+' force that does not have much going for them, specifically. Shame, because their background is awesome and they could be made worthwhile, but some pruning of the MEQ factions is probably necessary.
Honestly, I’m all for them going into an inquisitorial force type thing, it would help them feel a bit more unique, 8th was nice because of the limited options for the deathwatch tbh.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: Well, deathwatch vets are kinda fethed as a unit now. Because they’re 27 (!) points a model now it basically makes their already useless bolters (cause special issue ammo wasn’t dumpstered enough in 9th) way worse, the shotgun garbage, and the sniper garbage. Unless you’re spamming out storm shield thunder hammer/combi weapon vets they just kinda suck.
Deathwatch are unfortunately a prime candidate for getting the axe in the next edition - they do not really have a unique presence on the board outside of their flyer, and that can easily be rolled into sth. like an inquisition/agents codex or even made available to all marines. As it stands now, they're just another 'Marines+' force that does not have much going for them, specifically. Shame, because their background is awesome and they could be made worthwhile, but some pruning of the MEQ factions is probably necessary.
Honestly, I’m all for them going into an inquisitorial force type thing, it would help them feel a bit more unique, 8th was nice because of the limited options for the deathwatch tbh.
On the same page, Grey Knights are a permanent problem child as well, they barely make sense as an independent force, have artificially inflated pseudo-differentiation between their various MEQ squads, and suffer from permanently oscillating between being not really good against demons or being ridiculously overpowered in the anti-demon matchup because they need to be priced for the average game against any random enemy. Just prune them down to PA squad, TA squad, characters and the Dreadknight and put them into the Inquisition dex.
Wayniac wrote: If they're gonna do that then just make the wargear free but limit it to what's in the box. Would be better than having "options" that are free but the comp players will just spam the next anyway
Wayniac wrote: We all know these changes really aren't optional. The vast majority of people are going to take it as an errata/update whether they play tournaments or in a mate's garage. This is why balancing over the most degenerate of competitive lists is awful for the game. Just a constant treadmill of chasing their own tail for people who don't give a gak and will just jump to the next FOTM.
Whole I think losing AoC is ultimately a bad thing I like that there's no more having to look at an online only document for a critical rule. They need to stop that crap. The game's convoluted enough without having to hunt various places for the rules.
Every modern game has critical rule updates online. I don't understand the hostility towards fixing problems that are missed in development...
due to HOW they do it. They're only balancing based on whatever tournament lists do "too well"
Because Tournament is where things break and where 'skill issue' is the least variable. So that's the easiest basis to use to nerf overpeformers and buff underpeformers.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: Well, deathwatch vets are kinda fethed as a unit now. Because they’re 27 (!) points a model now it basically makes their already useless bolters (cause special issue ammo wasn’t dumpstered enough in 9th) way worse, the shotgun garbage, and the sniper garbage. Unless you’re spamming out storm shield thunder hammer/combi weapon vets they just kinda suck.
I think they expect everyone to spam that. Well and maybe a frag cannon squad.
Yeah, but the ammount of what GW needs to "correct" compared to what other companies need to correct and the fact that GW has also to correct day ONE (cue FAQ cue Votann) does show that their product is shoddy in this regard.
Honestly, I’m all for them going into an inquisitorial force type thing, it would help them feel a bit more unique, 8th was nice because of the limited options for the deathwatch tbh.
Unfortunately, an inquisition codex is too much fun for GW and they want separate armies.
But I can dream of a big book with
Generic
Inquisitorial Storm Troopers
Assassins
Other agents
Inquisitorial aligned space marines (make them all first born...)
Hereticus
Sisters of Battle
Adeptus Ministorum
Malleus
Grey Knights
Xenos
Deathwatch (should never have included Primaris)
Not Online!!! wrote: Yeah, but the ammount of what GW needs to "correct" compared to what other companies need to correct and the fact that GW has also to correct day ONE (cue FAQ cue Votann) does show that their product is shoddy in this regard.
Day 0 patches make games good.
Joke aside, printed LoV were a reasonable Codex into Nids. The problem was twofold. 1, Nids are a very strong Codex with al ot of depth. 2, LoV were not going to be welcomed without the changes. That was made very clear to GW.
FAQs are required because GW aren't great at Tech. Writing and when they are, some players are very good at going 'but I think it should work this way, and GW aren't good at saying what they mean.'
Reasonable into nids?
The same nids that just curbed custodes and harlies which before curbed basically everything else.
I am sorry but this just shows how completly asinine GW's rules release model is for one and for two that they have the audacity for their shoddy work to demand pay.
Not Online!!! wrote: Reasonable into nids?
The same nids that just curbed custodes and harlies which before curbed basically everything else.
I am sorry but this just shows how completly asinine GW's rules release model is for one and for two that they have the audacity for their shoddy work to demand pay.
GW can't do the testing in the volume they need to get really good data.
And they only started to gather meaningful data on how the game plays 'in the wild' within the last 20 months.
Still doesn't justify the price tag on the rules, especially when the format is inferior to earlier versions. I don't care that it's hard cover and in colour, it's not a worthwhile product, especially when it's rendered obsolete as soon as it hits the shelves. GW should really just release their rules for free like a normal company and sell the books as premium versions, complete with art and fluff, with maybe a few interesting hobbying articles.
Not Online!!! wrote: Reasonable into nids?
The same nids that just curbed custodes and harlies which before curbed basically everything else.
I am sorry but this just shows how completly asinine GW's rules release model is for one and for two that they have the audacity for their shoddy work to demand pay.
GW can't do the testing in the volume they need to get really good data.
And they only started to gather meaningful data on how the game plays 'in the wild' within the last 20 months.
It's not down to volume of testing it's the methodology. Don't test isolated books against each other outside of the first 3. From that point test each new book against those 3. You then have a baseline that each codex is conformed and comparable to.
Not Online!!! wrote: Reasonable into nids?
The same nids that just curbed custodes and harlies which before curbed basically everything else.
I am sorry but this just shows how completly asinine GW's rules release model is for one and for two that they have the audacity for their shoddy work to demand pay.
GW can't do the testing in the volume they need to get really good data.
And they only started to gather meaningful data on how the game plays 'in the wild' within the last 20 months.
It's not down to volume of testing it's the methodology. Don't test isolated books against each other outside of the first 3. From that point test each new book against those 3. You then have a baseline that each codex is conformed and comparable to.
That's an issue too. But if we say each test game is 3 hours long, it's 2 weeks for 2 people at work just to get a sample size that fits in the 45-55% WR, and those numbers are going to be heavily skewed.
Not Online!!! wrote: Reasonable into nids?
The same nids that just curbed custodes and harlies which before curbed basically everything else.
I am sorry but this just shows how completly asinine GW's rules release model is for one and for two that they have the audacity for their shoddy work to demand pay.
GW can't do the testing in the volume they need to get really good data.
And they only started to gather meaningful data on how the game plays 'in the wild' within the last 20 months.
It's not down to volume of testing it's the methodology. Don't test isolated books against each other outside of the first 3. From that point test each new book against those 3. You then have a baseline that each codex is conformed and comparable to.
That's an issue too. But if we say each test game is 3 hours long, it's 2 weeks for 2 people at work just to get a sample size that fits in the 45-55% WR, and those numbers are going to be heavily skewed.
GW is a company with a turnover in the 9-digit range. They can and should do better. Resource should not be an issue. They have an entire workforce at their disposal who pretty much all play their games, so it's not like they have to look far for playtesters.
I can accept there will be issues. There's no substitute for tens of thousands of people all using a product to find its flaws. However, it's also well known in usability testing circles that you get very rapidly diminishing returns on the number of issues identified beyond a fairly small number of testers. The same holds true for playtesting. Many of their problems are things people spot without ever actually playing a game and that's exactly the kind of thing they should be able to rectify quite easily.
The problem isn't resource, it's that GW don't care because people will buy stuff even if it's as broken as Tyranids are.
Not Online!!! wrote: Reasonable into nids?
The same nids that just curbed custodes and harlies which before curbed basically everything else.
I am sorry but this just shows how completly asinine GW's rules release model is for one and for two that they have the audacity for their shoddy work to demand pay.
GW can't do the testing in the volume they need to get really good data.
And they only started to gather meaningful data on how the game plays 'in the wild' within the last 20 months.
It's not down to volume of testing it's the methodology. Don't test isolated books against each other outside of the first 3. From that point test each new book against those 3. You then have a baseline that each codex is conformed and comparable to.
That's an issue too. But if we say each test game is 3 hours long, it's 2 weeks for 2 people at work just to get a sample size that fits in the 45-55% WR, and those numbers are going to be heavily skewed.
GW is a company with a turnover in the 9-digit range. They can and should do better. Resource should not be an issue. They have an entire workforce at their disposal who pretty much all play their games, so it's not like they have to look far for playtesters.
I can accept there will be issues. There's no substitute for tens of thousands of people all using a product to find its flaws. However, it's also well known in usability testing circles that you get very rapidly diminishing returns on the number of issues identified beyond a fairly small number of testers. The same holds true for playtesting. Many of their problems are things people spot without ever actually playing a game and that's exactly the kind of thing they should be able to rectify quite easily.
The problem isn't resource, it's that GW don't care because people will buy stuff even if it's as broken as Tyranids are.
GW is, by their own admission, pretty much in the business of selling miniatures and accessories, with the games being mostly an afterthought, or at least has been in that position for a very long time under Kirby. That is or may be changing, but like all changes, that takes time and more risk than management is willing to take at once, so you get baby steps in the right direction from time to time, cautiously. It's not ideal, but better than it has been years ago, but also very far yet from where it could and would ideally be.
Two Warriors are just shy of half again the cost of a single Tac Marine. And they don’t get free upgrades, while Tac Marines do.
Did you miss the part where I said the bump to 13 points alleviates the issue?
If you compare 10 Votann to 10 Tactical marines with similar wargear the Votann would be about 170 points to the Marines 180. In what world is 1 Votann equal to one marine?
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: Well, deathwatch vets are kinda fethed as a unit now. Because they’re 27 (!) points a model now it basically makes their already useless bolters (cause special issue ammo wasn’t dumpstered enough in 9th) way worse, the shotgun garbage, and the sniper garbage. Unless you’re spamming out storm shield thunder hammer/combi weapon vets they just kinda suck.
Deathwatch are unfortunately a prime candidate for getting the axe in the next edition - they do not really have a unique presence on the board outside of their flyer, and that can easily be rolled into sth. like an inquisition/agents codex or even made available to all marines. As it stands now, they're just another 'Marines+' force that does not have much going for them, specifically. Shame, because their background is awesome and they could be made worthwhile, but some pruning of the MEQ factions is probably necessary.
Honestly, I’m all for them going into an inquisitorial force type thing, it would help them feel a bit more unique, 8th was nice because of the limited options for the deathwatch tbh.
I'm a Deathwatch player and I would love this. I actually really dislike the direction DW has been going, and would prefer if they were more of an "agents of the imperium" type force. You can add them into another imperium force, or you can take them and add an inquisition detachment.
In my head I always go back to the Eisenhorn Xenos book that features Eisenhorn's retinue fighting alongside DW and Imperial Guard. It's frustratingly difficult to recreate a force like this with 40k rules. Honestly the hardest part has always been the inquisitorial retinue, as since 8th they keep putting out just unbelievably terrible rules for them.
I really wish they had addressed the inquisition acolyte points costs here. They're outrageous. They were unfathomably high when they were first released, and now they're spit-take worthy. Can you imagine a new player seeing the new space marine points then looking at acolyte points? They'd probably assume acolytes are T4 3+ save BS3 WS3 with at least 2 attacks.
It has always kinda left a sour taste in my mouth seeing entirely new armies pop up like votann while the inquisition hasn’t gotten any attention since forever, despite being a massive part of the imperium as an entity.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And also, inquisitors just need a massive buff honestly, it’s weird seeing how weak they are, though I guess it’s maybe just because we usually see them as main characters in books.
NAVARRO wrote: Is it really healthy to the game the relentless updates? Seriously.
How about just stick with what you have even if unbalanced for more than a few months.
It's funny isn't it.
GW used to release FAQs and rules changes at a glacial pace, but now they release them too damn fast.
At least your codex still had some semblance of value when the pace was slower.
That will never see the field of battle again, because everything that's better than them is now free. Do you understand this point yet? Are we getting through?
Daedalus81 wrote: The thing is that a lascannon wasn't a shift in power, because it robbed from elsewhere in the army and so was never taken.
Daedalus81 wrote: Same reason why four lascannons don't do much to the old ork horde. They're very "optimized" weapons.
You don't seem to get it. You're focusing on the "Lascannon" part of this too much. Again: This isn't about the Lascannon. The Lascannon is just an example. The point isn't "Lascannons shouldn't be free", the point is "Any upgrade to basic weaponry shouldn't be free".
"But you just said Lascannons shouldn't be..."
Yes, I did, as an example of the overall point. Do you want me to exhaustively list every possible upgrade with "... shouldn't be free!" after it to make it clear I was talking about everything, not just the three weapons I did list?
I do understand. There's just two things here - 1) free upgrades puts weapon selection on it's head and 2) whether or not these free upgrades would result in a list that is fun and fair to play against.
There's nuance to all of it.
Swapping a chainsword for a lascannon doesn't immediately make you a more effective model in all circumstances. You still have a choice to make an effective list and it probably isn't stuffing as much melta as you can, which means free upgrades isn't as simple as it might appear on it's face.
NAVARRO wrote: Is it really healthy to the game the relentless updates? Seriously.
No. It’s not.
FAQ’s and errata are one thing. Constantly and frequently changing & adding rules and game mechanics solely to alter the meta is bad, very bad, and if allowed to continue will eventually kill the game. It will slowly alienate all audiences except the most competitive and at that point the game will be dead.
A game can easily survive without competitive players. W40K has done fine without them for more than 25 years. A game will die if the only audience or overwhelming majority is competitive play.
NAVARRO wrote: Is it really healthy to the game the relentless updates? Seriously.
How about just stick with what you have even if unbalanced for more than a few months.
It's funny isn't it.
GW used to release FAQs and rules changes at a glacial pace, but now they release them too damn fast.
At least your codex still had some semblance of value when the pace was slower.
Yeah, the pendulum has swung too far the other way unfortunately. Now GW seems to be treating 40k closer to how video game developers patch live-service games, which is a shame because warhammer is fundamentally quite different and has wayyy more investment compared to people booting up a game and switching to the next best character in the meta and paying for some skins.
NAVARRO wrote: Is it really healthy to the game the relentless updates? Seriously.
No. It’s not.
FAQ’s and errata are one thing. Constantly and frequently changing & adding rules and game mechanics solely to alter the meta is bad, very bad, and if allowed to continue will eventually kill the game. It will slowly alienate all audiences except the most competitive and at that point the game will be dead.
A game can easily survive without competitive players. W40K has done fine without them for more than 25 years. A game will die if the only audience or overwhelming majority is competitive play.
How else do you expect marines to get out of their low win rate without rules intervention? I'm not necessarily talking competitive play, just in general, they're near bottom of the pile and regardless how they got there, it's not fair to keep them there without at least trying to amend the situation. They tried AoC which didn't work, they're now trying something else. Would you rather books just languish in this state until the next edition time after time?
I must say i wholeheartedly welcome the idea of equipment baked into the points cost.
After playing AoS i can surely say it reduces a lot of stress when building (both models and non-top-powerlevel lists).
The issue i see is more with the fact that we are too used to there being "obviously more powerful" options ( why ever use a Bolt pistol when you could use a Plasma pistol?).
And of course a gazillion "options" which are bad.
NAVARRO wrote: Is it really healthy to the game the relentless updates? Seriously.
No. It’s not.
FAQ’s and errata are one thing. Constantly and frequently changing & adding rules and game mechanics solely to alter the meta is bad, very bad, and if allowed to continue will eventually kill the game. It will slowly alienate all audiences except the most competitive and at that point the game will be dead.
A game can easily survive without competitive players. W40K has done fine without them for more than 25 years. A game will die if the only audience or overwhelming majority is competitive play.
You seem to be forgetting that 40k was dying before 8th, so no it wasn't doing fine.
IMHO in these days in which netlisting is easier than ever because the internet is closer than ever, I don't believe a game can survive without a focus on competitive balance.
Of course GW is doing it badly, GW really needs to learn how to write good rules and do proper playtesting, but refusing to acknowledge the competitive scene like GW used to do in the days of "beer and pretzel" already almost killed the game, so ignoring competitive players is definitely not a viable answer.
Just realized and I find this absolutely hilarious, but Blightlord Terminators are 4 more points a model than the CSM version, but get wargear free. That seems balanced LOL.
nathan2004 wrote: Just realized and I find this absolutely hilarious, but Blightlord Terminators are 4 more points a model than the CSM version, but get wargear free. That seems balanced LOL.
DG got kicked in the nuts with the core rules change.
Ignoring Wounds vs. Rules that Prevent Models from
Ignoring Wounds
Some models have a rule that says that they cannot lose more
than a specified number of wounds in the same phase/turn/
battle round, and that any wounds that would be lost after
that point are not lost. Similarly, some models have a rule
that reduces damage suffered by a stated amount (e.g. Duty
Eternal). In any of these cases, when such a model is attacked
by a weapon or model with a rule that says that enemy models
cannot use rules to ignore the wounds it loses, that rule takes
precedence over the previous rule, and if that attack inflicts any
damage on that model, it loses a number of wounds equal to
the Damage characteristic of that attack, even if it has already
lost the specified number of wounds already this phase/turn/
battle round.
Wayniac wrote: We all know these changes really aren't optional. The vast majority of people are going to take it as an errata/update whether they play tournaments or in a mate's garage. This is why balancing over the most degenerate of competitive lists is awful for the game. Just a constant treadmill of chasing their own tail for people who don't give a gak and will just jump to the next FOTM.
Whole I think losing AoC is ultimately a bad thing I like that there's no more having to look at an online only document for a critical rule. They need to stop that crap. The game's convoluted enough without having to hunt various places for the rules.
Every modern game has critical rule updates online. I don't understand the hostility towards fixing problems that are missed in development...
If it was that sure but it's marketing trick to get people change one op to other.
nathan2004 wrote: Just realized and I find this absolutely hilarious, but Blightlord Terminators are 4 more points a model than the CSM version, but get wargear free. That seems balanced LOL.
DG got kicked in the nuts with the core rules change.
Ignoring Wounds vs. Rules that Prevent Models from
Ignoring Wounds
Some models have a rule that says that they cannot lose more
than a specified number of wounds in the same phase/turn/
battle round, and that any wounds that would be lost after
that point are not lost. Similarly, some models have a rule
that reduces damage suffered by a stated amount (e.g. Duty
Eternal). In any of these cases, when such a model is attacked
by a weapon or model with a rule that says that enemy models
cannot use rules to ignore the wounds it loses, that rule takes
precedence over the previous rule, and if that attack inflicts any
damage on that model, it loses a number of wounds equal to
the Damage characteristic of that attack, even if it has already
lost the specified number of wounds already this phase/turn/
battle round.
Weapons like that are NOT common, though. AoC loss is the bigger nerf to DG by far.
Not Online!!! wrote: Yeah, but the ammount of what GW needs to "correct" compared to what other companies need to correct and the fact that GW has also to correct day ONE (cue FAQ cue Votann) does show that their product is shoddy in this regard.
Votann it was fine except they made it too obvious.
Not a bug. Feature. They didn't expect tournaments to even consider banning army.
Not Online!!! wrote: Reasonable into nids?
The same nids that just curbed custodes and harlies which before curbed basically everything else.
I am sorry but this just shows how completly asinine GW's rules release model is for one and for two that they have the audacity for their shoddy work to demand pay.
GW can't do the testing in the volume they need to get really good data.
And they only started to gather meaningful data on how the game plays 'in the wild' within the last 20 months.
Texcept problems were visible by cursonary reading...you don't need data for that.
Feature. Not a bug. They just missed goal by margin enough for tournaments to conscder banning army from get-go. Without that no need for day 0 faq.
nathan2004 wrote: Just realized and I find this absolutely hilarious, but Blightlord Terminators are 4 more points a model than the CSM version, but get wargear free. That seems balanced LOL.
DG got kicked in the nuts with the core rules change.
Ignoring Wounds vs. Rules that Prevent Models from
Ignoring Wounds
Some models have a rule that says that they cannot lose more
than a specified number of wounds in the same phase/turn/
battle round, and that any wounds that would be lost after
that point are not lost. Similarly, some models have a rule
that reduces damage suffered by a stated amount (e.g. Duty
Eternal). In any of these cases, when such a model is attacked
by a weapon or model with a rule that says that enemy models
cannot use rules to ignore the wounds it loses, that rule takes
precedence over the previous rule, and if that attack inflicts any
damage on that model, it loses a number of wounds equal to
the Damage characteristic of that attack, even if it has already
lost the specified number of wounds already this phase/turn/
battle round.
Weapons like that are NOT common, though. AoC loss is the bigger nerf to DG by far.
Not yet. But it may be the next round in the endless proliferation of rules-counterrules-exceptions. They still have not managed to make a satisfying AP system, so part of that gets 'outsourced' to FnP, ignore stuff and now again to ignore the ignoring. See also: mortal wounds.
NAVARRO wrote: Is it really healthy to the game the relentless updates? Seriously.
No. It’s not.
FAQ’s and errata are one thing. Constantly and frequently changing & adding rules and game mechanics solely to alter the meta is bad, very bad, and if allowed to continue will eventually kill the game. It will slowly alienate all audiences except the most competitive and at that point the game will be dead.
A game can easily survive without competitive players. W40K has done fine without them for more than 25 years. A game will die if the only audience or overwhelming majority is competitive play.
You seem to be forgetting that 40k was dying before 8th, so no it wasn't doing fine.
IMHO in these days in which netlisting is easier than ever because the internet is closer than ever, I don't believe a game can survive without a focus on competitive balance.
Of course GW is doing it badly, GW really needs to learn how to write good rules and do proper playtesting, but refusing to acknowledge the competitive scene like GW used to do in the days of "beer and pretzel" already almost killed the game, so ignoring competitive players is definitely not a viable answer.
W40K suffered through 6th and 7th edition because they were just inherently bad editions, not because they were “beer and pretzels”. There is also a square peg, round hole situation.
Previous editions of W40K were not designed for competitive play, but with the proliferation of competitive play thanks to the ITC and Nova, a non-competitive rules set (square peg) was being forced to do something it was never intended to do, provide balanced game play for competition (round hole).
8th edition, while not perfect, hit a much needed reset switch with its complete overhaul and reinvigorated a lot of dismayed players and was also fun and simplified and so drew in a lot of new players. 8th edition also did it best spreading appeal to the various audiences as evenly as possible, across narrative, matched and competitive play. 8th had a play mode called Organized Play that was specifically for competitive play. 9th combined Matched and Organized and standardized on one mission design structure for all modes of play, which has been a HUGE mistake.
NAVARRO wrote: Is it really healthy to the game the relentless updates? Seriously.
No. It’s not.
FAQ’s and errata are one thing. Constantly and frequently changing & adding rules and game mechanics solely to alter the meta is bad, very bad, and if allowed to continue will eventually kill the game. It will slowly alienate all audiences except the most competitive and at that point the game will be dead.
A game can easily survive without competitive players. W40K has done fine without them for more than 25 years. A game will die if the only audience or overwhelming majority is competitive play.
You seem to be forgetting that 40k was dying before 8th, so no it wasn't doing fine.
IMHO in these days in which netlisting is easier than ever because the internet is closer than ever, I don't believe a game can survive without a focus on competitive balance.
Of course GW is doing it badly, GW really needs to learn how to write good rules and do proper playtesting, but refusing to acknowledge the competitive scene like GW used to do in the days of "beer and pretzel" already almost killed the game, so ignoring competitive players is definitely not a viable answer.
W40K suffered through 6th and 7th edition because they were just inherently bad editions, not because they were “beer and pretzels”. There is also a square peg, round hole situation.
Previous editions of W40K were not designed for competitive play, but with the proliferation of competitive play thanks to the ITC and Nova, a non-competitive rules set (square peg) was being forced to do something it was never intended to do, provide balanced game play for competition (round hole).
8th edition, while not perfect, hit a much needed reset switch with its complete overhaul and reinvigorated a lot of dismayed players and was also fun and simplified and so drew in a lot of new players. 8th edition also did it best spreading appeal to the various audiences as evenly as possible, across narrative, matched and competitive play. 8th had a play mode called Organized Play that was specifically for competitive play. 9th combined Matched and Organized and standardized on one mission design structure for all modes of play, which has been a HUGE mistake.
At the time of writing, we have more than 170 qualifier slots from 18 countries across 3 continents. This includes Australia, Germany, France, Spain, Sweden, the UK, and the US, to name but a few – and we’re still looking at expanding further! Keep an eye out for news of the full list of qualifying events in the coming weeks.
We’ll be announcing details of our own US Open series next week, with tickets set to go on sale in early February. Tickets for one of the major independent qualifier events – AdeptiCon – go on sale this weekend.
The World Championships are all about community and celebrating every aspect of the hobby, so each event will have their own qualifying criteria, determined by the individual organisers. At official Warhammer events, players might qualify through the competitive-centric Best Generalship award, or the more rounded Best Overall which also includes painting and hobby skills.
At the finals, players will not only be competing for personal glory, but also fighting for their country and continent. That means Warhammer fans around the world will be able to cheer on the players from their own territory – and watch along live from home!
NAVARRO wrote: Is it really healthy to the game the relentless updates? Seriously.
No. It’s not.
FAQ’s and errata are one thing. Constantly and frequently changing & adding rules and game mechanics solely to alter the meta is bad, very bad, and if allowed to continue will eventually kill the game. It will slowly alienate all audiences except the most competitive and at that point the game will be dead.
A game can easily survive without competitive players. W40K has done fine without them for more than 25 years. A game will die if the only audience or overwhelming majority is competitive play.
How else do you expect marines to get out of their low win rate without rules intervention? I'm not necessarily talking competitive play, just in general, they're near bottom of the pile and regardless how they got there, it's not fair to keep them there without at least trying to amend the situation. They tried AoC which didn't work, they're now trying something else. Would you rather books just languish in this state until the next edition time after time?
9th edition W40K has this issue primarily because of the current mission design. Because you can choose your win condition during army roster creation and the tabletop terrain layout is fixed it promotes a specific style of play (i.e. the easiest secondaries to achieve) and rewards the factions who can do it best.
9th edition W40K is not a tabletop strategy game, it has been reduced to a puzzle that is solved during army roster creation.
A more robust and variable mission design that promotes diverse army roster creation solves all but the most extreme cases.
Grimtuff wrote: If by "good" you mean bunches of self-aggrandising "pro" 40k players that are so far up their own backsides they cannot see how much of a cancer they are to this hobby.
I should have made the sarcasm more obvious
Excellent then! Glad you see it for the cringefest it will be.
Excellent then! Glad you see it for the cringefest it will be.
That remains to be seen, but the basic concept of opening up a invitational World Championship to people that can rank in a subjective 'Best Overall' category seems not entirely thought out.
NAVARRO wrote: Is it really healthy to the game the relentless updates? Seriously.
How about just stick with what you have even if unbalanced for more than a few months.
It's funny isn't it.
GW used to release FAQs and rules changes at a glacial pace, but now they release them too damn fast.
At least your codex still had some semblance of value when the pace was slower.
I've been out of 40K for a while. Is this really where we are? Complaining about better game balance? GW games just stunk in terms of balance and an unbalanced book would break an edition.
These updates seem somewhat flawed. AOC doesn't seem like it was a good patch to a problem to begin with with lots of knock-on balance effects. That's not good game design because it affects certain things more than others (AP1 guns are more expensive than AP0 but effectively the same due to most armies having AOC). And it doesn't seem like removing AOC has been replaced with points adjustments in any kind of systematic way (CSM seem to simply have got nerfed).
But yes it's good that GW are at least patching the points values, holy cow yes it is good. Let's not wish for unchanging unbalanced codexes back.
W40K suffered through 6th and 7th edition because they were just inherently bad editions, not because they were “beer and pretzels”. There is also a square peg, round hole situation.
Previous editions of W40K were not designed for competitive play, but with the proliferation of competitive play thanks to the ITC and Nova, a non-competitive rules set (square peg) was being forced to do something it was never intended to do, provide balanced game play for competition (round hole).
8th edition, while not perfect, hit a much needed reset switch with its complete overhaul and reinvigorated a lot of dismayed players and was also fun and simplified and so drew in a lot of new players. 8th edition also did it best spreading appeal to the various audiences as evenly as possible, across narrative, matched and competitive play. 8th had a play mode called Organized Play that was specifically for competitive play. 9th combined Matched and Organized and standardized on one mission design structure for all modes of play, which has been a HUGE mistake.
9th edition combined Matched and Organized because the players naturally gravitated towards Organized rules even when playing Matched games. Tournament rules have always trickled down into casual, not because GW forces it but because it is a natural phenomenon of meta evolution.
I mean, 9th edition has way more missions than just the tournament ones. It has several narrative mission packs and the randomized Tempest of War missions, yet the playerbase still gravitates towards the tournament mission packs. GW definitely isn't forcing them to play tournament rules, there are official alternatives, yet people still want to play tournament rulesets.
NAVARRO wrote: Is it really healthy to the game the relentless updates? Seriously.
How about just stick with what you have even if unbalanced for more than a few months.
It's funny isn't it.
GW used to release FAQs and rules changes at a glacial pace, but now they release them too damn fast.
At least your codex still had some semblance of value when the pace was slower.
I've been out of 40K for a while. Is this really where we are? Complaining about better game balance? GW games just stunk in terms of balance and an unbalanced book would break an edition.
Better game balance? Where? The balance is still terrible, it just breaks at a faster rate while we pay more for the rules.
NAVARRO wrote: Is it really healthy to the game the relentless updates? Seriously.
How about just stick with what you have even if unbalanced for more than a few months.
It's funny isn't it.
GW used to release FAQs and rules changes at a glacial pace, but now they release them too damn fast.
At least your codex still had some semblance of value when the pace was slower.
FaQs are fine at a fast pace. It's edition changes that are the problem. 8th was pretty good on points towards the end/ before Marines 2.0. Then GW felt the need to repoint everything despite 9th hardly changing core rules and just introducing new missions. And they want to sell you a new codex every 2-3 years.
NAVARRO wrote: Is it really healthy to the game the relentless updates? Seriously.
How about just stick with what you have even if unbalanced for more than a few months.
It's funny isn't it.
GW used to release FAQs and rules changes at a glacial pace, but now they release them too damn fast.
At least your codex still had some semblance of value when the pace was slower.
FaQs are fine at a fast pace. It's edition changes that are the problem. 8th was pretty good on points towards the end/ before Marines 2.0. Then GW felt the need to repoint everything despite 9th hardly changing core rules and just introducing new missions. And they want to sell you a new codex every 2-3 years.
Fair enough, FAQs are indeed a different case to points and rule changes.
NAVARRO wrote: Is it really healthy to the game the relentless updates? Seriously.
How about just stick with what you have even if unbalanced for more than a few months.
It's funny isn't it.
GW used to release FAQs and rules changes at a glacial pace, but now they release them too damn fast.
At least your codex still had some semblance of value when the pace was slower.
FaQs are fine at a fast pace. It's edition changes that are the problem. 8th was pretty good on points towards the end/ before Marines 2.0. Then GW felt the need to repoint everything despite 9th hardly changing core rules and just introducing new missions. And they want to sell you a new codex every 2-3 years.
Fair enough, FAQs are indeed a different case to points and rule changes.
Sweeping, and borderline arbitrary, points changes look a lot like stirring the meta for the sake of it. On the face of it the diffrence in points reductions for losing AOC between SM and CSM does not make a lick of sense and it's very hard to see a coherent approach behind it.
It seems we're at the point in the conversation where I point out that the objective for 40K isn't working towards a state of improved balance but to maintain a constant flux of power variations in order to drive model sales.
If you're hoping for a balanced game, or even one that's moving towards balanced, you probably need to at least look at one of GWs smaller scale games, which seems to suffer somewhat less, or another title from another studio.
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Better game balance? Where? The balance is still terrible, it just breaks at a faster rate while we pay more for the rules.
Better does not mean ideal, but at least there are signs of improvement. Many points changes made seem very reasonable, for example the Necron point changes all seem logical.
That's a whole lot better than Necron Warriors being overcosted for like 5 years between codexes.
Like... how is this up for debate at all? We had 20 years of 40K where a printed cost stayed no matter what problems it caused. We know what the alternative is.
Azreal13 wrote:It seems we're at the point in the conversation where I point out that the objective for 40K isn't working towards a state of improved balance but to maintain a constant flux of power variations in order to drive model sales.
I've heard many such claims over the years and it isn't clear to me that (a) competitive players are driving GW's model sale strategies or that they care at all and (b) that this is a winning strategy over just trying to make all armies and units perfectly balanced.
Yes, but you're still expected to pay 50 dollars for a book that's quickly rendered obsolete. That's the main point of contention. If the rules were free, then yes the rapid updates are great. They aren't free though, so you effectively pay for rules that have an incredibly short life-span.
Azreal13 wrote:It seems we're at the point in the conversation where I point out that the objective for 40K isn't working towards a state of improved balance but to maintain a constant flux of power variations in order to drive model sales.
I've heard many such claims over the years and it isn't clear to me that (a) competitive players are driving GW's model sale strategies or that they care at all and (b) that this is a winning strategy over just trying to make all armies and units perfectly balanced.
I'd say there's 2 major outlets for models - shelf warmers and competitive players who won't bat an eyelid at dropping a grand on the new hotness. The middle ground of people who collect one or two factions and pick up the new codex and releases when they roll around every few years aren't keeping the lights on. Neither casuals or shelf warmers are likely to make purchases informed by the game state, so that just leaves the competitive gamers as a significant spending group who care.
The trouble with a balanced game (let's not be bringing the P word into it, that's a theoretical at best in an asymmetric game) is it's an end point, a destination. Once you've solved most of the problems then you're left tweaking the frilly bits around the edges. You're then left relying almost entirely on new product to drive sales as there's no reason for existing customers to buy any old product.
Also, most games, assuming a relatively competent design team and reasonable resources seem to solve the most egregious issues within an edition, maybe even an errata. yet 40 years on, 40K balance swings wildly multiple times each edition. Given we have seen former GW designers prove themselves to be competent outside of GW, and given nobody has the resources that GW does in this sector, Occam's Razor says it's deliberate.
Mike Brandt = The worst thing to have ever happened to Warhammer.
The worst thing that has happened to Warhammer so far...
Why is the event organiser and relations guy the worst thing to have happened so far? Pretty sure the mission pack and everything else goes from/through/past Stu at this point.
NAVARRO wrote: Is it really healthy to the game the relentless updates? Seriously.
How about just stick with what you have even if unbalanced for more than a few months.
It's funny isn't it.
GW used to release FAQs and rules changes at a glacial pace, but now they release them too damn fast.
At least your codex still had some semblance of value when the pace was slower.
I've been out of 40K for a while. Is this really where we are? Complaining about better game balance? GW games just stunk in terms of balance and an unbalanced book would break an edition.
These updates seem somewhat flawed. AOC doesn't seem like it was a good patch to a problem to begin with with lots of knock-on balance effects. That's not good game design because it affects certain things more than others (AP1 guns are more expensive than AP0 but effectively the same due to most armies having AOC). And it doesn't seem like removing AOC has been replaced with points adjustments in any kind of systematic way (CSM seem to simply have got nerfed).
But yes it's good that GW are at least patching the points values, holy cow yes it is good. Let's not wish for unchanging unbalanced codexes back.
Gw going from one unbalance to other for sake of making players change armies isn't something to cheer.
Gw isn't interested in balance as it hurts their profit. Making people buy new models to replace old? That's what they are interested at. You still play imbalanced game. You just pay more for it...
NAVARRO wrote: Is it really healthy to the game the relentless updates? Seriously.
How about just stick with what you have even if unbalanced for more than a few months.
It's funny isn't it.
GW used to release FAQs and rules changes at a glacial pace, but now they release them too damn fast.
At least your codex still had some semblance of value when the pace was slower.
I've been out of 40K for a while. Is this really where we are? Complaining about better game balance? GW games just stunk in terms of balance and an unbalanced book would break an edition.
Better game balance? Where? The balance is still terrible, it just breaks at a faster rate while we pay more for the rules.
I would dare to say that in therms of balance I don't remember ever before GW public apologising like they just did after the release of Votann... to then update points in a heartbeat and then update it again in just a few months. I mean to me it sounds the more GW tries balancing and competitive the more frustrating it is for who ever invests in these expensive rulebooks. So it's not balanced at all.
Basic rules and dexes should be free download and the hardcover physical books with all the nice things optional, in that case it's a fair game these speedy updates.
In the current context I think it's unhealthy because this alienates the majority of people who still buy rules. Besides reboot the rules to often and not even competitive players will keep up with what version each codex is, its such a mess that only serves to destroy the game.
Competitive pro players keep the lights on? Not sure about that since errrr no one played during covid and yet product was flying...
tneva82 wrote:Gw going from one unbalance to other for sake of making players change armies isn't something to cheer.
Gw isn't interested in balance as it hurts their profit. Making people buy new models to replace old? That's what they are interested at. You still play imbalanced game. You just pay more for it...
If things don't improve over time, sure. But many of the points changes with this update are better, no? E.g. Necron points changes all seem most reasonable. You really think that's not an improvement? I think CSM got shafted but overall I think there's improvement.
Things don't have to be perfect, just better. Iterative improvement is still improvement.
Azreal13 wrote:
I'd say there's 2 major outlets for models - shelf warmers and competitive players who won't bat an eyelid at dropping a grand on the new hotness. The middle ground of people who collect one or two factions and pick up the new codex and releases when they roll around every few years aren't keeping the lights on. Neither casuals or shelf warmers are likely to make purchases informed by the game state, so that just leaves the competitive gamers as a significant spending group who care.
The largest demographic is still teenage boys who buy stuff and play at GW shops and spend a bunch before they get into other interests. They don't care about balance either, just into cool rules and throwing dice and having fun. GW have been pitching to this demographic as their bread and butter since the dawn of time.
I think we've seen some shift in recent years that competitive players are more of a slice and for some places like the US it's quite a big slice of the market and that might explain why GW is catering a little bit with GT packs and stuff. And there's more competition these days for wargames. But their core market is still IMO the above.
The trouble with a balanced game (let's not be bringing the P word into it, that's a theoretical at best in an asymmetric game) is it's an end point, a destination. Once you've solved most of the problems then you're left tweaking the frilly bits around the edges. You're then left relying almost entirely on new product to drive sales as there's no reason for existing customers to buy any old product.
Also, most games, assuming a relatively competent design team and reasonable resources seem to solve the most egregious issues within an edition, maybe even an errata. yet 40 years on, 40K balance swings wildly multiple times each edition. Given we have seen former GW designers prove themrlves to be competent outside of GW, and given nobody has the resources that GW does in this sector, Occam's Razor says it's deliberate.
I think there's a variety of reasons for this. (1) They're pitching to the demographic described above, and having errata or anything where the book they get for their army is incomplete is a problem. (2) Their designers have historically just not cared about balance. Competitive play is not in the spirit of the game, in the view of most of the designers over the last 20 years. And the bean counters don't consider it a priority (competitive players just are such a small if vocal slice of the revenue stream). (3) It's stunningly hard to really balance such a complex system, especially when introducing a new/revised army every few months. Certainly impossible to adequately playtest a new army before release with the resources GW put in to developing new releases. Designers have a day job, actually balancing previous releases has always been a side-project for them at best.
There's a far simpler Occam's Razor: they don't care as much as you do about this stuff.
CthuluIsSpy wrote:Yes, but you're still expected to pay 50 dollars for a book that's quickly rendered obsolete. That's the main point of contention.
If the rules were free, then yes the rapid updates are great.
They aren't free though, so you effectively pay for rules that have an incredibly short life-span.
That is a separate issue. Personally I'd prefer a better and more often updated game over caring about the books but I feel like 40K needs to at a minimum have some system where points are able to be updated. X-wing made that shift and it definitely helps maintain a healthy meta.
And updating points and errata'ing books are two separate things. You can achieve a lot with just points changes and you can let the army builder software deal with that. Errata is more intrusive as it changes the rules in the books. I'd still prefer fix the problem at the source.
Having come back to 40k after a hiatus I will say finding stuff to play is freaking crazy. There's so many places to find rules and changes, it's overwhelming. Never mind actually learning all other armies' rules. Wahpedia is an absolute godsend in that regard. I personally never understood why GW doesn't give the rules away for free. Get people playing with lowest barrier to entry and make money on models. But I've thought that for 20+ years and no sign of things changing.
But none of that is to say that updating rules/points regularly is a bad thing. It's great.
NAVARRO wrote: Is it really healthy to the game the relentless updates? Seriously.
How about just stick with what you have even if unbalanced for more than a few months.
It's funny isn't it.
GW used to release FAQs and rules changes at a glacial pace, but now they release them too damn fast.
At least your codex still had some semblance of value when the pace was slower.
I've been out of 40K for a while. Is this really where we are? Complaining about better game balance? GW games just stunk in terms of balance and an unbalanced book would break an edition.
These updates seem somewhat flawed. AOC doesn't seem like it was a good patch to a problem to begin with with lots of knock-on balance effects. That's not good game design because it affects certain things more than others (AP1 guns are more expensive than AP0 but effectively the same due to most armies having AOC). And it doesn't seem like removing AOC has been replaced with points adjustments in any kind of systematic way (CSM seem to simply have got nerfed).
But yes it's good that GW are at least patching the points values, holy cow yes it is good. Let's not wish for unchanging unbalanced codexes back.
Gw going from one unbalance to other for sake of making players change armies isn't something to cheer.
Gw isn't interested in balance as it hurts their profit. Making people buy new models to replace old? That's what they are interested at. You still play imbalanced game. You just pay more for it...
Ergo why they did the Day 0 patch for Votaan after hearing tournaments and stores would ban Votaan from being played. Nobody to buy their new darlings because nobody will play against them = lost money.
I would dare to say that in therms of balance I don't remember ever before GW public apologising like they just did after the release of Votann... to then update points in a heartbeat and then update it again in just a few months. I mean to me it sounds the more GW tries balancing and competitive the more frustrating it is for who ever invests in these expensive rulebooks.
WFB Chaos Daemons in 8th edition just broke the game. It spawned a whole host of patches such as simply giving daemon players less points (in some cases 2000 points where beastmen got 2800), or complicated comp systems. Competitively that one book just busted the whole game and GW never tried to fix it. People left the game in droves.
GW fixing a newly-released problematic army immediately after release sure seems better than that.
And one other factor is that people can always play with power levels right out of the book if they don't care that much about balance. And for those of us that do, we can use the latest points release. Isn't that the best of both worlds?
Daedalus81 wrote: Swapping a chainsword for a lascannon doesn't immediately make you a more effective model in all circumstances.
... then you go and say something like that.
This isn't about whether something is effective. It's about replacing base equipment with upgraded equipment for no cost. Your Chainsword to Lascannon example doesn't even really make any sense, because I can't think of many units that start with Chainswords that can upgrade to Lascannons.
But if you want to go with Chainswords, there are now tons of Marine/CSM models that can swap out Chainswords for Power Fists, Power Swords, Power Axes and sometimes even Thunder Hammers for free. Why wouldn't you? Ditto for Bolt Pistols to Plasma Pistols. They are straight upgrades and you lose nothing in the exchange.
Daedalus81 wrote: You still have a choice to make an effective list and it probably isn't stuffing as much melta as you can, which means free upgrades isn't as simple as it might appear on it's face.
This isn't about effectiveness. It's about the fact that you can get hundreds of points worth of stuff for free. There's no reason not to take every upgrade possible when every upgrade - regardless of whether it's "effective" - is free.
But none of that is to say that updating rules/points regularly is a bad thing. It's great.
Tell that to the guys that got Votann cool box set to see their books replaced by those 'great' updates days after. Even greater was that the following non collector book that came after and is still sold with the wrong points.
Ergo why they did the Day 0 patch for Votaan after hearing tournaments and stores would ban Votaan from being played. Nobody to buy their new darlings because nobody will play against them = lost money.
So you're saying they balanced the new army because a balanced game generates more money? In some way this is a bad thing?
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Yes, but you're still expected to pay 50 dollars for a book that's quickly rendered obsolete. That's the main point of contention.
If the rules were free, then yes the rapid updates are great.
They aren't free though, so you effectively pay for rules that have an incredibly short life-span.
My Adepta Sororitas Codex idea released in June 2021.
It as 1 item in the Balance Dataslate
The FAQ was last updated in April 2022
It has three erratas in it, two were from initial launch
It has one FAQ question answered
Is this an obsolete codex because they updated points and power level along with these?
Tell that to the guys that got Votann cool box set to see their books replaced by those 'great' updates days after. Even greater was that the following non collector book that came after and is still sold with the wrong points.
Great
Yes, it's great. We have a more balanced army entering the meta. It's a good thing! We know what happens when an OP book breaks the meta without fixing and it can suck the fun out of the game for years.
What sucks is GW didn't playtest enough to avoid errata. But it's definitely the lesser of two evils.
I don't know why this is an issue if this is just points. Points are not even on the datasheets. Power levels are. Points should be updated regularly and probably shouldn't be in print at all (like x-wing). Errata'ing datasheets and rules for balance reasons is another matter, I would agree, but I would still be in favour of fixing a broken rule than leaving it.
I would dare to say that in therms of balance I don't remember ever before GW public apologising like they just did after the release of Votann... to then update points in a heartbeat and then update it again in just a few months. I mean to me it sounds the more GW tries balancing and competitive the more frustrating it is for who ever invests in these expensive rulebooks.
WFB Chaos Daemons in 8th edition just broke the game. It spawned a whole host of patches such as simply giving daemon players less points (in some cases 2000 points where beastmen got 2800), or complicated comp systems. Competitively that one book just busted the whole game and GW never tried to fix it. People left the game in droves.
GW fixing a newly-released problematic army immediately after release sure seems better than that.
And one other factor is that people can always play with power levels right out of the book if they don't care that much about balance. And for those of us that do, we can use the latest points release. Isn't that the best of both worlds?
Depends on what you measure the best to be.
Personally such mistakes should not be printed, but if they are they should be replaced with new books and clients refunded or replace the books. Yet same books on the shelfs ( arguments about its impractical they cant turn it around fast enough a reprint is too expensive... well mistakes have consequences)
See for me, if the rules were free, and the books optional I would not need refund and its fair play.
But - here's a book, sorry we made a big mistake so dont use those points use these instead... and then just a few months do it again thats quite frustrating.
I fear that like others said its not about balancing at all.
tneva82 wrote:Gw going from one unbalance to other for sake of making players change armies isn't something to cheer.
Gw isn't interested in balance as it hurts their profit. Making people buy new models to replace old? That's what they are interested at. You still play imbalanced game. You just pay more for it...
If things don't improve over time, sure. But many of the points changes with this update are better, no? E.g. Necron points changes all seem most reasonable. You really think that's not an improvement? I think CSM got shafted but overall I think there's improvement.
Things don't have to be perfect, just better. Iterative improvement is still improvement.
Azreal13 wrote:
I'd say there's 2 major outlets for models - shelf warmers and competitive players who won't bat an eyelid at dropping a grand on the new hotness. The middle ground of people who collect one or two factions and pick up the new codex and releases when they roll around every few years aren't keeping the lights on. Neither casuals or shelf warmers are likely to make purchases informed by the game state, so that just leaves the competitive gamers as a significant spending group who care.
The largest demographic is still teenage boys who buy stuff and play at GW shops and spend a bunch before they get into other interests. They don't care about balance either, just into cool rules and throwing dice and having fun. GW have been pitching to this demographic as their bread and butter since the dawn of time.
I think we've seen some shift in recent years that competitive players are more of a slice and for some places like the US it's quite a big slice of the market and that might explain why GW is catering a little bit with GT packs and stuff. And there's more competition these days for wargames. But their core market is still IMO the above.
The trouble with a balanced game (let's not be bringing the P word into it, that's a theoretical at best in an asymmetric game) is it's an end point, a destination. Once you've solved most of the problems then you're left tweaking the frilly bits around the edges. You're then left relying almost entirely on new product to drive sales as there's no reason for existing customers to buy any old product.
Also, most games, assuming a relatively competent design team and reasonable resources seem to solve the most egregious issues within an edition, maybe even an errata. yet 40 years on, 40K balance swings wildly multiple times each edition. Given we have seen former GW designers prove themrlves to be competent outside of GW, and given nobody has the resources that GW does in this sector, Occam's Razor says it's deliberate.
I think there's a variety of reasons for this. (1) They're pitching to the demographic described above, and having errata or anything where the book they get for their army is incomplete is a problem. (2) Their designers have historically just not cared about balance. Competitive play is not in the spirit of the game, in the view of most of the designers over the last 20 years. And the bean counters don't consider it a priority (competitive players just are such a small if vocal slice of the revenue stream). (3) It's stunningly hard to really balance such a complex system, especially when introducing a new/revised army every few months. Certainly impossible to adequately playtest a new army before release with the resources GW put in to developing new releases. Designers have a day job, actually balancing previous releases has always been a side-project for them at best.
There's a far simpler Occam's Razor: they don't care as much as you do about this stuff.
CthuluIsSpy wrote:Yes, but you're still expected to pay 50 dollars for a book that's quickly rendered obsolete. That's the main point of contention.
If the rules were free, then yes the rapid updates are great.
They aren't free though, so you effectively pay for rules that have an incredibly short life-span.
That is a separate issue. Personally I'd prefer a better and more often updated game over caring about the books but I feel like 40K needs to at a minimum have some system where points are able to be updated. X-wing made that shift and it definitely helps maintain a healthy meta.
And updating points and errata'ing books are two separate things. You can achieve a lot with just points changes and you can let the army builder software deal with that. Errata is more intrusive as it changes the rules in the books. I'd still prefer fix the problem at the source.
Having come back to 40k after a hiatus I will say finding stuff to play is freaking crazy. There's so many places to find rules and changes, it's overwhelming. Never mind actually learning all other armies' rules. Wahpedia is an absolute godsend in that regard. I personally never understood why GW doesn't give the rules away for free. Get people playing with lowest barrier to entry and make money on models. But I've thought that for 20+ years and no sign of things changing.
But none of that is to say that updating rules/points regularly is a bad thing. It's great.
There's a lot of argument there based on some, AFAIK, pretty baseless assumptions. If you've got any genuine data or information about GWs demographics and marketing I'd be genuinely interested to read it. In fact, I'm not even sure in store gaming is a thing in all locations any more.
Tell that to the guys that got Votann cool box set to see their books replaced by those 'great' updates days after. Even greater was that the following non collector book that came after and is still sold with the wrong points.
Great
Yes, it's great. We have a more balanced army entering the meta. It's a good thing! We know what happens when an OP book breaks the meta without fixing and it can suck the fun out of the game for years.
Thing is books dont last more than a few couple years and with the new edition around the corner the Votann book will last just months. So yes in its short lifetime we are looking at a very unhealthy rate of updates but thats just me.
Depends on what you measure the best to be.
Personally such mistakes should not be printed, but if they are they should be replaced with new books and clients refunded or replace the books. Yet same books on the shelfs ( arguments about its impractical they cant turn it around fast enough a reprint is too expensive... well mistakes have consequences)
See for me, if the rules were free, and the books optional I would not need refund and its fair play.
But - here's a book, sorry we made a big mistake so dont use those points use these instead... and then just a few months do it again thats quite frustrating.
I fear that like others said its not about balancing at all.
Would it be better if they didn't print points in the books at all? And simply posted points as a pdf online? And updated the pdf? This is what happens with X-wing for example.
Because the datasheets have power levels and not points, I interpreted the points in the back just to be a "starter" points values and to expect the points values to update online. Would this not make sense?
I just feel if we're talking about a book that needs substantial errata, I get what you're saying. But if we're talking about points values it's just impossible to expect them to be perfect especially as the meta changes. I don't see that as evidence of a faulty product. I mean, you're preaching to the choir about free rules. Why not make the rules absolutely free online and then you can edit them and lower the (massive) barrier to entry? I've never understood that. But it seems like power levels are printed and points are just an afterthought in the printed material to be updated later. No?
Ergo why they did the Day 0 patch for Votaan after hearing tournaments and stores would ban Votaan from being played. Nobody to buy their new darlings because nobody will play against them = lost money.
So you're saying they balanced the new army because a balanced game generates more money? In some way this is a bad thing?
They're saying the brave and noble internet masses frothed at GW hard enough they capitulated to peer pressure because nobody would ever play against a dangerously high wr army. Nobody would buy their op stuff because they won't get games in...
Stares intently at all the other 70% WR armies people lapped up over the last 3 years and cleared tourneys with
Depends on what you measure the best to be.
Personally such mistakes should not be printed, but if they are they should be replaced with new books and clients refunded or replace the books. Yet same books on the shelfs ( arguments about its impractical they cant turn it around fast enough a reprint is too expensive... well mistakes have consequences)
See for me, if the rules were free, and the books optional I would not need refund and its fair play.
But - here's a book, sorry we made a big mistake so dont use those points use these instead... and then just a few months do it again thats quite frustrating.
I fear that like others said its not about balancing at all.
Would it be better if they didn't print points in the books at all? And simply posted points as a pdf online? And updated the pdf? This is what happens with X-wing for example.
Because the datasheets have power levels and not points, I interpreted the points in the back just to be a "starter" points values and to expect the points values to update online. Would this not make sense?
I just feel if we're talking about a book that needs substantial errata, I get what you're saying. But if we're talking about points values it's just impossible to expect them to be perfect especially as the meta changes. I don't see that as evidence of a faulty product. I mean, you're preaching to the choir about free rules. Why not make the rules absolutely free online and then you can edit them and lower the (massive) barrier to entry? I've never understood that. But it seems like power levels are printed and points are just an afterthought in the printed material to be updated later. No?
I dont expect perfection no, but I didn't expect or want the apologies stunt or gross mistakes. Im quite flexible but I dont see the relentless churn in of books and respective updates a good sign. One thing is small tweaks and amends another thing is what we see now.
Fair play who is on board with this, seems like its going to get worse before getting better.
Would it be better if they didn't print points in the books at all? And simply posted points as a pdf online? And updated the pdf? This is what happens with X-wing for example.
Because the datasheets have power levels and not points, I interpreted the points in the back just to be a "starter" points values and to expect the points values to update online. Would this not make sense?
I just feel if we're talking about a book that needs substantial errata, I get what you're saying. But if we're talking about points values it's just impossible to expect them to be perfect especially as the meta changes. I don't see that as evidence of a faulty product. I mean, you're preaching to the choir about free rules. Why not make the rules absolutely free online and then you can edit them and lower the (massive) barrier to entry? I've never understood that. But it seems like power levels are printed and points are just an afterthought in the printed material to be updated later. No?
I actually like the idea of not printing the points values in the book and just having a PDF online. That said I would want those points to be released as soon as the earliest book came out (typically in the initial army box) rather than having to wait a month or two for the general release to take place.
GW's current pace of rules releases coupled with their high cost and past idiocy with short print runs (thinking of WZ: Nephilim) seems unsustainable to me, although I could certainly be wrong! I just hate having to pay for expensive books what feels like ALL THE TIME and then, as others have said, get slapped in the face with my expensive book changing so quickly after purchase. I got all of ONE GAME in with LoV before they fundamentally changed the book on me!
I do agree that LoV had to be addressed out of the gate, but I would've MUCH preferred that GW had used literally any foresight to see what a problem the army was going to be upon release.
There's a lot of argument there based on some, AFAIK, pretty baseless assumptions. If you've got any genuine data or information about GWs demographics and marketing I'd be genuinely interested to read it. In fact, I'm not even sure in store gaming is a thing in all locations any more.
This may be out-of-date. GWthemselves have said their core demographic is "12-18 yr old boys" ... I'm struggling to find the original thing but this references it. Now whether that's actually true is another matter as GW has always had a reputation for not doing actual market research. A number of investor reports etc have said similar things. And web traffic seems to corroborate to some degree. And the demographics were clearly different from the UK (teenagers playing in GW shops) to US (older players in indy game stores).
Anecdotally I can say that was my impression when I worked in GW. That was a long time ago (like 20 years ago) so absolutely I may be wrong about these days. And GW have definitely pivoted towards competitive play ... a bit.
So all I'll say with confidence is that definitely used to be GW's target demographic and you can look up old interviews with designers - competitive play was really a dirty word and considered just not the proper way to play the game. There were exceptions, Alessio was keen on balance but even he came out with clunkers like the 7th ed Skaven that just were OP and after leaving GW in interviews said it was just impossible with GW's deadlines to adequately playtest.
So I'm confident about what I'm talking about 10+ years ago, I used to have a finger pretty much on the pulse then. Have things changed? I would be fascinated to find out if GW's demographics have changed. Clearly the designers are more concerned about balance, although that may not be saying much but certainly better than before which was not at all and proud of it.
That's what I thought you were basing your ideas on, I'm unconvinced they still apply, at least in the same significance, in a post-Covid, Rowntree era marketplace.
Azreal13 wrote: That's what I thought you were basing your ideas on, I'm unconvinced they still apply, at least in the same significance, in a post-Covid, Rowntree era marketplace.
Well, put another way, is there any evidence that GW have changed in the post-covid world? As opposed to just keeping on truckin' with their tried-and-tested formula? I mean that as a genuine question.
The numbers. More Rountree than Covid, but there aren't that many more teenage boys in the world. Covid wise, we know that significant numbers of people came back to the hobby because they told us, it even made mainstream media, and the figures also back that up.
Anecdotally, most of the people I play now are the same people that played when I was a teenager, no reason to think that's particularly anomalous either, and therefore the teenage audience that GW were aiming at in the nineties are, to some extent, still present in the hobby and still customers.
vipoid wrote: I'm surprised no one has mentioned Harlequins having their invulnerable saves nerfed across the board.
I know wargear costs (or the lack thereof) is an issue but I would have thought such a drastic change might have raised some eyebrows.
I mean, everything has a native -1 to hit not counting the defensive bonuses they get via Light Saedath or how prime being able to Advance + Charge is.
vipoid wrote: I'm surprised no one has mentioned Harlequins having their invulnerable saves nerfed across the board.
I know wargear costs (or the lack thereof) is an issue but I would have thought such a drastic change might have raised some eyebrows.
it was, but given the higher numbers of marine players, a lot of people are more annoyed/worried about the buffs they have received, so its kinda fell by the wayside.
tneva82 wrote: Just noticed today GW changed all the ignore FNP type of rule weapons also ignore -1 damage rules like dreadnought in latest set of FAQ.
At this point they just need to bite the bullet and compile something like the comprehensive rules for Magic: The Gathering, i.e. a living and errataed rulebook with numbered rules, defined rule hierarchies and priorities.
tneva82 wrote: Just noticed today GW changed all the ignore FNP type of rule weapons also ignore -1 damage rules like dreadnought in latest set of FAQ.
tneva82 wrote: Just noticed today GW changed all the ignore FNP type of rule weapons also ignore -1 damage rules like dreadnought in latest set of FAQ.
I thought that was the case anyway tbh.
Well it wasn't before as duty eternal was just modifying damage characteristic rather than ignoring wounds.
tneva82 wrote: Just noticed today GW changed all the ignore FNP type of rule weapons also ignore -1 damage rules like dreadnought in latest set of FAQ.
At this point they just need to bite the bullet and compile something like the comprehensive rules for Magic: The Gathering, i.e. a living and errataed rulebook with numbered rules, defined rule hierarchies and priorities.
I fear that if they try, they will find such a mess that they'll never actually succeed at finishing it. Especially before another round of rules changes.
tneva82 wrote: Just noticed today GW changed all the ignore FNP type of rule weapons also ignore -1 damage rules like dreadnought in latest set of FAQ.
I thought that was the case anyway tbh.
Well it wasn't before as duty eternal was just modifying damage characteristic rather than ignoring wounds.
I see, I think I was subliminally reading it as the intended then. I took duty eternal to be a method of ignoring a wound, but I can see why there was a RAW argument for the attacks characteristic being lowered isn't the same as avoiding the wound.
NAVARRO wrote: Is it really healthy to the game the relentless updates? Seriously.
How about just stick with what you have even if unbalanced for more than a few months.
It's funny isn't it.
GW used to release FAQs and rules changes at a glacial pace, but now they release them too damn fast.
At least your codex still had some semblance of value when the pace was slower.
I've been out of 40K for a while. Is this really where we are? Complaining about better game balance? GW games just stunk in terms of balance and an unbalanced book would break an edition.
Better game balance? Where? The balance is still terrible, it just breaks at a faster rate while we pay more for the rules.
I honestly don't know you so please don't take this as an attack, but what edition did you start playing? I remember the glory days of 4th-7th where balance was created by having to negotiate with your opponent before the game because external balance was such that some armies had to try really hard to lose to the bottom tier armies. Christ, 7th edition you had like 3-4 armies that were just head and shoulders better than everyone else..Ironically one of them being SM because they got *Wait for it* Free Transports which because GW never thought about it, became Razorbacks with heavy weapons.
Balance isn't great but it beats the hell out of older editions where you had 3-5 years of 1-3 factions just being better in every way than others.
oni wrote: Warhammer is for *everyone.
*In our exclusive club of elite players.
Mike Brandt = The worst thing to have ever happened to Warhammer.
The worst thing that has happened to Warhammer so far...
Yes, competitive 40k is the worst thing that has ever happened to the game... the game is more balanced, players have more input than ever before, the staff actually respond in a timely manner. So terrible.
They're saying the brave and noble internet masses frothed at GW hard enough they capitulated to peer pressure because nobody would ever play against a dangerously high wr army. Nobody would buy their op stuff because they won't get games in...
Stares intently at all the other 70% WR armies people lapped up over the last 3 years and cleared tourneys with
Never thought I'd agree with Dudeface but here i am. There is a very loud and vocal minority in the game who scream whenever a threat appears to their beloved army of hotness which is hard to pin down because they change it rather often. My absolute favorite example of 9th edition is when an Ork list forced a top player in the world to concede at the end of turn 1. No thought was given to the fact that the DE list was the worst thing you could possibly take against the Ork list and that he had only a handful of weapons capable of hurting the Ork vehicles. Zero thought was given to the fact that Orks at the time had the 3rd highest Win rate behind DE and Ad-mech. Nope it was all scream and pulling hair out about the fact that an upstart ork had the temerity to beat a meta list. What happened? MASSIVE nerfs to the ork army including nerfs to A named character who wasn't even being used but whom the internet had freaked out over.
Daedalus81 wrote: Swapping a chainsword for a lascannon doesn't immediately make you a more effective model in all circumstances.
... then you go and say something like that.
This isn't about whether something is effective. It's about replacing base equipment with upgraded equipment for no cost. Your Chainsword to Lascannon example doesn't even really make any sense, because I can't think of many units that start with Chainswords that can upgrade to Lascannons.
But if you want to go with Chainswords, there are now tons of Marine/CSM models that can swap out Chainswords for Power Fists, Power Swords, Power Axes and sometimes even Thunder Hammers for free. Why wouldn't you? Ditto for Bolt Pistols to Plasma Pistols. They are straight upgrades and you lose nothing in the exchange.
Daedalus81 wrote: You still have a choice to make an effective list and it probably isn't stuffing as much melta as you can, which means free upgrades isn't as simple as it might appear on it's face.
This isn't about effectiveness. It's about the fact that you can get hundreds of points worth of stuff for free. There's no reason not to take every upgrade possible when every upgrade - regardless of whether it's "effective" - is free.
How do you not understand this yet?
Because its Daed and his entire shtick is being as pedantic as possible so that he doesn't have to challenge the main point that he knows is correct.
NAVARRO wrote: Is it really healthy to the game the relentless updates? Seriously.
No. It’s not.
FAQ’s and errata are one thing. Constantly and frequently changing & adding rules and game mechanics solely to alter the meta is bad, very bad, and if allowed to continue will eventually kill the game. It will slowly alienate all audiences except the most competitive and at that point the game will be dead.
A game can easily survive without competitive players. W40K has done fine without them for more than 25 years. A game will die if the only audience or overwhelming majority is competitive play.
This kinda hit home hard for me. GW is punishing my 10-year-old's Tyranids because a bunch of try-hard WAAC-babies keep finding new ways to break them.
NAVARRO wrote: Is it really healthy to the game the relentless updates? Seriously.
No. It’s not.
FAQ’s and errata are one thing. Constantly and frequently changing & adding rules and game mechanics solely to alter the meta is bad, very bad, and if allowed to continue will eventually kill the game. It will slowly alienate all audiences except the most competitive and at that point the game will be dead.
A game can easily survive without competitive players. W40K has done fine without them for more than 25 years. A game will die if the only audience or overwhelming majority is competitive play.
This kinda hit home hard for me. GW is punishing my 10-year-old's Tyranids because a bunch of try-hard WAAC-babies keep finding new ways to break them.
The main Nid units GW hit were not fun to play against. But the good news is you can play with the older versions on the tabletop at home, if you wish.
I honestly don't know you so please don't take this as an attack, but what edition did you start playing? I remember the glory days of 4th-7th where balance was created by having to negotiate with your opponent before the game because external balance was such that some armies had to try really hard to lose to the bottom tier armies. Christ, 7th edition you had like 3-4 armies that were just head and shoulders better than everyone else..Ironically one of them being SM because they got *Wait for it* Free Transports which because GW never thought about it, became Razorbacks with heavy weapons.
Balance isn't great but it beats the hell out of older editions where you had 3-5 years of 1-3 factions just being better in every way than others.
4th edition, and yes, some updates did take too long. Necrons completely missed 4th edition and had to wait around a decade before they got their 5th edition book. Sisters are another example.
However, the difference here is that the balance is still not good, you still have weak armies and favorites, and they change the contents of the codex in one of their balance updates after you just bought the darned thing. At least in 4th edition you got to hold onto your book for a while and the contents there-in were still valid, and at least codices were cheaper.
From a book keeping / cost effectiveness standpoint it's a mess that you pay for. And the balance and quality of writing is still mediocre.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Does the codex match the actual rules? No? Then it's obsolete.
Don't Princess Bride me when I've been using the word in it's correct context.
"Obsolete (adj): no longer produced or used."
Given that the codexes are still produced AND used, updates to them do not make them obsolete. The points themselves may no longer be accurate, and a few rules may be updated or added, but the codex itself is not obsolete; in fact, it's still very much required.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Does the codex match the actual rules? No? Then it's obsolete. Don't Princess Bride me when I've been using the word in it's correct context.
"Obsolete (adj): no longer produced or used."
Given that the codexes are still produced AND used, updates to them do not make them obsolete. The points themselves may no longer be accurate, and a few rules may be updated or added, but the codex itself is not obsolete; in fact, it's still very much required.
It also means : "Out of date" So yes, it is obsolete. It's required, but it's still out of date. Also, sometimes it's more than just "a few rules". Sometimes it's entire rules and data slates being revised. Such as adding "Core" to destroyers or completely changing how Command Protocols works, or changing invuls of an entire swathe of units. Do they even update new prints of the codex to reflect the changes to the rules? Like, is there a codex v2? I recall that they used to do that but I'm not sure if that's still a practice.
Isn't the life cycle of codices just shorter in general now? We're down to two years, aren't we?
vipoid wrote: I'm surprised no one has mentioned Harlequins having their invulnerable saves nerfed across the board.
I know wargear costs (or the lack thereof) is an issue but I would have thought such a drastic change might have raised some eyebrows.
I mean, everything has a native -1 to hit not counting the defensive bonuses they get via Light Saedath or how prime being able to Advance + Charge is.
They never needed a 4++ to begin with.
I can understand thinking that a 4++ on every unit (including troops, vehicles, jetbikes) is a bit over the top.
However, it seems a little strange that it was stripped from all their characters as well. I'm struggling to see why a 4++ on a Troupe Master or Shadowseer or Death Jester is beyond the pale, yet a 4++ on a SM Captain, a Necron Overlord, a Canoness, an Autarch, a Succubus, an Exalted Sorcerer, a Farseer etc. is perfectly fine.
oni wrote: Warhammer is for *everyone.
*In our exclusive club of elite players.
Mike Brandt = The worst thing to have ever happened to Warhammer.
The worst thing that has happened to Warhammer so far...
Yes, competitive 40k is the worst thing that has ever happened to the game... the game is more balanced, players have more input than ever before, the staff actually respond in a timely manner. So terrible.
The way GW are doing it with churn and burn cycle, yes. But, alas- I guess you just enjoy throwing your money into a giant pit or something...
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Does the codex match the actual rules? No? Then it's obsolete.
Don't Princess Bride me when I've been using the word in it's correct context.
"Obsolete (adj): no longer produced or used."
Given that the codexes are still produced AND used, updates to them do not make them obsolete. The points themselves may no longer be accurate, and a few rules may be updated or added, but the codex itself is not obsolete; in fact, it's still very much required.
It also means :
"Out of date"
So yes, it is obsolete. It's required, but it's still out of date. Also, sometimes it's more than just "a few rules". Sometimes it's entire rules and data slates being revised. Such as adding "Core" to destroyers or completely changing how Command Protocols works, or changing invuls of an entire swathe of units.
Do they even update new prints of the codex to reflect the changes to the rules? Like, is there a codex v2? I recall that they used to do that but I'm not sure if that's still a practice.
Isn't the life cycle of codices just shorter in general now? We're down to two years, aren't we?
Something can’t be on-sale and required and yet obsolete at the same time. If it is impossible to play the game without the codex then it isn’t obsolete. Online copies and your memory don’t count.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Does the codex match the actual rules? No? Then it's obsolete. Don't Princess Bride me when I've been using the word in it's correct context.
"Obsolete (adj): no longer produced or used."
Given that the codexes are still produced AND used, updates to them do not make them obsolete. The points themselves may no longer be accurate, and a few rules may be updated or added, but the codex itself is not obsolete; in fact, it's still very much required.
It also means : "Out of date" So yes, it is obsolete. It's required, but it's still out of date. Also, sometimes it's more than just "a few rules". Sometimes it's entire rules and data slates being revised. Such as adding "Core" to destroyers or completely changing how Command Protocols works, or changing invuls of an entire swathe of units. Do they even update new prints of the codex to reflect the changes to the rules? Like, is there a codex v2? I recall that they used to do that but I'm not sure if that's still a practice.
Isn't the life cycle of codices just shorter in general now? We're down to two years, aren't we?
Something can’t be on-sale and required and yet obsolete at the same time. If it is impossible to play the game without the codex then it isn’t obsolete. Online copies and your memory don’t count.
I take it that you use the original data in your codex then? After all, they are still up to date and valid, right? If not, then you aren't actually using the codex, now are you?
alextroy wrote: Something can’t be on-sale and required and yet obsolete at the same time. If it is impossible to play the game without the codex then it isn’t obsolete. Online copies and your memory don’t count.
Not quite the same, I'll grant, but weren't some of the later editions of Psychic Awakening obsolete almost from the day they went on sale, because of the edition change?
So I wanted to see if my Deathwatch would be well and truly screwed with this change. I typically ran a mixed squad with various upgrades anyway so wanted to see if it washed out.
Generally a sgt with bolter and xenophase, 3-4 bolter/SS, 2 frag cannons, a shotgun, terminator, vanvet with HTH, blackshield.
Old cost 317pts. New cost 344 pts.
And this is for a very non comp unit.
So basically GW wants me to put combi weapons on all my SS dudes, drop the shotgun completely, and upgrade everything.
Sorry, but that’s just stupid. Not really impressed.
So basically GW wants me to put combi weapons on all my SS dudes, drop the shotgun completely, and upgrade everything.
Sorry, but that’s just stupid. Not really impressed.
It's the same for many SM-units;
10 Sternguard /w Special Issue Boltguns - 200 pts.
10 Sternguard /w Combi-Plasma (better in pretty much every way) - 200 pts.
AoC was a bandaid. The removal of AoC and subsequent pts-reduction is a bandaid.
I'm guessing 10th isn't far off tho so I don't mind.
And it could be worse... poor CSM-players...
As a SM player without a big collection, I think I would be a bit pissed off at the changes to free wargear.
All my stuff is built and painted, but only with upgrades that used to be necessary in my list. Now I'd need to scramble new miniatures to build all the special weapons and upgrades or else I'm effectively playing with less points than my opponent.
All this effort for GW to maybe change it back in 3 months or maybe with 10th edition or the next SM codex.
And that's not even getting at the game design issue of having something like a flamer being equal to a lascannon, cost wise.
Heh. I just realized this mess also reverts the Salamanders 'wounds can't be rerolled against them' to 'AP-1 becomes AP 0'
I really would rather go back to the old system of 'here are your rules, check back in 5 years or so' rather than deal with mopping up the rotten remains of unintended and intended consequences every 6 months or so when they decide to throw new random crap at the walls.
They're bad at rules, they can't fix their mess without a major overhaul. I'd rather they stop trying to tinker while in flight, it simply makes the game experience worse. Consistency and stability offer a lot more than badly-thought-out spot fixes.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Does the codex match the actual rules? No? Then it's obsolete.
Don't Princess Bride me when I've been using the word in it's correct context.
"Obsolete (adj): no longer produced or used."
Given that the codexes are still produced AND used, updates to them do not make them obsolete. The points themselves may no longer be accurate, and a few rules may be updated or added, but the codex itself is not obsolete; in fact, it's still very much required.
It also means :
"Out of date"
So yes, it is obsolete. It's required, but it's still out of date. Also, sometimes it's more than just "a few rules". Sometimes it's entire rules and data slates being revised. Such as adding "Core" to destroyers or completely changing how Command Protocols works, or changing invuls of an entire swathe of units.
Do they even update new prints of the codex to reflect the changes to the rules? Like, is there a codex v2? I recall that they used to do that but I'm not sure if that's still a practice.
Isn't the life cycle of codices just shorter in general now? We're down to two years, aren't we?
Something can’t be on-sale and required and yet obsolete at the same time. If it is impossible to play the game without the codex then it isn’t obsolete. Online copies and your memory don’t count.
I take it that you use the original data in your codex then? After all, they are still up to date and valid, right?
If not, then you aren't actually using the codex, now are you?
95% of most codexes are still accurate, so yes. After all, I still need the codex to tell me the stats of a Marine Captain or how Rites of Battle works. To claim that the whole codex is obsolete because of points changes is deliberately being obtuse on the matter.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Does the codex match the actual rules? No? Then it's obsolete.
Don't Princess Bride me when I've been using the word in it's correct context.
"Obsolete (adj): no longer produced or used."
Given that the codexes are still produced AND used, updates to them do not make them obsolete. The points themselves may no longer be accurate, and a few rules may be updated or added, but the codex itself is not obsolete; in fact, it's still very much required.
It also means :
"Out of date"
So yes, it is obsolete. It's required, but it's still out of date. Also, sometimes it's more than just "a few rules". Sometimes it's entire rules and data slates being revised. Such as adding "Core" to destroyers or completely changing how Command Protocols works, or changing invuls of an entire swathe of units.
Do they even update new prints of the codex to reflect the changes to the rules? Like, is there a codex v2? I recall that they used to do that but I'm not sure if that's still a practice.
Isn't the life cycle of codices just shorter in general now? We're down to two years, aren't we?
Something can’t be on-sale and required and yet obsolete at the same time. If it is impossible to play the game without the codex then it isn’t obsolete. Online copies and your memory don’t count.
I take it that you use the original data in your codex then? After all, they are still up to date and valid, right?
If not, then you aren't actually using the codex, now are you?
Do you not bother to let your phone or PC software update? It's not even close to the first time physical gaming objects have had updates. I have a bunch of old Star WArs and Magic cards that have been updated wording, but I can still use the old cards with the understanding that the wording is changed. And I have an old Chapter approved with sections it explicitly tells me to cut out and glue into various codices as errata.
vipoid wrote: I'm surprised no one has mentioned Harlequins having their invulnerable saves nerfed across the board.
I know wargear costs (or the lack thereof) is an issue but I would have thought such a drastic change might have raised some eyebrows.
I mean, everything has a native -1 to hit not counting the defensive bonuses they get via Light Saedath or how prime being able to Advance + Charge is.
They never needed a 4++ to begin with.
I can understand thinking that a 4++ on every unit (including troops, vehicles, jetbikes) is a bit over the top.
However, it seems a little strange that it was stripped from all their characters as well. I'm struggling to see why a 4++ on a Troupe Master or Shadowseer or Death Jester is beyond the pale, yet a 4++ on a SM Captain, a Necron Overlord, a Canoness, an Autarch, a Succubus, an Exalted Sorcerer, a Farseer etc. is perfectly fine.
Oh the characters should've kept it, absolutely agreed. The complaints I've seen though (especially on the 40k comp Reddit) seem to be for the army in general though.
NAVARRO wrote: Is it really healthy to the game the relentless updates? Seriously.
No. It’s not.
FAQ’s and errata are one thing. Constantly and frequently changing & adding rules and game mechanics solely to alter the meta is bad, very bad, and if allowed to continue will eventually kill the game. It will slowly alienate all audiences except the most competitive and at that point the game will be dead.
A game can easily survive without competitive players. W40K has done fine without them for more than 25 years. A game will die if the only audience or overwhelming majority is competitive play.
This kinda hit home hard for me. GW is punishing my 10-year-old's Tyranids because a bunch of try-hard WAAC-babies keep finding new ways to break them.
Here's a ground breaking thought: maybe the game shouldn't be so easy to break. Nobody cares your accidentally broke army got nerfed when they shouldn't be written like that to begin with.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Does the codex match the actual rules? No? Then it's obsolete.
Don't Princess Bride me when I've been using the word in it's correct context.
"Obsolete (adj): no longer produced or used."
Given that the codexes are still produced AND used, updates to them do not make them obsolete. The points themselves may no longer be accurate, and a few rules may be updated or added, but the codex itself is not obsolete; in fact, it's still very much required.
It also means :
"Out of date"
So yes, it is obsolete. It's required, but it's still out of date. Also, sometimes it's more than just "a few rules". Sometimes it's entire rules and data slates being revised. Such as adding "Core" to destroyers or completely changing how Command Protocols works, or changing invuls of an entire swathe of units.
Do they even update new prints of the codex to reflect the changes to the rules? Like, is there a codex v2? I recall that they used to do that but I'm not sure if that's still a practice.
Isn't the life cycle of codices just shorter in general now? We're down to two years, aren't we?
Something can’t be on-sale and required and yet obsolete at the same time. If it is impossible to play the game without the codex then it isn’t obsolete. Online copies and your memory don’t count.
I take it that you use the original data in your codex then? After all, they are still up to date and valid, right?
If not, then you aren't actually using the codex, now are you?
Yes, I do still use the original data from my codex with the following changes:
1 Balance Dataslate change
Three erratas items
One FAQ question answered
Morvenn Vahl 280 points (+15)
Triumph of Saint Katherine 220 points (-20)
Paragon Warsuits 210 points (-30)
Sisters Repentia 16 points each (+2)
Dominion Squad 14 points each (+2)
Seraphim Squad 12 points each (-2)
Zephyrim Squad 15 points each (-2)
Castigator 135 points (-15)
Exorcist 120 points (-30)
Mortifiers 55 points each (-5)
Penitent Engines 50 points each (-5)
Immolator 90 points (-30)
I think that is less that 1% of the rules changed from the published book. The book doesn't need to be perfect to be not obsolete. Heck, I could play the game straight from the book if I wanted to and most people wouldn't notice if I didn't bring a 100% optimized list or play into the cheesiest rules that were errated.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Does the codex match the actual rules? No? Then it's obsolete.
Don't Princess Bride me when I've been using the word in it's correct context.
"Obsolete (adj): no longer produced or used."
Given that the codexes are still produced AND used, updates to them do not make them obsolete. The points themselves may no longer be accurate, and a few rules may be updated or added, but the codex itself is not obsolete; in fact, it's still very much required.
It also means :
"Out of date"
So yes, it is obsolete. It's required, but it's still out of date. Also, sometimes it's more than just "a few rules". Sometimes it's entire rules and data slates being revised. Such as adding "Core" to destroyers or completely changing how Command Protocols works, or changing invuls of an entire swathe of units.
Do they even update new prints of the codex to reflect the changes to the rules? Like, is there a codex v2? I recall that they used to do that but I'm not sure if that's still a practice.
Isn't the life cycle of codices just shorter in general now? We're down to two years, aren't we?
Something can’t be on-sale and required and yet obsolete at the same time. If it is impossible to play the game without the codex then it isn’t obsolete. Online copies and your memory don’t count.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: There's more serious problems than the stalker not having core, sadly.
- Phylacterine Hive is useless. They gave a bunch of units core, but Hive was supposed to allow the cryptek to heal those units that became core. It's completely redundant.
- Likewise, the Severed trait has been rendered completely obsolete after they made protocols battlefield wide.
- Destroyer Lords of both varieties do not have the noble trait. Which means they cannot benefit from strats and objectives that specify nobles.
So no Ressurection Protocols and no secondaries.
- RP punishes multiwound models. If you don't roll 3 5s you aren't getting a destroyer back. I get that GW doesn't want a bunch of single wound models but it's still fairly punishing, especially when Necron damage dealers tend to have multiple wounds.
Those are all good points. It would certainly be good if they included some updates for those elements in an errata. Having redundant options is no fun because you just have less choice.
Regarding free changes to a unit's equipment. I don't think they're a problem in general, provided they're not straight upgrades that offer a significant boost to a unit and that are not being used as a balance tool to effectively hand out boosts based on the way a unit is modelled.
As an example, if the marine codex forced all sergeants to have a close combat upgrade and for those units that could take them one in every five marines had to have a special or heavy weapon then by all means make these upgrades free. A flamer might be good, but in other situations a melta or plasmagun might be better. The meta for which weapon is best might change but the unit as a whole feels about right. The issue comes in when everybody has a boltgun and those optional elements are clearly superior to the boltgun they replace.
The change to marines feels like a cash grab aimed at milking those that want to not just have an advantage but simply don't want to be stomped now that armour of contempt is gone.
I play in a friendly environment using power levels so this doesn't change a thing for my units but for those playing with points this feels really bad. I am also disappointed that there's been no power level adjustment for armies given all the points changes. The last one was in March last year (I think) so hopefully one will be along eventually...
The way GW are doing it with churn and burn cycle, yes. But, alas- I guess you just enjoy throwing your money into a giant pit or something...
Well, I run one army and one army alone, Orkz. I have something ridiculous like 18,000-20,000pts of Orkz I have collected over decades. I "throw" money into my one army by collecting new models as they come out if I like them, as an example of the new buggies that came out in 8th I found like 2 of them to be good looking enough to buy and bought 3 scrapjets. I have a grand total of ZERO rukkatrukks even when those were the meta. So when you say "churn and burn" all i hear is "competitive players throwing money to win" and I don't really care. And I also play competitively against those guys. The game has never been this balanced before; I started playing back in 3rd and literally can't remember a better balanced era than today. Is it perfect? God no, but its a lot better than previous editions.
Quality of the official app is not a factor in whether it's a valid source.
In some ways, it's still less accurate than the codex. It still doesn't like trying to make Drazhar a warlord.
You've misinterpreted the point, the army and unit entries are generally entirely accurate on day 1 for any update, it's the army builder that's tripe.
Do you not bother to let your phone or PC software update?
Gods no. First thing I do with new machines is turn off automatic updates. Because I'm a Chad.
Forced automatic updates are indeed a mistake. I miss Windows 7, where you actually had some semblance of control over your machine, instead of Microsoft making decisions for you. Also, day one patches are a terrible practice. Except game developers have the decency to sell you the updated version, as opposed to GW, where you buy the outdated book, then buy the materials to make it up to date, then consult whatever fixes they posted online. And they have a short life span, so in a couple of years you do it all over again.
Do you not bother to let your phone or PC software update?
Gods no. First thing I do with new machines is turn off automatic updates. Because I'm a Chad.
Forced automatic updates are indeed a mistake. I miss Windows 7, where you actually had some semblance of control over your machine, instead of Microsoft making decisions for you.
Also, day one patches are a terrible practice.
Except game developers have the decency to sell you the updated version, as opposed to GW, where you buy the outdated book, then buy the materials to make it up to date, then consult whatever fixes they posted online.
And they have a short life span, so in a couple of years you do it all over again.
Manfred von Drakken wrote: This kinda hit home hard for me. GW is punishing my 10-year-old's Tyranids because a bunch of try-hard WAAC-babies keep finding new ways to break them.
I've never taken a Tyranid army with 2xBonesword/Deathspitter Warriors. I only own one Maleceptor. I've only ever owned one full unit of Hive Guard. But because tournament players stretched the capabilities of the Codex (and the last one) to the nth degree, the units I - and I'm sure many more people outside of tournaments - wasn't spamming have to suffer.
vipoid wrote: However, it seems a little strange that it was stripped from all their characters as well.
Because GW uses a pendulum to balance things. The concept of a middle ground is entirely foreign to them, so naturally they hit everything with the same nerf-bat, without any thought to what they're hitting. The only surprising thing about is that you're surprised.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Does the codex match the actual rules? No? Then it's obsolete.
Don't Princess Bride me when I've been using the word in it's correct context.
"Obsolete (adj): no longer produced or used."
Given that the codexes are still produced AND used, updates to them do not make them obsolete. The points themselves may no longer be accurate, and a few rules may be updated or added, but the codex itself is not obsolete; in fact, it's still very much required.
It also means :
"Out of date"
So yes, it is obsolete. It's required, but it's still out of date. Also, sometimes it's more than just "a few rules". Sometimes it's entire rules and data slates being revised. Such as adding "Core" to destroyers or completely changing how Command Protocols works, or changing invuls of an entire swathe of units.
Do they even update new prints of the codex to reflect the changes to the rules? Like, is there a codex v2? I recall that they used to do that but I'm not sure if that's still a practice.
Isn't the life cycle of codices just shorter in general now? We're down to two years, aren't we?
Something can’t be on-sale and required and yet obsolete at the same time. If it is impossible to play the game without the codex then it isn’t obsolete. Online copies and your memory don’t count.
I never use the physical codex. At best, I buy it, register the code, then toss it on a shelf to collect dust while I use the app since the codex is going to be wrong and out of date anyways. Generally I just find someone else who doesn’t use the app and get their code from them though. The sooner GW stops wasting paper on books and goes all digital the better, but then they lose the excuse to overcharge repeatedly, so it so it ain’t gonna happen.
I think the problem lies in how we each feel about the change. I'm fairly nonplussed ( the unperturbed kind ) about it. I understand why you don't like it, but it just doesn't register as an issue to me and I don't have a good way to reconcile that dynamic.
I say that in a sense of general balance. Modeling is another part that I weep for people who will scramble for gear.
Daedalus81 wrote: I think the problem lies in how we each feel about the change. I'm fairly nonplussed ( the unperturbed kind ) about it. I understand why you don't like it, but it just doesn't register as an issue to me and I don't have a good way to reconcile that dynamic.
Then let's use the simplest example I can find, and see if that registers.
The Chaos Rhino Old Points Chaos Rhino (80) + Second Combi-Bolter (5) + Havoc Launcher (5) = 90 New Points Chaos Rhino (80) + Second Combi-Bolter (0) + Havoc Launcher (0) = 80
A Chaos Rhino with an extra Combi-Bolter and a Havoc Launcher was an interesting "Poor Man's Razorback", that had merit if you had a few spare points with nothing else to use them on at the end of making a list. Now, you get that, and you get it for nothing.
Is there ever a reason not to take the additional weaponry (or even the Combi-Melta option instead, given that's also free)?
You are literally getting more for nothing, same as if you swapped out a Bolt Pistol for a Plasma Pistol, or a Chainsword for a Power Sword. You give up nothing to get this. You haven't had to make a choice. This equipment might as well be default if you don't have to pay for it.
And I will continue to say that this point is demonstrably false. We have gone from an environment where you have base equipment for X points, and upgrades for X+Y, to one where you have base equipment for X points, and upgrades for X points as well, meaning there is never any reason not to take the maximum amount of upgrades possible because you don't lose anything or give anything up to do so.
That is not balance, no matter how small the shift in power is. It is terrible rules writing, and it is another example of GW just giving up as we hurtle towards the end of yet another all-too-short yet somehow all-too-bloated edition.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Does the codex match the actual rules? No? Then it's obsolete.
Don't Princess Bride me when I've been using the word in it's correct context.
"Obsolete (adj): no longer produced or used."
Given that the codexes are still produced AND used, updates to them do not make them obsolete. The points themselves may no longer be accurate, and a few rules may be updated or added, but the codex itself is not obsolete; in fact, it's still very much required.
It also means :
"Out of date"
So yes, it is obsolete. It's required, but it's still out of date. Also, sometimes it's more than just "a few rules". Sometimes it's entire rules and data slates being revised. Such as adding "Core" to destroyers or completely changing how Command Protocols works, or changing invuls of an entire swathe of units.
Do they even update new prints of the codex to reflect the changes to the rules? Like, is there a codex v2? I recall that they used to do that but I'm not sure if that's still a practice.
Isn't the life cycle of codices just shorter in general now? We're down to two years, aren't we?
Something can’t be on-sale and required and yet obsolete at the same time. If it is impossible to play the game without the codex then it isn’t obsolete. Online copies and your memory don’t count.
I never use the physical codex. At best, I buy it, register the code, then toss it on a shelf to collect dust while I use the app since the codex is going to be wrong and out of date anyways. Generally I just find someone else who doesn’t use the app and get their code from them though. The sooner GW stops wasting paper on books and goes all digital the better, but then they lose the excuse to overcharge repeatedly, so it so it ain’t gonna happen.
Using the App that requires you to own the codex is just like using the codex. The few adjustments may be in the App rather than the Errata document or MFM, but that doesn't make much of a difference in the end.
I will say, Chainsword to Power Sword isn't the best example.
Rhino with extra guns is a straight buff.
But against, say, GEQ...
A WS3+ S4 model does .44 damage per attack with a Power Sword, and .37 per attack with an AP-1 Chainsword.
Since the Chainsword gives an extra attack, that means a Chainsword does more damage than a Power Sword against GEQ all the way up to 5 attacks before bonus from weapon.
You didn't want marines to have AoC. You wouldn't want marines to be a horde army. And you damn well know that datasheet rewrites aren't happening and dropping AP game-wide has far more consequences than people are willing to explore.
So what exactly do you expect GW to do?
You are literally getting more for nothing
Yes, that's the point. The units weren't as worthwhile and less so with the upgrades. First born were almost never on the table - especially not the ones being bandied about right now. My havoc launchers I took for occasional OOLOS shooting and usually killed a model once in a while. Then the OOLOS nerf happened and I just paid for it anyway, because I wasn't going to be bothered to take it off the unmagnetized rhinos. Now I save 10 points, which is hardly mind-blowing.
If you think all the weapon trades have a clear winner then I'm not sure what to tell you. There are so many units with so many different profiles that just simply taking melta or powerswords isn't going to win you games.
I'm not saying that this is going to go smoothly. I don't think it's possible to change so many things and have it come out fine. I just don't think this particular dead horse is the swan song people want to make it to be.
Daedalus81 wrote: I think the problem lies in how we each feel about the change. I'm fairly nonplussed ( the unperturbed kind ) about it. I understand why you don't like it, but it just doesn't register as an issue to me and I don't have a good way to reconcile that dynamic.
Then let's use the simplest example I can find, and see if that registers.
The Chaos Rhino Old Points Chaos Rhino (80) + Second Combi-Bolter (5) + Havoc Launcher (5) = 90
New Points Chaos Rhino (80) + Second Combi-Bolter (0) + Havoc Launcher (0) = 80
A Chaos Rhino with an extra Combi-Bolter and a Havoc Launcher was an interesting "Poor Man's Razorback", that had merit if you had a few spare points with nothing else to use them on at the end of making a list. Now, you get that, and you get it for nothing.
Is there ever a reason not to take the additional weaponry (or even the Combi-Melta option instead, given that's also free)?
You are literally getting more for nothing, same as if you swapped out a Bolt Pistol for a Plasma Pistol, or a Chainsword for a Power Sword. You give up nothing to get this. You haven't had to make a choice. This equipment might as well be default if you don't have to pay for it.
And I will continue to say that this point is demonstrably false. We have gone from an environment where you have base equipment for X points, and upgrades for X+Y, to one where you have base equipment for X points, and upgrades for X points as well, meaning there is never any reason not to take the maximum amount of upgrades possible because you don't lose anything or give anything up to do so.
That is not balance, no matter how small the shift in power is. It is terrible rules writing, and it is another example of GW just giving up as we hurtle towards the end of yet another all-too-short yet somehow all-too-bloated edition.
You realize that you are ranting about something that'll (likely) only last 6 months or so, right?
If/when it doesn't work? GW'll just change it & throw some more gak at the wall. Or maybe 10e really will come along - possibly changing everything.
And if this current crap isn't to your liking? Then sit out the next few months tourney wise. Also maybe discuss it amongst those you play with when not in a tourney (you do that, don't you?) & reach some solution that suites you & yours.
I never use the physical codex. At best, I buy it, register the code, then toss it on a shelf to collect dust while I use the app since the codex is going to be wrong and out of date anyways. Generally I just find someone else who doesn’t use the app and get their code from them though. The sooner GW stops wasting paper on books and goes all digital the better, but then they lose the excuse to overcharge repeatedly, so it so it ain’t gonna happen.
All it would mean is you pay same for just the code.
Or are you assuming by being digital it would be free? Digital!=free automatically
Want? That they do the work required.
Its getting to (past) the point that their update cycle is worse than them doing nothing.
That's going to be an interesting take, if in 2 months marines, admech, nids and harlies etc are having around a 50% winrate is that not evidence that general balance has improved?
I understand that there's some controversy over the method of getting marines there (I'm on daeds side of the fence, I see lots of complaining but not real suggestions of alternatives). But it's the overall outcome that's more important than the method here imo.
Want? That they do the work required.
Its getting to (past) the point that their update cycle is worse than them doing nothing.
That's going to be an interesting take, if in 2 months marines, admech, nids and harlies etc are having around a 50% winrate is that not evidence that general balance has improved?
I understand that there's some controversy over the method of getting marines there (I'm on daeds side of the fence, I see lots of complaining but not real suggestions of alternatives). But it's the overall outcome that's more important than the method here imo.
External balance? yeah
Internal balance is really the issue here however.
I never use the physical codex. At best, I buy it, register the code, then toss it on a shelf to collect dust while I use the app since the codex is going to be wrong and out of date anyways. Generally I just find someone else who doesn’t use the app and get their code from them though. The sooner GW stops wasting paper on books and goes all digital the better, but then they lose the excuse to overcharge repeatedly, so it so it ain’t gonna happen.
All it would mean is you pay same for just the code.
Or are you assuming by being digital it would be free? Digital!=free automatically
Also don't forget to increase the cost of the models by another couple of %.
Want? That they do the work required.
Its getting to (past) the point that their update cycle is worse than them doing nothing.
I understand that there's some controversy over the method of getting marines there (I'm on daeds side of the fence, I see lots of complaining but not real suggestions of alternatives)
This is 100% a lie. There have been hundreds of suggestions on how to improve Marines.
Want? That they do the work required.
Its getting to (past) the point that their update cycle is worse than them doing nothing.
I understand that there's some controversy over the method of getting marines there (I'm on daeds side of the fence, I see lots of complaining but not real suggestions of alternatives)
This is 100% a lie. There have been hundreds of suggestions on how to improve Marines.
Care to share? It's just been endless "they did it wrong" in here beyond the suggestion of make the marines cheaper and then cut the weapon option costs a little to give the exact same net outcome.
Care to share? It's just been endless "they did it wrong" in here beyond the suggestion of make the marines cheaper and then cut the weapon option costs a little to give the exact same net outcome.
Oddly enough that would give a worse outcome in most cases. By reducing the per-model points cost further than GW already did, we'd end up with skew lists where cheaper vehicles or 2W models can just be spammed. Most players will continue not paying any extra points for a storm bolter like before.
Want? That they do the work required.
Its getting to (past) the point that their update cycle is worse than them doing nothing.
That's going to be an interesting take, if in 2 months marines, admech, nids and harlies etc are having around a 50% winrate is that not evidence that general balance has improved?
I understand that there's some controversy over the method of getting marines there (I'm on daeds side of the fence, I see lots of complaining but not real suggestions of alternatives). But it's the overall outcome that's more important than the method here imo.
The 'take' is I don't care about some sort of karmic balance in the reporting of winrates at curated and selected events. I want a fun game with good (or at least decent) mechanics. That's the only overall outcome that's important. The 'throwing crap at the walls and do it again 6 months later' doesn't matter for anything except some vague reporting of fuzzy statistics that don't affect much of anything beyond the scale of GW's over-reaction.
Want? That they do the work required.
Its getting to (past) the point that their update cycle is worse than them doing nothing.
That's going to be an interesting take, if in 2 months marines, admech, nids and harlies etc are having around a 50% winrate is that not evidence that general balance has improved?
I understand that there's some controversy over the method of getting marines there (I'm on daeds side of the fence, I see lots of complaining but not real suggestions of alternatives). But it's the overall outcome that's more important than the method here imo.
The 'take' is I don't care about some sort of karmic balance in the reporting of winrates at curated and selected events. I want a fun game with good (or at least decent) mechanics. That's the only overall outcome that's important. The 'throwing crap at the walls and do it again 6 months later' doesn't matter for anything except some vague reporting of fuzzy statistics that don't affect much of anything beyond the scale of GW's over-reaction.
Is a fun game with interesting mechanics entirely divorced from a factions ability to win games? I do understand what you're saying because as a casual player who doesn't have to deal with meta lists etc I can field normal looking stuff and still have acceptably fair games. But surely it's better to have all factions have a capacity to be "good" at events?
Do you consider paying points for a gun a fun mechanic for that matter?
Marines having all their upgrades (or most) for free feels like 7th edition with marines having 600 points of free razorbacks per army and still sucking.
It is just a concesiong that they are utter garbage. I don't expect free upgrades to survive into 10th.
Free upgrades would be fine if GW hadn’t spent a lot of effort removing things that make war gear choices more significant.
It’s a symptom of a game that no one thing can fix it, and a company with no care to fix it,
The shift will happen, positive hype will sell lots of 40k for 10th and people say it’s popular so game is good.
It’s a bit sad honestly, because I can see a lot of effort from the writers seeming to try and please both a player base and a clueless management at times.
Want? That they do the work required.
Its getting to (past) the point that their update cycle is worse than them doing nothing.
I understand that there's some controversy over the method of getting marines there (I'm on daeds side of the fence, I see lots of complaining but not real suggestions of alternatives)
This is 100% a lie. There have been hundreds of suggestions on how to improve Marines.
Care to share? It's just been endless "they did it wrong" in here beyond the suggestion of make the marines cheaper and then cut the weapon option costs a little to give the exact same net outcome.
There's a bunch in the Proposed Rules section over the last few months. Do you want me to spoon feed you the suggestions?
EviscerationPlague wrote: This is 100% a lie. There have been hundreds of suggestions on how to improve Marines.
Were any of them good suggestions?
It'd be foolish to pretend all were good suggestions obviously, but there's solid ones. Since I've joined this forum there has been absolutely been horrible ideas as there have been good ones. Main difference is that the bad ones here were basically half-baked whereas GW paid someone for this. Wargear shouldn't be free, period.
Want? That they do the work required.
Its getting to (past) the point that their update cycle is worse than them doing nothing.
That's going to be an interesting take, if in 2 months marines, admech, nids and harlies etc are having around a 50% winrate is that not evidence that general balance has improved?
I understand that there's some controversy over the method of getting marines there (I'm on daeds side of the fence, I see lots of complaining but not real suggestions of alternatives). But it's the overall outcome that's more important than the method here imo.
The 'take' is I don't care about some sort of karmic balance in the reporting of winrates at curated and selected events. I want a fun game with good (or at least decent) mechanics. That's the only overall outcome that's important. The 'throwing crap at the walls and do it again 6 months later' doesn't matter for anything except some vague reporting of fuzzy statistics that don't affect much of anything beyond the scale of GW's over-reaction.
Is a fun game with interesting mechanics entirely divorced from a factions ability to win games? I do understand what you're saying because as a casual player who doesn't have to deal with meta lists etc I can field normal looking stuff and still have acceptably fair games. But surely it's better to have all factions have a capacity to be "good" at events?
Do you consider paying points for a gun a fun mechanic for that matter?
Is the gun a flat upgrade to the weapon it's replacing, yes or no?
Voss wrote: So what exactly do you expect GW to do?
Expect? Nothing.
Want? That they do the work required.
Its getting to (past) the point that their update cycle is worse than them doing nothing.
I understand that there's some controversy over the method of getting marines there (I'm on daeds side of the fence, I see lots of complaining but not real suggestions of alternatives)
This is 100% a lie. There have been hundreds of suggestions on how to improve Marines.
Care to share? It's just been endless "they did it wrong" in here beyond the suggestion of make the marines cheaper and then cut the weapon option costs a little to give the exact same net outcome.
There's a bunch in the Proposed Rules section over the last few months. Do you want me to spoon feed you the suggestions?[/spoiler]
Going back to June we have repeated "get rid of AoC" with no solutions given in the OP or combined with suggestions that equate to "lower the games AP". Give bolters better AP, which would level the playing field this edition but not actually help the core problem, a request for better missile launchers and an imperial fist wet dream asking for more AP and damage. Without resorting to "rewrite the AP values" I don't see any sensible or helpful suggestions.
If you know better then yes, I asked to be spoon fed.
Again: taking the current wargear costs of the most extreme example you're looking at a 5 man tac squad with multi melta, combi melta and thunder hammer for 135 points. That unit is now 90 points, so if you wanted to keep wargear costs and reach that points value you then need to drop marines to a whopping 9 points. Does that seem better? Lets assume not.
If you reduce them to 13 points, which is still an absurd number to be honest, make special weapons +5, heavies +10, fists/hammers +5, combi weapons +5 as flat rates you get a unit at the same price but suddenly you might as well only bring multimeltas and plasma again because they still cost the same. If you want to variance them out, feel free but I don't know how you'd make all those weapons be reasonable decisions inside a 5/10 point bracket. You'd also likely drop the sgt equipment to spam 5 man MM squads at 75 pts.
There is no solution without fixing the survivability of the models holding the guns which is a game wide change.
EviscerationPlague wrote: This is 100% a lie. There have been hundreds of suggestions on how to improve Marines.
Were any of them good suggestions?
It'd be foolish to pretend all were good suggestions obviously, but there's solid ones. Since I've joined this forum there has been absolutely been horrible ideas as there have been good ones. Main difference is that the bad ones here were basically half-baked whereas GW paid someone for this. Wargear shouldn't be free, period.
It's cost you nothing and not come out of your pocket, don't complain about pay.
Want? That they do the work required.
Its getting to (past) the point that their update cycle is worse than them doing nothing.
That's going to be an interesting take, if in 2 months marines, admech, nids and harlies etc are having around a 50% winrate is that not evidence that general balance has improved?
I understand that there's some controversy over the method of getting marines there (I'm on daeds side of the fence, I see lots of complaining but not real suggestions of alternatives). But it's the overall outcome that's more important than the method here imo.
The 'take' is I don't care about some sort of karmic balance in the reporting of winrates at curated and selected events. I want a fun game with good (or at least decent) mechanics. That's the only overall outcome that's important. The 'throwing crap at the walls and do it again 6 months later' doesn't matter for anything except some vague reporting of fuzzy statistics that don't affect much of anything beyond the scale of GW's over-reaction.
Is a fun game with interesting mechanics entirely divorced from a factions ability to win games? I do understand what you're saying because as a casual player who doesn't have to deal with meta lists etc I can field normal looking stuff and still have acceptably fair games. But surely it's better to have all factions have a capacity to be "good" at events?
Do you consider paying points for a gun a fun mechanic for that matter?
Is the gun a flat upgrade to the weapon it's replacing, yes or no?
It is but that has nothing to do with whether buying upgrades with points is a "fun mechanic". Try answering the question rather than deflecting like normal.
I myself do find list building, of many types fun. Points, payments systems, campaign systems.
And what gear to take a fun part of a good meta game.
This goes for RPG and mechanics within a system that make choices relevant.
This of corse means upgrades, for a fun system like it. It’s very hard to build every option as effectively the same but different, when they are designing the game so focused on damage output as its primary interaction.
Apple fox wrote: I myself do find list building, of many types fun. Points, payments systems, campaign systems.
And what gear to take a fun part of a good meta game.
This goes for RPG and mechanics within a system that make choices relevant.
This of corse means upgrades, for a fun system like it. It’s very hard to build every option as effectively the same but different, when they are designing the game so focused on damage output as its primary interaction.
I think this sums it up perfectly, often there is a right/wrong choice with upgrades in 40k, often not due to the points itself but because everything is a linear kills more/less situation. There's fewer specialisations and meaningful upgrade options and those that are there are usually overshadowed by the kill more choice.
Dudeface wrote: There is no solution without fixing the survivability of the models holding the guns which is a game wide change.
Might be nitpicky, but you can do that indirectly. Increasing point costs for special weapons across the board for everyone and/or reducing the damage characteristic for a lot of weapons would be a viable approach. 40k is in a state where a significant change like this can not happen in a vacuum by itself. Which does not excuse why it should not be done.
Apple fox wrote: Free upgrades would be fine if GW hadn’t spent a lot of effort removing things that make war gear choices more significant.
It’s a symptom of a game that no one thing can fix it, and a company with no care to fix it,
The shift will happen, positive hype will sell lots of 40k for 10th and people say it’s popular so game is good.
It’s a bit sad honestly, because I can see a lot of effort from the writers seeming to try and please both a player base and a clueless management at times.
They've added tons to make various wargear significant.
In older editions you had plasma, because it killed literally everything.
Now, taking melta means you risk a swingy damage roll if you're not in half range and short range. Plasma lets you pick up W2/4, but comes at the risk of death to the user and still at a middling range. Lascannons are swingy, but beat the T8 breakpoint and do it from long range. Grav cannons are better than plasma at killing MEQ, but quickly become less useful outside that set of targets.
Flamers are the red headed step child, but marines CAN now pick up AP1. If they extended the CSM +3 to all basic flamers then they'd be a good option.
People might think there's no choice, because things are free, but if you follow community list building discussions it will be difficult to find a consensus on what the best list will be.
Want? That they do the work required.
Its getting to (past) the point that their update cycle is worse than them doing nothing.
That's going to be an interesting take, if in 2 months marines, admech, nids and harlies etc are having around a 50% winrate is that not evidence that general balance has improved?
I understand that there's some controversy over the method of getting marines there (I'm on daeds side of the fence, I see lots of complaining but not real suggestions of alternatives). But it's the overall outcome that's more important than the method here imo.
The 'take' is I don't care about some sort of karmic balance in the reporting of winrates at curated and selected events. I want a fun game with good (or at least decent) mechanics. That's the only overall outcome that's important. The 'throwing crap at the walls and do it again 6 months later' doesn't matter for anything except some vague reporting of fuzzy statistics that don't affect much of anything beyond the scale of GW's over-reaction.
Is a fun game with interesting mechanics entirely divorced from a factions ability to win games? I do understand what you're saying because as a casual player who doesn't have to deal with meta lists etc I can field normal looking stuff and still have acceptably fair games. But surely it's better to have all factions have a capacity to be "good" at events?
Sure. But nothing GW has done actually does that for all factions. Or, honestly, any faction. Shuffling the karmic 'meta debt' around from faction to faction is a shell game, not a fair one.
Do you consider paying points for a gun a fun mechanic for that matter?
... no? I don't consider it a mechanic at all, for one thing, since it takes place outside the game, and is only a tiny piece of list building. That's like asking if each individual french fry is a meal.
Plus, I find fun in the system as a whole, not in the little pieces and sub-systems.
I think its a very necessary part of the point system that they currently use, since the various guns are very much not equal to each other.
If they want to overhaul and change the entire point system (or weapon system, like the Epic rules that generalizes small arms & AT weapons), we can talk about if points for weapons are truly necessary. In the system that currently exists? They absolutely are.
Galas wrote: Marines having all their upgrades (or most) for free feels like 7th edition with marines having 600 points of free razorbacks per army and still sucking.
It is just a concesiong that they are utter garbage. I don't expect free upgrades to survive into 10th.
Still not a fan of people attempting to rewrite history. 7th edition SM were one of the top 3 armies. You had Eldar BS, you had Tau and you had Marines. If you really wanted to argue you could go back and forth between Marines and Necrons with their Decurion but realistically they were top tier.
Galas wrote: Marines having all their upgrades (or most) for free feels like 7th edition with marines having 600 points of free razorbacks per army and still sucking.
It is just a concesiong that they are utter garbage. I don't expect free upgrades to survive into 10th.
Still not a fan of people attempting to rewrite history. 7th edition SM were one of the top 3 armies. You had Eldar BS, you had Tau and you had Marines. If you really wanted to argue you could go back and forth between Marines and Necrons with their Decurion but realistically they were top tier.
Hm. I remember Eldar, Tau and Demons being the top tier at the end of the edition. Space Marines were good with grav-spamming biker senanigans and deathstars with invisibility, not spamming free razorbacks.
But I was not attempting to bring that chaos to this conversation. Just a point of feeling wrong to have your upgrades just free.
That's a function of people being innately bad at statistics. The Sieglers and Cheemas probably already know the generic "best" option, although most of us have a practical fog of war and there may be dependencies
BrainFireBob wrote: That's a function of people being innately bad at statistics. The Sieglers and Cheemas probably already know the generic "best" option, although most of us have a practical fog of war and there may be dependencies
Okay, so what the dependency for a Bolter to be better than a Plasma Gun?
Voss wrote: So what exactly do you expect GW to do?
Expect? Nothing.
Want? That they do the work required.
Its getting to (past) the point that their update cycle is worse than them doing nothing.
I understand that there's some controversy over the method of getting marines there (I'm on daeds side of the fence, I see lots of complaining but not real suggestions of alternatives)
This is 100% a lie. There have been hundreds of suggestions on how to improve Marines.
Care to share? It's just been endless "they did it wrong" in here beyond the suggestion of make the marines cheaper and then cut the weapon option costs a little to give the exact same net outcome.
There's a bunch in the Proposed Rules section over the last few months. Do you want me to spoon feed you the suggestions?[/spoiler]
Going back to June we have repeated "get rid of AoC" with no solutions given in the OP or combined with suggestions that equate to "lower the games AP". Give bolters better AP, which would level the playing field this edition but not actually help the core problem, a request for better missile launchers and an imperial fist wet dream asking for more AP and damage. Without resorting to "rewrite the AP values" I don't see any sensible or helpful suggestions.
If you know better then yes, I asked to be spoon fed.
Again: taking the current wargear costs of the most extreme example you're looking at a 5 man tac squad with multi melta, combi melta and thunder hammer for 135 points. That unit is now 90 points, so if you wanted to keep wargear costs and reach that points value you then need to drop marines to a whopping 9 points. Does that seem better? Lets assume not.
If you reduce them to 13 points, which is still an absurd number to be honest, make special weapons +5, heavies +10, fists/hammers +5, combi weapons +5 as flat rates you get a unit at the same price but suddenly you might as well only bring multimeltas and plasma again because they still cost the same. If you want to variance them out, feel free but I don't know how you'd make all those weapons be reasonable decisions inside a 5/10 point bracket. You'd also likely drop the sgt equipment to spam 5 man MM squads at 75 pts.
There is no solution without fixing the survivability of the models holding the guns which is a game wide change.
EviscerationPlague wrote: This is 100% a lie. There have been hundreds of suggestions on how to improve Marines.
Were any of them good suggestions?
It'd be foolish to pretend all were good suggestions obviously, but there's solid ones. Since I've joined this forum there has been absolutely been horrible ideas as there have been good ones. Main difference is that the bad ones here were basically half-baked whereas GW paid someone for this. Wargear shouldn't be free, period.
It's cost you nothing and not come out of your pocket, don't complain about pay.
Want? That they do the work required.
Its getting to (past) the point that their update cycle is worse than them doing nothing.
That's going to be an interesting take, if in 2 months marines, admech, nids and harlies etc are having around a 50% winrate is that not evidence that general balance has improved?
I understand that there's some controversy over the method of getting marines there (I'm on daeds side of the fence, I see lots of complaining but not real suggestions of alternatives). But it's the overall outcome that's more important than the method here imo.
The 'take' is I don't care about some sort of karmic balance in the reporting of winrates at curated and selected events. I want a fun game with good (or at least decent) mechanics. That's the only overall outcome that's important. The 'throwing crap at the walls and do it again 6 months later' doesn't matter for anything except some vague reporting of fuzzy statistics that don't affect much of anything beyond the scale of GW's over-reaction.
Is a fun game with interesting mechanics entirely divorced from a factions ability to win games? I do understand what you're saying because as a casual player who doesn't have to deal with meta lists etc I can field normal looking stuff and still have acceptably fair games. But surely it's better to have all factions have a capacity to be "good" at events?
Do you consider paying points for a gun a fun mechanic for that matter?
Is the gun a flat upgrade to the weapon it's replacing, yes or no?
It is but that has nothing to do with whether buying upgrades with points is a "fun mechanic". Try answering the question rather than deflecting like normal.
1. There's been redoing of various Chapter Tactics, consolidation of unit entries, ways to redo the base weapon, redoing the statline itself, and THEN there's suggestions regarding fixing core rules that affect them OR how a bunch of armies having AP-1 base, which was just Necrons and Primaris Marines initially, and getting rid of that.
2. It doesn't matter if it costs us nothing. It's legit pathetic that GW paid for it and you're eating it up as brilliant.
3. Paying for a better weapon than a base weapon isn't a "mechanic", it's part of the list building, and free wargear is why a majority of players look at PL as a bunch of clowns making rules.
1. There's been redoing of various Chapter Tactics, consolidation of unit entries, ways to redo the base weapon, redoing the statline itself, and THEN there's suggestions regarding fixing core rules that affect them OR how a bunch of armies having AP-1 base, which was just Necrons and Primaris Marines initially, and getting rid of that.
2. It doesn't matter if it costs us nothing. It's legit pathetic that GW paid for it and you're eating it up as brilliant.
3. Paying for a better weapon than a base weapon isn't a "mechanic", it's part of the list building, and free wargear is why a majority of players look at PL as a bunch of clowns making rules.
1. OK, great, I meam half of those don't such as consolidation of profiles doesn't "fix" anything. Reducing AP across the board is the one thing we know they won't do, as previously mentioned.
2. I never said it was brilliant, it's actually one word nobody has used.
3. Glad you speak for the majority, welcome to the circus.
1. There's been redoing of various Chapter Tactics, consolidation of unit entries, ways to redo the base weapon, redoing the statline itself, and THEN there's suggestions regarding fixing core rules that affect them OR how a bunch of armies having AP-1 base, which was just Necrons and Primaris Marines initially, and getting rid of that.
2. It doesn't matter if it costs us nothing. It's legit pathetic that GW paid for it and you're eating it up as brilliant.
3. Paying for a better weapon than a base weapon isn't a "mechanic", it's part of the list building, and free wargear is why a majority of players look at PL as a bunch of clowns making rules.
1. OK, great, I meam half of those don't such as consolidation of profiles doesn't "fix" anything. Reducing AP across the board is the one thing we know they won't do, as previously mentioned.
2. I never said it was brilliant, it's actually one word nobody has used.
3. Glad you speak for the majority, welcome to the circus.
You'd be in complete denial to think PL is the way even 15% of players make a list. It's irrelevant and frankly an lost building mechanic that the GW "rules writers" should be embarrassed about, because the concept itself is absurd and embarrassing.
Also how do none of those things in Point 1 fix anything? You asked what had been proposed, I have a quick list, and you just say "nah it doesn't fix it"? Bull gak
1. There's been redoing of various Chapter Tactics, consolidation of unit entries, ways to redo the base weapon, redoing the statline itself, and THEN there's suggestions regarding fixing core rules that affect them OR how a bunch of armies having AP-1 base, which was just Necrons and Primaris Marines initially, and getting rid of that.
2. It doesn't matter if it costs us nothing. It's legit pathetic that GW paid for it and you're eating it up as brilliant.
3. Paying for a better weapon than a base weapon isn't a "mechanic", it's part of the list building, and free wargear is why a majority of players look at PL as a bunch of clowns making rules.
1. OK, great, I meam half of those don't such as consolidation of profiles doesn't "fix" anything. Reducing AP across the board is the one thing we know they won't do, as previously mentioned.
2. I never said it was brilliant, it's actually one word nobody has used.
3. Glad you speak for the majority, welcome to the circus.
You'd be in complete denial to think PL is the way even 15% of players make a list. It's irrelevant and frankly an lost building mechanic that the GW "rules writers" should be embarrassed about, because the concept itself is absurd and embarrassing.
Also how do none of those things in Point 1 fix anything? You asked what had been proposed, I have a quick list, and you just say "nah it doesn't fix it"? Bull gak
I think there's about 4 of you on here that share your total disdain for PL, the vast majority seem to not really give a gak. It's used by the minority but the vast majority don't care that it exists in the first place contrary to your beliefs.
Also to quote my point prior to this chain:
There is no solution without fixing the survivability of the models holding the guns which is a game wide change.
But to respond comprehensively:
There's been redoing of various Chapter Tactics
Without further context that's like me saying "adjust points" which given one suggestion was "imperial fists can be in any doctrine they like with extra AP and damage", I'll pass.
consolidation of unit entries
How does this help rebalance marines beyond removing bolter variants or redundant options?
ways to redo the base weapon
This increases lethality which might help in 9th "kill or be killed" but is adding to the problem, not solving it
redoing the statline itself
Again, no context = no use, I'm pretty sure if you start making marines into custodes people will get upset and we begin the stat inflation all over again.
THEN there's suggestions regarding fixing core rules that affect them OR how a bunch of armies having AP-1 base, which was just Necrons and Primaris Marines initially, and getting rid of that.
Which they're not going to drop in a dataslate, but is ultimately the way forwards.
They've added tons to make various wargear significant.
In older editions you had plasma, because it killed literally everything.
Now, taking melta means you risk a swingy damage roll if you're not in half range and short range. Plasma lets you pick up W2/4, but comes at the risk of death to the user and still at a middling range. Lascannons are swingy, but beat the T8 breakpoint and do it from long range. Grav cannons are better than plasma at killing MEQ, but quickly become less useful outside that set of targets.
Flamers are the red headed step child, but marines CAN now pick up AP1. If they extended the CSM +3 to all basic flamers then they'd be a good option.
People might think there's no choice, because things are free, but if you follow community list building discussions it will be difficult to find a consensus on what the best list will be.
And that nuance was why, prior to the new codex after the IG patch came out, all the successful IG infantry squads had a lascannon and plasma.
Old school for ever!
