The eldar changes seem pretty sensical to me. The stuff that went up in points is stuff that was seeing consistent use in competitive lists, and most of it only went up in price a little bit; enough to be felt if you're spamming those units, but not so much if you're splashing them into a well-rounded list. The units that went down in price are all generally agreed to be kind of meh with the possible exception of guardian defenders. But again, most things didn't change price so dramatically that we're likely to see people start spamming them.
On the whole, a pretty reasonable-looking update. My one nitpick being that the Phoenix Gem going from 25 points to 35 points makes it a bit iffy. It's still powerful, sure, but at that price point you're less likely to be able to use it to use up unspent points in your list (you'd probably rather have an extra warlock for 45 or a squad of rangers for 55), and my plans for adding a cheeky phoenix gem warlock to my crusade roster are probably going on the backburner now that the gem would nearly double said warlock's cost.
The necron changes mostly make sense but are a little more annoying.
The c'tan going up makes sense. Immortals going up a tiny bit makes sense as you'll feel it when spamming them but not when fielding a squad or two. Deathmarks going down by as many points as immortals went up has me wondering how deathmark spam (albeit limited by the rule of 3) would perform. It seems like their output is probably comparable if not better into marines and T9 or lower vehicles, and we can get crowd-clearing elsewhere.
I'm not keyed into the meta, but the increases on the various crypteks feel pretty severe with my technomancer going up something like 33% in cost. I was considering putting the guy in my warrior blob to try and lean into their durability, but now I'm not sure I can afford to do so. Heck, I can almost afford to just bring 10 more warriors or 3 more wraiths instead if I drop him.
I was bummed to see they didn't give warriors any help. The codex's changes to RP left them struggling to act as durable bricks and as limp as ever in terms of offense. (Especially if you're not fielding an Awakened Dynasty.) With immortals clearly being the more popular choice these days, it would have been nice to see warriors drop a point or get some sort of fix for their underwhelming RP rule.
Overall, its quite reasonable and mostly good changes. Healthy nudge for the meta overall.
Disappointed Deathwatch remain useless though. I'm happy enough just playing normal marines, but I wish if they're going to squat us they'd just say so. I have things I want to do with the army that I can't while its in limbo.
Hyped for Orks. Been building any army up in the background for a while and the new Codex is looking super fun. Definitely want to get them finished up and on the table soon.
The increase to technomancers feels rough if you're not using them to buff wraiths. In the accompanying video commentary they said they put the points on the technomancers to counter spamming them in combination with wraiths. They should have instead made it so that flying technomancers who can efficiently support wraiths went up in points, but those on foot didn't go up, or perhaps reduced the cost of other units (like warriors) to compensate.
I'm disappointed that there's no big changes yet for admech (that's what I'm currently painting), although it's interesting to hear they are testing something. Hopefully the summer brings some good changes for them so that they don't just have a further points reduction.
So, 4 posts on this new data slate change.
Is this a sign that 10th really isn’t that popular? Not sure everywhere else, but I know our group have barely played any games (maybe a few in the newness period but that has dropped off significantly)
bullyboy wrote: So, 4 posts on this new data slate change.
Is this a sign that 10th really isn’t that popular? Not sure everywhere else, but I know our group have barely played any games (maybe a few in the newness period but that has dropped off significantly)
I mean, it was a points update. There's not really much to discuss?
I'm disappointed that there's no big changes yet for admech (that's what I'm currently painting), although it's interesting to hear they are testing something. Hopefully the summer brings some good changes for them so that they don't just have a further points reduction.
Bets on the "balance update" for AdMech just being another tweak to Skitarii?
bullyboy wrote: So, 4 posts on this new data slate change.
Is this a sign that 10th really isn’t that popular? Not sure everywhere else, but I know our group have barely played any games (maybe a few in the newness period but that has dropped off significantly)
I think these sort of changes are pretty minor and the game is fairly balanced right now, so it's not a big surprise there's not much discussion here. The bigger discussion comes when they change rules in a dataslate.
Purely anecdotal, but 40k is doing better than ever where I am.
bullyboy wrote: So, 4 posts on this new data slate change.
Is this a sign that 10th really isn’t that popular? Not sure everywhere else, but I know our group have barely played any games (maybe a few in the newness period but that has dropped off significantly)
I don't want to dig up that extensive fight - but I think its more just evidence that a lot of people on Dakka aren't playing. And if you aren't playing, what are you meant to say? Its why threads tend to evolve into discussing the philosophy of 40k rather than what's actually there.
In any case, my take would be something like:
I don't want to tempt the wrath of the forum's Ork players who know the faction far better than me. But it feels like they've taken the new codex which almost certainly had something good and potentially made it even better.
Ad Mech were dire and I think will remain dire after this change. "We'll get to them next time" is kind of annoying given this time was meant to be "next time". Much like the time immediately after the codex. And the codex. And the patch before the codex. And the index itself...
Making the most expensive army in the game even more expensive is just obnoxious at this point. (Okay it got obnoxious some considerable time back - but you get what I mean).
The situation with CSM seems weird to me, because I think they got quite heavily nerfed last time round when I wasn't really sure they needed it and as a result the competitive ability of the faction seemingly collapsed. Now they are being sort of "internally balanced" which I guess is nice, but from a very low base. But they have a new codex coming out imminently so its hard to judge whether that will slot in with these points or not.
DE didn't get anything, which suggests we are considered "fixed now" even though I don't think the results really show that.
Guard are being told to stop playing with artillery and Kasrkin (echos of the CSM nerfs here) and instead spam Russ and Scions. I don't play the faction so hard to say how that will change things. I have had a fantasy of owning a mass Scion army for ages - but the costs and limitations make it not that attractive.
I guess the biggest point of this patch was to end/undermine Necron dominance. Has it done that? Not convinced. Feels like GW have done the kid-gloves thing here which they sometimes do with other factions (looking at you Eldar). Especially with buffs to other units, I feel you may just see the best Necron lists adjust, but the faction as a whole continue to over-perform.
On the whole I'm not sure people were crying out for this points update which makes the whole thing feel a bit weird.
bullyboy wrote: So, 4 posts on this new data slate change.
Is this a sign that 10th really isn’t that popular? Not sure everywhere else, but I know our group have barely played any games (maybe a few in the newness period but that has dropped off significantly)
Overall discussions have been getting fewer since 10th and it's pretty interesting if you ask me.
For once GW basically does what many on this very forum asked them to do: the codex churn is pretty slow, indexes were for free, the App was for free for a short time, the Codex creep is quite small compared to probably every prior edition, the Codizes also are mere refinements of the Index rules so 10th is a conparably stable system.
However, this results in fewer things to talk/ argue about. Granted, in earlier editions there probably would have been a thread about the terrible Custodes rules and/ or the overpowered Orks rules so there might also be the problem of fewer members on dakka,
but I think GW just does a quite modest handling of 10th.
That or codex churn has burned out the dakka community, and I'm including myself as my whole gaming group has moved to OPR. Not because 10th is bad or anything but because GW lost all the good will we gave them in 8th with their 3 year cycle and FOMO.
bullyboy wrote: So, 4 posts on this new data slate change.
Is this a sign that 10th really isn’t that popular? Not sure everywhere else, but I know our group have barely played any games (maybe a few in the newness period but that has dropped off significantly)
The recent Custodes Codex was a test, is your community a 40k playing community or is it a non playing 40k drama community.
Custodes tactics thread - 20 comments since Codex.
Two drama threads - 1,300+ comments.
It was pretty obvious already, but it also really cemented which youtube channels were for players and which weren't. Good for filtering them out.
Guard are being told to stop playing with artillery and Kasrkin (echos of the CSM nerfs here) and instead spam Russ and Scions. I don't play the faction so hard to say how that will change things. I have had a fantasy of owning a mass Scion army for ages - but the costs and limitations make it not that attractive.
Guard are being told to stop playing with artillery and Kasrkin (echos of the CSM nerfs here) and instead spam Russ and Scions. I don't play the faction so hard to say how that will change things. I have had a fantasy of owning a mass Scion army for ages - but the costs and limitations make it not that attractive.
Is it truly GUARD being told that or is it GSC?
I forget, can GSC spam Attilans just to annoy you further?
bullyboy wrote: So, 4 posts on this new data slate change.
Is this a sign that 10th really isn’t that popular? Not sure everywhere else, but I know our group have barely played any games (maybe a few in the newness period but that has dropped off significantly)
The recent Custodes Codex was a test, is your community a 40k playing community or is it a non playing 40k drama community.
Custodes tactics thread - 20 comments since Codex.
Two drama threads - 1,300+ comments.
It was pretty obvious already, but it also really cemented which youtube channels were for players and which weren't. Good for filtering them out.
To me a big difference is points for wargear vs. no points for wargear, and the corresponding limitations that have been put in place. Much of "tactics" discussion was about specific loadouts, comparisons and upgrades. With many of those options trimmed there's less to talk about. And easy-to-discuss "tactics" are sorta flat in 10th. It's usually unit A special ability combined with unit B ability, and not much else.
I played a game of 10th, my first/real/truemarines vs his upstart Primaris. I took a bunch of guns and blew him away. Much interesting.
Guard are being told to stop playing with artillery and Kasrkin (echos of the CSM nerfs here) and instead spam Russ and Scions. I don't play the faction so hard to say how that will change things. I have had a fantasy of owning a mass Scion army for ages - but the costs and limitations make it not that attractive.
Is it truly GUARD being told that or is it GSC?
Why do you have such an animus towards GSC? The majority of armies I've seen use the GSC units, not Brood Brothers.
I was amazed at Custodes point drops. This may be the lowest I've seen Bikes since release. That being said, I don't think it's going to matter.
Also, not gonna lie, why are you pounding the hell out of BA right before release? Where is the thought in nerfing DC marines, but leaving the DA Storm Raven Ultra Meta chasing list untouched?
EDIT:
Just saw that Gaunt's Ghosts are still in the dex. I thought 10th was all "We need to drag 40k into the present, so we're sending everyone clearly dead to legends". That would include Guant's mob. Bragg at the very LEAST.
Guard are being told to stop playing with artillery and Kasrkin (echos of the CSM nerfs here) and instead spam Russ and Scions. I don't play the faction so hard to say how that will change things. I have had a fantasy of owning a mass Scion army for ages - but the costs and limitations make it not that attractive.
Is it truly GUARD being told that or is it GSC?
Why do you have such an animus towards GSC? The majority of armies I've seen use the GSC units, not Brood Brothers.
I have zero animosity towards GSC. I have an intense dislike for the people who behave as though they are entitled to the hallmark units of my army with no meaningful penalties.
I've never seen Medusas used...but I know a local GSC player who swears by them and Clamavus.
Tyel wrote: Ad Mech were dire and I think will remain dire after this change. "We'll get to them next time" is kind of annoying given this time was meant to be "next time". Much like the time immediately after the codex. And the codex. And the patch before the codex. And the index itself...
Question on the AdMech - given they're trying to only do Balance Dataslates every six months, but points updates every quarter, what sort of additional tweaks could they have done to AdMech points to get them closer to "not dire"? Or are they in a situation where rules changes are needed?
Honest question, not sure what the current situation with them is.
Insectum7 wrote:
To me a big difference is points for wargear vs. no points for wargear, and the corresponding limitations that have been put in place. Much of "tactics" discussion was about specific loadouts, comparisons and upgrades. With many of those options trimmed there's less to talk about. And easy-to-discuss "tactics" are sorta flat in 10th. It's usually unit A special ability combined with unit B ability, and not much else.
I always thought it was funny that list building threads were labeled as tactics when no tactics were ever actually discussed in them.
Dysartes wrote:
Question on the AdMech - given they're trying to only do Balance Dataslates every six months, but points updates every quarter, what sort of additional tweaks could they have done to AdMech points to get them closer to "not dire"? Or are they in a situation where rules changes are needed?
Honest question, not sure what the current situation with them is.
I think it's fairly clear that the army needs rule changes. Perpetual points drops just add to the pain since it's already the most expensive army to acquire. A coworker of mine has shelved his admech, probably for the duration of the edition and has now started crons.
Kan- we've been through this before, and I don't want to fight with you about it- not trying to provoke.
But the fact that BB units cannot benefit from any faction rules, enhancement or strats- whether GSC based or Guard based IS a meaningful penalty. In theory, units are priced with their faction rules, strats and enhancements in mind. Take them away, and the unit ends up being weak for their points.
I do get where you're coming from- I know you're fine with GSC using the generic "Infantry Unit"- just not the special stuff. And that IS a reasonable point of view. But pretending these units perform as well in a GSC army as they do in a guard army isn't the way to make that point, because they are objectively weaker without all the extras.
Insectum7 wrote:
To me a big difference is points for wargear vs. no points for wargear, and the corresponding limitations that have been put in place. Much of "tactics" discussion was about specific loadouts, comparisons and upgrades. With many of those options trimmed there's less to talk about. And easy-to-discuss "tactics" are sorta flat in 10th. It's usually unit A special ability combined with unit B ability, and not much else.
I always thought it was funny that list building threads were labeled as tactics when no tactics were ever actually discussed in them.
When most of a game's tactics derive from either listbuilding or rules exploits (many of which 10th patched out, see: pile-in shenanigans), that's not terribly surprising.
Pushed to extreme you can hypothetically fix anything with points - but it gets stupid at the £/$ to points element.
As an example - are Sicarian Ruststalkers "better" at 60/120 vs 70/140? Well... mathematically yes.
But the issue remains that they aren't that lethal into all sorts of stuff. WS4+ is a hostage to fortune. They don't have enough movement tricks to score objectives. So they are just sort of there. In a casual game a list is hypothetically very modestly better than it was before. But they aren't obviously good.
Its the same thinking with say Kastelan Robots. They weren't great at 100 points a model - are they going to be good at 90? I don't think so although maybe its worth testing. At some point you'd hit a tipping point where I can bring 12 of them (and characters) plus enough chaff to stand on objectives and weaker factions/lists just won't be able to cope with that. But that isn't what most Ad Mech players want.
To be fair - by Ad Mech standards, the Robots are a steal at just £285 for 1185~ points. So maybe this is the no-joke way to go.
Insectum7 wrote:
To me a big difference is points for wargear vs. no points for wargear, and the corresponding limitations that have been put in place. Much of "tactics" discussion was about specific loadouts, comparisons and upgrades. With many of those options trimmed there's less to talk about. And easy-to-discuss "tactics" are sorta flat in 10th. It's usually unit A special ability combined with unit B ability, and not much else.
I always thought it was funny that list building threads were labeled as tactics when no tactics were ever actually discussed in them.
Agreed. But I think listbuilding is an easier thing to talk about. Actual 40k tactics involve spacial relationships and cross-army context which are both harder to convey and less engaging for players in a different context or meta.
Tyel wrote: Pushed to extreme you can hypothetically fix anything with points - but it gets stupid at the £/$ to points element.
As an example - are Sicarian Ruststalkers "better" at 60/120 vs 70/140? Well... mathematically yes.
But the issue remains that they aren't that lethal into all sorts of stuff. WS4+ is a hostage to fortune. They don't have enough movement tricks to score objectives. So they are just sort of there. In a casual game a list is hypothetically very modestly better than it was before. But they aren't obviously good.
Its the same thinking with say Kastelan Robots. They weren't great at 100 points a model - are they going to be good at 90? I don't think so although maybe its worth testing. At some point you'd hit a tipping point where I can bring 12 of them (and characters) plus enough chaff to stand on objectives and weaker factions/lists just won't be able to cope with that. But that isn't what most Ad Mech players want.
To be fair - by Ad Mech standards, the Robots are a steal at just £285 for 1185~ points. So maybe this is the no-joke way to go.
Not a refutation of anything you’ve said, but I’m intrigued to see how the overall points changes of an army affects things. For instance, if your formerly 2,000 points is now 1,800? How to best spend those “bonus” 200 points is the thing to consider. For instance, if there’s a character or item combo which can buff those Ruststalkers, is the whole of that combo now worth it? Say if you can give them +1 to hit, and re-roll 1’s to hit.
bullyboy wrote: So, 4 posts on this new data slate change.
Is this a sign that 10th really isn’t that popular? Not sure everywhere else, but I know our group have barely played any games (maybe a few in the newness period but that has dropped off significantly)
Everybody is raging about the update. They like it. I just do not think a lot of people are using dakka. And the people who hang out here do not play 40k much. Is my suspicion.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Not a refutation of anything you’ve said, but I’m intrigued to see how the overall points changes of an army affects things. For instance, if your formerly 2,000 points is now 1,800? How to best spend those “bonus” 200 points is the thing to consider. For instance, if there’s a character or item combo which can buff those Ruststalkers, is the whole of that combo now worth it? Say if you can give them +1 to hit, and re-roll 1’s to hit.
I agree - the 2000 points is what matters. (Unfortunately I don't think you can add any character to Ruststalkers, which is another issue...)
The problem is that all the Ad Mech buffs are for units you weren't really seeing (1 unit of rangers were maybe okay).
I mean does an army with say Cawl and lots of Ruststalkers, Kataphron Destroyers, Rangers, 3 Skatros etc work? Maybe. But it was kind of terrible before. Will it work now but with an extra unit? Maybe - but its hard to tell intuitively. I'm thinking no.
Does for example making the Dunecrawler and Disintegrator cheaper matter? Yes - in the context of these units versus the whole game. But if say Ironstriders were better at what you'd want those units to do - and are still probably better - nothing has really changed.
Just got a chance to read it. Archons can lead Incubi now- that's cool. The Ap buff to melee for Power from Pain is cool for the Alliance of Agony detachment and should help Wyches a bit.
bullyboy wrote: So, 4 posts on this new data slate change.
Is this a sign that 10th really isn’t that popular? Not sure everywhere else, but I know our group have barely played any games (maybe a few in the newness period but that has dropped off significantly)
Everybody is raging about the update. They like it. I just do not think a lot of people are using dakka. And the people who hang out here do not play 40k much. Is my suspicion.
There is a lot of casual players who use the points changes, but don’t really discuss balance. Even 40K competitive when poll for it has a big casual players base that is there for general tips & tricks on running an army, but don’t get into the gritty details.
These takes are honestly weird.
Since posting a reply, I actually read the thoughts of people more on the balance tone for this sorta thing.
I am more into the design and how army’s play, the balance itself I couldn’t offer anything that’s not said better or better informed in other places.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Also, not gonna lie, why are you pounding the hell out of BA right before release? Where is the thought in nerfing DC marines, but leaving the DA Storm Raven Ultra Meta chasing list untouched?
The lists that were running 2 Stormravens and all the Ironstorm enhancements went up 60-ish points, depending on what else was in the list. Not exactly untouched, but not a massive nerf hammer either. Besides, us Dark Angels need something that works, because the vast majority of our codex is kind of trash.
I know why the NDKs went up(tournament players were using 4-6 of them), but why was the GK librarian hit with a points hike again? No idea.
In general a normal GW update. For most armies stuff gets unchanged, for better or worse, some armies are going to have to be rebuild (IG). For armies that really needed some serious fixes (deathwatch, DA, chaos and imperial knights) no real changes. the DW stuff is especialy mind blowing as in general if an army stays under the artificial 45% win rate GW does try to at least pretend they are doing something.
1ksons and orks remain untouched, same as tau so they are happy. BT will no longer be the marine+, but will remain the faction which is the better way to play marines. The bad marines (RG/IF/CF/WS) get nothing, besides minor or medium nerfs. WE are interesting, because maybe zerkers and maulerfiends are going to be used. Custodes points are funny in relation to the rules. It is nice that GW after a year+ (including playtesting) finaly noticed that Ad Mecha can't just go from a 2000$ army to a 2500$ army and that rules changes are needed. Sadly for those they will have to wait till summer. Will it fix them? Well if someone at GW is working day and night at rewriting the codex and giving them an Ad Mecha WD codex, then yes. Otherwise Ad Mecha will join the factions in the "waiting for 11th" bucket. Chaos SM changes are interesting, but considering their codex is coming out soon, the more important thing is, if the faction gets an ork/necron codex or a custodes/ad mecha one.
Sister MSU list stay MSU, but potentialy the list may get a bit different. I can imagine that some list will not be able to run the Funeral Conduct. DG are untouched and happy, because they are both okey right now, and with all the orks and nerfed custodes, and weak marines they can have fun playing their armies. Bummer about the terminators though. In general bummer about all terminators in all codex. Technicaly they got cheaper, but the iconic SM/CSM unit is so bad right now. And it is double sad, because of the multiple new models.
All in all a same old, same old. Stuff needed fixing generaly didn't get fixed good stuff stays good/okeyish, and bad stuff stays bad or got worse. Condolances and Congratulations to respective faction players.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EightFoldPath 813641 11663325 wrote:
The recent Custodes Codex was a test, is your community a 40k playing community or is it a non playing 40k drama community.
Custodes tactics thread - 20 comments since Codex.
Two drama threads - 1,300+ comments.
It was pretty obvious already, but it also really cemented which youtube channels were for players and which weren't. Good for filtering them out.
Playing or not playing there wasn't much to talk about, when every big head was starting the codex reviews with "well we hope the points will be low for custodes". We already know what happens to custodes when they lose Devastating Wound protection. They drop to the very bottom of faction win rates. And in the codex they lost the protection, strike first, almost everything got nerfed and the points are still bad. Even if one would to ignore rules and rule interactions a 170pts contemptor is just bad, a 165pts one that moves 6" and doesn't shot is even worse. Tactic talk and list talk does happen, when there is stuff to talk about. In the orc section the new codex did generate traffic and people talking about new tricks/lists/units etc. With custodes the game play boils down to deploy your army and pray that your opponent lets you play, because if he doesn't you are not going to be doing much, besides removing models. Save maybe if your list is 3 calladius and a Rex. But that such builds point and $ cost, one may as well take the same rex, take 3-4 NDKs and just play GK, even the nerfed iron storm is better.
Guard are being told to stop playing with artillery and Kasrkin (echos of the CSM nerfs here) and instead spam Russ and Scions. I don't play the faction so hard to say how that will change things. I have had a fantasy of owning a mass Scion army for ages - but the costs and limitations make it not that attractive.
Is it truly GUARD being told that or is it GSC?
Why do you have such an animus towards GSC? The majority of armies I've seen use the GSC units, not Brood Brothers.
don't you know, GSC can steal models from guard with no restrictions whatsoever. we're basically guard + an extra index. rules aren't a real thing, of course, so those doesn't matter— it's just about the models!
250 @ 1000pts for Incursion
500 @ 2000pts for Strike Force
750 @ 3000pts for Onslaught
Stop pretending that it's some kind of real penalty, Etherium. It's up to 25% of your army's point value, depending upon the Battle Size, from a faction commonly complained about as being undercosted points-wise.
Kanluwen wrote: 250 @ 1000pts for Incursion
500 @ 2000pts for Strike Force
750 @ 3000pts for Onslaught
Stop pretending that it's some kind of real penalty, Etherium. It's up to 25% of your army's point value, depending upon the Battle Size, from a faction commonly complained about as being undercosted points-wise.
So, let's take this at face value. If IG are undercosted by, say, 10% across the board, that means you can fit in about 11% more than you should be able to.
For GSC, in a 2,000 point game, you'd have 1,500 points of GSC and 500 points of Guard, with the Guard being worth about 555 points.
2,055 value out of 2,000 points, or a 3% boost.
For Guard themselves, in a 2,000 point game, you'd have 2,000 points of Guard, worth about 2,220 points.
2,220 value out of 2,000 points, or an 11% boost.
Of course, if anything undercosted is something like a unique character, then GSC can't access them.
And if they're undercosted because of synergies with the faction or detachment rule, then GSC doesn't get them either.
StudentOfEtherium wrote: 25% of the points for models that don't interact with the army rule in an army where that rule is essential to how it plays. get over it
Leader and unit abilities say "hi".
I'm sure there's absolutely no reason whatsoever that you'd argue against restricting Cadians, Atillans, Death Korps, or Catachan keyworded items.
None at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: So, let's take this at face value. If IG are undercosted by, say, 10% across the board, that means you can fit in about 11% more than you should be able to.
It means that your supposed "restriction" of "it's only 500 points!!11!" isn't.
Of course, if anything undercosted is something like a unique character, then GSC can't access them.
And if they're undercosted because of synergies with the faction or detachment rule, then GSC doesn't get them either.
Yes, let's keep playing pretend with the fact that Leader Abilities and special rules exist.
Kanluwen wrote: 250 @ 1000pts for Incursion
500 @ 2000pts for Strike Force
750 @ 3000pts for Onslaught
Stop pretending that it's some kind of real penalty, Etherium. It's up to 25% of your army's point value, depending upon the Battle Size, from a faction commonly complained about as being undercosted points-wise.
So, let's take this at face value. If IG are undercosted by, say, 10% across the board, that means you can fit in about 11% more than you should be able to.
For GSC, in a 2,000 point game, you'd have 1,500 points of GSC and 500 points of Guard, with the Guard being worth about 555 points.
2,055 value out of 2,000 points, or a 3% boost.
For Guard themselves, in a 2,000 point game, you'd have 2,000 points of Guard, worth about 2,220 points.
2,220 value out of 2,000 points, or an 11% boost.
Of course, if anything undercosted is something like a unique character, then GSC can't access them.
And if they're undercosted because of synergies with the faction or detachment rule, then GSC doesn't get them either.
infantry are a great example of this. stuff like cadians/krieg/kasrkin are good in part due to what they get out of orders. for GSC, they're just neophytes but worse. unless someone wants to do some kind of flavorful army, brood brothers infantry aren't especially useful (and if they do want to do something flavorful, then it's not really covered in the purview of this conversation). realistically speaking, brood brothers is being used for vehicles, and in that case, we can take 2-3 of those at 2000pts (talking about anything else isn't really worthwhile because other point levels aren't nearly as popular). i doubt GW is taking GSC into consideration when costing guard vehicles because it's just not that significant (to say nothing of the number of guard players vs GSC players)
StudentOfEtherium wrote: 25% of the points for models that don't interact with the army rule in an army where that rule is essential to how it plays. get over it
Leader and unit abilities say "hi".
I'm sure there's absolutely no reason whatsoever that you'd argue against restricting Cadians, Atillans, Death Korps, or Catachan keyworded items.
None at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: So, let's take this at face value. If IG are undercosted by, say, 10% across the board, that means you can fit in about 11% more than you should be able to.
It means that your supposed "restriction" of "it's only 500 points!!11!" isn't.
Of course, if anything undercosted is something like a unique character, then GSC can't access them.
And if they're undercosted because of synergies with the faction or detachment rule, then GSC doesn't get them either.
Yes, let's keep playing pretend with the fact that Leader Abilities and special rules exist.
guard characters are even worse! once again! the army rule matters here!
guard units would have to be overwhelmingly better on a datasheet level to be taken over neophytes and to justify taking characters with them, and if we're going to talk about such a reality, then we can also start talking about if the world was made of pudding
StudentOfEtherium wrote: 25% of the points for models that don't interact with the army rule in an army where that rule is essential to how it plays. get over it
Leader and unit abilities say "hi".
I'm sure there's absolutely no reason whatsoever that you'd argue against restricting Cadians, Atillans, Death Korps, or Catachan keyworded items.
None at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: So, let's take this at face value. If IG are undercosted by, say, 10% across the board, that means you can fit in about 11% more than you should be able to.
It means that your supposed "restriction" of "it's only 500 points!!11!" isn't.
Of course, if anything undercosted is something like a unique character, then GSC can't access them.
And if they're undercosted because of synergies with the faction or detachment rule, then GSC doesn't get them either.
Yes, let's keep playing pretend with the fact that Leader Abilities and special rules exist.
So, how about we raise the points on Guard units to match their actual value?
And just because they have some rules still, doesn't mean they have ALL their rules. They don't get Orders. They don't get Lethal Hits for standing still.
Heck, let's compare a Guard Leman Russ Battle Tank against a GSC Brood Brother Leman Russ Battle Tank. We'll arm each with the Battle Cannon, Lascannon, two Plasma Cannons, Stubber, and HK Missile. At 36" and without either being on an Objective Marker...
Spoiler:
Guard Tank-No Orders, Stood Still
Heavy Stubber does .13 damage.
Hunter-Killer does 1.06 damage.
Lascannon does 1.36 damage.
Battle Cannon does 2.11 damage.
Each Plasma Cannon does .32 standard, .86 overcharged.
Total Damage of: 5.30 or 6.06, depending on Overcharge or not.
Brood Brothers Tank Heavy Stubber does .05 damage.
Hunter-Killer does .91 damage.
Lascannon does 1.17 damage.
Battle Cannon does 1.26 damage.
Each Plasma Cannon does .20 damage standard, .51 overcharged.
Total Damage of: 3.79 or 4.41, depending on Overcharge or not.
JNAProductions wrote: So, how about we raise the points on Guard units to match their actual value?
And while we're at it, let's raise their stats and lock their unit sizes to make it so they're actual professional soldiery, instead of weirdly the same as a bunch of bughuggers.
Oh. And lock Brood Brothers from featuring anything that has a name in it. Kthxbaaaaaaaaaaaaai.
And just because they have some rules still, doesn't mean they have ALL their rules. They don't get Orders. They don't get Lethal Hits for standing still.
NOPE! You're not changing the goalposts. The argument is they get NO interactions with the army at all, and nothing carries over from them being Guard. That is absolutely, 100% demonstrably FALSE.
Heck, let's compare a Guard Leman Russ Battle Tank against a GSC Brood Brother Leman Russ Battle Tank. We'll arm each with the Battle Cannon, Lascannon, two Plasma Cannons, Stubber, and HK Missile. At 36" and without either being on an Objective Marker...
Spoiler:
Guard Tank-No Orders, Stood Still
Heavy Stubber does .13 damage.
Hunter-Killer does 1.06 damage.
Lascannon does 1.36 damage.
Battle Cannon does 2.11 damage.
Each Plasma Cannon does .32 standard, .86 overcharged.
Total Damage of: 5.30 or 6.06, depending on Overcharge or not.
Brood Brothers Tank Heavy Stubber does .05 damage.
Hunter-Killer does .91 damage.
Lascannon does 1.17 damage.
Battle Cannon does 1.26 damage.
Each Plasma Cannon does .20 damage standard, .51 overcharged.
Total Damage of: 3.79 or 4.41, depending on Overcharge or not.
Cool, now compare what else is in the army with each.
JNAProductions wrote: So, how about we raise the points on Guard units to match their actual value?
And while we're at it, let's raise their stats and lock their unit sizes to make it so they're actual professional soldiery, instead of weirdly the same as a bunch of bughuggers.
Oh. And lock Brood Brothers from featuring anything that has a name in it. Kthxbaaaaaaaaaaaaai.
And just because they have some rules still, doesn't mean they have ALL their rules. They don't get Orders. They don't get Lethal Hits for standing still.
NOPE! You're not changing the goalposts. The argument is they get NO interactions with the army at all, and nothing carries over from them being Guard. That is absolutely, 100% demonstrably FALSE.
Heck, let's compare a Guard Leman Russ Battle Tank against a GSC Brood Brother Leman Russ Battle Tank. We'll arm each with the Battle Cannon, Lascannon, two Plasma Cannons, Stubber, and HK Missile. At 36" and without either being on an Objective Marker...
Spoiler:
Guard Tank-No Orders, Stood Still
Heavy Stubber does .13 damage.
Hunter-Killer does 1.06 damage.
Lascannon does 1.36 damage.
Battle Cannon does 2.11 damage.
Each Plasma Cannon does .32 standard, .86 overcharged.
Total Damage of: 5.30 or 6.06, depending on Overcharge or not.
Brood Brothers Tank Heavy Stubber does .05 damage.
Hunter-Killer does .91 damage.
Lascannon does 1.17 damage.
Battle Cannon does 1.26 damage.
Each Plasma Cannon does .20 damage standard, .51 overcharged.
Total Damage of: 3.79 or 4.41, depending on Overcharge or not.
Cool, now compare what else is in the army with each.
I'm... I'm sorry? No one has said, to my knowledge, that Brood Brothers get literally nothing. They still keep their datasheets.
But they don't get Orders. They don't get Cult Ambush.
They don't get Lethal Hits for standing still, They don't get Sustained Hits 1 and Ignores Cover for coming in from Reinforcements.
Those are some considerable downsides. Some things might still be worth taking, but that's almost certainly a sign of one to two things.
That datasheet is OP as heck, and/or GSC have a significant hole in their capabilities that need filling.
Kanluwen wrote: And yet any time I mention locking GSC out of those items, you're up in arms.
Wild.
Because Brood Brothers are a flavorful option.
No, they're not. Not with how they're set up now.
Flavorful options were the ones that first came out as part of the GSC book in 7E. The garbage now isn't flavorful.
Look at how much flavor's been sucked from 40k. Look at how many options have been taken away.
LOL. You really wanna talk about how much flavor's been sucked from 40k? How many options have been taken away?
GSC ARE LITERALLY DOING THAT TO GUARD. Your Neophyte Squads are for some stupid reason the same statlines as Cadians, yet with way more weapon options.
You want to remove even more options? That don't affect balance in a negative way?
Yep. I want to remove the options that don't fit. That up until this gakfest of a Brood Brothers rule were purposely locked out, and nobody voiced an iota of complaint about it.
JNAProductions wrote: I'm... I'm sorry? No one has said, to my knowledge, that Brood Brothers get literally nothing. They still keep their datasheets.
And yet, you can find that argument in the threads we've discussed this in. I very much doubt the poster who made it has changed their minds, given they're still arguing for it--but now with the added caveat of "eVeRyOnE OnLy BrOoD-bRoThErS iN vEhIcLeS!1!".
But they don't get Orders. They don't get Cult Ambush.
They don't get Lethal Hits for standing still, They don't get Sustained Hits 1 and Ignores Cover for coming in from Reinforcements.
They do get Leader abilities, they do get their own datasheet rules, etc.
Those are some considerable downsides. Some things might still be worth taking, but that's almost certainly a sign of one to two things.
That datasheet is OP as heck, and/or GSC have a significant hole in their capabilities that need filling.
Or that YOU should not be allowed to take it as part of a Brood Brothers bolt-in bullgak detachment.
Kanluwen wrote: 250 @ 1000pts for Incursion
500 @ 2000pts for Strike Force
750 @ 3000pts for Onslaught
Stop pretending that it's some kind of real penalty, Etherium. It's up to 25% of your army's point value, depending upon the Battle Size, from a faction commonly complained about as being undercosted points-wise.
The penalties are cumulative. The are 3 of them:
1/ Unit exclusions.
2/ Point Limit.
3/ Inability to benefit from faction and detachment rules.
For me, 3 is the most serious, and I think that IF they make BB a dedicated unit, one that we will see disappear.
Anyway, the combination of these three limits, I think, does put enough control on GSC use of guard. That being said, I get where Kan is coming from- I'll never include guard units in an army unless I've actually fought against and infected them, and in my mind that goes a distance toward overcoming some of Kan's issues- it cannot be inappropriate to include a unit in a GSC army that they have literally infected or stolen during a game. Granted, this only really works in a closed campaign system, and I know most people either don't prefer to play that way, or don't have a group that's open minded enough to let them try it, but it seems to work in the few small games where I've tried it.
This update was frustrating for me. I play Necrons, BA and DW and there are issues with all 3 armies, IMO. When you look at the treatment some armies got versus others it feels pretty unbalanced in terms of thought and effort.
The points increases to Necrons all feel fairly decent, though I think they probably should have split the increase between the Technomancer and Wraiths instead of piling it all into the Technomancer. But the terrible unis in the Codex didn't get looked at. Praetorians have been bad since 8th edition, as has the Obelisk. Various other units continue to be overpriced to the point of being completely non-viable. If you just raise costs and don't adjust the worst units all you really do is make people drop a unit or two from their current army to get under the limit again. It doesn't meaningfully change how the army works of the internal balance of either the faction as a whole or the detachments.
BA got something similar, but likely because of their interaction with non-BA detachments, where they've been quite strong. DC with jump packs going up seems fine, I guess, but putting up the DC on foot is weird. SG got another points cut and still aren't viable. Overall BA seem to be fine after this and of the the 3 armies mentioned above they've come out OK.
Deathwatch are a joke right now. Apparently GW have forgotten they exist. Sure they may be getting folded into the Imperial Agents Codex, or discontinued altogether, but when even the Imperial Agents units got adjustments it's a kick in the teeth for DW players to get nothing. Our units are comically overcosted, key parts of the firstborn unit were reduced for other SM armies and statistically DW are one of the worst armies in the game. So why not even just a small cut in points? We've even seen that GW are now willing to cost a 5-man and a 10-man unit at different ppms depending on which one gets the most utility, so it's not as if DW are in a place where they're just working against the way points work in 10th edition, which was an argument at the start of the edition.
Lammia wrote: My thoughts on the update. Sisters need a new detachment if you want to improve internal balance.
I think this is a flaw in GW's detachment design.
Arguably there's nothing wrong with fixing stuff now and then fixing it later when the codex comes out. But Sisters will presumably at some point get the "I can't believe its not Bloody Rose" detachment, which is likely a lot more powerful/useful than their current one.
You see the opposite with say Eldar. A frankly busted army rule, and a 10/10 detachment rule, is forcing them to keep hiking the points of units to compensate. The answer is probably tweaks to both (and I suspect the detachment rule will be nerfed when the Codex shows up) - but for some reason GW refuses to push that button now.
But its what leads you into difficulty with say Ad Mech. They can keep cutting the points to try and fit a square peg into a round hole. But the logical course is a rules change. Its not overly fluffy, but just give every unit Doctrina Imperatives (sort out the robot detachment), and buff those effects. (There was for instance some suggestion of having the +/- AP effect in the mid-board rather than just the respective deployment zone. Might be a bit good I guess but who knows.) The potential issue is you roll out a major buff and then everything has to go up 20% to not be broken.
So with the shift to: nothing but the model costs points anymore! style of play (10th), I think things like Storm Raven, or Dakka Boats in general, needs to be legends, or at least removed from competitive play. Flying knights don't really belong in THIS version of 40k. If they want to fix that in 11th, or bring back costed upgrades, fine. But you shouldn't be able to kit out a trio of storm ravens with more dakka than a Scion Detachment, and expect to not pay any sort of penalty.
Auspex tactics talked about this in a recent video.
GW will likely NEVER make the Gorkanaut/Morkanaut model playable in competitive non-armageddon games. Things larger than a knight don't belong. Hence why titans and the like start at an entire army lists points cost and go UP. The Stompa I believe is still 1k-1500? Point is, no one in their right mind is fielding those in a 2k Game. I'd love to see things like the Custodes Flying titan taken out, any sort of knight level "flying" unit. I think Daemons here need a special mention, because I honestly can't say I've ever seen the BIG demons played competitively. And those are usually Primarch/Knight level units. Even Bel is just a really strong Primarch level model.
That's generally a user problem, not a unit problem.
Is it? The Ironstorm use case is an edge one; it requires expensive enhancements and a very specific playstyle to work. As it is, the majority of flyers are bantha poodoo.
I think the problem that a flyer unit that is not a knight, can put out knight levels of Dakka, with oath of moment, and all the stupidity that is SM buffs, for roughly 250pts.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I think the problem that a flyer unit that is not a knight, can put out knight levels of Dakka, with oath of moment, and all the stupidity that is SM buffs, for roughly 250pts.
You do know the thing (& the Ironstorm enhancements) all got a pts hike the other day, right?
Minimum cost, without the enhancements & the characters to put them on, is 260pts.
So no, it's not "roughly" 250 pts.
Nowhere even near that assuming you want all the bells & whistles the characters + enhancements provide.
Meanwhile, over in the GK list, the same unit (with no access to such buffs) is.... 265pts
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I think the problem that a flyer unit that is not a knight, can put out knight levels of Dakka, with oath of moment, and all the stupidity that is SM buffs, for roughly 250pts.
You do know the thing (& the Ironstorm enhancements) all got a pts hike the other day, right?
Minimum cost, without the enhancements & the characters to put them on, is 260pts.
So no, it's not "roughly" 250 pts.
Nowhere even near that assuming you want all the bells & whistles the characters + enhancements provide.
Meanwhile, over in the GK list, the same unit (with no access to such buffs) is.... 265pts
Ok, my 250 was wrong. Are you going to address the main point of the argument? The stuff that thing puts out for 260, is still under-costed? Do you honestly believe 260 is an accurate cost for what this can do in a DA list?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I think the problem that a flyer unit that is not a knight, can put out knight levels of Dakka, with oath of moment, and all the stupidity that is SM buffs, for roughly 250pts.
You do know the thing (& the Ironstorm enhancements) all got a pts hike the other day, right?
Minimum cost, without the enhancements & the characters to put them on, is 260pts.
So no, it's not "roughly" 250 pts.
Nowhere even near that assuming you want all the bells & whistles the characters + enhancements provide.
Meanwhile, over in the GK list, the same unit (with no access to such buffs) is.... 265pts
Ok, my 250 was wrong. Are you going to address the main point of the argument? The stuff that thing puts out for 260, is still under-costed? Do you honestly believe 260 is an accurate cost for what this can do in a DA list?
Ironstorm with Stormraven is the most competitive Dark Angels list right now (different sites have different rates), but its still mid-tier in the big picture.
There are two points to taking the Stormraven Ironstorm as Dark Angels. Azrael gives you a free CP and you can take a Darkshroud to give some protection to the Stormraven. Each of those cost you points. The Stormraven has good dakka, but in Ironstorm you also take a Techmarine (95 points with the Enhancement) who grants Lethal Hits and then pop the Stratagem for Sustained/Critical HIts on 5s. People use the hover mode, so its really just a fast tank that drops a Redemptor on an objective and uses the Character enhancement and a Stratagem to boost damage.
So a Stormraven with the Techmarine and the Darkshroud is sitting at 470 points. Azrael is another 105 and the Redemptor is another 210. You can also invest in a Hellblaster brick to go in there, so the points really start to go up.
Insectum7 wrote: ^At 470 points it sounds a bit like one of those combos where it's better to take 2 of a unit rather then just the one with buffs.
Some folks certainly run two Stormravens, each carrying a Dreadnought. They still take a Darkshroud and the Lethal Hits Techmarine plus Azrael (for the CP). The Darkshroud and Lethal Hits Techmarine are 6" auras, so it is theoretically possible to jam all that together. The terrain would have to be quite open, and it would be hard to take two objectives. Now, with Twin Linked a Stormraven can certainly get work done without Lethal Hits, while damage reduction makes it survivable without the Darkshroud. You can only use the Sustained/Critical Hits Stratagem on one unit a turn, so there are diminishing returns on a second Stormraven. I suppose, though, there is redundancy.
Pre-Dark Angels Codex a Talonmaster would come along with the Enhancement for Advance and Shoot. A Ravenwing Command Squad can take that Enhancement and try to keep up with the Stormraven, but its more expensive. I run one with a full load-out of Azrael Hellblasters, a Techmarine and a Dreadnought to take one flanking objective in no-mans-land and try to utterly kill whatever could threaten them the next turn. The Darkshroud mitigates return fire while the Redemptor eats any charges. The points hike meant to the Stormraven was accompanied by a drop to the Hellblasters, so it works out for me.
All that to say, I think that Stormravens are good (I use one myself) and I was not surprised to see a points hike. I was also happy to see that they were not nerfed into the sun, given the win rates. Repulsor Executioners can be used in a similar fashion in Ironstorm, albeit slower and without the Redemptor Skip the Dishes/Uber service.
Azrael himself if what is breaking the stormravens then, not the actual units? That tracks. Who could have foreseen a SM leader unit breaking units with their aura? /s
And for the record, it's three stormravens, and a Dusk shroud giving them all cover, and azr, giving them lethal hits. With Hurricane bolters, frag missiles, twin assault cannons, and a ton of heavy bolters, plus squads of hellblasters or whatnot, it gets silly fast. It's not mid-tier. It's already sweeping tournaments.
bullyboy wrote: So, 4 posts on this new data slate change.
Is this a sign that 10th really isn’t that popular? Not sure everywhere else, but I know our group have barely played any games (maybe a few in the newness period but that has dropped off significantly)
Dakka is such a small community nowadays that you can't really base the game's popularity on how active it is.
It truly is a "boomer" forum in a sense, if you go on Reddit/Discord, the community is super active and thriving.
I watched a bit of video on Salute to see what was about and it struck me how it was a sparse sea of grey hair. I suspect Dakka is much the same.
Still, all this talk of GSC and I'm feeling like getting a box of them to finally get that demonic genestealer cult army from WD #116 going. Been meaning to get round to this since,well, the 90s.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Azrael himself if what is breaking the stormravens then, not the actual units? That tracks. Who could have foreseen a SM leader unit breaking units with their aura? /s
And for the record, it's three stormravens, and a Dusk shroud giving them all cover, and azr, giving them lethal hits. With Hurricane bolters, frag missiles, twin assault cannons, and a ton of heavy bolters, plus squads of hellblasters or whatnot, it gets silly fast. It's not mid-tier. It's already sweeping tournaments.
Have you met this list on the tabletop? Azrael does not have an aura. It’s a Techmarine with an Enhancement with an aura. Azrael just gives a CP.
A Stormraven list can win a tourney. So can many things. Doesn’t mean they get nerfed into oblivion.
Is the DA list an example of a case where GW have handicapped themselves a bit by not allowing for DA to have points tweaks to core Codex units? Maybe the Stormraven is a little more pricey for them than it is for - to pick an example at random - Iron Hands?
Someone mentioned the GK Stormraven is pricier than the core SM Stormraven - does it have any benefits that would make that make sense?
Dysartes wrote: Is the DA list an example of a case where GW have handicapped themselves a bit by not allowing for DA to have points tweaks to core Codex units? Maybe the Stormraven is a little more pricey for them than it is for - to pick an example at random - Iron Hands?
Someone mentioned the GK Stormraven is pricier than the core SM Stormraven - does it have any benefits that would make that make sense?
Not on the datasheet.
And allowing point tweaks means having to keep up with point tweaks. What generally happens is GW just forgets about all its variants and leaves random codexes strictly worse for no reason. It's definitely not something I'd like to go back to.
Honestly, Dark Angels Ironstorm is fine. Azreal himself is just so good he's going to feature in any list that calls itself Dark Angels. It's overall just a solid list taking advantage of the few good things in the DA codex, but its pretty on par with similar lists that put the buffs on a different set of units.
Having played a few games with CSM since the update, I do have some thoughts:
Abaddon - I still think he's a little too expensive and should be 290ish. Not a big difference but over 300 is just a little too much for his resilience when held in lense against C'Tan, The Avatar and Primarchs who all sit in the same costing range. If they want to keep him at that price, I think he needs an extra pip of toughness or -1 damage or the ability to negate one attack per turn.. I think a FNP or half damage would be too much considering his damage output.
Lord of Discordant - still needs love.
Defilers - can really put things out but definitely still a little too expensive. I'd knock them down by 10-20pts.
Chosen - Probably still a little over priced for their general resilience. 3 wounds and their speed is great but they're ultimately only T4 with no ++. I think they were correctly priced pre-Jan at 120ish.
Terminators - I think should still be a point or two cheaper per model.
Otherwise I feel the army is generally in a better spot. Units that are not good beyond the above (Maulerfiends, Daemon Princes, some of the other characters) probably need rule changes or detachments to fit them better.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I think the problem that a flyer unit that is not a knight, can put out knight levels of Dakka, with oath of moment, and all the stupidity that is SM buffs, for roughly 250pts.
You do know the thing (& the Ironstorm enhancements) all got a pts hike the other day, right?
Minimum cost, without the enhancements & the characters to put them on, is 260pts.
So no, it's not "roughly" 250 pts.
Nowhere even near that assuming you want all the bells & whistles the characters + enhancements provide.
Meanwhile, over in the GK list, the same unit (with no access to such buffs) is.... 265pts
Ok, my 250 was wrong. Are you going to address the main point of the argument? The stuff that thing puts out for 260, is still under-costed? Do you honestly believe 260 is an accurate cost for what this can do in a DA list?
Sorry I took so long to get back around to telling you you're still wrong, but I had important real life things to do.
Then I watched a few hours of NetFlix & built some more HH Marines....
The only "under-costing" I see on a Stormraven is that it's 5 points cheaper than one in a GK list. Or maybe the GK one is over-costed....
Personally I tend to believe that identical models should cost the same points where they appear in multiple forces.
But either way? "Eh".
The part you're really having an issue with is the cost/benefits of the enhancements from the detachment. And maybe the strats.
Without those? All you have is a fairly decent flying transport/fire platform. So yeah, 160 feels fine.
You should be asking if those enhancements & strats are costed correctly.
ccs wrote: ....The only "under-costing" I see on a Stormraven is that it's 5 points cheaper than one in a GK list. Or maybe the GK one is over-costed....
Personally I tend to believe that identical models should cost the same points where they appear in multiple forces.
But either way? "Eh".
The part you're really having an issue with is the cost/benefits of the enhancements from the detachment. And maybe the strats.
Without those? All you have is a fairly decent flying transport/fire platform. So yeah, 160 feels fine.
You should be asking if those enhancements & strats are costed correctly.
I agree on this point; almost no reason the same exact unit should have different point costs.
But, considering that the GK Stormraven gets no use from the GK army rule while SM Stormraven can take advantage of Oath...GK is most certainly over-costed. I'm anxious to see what rules GK get in their codex (assuming they're still getting one).
Loyalist chapters should be 100% standalone codexes, just like the Traitor legions. Them sharing datasheet and costs with the base book has always been a problem ever since i've played the game.
VladimirHerzog wrote: Loyalist chapters should be 100% standalone codexes, just like the Traitor legions. Them sharing datasheet and costs with the base book has always been a problem ever since i've played the game.
Disagree.
There have been times where because loyalist had separate codexes units which should have been uniform ended up different because of codex creep and paradigm shifts over an edition.
One that comes to mind is when BA devestator squad were hands down better and cheeper them codex compliant ones due only to when the codexes dropped. But there are plenty of examples of similar things over the years.
VladimirHerzog wrote: Loyalist chapters should be 100% standalone codexes, just like the Traitor legions. Them sharing datasheet and costs with the base book has always been a problem ever since i've played the game.
Disagree.
There have been times where because loyalist had separate codexes units which should have been uniform ended up different because of codex creep and paradigm shifts over an edition.
One that comes to mind is when BA devestator squad were hands down better and cheeper them codex compliant ones due only to when the codexes dropped. But there are plenty of examples of similar things over the years.
Just because GW did something poorly in the past does not mean they shouldn't use a better framework now.
VladimirHerzog wrote: Loyalist chapters should be 100% standalone codexes, just like the Traitor legions. Them sharing datasheet and costs with the base book has always been a problem ever since i've played the game.
Disagree.
There have been times where because loyalist had separate codexes units which should have been uniform ended up different because of codex creep and paradigm shifts over an edition.
One that comes to mind is when BA devestator squad were hands down better and cheeper them codex compliant ones due only to when the codexes dropped. But there are plenty of examples of similar things over the years.
Just because GW did something poorly in the past does not mean they shouldn't use a better framework now.
I don’t disagree on that point. I just disagree that separate codex is the answer, and the “them sharing datasheets and costs with the base book has always been a problem”. Personally I’ve felt that having duplicate identical unit entries in multiple books is more of an issue. Especially in older editions, like 4th and 5th. You did add the “ever since I’ve played the game” which might be a shorter span them mine. But my experience/thoughts on the subject differs from yours.
I don’t disagree on that point. I just disagree that separate codex is the answer, and the “them sharing datasheets and costs with the base book has always been a problem”. Personally I’ve felt that having duplicate identical unit entries in multiple books is more of an issue. Especially in older editions, like 4th and 5th. You did add the “ever since I’ve played the game” which might be a shorter span them mine. But my experience/thoughts on the subject differs from yours.
they could make them not indentical tho (and trim some options but that will never pass).
Even something as basic as intercessors don't NEED to have the same special rule for every chapter.
There was a lot of things added when Intercessors showed up, that feels like unneeded bloat. "Close combat weapons" for one. Who needed to be told that a model with no melee weapon hits for it's strength, at a set number of attacks?
I don’t disagree on that point. I just disagree that separate codex is the answer, and the “them sharing datasheets and costs with the base book has always been a problem”. Personally I’ve felt that having duplicate identical unit entries in multiple books is more of an issue. Especially in older editions, like 4th and 5th. You did add the “ever since I’ve played the game” which might be a shorter span them mine. But my experience/thoughts on the subject differs from yours.
they could make them not indentical tho (and trim some options but that will never pass).
Even something as basic as intercessors don't NEED to have the same special rule for every chapter.
The last thing this game needs is for Blood Angels, Dark Angels, and Ultramarines Intercessors to have different rules. They are the same unit.
I don’t disagree on that point. I just disagree that separate codex is the answer, and the “them sharing datasheets and costs with the base book has always been a problem”. Personally I’ve felt that having duplicate identical unit entries in multiple books is more of an issue. Especially in older editions, like 4th and 5th. You did add the “ever since I’ve played the game” which might be a shorter span them mine. But my experience/thoughts on the subject differs from yours.
they could make them not indentical tho (and trim some options but that will never pass).
Even something as basic as intercessors don't NEED to have the same special rule for every chapter.
The last thing this game needs is for Blood Angels, Dark Angels, and Ultramarines Intercessors to have different rules. They are the same unit.
Theyre already not.... Each of them get different bonuses depending on which faction they belong to.
I don’t disagree on that point. I just disagree that separate codex is the answer, and the “them sharing datasheets and costs with the base book has always been a problem”. Personally I’ve felt that having duplicate identical unit entries in multiple books is more of an issue. Especially in older editions, like 4th and 5th. You did add the “ever since I’ve played the game” which might be a shorter span them mine. But my experience/thoughts on the subject differs from yours.
they could make them not indentical tho (and trim some options but that will never pass).
Even something as basic as intercessors don't NEED to have the same special rule for every chapter.
The last thing this game needs is for Blood Angels, Dark Angels, and Ultramarines Intercessors to have different rules. They are the same unit.
Theyre already not.... Each of them get different bonuses depending on which faction they belong to.
Um, no they don't. They might get different bonuses in different detachments (and also have access to different stratagems, character enhancements, etc.), but the unit's rules don't change at all. And having different rules for different detachments is the whole point of the detachment system.
I don’t disagree on that point. I just disagree that separate codex is the answer, and the “them sharing datasheets and costs with the base book has always been a problem”. Personally I’ve felt that having duplicate identical unit entries in multiple books is more of an issue. Especially in older editions, like 4th and 5th. You did add the “ever since I’ve played the game” which might be a shorter span them mine. But my experience/thoughts on the subject differs from yours.
they could make them not indentical tho (and trim some options but that will never pass).
Even something as basic as intercessors don't NEED to have the same special rule for every chapter.
The last thing this game needs is for Blood Angels, Dark Angels, and Ultramarines Intercessors to have different rules. They are the same unit.
Theyre already not.... Each of them get different bonuses depending on which faction they belong to.
ZergSmasher said it first, but this is simply not true. An Intercessor in Detachment X always has the exact same rules regardless if the Chapter the detachment uses (i.e. what chapter specific units are in the detachment as well). The only thing the special chapters have is a few detachments that give detachment rules not available to other chapters.
I don’t disagree on that point. I just disagree that separate codex is the answer, and the “them sharing datasheets and costs with the base book has always been a problem”. Personally I’ve felt that having duplicate identical unit entries in multiple books is more of an issue. Especially in older editions, like 4th and 5th. You did add the “ever since I’ve played the game” which might be a shorter span them mine. But my experience/thoughts on the subject differs from yours.
they could make them not indentical tho (and trim some options but that will never pass).
Even something as basic as intercessors don't NEED to have the same special rule for every chapter.
The last thing this game needs is for Blood Angels, Dark Angels, and Ultramarines Intercessors to have different rules. They are the same unit.
Theyre already not.... Each of them get different bonuses depending on which faction they belong to.
ZergSmasher said it first, but this is simply not true. An Intercessor in Detachment X always has the exact same rules regardless if the Chapter the detachment uses (i.e. what chapter specific units are in the detachment as well). The only thing the special chapters have is a few detachments that give detachment rules not available to other chapters.
Forgive the objection, but I don't understand the quibble on this point. Surely it could be argued that a Blood Angels Assault intercessor, is superior to say, one of the Imperial Fists? Are you arguing that the model irrespective of allegiance is no different? Because I think that is also wrongly argued. What is the point of taking one chapter over another chapter if all the models are exactly the same? You cannot pretend that a Intercessor squad of one faction is the same as another, when they have built in differences depending on color. Salamander Flame Aggressors are just BETTER than IF Flame Aggressors.
I don’t disagree on that point. I just disagree that separate codex is the answer, and the “them sharing datasheets and costs with the base book has always been a problem”. Personally I’ve felt that having duplicate identical unit entries in multiple books is more of an issue. Especially in older editions, like 4th and 5th. You did add the “ever since I’ve played the game” which might be a shorter span them mine. But my experience/thoughts on the subject differs from yours.
they could make them not indentical tho (and trim some options but that will never pass).
Even something as basic as intercessors don't NEED to have the same special rule for every chapter.
The last thing this game needs is for Blood Angels, Dark Angels, and Ultramarines Intercessors to have different rules. They are the same unit.
Theyre already not.... Each of them get different bonuses depending on which faction they belong to.
ZergSmasher said it first, but this is simply not true. An Intercessor in Detachment X always has the exact same rules regardless if the Chapter the detachment uses (i.e. what chapter specific units are in the detachment as well). The only thing the special chapters have is a few detachments that give detachment rules not available to other chapters.
Forgive the objection, but I don't understand the quibble on this point. Surely it could be argued that a Blood Angels Assault intercessor, is superior to say, one of the Imperial Fists? Are you arguing that the model irrespective of allegiance is no different? Because I think that is also wrongly argued. What is the point of taking one chapter over another chapter if all the models are exactly the same? You cannot pretend that a Intercessor squad of one faction is the same as another, when they have built in differences depending on color. Salamander Flame Aggressors are just BETTER than IF Flame Aggressors.
They don’t have built in differences any more, just different detachment options and even then only for the more divergent chapters.
Salamander and IF Flame Aggressors are identical this edition.
I don’t disagree on that point. I just disagree that separate codex is the answer, and the “them sharing datasheets and costs with the base book has always been a problem”. Personally I’ve felt that having duplicate identical unit entries in multiple books is more of an issue. Especially in older editions, like 4th and 5th. You did add the “ever since I’ve played the game” which might be a shorter span them mine. But my experience/thoughts on the subject differs from yours.
they could make them not indentical tho (and trim some options but that will never pass).
Even something as basic as intercessors don't NEED to have the same special rule for every chapter.
The last thing this game needs is for Blood Angels, Dark Angels, and Ultramarines Intercessors to have different rules. They are the same unit.
Theyre already not.... Each of them get different bonuses depending on which faction they belong to.
ZergSmasher said it first, but this is simply not true. An Intercessor in Detachment X always has the exact same rules regardless if the Chapter the detachment uses (i.e. what chapter specific units are in the detachment as well). The only thing the special chapters have is a few detachments that give detachment rules not available to other chapters.
Forgive the objection, but I don't understand the quibble on this point. Surely it could be argued that a Blood Angels Assault intercessor, is superior to say, one of the Imperial Fists? Are you arguing that the model irrespective of allegiance is no different? Because I think that is also wrongly argued. What is the point of taking one chapter over another chapter if all the models are exactly the same? You cannot pretend that a Intercessor squad of one faction is the same as another, when they have built in differences depending on color. Salamander Flame Aggressors are just BETTER than IF Flame Aggressors.
The issue here is to remember whether you're talking about fluff or rules.
If you're talking about rules, be specific about the edition.
Now that those details are out of the way:
Yes- it is my belief that the fluff says chapters have specialties, and that the units that align with that faction's specialism are better than their equivalents in armies who don't specialize in that particular field. So, Salamanders explicitly specialize in flame and melta, and that means that a Salamander using a Flamer is going to be better than a Space Wolf using that flamer, because Space Wolves don't specialize in using flamers. Now some people are going to dispute this interpretation of the fluff: they'll say "Salamanders aren't better at using flamers, they just use them more often." Now I don't like to speculate about people's motives, because unless they explicitly tell me what their motives are, it can only ever be speculation. But it FEELS like people who cleave to this point of view are just people who think, "Well, I like flamers, but I like grey better than green... So I want Space Wolves... But even though their lore says nothing about them specializing in flamers, I want them to be just as good with flamers as factions whose lore says they do specialize in flamers." We can debate that back and forth forever, because it's just fluff anyway.
Now lets talk about rules:
In 9th, yes, armies recieved bonuses based on their SUBFACTION. So if you were a Salamander, you might have had +1 to wound with flame and melta or whatever to reflect the subfaction's fluff.
In 10th, however, they STOPPED doing that. Now, the ARMY gets a bonus (which is Oath of Moment for ALL flavours of Marine). You get no rules for picking your subfaction. You DO get to pick a detachment. ANY flavour of Marine can pick a detachment from the SM Codex without penalty. If you subfaction is one of the special ones that gets its own dex (BA, DA, SW, etc) there will be additional detachments in that dex, which only that flavour of marine can pick.
Whichever detachment you pick, it gives you a rule, 4 enhancements and six strats.
GW did their best to try and make these factions MIMIC the former subfaction identities and specializations- you can look at the detachments in the SM book and think "AHA! That sounds like Blood Angels."
But it's not. Because any Space Wolf player who would rather have his grey army behave like Blood Angels can pick the detachment that is better suited to Blood Angels if he wants to- as long as it's in the SM dex, and not the BA dex.
My issue is that this system gives some Space Marine Chapters more options than everyone else. My Sisters will have roughly the same number of detachment options as the SM dex, but there's no Order of Our Martyred Lady dex on the way that gives OoOML more detachment options... Only Marines matter enough to have that option.
See, when 9th came along, it made me feel like all factions and subfactions were treated the same way. That's gone now, and we're back to a game made for Marines that other factions can play in if they're so inclined, just like editions 2-7 (and I think even 8th, buut I'm not 100% sure- because memory is short where canabis is legal).
As I hinted above though, some folks do like the new detachment based system because they feel like the specialization by subfaction lead to stereotypes... And there is some legitimacy to that argument. It gets sticky, and it's off topic, but there's half a dozen threads on here where we fought about whether rules by subfaction or rules for detachment were "better" (whatever "better" means).
PenitentJake wrote: If you're talking about rules, be specific about the edition.
This is the April Balance Update - Thoughts? thread. There is no confusion that we are talking about Warhammer 40K 10th Edition with the most current Balance Dataslate and MFM. Don't be obtuse.
For sure. That's why the edition is still tolerable.They are different. They just aren't different because they're Salamanders. And if the IW did choose to use the same detachment, they wouldn't be different.
Put another way, determining play-style mechanics by detachment rather than subfaction makes subfaction irrelevant on the table for everyone but those (SM only) subfactions lucky enough to get a dex/ supplement.
But to bring it somewhat back to topic, there was a balance dataslate recently that gave DE a second detachment- one that leaned into transports rather than the 3-part army realspace raid. So first point: I very much approve of extra detachments being given to armies that aren't going to get dexes for a while.
But the second, more important point is that with this dataslate, Pain Tokens now confer +1 AP in hand to hand. I like this because it'll help wyches a bit, and they could use the help. It also makes the old detachment more effective because it grants Pain Tokens.
And, as much as I liked the special rules coming from subfaction rather than detachment, I've got to admit that it's really, really cool to be able to switch between those two detachments without changing the army at all.
Like I said, the other side of the argument is legit.
Put another way, determining play-style mechanics by detachment rather than subfaction makes subfaction irrelevant on the table for everyone but those (SM only) subfactions lucky enough to get a dex/ supplement.
every army is going to get a codex at some point. it's not a matter of being "lucky", other than the other that they release in. the quality of the codexes will certainly vary, but GW being inconsistent in their balancing is nothing new (and if the complaint is coming down to quality, then i don't know why you think GW would handle balancing individual units for different subfactions over subfaction rules)
So nowadays, there is literally zero flavor between all the variant forms of Assault intercessor? That's kinda silly. That reduces each sub faction to it's specific uniques, like TWC, Wulfen, Sanguinary Guard, Sanguinor, or Baal Predator. Almost all of which are pointless in comparison to the already present options.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So nowadays, there is literally zero flavor between all the variant forms of Assault intercessor? That's kinda silly. That reduces each sub faction to it's specific uniques, like TWC, Wulfen, Sanguinary Guard, Sanguinor, or Baal Predator. Almost all of which are pointless in comparison to the already present options.
Right. Rather than representing the particulars of each chapter, the detachment system instead reflects how a given group of marines is operating at that particular moment, based on the dictates and flow of battle.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So nowadays, there is literally zero flavor between all the variant forms of Assault intercessor? That's kinda silly. That reduces each sub faction to it's specific uniques, like TWC, Wulfen, Sanguinary Guard, Sanguinor, or Baal Predator. Almost all of which are pointless in comparison to the already present options.
Not necessarily on the unit datasheet, but depending on the boni of the chosen detachment, different synergies may present themselves. But that's not really different from 9th edition, it's just that the detachments aren't as closely linked to a chapter as before.
When your scale is a d6, how much better is one chapter at any aspect then another?
Blood Angels might be better in a fight then an Ultramarine, on average. But the Ultra is still causing plenty of havoc with a chainsword.
I like how 10th is dealing with it. You want to represent your chapter? Skew your list with the units that fit their style. Take the detachment that goes with it.
Less penalizing people for picking the wrong paintjob.
I would like to see splitting up some units, similar to how Tau Crisis Suits were handled.
Aside from Fuegan, I thought the points increases for Aeldari were unnecessary. DCannons have been the only real weapon option selected and continued points increases further exacerbates the issue. 135 is even too much for a DCannon when I look at all the previous adjustments.
I'm hoping I can get the option to take a Shadow Weaver for less points than a DCannon in the future.
Additiony, I personally am not a fan of how GW is pointing Aeldari as it shapes the army to be MSU spam. My last few lists at 2000 points has been 21-23 units. It feels very unwieldy to maneuver this many units on the 44x60 board size that is the defacto size wherever I play.
I like how 10th is dealing with it. You want to represent your chapter? Skew your list with the units that fit their style. Take the detachment that goes with it.
Less penalizing people for picking the wrong paintjob.
This method only works if each Chapter gets units or ways to actually skew things in a lore based fashion.
I like how 10th is dealing with it. You want to represent your chapter? Skew your list with the units that fit their style. Take the detachment that goes with it.
Less penalizing people for picking the wrong paintjob.
This method only works if each Chapter gets units or ways to actually skew things in a lore based fashion.
There is always paintjobs and kitbashing to help distinguish them.
I’m not the best person to argue this point, as I primarily play Ultras, the baseline faction. One of the things that drew me to them was the lack of special rules and units. I won games not due to having better rules then other chapters, but better play. With few exceptions scattered thought the editions, playing the boys in blue was a distinct disadvantage, as all the other chapters did what we did, and then more better on top of that.
I was a big fan of 5th’s philosophy of CT, where they actually encouraged you to take the named characters, file the names off them, and make them your own chapter. If you wanted to represent a subborn 1st company force, you could take one of the ‘Fists to lead them, with a name a livery to match your chapter. While the Ultras got a lot of characters, when you could have not-Talion leading RG scouts, or not-Cassius going with anyone who wanted a grizzled old stubborn combi-flamer zealot. Which is like everyone. One of the big arguments at the time, which we see echos of today, is “How do I play <chapter> if I don’t want to use the named character”? 10th answer that question with the rules being on the detachment, not the character.
This is obviously a marine perspective. We’ve had CT and subfaction rules longer then the rest.
With my Eldar I always ignored the paint restrictions when we got rules for craftworlds. My army is painted in a variant Saim-Hann scheme, but the rules for them (mostly CC based) never fit my army lists/collection. My army still kept the look and feel of a windrider host, but didn’t need their bespoke rules to do it. Or any special characters. Just a philosophy of “getting mud on your boots is for lesser races” and having the bulk of my list on bikes, in transports, or on the wing.
Now I don’t know every subfaction for every army. Do Steel Legion guard need anything but ensuring everyone is in a transport? What units/composition do you need to see on the table to make something a fluffy Catachan or Modian army? Obviously right now guard are still on their index rules, and GW faction-locked Some units due to NMNR-Build the box. Not the best situation. But would you need more the one page of detachment rules on the level that other armies with full coxdes?
Obviously, being stuck on an index is not good, but that’s more an issue with how GW rolls out the system then the actual product.
I don’t get the philosophy of being defined by your special rules. It’s a huge galaxy. Sure, your subfaction might be great at X, but do you think you are unique to that? No other chapter specialized in melta/flamers, no other regiment has iron discipline, no other craftworld needs to resort to necromancy and wraiths to protect the living? 40k is a giant sandbox universe. Letting everyone play in it does not diminish your faction. Some subfactions might be the best known for certain aspects, but certainly they are not alone out there for being good at them.
There is always paintjobs and kitbashing to help distinguish them.
I’m not the best person to argue this point, as I primarily play Ultras, the baseline faction. One of the things that drew me to them was the lack of special rules and units. I won games not due to having better rules then other chapters, but better play. With few exceptions scattered thought the editions, playing the boys in blue was a distinct disadvantage, as all the other chapters did what we did, and then more better on top of that.
You're conflating "Codex: Space Marines" with "Ultramarines". Ultras aren't the only Chapter in that book. This is where the problem is and what I was referring to.
I was a big fan of 5th’s philosophy of CT, where they actually encouraged you to take the named characters, file the names off them, and make them your own chapter. If you wanted to represent a subborn 1st company force, you could take one of the ‘Fists to lead them, with a name a livery to match your chapter. While the Ultras got a lot of characters, when you could have not-Talion leading RG scouts, or not-Cassius going with anyone who wanted a grizzled old stubborn combi-flamer zealot. Which is like everyone. One of the big arguments at the time, which we see echos of today, is “How do I play <chapter> if I don’t want to use the named character”? 10th answer that question with the rules being on the detachment, not the character.
This is obviously a marine perspective. We’ve had CT and subfaction rules longer then the rest.
No, you've just had more characters flavored to the poster child subfaction.
The problem now is that some of the Chapters in C: Space Marines and their Successors(Raven Guard and White Scars most notably) don't get the ability to feature their 'trademark' items as Battleline, and with the Rule of 3 it becomes messy as hell to try to do anything...while at the same time, the other "Founding Legions"(and Black Templars+Deathwatch) get to have their own supplemental materials with units, unique detachments, etc that double-dip into the main book too.
Now I don’t know every subfaction for every army. Do Steel Legion guard need anything but ensuring everyone is in a transport?
Militias/Conscripts were a big "hallmark" of the list that they had, from what I remember. Steel Legion were the iconic regiment for Armageddon, but not the only thing that were there.
What units/composition do you need to see on the table to make something a fluffy Catachan or Modian army?
Catachan Jungle Fighters literally have their own unit right now. If you want to go back to the whole 4/5E paradigm? Their hallmark traits were: Veterans(removing the 0-1 limit), Ogryns(unlocked Ogryns for the army), Special Weapon Squads(unlocked for Command Platoons), Jungle Fighters doctrine(removed the ability to take Lascannons in squads, gave you the ability to have a Heavy Flamer if you didn't take a HWTs, dropped armor save by 1 point, gave a benefit for being in forest or jungle terrain) which couldn't be combined with Cameloline, Hardened Fighters(+1WS, added the chainsaw attachment as an option for the Sentinels). Hallmark weapon choices were Flamers and Heavy Bolters.
Mordians had more units unlocked(Sanctioned Psykers, Ratling Squads, and Heavy Weapon Platoons) than they did equipment changes. Their other 3 things were Die-Hards(no negative mods for being outnumbered in close combat; couldn't be combined with Chem-Inhalers), Sharpshooters(units with a BS of 3+ could reroll hit rolls of 1; couldn't be used for Plasma or Sniper Rifles), and Close Order Drill(+1LD and +1Initiative while the whole of the unit was in base to base contact with each other).
And yes, Mordian Iron Guard didn't have "Iron Discipline". That was a Cadian and Death Korps thing.
Obviously right now guard are still on their index rules, and GW faction-locked Some units due to NMNR-Build the box. Not the best situation.
But still better than just "play pretend", which was the thing for quite some time. Also, they've purposely left in "vanilla" options as well.
The problem isn't that there are "faction-locked units" for Guard. It's that people have continually misconstrued the way the Guard is supposed to be constructed, to the point that there's a kind of continually reinforced Mandela Effect surrounding everything. It's that things have been memed so hard that the newer crop of designers even lean into it.
Well, also that when talking about Guard we have to talk about the fact that they don't seem to be willing to actually let you use these "hallmark units"(Death Korps, Kasrkin, Cadian Shock, Catachan Jungle Fighters) with different statlines.
But would you need more the one page of detachment rules on the level that other armies with full coxdes?
Obviously, being stuck on an index is not good, but that’s more an issue with how GW rolls out the system then the actual product.
Wasn't talking about Guard initially, but it's a similar situation for the woefully supported Founding Legions: Two factors go into these things. No dedicated "army" setup(There's no Raven Guard units outside of Shrike, to use as an example) and a watering down of the hallmark concept("Vanguard Spearhead Detachment") to accommodate every single subfaction's characters being able to use it.
I don’t get the philosophy of being defined by your special rules. It’s a huge galaxy. Sure, your subfaction might be great at X, but do you think you are unique to that? No other chapter specialized in melta/flamers, no other regiment has iron discipline, no other craftworld needs to resort to necromancy and wraiths to protect the living? 40k is a giant sandbox universe. Letting everyone play in it does not diminish your faction. Some subfactions might be the best known for certain aspects, but certainly they are not alone out there for being good at them.
The argument has never been that these things should be the exclusive purview of these subfactions. It's that they should be able to get a benefit for leaning into them while ignoring or being unable to take the things outside of their scope.
No idea why the GK Librarian had to go up in points, again, for the third time. I understand that GW wants people to run something else then Draigo and Librarians. Great and awesome. How about change the rules, so GK players want to actualy run something different. But GW way of "fixing" stuff , not just for GK, seems to be "make it cheaper".
In some cases this becomes a caricature of fixing stuff, when Ad Mecha stuff becomes cheaper yet again, when the problem with the book is not points (although those are a problem too, an army should not cost double or triple what other armies cost), but the bad rules.
Then there is also the eternal marine problem. Stuff gets nerfed, because specific army X is good at the time, often the nerf is not enough to reign the army in. Meanwhile other armies with different aka worse, rules are being punished because Black Templar exist. Looks to me, as if trying to build multiple armies around the same book, does not work well.
A terminator in a 100% terminator DADW army should not have the same rules as a bog down regular terminator in any other marine army. Any changes will make the DADW list very bad, or the undercosted (as GW ways of fixing problems is points) terminators suddenly replace centurions or some other unit in some odd ball, but powerful build.
TLDR: Good armies stayed good, bad armis stayed bad. Updates are slow, and rules problems are being fixed with points. In the incoming 3-6 months GW is going to have to learn that custodes with nerfs bigger then before and with worse rules, will be bad and that droping points on already powerul armies can have odd results.
This method only works if each Chapter gets units or ways to actually skew things in a lore based fashion.
And the units have to actualy be good. IH tank army works good. Biker WS or RW army, DW terminators etc do not work. Crusader unit spaming BT work and can even be good, Good luck playing an actual Venguard based RG army without teleporting centurions etc. SW are best, but not especialy good, as WS detachment army, all because TWC and TWC mounted characters exist.
unit.
