Xenomancers wrote: So what you are telling me is - gardsmen are even more important now. LOL.
As a screening unit for Knights (which makes fluff sense) or as a support element (also makes sense when you consider lore) which helps you gain CP. Not so much for the late game CP generation though.
ClockworkZion wrote: Guard giving extra CP at the start of the game wasn't as much of an issue as them giving 2-3 extra turns of maxed out CP usage due to regeneration.
We couldn't turn 1 deep strike for several editions. It was basically broken the way it worked with being able to charge out of DS and made the completely game into "roll dice, remove models" if you went second and got locked into your deployment zone.
Page 27 – Chaplain Dreadnought
Add the following ability to this datasheet:
‘Dreadnought Character: This model may not be given any relics.‘
Did I miss a broken combo here? Suprised this was even a problem considering how few relics it could even take to start with.
Space Wolves could do some nice stuff with it I believe.
Fair enough. I was just thinking of Vanilla Marines and the like two? options you could give it.
OK... So... posting this before going back and reading the comments...
HOLY , thank the Emperor i didn't go ahead and expand my Raven Guard strike force in the way i was planning. (essentially using Reivers, terminators and some characters for a turn 1 charge from SftSs) - but i guess Reivers are more dead now than they were before lol.
I'm glad they fixed the Chaos Invuln strat and capped it at 4++.
Vect - lol, still gonna get 2 uses out of it (maybe)
Kinda surprised they didn't also up the cost of Rotate Ion Shields by 1 as well, making it 2CP/4CP.
Question though - With the change to the tactical reserve rule - i take it the current ruling where "if it starts on the table it can still deepstrike anywhere on the table" is still in effect? Would it have been so hard for them to clarify it and add it into this faq ruling?
I'm glad they nerfed CP farming in a reasonable way.
Not sure why there is a serious nerf to Eldar Rangers - as this essentially means they can't deploy turn 1. (unless they intend for them to still be able to arrive turn 1?)
Right... Off to the pub, so i'll try to digest all of this later.
With the new tactical reserves any turn 1 abilities can deepstrike models again?
GK spells, DMC, and the like?
TACTICAL RESERVES
Instead of being set up on the battlefield during Deployment, many units have the ability to be set up on teleportariums, in high orbit, in ambush,
etc., in order to arrive on the battlefield mid-game as reinforcements. When setting up your army during Deployment for a matched play game, at
least half the total number of units in your army must be set up on the battlefield, and the combined points value of all the units you set up on the
battlefield during Deployment (including those that are embarked within Transports that are set up on the battlefield) must be at least half of your
army’s total points value, even if every unit in your army has an ability that would allow them to be set up elsewhere.
Furthermore, in matched play games, units that are not placed on the battlefield during deployment in order to arrive on the battle mid-game as reinforcements cannot arrive on the battlefield during the first battle round.
Finally, any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the third battle round in a matched play game counts as having been destroyed.
(Bolded for emphasis)Yes and no. You can come in on turn 1, but not in matched play.
(Bolded for emphasis)Yes and no. You can come in on turn 1, but not in matched play.
Yeah. But if you use DMC, Necron-thingy, Da Jump, Gate of Infinity, the-now-slightly-more-expensive-Upon-Wings-of-Fire, Grey Knight Interceptors, etc.., etc. you are setting up on the table, hence the rule seems not applicable to those.
You can be in your opponents face turn 1 with those, at the price of having to deploy on the table.
Except that this isn't a moving target. This has been known before this FAQ that GK is getting an overhaul in CA.
So when is CA coming out, next year around spring right?
Should be December.
Well I guess I waited 9 months, I can wait another 3. Although considering the last CA book, maybe GW should just phase GK out and give people money return for their models or something.
Q1) Some units, like Carnifexes and Leman Russ Battle
Tanks, can contain up to 3 models each, but after they are set
up on the battlefield, they each become individual units. How
many of these models can I include in my army if I’m using the
Organised Events guidelines for, say, a 2,000 point game?
A1) You can include up to 3 units in a 2,000 point game,
meaning you could include up to 9 of these models.
Q3) Are the Daemon Prince datasheet from Codex: Chaos
Space Marines, the Daemon Prince of Nurgle datasheet
from Codex: Death Guard, and the Daemon Prince of
Tzeentch datasheet from Codex: Thousand Sons all
considered different datasheets for the purposes of the Organised
Events guidelines?
A3) Yes.
Karol wrote: Well I guess I waited 9 months, I can wait another 3. Although considering the last CA book, maybe GW should just phase GK out and give people money return for their models or something.
How about a can of Retributor Armour Spray and a free Custodes Codex?
Martel732 wrote: After playing against a lot GK for a while, I think GK units are better than marine units.
They are better than vanilla Marines (sans Primaris due to extra attacks and wounds), the problem is that basic Marines suck so hard that people feel Primaris should be the baseline and then we go up from there.
Q1) Some units, like Carnifexes and Leman Russ Battle
Tanks, can contain up to 3 models each, but after they are set
up on the battlefield, they each become individual units. How
many of these models can I include in my army if I’m using the
Organised Events guidelines for, say, a 2,000 point game?
A1) You can include up to 3 units in a 2,000 point game,
meaning you could include up to 9 of these models.
Q3) Are the Daemon Prince datasheet from Codex: Chaos
Space Marines, the Daemon Prince of Nurgle datasheet
from Codex: Death Guard, and the Daemon Prince of
Tzeentch datasheet from Codex: Thousand Sons all
considered different datasheets for the purposes of the Organised
Events guidelines?
A3) Yes.
Well those are both disappointing answers
The first is fine (and only serves to highlight how Marine tanks should come in units of 3 as well) while the second is definitely still an issue.
Karol wrote: Well I guess I waited 9 months, I can wait another 3. Although considering the last CA book, maybe GW should just phase GK out and give people money return for their models or something.
How about a can of Retributor Armour Spray and a free Custodes Codex?
People wouldn't allow me me to do it. Plus am not even sure if custodes haver termintors. all I saw being used is jetbike dudes and someone using recast foot dudes as bases decoration.
They are better than vanilla Marines (sans Primaris due to extra attacks and wounds), the problem is that basic Marines suck so hard that people feel Primaris should be the baseline and then we go up from there.
The only fun games, still lost though, I had were vs a guy with an army made out of primaris starters, up until the deathwatch codex came up. After that it was less fun, and when he added some custodes is stoped being a game, and became me removing models of the table.
Codex: Craftworlds, pages 91 and 94 – Illic Nightspear and Rangers, Appear Unbidden
Change the last sentence of this ability to read:
‘At the end of any of your Movement phases, this unit can emerge from the webway – set this unit up anywhere on
the battlefield that is more than 9" away from any enemy models.’
Where are you seeing this? I don't see anything about this in the CWEFAQ which I downloaded from warhammer-community. I am looking at version 1.2. Is that the correct version?
Codex: Craftworlds, pages 91 and 94 – Illic Nightspear and Rangers, Appear Unbidden
Change the last sentence of this ability to read:
‘At the end of any of your Movement phases, this unit can emerge from the webway – set this unit up anywhere on
the battlefield that is more than 9" away from any enemy models.’
Where are you seeing this? I don't see anything about this in the CWEFAQ which I downloaded from warhammer-community. I am looking at version 1.2. Is that the correct version?
It's in the big FAQ
Because it's an errata only for use with the Beta rules. Both are the correct version, it's just the CWEFAQ is for normal play and the Big FAQ is for Beta Matched play.
(Bolded for emphasis)Yes and no. You can come in on turn 1, but not in matched play.
Yeah. But if you use DMC, Necron-thingy, Da Jump, Gate of Infinity, the-now-slightly-more-expensive-Upon-Wings-of-Fire, Grey Knight Interceptors, etc.., etc. you are setting up on the table, hence the rule seems not applicable to those.
You can be in your opponents face turn 1 with those, at the price of having to deploy on the table.
They clarified that those things ignore the Deepstrike limitation, but in a Facebook post. I don't see why they haven't put it into this FAQ. They probably forgot, but it is how is played.
They clarified that those things ignore the Deepstrike limitation, but in a Facebook post. I don't see why they haven't put it into this FAQ. They probably forgot, but it is how is played.
The FB thing clarified it, but the difference between tactical reserves and reinforcements is there without the FB post. The new beta reserves rule also is explicit that the limitation applies to units set up in reserves during deployment.
They clarified that those things ignore the Deepstrike limitation, but in a Facebook post. I don't see why they haven't put it into this FAQ. They probably forgot, but it is how is played.
The FB thing clarified it, but the difference between tactical reserves and reinforcements is there without the FB post. The new beta reserves rule also is explicit that the limitation applies to units set up in reserves during deployment.
It's almost like writing rules properly gives you a functional game.
HOW BOUT DAT!? Glad to see I was vindicated in the end. Now I know how mah boi Konrad felt.
Cinderspirit wrote: Warp Surge can put a unit to 2++(I dont even know which unit this is) so they nerf it hard and cap it to 4++? Seems pretty harsh.
Also they add the cover bonus stratagem, which is cool for many armies, but useless for Daemons.
Guess my Khorne and Slaanesh guys will suffer further.
It was already capped a 3++ with Empheral Form adding +1 to it. Now it's capped 4++ with Empheral Form still adding +1 to it.
The only units affected are Pink Horrors and characters wearing either the Armour of Scron or the Impossible Robes.
Does it work that way? Then everyone I know played this kind of rule wrong. My understanding was if I have multiple buffs stacking and I somehow would get a better result than the threshhold I will be capped by the threshold. So I can't go above a 4++ with Warp Surge now. Is it really like this: My Daemon has a 5++, now I add Warp Surge, which makes it 4++, and then I add Ephemeral Form and go to a 3++? Feels super wrong. But GW says I could get a 2++, so it must be the right way.
They clarified that those things ignore the Deepstrike limitation, but in a Facebook post. I don't see why they haven't put it into this FAQ. They probably forgot, but it is how is played.
The FB thing clarified it, but the difference between tactical reserves and reinforcements is there without the FB post. The new beta reserves rule also is explicit that the limitation applies to units set up in reserves during deployment.
This. There is now no longer any possible double interpretation. The old limit of "Deploy in your area" is no more. The new rule is just "If you put a unit in reserves during deployment, then you can't have it turn 1".
Cinderspirit wrote: Warp Surge can put a unit to 2++(I dont even know which unit this is) so they nerf it hard and cap it to 4++? Seems pretty harsh.
Also they add the cover bonus stratagem, which is cool for many armies, but useless for Daemons.
Guess my Khorne and Slaanesh guys will suffer further.
It was already capped a 3++ with Empheral Form adding +1 to it. Now it's capped 4++ with Empheral Form still adding +1 to it.
The only units affected are Pink Horrors and characters wearing either the Armour of Scron or the Impossible Robes.
Does it work that way? Then everyone I know played this kind of rule wrong. My understanding was if I have multiple buffs stacking and I somehow would get a better result than the threshhold I will be capped by the threshold. So I can't go above a 4++ with Warp Surge now. Is it really like this: My Daemon has a 5++, now I add Warp Surge, which makes it 4++, and then I add Ephemeral Form and go to a 3++? Feels super wrong. But GW says I could get a 2++, so it must be the right way.
You save on a RESULT of 4++, but the robe turns your 3s into 4s.
Galef wrote: Nice to see the Webway Portal is even MORE useless since you can't even use it at all turn 1. Since it will be dead on turn 2, why bother?
-
It's not that easy to kill and it's only 120 points. Either you deal with it right away and spend a lot of energy killing it or you let it slide and potentially screw you. We're talking fully removing 14 T8 3+/5++ wounds.
Galef wrote: Nice to see the Webway Portal is even MORE useless since you can't even use it at all turn 1. Since it will be dead on turn 2, why bother?
-
It's not that easy to kill and it's only 120 points. Either you deal with it right away and spend a lot of energy killing it or you let it slide and potentially screw you. We're talking fully removing 14 T8 3+/5++ wounds.
The stratagems don't allow for the override of the Tactical Reserves rule. If you blow my Webway Portal up on turn 1, everything inside dies. Now there is incentive to blow it up!
Galef wrote: Nice to see the Webway Portal is even MORE useless since you can't even use it at all turn 1. Since it will be dead on turn 2, why bother?
-
It's not that easy to kill and it's only 120 points. Either you deal with it right away and spend a lot of energy killing it or you let it slide and potentially screw you. We're talking fully removing 14 T8 3+/5++ wounds.
The stratagems don't allow for the override of the Tactical Reserves rule. If you blow my Webway Portal up on turn 1, everything inside dies. Now there is incentive to blow it up!
Guess I can finally be excited over having a bonus against buildings then?
Galef wrote: Nice to see the Webway Portal is even MORE useless since you can't even use it at all turn 1. Since it will be dead on turn 2, why bother?
-
It's not that easy to kill and it's only 120 points. Either you deal with it right away and spend a lot of energy killing it or you let it slide and potentially screw you. We're talking fully removing 14 T8 3+/5++ wounds.
The stratagems don't allow for the override of the Tactical Reserves rule. If you blow my Webway Portal up on turn 1, everything inside dies. Now there is incentive to blow it up!
Guess I can finally be excited over having a bonus against buildings then?
Haha unfortunately not. No one takes it now, and there is even less incentive to take it going forward.
Galef wrote: Nice to see the Webway Portal is even MORE useless since you can't even use it at all turn 1. Since it will be dead on turn 2, why bother?
-
It's not that easy to kill and it's only 120 points. Either you deal with it right away and spend a lot of energy killing it or you let it slide and potentially screw you. We're talking fully removing 14 T8 3+/5++ wounds.
The stratagems don't allow for the override of the Tactical Reserves rule. If you blow my Webway Portal up on turn 1, everything inside dies. Now there is incentive to blow it up!
Guess I can finally be excited over having a bonus against buildings then?
Haha unfortunately not. No one takes it now, and there is even less incentive to take it going forward.
I was under the impression that everyone but me didn't like following the rules, so why are you asking for them to change the Webway Portal rules? Just play it as "intended".
Still surprised they got it out in September.
My personal impression is what you would expect, nice that they changed some of the RaW issues (I even get to make my sig smaller!) but didn't fix as many as I would like.
BaconCatBug wrote: I was under the impression that everyone but me didn't like following the rules, so why are you asking for them to change the Webway Portal rules? Just play it as "intended".
Not sure what you are insinuating here with respect to intended rules for it. How were other people attempting to play it?
BaconCatBug wrote: I was under the impression that everyone but me didn't like following the rules, so why are you asking for them to change the Webway Portal rules? Just play it as "intended".
Not sure what you are insinuating here with respect to intended rules for it. How were other people attempting to play it?
It's "intended" to put a 1 unit on the table per turn via WebWay. If it cannot do this on the first turn and then dies, all units in TR that were going to use it also die. Since the only use for the WWG was to protect your overpriced WK on the first turn, I'd say they is literally no use for it now.
On the bright side, at least it can be deployed outside your DZ again since that part of the Beta rule is gone.
I think they did a pretty decent job at addressing some major issues without too many knee jerks. The one item I am not really happy about is the change to infiltrating. Its really clunky occurring at the time the unit is deployed.
But worse is how scout squads with concealed positions completely invalidate forward operatives and every other new version of infiltrate.
2+ Units of scouts is in every imperium list, so those strats only exist about half the time now meta dependent.
On the bright side when you can use em they enable assaults much better.
BaconCatBug wrote: I was under the impression that everyone but me didn't like following the rules, so why are you asking for them to change the Webway Portal rules? Just play it as "intended".
Not sure what you are insinuating here with respect to intended rules for it. How were other people attempting to play it?
It's "intended" to put a 1 unit on the table per turn via WebWay. If it cannot do this on the first turn and then dies, all units in TR that were going to use it also die.
Since the only use for the WWG was to protect your overpriced WK on the first turn, I'd say they is literally no use for it now.
On the bright side, at least it can be deployed outside your DZ again since that part of the Beta rule is gone.
-
Agreed. If I had played it pre FAQ, it would have been in my deployment zone or at the edge so I could emergency disembark via the stratagem legally. Now it is 100% garbage functionally. At least its pretty though...
Thinking about it, most of the factions that used Soup in the past (IK, Blood Angels) are now even MORE likely to soup after this FAQ so that they can afford their stratagems. Honestly, this is going to have the opposite effect of that the Games Workshop design team had in mind.
Darsath wrote: Thinking about it, most of the factions that used Soup in the past (IK, Blood Angels) are now even MORE likely to soup after this FAQ so that they can afford their stratagems. Honestly, this is going to have the opposite effect of that the Games Workshop design team had in mind.
The design is to sell models, this does that. "You're Imperial army doesn't work now? Well, have you thought about adding some allies to fill in the holes?"
Darsath wrote: Thinking about it, most of the factions that used Soup in the past (IK, Blood Angels) are now even MORE likely to soup after this FAQ so that they can afford their stratagems. Honestly, this is going to have the opposite effect of that the Games Workshop design team had in mind.
Soup was fine, CP regeneration that gave armies access to over 30-40CP a game was not.
Darsath wrote: Thinking about it, most of the factions that used Soup in the past (IK, Blood Angels) are now even MORE likely to soup after this FAQ so that they can afford their stratagems. Honestly, this is going to have the opposite effect of that the Games Workshop design team had in mind.
Soup was fine, CP regeneration that gave armies access to over 30-40CP a game was not.
The current design pushes these factions to ally in Command Points more, and punishes those who play solo Knights or solo Blood Angels.
Darsath wrote: Thinking about it, most of the factions that used Soup in the past (IK, Blood Angels) are now even MORE likely to soup after this FAQ so that they can afford their stratagems. Honestly, this is going to have the opposite effect of that the Games Workshop design team had in mind.
Without CP regeneration you are not going to see anything close to the amounts of stratagems that were used until now.
20 CP may look like a lot, but if you have one slam captain and one castellan, you will be out of them in one turn.
Darsath wrote: Thinking about it, most of the factions that used Soup in the past (IK, Blood Angels) are now even MORE likely to soup after this FAQ so that they can afford their stratagems. Honestly, this is going to have the opposite effect of that the Games Workshop design team had in mind.
This is what we said after they raised the amount of CP given by batt/brig too. They just made allies MORE mandatory.
Anybody hoping for a return to monofaction prevalence, please take this as a cue, I think.
Darsath wrote: Thinking about it, most of the factions that used Soup in the past (IK, Blood Angels) are now even MORE likely to soup after this FAQ so that they can afford their stratagems. Honestly, this is going to have the opposite effect of that the Games Workshop design team had in mind.
Soup was fine, CP regeneration that gave armies access to over 30-40CP a game was not.
The current design pushes these factions to ally in Command Points more, and punishes those who play solo Knights or solo Blood Angels.
What you say doesn't make sense.
IG detachments were drastically nerfed, while all other detachments were almost untouched (veritas vitae and brilliant strategist rarely give you more than one CP per turn).
Please explain me why now you are more likely to ally into something that has just been nerfed, and by nerfed i mean that something that used to give on average 20 CPs now gives 7.
Darsath wrote: Thinking about it, most of the factions that used Soup in the past (IK, Blood Angels) are now even MORE likely to soup after this FAQ so that they can afford their stratagems. Honestly, this is going to have the opposite effect of that the Games Workshop design team had in mind.
Soup was fine, CP regeneration that gave armies access to over 30-40CP a game was not.
Agreed, but there still is a disparity between armies than can soup and those that cannot.
Single Faction Xenos like Necrons and T'au dont' have cheap enough options (that are also effective) to take 3 Battalions
So while generating 30-40 CPs is gone, Factions that can Soup with cheap Guard Battalions will almost always have double the CPs as mono-faction lists
Darsath wrote: Thinking about it, most of the factions that used Soup in the past (IK, Blood Angels) are now even MORE likely to soup after this FAQ so that they can afford their stratagems. Honestly, this is going to have the opposite effect of that the Games Workshop design team had in mind.
Soup was fine, CP regeneration that gave armies access to over 30-40CP a game was not.
The current design pushes these factions to ally in Command Points more, and punishes those who play solo Knights or solo Blood Angels.
What you say doesn't make sense.
IG detachments were drastically nerfed, while all other detachments were almost untouched (veritas vitae and brilliant strategist rarely give you more than one CP per turn).
Please explain me why now you are more likely to ally into something that has just been nerfed, and by nerfed i mean that something that used to give on average 20 CPs now gives 7.
Guard Detachments grant the best Points to Command Points ratio of any ally choice, and the Command Point costs of the stratagems that these armies used have been increased. This increases their reliance on the easy Command Points granted by these allies, and punishes those who don't run them. Plus, Guard detachments did not have their CPs nerfed, it was the artefact that was nerfed.
Darsath wrote: Thinking about it, most of the factions that used Soup in the past (IK, Blood Angels) are now even MORE likely to soup after this FAQ so that they can afford their stratagems. Honestly, this is going to have the opposite effect of that the Games Workshop design team had in mind.
Soup was fine, CP regeneration that gave armies access to over 30-40CP a game was not.
The current design pushes these factions to ally in Command Points more, and punishes those who play solo Knights or solo Blood Angels.
I play solo Primaris of the angry lemon variety. I know far too much about the CP issue, I'm just saying that being given 5-10 extra CP (1-2 detachments of Guard) is nowhere as broken the 30-40 CP we were seeing and it means that those combos are either going to go out like a bottle rocket (with a zip and a bang) or need to be used in much tamer manners which brings those more broken combos in line.
Darsath wrote: Thinking about it, most of the factions that used Soup in the past (IK, Blood Angels) are now even MORE likely to soup after this FAQ so that they can afford their stratagems. Honestly, this is going to have the opposite effect of that the Games Workshop design team had in mind.
Soup was fine, CP regeneration that gave armies access to over 30-40CP a game was not.
Agreed, but there still is a disparity between armies than can soup and those that cannot.
Single Faction Xenos like Necrons and T'au dont' have cheap enough options (that are also effective) to take 3 Battalions
So while generating 30-40 CPs is gone, Factions that can Soup with cheap Guard Battalions will almost always have double the CPs as mono-faction lists
-
Oh I agree. I want a monofaction bonus as much as Tau and Necron players do. I'm just saying that they did good fixing the CP farm problem.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Yes, its better. But I'm now trying to find ways to squeeze in an IG brigade. This simply isn't possible with power armor armies.
Darsath wrote: Thinking about it, most of the factions that used Soup in the past (IK, Blood Angels) are now even MORE likely to soup after this FAQ so that they can afford their stratagems. Honestly, this is going to have the opposite effect of that the Games Workshop design team had in mind.
Soup was fine, CP regeneration that gave armies access to over 30-40CP a game was not.
The current design pushes these factions to ally in Command Points more, and punishes those who play solo Knights or solo Blood Angels.
I play solo Primaris of the angry lemon variety. I know far too much about the CP issue, I'm just saying that being given 5-10 extra CP (1-2 detachments of Guard) is nowhere as broken the 30-40 CP we were seeing and it means that those combos are either going to go out like a bottle rocket (with a zip and a bang) or need to be used in much tamer manners which brings those more broken combos in line.
What you just said doesn't do a thing to disprove anything that I've said. So I don't know why you're still repeating it. It doesn't detach these factions from their reliance of such detachments, and many things, such as the Ultramarines Warlord trait, have been hit by the collateral of these changes.
Darsath wrote: Thinking about it, most of the factions that used Soup in the past (IK, Blood Angels) are now even MORE likely to soup after this FAQ so that they can afford their stratagems. Honestly, this is going to have the opposite effect of that the Games Workshop design team had in mind.
Soup was fine, CP regeneration that gave armies access to over 30-40CP a game was not.
The current design pushes these factions to ally in Command Points more, and punishes those who play solo Knights or solo Blood Angels.
I play solo Primaris of the angry lemon variety. I know far too much about the CP issue, I'm just saying that being given 5-10 extra CP (1-2 detachments of Guard) is nowhere as broken the 30-40 CP we were seeing and it means that those combos are either going to go out like a bottle rocket (with a zip and a bang) or need to be used in much tamer manners which brings those more broken combos in line.
What you just said doesn't do a thing to disprove anything that I've said. So I don't know why you're still repeating it. It doesn't detach these factions from their reliance of such detachments, and many things, such as the Ultramarines Warlord trait, have been hit by the collateral of these changes.
I don't think the Guard is the issue. The lack of a monofaction bonus is. You're aiming your ire the wrong way. That's my point at this point.
Martel732 wrote: No, IG is going to be a bigger issue than ever. But power armor is supposed to get some love in CA.
IG basically won't change much beyond replacing the BA or Castellan in most top level Imperial lists to give a second detachment of cheap CP generation to support the combo unit over trying to support two of said unit.
Darsath wrote: Thinking about it, most of the factions that used Soup in the past (IK, Blood Angels) are now even MORE likely to soup after this FAQ so that they can afford their stratagems. Honestly, this is going to have the opposite effect of that the Games Workshop design team had in mind.
Soup was fine, CP regeneration that gave armies access to over 30-40CP a game was not.
The current design pushes these factions to ally in Command Points more, and punishes those who play solo Knights or solo Blood Angels.
What you say doesn't make sense.
IG detachments were drastically nerfed, while all other detachments were almost untouched (veritas vitae and brilliant strategist rarely give you more than one CP per turn).
Please explain me why now you are more likely to ally into something that has just been nerfed, and by nerfed i mean that something that used to give on average 20 CPs now gives 7.
Guard Detachments grant the best Points to Command Points ratio of any ally choice, and the Command Point costs of the stratagems that these armies used have been increased. This increases their reliance on the easy Command Points granted by these allies, and punishes those who don't run them. Plus, Guard detachments did not have their CPs nerfed, it was the artefact that was nerfed.
Err no, they didn't.
They increased the cost of IK stratagems. Stop.
Then BA had one stratagem increased by one CP... wow...
They increased the reliance of IK on guard battalions, but reduced the reliance of all other factions on guard battalion. That is a net gain.
Darsath wrote: Thinking about it, most of the factions that used Soup in the past (IK, Blood Angels) are now even MORE likely to soup after this FAQ so that they can afford their stratagems. Honestly, this is going to have the opposite effect of that the Games Workshop design team had in mind.
Soup was fine, CP regeneration that gave armies access to over 30-40CP a game was not.
The current design pushes these factions to ally in Command Points more, and punishes those who play solo Knights or solo Blood Angels.
What you say doesn't make sense.
IG detachments were drastically nerfed, while all other detachments were almost untouched (veritas vitae and brilliant strategist rarely give you more than one CP per turn).
Please explain me why now you are more likely to ally into something that has just been nerfed, and by nerfed i mean that something that used to give on average 20 CPs now gives 7.
Guard Detachments grant the best Points to Command Points ratio of any ally choice, and the Command Point costs of the stratagems that these armies used have been increased. This increases their reliance on the easy Command Points granted by these allies, and punishes those who don't run them. Plus, Guard detachments did not have their CPs nerfed, it was the artefact that was nerfed.
Err no, they didn't.
They increased the cost of IK stratagems. Stop.
Then BA had one stratagem increased by one CP... wow...
They increased the reliance of IK on guard battalions, but reduced the reliance of all other factions on guard battalion. That is a net gain.
What are you on about? Blood Angels had the cost of one of their stratagems increased by 1 (to 2), in an army that is normally low on CP without extra command points. And there has been no reduction in the utility of a Guard Detachment. You still have to show that instead of asserting it.
Darsath wrote: Thinking about it, most of the factions that used Soup in the past (IK, Blood Angels) are now even MORE likely to soup after this FAQ so that they can afford their stratagems. Honestly, this is going to have the opposite effect of that the Games Workshop design team had in mind.
Soup was fine, CP regeneration that gave armies access to over 30-40CP a game was not.
The current design pushes these factions to ally in Command Points more, and punishes those who play solo Knights or solo Blood Angels.
I play solo Primaris of the angry lemon variety. I know far too much about the CP issue, I'm just saying that being given 5-10 extra CP (1-2 detachments of Guard) is nowhere as broken the 30-40 CP we were seeing and it means that those combos are either going to go out like a bottle rocket (with a zip and a bang) or need to be used in much tamer manners which brings those more broken combos in line.
What you just said doesn't do a thing to disprove anything that I've said. So I don't know why you're still repeating it. It doesn't detach these factions from their reliance of such detachments, and many things, such as the Ultramarines Warlord trait, have been hit by the collateral of these changes.
I don't think the Guard is the issue. The lack of a monofaction bonus is. You're aiming your ire the wrong way. That's my point at this point.
I don't think you made that point here until just now. You were going on about CP regen.
Darsath wrote: Thinking about it, most of the factions that used Soup in the past (IK, Blood Angels) are now even MORE likely to soup after this FAQ so that they can afford their stratagems. Honestly, this is going to have the opposite effect of that the Games Workshop design team had in mind.
Soup was fine, CP regeneration that gave armies access to over 30-40CP a game was not.
The current design pushes these factions to ally in Command Points more, and punishes those who play solo Knights or solo Blood Angels.
What you say doesn't make sense.
IG detachments were drastically nerfed, while all other detachments were almost untouched (veritas vitae and brilliant strategist rarely give you more than one CP per turn).
Please explain me why now you are more likely to ally into something that has just been nerfed, and by nerfed i mean that something that used to give on average 20 CPs now gives 7.
Guard Detachments grant the best Points to Command Points ratio of any ally choice, and the Command Point costs of the stratagems that these armies used have been increased. This increases their reliance on the easy Command Points granted by these allies, and punishes those who don't run them. Plus, Guard detachments did not have their CPs nerfed, it was the artefact that was nerfed.
Err no, they didn't.
They increased the cost of IK stratagems. Stop.
Then BA had one stratagem increased by one CP... wow...
They increased the reliance of IK on guard battalions, but reduced the reliance of all other factions on guard battalion. That is a net gain.
What are you on about? Blood Angels had the cost of one of their stratagems increased by 1 (to 2), in an army that is normally low on CP without extra command points. And there has been no reduction in the utility of a Guard Detachment. You still have to show that instead of asserting it.
Guard stacked a Warlord Trait and Relic to effectively double your max CP count. That is gone. You get a max of 6-7 CP per game this way now. This alone brings Guard way down in how much support they bring.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Darsath wrote: I don't think you made that point here until just now. You were going on about CP regen.
I've said it before, even if I haven't mentioned it in this specific quote thread. The loss of CP regeneration moved the problem from the Guard to being the major issue of monofaction armies lacking support.
Darsath wrote: Thinking about it, most of the factions that used Soup in the past (IK, Blood Angels) are now even MORE likely to soup after this FAQ so that they can afford their stratagems. Honestly, this is going to have the opposite effect of that the Games Workshop design team had in mind.
Soup was fine, CP regeneration that gave armies access to over 30-40CP a game was not.
The current design pushes these factions to ally in Command Points more, and punishes those who play solo Knights or solo Blood Angels.
What you say doesn't make sense.
IG detachments were drastically nerfed, while all other detachments were almost untouched (veritas vitae and brilliant strategist rarely give you more than one CP per turn).
Please explain me why now you are more likely to ally into something that has just been nerfed, and by nerfed i mean that something that used to give on average 20 CPs now gives 7.
Guard Detachments grant the best Points to Command Points ratio of any ally choice, and the Command Point costs of the stratagems that these armies used have been increased. This increases their reliance on the easy Command Points granted by these allies, and punishes those who don't run them. Plus, Guard detachments did not have their CPs nerfed, it was the artefact that was nerfed.
Err no, they didn't.
They increased the cost of IK stratagems. Stop.
Then BA had one stratagem increased by one CP... wow...
They increased the reliance of IK on guard battalions, but reduced the reliance of all other factions on guard battalion. That is a net gain.
What are you on about? Blood Angels had the cost of one of their stratagems increased by 1 (to 2), in an army that is normally low on CP without extra command points. And there has been no reduction in the utility of a Guard Detachment. You still have to show that instead of asserting it.
Guard stacked a Warlord Trait and Relic to effectively double your max CP count. That is gone. You get a max of 6-7 CP per game this way now. This alone brings Guard way down in how much support they bring.
This affects more than IG, and the reliance on Guard detachments has not been reduced from this FAQ. If anything it's increased.
Darsath wrote: Thinking about it, most of the factions that used Soup in the past (IK, Blood Angels) are now even MORE likely to soup after this FAQ so that they can afford their stratagems. Honestly, this is going to have the opposite effect of that the Games Workshop design team had in mind.
Soup was fine, CP regeneration that gave armies access to over 30-40CP a game was not.
The current design pushes these factions to ally in Command Points more, and punishes those who play solo Knights or solo Blood Angels.
What you say doesn't make sense.
IG detachments were drastically nerfed, while all other detachments were almost untouched (veritas vitae and brilliant strategist rarely give you more than one CP per turn).
Please explain me why now you are more likely to ally into something that has just been nerfed, and by nerfed i mean that something that used to give on average 20 CPs now gives 7.
Guard Detachments grant the best Points to Command Points ratio of any ally choice, and the Command Point costs of the stratagems that these armies used have been increased. This increases their reliance on the easy Command Points granted by these allies, and punishes those who don't run them. Plus, Guard detachments did not have their CPs nerfed, it was the artefact that was nerfed.
Err no, they didn't.
They increased the cost of IK stratagems. Stop.
Then BA had one stratagem increased by one CP... wow...
They increased the reliance of IK on guard battalions, but reduced the reliance of all other factions on guard battalion. That is a net gain.
What are you on about? Blood Angels had the cost of one of their stratagems increased by 1 (to 2), in an army that is normally low on CP without extra command points. And there has been no reduction in the utility of a Guard Detachment. You still have to show that instead of asserting it.
Darsath wrote: Thinking about it, most of the factions that used Soup in the past (IK, Blood Angels) are now even MORE likely to soup after this FAQ so that they can afford their stratagems. Honestly, this is going to have the opposite effect of that the Games Workshop design team had in mind.
Soup was fine, CP regeneration that gave armies access to over 30-40CP a game was not.
The current design pushes these factions to ally in Command Points more, and punishes those who play solo Knights or solo Blood Angels.
I play solo Primaris of the angry lemon variety. I know far too much about the CP issue, I'm just saying that being given 5-10 extra CP (1-2 detachments of Guard) is nowhere as broken the 30-40 CP we were seeing and it means that those combos are either going to go out like a bottle rocket (with a zip and a bang) or need to be used in much tamer manners which brings those more broken combos in line.
What you just said doesn't do a thing to disprove anything that I've said. So I don't know why you're still repeating it. It doesn't detach these factions from their reliance of such detachments, and many things, such as the Ultramarines Warlord trait, have been hit by the collateral of these changes.
I don't think the Guard is the issue. The lack of a monofaction bonus is. You're aiming your ire the wrong way. That's my point at this point.
I don't think you made that point here until just now. You were going on about CP regen.
Guard went to a point per CP of about 9, which made it an obvious choice for everyone, to a point per CP of 28, which is good and is still the best available to the imperium, but is no longer so incredible that any imperium list should have it.
Darsath wrote: Thinking about it, most of the factions that used Soup in the past (IK, Blood Angels) are now even MORE likely to soup after this FAQ so that they can afford their stratagems. Honestly, this is going to have the opposite effect of that the Games Workshop design team had in mind.
Soup was fine, CP regeneration that gave armies access to over 30-40CP a game was not.
The current design pushes these factions to ally in Command Points more, and punishes those who play solo Knights or solo Blood Angels.
What you say doesn't make sense.
IG detachments were drastically nerfed, while all other detachments were almost untouched (veritas vitae and brilliant strategist rarely give you more than one CP per turn).
Please explain me why now you are more likely to ally into something that has just been nerfed, and by nerfed i mean that something that used to give on average 20 CPs now gives 7.
Guard Detachments grant the best Points to Command Points ratio of any ally choice, and the Command Point costs of the stratagems that these armies used have been increased. This increases their reliance on the easy Command Points granted by these allies, and punishes those who don't run them. Plus, Guard detachments did not have their CPs nerfed, it was the artefact that was nerfed.
Err no, they didn't.
They increased the cost of IK stratagems. Stop.
Then BA had one stratagem increased by one CP... wow...
They increased the reliance of IK on guard battalions, but reduced the reliance of all other factions on guard battalion. That is a net gain.
What are you on about? Blood Angels had the cost of one of their stratagems increased by 1 (to 2), in an army that is normally low on CP without extra command points. And there has been no reduction in the utility of a Guard Detachment. You still have to show that instead of asserting it.
Guard stacked a Warlord Trait and Relic to effectively double your max CP count. That is gone. You get a max of 6-7 CP per game this way now. This alone brings Guard way down in how much support they bring.
This affects more than IG, and the reliance on Guard detachments has not been reduced from this FAQ. If anything it's increased.
Darsath wrote: Thinking about it, most of the factions that used Soup in the past (IK, Blood Angels) are now even MORE likely to soup after this FAQ so that they can afford their stratagems. Honestly, this is going to have the opposite effect of that the Games Workshop design team had in mind.
Soup was fine, CP regeneration that gave armies access to over 30-40CP a game was not.
The current design pushes these factions to ally in Command Points more, and punishes those who play solo Knights or solo Blood Angels.
What you say doesn't make sense.
IG detachments were drastically nerfed, while all other detachments were almost untouched (veritas vitae and brilliant strategist rarely give you more than one CP per turn).
Please explain me why now you are more likely to ally into something that has just been nerfed, and by nerfed i mean that something that used to give on average 20 CPs now gives 7.
Guard Detachments grant the best Points to Command Points ratio of any ally choice, and the Command Point costs of the stratagems that these armies used have been increased. This increases their reliance on the easy Command Points granted by these allies, and punishes those who don't run them. Plus, Guard detachments did not have their CPs nerfed, it was the artefact that was nerfed.
Err no, they didn't.
They increased the cost of IK stratagems. Stop.
Then BA had one stratagem increased by one CP... wow...
They increased the reliance of IK on guard battalions, but reduced the reliance of all other factions on guard battalion. That is a net gain.
What are you on about? Blood Angels had the cost of one of their stratagems increased by 1 (to 2), in an army that is normally low on CP without extra command points. And there has been no reduction in the utility of a Guard Detachment. You still have to show that instead of asserting it.
Guard stacked a Warlord Trait and Relic to effectively double your max CP count. That is gone. You get a max of 6-7 CP per game this way now. This alone brings Guard way down in how much support they bring.
This affects more than IG, and the reliance on Guard detachments has not been reduced from this FAQ. If anything it's increased.
You know what's increased? How many points you need to take of guard to get a large amount of CP. This is a rather important point people are ignoring.
Darsath wrote: Thinking about it, most of the factions that used Soup in the past (IK, Blood Angels) are now even MORE likely to soup after this FAQ so that they can afford their stratagems. Honestly, this is going to have the opposite effect of that the Games Workshop design team had in mind.
Soup was fine, CP regeneration that gave armies access to over 30-40CP a game was not.
The current design pushes these factions to ally in Command Points more, and punishes those who play solo Knights or solo Blood Angels.
What you say doesn't make sense.
IG detachments were drastically nerfed, while all other detachments were almost untouched (veritas vitae and brilliant strategist rarely give you more than one CP per turn).
Please explain me why now you are more likely to ally into something that has just been nerfed, and by nerfed i mean that something that used to give on average 20 CPs now gives 7.
Guard Detachments grant the best Points to Command Points ratio of any ally choice, and the Command Point costs of the stratagems that these armies used have been increased. This increases their reliance on the easy Command Points granted by these allies, and punishes those who don't run them. Plus, Guard detachments did not have their CPs nerfed, it was the artefact that was nerfed.
Err no, they didn't.
They increased the cost of IK stratagems. Stop.
Then BA had one stratagem increased by one CP... wow...
They increased the reliance of IK on guard battalions, but reduced the reliance of all other factions on guard battalion. That is a net gain.
What are you on about? Blood Angels had the cost of one of their stratagems increased by 1 (to 2), in an army that is normally low on CP without extra command points. And there has been no reduction in the utility of a Guard Detachment. You still have to show that instead of asserting it.
Guard stacked a Warlord Trait and Relic to effectively double your max CP count. That is gone. You get a max of 6-7 CP per game this way now. This alone brings Guard way down in how much support they bring.
This affects more than IG, and the reliance on Guard detachments has not been reduced from this FAQ. If anything it's increased.
You know what's increased? How many points you need to take of guard to get a large amount of CP. This is a rather important point people are ignoring.
I think you're the one ignoring my point. These factions will continue to rely on Guard for CPs, and none of that has changed. And you're back to the CP regen argument and not the mono-faction bonus.
Darsath wrote: Thinking about it, most of the factions that used Soup in the past (IK, Blood Angels) are now even MORE likely to soup after this FAQ so that they can afford their stratagems. Honestly, this is going to have the opposite effect of that the Games Workshop design team had in mind.
Soup was fine, CP regeneration that gave armies access to over 30-40CP a game was not.
The current design pushes these factions to ally in Command Points more, and punishes those who play solo Knights or solo Blood Angels.
What you say doesn't make sense.
IG detachments were drastically nerfed, while all other detachments were almost untouched (veritas vitae and brilliant strategist rarely give you more than one CP per turn).
Please explain me why now you are more likely to ally into something that has just been nerfed, and by nerfed i mean that something that used to give on average 20 CPs now gives 7.
Guard Detachments grant the best Points to Command Points ratio of any ally choice, and the Command Point costs of the stratagems that these armies used have been increased. This increases their reliance on the easy Command Points granted by these allies, and punishes those who don't run them. Plus, Guard detachments did not have their CPs nerfed, it was the artefact that was nerfed.
Err no, they didn't.
They increased the cost of IK stratagems. Stop.
Then BA had one stratagem increased by one CP... wow...
They increased the reliance of IK on guard battalions, but reduced the reliance of all other factions on guard battalion. That is a net gain.
What are you on about? Blood Angels had the cost of one of their stratagems increased by 1 (to 2), in an army that is normally low on CP without extra command points. And there has been no reduction in the utility of a Guard Detachment. You still have to show that instead of asserting it.
Guard stacked a Warlord Trait and Relic to effectively double your max CP count. That is gone. You get a max of 6-7 CP per game this way now. This alone brings Guard way down in how much support they bring.
This affects more than IG, and the reliance on Guard detachments has not been reduced from this FAQ. If anything it's increased.
You know what's increased? How many points you need to take of guard to get a large amount of CP. This is a rather important point people are ignoring.
I think you're the one ignoring my point. These factions will continue to rely on Guard for CPs, and none of that has changed. And you're back to the CP regen argument and not the mono-faction bonus.
You're ignoring basically EVERYTHING I've said: the reliance on Guard gives a much lower benefit, costs more AND can't support both Castellans AND Blood Angels at the same time unless you want to blow your whole CP load in one turn. In short: Guard aren't the problem and you keep getting stuck on the idea that they seem to be somehow.
Basically, it's not a problem in the way you make it out to be since the way it broke the game has been handled. The actual issue CP is at now is that monofaction armies lack a bonus to make up for not just spamming a cheap ally to unlock extra CP.
Darsath wrote: Thinking about it, most of the factions that used Soup in the past (IK, Blood Angels) are now even MORE likely to soup after this FAQ so that they can afford their stratagems. Honestly, this is going to have the opposite effect of that the Games Workshop design team had in mind.
Soup was fine, CP regeneration that gave armies access to over 30-40CP a game was not.
The current design pushes these factions to ally in Command Points more, and punishes those who play solo Knights or solo Blood Angels.
What you say doesn't make sense.
IG detachments were drastically nerfed, while all other detachments were almost untouched (veritas vitae and brilliant strategist rarely give you more than one CP per turn).
Please explain me why now you are more likely to ally into something that has just been nerfed, and by nerfed i mean that something that used to give on average 20 CPs now gives 7.
Guard Detachments grant the best Points to Command Points ratio of any ally choice, and the Command Point costs of the stratagems that these armies used have been increased. This increases their reliance on the easy Command Points granted by these allies, and punishes those who don't run them. Plus, Guard detachments did not have their CPs nerfed, it was the artefact that was nerfed.
Err no, they didn't.
They increased the cost of IK stratagems. Stop.
Then BA had one stratagem increased by one CP... wow...
They increased the reliance of IK on guard battalions, but reduced the reliance of all other factions on guard battalion. That is a net gain.
What are you on about? Blood Angels had the cost of one of their stratagems increased by 1 (to 2), in an army that is normally low on CP without extra command points. And there has been no reduction in the utility of a Guard Detachment. You still have to show that instead of asserting it.
Guard stacked a Warlord Trait and Relic to effectively double your max CP count. That is gone. You get a max of 6-7 CP per game this way now. This alone brings Guard way down in how much support they bring.
This affects more than IG, and the reliance on Guard detachments has not been reduced from this FAQ. If anything it's increased.
You know what's increased? How many points you need to take of guard to get a large amount of CP. This is a rather important point people are ignoring.
I think you're the one ignoring my point. These factions will continue to rely on Guard for CPs, and none of that has changed. And you're back to the CP regen argument and not the mono-faction bonus.
You're ignoring basically EVERYTHING I've said: the reliance on Guard gives a much lower benefit, costs more AND can't support both Castellans AND Blood Angels at the same time unless you want to blow your whole CP load in one turn. In short: Guard aren't the problem and you keep getting stuck on the idea that they seem to be somehow.
Basically, it's not a problem in the way you make it out to be since the way it broke the game has been handled. The actual issue CP is at now is that monofaction armies lack a bonus to make up for not just spamming a cheap ally to unlock extra CP.
So you're suggesting that these factions will no longer be reliant on Guard for Command Points?
Darsath wrote: Thinking about it, most of the factions that used Soup in the past (IK, Blood Angels) are now even MORE likely to soup after this FAQ so that they can afford their stratagems. Honestly, this is going to have the opposite effect of that the Games Workshop design team had in mind.
Soup was fine, CP regeneration that gave armies access to over 30-40CP a game was not.
The current design pushes these factions to ally in Command Points more, and punishes those who play solo Knights or solo Blood Angels.
What you say doesn't make sense.
IG detachments were drastically nerfed, while all other detachments were almost untouched (veritas vitae and brilliant strategist rarely give you more than one CP per turn).
Please explain me why now you are more likely to ally into something that has just been nerfed, and by nerfed i mean that something that used to give on average 20 CPs now gives 7.
Guard Detachments grant the best Points to Command Points ratio of any ally choice, and the Command Point costs of the stratagems that these armies used have been increased. This increases their reliance on the easy Command Points granted by these allies, and punishes those who don't run them. Plus, Guard detachments did not have their CPs nerfed, it was the artefact that was nerfed.
Err no, they didn't.
They increased the cost of IK stratagems. Stop.
Then BA had one stratagem increased by one CP... wow...
They increased the reliance of IK on guard battalions, but reduced the reliance of all other factions on guard battalion. That is a net gain.
What are you on about? Blood Angels had the cost of one of their stratagems increased by 1 (to 2), in an army that is normally low on CP without extra command points. And there has been no reduction in the utility of a Guard Detachment. You still have to show that instead of asserting it.
Guard stacked a Warlord Trait and Relic to effectively double your max CP count. That is gone. You get a max of 6-7 CP per game this way now. This alone brings Guard way down in how much support they bring.
This affects more than IG, and the reliance on Guard detachments has not been reduced from this FAQ. If anything it's increased.
You know what's increased? How many points you need to take of guard to get a large amount of CP. This is a rather important point people are ignoring.
I think you're the one ignoring my point. These factions will continue to rely on Guard for CPs, and none of that has changed. And you're back to the CP regen argument and not the mono-faction bonus.
You're ignoring basically EVERYTHING I've said: the reliance on Guard gives a much lower benefit, costs more AND can't support both Castellans AND Blood Angels at the same time unless you want to blow your whole CP load in one turn. In short: Guard aren't the problem and you keep getting stuck on the idea that they seem to be somehow.
Basically, it's not a problem in the way you make it out to be since the way it broke the game has been handled. The actual issue CP is at now is that monofaction armies lack a bonus to make up for not just spamming a cheap ally to unlock extra CP.
So you're suggesting that these factions will no longer be reliant on Guard for Command Points?
I'm saying the combos that currently exist will need to go away for ones that aren't CP heavy. Basically throw out the broken combo that required 30-40CP a game to function for something more practical and balanced.
Darsath wrote: Don't dodge the question, man. Do you think that these factions will no longer rely on Guard for CPs?
I think they're going to be less reliant, yes because what they can do before this dropped and what they can do after it dropped has changed. You can still take Guard for CP, and many will, but it's not as beneficial and it costs more to get more meaning you have to give other stuff up. Basically the Guard CP farm is little more than a Guard CP garden and your notion that the armies we're seeing using the farm will still be using a farm is a false premise.
The Guard WILL continue to support armies, BUT the support won't be as strong and won't go nearly as far. This means the combos that currently rely on the farm will change and the reliance for high amounts of CP will drop to meet the lowered amount of CP available.
Basically you've ignored the fact that the CP isn't as effective as it used to be and requires more investment to reach anywhere close just to try and push an idea that the game won't change and we'll somehow see bigger CP batteries instead of weaker ones and weaker reliance of CP battery support.
Darsath wrote: Don't dodge the question, man. Do you think that these factions will no longer rely on Guard for CPs?
I think they're going to be less reliant, yes because what they can do before this dropped and what they can do after it dropped has changed. You can still take Guard for CP, and many will, but it's not as beneficial and it costs more to get more meaning you have to give other stuff up. Basically the Guard CP farm is little more than a Guard CP garden and your notion that the armies we're seeing using the farm will still be using a farm is a false premise.
The Guard WILL continue to support armies, BUT the support won't be as strong and won't go nearly as far. This means the combos that currently rely on the farm will change and the reliance for high amounts of CP will drop to meet the lowered amount of CP available.
Basically you've ignored the fact that the CP isn't as effective as it used to be and requires more investment to reach anywhere close just to try and push an idea that the game won't change and we'll somehow see bigger CP batteries instead of weaker ones and weaker reliance of CP battery support.
These factions did become MORE reliant on command points for their key strategies. I don't know why you think they would drop a key source of CPs as a response. Mono BA and mono IK are fairly weak without the CPs they get from outside sources, and they just got worse.
The cheap Guard Battalion is good, but hardly game breaking. In most cases, the Guard itself is probably better than what its giving its CP to. Where I think we'll continue see issues is the existence of the Brigade, which is what lets Guard put up CP numbers no other faction can really dream of while keeping the list under the 3 detachment limit.
Darsath wrote: Don't dodge the question, man. Do you think that these factions will no longer rely on Guard for CPs?
I think they're going to be less reliant, yes because what they can do before this dropped and what they can do after it dropped has changed. You can still take Guard for CP, and many will, but it's not as beneficial and it costs more to get more meaning you have to give other stuff up. Basically the Guard CP farm is little more than a Guard CP garden and your notion that the armies we're seeing using the farm will still be using a farm is a false premise.
The Guard WILL continue to support armies, BUT the support won't be as strong and won't go nearly as far. This means the combos that currently rely on the farm will change and the reliance for high amounts of CP will drop to meet the lowered amount of CP available.
Basically you've ignored the fact that the CP isn't as effective as it used to be and requires more investment to reach anywhere close just to try and push an idea that the game won't change and we'll somehow see bigger CP batteries instead of weaker ones and weaker reliance of CP battery support.
These factions did become MORE reliant on command points for their key strategies. I don't know why you think they would drop a key source of CPs as a response. Mono BA and mono IK are fairly weak without the CPs they get from outside sources, and they just got worse.
You become less reliant because you'll be forced to make a choice: BA or Knights. Not both. This means the CP you have available goes further and means you don't have to stretch your CP battery into ridiculous proportions. Plus the more CP you take the less points you're putting into things you could be spending that CP on (like extra Castellans or Smash Captains).
You're not more reliant on a resource when you reduce how much of that resource you need.
Darsath wrote: Don't dodge the question, man. Do you think that these factions will no longer rely on Guard for CPs?
I think they're going to be less reliant, yes because what they can do before this dropped and what they can do after it dropped has changed. You can still take Guard for CP, and many will, but it's not as beneficial and it costs more to get more meaning you have to give other stuff up. Basically the Guard CP farm is little more than a Guard CP garden and your notion that the armies we're seeing using the farm will still be using a farm is a false premise.
The Guard WILL continue to support armies, BUT the support won't be as strong and won't go nearly as far. This means the combos that currently rely on the farm will change and the reliance for high amounts of CP will drop to meet the lowered amount of CP available.
Basically you've ignored the fact that the CP isn't as effective as it used to be and requires more investment to reach anywhere close just to try and push an idea that the game won't change and we'll somehow see bigger CP batteries instead of weaker ones and weaker reliance of CP battery support.
These factions did become MORE reliant on command points for their key strategies. I don't know why you think they would drop a key source of CPs as a response. Mono BA and mono IK are fairly weak without the CPs they get from outside sources, and they just got worse.
You become less reliant because you'll be forced to make a choice: BA or Knights. Not both. This means the CP you have available goes further and means you don't have to stretch your CP battery into ridiculous proportions. Plus the more CP you take the less points you're putting into things you could be spending that CP on (like extra Castellans or Smash Captains).
You're not more reliant on a resource when you reduce how much of that resource you need.
More likely, we'll just see Blood Angels dropped. And Guard detachment stays. Similar lists circle around etc. Really, it still nerfs the mono-BA and mono-IK armies. Any Blood Angel or Imperial Knight army will want to ally Guard for Command Points. I think you're only thinking about that 1 list that was spammed at the recent NOVA event.
Darsath wrote: More likely, we'll just see Blood Angels dropped. And Guard detachment stays. Similar lists circle around etc. Really, it still nerfs the mono-BA and mono-IK armies. Any Blood Angel or Imperial Knight army will want to ally Guard for Command Points. I think you're only thinking about that 1 list that was spammed at the recent NOVA event.
Marine armies weren't getting far in events even with a CP battery. It's at the point that you want Marines for 1-2 units tops to support specific holes in other armies. Marines are (if claims are true) going to get something in CA that's supposed to help, but let's not pretend like any Marine army is doing well with a CP battery or without.
Darsath wrote: More likely, we'll just see Blood Angels dropped. And Guard detachment stays. Similar lists circle around etc. Really, it still nerfs the mono-BA and mono-IK armies. Any Blood Angel or Imperial Knight army will want to ally Guard for Command Points. I think you're only thinking about that 1 list that was spammed at the recent NOVA event.
Marine armies weren't getting far in events even with a CP battery. It's at the point that you want Marines for 1-2 units tops to support specific holes in other armies. Marines are (if claims are true) going to get something in CA that's supposed to help, but let's not pretend like any Marine army is doing well with a CP battery or without.
In all fairness, a lot of the marine stratagems are kind of bad. Plus, people would always prefer to run the ally that provides better usage of the CPs anyways, such as IK, BA or Custodes. I don't see that changing, unless Chapter Approved makes some big changes. Keep in mind that, even with that, other armies, even the ones that already dominate, will also get some love from it (and so they should, not saying they shouldn't).
Darsath wrote: More likely, we'll just see Blood Angels dropped. And Guard detachment stays. Similar lists circle around etc. Really, it still nerfs the mono-BA and mono-IK armies. Any Blood Angel or Imperial Knight army will want to ally Guard for Command Points. I think you're only thinking about that 1 list that was spammed at the recent NOVA event.
Marine armies weren't getting far in events even with a CP battery. It's at the point that you want Marines for 1-2 units tops to support specific holes in other armies. Marines are (if claims are true) going to get something in CA that's supposed to help, but let's not pretend like any Marine army is doing well with a CP battery or without.
In all fairness, a lot of the marine stratagems are kind of bad. Plus, people would always prefer to run the ally that provides better usage of the CPs anyways, such as IK, BA or Custodes. I don't see that changing, unless Chapter Approved makes some big changes. Keep in mind that, even with that, other armies, even the ones that already dominate, will also get some love from it (and so they should, not saying they shouldn't).
Marine durability being fixed would fix a lot of the Marine problems. Strats need to be redone from the ground up (as do how they can take their support vehicles like the Predator).
Darsath wrote: More likely, we'll just see Blood Angels dropped. And Guard detachment stays. Similar lists circle around etc. Really, it still nerfs the mono-BA and mono-IK armies. Any Blood Angel or Imperial Knight army will want to ally Guard for Command Points. I think you're only thinking about that 1 list that was spammed at the recent NOVA event.
Marine armies weren't getting far in events even with a CP battery. It's at the point that you want Marines for 1-2 units tops to support specific holes in other armies. Marines are (if claims are true) going to get something in CA that's supposed to help, but let's not pretend like any Marine army is doing well with a CP battery or without.
In all fairness, a lot of the marine stratagems are kind of bad. Plus, people would always prefer to run the ally that provides better usage of the CPs anyways, such as IK, BA or Custodes. I don't see that changing, unless Chapter Approved makes some big changes. Keep in mind that, even with that, other armies, even the ones that already dominate, will also get some love from it (and so they should, not saying they shouldn't).
Marine durability being fixed would fix a lot of the Marine problems. Strats need to be redone from the ground up (as do how they can take their support vehicles like the Predator).
I think that Marine durability has been reduced massively due to the new AP system (or more, how much Games Workshop gave away AP to high volume fire weapons), and in response, the increased reliance on invulnerable saves to create a durable unit, such as with Custodes, Drukhari and currently IK with rotate Ion Shields. Really, I think that a 3+ save should be more reliable, and I wouldn't want to see the response to be just to reduce their points cost. But I'm not sure what other changes can realistically happen at the minute. I also say this as a primarily Necron player, who knows all too well how bad a 3+ save really is.
I think that Marine durability has been reduced massively due to the new AP system (or more, how much Games Workshop gave away AP to high volume fire weapons), and in response, the increased reliance on invulnerable saves to create a durable unit, such as with Custodes, Drukhari and currently IK with rotate Ion Shields. Really, I think that a 3+ save should be more reliable, and I wouldn't want to see the response to be just to reduce their points cost. But I'm not sure what other changes can realistically happen at the minute. I also say this as a primarily Necron player, who knows all too well how bad a 3+ save really is.
I think GW missed the opportunity with the AP system to give some units a 1+ armour, like Terminators. Marines could then have 2+ saves and the problem would be solved. Non-Marine MEQs (that's an oxymoron) like Immortals would preferably stay at 3+ armour but get a points drop, or maybe a T bump (they used to be T5 afterall) But it was a mistake to just port over old stats in an edition that is seemingly built from the ground up.
I think that Marine durability has been reduced massively due to the new AP system (or more, how much Games Workshop gave away AP to high volume fire weapons), and in response, the increased reliance on invulnerable saves to create a durable unit, such as with Custodes, Drukhari and currently IK with rotate Ion Shields. Really, I think that a 3+ save should be more reliable, and I wouldn't want to see the response to be just to reduce their points cost. But I'm not sure what other changes can realistically happen at the minute. I also say this as a primarily Necron player, who knows all too well how bad a 3+ save really is.
I think GW missed the opportunity with the AP system to give some units a 1+ armour, like Terminators. Marines could then have 2+ saves and the problem would be solved.
Non-Marine MEQs (that's an oxymoron) like Immortals would preferably stay at 3+ armour but get a points drop, or maybe a T bump (they used to be T5 afterall)
But it was a mistake to just port over old stats in an edition that is seemingly built from the ground up.
-
That would fly in the face of the “everything can hurt everything” design philosophy they followed, though.
I think that Marine durability has been reduced massively due to the new AP system (or more, how much Games Workshop gave away AP to high volume fire weapons), and in response, the increased reliance on invulnerable saves to create a durable unit, such as with Custodes, Drukhari and currently IK with rotate Ion Shields. Really, I think that a 3+ save should be more reliable, and I wouldn't want to see the response to be just to reduce their points cost. But I'm not sure what other changes can realistically happen at the minute. I also say this as a primarily Necron player, who knows all too well how bad a 3+ save really is.
I think GW missed the opportunity with the AP system to give some units a 1+ armour, like Terminators. Marines could then have 2+ saves and the problem would be solved.
Non-Marine MEQs (that's an oxymoron) like Immortals would preferably stay at 3+ armour but get a points drop, or maybe a T bump (they used to be T5 afterall)
But it was a mistake to just port over old stats in an edition that is seemingly built from the ground up.
-
That would fly in the face of the “everything can hurt everything” design philosophy they followed, though.
Not really. Everything can hurt everything would still hold true. A 1+ still fails on a nat 1, and T5 would just be harder to wound for some armies (namely S4 shooting ones).
I think that Marine durability has been reduced massively due to the new AP system (or more, how much Games Workshop gave away AP to high volume fire weapons), and in response, the increased reliance on invulnerable saves to create a durable unit, such as with Custodes, Drukhari and currently IK with rotate Ion Shields. Really, I think that a 3+ save should be more reliable, and I wouldn't want to see the response to be just to reduce their points cost. But I'm not sure what other changes can realistically happen at the minute. I also say this as a primarily Necron player, who knows all too well how bad a 3+ save really is.
I think GW missed the opportunity with the AP system to give some units a 1+ armour, like Terminators. Marines could then have 2+ saves and the problem would be solved. Non-Marine MEQs (that's an oxymoron) like Immortals would preferably stay at 3+ armour but get a points drop, or maybe a T bump (they used to be T5 afterall) But it was a mistake to just port over old stats in an edition that is seemingly built from the ground up.
-
That would fly in the face of the “everything can hurt everything” design philosophy they followed, though.
I don't know what you mean. If people are removing Marines wholesale, it means they have AP weapons, lots of shots, or both. Giving them +1 to their armour save wouldn't really change this, but it wouldn't be so dramatic and they would live a bit more often against no AP weapons.
I think that Marine durability has been reduced massively due to the new AP system (or more, how much Games Workshop gave away AP to high volume fire weapons), and in response, the increased reliance on invulnerable saves to create a durable unit, such as with Custodes, Drukhari and currently IK with rotate Ion Shields. Really, I think that a 3+ save should be more reliable, and I wouldn't want to see the response to be just to reduce their points cost. But I'm not sure what other changes can realistically happen at the minute. I also say this as a primarily Necron player, who knows all too well how bad a 3+ save really is.
I think GW missed the opportunity with the AP system to give some units a 1+ armour, like Terminators. Marines could then have 2+ saves and the problem would be solved.
Non-Marine MEQs (that's an oxymoron) like Immortals would preferably stay at 3+ armour but get a points drop, or maybe a T bump (they used to be T5 afterall)
But it was a mistake to just port over old stats in an edition that is seemingly built from the ground up.
-
Yeah, that might be a change that they could have made, but it would be the kind of change that would have to have been made at the beginning of the edition, not 18 months into it. Really, I'm just trying to guess the kind of change that would appear in Chapter Approved that would be good enough to make these armies playable with the units that you would expect them to run, and also realistic and within the possibilities of being included in a book designed to provide extra rules, complexity and balance to every army in the game, and not to overshadow the codex of those armies. Kind of coming up short though, so I would guess it's just going to be some points reductions until I can think of something a little more likely.
Doesn't the CP regenartion still work the same it does before, but you can only get 1CP per turn. So while less efficient each way to regen CP is still giving a chance to get a CP back. And while not as good as getting 4-6+CP per turn, it seem still valuable enough to run. Or am I missing something?
The IG is still going to be used for chaff duty alone and the starter CP. And a BA cpt killing an important target may still be worth using. Am sure people are going to test it out.
I think that Marine durability has been reduced massively due to the new AP system (or more, how much Games Workshop gave away AP to high volume fire weapons), and in response, the increased reliance on invulnerable saves to create a durable unit, such as with Custodes, Drukhari and currently IK with rotate Ion Shields. Really, I think that a 3+ save should be more reliable, and I wouldn't want to see the response to be just to reduce their points cost. But I'm not sure what other changes can realistically happen at the minute. I also say this as a primarily Necron player, who knows all too well how bad a 3+ save really is.
I think GW missed the opportunity with the AP system to give some units a 1+ armour, like Terminators. Marines could then have 2+ saves and the problem would be solved.
Non-Marine MEQs (that's an oxymoron) like Immortals would preferably stay at 3+ armour but get a points drop, or maybe a T bump (they used to be T5 afterall)
But it was a mistake to just port over old stats in an edition that is seemingly built from the ground up.
-
That would fly in the face of the “everything can hurt everything” design philosophy they followed, though.
I don't know what you mean. If people are removing Marines wholesale, it means they have AP weapons, lots of shots, or both. Giving them +1 to their armour save wouldn't really change this, but it wouldn't be so dramatic
-
I mean that a 1+ save would prevent AP- weapons being able to kill a unit so wouldn’t fit their design philosophy.
I think that Marine durability has been reduced massively due to the new AP system (or more, how much Games Workshop gave away AP to high volume fire weapons), and in response, the increased reliance on invulnerable saves to create a durable unit, such as with Custodes, Drukhari and currently IK with rotate Ion Shields. Really, I think that a 3+ save should be more reliable, and I wouldn't want to see the response to be just to reduce their points cost. But I'm not sure what other changes can realistically happen at the minute. I also say this as a primarily Necron player, who knows all too well how bad a 3+ save really is.
I think GW missed the opportunity with the AP system to give some units a 1+ armour, like Terminators. Marines could then have 2+ saves and the problem would be solved.
Non-Marine MEQs (that's an oxymoron) like Immortals would preferably stay at 3+ armour but get a points drop, or maybe a T bump (they used to be T5 afterall)
But it was a mistake to just port over old stats in an edition that is seemingly built from the ground up.
-
That would fly in the face of the “everything can hurt everything” design philosophy they followed, though.
I don't know what you mean. If people are removing Marines wholesale, it means they have AP weapons, lots of shots, or both. Giving them +1 to their armour save wouldn't really change this, but it wouldn't be so dramatic
-
I mean that a 1+ save would prevent AP- weapons being able to kill a unit so wouldn’t fit their design philosophy.
Except they already have a rule that says 1s always fail for armour saves for when 2+ saves are sitting in cover.
Darsath wrote: Really, I'm just trying to guess the kind of change that would appear in Chapter Approved that would be good enough to make these armies playable.
Points reductions only, pretty much. The issue I see with this is that it just shifts the meta. Units that don't get dramatic point decreases will either stay on the shelf, or take the spot of units that are now unplayable but become so with a points drop
I mean that a 1+ save would prevent AP- weapons being able to kill a unit so wouldn’t fit their design philosophy.
Except they already have a rule that says 1s always fail for armour saves for when 2+ saves are sitting in cover.
Exactly, 1s would still fail, so Terminators having a 1+ armour would play exactly as they do now against AP- weapons. It just gives them a better chance against AP-1 and up weapons
Darsath wrote: Really, I'm just trying to guess the kind of change that would appear in Chapter Approved that would be good enough to make these armies playable.
Points reductions only, pretty much. The issue I see with this is that it just shifts the meta. Units that don't get dramatic point decreases will either stay on the shelf, or take the spot of units that are now unplayable but become so with a points drop
-
Or, more dramatically, we get to the point where Warhammer Fantasy ended up, where the difference of 1 point for a unit was considered a large difference (since everything just continued to go down in points and instead of up in effectiveness). Hopefully we don't end up with half points again. Those were silly.
We are 3 days from "Orktober" as GW put it. White Dwarf has zero leaks, sneak peaks or anything at all related to orkz except a fluff piece on a grot themed army somebody made. The FAQ and Errata don't even mention orkz....sweet.
Points reductions only, pretty much. The issue I see with this is that it just shifts the meta. Units that don't get dramatic point decreases will either stay on the shelf, or take the spot of units that are now unplayable but become so with a points drop
I never printed the whole CA, so maybe this is a dumb question, but did any units in the last CA have their points cost lowered? Because the GK stuff only got points hiked comparing to the index stuff.
Points reductions only, pretty much. The issue I see with this is that it just shifts the meta. Units that don't get dramatic point decreases will either stay on the shelf, or take the spot of units that are now unplayable but become so with a points drop
I never printed the whole CA, so maybe this is a dumb question, but did any units in the last CA have their points cost lowered? Because the GK stuff only got points hiked comparing to the index stuff.
A lot of stuff did actually.
In general the story goes like this:
FAQs hammer down the worst offenders
CA slaps the minor offenders and props up the models that need an hand.
Expecting buffs from a FAQ is asking for disappointment.
yeah, but when the last CA came out. GK got slaped too, each FAQ the same happened, and no one can claim that anything GK had warrented a nerf. When March FAQ came GK weren't winning anything, not tournaments big or small, not even casual games. They maybe won stuff in narrative, but there you can litterly write in that this faction wins at the end of the game.
SemperMortis wrote: We are 3 days from "Orktober" as GW put it. White Dwarf has zero leaks, sneak peaks or anything at all related to orkz except a fluff piece on a grot themed army somebody made. The FAQ and Errata don't even mention orkz....sweet.
FAQs and Erratas for an army getting a new codex next month. Yeah, that makes sense.
Darsath wrote: Really, I'm just trying to guess the kind of change that would appear in Chapter Approved that would be good enough to make these armies playable.
Points reductions only, pretty much. The issue I see with this is that it just shifts the meta. Units that don't get dramatic point decreases will either stay on the shelf, or take the spot of units that are now unplayable but become so with a points drop
I mean that a 1+ save would prevent AP- weapons being able to kill a unit so wouldn’t fit their design philosophy.
Except they already have a rule that says 1s always fail for armour saves for when 2+ saves are sitting in cover.
Exactly, 1s would still fail, so Terminators having a 1+ armour would play exactly as they do now against AP- weapons. It just gives them a better chance against AP-1 and up weapons
Martel732 wrote: No, IG is going to be a bigger issue than ever. But power armor is supposed to get some love in CA.
IG basically won't change much beyond replacing the BA or Castellan in most top level Imperial lists to give a second detachment of cheap CP generation to support the combo unit over trying to support two of said unit.
The problem there is that IG still needs someone to bring the heavy armor. The current IG+Knights list works because you can hide *most* of the battalion in cover and at their points it's not too terrible to have them sit out and guard your CP regen warlord.
Now (with the FAQ), the CP regen isn't very powerful and you could just take the CP regen trait on the marines. You could double-bat/brigade the guard, but at that point the guard need to be able to lift their own weight. Which means getting engaged. Which means dying in droves. If half your list is 4+/5+ armor saves, than it doesn't matter that the other half of the list is 3+/4++.
Martel732 wrote: No, IG is going to be a bigger issue than ever. But power armor is supposed to get some love in CA.
IG basically won't change much beyond replacing the BA or Castellan in most top level Imperial lists to give a second detachment of cheap CP generation to support the combo unit over trying to support two of said unit.
The problem there is that IG still needs someone to bring the heavy armor. The current IG+Knights list works because you can hide *most* of the battalion in cover and at their points it's not too terrible to have them sit out and guard your CP regen warlord.
Now (with the FAQ), the CP regen isn't very powerful and you could just take the CP regen trait on the marines. You could double-bat/brigade the guard, but at that point the guard need to be able to lift their own weight. Which means getting engaged. Which means dying in droves. If half your list is 4+/5+ armor saves, than it doesn't matter that the other half of the list is 3+/4++.
Good points! Basically just shows how the CP battery has fixed and the Guard + X lists aren't nearly as bad as people have been screaming they will continue to be.
Martel732 wrote: No, IG is going to be a bigger issue than ever. But power armor is supposed to get some love in CA.
IG basically won't change much beyond replacing the BA or Castellan in most top level Imperial lists to give a second detachment of cheap CP generation to support the combo unit over trying to support two of said unit.
The problem there is that IG still needs someone to bring the heavy armor. The current IG+Knights list works because you can hide *most* of the battalion in cover and at their points it's not too terrible to have them sit out and guard your CP regen warlord.
Now (with the FAQ), the CP regen isn't very powerful and you could just take the CP regen trait on the marines. You could double-bat/brigade the guard, but at that point the guard need to be able to lift their own weight. Which means getting engaged. Which means dying in droves. If half your list is 4+/5+ armor saves, than it doesn't matter that the other half of the list is 3+/4++.
Good points! Basically just shows how the CP battery has fixed and the Guard + X lists aren't nearly as bad as people have been screaming they will continue to be.
They might be weaker but they are more mandatory than ever before thanks to GW recosting strategums on the assumption that everyone is running Guard CP detachments.
Thats the worst solution to the problem. At this point the only way this endorsement of IG models could be more obvious is if they released a box set with all the CP battery models in 1 box.
It also sees marines and Bobby G take a nerf to go 3 nerfs from 3 possible. #500 points in CA2018 to go 4 nerfs from 4.
Martel732 wrote: No, IG is going to be a bigger issue than ever. But power armor is supposed to get some love in CA.
IG basically won't change much beyond replacing the BA or Castellan in most top level Imperial lists to give a second detachment of cheap CP generation to support the combo unit over trying to support two of said unit.
The problem there is that IG still needs someone to bring the heavy armor. The current IG+Knights list works because you can hide *most* of the battalion in cover and at their points it's not too terrible to have them sit out and guard your CP regen warlord.
Now (with the FAQ), the CP regen isn't very powerful and you could just take the CP regen trait on the marines. You could double-bat/brigade the guard, but at that point the guard need to be able to lift their own weight. Which means getting engaged. Which means dying in droves. If half your list is 4+/5+ armor saves, than it doesn't matter that the other half of the list is 3+/4++.
Good points! Basically just shows how the CP battery has fixed and the Guard + X lists aren't nearly as bad as people have been screaming they will continue to be.
They might be weaker but they are more mandatory than ever before thanks to GW recosting strategums on the assumption that everyone is running Guard CP detachments.
Thats the worst solution to the problem. At this point the only way this endorsement of IG models could be more obvious is if they released a box set with all the CP battery models in 1 box.
It also sees marines and Bobby G take a nerf to go 3 nerfs from 3 possible. #500 points in CA2018 to go 4 nerfs from 4.
The more Guard you bring to add in more CP, the less other stuff you're running and the weaker the mix becomes. This is an issue how?
Armies are more than a sum of their parts, a Guard brigade isn't weak on its own and provides a dimension that armies like Imperial Knights, Custodes, and various Space Marines chapters don't have.
I don't think GW is pushing people to buy more Guard - I think that the Bullgryn nerf and Chapter Approved are actually going to shake up Guard lists quite a lot - but until Chapter Approved arrives I think we will see a lot of Catachan brigades.
Because they're good. The CP doesn't hurt, though.
Martel732 wrote: No, IG is going to be a bigger issue than ever. But power armor is supposed to get some love in CA.
IG basically won't change much beyond replacing the BA or Castellan in most top level Imperial lists to give a second detachment of cheap CP generation to support the combo unit over trying to support two of said unit.
The problem there is that IG still needs someone to bring the heavy armor. The current IG+Knights list works because you can hide *most* of the battalion in cover and at their points it's not too terrible to have them sit out and guard your CP regen warlord.
Now (with the FAQ), the CP regen isn't very powerful and you could just take the CP regen trait on the marines. You could double-bat/brigade the guard, but at that point the guard need to be able to lift their own weight. Which means getting engaged. Which means dying in droves. If half your list is 4+/5+ armor saves, than it doesn't matter that the other half of the list is 3+/4++.
Good points! Basically just shows how the CP battery has fixed and the Guard + X lists aren't nearly as bad as people have been screaming they will continue to be.
They might be weaker but they are more mandatory than ever before thanks to GW recosting strategums on the assumption that everyone is running Guard CP detachments.
Thats the worst solution to the problem. At this point the only way this endorsement of IG models could be more obvious is if they released a box set with all the CP battery models in 1 box.
It also sees marines and Bobby G take a nerf to go 3 nerfs from 3 possible. #500 points in CA2018 to go 4 nerfs from 4.
The more Guard you bring to add in more CP, the less other stuff you're running and the weaker the mix becomes. This is an issue how?
Guard are not weak they are quirt effective at CC as Catachan, something they will spend a lot more time in due to the fly changes.
Also mono lists of knights now all need that guard CP as GW recosted knight strategums to force you into taking guard.
Even under soup lists I'd like to see some variety. Maybe some Mechanicus or Space Marines. Maybe we'll see Grey Knights actually fit into an ally role (in reality the slot they'd be the easiest to see in competitively), but currently I'm not so sure we'll see any real mix ups until Chapter Approved. However, that is quite some time to remain with the game in the state it currently is, and I hope it doesn't become too stale for some people to power through.
SemperMortis wrote: We are 3 days from "Orktober" as GW put it. White Dwarf has zero leaks, sneak peaks or anything at all related to orkz except a fluff piece on a grot themed army somebody made. The FAQ and Errata don't even mention orkz....sweet.
FAQs and Erratas for an army getting a new codex next month. Yeah, that makes sense.
SemperMortis wrote: We are 3 days from "Orktober" as GW put it. White Dwarf has zero leaks, sneak peaks or anything at all related to orkz except a fluff piece on a grot themed army somebody made. The FAQ and Errata don't even mention orkz....sweet.
FAQs and Erratas for an army getting a new codex next month. Yeah, that makes sense.
And the October White Dwarf?
You've figured it out, they canceled the Ork codex.
Martel732 wrote: No, IG is going to be a bigger issue than ever. But power armor is supposed to get some love in CA.
IG basically won't change much beyond replacing the BA or Castellan in most top level Imperial lists to give a second detachment of cheap CP generation to support the combo unit over trying to support two of said unit.
The problem there is that IG still needs someone to bring the heavy armor. The current IG+Knights list works because you can hide *most* of the battalion in cover and at their points it's not too terrible to have them sit out and guard your CP regen warlord.
Now (with the FAQ), the CP regen isn't very powerful and you could just take the CP regen trait on the marines. You could double-bat/brigade the guard, but at that point the guard need to be able to lift their own weight. Which means getting engaged. Which means dying in droves. If half your list is 4+/5+ armor saves, than it doesn't matter that the other half of the list is 3+/4++.
Good points! Basically just shows how the CP battery has fixed and the Guard + X lists aren't nearly as bad as people have been screaming they will continue to be.
Incorrect - everything is relative. IG still have the best command point per detachment. The super list with BA castellan and brigade will get a minor nerf. Can easily bring 20+ CP to a game though - which in all actuality is enough to still dominate with. They will just stop playin every gaking stratagem because they can. They can just replace the castellan with 3x command russ and still blow people off the table and afford to spam BA captains. This is a very uninspired FAQ that will do little to affect what armies are at the top.
If they replace the castellan with 3x command russes, then the fix has worked perfectly. 3 command russes are not even remotely comparable in power to a castellan.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Who says the Castellan will be replaced by more Guard?
If anything, it'll be the Smash Captain that gets replaced.
And then the lists will be glorified gunlines, without assault elements, which has been demonstrated that it simply is not competitive enough.
Except with the change to FLY only applying in the mocement phase captain smash lost a big chuck of his selling point of being able to charge the big stuff and ignoring screens it's him not the castellan that will be dropped for more guard.
Flooding the board with mass infantry squads is now even more effective than it has been since 8th dropped.
Spoletta wrote: If they replace the castellan with 3x command russes, then the fix has worked perfectly. 3 command russes are not even remotely comparable in power to a castellan.
That is false. In some cases, they are MUCH better.
Galas wrote: I have no problem killing command russes with mi lass cannon predators or Plasma-Cannon devastators.
One 3++ Castellan? Hmm... not that much.
I dont use ap dependent shooting anymore. You lost when you brought predators and paid marine prices for lascannons.
You're BS3+. You should be paying Marine prices for lascannons.
Degradation doesn't mean the item should cost less. Christ, I can't even imagine your whining if I paid BS5/6+ prices for Lascannons or Battle Cannons on LRBTs because of degrading stats.
I didn't mention degradation. You're making gak up now.
Marine gear is over costed across the board for the most part. A Las cannon certainly isnt worth 25 pts with all the invulns and quantum shields in the game.
Good thing the rest of the IG codex sucks right? Get real.
I think you don't understand.
Fact - the Castellan/BA/IG list has severely reduced CP.
Fact - with a 3 detachment limit they either use the current state of CP or lose one of their elements. If they remove all the BA for an IG battalion they STILL don't get to the same level of CP as before and they have 200 points to replace the role the captains had.
The BA were there for a reason and you can watch some of the stream to get an idea why.
Whether or not the fly rules change it up so that dropping them is a non-issue is a different problem.
Martel732 wrote: I didn't mention degradation. You're making gak up now.
Marine gear is over costed across the board for the most part. A Las cannon certainly isnt worth 25 pts with all the invulns and quantum shields in the game.
If Marine gear is overcosted, then so is gear for Scions or Veterans in the Guard book.
And if a Lascannon isn't worth 25pts on a Marine why should it be worth 20 on a Guard unit?
Martel732 wrote: I didn't mention degradation. You're making gak up now.
Marine gear is over costed across the board for the most part. A Las cannon certainly isnt worth 25 pts with all the invulns and quantum shields in the game.
If Marine gear is overcosted, then so is gear for Scions or Veterans in the Guard book.
And if a Lascannon isn't worth 25pts on a Marine why should it be worth 20 on a Guard unit?
There is definitely an issue with cost on some things in the Marine codex (why in the Flip-Belt is a Bolt Carbine fifteen points despite being the same statline as the Auto bolt rifle for example), but the issue is more that the Lascannon is bad at it's job of killing tanks when compared to things like Autocannons or even Plasma.
Martel732 wrote: I didn't mention degradation. You're making gak up now.
Marine gear is over costed across the board for the most part. A Las cannon certainly isnt worth 25 pts with all the invulns and quantum shields in the game.
If Marine gear is overcosted, then so is gear for Scions or Veterans in the Guard book.
And if a Lascannon isn't worth 25pts on a Marine why should it be worth 20 on a Guard unit?
There is definitely an issue with cost on some things in the Marine codex (why in the Flip-Belt is a Bolt Carbine fifteen points despite being the same statline as the Auto bolt rifle for example), but the issue is more that the Lascannon is bad at it's job of killing tanks when compared to things like Autocannons or even Plasma.
I mean, we've had this kind of thing being an issue for years. It's not going to get better until we start seeing some kind of "shots continue in a line" perk for weapons like Lascannons and Railguns.
Martel732 wrote: I didn't mention degradation. You're making gak up now.
Marine gear is over costed across the board for the most part. A Las cannon certainly isnt worth 25 pts with all the invulns and quantum shields in the game.
If Marine gear is overcosted, then so is gear for Scions or Veterans in the Guard book.
And if a Lascannon isn't worth 25pts on a Marine why should it be worth 20 on a Guard unit?
There is definitely an issue with cost on some things in the Marine codex (why in the Flip-Belt is a Bolt Carbine fifteen points despite being the same statline as the Auto bolt rifle for example), but the issue is more that the Lascannon is bad at it's job of killing tanks when compared to things like Autocannons or even Plasma.
I mean, we've had this kind of thing being an issue for years. It's not going to get better until we start seeing some kind of "shots continue in a line" perk for weapons like Lascannons and Railguns.
Agreed. That said, a problem is a problem, and the lascannon isn't worth as much as we pay for it as it is right now. Hopefully they'll fix it in the future.
Martel732 wrote: I didn't mention degradation. You're making gak up now.
Marine gear is over costed across the board for the most part. A Las cannon certainly isnt worth 25 pts with all the invulns and quantum shields in the game.
If Marine gear is overcosted, then so is gear for Scions or Veterans in the Guard book.
And if a Lascannon isn't worth 25pts on a Marine why should it be worth 20 on a Guard unit?
There is definitely an issue with cost on some things in the Marine codex (why in the Flip-Belt is a Bolt Carbine fifteen points despite being the same statline as the Auto bolt rifle for example), but the issue is more that the Lascannon is bad at it's job of killing tanks when compared to things like Autocannons or even Plasma.
I mean, we've had this kind of thing being an issue for years. It's not going to get better until we start seeing some kind of "shots continue in a line" perk for weapons like Lascannons and Railguns.
Agreed. That said, a problem is a problem, and the lascannon isn't worth as much as we pay for it as it is right now. Hopefully they'll fix it in the future.
But again, that's not the issue specific to what a certain individual was complaining about. The initial comment was him talking down to someone saying they'd run lascannon Predators against LRBT Command Tanks because of the points spent on lascannons.
He continually talks about how hard Marines have it while ignoring that he does get a stat bonus that others don't.
Martel732 wrote: I didn't mention degradation. You're making gak up now.
Marine gear is over costed across the board for the most part. A Las cannon certainly isnt worth 25 pts with all the invulns and quantum shields in the game.
If Marine gear is overcosted, then so is gear for Scions or Veterans in the Guard book.
And if a Lascannon isn't worth 25pts on a Marine why should it be worth 20 on a Guard unit?
There is definitely an issue with cost on some things in the Marine codex (why in the Flip-Belt is a Bolt Carbine fifteen points despite being the same statline as the Auto bolt rifle for example), but the issue is more that the Lascannon is bad at it's job of killing tanks when compared to things like Autocannons or even Plasma.
I mean, we've had this kind of thing being an issue for years. It's not going to get better until we start seeing some kind of "shots continue in a line" perk for weapons like Lascannons and Railguns.
Agreed. That said, a problem is a problem, and the lascannon isn't worth as much as we pay for it as it is right now. Hopefully they'll fix it in the future.
But again, that's not the issue specific to what a certain individual was complaining about. The initial comment was him talking down to someone saying they'd run lascannon Predators against LRBT Command Tanks because of the points spent on lascannons.
He continually talks about how hard Marines have it while ignoring that he does get a stat bonus that others don't.
A stat bonus tied with an increased points cost. It's not like we're getting this stuff for free. We don't even get the Lascannon for the same cost as the Guard despite paying for that stat bonus already meaning we pay for it twice on our heavy weapons. Once on the model carrying it, and a second time on the gun.
Aren't IG lascannons superior to marine ones, by the sole virtue of its carrier costing 1/3 the pts, and everything IG being in general on the lower points cost part of the cost curve?
A single unit of GK armed stock with SB, costs more then a whole battalion of IG. And if the GK players buys in to rhinos or special weapons, it becomes even crazier.
A stat bonus tied with an increased points cost. It's not like we're getting this stuff for free. We don't even get the Lascannon for the same cost as the Guard despite paying for that stat bonus already meaning we pay for it twice on our heavy weapons. Once on the model carrying it, and a second time on the gun.
I can see why someone would be salty about that.
I would love to be sympathetic to you about that...but I can't be. I pay Marine prices for Plasma and Meltaguns on my two BS3+ units(Veterans and Scions). Yeah, Scions/Veterans are still cheaper than a Marine but it doesn't change that I'm paying twice for the same deal. Once on the model carrying it and a second time on the gun itself.
People wanted this silliness to be a thing.
Karol wrote:Aren't IG lascannons superior to marine ones, by the sole virtue of its carrier costing 1/3 the pts, and everything IG being in general on the lower points cost part of the cost curve?
It doesn't have a single carrier. It requires two models in an Infantry, Veteran, or Command Squad to be given up in exchange for them forming a Heavy Weapons Team that then pays for their gun.
A single unit of GK armed stock with SB, costs more then a whole battalion of IG. And if the GK players buys in to rhinos or special weapons, it becomes even crazier.
And that single unit can Combat Squad into two units while that whole battalion of IG are stuck with whatever their initial squad setup is.
I'm not blind to the plight of GK but let's not pretend that the elite army paying more for their units than the horde army should be a shocking thing.
But the differences are big, plus it is not like you can buy less then 2 dudes for a hvy weapon team or less then 10 for an IG squad, so your buying the dudes anyway.
saying you need 2 dudes for a hvy weapon team, would be as If I suddenly wanted 3 man interceptor squads.
You can use normal marines in the example too. And lascannon section, not saying a lascannon is the end be of weapons in 8th, is more efficient for IG then for marines. The very fact you can get more of them, means they are better. Growth of anything in w40k is geometric. So having 6 lascannons is more then twice as good then having 3.
also on a more realistical basis. IG can actually use lascannons on their units, it won't cripple their army. Marines on the other hand either use scouts, and those don't have access to lascannons. Non of the primaris have access to them either. Devastators are played by marine players, byt hey are always armed with heavy bolters.
And yes I know that mortar hwt are better then lascannon ones. Still IG armies can, if they want to, use lascannons on their dudes. Marines do not have the option.
Karol wrote: But the differences are big, plus it is not like you can buy less then 2 dudes for a hvy weapon team or less then 10 for an IG squad, so your buying the dudes anyway.
saying you need 2 dudes for a hvy weapon team, would be as If I suddenly wanted 3 man interceptor squads.
I'm pretty sure you missed the point there. It's not a 4 pt model being swapped out, it's two bodies totaling 8 points being swapped out into one model that has the same statline barring the Wound value being bumped up by 1.
You can use normal marines in the example too. And lascannon section, not saying a lascannon is the end be of weapons in 8th, is more efficient for IG then for marines. The very fact you can get more of them, means they are better. Growth of anything in w40k is geometric. So having 6 lascannons is more then twice as good then having 3.
also on a more realistical basis. IG can actually use lascannons on their units, it won't cripple their army. Marines on the other hand either use scouts, and those don't have access to lascannons. Non of the primaris have access to them either. Devastators are played by marine players, byt hey are always armed with heavy bolters.
And yes I know that mortar hwt are better then lascannon ones. Still IG armies can, if they want to, use lascannons on their dudes. Marines do not have the option.
Sure they do. They're called "Tactical Squads".
If you want to take them? They're there. Not my fault the option is less than appealing--but the same thing goes for Scions or Conscripts. If I take either of those units as my Troops--no lascannons on either one.
Karol wrote: But the differences are big, plus it is not like you can buy less then 2 dudes for a hvy weapon team or less then 10 for an IG squad, so your buying the dudes anyway.
saying you need 2 dudes for a hvy weapon team, would be as If I suddenly wanted 3 man interceptor squads.
I'm pretty sure you missed the point there. It's not a 4 pt model being swapped out, it's two bodies totaling 8 points being swapped out into one model that has the same statline barring the Wound value being bumped up by 1.
Yeah, but the team gets to have both the lascannon and a lasgun. The only tangible differences would be getting shot with a D2 weapon, or failing morale just right.
Probably depends on your build, as at larger point values you can get more value out of commander buffs. But in my army, for example, I'm doing a Chapter Master plus Iieutenant buff, which puts a Lascannon at more than double the damage output of a plain old Guard 4+ to hit. (Vs. Standard vehicle profile).
Or for funsies we could compare to Salamander-Tactical-Lascannons which would give 236% damage output over a BS4+, at no additional HQ costs.
A guard Lascannon is 60 points on an Infantry Squad
Your Salamander buffed lascannon costs 224 with everything basic. (Captain, Lieutenant, Tactical Squad with Lascannon)
At 236% more damage your less cost effective then a bunch of basic lascannon infantry squads without Regiment bonus or Orders.
(ofc aura's can benefit more then 1 lascannon but this is not counting any buffs/traits for the Guard which will bring their effectiveness up aswell)
Ordana wrote: A guard Lascannon is 60 points on an Infantry Squad
Your Salamander buffed lascannon costs 224 with everything basic. (Captain, Lieutenant, Tactical Squad with Lascannon)
At 236% more damage your less cost effective then a bunch of basic lascannon infantry squads without Regiment bonus or Orders.
(ofc aura's can benefit more then 1 lascannon but this is not counting any buffs/traits for the Guard which will bring their effectiveness up aswell)
Whut?
Salamanders chapter tactics are free. A Tac Squad plus Lascannon is 90. Salamanders trait is reroll one hit and one wound per squad per phase (shooting and assault). No HQs are required in this scenario. Cost is just the squad+weapon, Lascannon effectiveness is 236% over base Guard.
There are two parts to my post. First part is: scenario, no faction traits. Second Part is using faction trait for free buffs. Yes, as I alluded to, a single squad plus Lt. And Captain would be a poor return on points spent, but if you're using to buff the rest of a 2000 point army, the value increases dramatically.
Now, of course Guard can bring their own buffs, but they can't buff nearly as much afaik. In fact, even rerolling 1s for Guard isn't as effective as rerolling 1s as Space Marines since they naturally have 3/4ths the accuracy to begin with.
Ordana wrote: A guard Lascannon is 60 points on an Infantry Squad
Your Salamander buffed lascannon costs 224 with everything basic. (Captain, Lieutenant, Tactical Squad with Lascannon)
At 236% more damage your less cost effective then a bunch of basic lascannon infantry squads without Regiment bonus or Orders.
(ofc aura's can benefit more then 1 lascannon but this is not counting any buffs/traits for the Guard which will bring their effectiveness up aswell)
Whut?
Salamanders chapter tactics are free. A Tac Squad plus Lascannon is 90. Salamanders trait is reroll one hit and one wound per squad per phase (shooting and assault). No HQs are required in this scenario. Cost is just the squad+weapon, Lascannon effectiveness is 236% over base Guard.
There are two parts to my post. First part is: scenario, no faction traits. Second Part is using faction trait for free buffs. Yes, as I alluded to, a single squad plus Lt. And Captain would be a poor return on points spent, but if you're using to buff the rest of a 2000 point army, the value increases dramatically.
Now, of course Guard can bring their own buffs, but they can't buff nearly as much afaik. In fact, even rerolling 1s for Guard isn't as effective as rerolling 1s as Space Marines since they naturally have 3/4ths the accuracy to begin with.
My bad, derped on the Salamander trait. Yes, under ideal conditions of firing only 1 gun a Salamander Tactical Squad is 58% more effective then a Cadian Infantry Squad with Take Aim for the same cost.
But that is ideal situations for the Salamander.
Still tho, your right. Its possible for a SM Lascannon to be better then a Guard Lascannon. In certain situation.
Ordana wrote: A guard Lascannon is 60 points on an Infantry Squad
Your Salamander buffed lascannon costs 224 with everything basic. (Captain, Lieutenant, Tactical Squad with Lascannon)
At 236% more damage your less cost effective then a bunch of basic lascannon infantry squads without Regiment bonus or Orders.
(ofc aura's can benefit more then 1 lascannon but this is not counting any buffs/traits for the Guard which will bring their effectiveness up aswell)
Whut?
Salamanders chapter tactics are free. A Tac Squad plus Lascannon is 90. Salamanders trait is reroll one hit and one wound per squad per phase (shooting and assault). No HQs are required in this scenario. Cost is just the squad+weapon, Lascannon effectiveness is 236% over base Guard.
There are two parts to my post. First part is: scenario, no faction traits. Second Part is using faction trait for free buffs. Yes, as I alluded to, a single squad plus Lt. And Captain would be a poor return on points spent, but if you're using to buff the rest of a 2000 point army, the value increases dramatically.
Now, of course Guard can bring their own buffs, but they can't buff nearly as much afaik. In fact, even rerolling 1s for Guard isn't as effective as rerolling 1s as Space Marines since they naturally have 3/4ths the accuracy to begin with.
My bad, derped on the Salamander trait. Yes, under ideal conditions of firing only 1 gun a Salamander Tactical Squad is 58% more effective then a Cadian Infantry Squad with Take Aim for the same cost.
But that is ideal situations for the Salamander.
Still tho, your right. Its possible for a SM Lascannon to be better then a Guard Lascannon. In certain situation.
Well, I'd argue that in 8th, That's the Space Marines whole MO. They way they compete is maximising their buffs. I think the "certain situation" is basically assumed by the points costs.
Galas wrote: I have no problem killing command russes with mi lass cannon predators or Plasma-Cannon devastators.
One 3++ Castellan? Hmm... not that much.
I dont use ap dependent shooting anymore. You lost when you brought predators and paid marine prices for lascannons.
You're BS3+. You should be paying Marine prices for lascannons.
Degradation doesn't mean the item should cost less. Christ, I can't even imagine your whining if I paid BS5/6+ prices for Lascannons or Battle Cannons on LRBTs because of degrading stats.
That would only matter if those platforms cost the same. For example, a Lascannon will always be better in an Infantry squad than a Tactical or Sternguard squad. Price differences really shouldn't exist.
Yes, they should. Ideally, all weapons should be costed for every single unit, because you can't put the same cost to a meele weapon for a unit with deepstrike than for a slow unit than for a character. Yeah, the deepstrike unit pays for the cost of deepstriking but if they have other options like shooting weapons then you end up with some options being overcosted or undercosted.
All weapons should be individually balanced and costed in the context of the unit that is wearing it. Of course thats difficult.
, thank the Emperor i didn't go ahead and expand my Raven Guard strike force in the way i was planning. (essentially using Reivers, terminators and some characters for a turn 1 charge from SftSs) - but i guess Reivers are more dead now than they were before 
