Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

blaktoof wrote:
The -1 to hit trait can be negated by getting to within 12".

That's hard to do without dying. I'm BA. I tried to do that against index lists and couldn't do it. It's not going to work now.

Bharring wrote:
... Or because Chapter Tactics are tactics that affect the members of the Chapter - but not necessarily the cars they drive.

... Or because Uthwe Wraithbone is affected by psyker energies because Wraithbone is a manifestation of the Warp itself.

... Or because vehicles piloted by prescient pilots are more likely to be affected by the pilots prescience than vehicles driven by cybernetically enhanced pilots are likely to have redundant or hardened systems built into the pilot themselves.

We could just dismiss it as "CWE therefore OP", certainly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If I put a metal plate in my foot, does that mean I can't get a flat tire on my car anymore?

Which means my Imperial Fists example still works. Try again.

Can we stop with the random fluff justifications for tactics to apply in some cases to vehicles and in others don't?

It is just a random rules inconsistence, don't try to pass it as some kind of "yeah they did this because of fluff"

"Ah yes, because Iron Hands no longer getting anything to make vehicles more durable makes sense".

Goalpost moved.

CWE doesn't have 'Ignores Cover' as an attribute. So neither get that on their vehicles. If they did, though, that sort of thing would require advanced optics and controls to allow the driver of a tank to pull it off. Something that CWE would have but Fists would not.

So moved goal posts, CWE *doesnt* have it. And someone upthread always explains why it would make more sense if CWE *did* have it.

What's the next goalpost?

Bharring wrote:
"Ah yes, because Iron Hands no longer getting anything to make vehicles more durable makes sense".

Goalpost moved.

CWE doesn't have 'Ignores Cover' as an attribute. So neither get that on their vehicles. If they did, though, that sort of thing would require advanced optics and controls to allow the driver of a tank to pull it off. Something that CWE would have but Fists would not.

So moved goal posts, CWE *doesnt* have it. And someone upthread always explains why it would make more sense if CWE *did* have it.

What's the next goalpost?

Iron Hands literally had it first with IWND on all vehicles. I never moved the goalposts.

It's not really random fluff. It was a concious decision when the first "modern" CTs were introduced (with SM in 6th). They existed long before, but CTs were meant to affect Battle Brothers fighting as Battle Brothers.

That's not a random fluff point. That's a central tennant in the introduction of the rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"Ah yes, because Iron Hands no longer getting anything to make vehicles more durable makes sense"

->

[Reasons why CWE should have it and IH should not]

->

[Ignores that] You didn't answer why IF doesn't have it on vehicles?

That's a goalpost move.

Bharring wrote:
It's not really random fluff. It was a concious decision when the first "modern" CTs were introduced (with SM in 6th). They existed long before, but CTs were meant to affect Battle Brothers fighting as Battle Brothers.

That's not a random fluff point. That's a central tennant in the introduction of the rule.

It doesn't follow any kind of fluff for the equivalents of Chapter and Legion tactics to not apply to vehicles but everything else ones (AM, IG, Eldar) does, just like it doesn't follow any kind of fluff to lose those bonuses when you are fighting alongside allies in the same detachment, is pure balance/rules interaction . But if you want to think it does, ok. Go ahead. I'm not gonna enter this nonsense again.

I think it wouldn't be as bad if the range was 18-20".

Would be hard to screen units outside of the -1 range and the ability to move and then shoot heavy weapons/assault and shoot assault weapons w/o a -2 would be really helpful.

Also the no stacking thing is pretty obvious. -2 and -3 are out there and are quite frustrating/good with how re-rolls and modifiers work.

Bharring wrote:
It's not really random fluff. It was a concious decision when the first "modern" CTs were introduced (with SM in 6th). They existed long before, but CTs were meant to affect Battle Brothers fighting as Battle Brothers.

That's not a random fluff point. That's a central tennant in the introduction of the rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"Ah yes, because Iron Hands no longer getting anything to make vehicles more durable makes sense"

->

[Reasons why CWE should have it and IH should not]

->

[Ignores that] You didn't answer why IF doesn't have it on vehicles?

That's a goalpost move.

It might as well be a random fluff point as there isn't a fluff justification for Marines and Chaos Marines not to get it, yet Eldar do.

I'm literally just using two examples as the main ones. One of which is Imperial Fists, who forget to ignore cover, and the inconsistency with Iron Hands dreads somehow being more survivable compared to the Predator. A guy bekng wired in doesnt just GIVE a FNP equivalent.

-Fluff reason why CWE get it but SM don't
-Fluff reason why CWE get it but SM don't
-Fluff reason why CWE get it but SM don't
-Fluff reason why CWE get it but SM don't

Response #1: Don't use random fluff to justify it!
Response #2: "there isn't a fluff justification for Marines and Chaos Marines not to get it, yet Eldar do"

Several were just given upthread.

I agree on the FnP on the Dread is a bit off, though. And removing it would be an unnecessary nerf.

I honestly think, balance wise, CTs overall should change. But the amount of gak that gets claimed in these threads...

Simplest solution is two fold and takes a que from the tyranids codex. 1) No trait stacks with any other ability. Takes out multiple minuses to hit hit problems, removes crazy FNP stacking. 2) retro the pre-eldar codexes that traits apply to everything in the detachment if properly battleforged. Just silly that every codex after eldar has had this but the older ones.

That fixes about any abuse scenario and keeps balance.

The CWE FNP already doesn't stack, explicitly.

But I think I agree with you, Buddha.

Personally I'd have put "-1 to hit at long range" as a basic game rule, and defined lone range as 18" (because 12" is too short and 24" is too long on a 4' table), would have further put a -1 (so -2 total) over 36" range.

then removed the army traits of -1 to hit and put them back on cover saves where such belong really in a D6 game (i.e. stuff you can get around by blasting the general area with something powerful)

@OP - this is the continuation apparently of your 40 page thread where you erroneously claimed that space marines are the worst codex.

I’m not trying to be a jerk. I just want want to know a few things.
1. Why do you play the game if everything about the games lack of balance etc makes you angry. There are other games? Checkers? Chess?
2. Have you ever heard of planned obsolescence. Is it possible that GW Knows that there are crappy balance issues and they want to see players buy new units or even change armies to try to find some kind of equilibrium within the constantly changing balance of the game?
3. Didn’t your chapter just get huge point reductions. The win button is even larger. If all you care about is having a whole bunch of new strategems that eldar have etc maybe you should play eldar?

leopard wrote:
Personally I'd have put "-1 to hit at long range" as a basic game rule, and defined lone range as 18" (because 12" is too short and 24" is too long on a 4' table), would have further put a -1 (so -2 total) over 36" range.

then removed the army traits of -1 to hit and put them back on cover saves where such belong really in a D6 game (i.e. stuff you can get around by blasting the general area with something powerful)

I would be happy with this. Perhaps have the associated faction trait turn the 18" into 12". It would make melee combat viable outside of reserves viable for more than just ultra-fast moving lock-ups, and help to alleviate the raw destructive potential of alpha strike armies.

 Fafnir wrote:

leopard wrote:
Personally I'd have put "-1 to hit at long range" as a basic game rule, and defined lone range as 18" (because 12" is too short and 24" is too long on a 4' table), would have further put a -1 (so -2 total) over 36" range.

then removed the army traits of -1 to hit and put them back on cover saves where such belong really in a D6 game (i.e. stuff you can get around by blasting the general area with something powerful)

I would be happy with this. Perhaps have the associated faction trait turn the 18" into 12". It would make melee combat viable outside of reserves viable for more than just ultra-fast moving lock-ups, and help to alleviate the raw destructive potential of alpha strike armies.

I dunno, I think Guard being effectively BS5+ at all times would kill the army dead. Balancing out gunlines and melee is a commendable goal but I think this would go too far into killing gunlines.

Give Scout Sentinals (and other analogous units for other armies) the ability to act as spotters who could skip their shooting to negate the penalties against a unit, and let snipers ignore the penalty.

-hit stacking from Eldar just received a nerf with CA. The worst offenders, the spectres, received a huge price hike.
Now Eldar have a -1 hit trait like a lot of other factions plus a -2 on a unit per turn. The only problem i still see is the crimson hunter, which has both the -2 to hit and the range to make use of it. The hemlock will rarely be at -2 after first turn if he wants to be usefull.

Having played that army trait, I would like to point out that Eldar generally don't do well in CC and can't really prevent anyone from closing within 12".

That means most of this discussion is about the first turn or static armies.

There seem to be a lot of whine again about how Eldar is OP, what exactly makes them so strong again?

I haven't played much with the new codex, but Eldar pre-codex were pure failure, and I don't see what could be so strong even with the new codex.

Overall, my understanding is that some people in this thread feel the -1 to hit further improves a very strong build.

But what's that build to begin with?

CQC is largely irrelevant in 8th, luckily for Eldar.

Martel732 wrote:
CQC is largely irrelevant in 8th, luckily for Eldar.

How can that be true with all the armies that can simply 1-turn charge, and massive improvement to some of them?

Also, is this still true in a post-conscript meta?

morgoth wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
CQC is largely irrelevant in 8th, luckily for Eldar.

How can that be true with all the armies that can simply 1-turn charge, and massive improvement to some of them?

Also, is this still true in a post-conscript meta?

Alpha Legion Khorne Berzerkers seem to work pretty well even at the highest level of play; verdict is still out on if Genestealers can compete on top tables post-codex though I think they probably can.

To be fair, the CSM and Tyranids codexes are the only ones that have come out you would expect a high-performing CC strategy out of. Might see the introduction of another powerful CC threat with the Blood Angels if the rumor that Death Company is getting Blood for the Blood God is true.

isn’t the rule -1 outside of 12”?
Can’t space marines deep strike lots of units.
They have infiltrating units too.
They have fast units like speeders and storm ravens.

I'd say Salamanders trait is much better than the -1 to hit.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
I'd say Salamanders trait is much better than the -1 to hit.

Its important to understand that the marine version is heavily nerfed and only affects infantry, bikes and dreadnoughts where as Eldar have no such restriction.

 Kirasu wrote:

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
I'd say Salamanders trait is much better than the -1 to hit.

Its important to understand that the marine version is heavily nerfed and only affects infantry, bikes and dreadnoughts where as Eldar have no such restriction.

Also important to understand is that many of the Eldar weapons are 12" range only and thus many units have to forego using the Alaitoc trait just to be able to shoot...at all.

It is pretty clear (to me at least) that GW intentionally made Chapter and Legion attributes only apply to certain units, while CWE gets detachment-wide access. It makes sense in the fluff, and GW writes rules based on fluff FROM THEIR POINT OF VIEW. If it makes sense to GW, the rules will reflect it. I'm actually impressed that 8E is a balanced as it is so far.

And honestly, if you are unsatisfied that the rules are not 100% consistent because of this kind of decision making on GW's part, remember that GW in a model company, not a rules company. (despite having "Games" in their name). Also remember that this is supposed to be an asymmetrical system allowing diversity of factions/units. The only way to make the rules 100% consistent is to drop all armies but Marines of different colors.
If that is the kind of game you want, GW already supports it and it's 30K.

-

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Hyperbole at its finest. 5 ppm guardsmen are completely fair compared to termagants and boyz.

Perhaps Termagants and Boyz are overcosted.

Agreed, I'd put Termagants at 3, Hormogaunts at 4 and Boyz at 5

Martel732 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
The -1 to hit trait can be negated by getting to within 12".

That's hard to do without dying. I'm BA. I tried to do that against index lists and couldn't do it. It's not going to work now.

No its not, Terminators, Fast attack, drop pods, fliers.
There are easy ways to do it, you are just choosing not to do it.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Considering almost every army has access to 3+ reroll 1's to hit with their most efficient shooters - it is pretty easy to call that a wash - I'd be happy to see auras removed from the game entirely though. It might help games get past turn 3. However - then marines would go from being at/near the bottom to being absolutely terrible because auras are about the only thing marines do better than other armies.

Sweet! A wash! RG is like a double wash then, because SM hit on 3s?

RG would be a wash - except he also rerolls wounds. Which is problematic for balance. Yet marines still under-perform against armies who don't have this buff on the big stage so clearly marines need help - I'd start with army traits on the whole army. On the topic though - I don't think -1 to hit should be one of those options. It shouldn't be an option for anyone. Too strong.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Considering almost every army has access to 3+ reroll 1's to hit with their most efficient shooters - it is pretty easy to call that a wash - I'd be happy to see auras removed from the game entirely though. It might help games get past turn 3. However - then marines would go from being at/near the bottom to being absolutely terrible because auras are about the only thing marines do better than other armies.

Sweet! A wash! RG is like a double wash then, because SM hit on 3s?

RG would be a wash - except he also rerolls wounds. Which is problematic for balance. Yet marines still under-perform against armies who don't have this buff on the big stage so clearly marines need help - I'd start with army traits on the whole army. On the topic though - I don't think -1 to hit should be one of those options. It shouldn't be an option for anyone. Too strong.

"Marines still under perform against armies who dont have this buff on the big stage, clearly marines need help"
Yeah im gonna need a source on that.

And its not that strong, we have been saying this whole thread deep strike is a thing, fliers, are a thing, DROP PODS, are a thing, all put you at 9 inches, they dont get a -1 to hit anymore. Hell Psykers, that -1 wont do anything against a mortal wound.