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.

Oh there's no question the release schedule has been completely thrown out the window.

All the more reason to have all codexes drop at the beginning of an edition change (which will never happen until GW can get the app subscriptions locked down, and even then maybe not).

If all codexes dropped at once, I think there'd be a lot less complaint about the campaign supplements with rules, as those would be providing the flavor through the edition, and they'd probably actually sell a LOT more of those in that case. I know I'll never buy one again (unless they make these changes).

I get the appeal of having army rules for the start of an edition but I don't think it would solve many problems.
5th Ed Necrons had a Codex release that didn't actually come with all of the units it featured and it was quite a while before they were all released. 4th Ed Orks had the problem where new models were released and were in things like White Dwarf until 7th Ed. The current system sucks and I have been avoiding using my CSM against 9th armies but I'll take waiting for all my rules/models than half measures of both.
As for rules in Campaign books, that's a lose-lose situation IMO. Someone is going to bite the bullet first and either get super good rules soon after the Codex or absolute garbage right after the Codex, with another faction getting super good rules later on. Maybe if the rules were disallowed at tournaments or something, then maybe there would be less outcry.

Uhm, that never went away. In 8th there plenty of units released after their codices had been released. Thrakka, for example.

 Gert wrote:
I get the appeal of having army rules for the start of an edition but I don't think it would solve many problems.
5th Ed Necrons had a Codex release that didn't actually come with all of the units it featured and it was quite a while before they were all released. 4th Ed Orks had the problem where new models were released and were in things like White Dwarf until 7th Ed. The current system sucks and I have been avoiding using my CSM against 9th armies but I'll take waiting for all my rules/models than half measures of both.

It's almost like the solution is unbelievably easy: just release the rules for free in pdf form (or in the app w/ subscription) when you release the new models that weren't originally in the codex.

 Jidmah wrote:
Uhm, that never went away. In 8th there plenty of units released after their codices had been released. Thrakka, for example.

True, I did forget that a bunch of characters got remade during PA.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Quasistellar wrote:

It's almost like the solution is unbelievably easy: just release the rules for free in pdf form (or in the app w/ subscription) when you release the new models that weren't originally in the codex.

Which doesn't actually help because then I still need other documents outside of my Codex to use certain units in my army.
HH is a pain in the butt because a good number of units are released with PDF rules and don't get proper rules inclusions for ages, recently not at all for many.

Tyel wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
More dark lances (and more multimeltas for imperium armies) would have made impossible for the ork player to 1 shot his opponents.

What's better than dedicated anti tank to bring down vehicle based lists? According to the internet Freeboota Speedwaaagh lists are (or were) OP as hell, so why leaving effective anti tank at home? Because it's overpriced and almost useless against other armies?

Welcome to the rock/paper/scissor attitude. Multimeltas are definitely too cheap.

The issue is that ravagers were just bad.
Shoot say a 140 point 3 lance ravager at a Dakkajet.

3 shots. 1.5 hits. 1 wound. 5 damage. So 50 points for 140=35% return.
Dakkajet by contrast into a ravager: 42 shots, 14 hits, 7 wounds, 4.66 damage, so 59.4 damage for 120 points - just shy of 50% return.
Freebooters potentially lifts that Ork score to 75% - I think the blackheart reroll pushes the ravager up to about 45%.

The points reduction on the ravager changes improve things a bit - i.e. the ravager goes up to a 38.5% return, and the Dakkajet goes down to a 45% return - but throwing in Freebooters and the gap could still be considerable.

Shooting at say a buggy with a 5++ is much the same but worse - meanwhile ramshackle makes the disintegrator completely worthless.

Its classic 40k creep. The hard anti-tank has rendered a range of *bad* vehicles (relatively expensive with no defenses like invuls and minuses to hit) unplayable. Speedwaaagh however is powerful precisely because it has a decent chance to shrug this stuff off (either by going first and just killing it - or being lucky on going second). They will however die to a range of other things which are being thrown up the curve.

Non-invuln vehicles can be taken. You just can't take more than one or two of them unless they're transports.

A Ravager kills a Dakkajet 6% of the time. And produces a really funky result set:



A Dakkajet will kill a Ravager 0.5% of the time and has a smooth result set:



If the Ravager pops LFR then the DJ is a huge wet noodle. Freebootas would return it to the previous table. With no LFR and a FB bonus the DJ gets to an 8% kill chance.



Eradicators have a 32% change to kill a DJ. Stacking an extra minus to hit on the Heavy MM since they'd have to move would change that quite a bit. They have an 19% chance to kill a Ravager with LFR and a 39% chance to kill a Predator with Smoke or Dense, which isn't wildly out of range from the DJ given it is basically the extra wound on the DJ giving it an edge.

A Gladiator with smoke? 19% Eradicators and 6% Ravager.

If Orks can take multiple DJs who can't hide at all and die more easily or at the same rate as other non-invuln vehicles then people can absolutely take a tank that can be hidden behind terrain.

The paranoia over anti-tank is overstated.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Tyel wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
More dark lances (and more multimeltas for imperium armies) would have made impossible for the ork player to 1 shot his opponents.

What's better than dedicated anti tank to bring down vehicle based lists? According to the internet Freeboota Speedwaaagh lists are (or were) OP as hell, so why leaving effective anti tank at home? Because it's overpriced and almost useless against other armies?

Welcome to the rock/paper/scissor attitude. Multimeltas are definitely too cheap.

The issue is that ravagers were just bad.
Shoot say a 140 point 3 lance ravager at a Dakkajet.

3 shots. 1.5 hits. 1 wound. 5 damage. So 50 points for 140=35% return.
Dakkajet by contrast into a ravager: 42 shots, 14 hits, 7 wounds, 4.66 damage, so 59.4 damage for 120 points - just shy of 50% return.
Freebooters potentially lifts that Ork score to 75% - I think the blackheart reroll pushes the ravager up to about 45%.

The points reduction on the ravager changes improve things a bit - i.e. the ravager goes up to a 38.5% return, and the Dakkajet goes down to a 45% return - but throwing in Freebooters and the gap could still be considerable.

Shooting at say a buggy with a 5++ is much the same but worse - meanwhile ramshackle makes the disintegrator completely worthless.

Its classic 40k creep. The hard anti-tank has rendered a range of *bad* vehicles (relatively expensive with no defenses like invuls and minuses to hit) unplayable. Speedwaaagh however is powerful precisely because it has a decent chance to shrug this stuff off (either by going first and just killing it - or being lucky on going second). They will however die to a range of other things which are being thrown up the curve.

Non-invuln vehicles can be taken. You just can't take more than one or two of them unless they're transports.

A Ravager kills a Dakkajet 6% of the time. And produces a really funky result set:

Spoiler:

A Dakkajet will kill a Ravager 0.5% of the time and has a smooth result set:

Spoiler:

If the Ravager pops LFR then the DJ is a huge wet noodle. Freebootas would return it to the previous table. With no LFR and a FB bonus the DJ gets to an 8% kill chance.

Spoiler:

Eradicators have a 32% change to kill a DJ. Stacking an extra minus to hit on the Heavy MM since they'd have to move would change that quite a bit. They have an 19% chance to kill a Ravager with LFR and a 39% chance to kill a Predator with Smoke or Dense, which isn't wildly out of range from the DJ given it is basically the extra wound on the DJ giving it an edge.

A Gladiator with smoke? 19% Eradicators and 6% Ravager.

If Orks can take multiple DJs who can't hide at all and die more easily or at the same rate as other non-invuln vehicles then people can absolutely take a tank that can be hidden behind terrain.

The paranoia over anti-tank is overstated.

We're actually at a point where anti-tank is efficient enough that it's becoming a problem...for anti-tank stuff. People generally don't load up their entire armies with vehicles anymore so in response a lot of people have been bringing only the bare minimum of anti-tank to deal with armor. The rest goes into either generalist weapons like heavy bolters or w/e or straight up anti-infantry in order to avoid waste.

This has lead to more people bringing either more armor or the proliferation of things with mediocre invuls and damage reduction (ala contemptors/buffed redemptors) that under older damage spreads would be incredibly vulnerable but can survive the 'exactly as much AT as I need and no more' mentality people have been in since basically the multimelta change.

ERJAK wrote:
We're actually at a point where anti-tank is efficient enough that it's becoming a problem...for anti-tank stuff. People generally don't load up their entire armies with vehicles anymore so in response a lot of people have been bringing only the bare minimum of anti-tank to deal with armor.

I don't think that statement is entirely true, but YMMV.

There are tons of high priority vehicles when facing Orks, Admech, DE, and GK all with varying defensive profiles. Marines can drag around a bunch of dreadnoughts as well.

There is more than enough vehicles to shoot. DE have tons of vehicles, but little in the way of AT. Admech can solve some AT with volume and the rest with efficiency. Orks have lots of low BS AT.

Marines are leaning more into the plasma Redemptors, because Volcons aren't very good against buggies. Eradicators with a -1 on the MM kills a Ravager 24% of the time and a Volcon w/ ML is 35% ( 17% without CML). Three attack bikes cost more than a contemptor with CML and do fewer shots than the eradicators.

I think in general the mission makes it hard to take everything you want and over tuning into things like multi-meltas gets you a really bad day when you face GK and they teleport the DK away or go up to a 3++. People need a diverse set of weapons and units to tackle targets that come up and to play objectives while also not over exposing their list to easy secondary picks.

People are finally bringing moderate amounts of AT and vehicles instead of either avoiding/spamming and we complain? If lists have 1-3 vehicles and 1-3 AT dedicated units, then it is ideal.

Spoletta wrote:
People are finally bringing moderate amounts of AT and vehicles instead of either avoiding/spamming and we complain?

Gotta complain about something....

 Jidmah wrote:
With all respect for companies like GW who took this seriously, COVID has been around for a bit now, and they have been back to operating regularly for some time now. They staggered for 4 months or so, and then went back to business as usual.

They managed to have indexes with datasheets ready for every single color of loyalist, even for those who got their books a few months later. If there was no pandemic, CSM players would still have waited over a year for their second wound, while GW went through extra effort to make sure that Space Wolves didn't fall behind for the three months unit they got their supplement.

A fair point, but a little different, because the core marine book was already done.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
With all respect for companies like GW who took this seriously, COVID has been around for a bit now, and they have been back to operating regularly for some time now. They staggered for 4 months or so, and then went back to business as usual.

They managed to have indexes with datasheets ready for every single color of loyalist, even for those who got their books a few months later. If there was no pandemic, CSM players would still have waited over a year for their second wound, while GW went through extra effort to make sure that Space Wolves didn't fall behind for the three months unit they got their supplement.

A fair point, but a little different, because the core marine book was already done.

The new supplements had stand-alone books at that time, they could just have told them to use those until their supplements come out. Or just to the "use the most recent datasheet"-flowchart. They definitely went above and beyond that (which is good), but they also just should have done that for the CSM units in power and terminator armor. There aren't that many of those, most likely less than SW characters

ERJAK wrote:


We're actually at a point where anti-tank is efficient enough that it's becoming a problem...for anti-tank stuff. People generally don't load up their entire armies with vehicles anymore so in response a lot of people have been bringing only the bare minimum of anti-tank to deal with armor. The rest goes into either generalist weapons like heavy bolters or w/e or straight up anti-infantry in order to avoid waste.

This has lead to more people bringing either more armor or the proliferation of things with mediocre invuls and damage reduction (ala contemptors/buffed redemptors) that under older damage spreads would be incredibly vulnerable but can survive the 'exactly as much AT as I need and no more' mentality people have been in since basically the multimelta change.

This is still the old rock/paper/scissor mentality. What about bringin TAC lists with a bit of everything?

 Jidmah wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
With all respect for companies like GW who took this seriously, COVID has been around for a bit now, and they have been back to operating regularly for some time now. They staggered for 4 months or so, and then went back to business as usual.

They managed to have indexes with datasheets ready for every single color of loyalist, even for those who got their books a few months later. If there was no pandemic, CSM players would still have waited over a year for their second wound, while GW went through extra effort to make sure that Space Wolves didn't fall behind for the three months unit they got their supplement.

A fair point, but a little different, because the core marine book was already done.

The new supplements had stand-alone books at that time, they could just have told them to use those until their supplements come out. Or just to the "use the most recent datasheet"-flowchart. They definitely went above and beyond that (which is good), but they also just should have done that for the CSM units in power and terminator armor. There aren't that many of those, most likely less than SW characters

No unfortunately that was not the case.
GW had officially squatted BA, SW, DA and DW datasheets with the release of the SM codex. They were as illegal on the table as the actual squat models.
Squats had rules at a certain point in history, right?. If I put squat models on the table, would a TO accept them in an event on the basis of "Use most recent datasheet"? I don't think so. That was the situation of dozens of datasheets.

Would it have been a nice thing to also get some pdf for Chaos? Yeah, no doubt. But they were legal on the table, just old. Not the same situation.
So, let's be quite clear on priorities here.
Snowflake marine pdf were a strict necessity to re introduce back into the game dozens of datasheets which were currently no longer part of the game.
Chaos marines pdf were a nice to have.

... that's literally how index units in 8th worked, and would have been a perfectly fine solution for 9th as well.

Yeah, if you mean that GW could have released indexes for all factions at the start of 9th, then yes it was perfectly possible.

Yet, let me repeat the point that you seem to have missed.

Doing that for those chapters was absolutely necessary.
Doing it for other factions would have been nice, but was not a strict necessity.

It was not necessary at all. They could have use Codex:SM for all generic units and their old books for all chapter specific ones.

I'm not sure "here are my Squats who never even got a 2nd edition codex, I can play them right" is a fair comparison with "here's my 8th edition Blood Angels book, there's no logical reason this is any more squatted than literally every other faction that doesn't have a 9th edition codex yet".

GW could have released a one-line FAQ to that effect.

Equally they could have released a two-three page FAQ that says "btw, CSM stats are now X, note the extra wound and attack on most profiles, also they cost Y points now. Bye".

It would take a few hours draft. Instead pushing 18 months into the edition its still "wait for the codex, we need to sell you the codex, buy the codex". Its pathetic.

 Jidmah wrote:
It was not necessary at all. They could have use Codex:SM for all generic units and their old books for all chapter specific ones.

Terrible solution.

That meant that all new players of those very popular factions (and you have a lot of those at the start of an edition) would be forced to buy an outdated book which was going to be invalidated in a few months.

No thanks.

Edit: By the way, it wasn't even possible. There were broken interactions between old supplements and the 9th edition dex. CORE definitions are the first that come to mind.

Spoletta wrote:
Yeah, if you mean that GW could have released indexes for all factions at the start of 9th, then yes it was perfectly possible.

Why would they go and do that and instantly invalidate a whole swathe of Codices? That would just annoy the crap out of everyone.

The Indices made sense at the start of 8th. They don't make sense at the start of every edition.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

I genuinely want someone to show me a game that was perfectly balanced from the start. Because I want to see this unicorn.

What is your criteria for the games (wholly original, should they be miniatures based, etc.), what counts as the start (commercial release?) and what do you consider perfectly balanced (so for example if the two sides have different chances of success but you play twice, once each side and the result is cumulative, does that count as balanced?).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Salted Diamond wrote:

Same here, I have a small scion army that is basically 3 scion squads all in Valkyries and a Vulture for support, super fun and fluffy, and in no way OP. Illegal now.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

I have an Inquisitorial Storm Trooper Air Cav army - 60-odd Kasrkin and 6 Valks. They love these rules.

My somewhat more conservative 1 squadron of 3 valks with 1 vulture in support are also nixed, and it wasn't like they were particularly powerful!

The_Real_Chris wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:


That argument is not inconsistent with "well they did a gakky job on the dexes so a balance patch is good". It's just the next step: "maybe don't do a gakky job on the dexes."

I genuinely want someone to show me a game that was perfectly balanced from the start. Because I want to see this unicorn.

Its not about perfect, but there is a reasonable expectation.

Here are a couple with DE (sense im in DE community and I know DE really well).

The instant the book was out, within a couple hours players (not just one but MANY players) saw DT as a problem, a big problem. DE players were expecting DT to get removed or nerf bc in 8th it was the main way to play, they instead BUFFED IT. The reasonable expectation was to remove it, or at least nerf it not buff it. Any player could tell you that with little experience.

CoS supplement, literally everyone understood and figure out the best Succubus build within an hour with Competitive Edge, this WL trait should not have been anything like it is, why is it not just re-roll failed hits/wounds if they wanted it to be a better hitting/wounds WL trait? There is a reasonable expectation to not have insane super combos that breaks the game. Also everyone can tell you that the Succubus by her self is not very good, well worth only 60pts sadly, its when you add a WLT and a Relic that is magnifies her damage to insane levels. Imagine if they set her up to be 90-100pts, better main stats, maybe 2D weapon option that is worth a damn and really viable melee character without relics/WLT but the combos are much weaker when combine, something like re-rolls and a couple bonus attacks, now they are much more damage and options to make a middle of the line melee hero. The succubus is either not worth a damn or way too over powerful. You can not balance that at all. GW chose to write the rules in this way.

Those are minor examples of a reasonable expectation, we are not asking for perfect not at all. We are asking GW not to have a unit that is spammable with massive Speed, ignore LoS guns, insane shooting, with insane bonuses to shooting while also being cheap.

Flyers can be a problem sure, but point them more aggressively, you don't see DE flyers outside of fun games for a reason, same with Marines, and many other armies, or those few guys with full Air forces in Guard, the lists are terrible but they are more cool than your army most likely, and yet its not game breaking, so when 3-4 units only in 2 armies are game breaking, don't change the rules of the game, change those units and points.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:


That argument is not inconsistent with "well they did a gakky job on the dexes so a balance patch is good". It's just the next step: "maybe don't do a gakky job on the dexes."

I genuinely want someone to show me a game that was perfectly balanced from the start. Because I want to see this unicorn.

Its not about perfect, but there is a reasonable expectation.

The funny thing is I'm not disagreeing with this. I was disagreeing with someone else's statement within that said

GW should release balanced codexes from the start so they don't HAVE to invalidate them with a balance patch.

I am in favor of balance updates and properly checking things. There was just some moment that seemed bizarre to me where some people were against updating afterwords so as to avoid invalidating books.

What is your criteria for the games (wholly original, should they be miniatures based, etc.), what counts as the start (commercial release?) and what do you consider perfectly balanced (so for example if the two sides have different chances of success but you play twice, once each side and the result is cumulative, does that count as balanced?).

I don't exactly have an idea of perfectly balanced, but given what the other person was saying it needs to be a game that from the start was both balanced and never had any sort of patch, balancing, or errata afterwords

 Jidmah wrote:
Uhm, that never went away. In 8th there plenty of units released after their codices had been released. Thrakka, for example.

not to mention the entire admech release wave...

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Also everyone can tell you that the Succubus by her self is not very good, well worth only 60pts sadly, its when you add a WLT and a Relic that is magnifies her damage to insane levels. Imagine if they set her up to be 90-100pts, better main stats, maybe 2D weapon option that is worth a damn and really viable melee character without relics/WLT but the combos are much weaker when combine, something like re-rolls and a couple bonus attacks, now they are much more damage and options to make a middle of the line melee hero. The succubus is either not worth a damn or way too over powerful. You can not balance that at all. GW chose to write the rules in this way.

I'm glad you brought this particular point up as I was thinking along similar lines.

I can't help but think that Artefacts (and probably Warlord Traits as well) should really cost points instead of CPs. That way, there's an actual reason to take pistols and other, weaker, relics over the stronger ones.

Maybe it's not so bad for some armies (Necrons certainly comes to mind). However, the difference between an Archon with no artefacts and warlord traits (or one with any of the myriad of bad artefacts and warlord traits) and an Archon with a particular combination of warlord trait and relic is substantial. In one scenario, he's throwing out 7 S4 AP-3 D3 attacks that reroll all hits and wounds, in another he's throwing out 5 S3 AP-3 D2 attacks with no rerolls and maybe has a crappy Ld aura. Same with the Succubus - with one set of traits she throws out 10 Poison 2+ AP-3 D2 attacks that inflict 2 Mortal wounds on a roll of 6 to hit, but with another she throws out 5 S5 AP-3 D1 attacks with no Mortal Wounds and maybe has some crappy pistol shots or is slightly harder to wound.

Because all warlord traits and artefacts cost the exact same amount, there's no way to balance these differences. So all GW can do is cost the models as though they all have the most powerful combination of traits, at the expense of anyone who tried to go for a less powerful (but fluffy) loadout.

Given the apparent intent to balance the game better, it seems very strange to have an ever-growing section of it that is literally designed to preclude any possibility of balance.

Then again, this also seems to be in no small part due to the abysmal design of DE HQs to basically be entirely reliant on artefacts and warlord traits in order to be worth a damn. e.g. as a point of comparison a Necron Warscythe has a decent profile with S+2 AP-4 D2, and a Blood Scythe artefact augments this with 2 additional attacks. A Canoness' Blessed Blade similarly has a good profile with S+2 AP-3 D2, and the Blade of Saint Ellynor artefact just ups its damage to 3. However, an Archon's Huskblade starts off with an utterly abysmal profile S: User (on a S3 character!) AP-3 D2, and the Djin Blade artefact adds 2 attacks and a point of strength and a point of damage.

Same deal with the Succubus. A normal Agoniser has a very mediocre S- AP-3 D1 Poison 4+ profile, but the Triptych Whip adds 3 attacks and ups it to Poison 2+ and makes it D2. Why put so much extra weight into the one aspect of HQs that can't be balanced in any way? Why can't these weapons start off decent, like the ones above, and just have the artefacts improve one element of them? As above, it locks GW in a situation where either they assume, as they have with this "balance patch", that Archons and Succubi all have Djin Blades and Triptych Whips (sucks to be them if they don't) or else they cost them based on their normal stats and equipment (which are garbage), which inevitably resulted in the ones that did take the Djin Blades and Whips being markedly undercosted for their damage output.

 vipoid wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Also everyone can tell you that the Succubus by her self is not very good, well worth only 60pts sadly, its when you add a WLT and a Relic that is magnifies her damage to insane levels. Imagine if they set her up to be 90-100pts, better main stats, maybe 2D weapon option that is worth a damn and really viable melee character without relics/WLT but the combos are much weaker when combine, something like re-rolls and a couple bonus attacks, now they are much more damage and options to make a middle of the line melee hero. The succubus is either not worth a damn or way too over powerful. You can not balance that at all. GW chose to write the rules in this way.

I'm glad you brought this particular point up as I was thinking along similar lines.

I can't help but think that Artefacts (and probably Warlord Traits as well) should really cost points instead of CPs. That way, there's an actual reason to take pistols and other, weaker, relics over the stronger ones.

Maybe it's not so bad for some armies (Necrons certainly comes to mind). However, the difference between an Archon with no artefacts and warlord traits (or one with any of the myriad of bad artefacts and warlord traits) and an Archon with a particular combination of warlord trait and relic is substantial. In one scenario, he's throwing out 7 S4 AP-3 D3 attacks that reroll all hits and wounds, in another he's throwing out 5 S3 AP-3 D2 attacks with no rerolls and maybe has a crappy Ld aura. Same with the Succubus - with one set of traits she throws out 10 Poison 2+ AP-3 D2 attacks that inflict 2 Mortal wounds on a roll of 6 to hit, but with another she throws out 5 S5 AP-3 D1 attacks with no Mortal Wounds and maybe has some crappy pistol shots or is slightly harder to wound.

Because all warlord traits and artefacts cost the exact same amount, there's no way to balance these differences. So all GW can do is cost the models as though they all have the most powerful combination of traits, at the expense of anyone who tried to go for a less powerful (but fluffy) loadout.

Given the apparent intent to balance the game better, it seems very strange to have an ever-growing section of it that is literally designed to preclude any possibility of balance.

Then again, this also seems to be in no small part due to the abysmal design of DE HQs to basically be entirely reliant on artefacts and warlord traits in order to be worth a damn. e.g. as a point of comparison a Necron Warscythe has a decent profile with S+2 AP-4 D2, and a Blood Scythe artefact augments this with 2 additional attacks. A Canoness' Blessed Blade similarly has a good profile with S+2 AP-3 D2, and the Blade of Saint Ellynor artefact just ups its damage to 3. However, an Archon's Huskblade starts off with an utterly abysmal profile S: User (on a S3 character!) AP-3 D2, and the Djin Blade artefact adds 2 attacks and a point of strength and a point of damage.

Same deal with the Succubus. A normal Agoniser has a very mediocre S- AP-3 D1 Poison 4+ profile, but the Triptych Whip adds 3 attacks and ups it to Poison 2+ and makes it D2. Why put so much extra weight into the one aspect of HQs that can't be balanced in any way? Why can't these weapons start off decent, like the ones above, and just have the artefacts improve one element of them? As above, it locks GW in a situation where either they assume, as they have with this "balance patch", that Archons and Succubi all have Djin Blades and Triptych Whips (sucks to be them if they don't) or else they cost them based on their normal stats and equipment (which are garbage), which inevitably resulted in the ones that did take the Djin Blades and Whips being markedly undercosted for their damage output.

Honestly I am in 100% favor of making them cost points over CP, but also at the same time, from a balancing PoV (in general) how can you come up with an idea for a Succubus being so weak and sad but then relics beyond insanity for her, Then have a pistol relic that isn't even worth it even if it was free? I think GW is taking the CP/WLT/Relic system too far with trying to create a cool character concept instead of just that character the options in general and balancing it correctly.

The imbalances in many of the books (many good examples within the DE book) is a huge problem that is honestly not hard to mess up and yet GW has messed it up. Why is the Huskblade user str? Well now I feel like I am forced to take insane Relics/WL combo to make my Archon even remotely viable, but now he is too good able to kill units 4x his cost... wtf.

 vipoid wrote:


I'm glad you brought this particular point up as I was thinking along similar lines.

I can't help but think that Artefacts (and probably Warlord Traits as well) should really cost points instead of CPs. That way, there's an actual reason to take pistols and other, weaker, relics over the stronger ones.

I don't object to this- in fact I think it's a very strong idea. But it is a very Matched-Centric solution. The status quo, while possibly not the best fit for Matched, does have the advantage of also working for Matched and Open.

Perhaps a hybrid solution might be best, where the points are in addition to other limitations, and explicitly only apply in Matched?

 vipoid wrote:


Because all warlord traits and artefacts cost the exact same amount, there's no way to balance these differences. So all GW can do is cost the models as though they all have the most powerful combination of traits, at the expense of anyone who tried to go for a less powerful (but fluffy) loadout.

I also feel like the limitations to the number that are allowed to be included in any army are also a factor here? Even with various requisition strats that allow you to take multiple Relics/ WL Traits, each option can still only be taken once. It can certainly still be a balance issue, for sure, but the limitations do provide some damage control in terms of limiting how much these imbalances can be exploited.

 vipoid wrote:


Then again, this also seems to be in no small part due to the abysmal design of DE HQs to basically be entirely reliant on artefacts and warlord traits in order to be worth a damn. e.g. as a point of comparison a Necron Warscythe has a decent profile with S+2 AP-4 D2, and a Blood Scythe artefact augments this with 2 additional attacks. A Canoness' Blessed Blade similarly has a good profile with S+2 AP-3 D2, and the Blade of Saint Ellynor artefact just ups its damage to 3. However, an Archon's Huskblade starts off with an utterly abysmal profile S: User (on a S3 character!) AP-3 D2, and the Djin Blade artefact adds 2 attacks and a point of strength and a point of damage.

Absolutely with you on this.

Yeah that last part is just a big WTF to GW

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Honestly I am in 100% favor of making them cost points over CP, but also at the same time, from a balancing PoV (in general) how can you come up with an idea for a Succubus being so weak and sad but then relics beyond insanity for her, Then have a pistol relic that isn't even worth it even if it was free? I think GW is taking the CP/WLT/Relic system too far with trying to create a cool character concept instead of just that character the options in general and balancing it correctly.

In terms of power, there's a really bizarre trend wherein all the DE artefacts seem to have been made exceptionally weak . . . except for the melee artefacts (where the design philosophy was apparently 'go nuts').

The book is full of stuff like 4+ FNP that can only be taken on a character that already has 5+ FNP.

Then there are the pistols, which (as you already alluded to) were hardly the highlight of the book back in 8th, and certainly 9th made no effort to change that. The Soul-Seeker was in dire need of an extra shot but instead gained just -1AP and, in exchange, lost its ability to ignore line of sight. So it's currently a range 18" character sniper that struggles to put even 2 wounds on a Platoon Commander, and now doesn't even offer the catharsis of shooting through walls. The Parasite's Kiss has a slightly better profile but is stuck with a pathetic 12" range. So I can take an outstanding melee weapon that combos perfectly with my Archon/Succubus' main function, or I can take a crappy pistol that I have to be in melee range to fire? Hmmm.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

The imbalances in many of the books (many good examples within the DE book) is a huge problem that is honestly not hard to mess up and yet GW has messed it up. Why is the Huskblade user str? Well now I feel like I am forced to take insane Relics/WL combo to make my Archon even remotely viable, but now he is too good able to kill units 4x his cost... wtf.

Yeah, this is what has frustrated me since the book launched. I feel like Archons and Succubi have to take artefacts just to be good at their core roles. In 8th, I could take a relic pistol or defensive item on an Archon and still have half-decent melee to fall back on. Now I have to take a melee artefact to not completely suck at melee, even though he's literally been given no other role in the army.


EDIT:

PenitentJake wrote:

I don't object to this- in fact I think it's a very strong idea. But it is a very Matched-Centric solution. The status quo, while possibly not the best fit for Matched, does have the advantage of also working for Matched and Open.

Perhaps a hybrid solution might be best, where the points are in addition to other limitations, and explicitly only apply in Matched?

I'd certainly be fine with that.

PenitentJake wrote:

I also feel like the limitations to the number that are allowed to be included in any army are also a factor here? Even with various requisition strats that allow you to take multiple Relics/ WL Traits, each option can still only be taken once. It can certainly still be a balance issue, for sure, but the limitations do provide some damage control in terms of limiting how much these imbalances can be exploited.

To an extent but then that also works both ways.

If your characters are priced assuming that they'll have the best artefact and warlord trait combinations, but you only can only do that combination on one character, it means all subsequent characters are going to suck because they're priced based on wargear they can't take.

Similarly, it also means that the weaker options (even if they're very fluffy) are unlikely to ever see the light of day because the limited slots mean you're always better off just taking the best options possible.

Unfortunately, the trend of "Warlords+Relics amp up the power level of character by 2x-3x" is something thats actually ramping up instead of ramping down, too, unlike the power conveyed by Stratagems vs base unit stats.

lets take Sicarian Ruststalkers for an example:

19pts per model for 4 pretty high-AP attacks that can also cause mortal wounds. Pretty scary! but only T3 4+ meaning their drawback is obviously their defenses, as they can be cut down by low strength low AP weapons like lasguns quite easily.

Out of the box tho, thy have Wasteland Stalkers, which allows them to have a 2+ instead of a 3+ in cover, so the picture of how were supposed to use these guys becomes clear: Theyre a glass cannon, and they should lurk in cover until its time to jump out and attack something, but you also have to be wary about interrupts less they be cut down by an opponent's melee dangerous unit.

That all works, that all makes sense, that all seems fair.

Oh, but wait...now you can give them Warlord traits and Relics via a stratagem on their Alpha!

And oh look! A relic that grants them a fight-last effect! And a warlord trait that makes them ALWAYS COUNT IN COVER.

THAT changes the ball game on this unit, doesn't it? Suddenly all those drawbacks...poof! Theyre gone!