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.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Yes? All of these do jobs that can be done by more interesting units, and most of these are taken simply because we HAVE TO. Thats not actual choice, and most often just ends up being "take the cheapest option".

If there is no more mandatory troops, you can rework these units to be more than basic bitches and therefore , interesting

I am not sure that is always possible. Why pay Xpts for a strike when paying 3-4pts more gives you an interceptors with double the movment, extra rule interactions, but same weapon and psychic power load outs.

If a marine player could play with intercessors only with jump packs at 20pts, no one would be running the regular ones.

Except they have different roles because the game rules are about more than just killing... which was my point.

well not in w40k. The void weaver is deadly to heavy infantry, tanks, light vehicles, medium infantry, characters, monsters and by virtue of number of shots and the change to shurikan rules it kills light infantry very well too. Plasma was like that in 8th.

SemperMortis wrote:

As far as balancing Void's by forcing you to take core...no. Fix the damn units so they are balanced. The entire premise also falls apart when you realize that Troupes are also already some of the best troops in the game, not to mention everything else that gets core. Just across the board no. Its just annoying that GW doesn't playtest any of their damn armies before release, or hire a faction specific SME to check the codex before release. Having 1 guy on staff who knows orkz really really well could have saved them from having to look stupid putting out a bad codex with units/gear that is illegal to use by its own existence. Not to even touch on the fact that they nerfed/buffed the wrong units and made the aforementioned illegal units...ILLEGAL AGAIN! lol.

There are two ways to "fix" a unit - you either change their cost or you change their rules. Its a net zero sum game, changing cost is not inherently better or worse than changing rules. There are sometimes good reasons to change one property instead of the other, but fundamentally it achieves the same thing. In other words, there is nothing that makes my solution any more or less of a "fix" than any other, because at its base all what it is is a change in cost, one which is much more dramatic than what is likely realistically achievable by increasing points cost on the voidweaver directly.
Its an effective solution because if Troupes were really as busted as you think they are everyone would be fielding 60+ of them, yet most lists aren't even fielding 30 (and when I posted a thread about a foot horde so that I could squeeze 60 of them into a list without spending 1000 pts on starweavers alone, the response was effectively that Troupes on foot could never survive long enough to be meaningful). There is not "everything else that gets core" - the only Harlequins unit with Core currently is Skyweavers (which are already regarded as the worst unit in the entire army and grossly overcosted for what little they bring to the table), so we are quite literally talking about needing to invest hundreds of points into units which *should* already be plentiful in Harlequins armies (in that they are the only two units that aren't characters or vehicles), yet aren't because they are being outshined by other options.

Realistically, this means you're spending 510 points to get 6 units of 5 Harlequins with an embrace, kiss, and 2 fusion pistols each, and then another 480pts to get 6 starweavers (given the apparent distaste for fielding Troupes on foot, and then 270 for 3 Voidweavers, and you're at 1260 pts, and you haven't bought any HQs, Death Jesters, or Solitaires yet, and to even get 3 more Voidweavers into the list is going to effectively cost youa minimum of another 770 pt (270 for the voidweavers + 500 for the core tax)swhich would put you over the 2000 pt limit on its own - you're balancing the army by putting a pretty hard cap to the amount of Voidweavers people can field while encouraging armies th at look more fluffy. If people take a min-max approach to this, then they are fielding Troupes on foot which are suboptimal and/or they are fielding Skyweavers which are even more suboptimal (armies with Skyweavers had a sub-50% win rate at Adepticon), and even then you're spending a minimum of 1540 pts to field 6 voidweavers - you aren't going to get any more than that in a 2000 pt list, and in this example you haven't bought a single starweaver, and you have yet to purchase a single HQ, Solitaire, Death Jester, etc.

This is basically what "fixing" looks like, its the same result you're going to get if you nerf Voidweavers rules or hike up the cost on them directly, the only thing that differs is the means by which you get there. If you just tack 50 pts onto a voidweaver you're probably only bringing 6 of them because thats a 840pt investment (+30 over the cost of bringing 9 currently) and you still need to buy your troops, hqs, and elites. If you leave cost the same and nerf their rules, you're probably still taking at least 6 of them because they are the only reliable source for what they bring to the Harlequin army but they probably won't be good enough to justify maximum investment but you will still need to take enough of them to make up for their reduced effectiveness. In both cases armies with 9 of the things are still possible, and while they may not be as points efficient as they are currently, 9 voidweavers will still pose many problems to many armies to an extent that would require a much more substantial rewrite of not just the Voidweavers rules but Harlequins as a whole And it kills two birds with one stone because Starweavers are also a problem, mainly in that they are overly spammable alongside voidweavers, but if you're investing 500 points into Troupes and Skyweavers for every 3 Voidweavers you're not going to have a ton of points to buy starweavers with, and if you're trying to max out starweavers you're not going to have a ton of points to spend on voidweavers either. Its pretty hard to argue that a method which quite literally forces you to balance the number of broken units you are fielding against eachother is not an effective means of balancing the army.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
Its weird seeing people just through hoops to try and make a completely broken Voidweaver not actually break the game through limits and what not instead of *shock* simply assigning it a point value that is more balanced.

Why is just making them 150 points not an option? Why make things complicated? The voidweaver is not some sort of weird combination of rules and skew that a simple point cost can't balance it.

Its just a mobile, good gun with a bunch of special rules to make its seemingly flimsy body tough. With an absurdly low points cost.

I think half of it is that GW is unlikely to adjust points in the slate so they have to get fixed by some other avenue until July.

Aye - so far the only points released we've seen came with the first Dataslate, IIRC - one as a "preview" for GSC, and the other as a day 1 patch for Custodes, IIRC, both of which were brought forwards from the MFM that was to follow shortly afterwards.

The other question, of course, is whether Eldar units will have been out long enough to get caught up in the next MFM - I have no idea when things would be locked down for that publication.

I am looking forwards to see what new Ork units get nerfed, though - should be amusing.

Lets take a look at Necrons
You have Overlords with buffs to core units.
But these buffs are too weak compared to just take more models.
So cutting Overlords makes the list better.

40K needs better combos if it wants diverse lists.

 Manchild 1984 wrote:
Lets take a look at Necrons
You have Overlords with buffs to core units.
But these buffs are too weak compared to just take more models.
So cutting Overlords makes the list better.

40K needs better combos if it wants diverse lists.

It's quite a bit different these days. I never wanted a Phaeron, but with the CORE updates I'm quite tempted. The other problem is getting models into range. Mathematically more models might be better ( haven't done the math ), but you won't get all those models on to one target as easily.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Manchild 1984 wrote:
Lets take a look at Necrons
You have Overlords with buffs to core units.
But these buffs are too weak compared to just take more models.
So cutting Overlords makes the list better.

40K needs better combos if it wants diverse lists.

It's quite a bit different these days. I never wanted a Phaeron, but with the CORE updates I'm quite tempted. The other problem is getting models into range. Mathematically more models might be better ( haven't done the math ), but you won't get all those models on to one target as easily.

Phaeron might be better then a 2nd Overlord.
I would fill minimal HQ with Cryptekhs if I had the good ones (gonna wait for balance datasheet)

 Daedalus81 wrote:

It's quite a bit different these days. I never wanted a Phaeron, but with the CORE updates I'm quite tempted. The other problem is getting models into range. Mathematically more models might be better ( haven't done the math ), but you won't get all those models on to one target as easily.

Overlord is 95+ options. Can easily cost 10 Necron Warriors. Those Necrons Warriors have more damage output all day long

As long as you take a Resurrection Orb, you can raise up enough points worth of models to make the Overlord recuperate most of its cost with just that.
You get the +1 To hit
+1" Movement
and your warlord traits.

I wouldn't ever take a second Overlord as other HQ options have other more useful buffs that a second ress orb just won't make up for losing.

Hecaton wrote:

Deffkoptas (and most ork shooting really) are bad examples because they lose 50% effectiveness vs Xweavers. You'd want to compare them against a bigger variety and accept that Voidweavers are a particularly good counter to ork shooting. Orks, in general, should be restructured into a combined arms faction, but that's ork balance for you.

I agree, but that is why I used a static T8 2+ model as the target as opposed to each other so that way the -1 to hit and the 4+ invuln didn't skew the results. The point I was making is that on a dmg output level the Voidweaver, even nerfed by 66% to 150pts is still out performing a similar value of Deffkoptas. I'll gladly admit deffkoptas are better in melee, but the point stands still that they dramatically outperform koptas at ranged combat and barring Custodes/Tau/Harlequins/Eldar I don't really think the deffkopta is over priced either, I just think those armies and units are under priced. Which is even more apparent, especially in the mindset of their players when they make statements like this

chaos0xomega wrote:
the only Harlequins unit with Core currently is Skyweavers (which are already regarded as the worst unit in the entire army and grossly overcosted for what little they bring to the table),

A Skyweaver is 5pts cheaper than a Deffkopta, instead of 2D3 rokkitz hitting on 5s it gets a Shuriken cannon and a Star Bolas, but hits on 3s instead of 5s. Against that same T8 2+ vehicle the Skyweaver averages 1dmg a turn, A single deffkopta averages...wait for it....1dmg Which is more durable? Well the Kopta is T5 with a 4+ save, the Skyweaver is T4 with a 4+ invuln no re-roll attacks against it and -1 to hit in combat. Its also faster and has advance/charge as a rule baked into it.

Is the skyweaver better than a deffkopta...meh, I think they are incredibly similar, i'd give the edge to the Skyweaver thanks to its plethora of rules and bonuses and under normal (expected) army wide rules its fairly dangerous and durable. So at worst its the same as a deffkopta which is considered one of the BEST units in the Ork codex, and the harly players refer to it as "grossly overcosted for what little they bring to the table".

Few people compare their stuff down the power ladder. just like post football match no one cars that the team that just lot 3:0 could anihilate a division 5 team 0:20.
It says more about the state of deathkoptas, then what ever skyweavers are bad or good for harlequins.

The bare minimum of what this balance slate should change are:

1. It should revert all points increases from CA 2022 (possibly excluding DE)

2. It should revert all Custodes points drops from CA2022.

3. It should have significant nerfs to EVERY harlequin unit except skyweavers.

4. It should have significant nerfs to Tau suits and vehicles, as well as mont'ka. Special mention to anything that ignores LoS.

5. It should have significant nerfs to Custodes, specifically Trajann and Emperors children but anything on a jetbike needs some amount of reining in.

6. It needs to offer compensatory buffs to factions that were negatively impacted by general game rule changes, as well as armies that are struggling but unlikely to see a codex anytime soon. Examples: Any of the myriad of terrible Ork units, everything about Deathguard, Sisters of Battle, specifically their shooting units and walkers. Guard, maybe even if their codex IS coming out soon.

ERJAK wrote:
... specifically Trajann and Emperors children ...

Aw c'mon man. Leave Chaos out of this. They have so little!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
... specifically Trajann and Emperors children ...

Aw c'mon man. Leave Chaos out of this. They have so little!

Next thing you know they'll take away their Jump Packs for their Lords!

"Skyweavers are terrible".
Wait.... Didn't several people come second or at least place with a bunch of them over the last two weekends?
"Oh yeah? Second? Pfft. Can't be that good then. What did they lose to?"
"Well... other Harlequin Players with 9 Voidweavers."
"See! Trash."

SemperMortis wrote:
I agree, but that is why I used a static T8 2+ model as the target as opposed to each other so that way the -1 to hit and the 4+ invuln didn't skew the results. The point I was making is that on a dmg output level the Voidweaver, even nerfed by 66% to 150pts is still out performing a similar value of Deffkoptas. I'll gladly admit deffkoptas are better in melee, but the point stands still that they dramatically outperform koptas at ranged combat and barring Custodes/Tau/Harlequins/Eldar I don't really think the deffkopta is over priced either, I just think those armies and units are under priced. Which is even more apparent, especially in the mindset of their players when they make statements like this

I've got Harlequins and orks going (still working on the orks) so I guess I qualify as both.

I disagree that the mindset of Harlequin players is off; in my experience both Tau and Harlequins players have been very sober about the power level of their codex. It's been Custodes players who are in denial.

Voidweavers are underpriced, but I think the appropriate range is 110-120, not 150. I'm willing to negotiate with that on further examination though. But I think the optimal weapon for attacking them is actually heavy flamer-type weapons. Those have the nice side effect of being good against clown infantry too.

Slipspace wrote:


Uh...Necrons were the first to get them, and it was broken. The Decurion was the template for all the formations that followed, to the point where it wasn't uncommon to refer to the rules as Decurion-style army building. Necrons didn't get anything similar in 8th.

Must have been thinking of 8th then. The point is formations were terrible. Specialist detachments weren’t so bad, there could have been some balance of GW just increased the CP cost for taking the better ones.

ERJAK wrote:
The bare minimum of what this balance slate should change are:

1. It should revert all points increases from CA 2022 (possibly excluding DE)

2. It should revert all Custodes points drops from CA2022.

5. It should have significant nerfs to Custodes, specifically Trajann and Emperors children but anything on a jetbike needs some amount of reining in.

You are hard take serious when you call for the custodes to be nerfed three times in one post.

 Manchild 1984 wrote:
Lets take a look at Necrons
You have Overlords with buffs to core units.
But these buffs are too weak compared to just take more models.
So cutting Overlords makes the list better.

40K needs better combos if it wants diverse lists.

Honestly, I’d just rather Necron HQ’s to get some point drops.

Skyweavers are really good guys, lol. They bring a lot to the table for what they cost.

Of course if the rest of the codex is utterly OP they look trash in comparison.

They didn’t specify a day for this, did they?

 bullyboy wrote:
They didn’t specify a day for this, did they?

soonTM. just like CSM's second wound

 bullyboy wrote:
They didn’t specify a day for this, did they?

Nope, just "this week". You'd think they'd want to get it out early enough so that everyone can adjust before the weekend tournaments and such, but it's gw, so who knows.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
They didn’t specify a day for this, did they?

Nope, just "this week". You'd think they'd want to get it out early enough so that everyone can adjust before the weekend tournaments and such, but it's gw, so who knows.

It's a month ahead of schedule. I doubt they had it written before that announcement.

How much time do they need to write a pdf file?
Lets say with decision making, someone actually writing it, then someone proofing if it is writen correctly and if it had to move around different departaments, then it is maybe 3-4 days. And they knew what rules they gave void weavers months in advance.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
They didn’t specify a day for this, did they?

Nope, just "this week". You'd think they'd want to get it out early enough so that everyone can adjust before the weekend tournaments and such, but it's gw, so who knows.

It's a month ahead of schedule. I doubt they had it written before that announcement.

They've had time to consider what to do with Custodes and Tau for a while, so Harlequins should be the only thing that requires "emergency" decisions. I seriously doubt that this will do anything besides whack those particular three moles. The question is just how, and how hard.

I believe the admech balance sheet released on monday, obv this one hasn't released today, maybe tomorrow?

Karol wrote:
How much time do they need to write a pdf file?
Lets say with decision making, someone actually writing it, then someone proofing if it is writen correctly and if it had to move around different departaments, then it is maybe 3-4 days. And they knew what rules they gave void weavers months in advance.

They wrote the CW book more than 6 months ago. That info long since left their purview until it became a problem upon release.

Really? non of the testers and no one at the studio didn't look at void weavers, specially with the limited number of model combination harlis have, and asked the question "what happens if I take 9 of those". I could imagine this happening If I was designing a game with my mom, but not a company with 30+ years of expiriance and designers who have been working on games for decades.

Most of the designers haven't been working on games for decades. Theres 1-2 who have been there between 20-30 years, 3-4 who have been there 10-20 years, and then a larger number of younger and less experienced designers.

GW business development has been making the right choices for years (as has been evidenced by sales and profits) and they have nothing to do with competitive balance, testing, or tournaments.

Karol wrote:
Really? non of the testers and no one at the studio didn't look at void weavers, specially with the limited number of model combination harlis have, and asked the question "what happens if I take 9 of those". I could imagine this happening If I was designing a game with my mom, but not a company with 30+ years of expiriance and designers who have been working on games for decades.

Couldn't tell you. I don't know if the testers got those rules and gave them the thumbs up or if they had different points or some other confluence of variables.

It isn't a stretch for someone to look at a DE Raider and see it getting ( at that time ) a single D3+3 shot for 85 points to turn around and say that something with 4 fewer wounds and less toughness would be ok at 90 points. The Prismatic cannon being 2D3 damage is also a little "worse" than D3+3, so adding a shot may not have seemed horrible.