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.

You said you would be annoyed if Knights were nerfed, based off the fact that the new Necron LoW looks OP based off nothing other than a glance at its gun.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

ballzonya wrote:
I heard a rumor that the castellan is going up to over 700 points in the new faq. How mad would you be that a 200 dollar (Cdn) model got nerfered so hard because of command point spams. I play pure Knights no gaurd battalion and it bothers me.

Annoying considering how OP the new Necron model looks.

Before telling others to read, you might want to pay better attention to what you write.

 SHUPPET wrote:
You said you would be annoyed if Knights were nerfed, based off the fact that the new Necron LoW looks OP based off nothing other than a glance at its gun.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

ballzonya wrote:
I heard a rumor that the castellan is going up to over 700 points in the new faq. How mad would you be that a 200 dollar (Cdn) model got nerfered so hard because of command point spams. I play pure Knights no gaurd battalion and it bothers me.

Annoying considering how OP the new Necron model looks.

Before telling others to read, you might want to pay better attention to what you write.

No I was annoyed that it was having its points increased, I added that its also annoying that the Necron unit looks OP. I wasn't moaning about the Necron unit being OP like you wrongly implied. 'Yeah annoying considering', read that a few times. Jesus...

Spoletta wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Stux wrote:

More casual players have the option to ignore it.

Or tournament players can just put additional balancing restrictions in their tournament house rule packs.

If you're saying there needs to be good balance to allow for pickup games without bickering, then sacrifices on fluffy lists may need to be made to achieve that balance.

No. That's not an acceptable solution.

That is correct.

The game is not aimed at top competition levels, so the standard rules should reflect this. Casual gaming should never suffer due to the existence of competitive games.

I don't think that there is a need to divide the two in terms of rules, but if it where, this should be done with house rules on the tournaments, like it already happens.

In this case though this is not a problem, the solution here is to split CP in detachments, which is both more balanced and more fluffy.

Casual will never suffer at the expense of a good match play rules set. If it creates balance - it's good for all game types to use it. Casual suffers the most from a badly balanced rules set - because the players don't pick their units based on power. They pick based on what they like. So if your friend likes shinning spears and you like tactical marines - you will lose 100% of games. Not cool.

You somehow seem to be missing the fact that my post is referencing the part where you decided a model you know nothing about is going to be OP. Which is actually an incredible because it was like 90% of your post. And I bolded it for you.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
You said you would be annoyed if Knights were nerfed, based off the fact that the new Necron LoW looks OP based off nothing other than a glance at its gun.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

ballzonya wrote:
I heard a rumor that the castellan is going up to over 700 points in the new faq. How mad would you be that a 200 dollar (Cdn) model got nerfered so hard because of command point spams. I play pure Knights no gaurd battalion and it bothers me.

Annoying considering how OP the new Necron model looks.

Before telling others to read, you might want to pay better attention to what you write.

No I was annoyed that it was having its points increased, I added that its also annoying that the Necron unit looks OP. I wasn't moaning about the Necron unit being OP like you wrongly implied. 'Yeah annoying considering', read that a few times. Jesus...

Relax guys - I am sure all knowing GW will make this right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SHUPPET wrote:
You somehow seem to be missing the fact that my post is referencing the part where you decided a model you know nothing about is going to be OP. Which is actually an incredible because it was like 90% of your post. And I bolded it for you.

Yeah true - you can't know if something is OP without knowing it's points cost. All we know right now is what it's weapon does. Which seems decent. If it's 400 points with 24 W and quantum shielding - it will be OP and make Necrons top tier instantly. If it's 900 points with those stats it won't even see play. It's all in the cost.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Stux wrote:

More casual players have the option to ignore it.

Or tournament players can just put additional balancing restrictions in their tournament house rule packs.

If you're saying there needs to be good balance to allow for pickup games without bickering, then sacrifices on fluffy lists may need to be made to achieve that balance.

No. That's not an acceptable solution.

That is correct.

The game is not aimed at top competition levels, so the standard rules should reflect this. Casual gaming should never suffer due to the existence of competitive games.

I don't think that there is a need to divide the two in terms of rules, but if it where, this should be done with house rules on the tournaments, like it already happens.

In this case though this is not a problem, the solution here is to split CP in detachments, which is both more balanced and more fluffy.

Casual will never suffer at the expense of a good match play rules set. If it creates balance - it's good for all game types to use it. Casual suffers the most from a badly balanced rules set - because the players don't pick their units based on power. They pick based on what they like. So if your friend likes shinning spears and you like tactical marines - you will lose 100% of games. Not cool.

That is basically my point.

I'm prepared to accept the fact that soup may not be balancable. If so I'm ok with matched play not allowing it, because in that case it will be healthier for the game in the long run.

It may not come to that, but I'm open to the possibility.

 Stux wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Stux wrote:

More casual players have the option to ignore it.

Or tournament players can just put additional balancing restrictions in their tournament house rule packs.

If you're saying there needs to be good balance to allow for pickup games without bickering, then sacrifices on fluffy lists may need to be made to achieve that balance.

No. That's not an acceptable solution.

That is correct.

The game is not aimed at top competition levels, so the standard rules should reflect this. Casual gaming should never suffer due to the existence of competitive games.

I don't think that there is a need to divide the two in terms of rules, but if it where, this should be done with house rules on the tournaments, like it already happens.

In this case though this is not a problem, the solution here is to split CP in detachments, which is both more balanced and more fluffy.

Casual will never suffer at the expense of a good match play rules set. If it creates balance - it's good for all game types to use it. Casual suffers the most from a badly balanced rules set - because the players don't pick their units based on power. They pick based on what they like. So if your friend likes shinning spears and you like tactical marines - you will lose 100% of games. Not cool.

That is basically my point.

I'm prepared to accept the fact that soup may not be balancable. If so I'm ok with matched play not allowing it, because in that case it will be healthier for the game in the long run.

It may not come to that, but I'm open to the possibility.

Yeah - I am totally open to a mono only tournament scene. Game will still need a lot of fixes though.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

2D3 is the exact same as 1D6.

No, it isn't.

1d6 averages 3.5
2d3 averages 4

1d6 has a minimum of 1
2d3 has a minimum of 2

1d6 has a linear distribution, meaning all results are equally likely.
2d3 has a bell curve meaning the middle results are more likely than the extremes.

Oh yeah, I never was that good at statistics.

Maybe that's why you think the new Necron model is OP when we know literally nothing else than the fact it has a decent gun.

 SHUPPET wrote:
You somehow seem to be missing the fact that my post is referencing the part where you decided a model you know nothing about is going to be OP. Which is actually an incredible because it was like 90% of your post. And I bolded it for you.

And that was irrelevant to the point of you saying that I was moaning about the OPness of the necron model

Guys why are you so combative about something that was allready done 2 pages ago.

Also, I'm a big Imperial Soup player. I have a ton of armies that I can't field as 2k armies alone (Adeptus Custodes, Tempestus Scions, Imperial Knights, Sisters of Battle, Assasins, Sisters of Silence), and It would suck to have allies or soup removed. But if GW choses to ban allies, I'll accept that outside narrative/open, even if that means having 0 games.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
You somehow seem to be missing the fact that my post is referencing the part where you decided a model you know nothing about is going to be OP. Which is actually an incredible because it was like 90% of your post. And I bolded it for you.

And that was irrelevant to the point of you saying that I was moaning about the OPness of the necron model

No, it's literally what I was referencing when I said it. Try to keep up.

 Galas wrote:
Guys why are you so combative about something that was allready done 2 pages ago.

Also, I'm a big Imperial Soup player. I have a ton of armies that I can't field as 2k armies alone (Adeptus Custodes, Tempestus Scions, Imperial Knights, Sisters of Battle, Assasins, Sisters of Silence), and It would suck to have allies or soup removed. But if GW choses to ban allies, I'll accept that outside narrative/open, even if that means having 0 games.

Yeah well I won't, being in a similar boat as you. I think it's pretty clear the era of monodexing is gone. The better plan is to expand the soup options of factions with less soup.

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
You somehow seem to be missing the fact that my post is referencing the part where you decided a model you know nothing about is going to be OP. Which is actually an incredible because it was like 90% of your post. And I bolded it for you.

And that was irrelevant to the point of you saying that I was moaning about the OPness of the necron model

No, it's literally what I was referencing when I said it. Try to keep up.

You may have thought that; however, you didn't type that: "The fact that there's people like you already whining about it being too OP is a sign of how far this community has sunk."

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Annoying considering how OP the new Necron model looks.

You literally did state exactly what he said you did...

...what point are you trying to make at this stage? You made a comment, several people pointed out it was inaccurate, now you're determined to back pedal and derail any semblance of discussion going on. Just take it on the chin, and move on! We've all been wrong and/or said stupid s*%t.

StrayIight wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Annoying considering how OP the new Necron model looks.

You literally did state exactly what he said you did...

...what point are you trying to make at this stage? You made a comment, several people pointed out it was inaccurate, now you're determined to back pedal and derail any semblance of discussion going on. Just take it on the chin, and move on! We've all been wrong and/or said stupid s*%t.

No I didn't, I never moaned about the OPness or suggested it shouldn't be that OP, so no I didn't. I said it was annoying because we are going to need all the help we can get taking on the necron unit. The only thing I moaned about is the points rise of the Castellan.

Don't we all know how this works?
New FW model will be crazy OP super low priced, crazy guns and weird special rules until next FAQ where the price will go up 2-300 points once they've sold out of the initial production...

I do think we should consider the max damage of a unit when discussing balance but the average should be where the emphasis is. I think models with high variance are a type of model (like orcs/demons should have units/models that are mad swingy while SM/crons should be more predictable) and add to the gaming experience but sometimes lead to frustrating results. I'm not sure how much GW sticks to this theory but it makes narrative sense to me

 Galas wrote:
Guys why are you so combative about something that was allready done 2 pages ago.

Also, I'm a big Imperial Soup player. I have a ton of armies that I can't field as 2k armies alone (Adeptus Custodes, Tempestus Scions, Imperial Knights, Sisters of Battle, Assasins, Sisters of Silence), and It would suck to have allies or soup removed. But if GW choses to ban allies, I'll accept that outside narrative/open, even if that means having 0 games.

There is nothing stopping you fielding your Imperial armies alone at 2k points except the fact that you want to soup/ally excluding perhaps Assassins.

Custodes, Scions, IK and SoB can all be taken as standalone forces no problem. Some even perform really well as such.

On the opposite side of the spectrum, my army, Orks, can't soup. Should I just stop playing the game as it exists to accommodate soup players only now? How about all those people who prefer to play mono faction but are actively nerfing themselves if they do?

Custodes really are fine on their own it's just they won't have a lot of command points. This is the real issue here! Command points should not be distributed by the ability to spam cheap HQ and troops.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Custodes really are fine on their own it's just they won't have a lot of command points. This is the real issue here! Command points should not be distributed by the ability to spam cheap HQ and troops.

I've felt the match play game would be better with a set number of command points based on point level.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Guys why are you so combative about something that was allready done 2 pages ago.

Also, I'm a big Imperial Soup player. I have a ton of armies that I can't field as 2k armies alone (Adeptus Custodes, Tempestus Scions, Imperial Knights, Sisters of Battle, Assasins, Sisters of Silence), and It would suck to have allies or soup removed. But if GW choses to ban allies, I'll accept that outside narrative/open, even if that means having 0 games.

There is nothing stopping you fielding your Imperial armies alone at 2k points except the fact that you want to soup/ally excluding perhaps Assassins.

Custodes, Scions, IK and SoB can all be taken as standalone forces no problem. Some even perform really well as such.

On the opposite side of the spectrum, my army, Orks, can't soup. Should I just stop playing the game as it exists to accommodate soup players only now? How about all those people who prefer to play mono faction but are actively nerfing themselves if they do?

The same question can be asked in reverse, should people who have built soup armies and prefer to play that way have the option completely removed because others don't like it? I've been playing soup since the second it was available. I can't remember the last time I played a mono game. I play Aeldari (Dark Eldar/Craftworlds mainly) and my units are painted in a way that they look good together (purple/brass for DE, Purple/Bone for CE, Bone/Black for Wraith stuff), this is my main tournament army, although I also play Tyranids (Bone/Flesh for Nids, Black/Bone for GSC) as a tourney army sometimes. These two I used to play narratively in conjunction with a radical Ordo Xenos inquisitor (Black/Brass paint scheme). As you can see these armies are painted to blend and have been collected over a good number of years (started collecting 20+ years ago). If we were forced back to the old mono army design should I just quit because the playstyle I like is dead?

I think a more sensible option is to give Orks soup options, add a keyword (say Alien) to them, GSC (but not Nids), Tau and a maybe a select few Eldar units and/or give them a rule similar to the 'Brood Brothers' for GSC to let them be taken alongside select other forces.

Drager wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Guys why are you so combative about something that was allready done 2 pages ago.

Also, I'm a big Imperial Soup player. I have a ton of armies that I can't field as 2k armies alone (Adeptus Custodes, Tempestus Scions, Imperial Knights, Sisters of Battle, Assasins, Sisters of Silence), and It would suck to have allies or soup removed. But if GW choses to ban allies, I'll accept that outside narrative/open, even if that means having 0 games.

There is nothing stopping you fielding your Imperial armies alone at 2k points except the fact that you want to soup/ally excluding perhaps Assassins.

Custodes, Scions, IK and SoB can all be taken as standalone forces no problem. Some even perform really well as such.

On the opposite side of the spectrum, my army, Orks, can't soup. Should I just stop playing the game as it exists to accommodate soup players only now? How about all those people who prefer to play mono faction but are actively nerfing themselves if they do?

The same question can be asked in reverse, should people who have built soup armies and prefer to play that way have the option completely removed because others don't like it? I've been playing soup since the second it was available. I can't remember the last time I played a mono game. I play Aeldari (Dark Eldar/Craftworlds mainly) and my units are painted in a way that they look good together (purple/brass for DE, Purple/Bone for CE, Bone/Black for Wraith stuff), this is my main tournament army, although I also play Tyranids (Bone/Flesh for Nids, Black/Bone for GSC) as a tourney army sometimes. These two I used to play narratively in conjunction with a radical Ordo Xenos inquisitor (Black/Brass paint scheme). As you can see these armies are painted to blend and have been collected over a good number of years (started collecting 20+ years ago). If we were forced back to the old mono army design should I just quit because the playstyle I like is dead?

I think a more sensible option is to give Orks soup options, add a keyword (say Alien) to them, GSC (but not Nids), Tau and a maybe a select few Eldar units and/or give them a rule similar to the 'Brood Brothers' for GSC to let them be taken alongside select other forces.

There is an inherent problem in soup that people can pick the best units from each army to make something stronger than any mono list can ever be.

So to answer your question: yes, if that is the best way to balance properly. Sorry.

Now, it may be that we can get good enough balance without going that far. But it will require some disincentive to allies to balance the fact you are getting a better selection of units. That might be a limit of CP or the types of detachment that can be taken for your secondary forces.

bananathug wrote:
Don't we all know how this works?
New FW model will be crazy OP super low priced, crazy guns and weird special rules until next FAQ where the price will go up 2-300 points once they've sold out of the initial production...

I do think we should consider the max damage of a unit when discussing balance but the average should be where the emphasis is. I think models with high variance are a type of model (like orcs/demons should have units/models that are mad swingy while SM/crons should be more predictable) and add to the gaming experience but sometimes lead to frustrating results. I'm not sure how much GW sticks to this theory but it makes narrative sense to me

Its a GW model, not FW.

Reemule wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Custodes really are fine on their own it's just they won't have a lot of command points. This is the real issue here! Command points should not be distributed by the ability to spam cheap HQ and troops.

I've felt the match play game would be better with a set number of command points based on point level.

Absolutely agree - been playing this way for months now. It's just a better game like this.

As people have said it depends on the points.

Sure that gun looks good. But compare it to say a Scorpion, which doesn't seem to be meta relevant.

Living metal... uh, the other one. Quantum shields will help, but if its packing a weak invul and basically amounts to 3 Las predators stuck on top of each other for 700+ points its probably not going to be amazing.

If removing allies or making allies less viable than monobuild some people would have to buy new models. GW business model is based on getting you to buy models.

blaktoof wrote:
If removing allies or making allies less viable than monobuild some people would have to buy new models. GW business model is based on getting you to buy models.

ya but over all I would think that the soup is better for business this way you need more than one codex and it is easier to find a monobuild army used then an imperial soup list.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Guys why are you so combative about something that was allready done 2 pages ago.

Also, I'm a big Imperial Soup player. I have a ton of armies that I can't field as 2k armies alone (Adeptus Custodes, Tempestus Scions, Imperial Knights, Sisters of Battle, Assasins, Sisters of Silence), and It would suck to have allies or soup removed. But if GW choses to ban allies, I'll accept that outside narrative/open, even if that means having 0 games.

There is nothing stopping you fielding your Imperial armies alone at 2k points except the fact that you want to soup/ally excluding perhaps Assassins.

Custodes, Scions, IK and SoB can all be taken as standalone forces no problem. Some even perform really well as such.

On the opposite side of the spectrum, my army, Orks, can't soup. Should I just stop playing the game as it exists to accommodate soup players only now? How about all those people who prefer to play mono faction but are actively nerfing themselves if they do?

Honestly the entire closing off of allies was something that shouldn't have been done. One of my buddies has 3 Necrons that count as Callidus, Culexus, and Eversor and then I lend him my stand-in Vindicare (he likes it enough to use but I don't think it's the greatest thing in the world). Now those models are kinda useless.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
The rules for its weapons, deadly:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/09/24/24th-sept-this-week-kria-the-huntressfw-homepage-post-1/

2 3d3 st8 -3 d6 and 6+ rules dish out an extra mortal wound. so it can dish out 18 hits at D6 damage. Its refered to as a hunter as well so I don't think it will be a LOW, doesn't look that big either, so I fear it won't be that expensive.

So you're assuming the Seraptek Heavy Construct won't be a LOW because it's in the same article as a necromunda character called Kria the Huntress? Also it looks pretty big to me from that photo, but it can be difficult to gauge. Even if it isn't particularly big it's definitely bigger than an armiger and that's a LoW. Looks to me like it's probably about the size of Mortarion sans wings but with a much bulkier body.

 IronBrand wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
The rules for its weapons, deadly:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/09/24/24th-sept-this-week-kria-the-huntressfw-homepage-post-1/

2 3d3 st8 -3 d6 and 6+ rules dish out an extra mortal wound. so it can dish out 18 hits at D6 damage. Its refered to as a hunter as well so I don't think it will be a LOW, doesn't look that big either, so I fear it won't be that expensive.

So you're assuming the Seraptek Heavy Construct won't be a LOW because it's in the same article as a necromunda character called Kria the Huntress? Also it looks pretty big to me from that photo, but it can be difficult to gauge. Even if it isn't particularly big it's definitely bigger than an armiger and that's a LoW. Looks to me like it's probably about the size of Mortarion sans wings but with a much bulkier body.

It's enormous, unless the version they showed at Warhammer Fest Europe was a 3-up or something. It has easily the footprint of a Baneblade, probably more.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
It's enormous, unless the version they showed at Warhammer Fest Europe was a 3-up or something. It has easily the footprint of a Baneblade, probably more.

I felt like it was probably a lot longer than it looked in the recent pic but I'd only seen the whole thing from the one angle.