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.

 the_scotsman wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Stat inflation is one of the defining features of 9th edition. People should get used to it, it isn't going away. I personally think it's a big mistake, but GW clearly doesn't make decisions based on what I think, so that's neither here nor there.

I have to ask: Why would it be a mistake?

Stat inflation isn't the same as stat differentiation. Stat inflation is when stats all move in one direction, which is what we're seeing in 9th. Everybody's just getting bigger numbers for pretty much everything. Well, except the wounds characteristic of vehicles, for some bizarre reason, leading to the very strange result that 3 heavy infantry models are now often significantly more resilient than a tank.

Re your point of not using the full scale...that's getting worse, not better. When's the last time you saw anything new with a stat below the historical average stat block (i.e. hitting on 4s, S3/T3, etc)? You don't see it. The numbers are not being spread out, they're just all going up.

Mariongodspeed wrote:
Meh, let’s see what gets Core before we assume the most shooty faction gets significantly more shooty. If robots keep BS4 and lose re-rolls, and Wrath of Mars goes away or gets capped, the biggest boogeyman in the army is gone.

I haven’t seen anything yet that’s Eradicaters level of broken, have you?

I'm doing that thing where its hard for me to imagine an army I don't play without all the special rules that inevitably seem to exist when I do play against it.

Are for example 75 point D3+3 Lascannon Ballistarii broken in a world of eradicators, attack bikes, retributors? Probably not really - but mentally it seems like a very significant boost versus "the standard". The Autocannon version does make the Enmitic exterminator Heavy Lokhust even more rubbish than it was - but I think the world had more or less universally made that judgement.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Safe to say I can go back to complaining about marine being terrible again.

Have you ever stopped ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The fact a lot of these have gone to assult basicaly means ad mech will be the " super mobile" faction... Because who cares about penalties due to terrain and unit abilities when you are already advancing and getting a penalty... Yet another example why -1 cap is dumb.

So not only a buff in damage/ROF but also in mobility which I think is being overlooked. This is some serious creep from an army that was essentially gunline+

yukishiro1 wrote:
Stat inflation is one of the defining features of 9th edition. People should get used to it, it isn't going away. I personally think it's a big mistake, but GW clearly doesn't make decisions based on what I think, so that's neither here nor there.

Core rules are the problem, not stat inflation.

 Argive wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Safe to say I can go back to complaining about marine being terrible again.

Have you ever stopped ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The fact a lot of these have gone to assult basicaly means ad mech will be the " super mobile" faction... Because who cares about penalties due to terrain and unit abilities when you are already advancing and getting a penalty... Yet another example why -1 cap is dumb.

So not only a buff in damage/ROF but also in mobility which I think is being overlooked. This is some serious creep from an army that was essentially gunline+

They have some incredible melee units. Electro priests are just silly.

Just look at this cognis lascannon 48" assault 2 str 9 ap-3 d3+3 damage.
Compared to a lastalon? 24" Heavy 2 str 9 ap-3 d6 damage. Double the range and 5 avg damage cvs 3/4. I guess this cognis lascannon needs to be what? 60 points for the twin for it to be even remotely balanced with the lastalon which costs 40?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:

Mariongodspeed wrote:
Meh, let’s see what gets Core before we assume the most shooty faction gets significantly more shooty. If robots keep BS4 and lose re-rolls, and Wrath of Mars goes away or gets capped, the biggest boogeyman in the army is gone.

I haven’t seen anything yet that’s Eradicaters level of broken, have you?

I'm doing that thing where its hard for me to imagine an army I don't play without all the special rules that inevitably seem to exist when I do play against it.

Are for example 75 point D3+3 Lascannon Ballistarii broken in a world of eradicators, attack bikes, retributors? Probably not really - but mentally it seems like a very significant boost versus "the standard". The Autocannon version does make the Enmitic exterminator Heavy Lokhust even more rubbish than it was - but I think the world had more or less universally made that judgement.

Lets compare apples to apples.

Vehicles in general are bad right now because of weapons averaging 4-5 wounds each are plentiful. However...this new ballistarii vs a gladiator lancer? Give me a faking break.

Admech was onced supposed to be the mobile faction in 7th e. Cognis weapons already allowed advancing and shooting. Its also a twinlascannon, not just one. Admech units are also generally not that fast. Ironstriders are basically huge walking legs and move 10". Raiders are fast because of their scout move. But other factions known for their speed laugh at our movement ( that really happened several times)

I think everyone recognises the Lancer is borderline unplayable rubbish. (All of them are really)

The question is how they stackup with MM attack bikes, Retributors etc. I think it would be around a wash - rules depending. I think MM attack bikes should be more expensive - because that level of lethality is bad for the game - but if GW don't, they are the bar to compare with.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Stat inflation is one of the defining features of 9th edition. People should get used to it, it isn't going away. I personally think it's a big mistake, but GW clearly doesn't make decisions based on what I think, so that's neither here nor there.

I have to ask: Why would it be a mistake?

Stat inflation isn't the same as stat differentiation. Stat inflation is when stats all move in one direction, which is what we're seeing in 9th. Everybody's just getting bigger numbers for pretty much everything. Well, except the wounds characteristic of vehicles, for some bizarre reason, leading to the very strange result that 3 heavy infantry models are now often significantly more resilient than a tank.

Re your point of not using the full scale...that's getting worse, not better. When's the last time you saw anything new with a stat below the historical average stat block (i.e. hitting on 4s, S3/T3, etc)? You don't see it. The numbers are not being spread out, they're just all going up.

...except that they're not.

Firstborn marines got an additional wound, but Necrons did not - instead, they got additional defenses in the form of resurrection protocols that actually work as advertised bringing models back to life, and vehicles that essentially had Transhuman Phys and a 5++. Meaning that an army spamming the high-AP d2 weaponry that would be super effective against marines is highly INeffective against necrons.

And Dreadnoughts got a different sort of durability boost from regular marines, -1 damage, meaning marines have an inbuilt support unit that's ideal for surviving the exact types of weapons that marines themselves are susceptible to.

Death Guard got both the additional wound and their FNP changed to -1 damage, making them another threat alongside necrons that makes spamming D2 weaponry to tailor against marines unviable, and we can already see that both hit the current competitive meta - which was doing exactly that - like a brick.

Then you add Drukhari to the mix whose defenses are primarily invulnerable saves, FNPs and negative to hit mods, which is another, completely distinct form of defenses that makes spamming high strength high damage weaponry like people are already beginning to spam to target death guard less viable.

GW is primarily getting this done using buffs - though given that the codex release schedule has included something like 5 marine codexes the 'average' 9th edition codex is still a step down in power level overall rather than a step up, but that's because so many things in the game were already sitting right at the bottom or the standard stat value. How much stuff in the game was 'basically a guardsman' in 8th? it became a race to the bottom.

if you create a situation where you can't spam weapon A because of army B, you can't spam weapon B because of army C, and you can't spam weapon C because of army A, you naturally create a less lethal game environment by forcing people to create take all comers lists.

Tyel wrote:
I think everyone recognises the Lancer is borderline unplayable rubbish. (All of them are really)

The question is how they stackup with MM attack bikes, Retributors etc. I think it would be around a wash - rules depending. I think MM attack bikes should be more expensive - because that level of lethality is bad for the game - but if GW don't, they are the bar to compare with.

Everything could be fixed with proper points. Attack bike really are fine. The issue is weapons do not scale in price based on what you put them on. A MM is clearly worth more on a units that moves and shoots with no penalty and moves 14" rather than on a tactical marine. But you pay the same price for it.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I think everyone recognises the Lancer is borderline unplayable rubbish. (All of them are really)

The question is how they stackup with MM attack bikes, Retributors etc. I think it would be around a wash - rules depending. I think MM attack bikes should be more expensive - because that level of lethality is bad for the game - but if GW don't, they are the bar to compare with.

Everything could be fixed with proper points. Attack bike really are fine. The issue is weapons do not scale in price based on what you put them on. A MM is clearly worth more on a units that moves and shoots with no penalty and moves 14" rather than on a tactical marine. But you pay the same price for it.

Good thing they reorganized the point costs to allow for different costs on different squads. Nothing stopping them from adjusting it if it is really an issue.

75ppm for the twin cognis lascannon balistarii seems like a fairly reasonable cost even comparing to a less viable MM platform like an attack bike - take a land speeder for example.

iirc a balistarii is 10" move, T5 W6 Sv4+ 6++ with a -1 to hit. A land speeder is 18" (or 16" maybe i forget) move with fly T6 W6 Sv3+ and a gun that's significantly better at 12" range and slightly worse at 24" range. plus a little bonus rule thing that we'll give it for free.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Stat inflation isn't the same as stat differentiation. Stat inflation is when stats all move in one direction, which is what we're seeing in 9th.

Not entirely accurate. Admech has wound drops and DE saw some layers of saves stripped. Aggs lost double tap.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Argive wrote:

The fact a lot of these have gone to assult basicaly means ad mech will be the " super mobile" faction... Because who cares about penalties due to terrain and unit abilities when you are already advancing and getting a penalty... Yet another example why -1 cap is dumb.

So not only a buff in damage/ROF but also in mobility which I think is being overlooked. This is some serious creep from an army that was essentially gunline+

Can't advance and shoot with heavy rifles.

Cawl's reroll bubble is definitely gone

Ironstriders dont have -1 to hit, only dragoons and they could advance and shoot beforehand too.

Great read about the buff to resilience, which many forget. Generally I liked the idea of increasing the spectrum between guardsmen and SM. Now everything in between can be unique(though skitarii bodystats dont look promising, their incoming rules might change that)

Ballistari are T6 too, not T5.

 0XFallen wrote:
Admech was onced supposed to be the mobile faction in 7th e. Cognis weapons already allowed advancing and shooting. Its also a twinlascannon, not just one. Admech units are also generally not that fast. Ironstriders are basically huge walking legs and move 10". Raiders are fast because of their scout move. But other factions known for their speed laugh at our movement ( that really happened several times)

Skitarii were the mobile faction.
Cult Mechanicus had an easily accessible Deep Strike Formation.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Ballistari are T6 too, not T5.

OK, so a MM landspeeder has a literally identical statline except for Sv3+ instead of Sv4+.

A mm landspeeder has lower range, but significantly higher mobility (plus Fly) and has slightly lower damage at the outside of its range band and slightly higher on the inside.

....are mm landspeeders OP? not hearing a ton of chatter about them.

 the_scotsman wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Ballistari are T6 too, not T5.

OK, so a MM landspeeder has a literally identical statline except for Sv3+ instead of Sv4+.

A mm landspeeder has lower range, but significantly higher mobility (plus Fly) and has slightly lower damage at the outside of its range band and slightly higher on the inside.

....are mm landspeeders OP? not hearing a ton of chatter about them.

Str 9 is a huge consideration for an anti tank weapon.

I don't think it is too big of a deal for the unit itself. It just so much better than any marine vehicle is laughable at this point. Basically identical firepower to a gladiator lancer for less than half the points. Durability much higher but at 2.75 units to 1. Their durability per point is about the same. Joke.

 the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I think everyone recognises the Lancer is borderline unplayable rubbish. (All of them are really)

The question is how they stackup with MM attack bikes, Retributors etc. I think it would be around a wash - rules depending. I think MM attack bikes should be more expensive - because that level of lethality is bad for the game - but if GW don't, they are the bar to compare with.

Everything could be fixed with proper points. Attack bike really are fine. The issue is weapons do not scale in price based on what you put them on. A MM is clearly worth more on a units that moves and shoots with no penalty and moves 14" rather than on a tactical marine. But you pay the same price for it.

Good thing they reorganized the point costs to allow for different costs on different squads. Nothing stopping them from adjusting it if it is really an issue.

75ppm for the twin cognis lascannon balistarii seems like a fairly reasonable cost even comparing to a less viable MM platform like an attack bike - take a land speeder for example.

iirc a balistarii is 10" move, T5 W6 Sv4+ 6++ with a -1 to hit. A land speeder is 18" (or 16" maybe i forget) move with fly T6 W6 Sv3+ and a gun that's significantly better at 12" range and slightly worse at 24" range. plus a little bonus rule thing that we'll give it for free.

As for the guns: In terms of pure damage I'd rate D3+3 damage (Min 4, Av 5, Max 6) as significantly better then D6 (Min 1, Av 3.5, Max 6) , both in terms of consistency, and mean (5 is a 42% increase over 3.5). In melta range in terms of pure damage the melta is now D6+2 (Min 3, Av 5.5, Max 8), so edges out the D3+3 with a 10% increase in mean damage, but is far swingier.

It's not all about the damage stat thoug. In a world where T8 and/or ++s are fairly common then S9 AP-3 is going to be the most consistent performer in terms of wounding and getting past those saves (the twin cognis lascannon will edge out damage the multi-melta even if the melta's in 1/2 range against T8, and perform noticably better against T8/5++). If the Ironstrider is around 75 pts I'd think it'd definately compare favourably to the LS. In a match up, if you also consider the superior range of the lascannons I'd have to award the contest to the Ironstrider Balistarii.

The increase of D3+3 replacing D6 does raise interesting questions on the attack bike vs landspeeder debate. the with a min of 4 damage D3+3 will always take out an attack bike on a damaging shoot, but will only take out a landspeeder (or other 6W platform) 1/3 of the time. Are the extra points of the LS worth needing a 2nd shot to take it out 2/3 of the time?

To me an issue with C:SM is the good AT is very good (e.g. Eradicators, Melta attack bikes etc), but lots of the options (e.g. predators, gladiators) are rather lacklustre at best.

The Space Marine codex is a bit of an outlier in 9th in that the internal balance is really bad.

Tyel wrote:
I think everyone recognises the Lancer is borderline unplayable rubbish. (All of them are really)

The question is how they stackup with MM attack bikes, Retributors etc. I think it would be around a wash - rules depending. I think MM attack bikes should be more expensive - because that level of lethality is bad for the game - but if GW don't, they are the bar to compare with.

Yes, they probably are 'balanced' when looking at similar really good units so in that way its 'fine' but the question is if that is a baseline we should want the game to be centered around.
As others have already said, I don't think I have heard anyone complain that the game was not 'killy' enough and that stuff should be removed off the board faster.

All that said, I do like the d6 damage moving to d3+3 (or preferably d3+2) because so many d6 damage weapons were/are bad because of how unreliable they are.
But they probably should be more expensive.

I enjoy that the changes to Galvanic Rifles reinforce Rangers as the long-range fire support infantry, and also that Arc Rifles got a minor range buff to make them synergize- it feels like someone looked at these choices and wanted to give them more purpose, which is a deeper look than just buffing power. Rangers will now be able to out-shoot Marines at long range, but will be less effective at mobile shooting up close, let alone in melee. Sounds about right.

I also second the point that a lot of issues with lethality in 8th came from specific weapons and from buffs. I don't think Arc Rifles will be overpowered; I think they'll now be as worth taking as Plasma Calivers or Transuranic Arquebuses. It was never basic infantry or Ironstriders that scared me; it was big units of Kastelans in shooting mode with Cawl sitting nearby and popping Wrath of Mars. That wombo-comboing is downright oppressive, and if it gets removed I'm all for better basic profiles on the weapons.

I like that updated Haywire weapons are fine for killing monsters and multiwound models now thanks to the DD3 they've been adding.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I like that updated Haywire weapons are fine for killing monsters and multiwound models now thanks to the DD3 they've been adding.

Are Haywire guns now better at killing monsters than poison guns?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I like that updated Haywire weapons are fine for killing monsters and multiwound models now thanks to the DD3 they've been adding.

Are Haywire guns now better at killing monsters than poison guns?

Someone would have to do the math that owns the DE codex, but Scourges can get 4 Haywire Blasters vs 4 poison weapons.

It's clearly false.

Haywire blasters are Heavy 1D3 shots S3 Ap-3 damage 1D3 Wounds Blast, with special rules for vehicles that don't matter here. Splinter Cannons are Heavy 3 Poison 4+ Ap-1 D2.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
OK, against 6+ T3 1W infantry it is better. But it is a big ball of lightning.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I like that updated Haywire weapons are fine for killing monsters and multiwound models now thanks to the DD3 they've been adding.

Are Haywire guns now better at killing monsters than poison guns?

no, not even close. Don't listen to the living memes of dakka.

Against any monster, a splinter cannon wounds on 4+ (3+ if you have the right kabal), AP-1, 2W, with 3 shots. Making it more or less a super heavy bolter.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Ballistari are T6 too, not T5.

OK, so a MM landspeeder has a literally identical statline except for Sv3+ instead of Sv4+.

A mm landspeeder has lower range, but significantly higher mobility (plus Fly) and has slightly lower damage at the outside of its range band and slightly higher on the inside.

....are mm landspeeders OP? not hearing a ton of chatter about them.

Str 9 is a huge consideration for an anti tank weapon.

I don't think it is too big of a deal for the unit itself. It just so much better than any marine vehicle is laughable at this point. Basically identical firepower to a gladiator lancer for less than half the points. Durability much higher but at 2.75 units to 1. Their durability per point is about the same. Joke.

A gladiator lancer has less firepower than a land speeder with a single mm against most targets. It seems like the problem here is that the glancer is a fething joke against....eeeeeeeeeeeeeverything, compared to...plenty of units in the marine codex? A laspred embarrasses this fething thing. It's not a good point of comparison.

The Lancer's just got Squigbuggy problems.

The guns are worth at most 100 points but GW will think (not entirely unreasonably) that you should pay more for 12 T8 wounds - even if without invuls they are incredibly easy to pop.

So its probably going to get a cut to say 150 in CA and still be rubbish. It needs a fundamental rules rewrite.

Tyel wrote:
The Lancer's just got Squigbuggy problems.

The guns are worth at most 100 points but GW will think (not entirely unreasonably) that you should pay more for 12 T8 wounds - even if without invuls they are incredibly easy to pop.

So its probably going to get a cut to say 150 in CA and still be rubbish. It needs a fundamental rules rewrite.

tbh it feels like both it and the repulsecutioner were properly priced around firing twice (at which point it would kidna make sense as a Laspred 2.0) and then hastily rejiggered to "+1 to hit" and its point value was not modified at all.