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.

 Xenomancers wrote:
AM infantry are the best troop in the game...hands down.
Manticores are incredibly powerful
Command Russ are incredibly powerful
Mortars are stupidly undercosted
Drop Scions are still busted as fck too.

If you are still spamming these units - you are still top tier.

Eldar and Nids are just there with you now - you still have the edge on them too.

Oh, you're saying that AM are competitive now.

Good, it's about fething time.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

I've explained it before and I'll explain it again.

The Space Marine codex was, intentionally, made sub par and underpowered compared to the rest of the codexes

(with the exception maybe of Grey Knights but that can be chalked to incompetent rules writers).

This is more of the same old "GW did this thing, because of these reasons I made up".

Space Marines outsell all other factions COMBINED, and outsell all of Age of Sigmar. GW can release whatever rules they want and so long as they are not 5th edition Tyranid terrible (Seiously that abortion of a codex was so bad that GW stock crashed by 23%) they will STILL outsell everything.

GW want to sell other factions knowing people will still buy Marines, so they made their codexes and traits better to make them more "powerful" and encourage their purchase.

I bet all of my money that you would be saying the exact opposite thing if you though the SM books were good. "GW made SM good, because they're the cash cow". You know - the eternal mantra.

There is no limit to the logic people will twist to make a fallacious point.

Larks wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
AM infantry are the best troop in the game...hands down.
Manticores are incredibly powerful
Command Russ are incredibly powerful
Mortars are stupidly undercosted
Drop Scions are still busted as fck too.

If you are still spamming these units - you are still top tier.

Eldar and Nids are just there with you now - you still have the edge on them too.

Oh, you're saying that AM are competitive now.

Good, it's about fething time.

Anyone who says AM are not currently top tier either play AM themselves, or don't play the game at all. They've received some nerfs recently for sure, and you can put together sub par lists, as you can in any codex. But on a competitive setting, they are still by far the army to beat.

Free army traits in each book is absolutely fine and exactly what people have been begging for many years. You can't price them in comparison to each other fairly, internally or externally. What is really mind boggling is that that power armoured codexes only receive traits for their infantry, bikes and dreads but other armies receive the trait army wide, I'd love to know the design decision behind that one.

 NurglesR0T wrote:
Free army traits in each book is absolutely fine and exactly what people have been begging for many years. You can't price them in comparison to each other fairly, internally or externally. What is really mind boggling is that that power armoured codexes only receive traits for their infantry, bikes and dreads but other armies receive the trait army wide, I'd love to know the design decision behind that one.

Uuuh chapter traits, regiment bonuses etc can be priced with each other lot easier fairly than having them free. Now that they are free you end up in situation where white scars is never used as Guillimann and -1 to hit are so much more valuable. And how much Vostoyans you see over cadian/catachan?

They should cost to all codexes. Would also help with the obvious imbalance of codex vs index but as GW doesn't give rat ass about balance they have no problem of adding free bonuses to sell stuff.

Should regimental doctrines cost points? No. The question we should be asking is why they weren't introduced earlier / why were they taken taken away to begin with? Different IG regiments have always existed, its just that for about the last decade IG players have been playing at a handicap. Now we finally have rules that reflect the tactics/strengths of said regiments, an actual incentive to collect them & everyone is losing their minds. I'm not saying Cadians/Catachans aren't competitive (I also don't play either of them), but I've yet to see any pure IG lists win a tournament. Its always imperial soup cheese. How long is this going to go on? Conscripts are dead. Commissars are dead. Astropaths just doubled in points. Manticores just shot up in points. How many more entries need be rendered obsolete before the community is satisfied?

tneva82 wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:
Free army traits in each book is absolutely fine and exactly what people have been begging for many years. You can't price them in comparison to each other fairly, internally or externally. What is really mind boggling is that that power armoured codexes only receive traits for their infantry, bikes and dreads but other armies receive the trait army wide, I'd love to know the design decision behind that one.

Uuuh chapter traits, regiment bonuses etc can be priced with each other lot easier fairly than having them free. Now that they are free you end up in situation where white scars is never used as Guillimann and -1 to hit are so much more valuable. And how much Vostoyans you see over cadian/catachan?

They should cost to all codexes. Would also help with the obvious imbalance of codex vs index but as GW doesn't give rat ass about balance they have no problem of adding free bonuses to sell stuff.

Attach points to each trait and I guarantee you the forum will be filled with posts arguing over the point efficiency of which is the most cost effective and better one overall - exactly the same as you described now.

 Commissar Benny wrote:
Should regimental doctrines cost points? No. The question we should be asking is why they weren't introduced earlier / why were they taken taken away to begin with? Different IG regiments have always existed, its just that for about the last decade IG players have been playing at a handicap. Now we finally have rules that reflect the tactics/strengths of said regiments, an actual incentive to collect them & everyone is losing their minds. I'm not saying Cadians/Catachans aren't competitive (I also don't play either of them), but I've yet to see any pure IG lists win a tournament. Its always imperial soup cheese. How long is this going to go on? Conscripts are dead. Commissars are dead. Astropaths just doubled in points. Manticores just shot up in points. How many more entries need be rendered obsolete before the community is satisfied?

I mean "Imperial Soup Cheese" has largely been 95% IG+Celestine(see: NOVA Open), and every time I say that Celestine should be limited and require a Sisters of Battle tax before you're allowed to field her (same deal with the Primarchs, though there isn't nearly as much push back on that idea) I get told that Celestine showing up to help out a Guard regiment with zero Sisters support is super fluffy and should be encouraged, so. Reap what you sow.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:
Free army traits in each book is absolutely fine and exactly what people have been begging for many years. You can't price them in comparison to each other fairly, internally or externally. What is really mind boggling is that that power armoured codexes only receive traits for their infantry, bikes and dreads but other armies receive the trait army wide, I'd love to know the design decision behind that one.

Uuuh chapter traits, regiment bonuses etc can be priced with each other lot easier fairly than having them free. Now that they are free you end up in situation where white scars is never used as Guillimann and -1 to hit are so much more valuable. And how much Vostoyans you see over cadian/catachan?

They should cost to all codexes. Would also help with the obvious imbalance of codex vs index but as GW doesn't give rat ass about balance they have no problem of adding free bonuses to sell stuff.

Attach points to each trait and I guarantee you the forum will be filled with posts arguing over the point efficiency of which is the most cost effective and better one overall - exactly the same as you described now.

And free points is better...How? People complain about power levels being unbalanced. This is basically same for chapter/regiment/hive fleet/whatever traits.

Take IG squad from index and IG squad from codex. One has free bonus rule, one has not. How is that balanced? Obviously it's not. If traits costed points that would be different thing though. There's no actual reason why codex HAS to be more powerful than index. Except GW wants to push codex sales by forgetting about balance. More options!=more powerful if games developers cared about balance.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Commissar Benny wrote:
Should regimental doctrines cost points? No. The question we should be asking is why they weren't introduced earlier / why were they taken taken away to begin with? Different IG regiments have always existed, its just that for about the last decade IG players have been playing at a handicap. Now we finally have rules that reflect the tactics/strengths of said regiments, an actual incentive to collect them & everyone is losing their minds. I'm not saying Cadians/Catachans aren't competitive (I also don't play either of them), but I've yet to see any pure IG lists win a tournament. Its always imperial soup cheese. How long is this going to go on? Conscripts are dead. Commissars are dead. Astropaths just doubled in points. Manticores just shot up in points. How many more entries need be rendered obsolete before the community is satisfied?

I mean "Imperial Soup Cheese" has largely been 95% IG+Celestine(see: NOVA Open), and every time I say that Celestine should be limited and require a Sisters of Battle tax before you're allowed to field her (same deal with the Primarchs, though there isn't nearly as much push back on that idea) I get told that Celestine showing up to help out a Guard regiment with zero Sisters support is super fluffy and should be encouraged, so. Reap what you sow.

Well I for one agree with you & I'm not even sure why lists like that are allowed. Overall I feel the "New GW" is headed in the right direction by rewarding more fluff based lists/armies but they need to crack down on silliness like this. Primarchs for example shouldn't be running around in 1k-2k lists. Imperial soup lists need to have further restrictions &/or prerequisites etc.

 Commissar Benny wrote:
Well I for one agree with you & I'm not even sure why lists like that are allowed.

Isn't that obvious? Money. GW cares not about balance but selling models. You think they would sell more Celestice if she was HARDER to include? Obviously the more players are able to field her the more they sell them.

Same reason why super heavies went from apoc to normal games. When in apoc less players had even chance to use them as not all play apoc. Have them in normal games though and potential buyer base increases dramatically...

GW does not want to restrict players from buying models any more than absolutely neccessary.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Tyranid traits are extremely specific and many apply only to a subset of the model's range.

But it still applies to every model. Regardless what it affects, it's still there.

Jormungandr trait applies to everything that doesn't fly.

So no zoanthropes, neurothropes, mines of any kind, harpy, hive crone, flyrants, malanthropes, harridans, gargoyles, sky slasher swarms. Nid adaptations do not always apply to every model and even when they do if the trait is worthless for that model how much does it actually matter if it does?

Commissar Benny wrote:The question we should be asking is why they weren't introduced earlier / why were they taken taken away to begin with?

We had them in 3e. You could select 2 or 3 from a list, like "drop troops" letting you deep strike all infantry and sentinels, or "close order drill" giving you +1 WS if you went shoulder-to-shoulder. Most of them were crap choices, though.

 Xenomancers wrote:
AM infantry are the best troop in the game...hands down.
Manticores are incredibly powerful
Command Russ are incredibly powerful
Mortars are stupidly undercosted
Drop Scions are still busted as fck too.

If you are still spamming these units - you are still top tier.

Eldar and Nids are just there with you now - you still have the edge on them too.

Looks at the GTO list. Yep We were in the top 8....in slot 8. Behind multiple primarch lists. But I'm guessing you use primarchs and don't want them nerfed.

 ChargerIIC wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
AM infantry are the best troop in the game...hands down.
Manticores are incredibly powerful
Command Russ are incredibly powerful
Mortars are stupidly undercosted
Drop Scions are still busted as fck too.

If you are still spamming these units - you are still top tier.

Eldar and Nids are just there with you now - you still have the edge on them too.

Looks at the GTO list. Yep We were in the top 8....in slot 8. Behind multiple primarch lists. But I'm guessing you use primarchs and don't want them nerfed.

What GT are you talking about? A top 8 finish at a GT is pretty good.

Frankly, at this point I think these subfaction rules are just a bad idea. They will never be balanced, so in effect you get punished if you happen to like the wrong regiment/chapter/craftworld/etc. Most of this stuff is unnecessary. People who like White Scars could just take more bikes, and people who like Iyanden could just take more wraiths, There is no reason there needs to be any complicated special rules to reflect the strengths of these subfactions, especially as they often fail to even do that.

 Crimson wrote:
Frankly, at this point I think these subfaction rules are just a bad idea. They will never be balanced, so in effect you get punished if you happen to like the wrong regiment/chapter/craftworld/etc. Most of this stuff is unnecessary. People who like White Scars could just take more bikes, and people who like Iyanden could just take more wraiths, There is no reason there needs to be any complicated special rules to reflect the strengths of these subfactions, especially as they often fail to even do that.

The reason they did this was simple. Space marine envy. They forgot about the part that chapter tactics were basically introduced to make the garbage space marine stat line usable and it still failed at that (until they gave every space marine army free ultra marines tactics AND free razorbacks on top of their own chapter tactics...yeah that made them competitive). That and formation carry over. The problem is - and you see it in army builds where you have 2-3 different army traits being used. Army traits should not be as fluid to be used as it was to combine a bunch of formations.

They should just dump army traits and create formations. Let people buy formations with command points. It would work a lot better and give armies more freedom to paint the way they want to.

Chapter traits, regimental doctrines, craftworld traits, legion rules, etc go back many editions and 15 years or more at this point to 3E (assuming we're not lumping the ostensibly codex adherent Angels chapters in, in which case it goes back to 2E), it's hardly just "space marine envy" or trying to "make the garbage space marine stat line usable". Their form changed from edition to edition, but they are hardly new or reactions to the above. Eldar had Craftworld traits in 3E, IG had regimental doctrines in 3E, Space Marines got Chapter Traits in 4E which morphed into Chapter Tactics in 5E. CSM's had Legion rules in 3E. These aren't new concepts nor are they tailored to, or in direct reaction to, Space Marine specific issues.

Yeah if memory serves, Guard got their Doctrines before Space Marines did anyways.

tneva82 wrote:
Uuuh chapter traits, regiment bonuses etc can be priced with each other lot easier fairly than having them free. Now that they are free you end up in situation where white scars is never used as Guillimann and -1 to hit are so much more valuable. And how much Vostoyans you see over cadian/catachan?

They should cost to all codexes. Would also help with the obvious imbalance of codex vs index but as GW doesn't give rat ass about balance they have no problem of adding free bonuses to sell stuff.

Okay, question: if GW was attempting to create multiple tactics that were balanced against one another but failed as they under/overestimated the usefulness of some, how would slapping a point value on each fix it? Yes, if the white scars tactic were cheaper it would balance out better, but GW
wouldn't be aware that it'd need to be cheaper, as they overvalued its usefulness.

This doesn't actually fix anything, it's entirely possible to make multiple CT balanced against one another regardless of whether they are free or cost points. GW merely failed to do so.

Nevermind.

I think that any regimental doctrines or chapter tactics should come with some sort of draw back. Usually for an army to get some sort of bonus or advantage they'll have to give up something else or otherwise everyone would do what they do. Like the ability to be -1 to hit at greater than 12" should also be stuck with -1" to move and charge ranges to represent more cautious movement and stealth. For catachans to get their weapon and strength bonus, they should be reduced to a 6+ save (also consistent with their model). Stuff like that. It should be balanced with a stock army that doesn't use a regimental doctrine. This way some doctrines can give stronger bonuses but at the cost of harsher penalties. You would then have to build your list to maximize your strength while mitigating your weakness which if designed well would lead you to build what people would consider "fluffy lists".

tneva82 wrote:

 Commissar Benny wrote:
Well I for one agree with you & I'm not even sure why lists like that are allowed.

Isn't that obvious? Money. GW cares not about balance but selling models. You think they would sell more Celestice if she was HARDER to include? Obviously the more players are able to field her the more they sell them.

Same reason why super heavies went from apoc to normal games. When in apoc less players had even chance to use them as not all play apoc. Have them in normal games though and potential buyer base increases dramatically...

GW does not want to restrict players from buying models any more than absolutely neccessary.

Aren't you the guy who's insistent that GW ramped up the price of FW superheavies because they don't want to sell resin? You really have a conspiracy theory for everything, don't you?

 NurglesR0T wrote:
What is really mind boggling is that that power armoured codexes only receive traits for their infantry, bikes and dreads but other armies receive the trait army wide, I'd love to know the design decision behind that one.

Eldar is the only codex where traits apply to everything.

Tyranids have some traits that apply to everything and some that apply only to a subset of units.

Mechanicum traits don't apply to knights.

Guard traits don't apply to aircraft, commissars, auxiliaries and sometimes superheavies.

So, basically, they're all different.

SilverAlien wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Uuuh chapter traits, regiment bonuses etc can be priced with each other lot easier fairly than having them free. Now that they are free you end up in situation where white scars is never used as Guillimann and -1 to hit are so much more valuable. And how much Vostoyans you see over cadian/catachan?

They should cost to all codexes. Would also help with the obvious imbalance of codex vs index but as GW doesn't give rat ass about balance they have no problem of adding free bonuses to sell stuff.

Okay, question: if GW was attempting to create multiple tactics that were balanced against one another but failed as they under/overestimated the usefulness of some, how would slapping a point value on each fix it? Yes, if the white scars tactic were cheaper it would balance out better, but GW
wouldn't be aware that it'd need to be cheaper, as they overvalued its usefulness.

This doesn't actually fix anything, it's entirely possible to make multiple CT balanced against one another regardless of whether they are free or cost points. GW merely failed to do so.

It adds another method you can finetune it AND it would also have added benefit that it would decrease effect between index and codex army. It's pretty hard to create sensible rules that are equally powerful. -1 to hit is pretty damn good. What you propose imperial fists gets that's equally good?

Again squad of IG troopers from index, squad of IG troopers from codex. Is this balanced? Same cost, same stats, same weapons, one has extra rules.

There's no functional reason you need to hand down FREE RULES except GW wants to sell you stuff and screw the balance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Commissar Benny wrote:
Well I for one agree with you & I'm not even sure why lists like that are allowed.

Isn't that obvious? Money. GW cares not about balance but selling models. You think they would sell more Celestice if she was HARDER to include? Obviously the more players are able to field her the more they sell them.

Same reason why super heavies went from apoc to normal games. When in apoc less players had even chance to use them as not all play apoc. Have them in normal games though and potential buyer base increases dramatically...

GW does not want to restrict players from buying models any more than absolutely neccessary.

Aren't you the guy who's insistent that GW ramped up the price of FW superheavies because they don't want to sell resin? You really have a conspiracy theory for everything, don't you?

No need for conspiracy when you can just look which makes more money. GW isn't even subtle about this...

Again: Take squad from index and codex. SAME price. SAME stats. SAME weapons. One beats the crap out of the other. You really think that's balanced? Obviously not. Why GW does that? MOOOONEY! GW doesn't care about balance. Never has. Anybody who thinks otherwise probably still believe in santa claus.

tneva82 wrote:
It adds another method you can finetune it AND it would also have added benefit that it would decrease effect between index and codex army. It's pretty hard to create sensible rules that are equally powerful. -1 to hit is pretty damn good. What you propose imperial fists gets that's equally good?

Again squad of IG troopers from index, squad of IG troopers from codex. Is this balanced? Same cost, same stats, same weapons, one has extra rules.

There's no functional reason you need to hand down FREE RULES except GW wants to sell you stuff and screw the balance.

Give the IF a benefit that focuses on bolter mastery, like in HH. They could reroll hits or wounds, all or values of one, have a flat bonus to the hit, might vary depending on if they moved or not, or possibly if they were in cover or not. In fact, probably the most fluffy would be giving them a bonus to bolters in some form while in cover, combined with current tactics. Yeah that's like three more minor and situational benefits vs one big benefit, but IG made two benefits standard so I don't see that being an issue. It's no harder to adjust benefits than it is to change point costs, that's why RG has a restriction on it by not working in very close ranges.

Also, codex vs index is irrelevant. The index army lists will be totally invalidated within the next 6 months. It was just a stop gap, never intended to be permanent and issues with the two not matching up are teething issues of a new edition, like when a new edition previously messed up the codices written for the previous edition. Except it's actually going to be fixed this time, fairly quickly to boot. So just bear it for a bit longer.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

This is like saying "Marines have 3+ armour save on their basic Troops, that's unfair."

Flashbacks to teaching new players...