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.

ThulsaDoom wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


Let me break it down to a basic level as requested using an extreme example.

Imagine a ws/bs2 unit with stats of 10 across the board and a sx2 ap-5 no invuln saves d6 melee weapon.

Imagine a ws/bs4 unit with stats of 3 across the board, a s:user ap:- d1 weapon.

The first one gets a warlord trait of: +1a
Second one gets: warlord trait of: +1a, s, t, w, reroll all hits and wounds.

Which is better?

In this "extreme" example of yours the obvious answer is that the second warlord trait is immeasurably superior one to anyone with a smidge of common sense.

What you obviously fail to understand is that this game does not provide different "strengths" of warlord traits depending on which model you select it for. Or maybe you believe it should do that?

In either case that makes you brilliant and no further explaining was needed as I obviously understood the meaning under the sarcasm from your first post.

I hope you understand mine and please reflect upon and enjoy your brilliance.

I regularly enjoy my own brilliance, thank you. I will leave you to carry on being annoyed that every codex doesn't have exactly the same warlord traits.

ThulsaDoom wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


Let me break it down to a basic level as requested using an extreme example.

Imagine a ws/bs2 unit with stats of 10 across the board and a sx2 ap-5 no invuln saves d6 melee weapon.

Imagine a ws/bs4 unit with stats of 3 across the board, a s:user ap:- d1 weapon.

The first one gets a warlord trait of: +1a
Second one gets: warlord trait of: +1a, s, t, w, reroll all hits and wounds.

Which is better?

In this "extreme" example of yours the obvious answer is that the second warlord trait is immeasurably superior one to anyone with a smidge of common sense.

What you obviously fail to understand is that this game does not provide different "strengths" of warlord traits depending on which model you select it for. Or maybe you believe it should do that?

In either case that makes you brilliant and no further explaining was needed as I obviously understood the meaning under the sarcasm from your first post.

I hope you understand mine and please reflect upon and enjoy your brilliance.

Don't agree. You're almost always going to get a bigger damage increase from the first one and the extra wound and toughness will be largely irrelevant, it's basically even. A 5+++ on a Guard character is useless, which is why if Guard had a FNP WLT it should provide additional benefits, maybe an aura or a offense boost in addition to the FNP, while a Daemon Prince would be fine with just the FNP.

Dudeface wrote:
I will leave you to carry on being annoyed that every codex doesn't have exactly the same warlord traits.

I unironically think this is a good idea. It's not like Guard players are regularly taking Lead From the Front on their Catachan Warlords, exactly because the scales have not been weighted far enough in the direction of Guard getting more absolute stats than CSM from their WL traits to match the multiplicative value of CSM having more stats in the first place.

Remember the thread when some marine player flipped his gak over how OP the snakebite named character was when the ork codex was released?

This is the CSM version of that thread.

 Jidmah wrote:
Remember the thread when some marine player flipped his gak over how OP the snakebite named character was when the ork codex was released?

This is the CSM version of that thread.

Orks did not deserve what GW did to them.

It is just the 9th edition power creep AND the bending over backwards that needs to happen to keep CSM somewhat resembling the other Marine codexes (SM/DG/TS/GK).

You can see the creep between the early edition SM/DG and the middle edition TS/GK. Now you can see the creep from TS/GK to CSM. They've had to work hard to get CSM within touching distance of the most overpowered codexes (Tyranids, Tau, Craftworlds, Dark Eldar) while not looking stupid next to other Marines.

And it isn't surprising that they had to release a bunch of nerfs to the OP codexes just as the CSM codex dropped, otherwise it would have been a very sad release in terms of power. I suspect this is part of why Armour of Contempt exists too.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's just a precursor to the new Marine Codex, which will be this +1.

I'm honestly surprised they haven't buffed Astartes to be better than CSM on release of the CSM dex. Marines players need their equal attention cake lol.

 Ventus wrote:
complaining about this change of all changes is just embarrassing.

/thread

As a side note - I'm just happy that they didn't get every lascannon D6+2 - THAT would have been absurd.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Orks did not deserve what GW did to them.

Its Orks' fault for not having someone who stans them on the design team.

ThulsaDoom wrote:

Kapteenigalaksi wrote:
At least Orks have a relic that gives 5+ FNP and +1 Attack

Sure, that 4 out of 11 HQ units (not counting named ones, ofc) can take - and out of those four, you don't want it on two of them - painboss and wurrboy, so that is kinda a very lousy example on your part. Viability 2/11. And also, who said anything about a relic OR trait?

Example: Custodes trait 5+ FNP and Death guard trait 5+ FNP , and nothing else, that seem fair to you?

Also, I'd take no wound re-rolls on my warlord over +1A ANY TIME OF DAY.

"give me an example of something similar to this happening"

ok here is an example.

"THAT DOESN'T COUNT BECAUSE REASONS!"
We also have Might is right which gives +1 to strength and attacks, Propa killy which gives +1 attack and -1AP, And of course we also have Big Killa Boss which gives +2 attacks vs Vehicles/Monsters AND +1 to wound vs those targets.

So yeah, we have similar things, we have warlord traits which have multiple benefits....doesn't seem broken.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:
Remember the thread when some marine player flipped his gak over how OP the snakebite named character was when the ork codex was released?

This is the CSM version of that thread.

Ah yes that muppet. "OMG BROKEN OP GW SUKZ!" Quickly followed by Orkz being 3rd best for about 2 months before GW gutted us like a fish. All the while....literally NOBODY was taking the named snakebite character

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Edit: And I don't see very much in this dumpster fire that will "make CSM players happy".

Don't worry, the usuals will wheel out the pie charts and other such graphs to show us how CSMs are performing in who-cares tournament results, so of course the codex is just fine as-is and we should be happy, as all the complaints were about power level, amirite?

Considering most of the complaints I've seen about loadouts boil down to 'I can model whatever weapon I want for my melee troops?! REEEEEEEEE!!!!'


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
@OP

They justify it in their annual accounts. GW have been guilty of power-creep in almost every new codex released. Got to sell the new hotness.

Once sales stabalise and they milk one cash-cow they release an FAQ nerfing it then move on to the next golden goose.

Also...those pesky shareholders love dividends. If they are happy then GW have all the justification they need to sleep like a log at night.

Good to hear CSM are getting a bit of love for once but I think I will hold fire and see what the WE codex is like.

This is a stupid myth and has always been a stupid myth. Yes, Admech, Drukhari, Nids, Tau, Custodes, and Eldar were super pushed on release. You know who wasn't? Everyone else.

Necrons are only good now, Codex Marines were fine but unexceptional (both of which were flagship armies with huge releases at the beginning of the edition), Sisters were WORSE outside of their new units, GSC were just kind of there, BA and SW were bad, DA was just okay, DG was okay but got really bad really fast, both knight books are fine, Tsons were fine, GK were fine, Orkz LOOKED like they were going to be good but their codex was jank AF and the good strats got hammered almost as soon as people figured them out, BT were fine but fell off pretty quick.

There's MUCH more evidence that GW is really incompetent at army balance than the 'OP till you buy it' thing people keep accusing them of.

SemperMortis wrote:
All the while....literally NOBODY was taking the named snakebite character

See what you did there, genuinely made me laugh

ERJAK wrote:
Considering most of the complaints I've seen about loadouts boil down to 'I can model whatever weapon I want for my melee troops?! REEEEEEEEE!!!!'

It's not our fault you don't understand the complaints.

ERJAK wrote:
Considering most of the complaints I've seen about loadouts boil down to 'I can model whatever weapon I want for my melee troops?! REEEEEEEEE!!!!'

?!? accursed weapons whilest being a symptom are hardly the problem indeed. And beyond the clear powerfist not being a powerfist one can accept them easily, hence why most of the complaints don't center around accursed weapons. but that would require honesty.

Hecaton wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Orks did not deserve what GW did to them.

Its Orks' fault for not having someone who stans them on the design team.

its actually worse than that, in response to orks needing buffs and other armies liek marines being able to easily walk through them the answer is that they know and that (this is a paraphrase of what i was told directly "ork players like having a uphill battle where they are at a disadvantage to overcome. ork players are generally more experienced so in a typical pickup game will use all their tools to still manage a win. We don't want new players to be turned away if they lose repeatedly to a single faction" so yea basically orks are the NPC faction, new players need to have a shot vs an experienced ork player and that is by design. Then when asking how they should compete in tournaments and high level play they say "ork players are in general not interested in higher level play"

As to the OP I honestly like it and hope vanilla marines do not get the same buffs. I would love for chaos space marines to be marines +1. Their landraiders tougher due to chaotic boons and heretical tech upgrades. same with most of their equipment just being a bit better but to then have an equal cost increase. as already stated most of their stuff does have a points increase to match. i honestly hate that CSM (not the deathguard or thousand sons as they are seperate codexes talking about the basic book) are generally space marines minus 1. Like they traded their soul for power and instead got nerfed, some have 10+k years fighting experience and then just lose to a newly minted primaris marine because... cawl?.

on the landraider

nurgle - bio mass armor with self healing properties
khorne - skulls and chaotic infused str and toughness to get the units into combat
slaneesh - space cocaine fueled driver who has reflexes so quick its basically precognition
tzeench - warp schenanagins and a kine shield

chaos united all of the above




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
All the while....literally NOBODY was taking the named snakebite character

See what you did there, genuinely made me laugh

don't forget the killrig, the only model in the history of GW i can remember getting a nerf before the model was even in the hands of players. the codex was not even out of being pay gated to athe limited edition starter set because everybody freaked out about it being soo OP then nobody even took it because it was so aweful

TBf, goofy, the killrig also looks horrible, which may further have limited its appearance.

Not Online!!! wrote:
TBf, goofy, the killrig also looks horrible, which may further have limited its appearance.

yea, its not great. honestly I like everything about it from the squig back. the squig just looks to much like a normal pig. they should have used design elements from the squigoth and gargantuan squigoth in my opinion. less normal piggy with a bigger mouth and teeth and more dino like

 G00fySmiley wrote:

don't forget the killrig, the only model in the history of GW i can remember getting a nerf before the model was even in the hands of players. the codex was not even out of being pay gated to athe limited edition starter set because everybody freaked out about it being soo OP then nobody even took it because it was so aweful

The Stormdrake dragons from Sigmar share this honor. A week before the models hit the shelves they were slapped with a pts increase.

ThulsaDoom wrote:
Ok, so I had a chance to look at the new CSM codex, and the only thing I can ask is WTF?

Everything seems supercharged, but I will give two most blatantly obvious things I saw:

1.) ALL the warlord traits have something additional, they are like one and a half warlord trait compared to other factions ( example, a warlord trait to give 5+ FNP AND ALSO that no wound rolls can be re-rolled against the warlord )

2.) Land raider is T9 and lascannons deal d6+2 dmg - for the same price as the loyalist one

So is this like a mercy-power-boost to CSM to make them feel happy after being neglected for a looooooooong time or what? Or a calculated plan just to boost CSM sales?

I dunno what it is, except extremely frustrating....

Thoughts?

Ah yes horror of chaos getting updatea stats first after waiting 2 years for2nd wound or traits apply to wide amount of units like loyalists.

Yea for you creep is good if it's your army. We get it. No need to shout it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:

don't forget the killrig, the only model in the history of GW i can remember getting a nerf before the model was even in the hands of players. the codex was not even out of being pay gated to athe limited edition starter set because everybody freaked out about it being soo OP then nobody even took it because it was so aweful

The Stormdrake dragons from Sigmar share this honor. A week before the models hit the shelves they were slapped with a pts increase.

Plus lost access to -1 to wound. And were still silly broken.

Some of this topic just seems.. silly to complain about. Especially given how common complaints at this point.

One faction having superior warlord traits to others isn't a valid point of criticism. If the faction was designed around WLTs as a defining feature of the armies playstyle, then it makes sense that they would have better WLTs than other factions.

Not saying that this is the case with CSM per se, just that in general saying "CSM are OP because they have better WLTs" isn't really the rational logically sound intellectual conclusion you might think it to be. The stats and capabilities of the rest of the army certainly need to be considered and factored into the discussion.

As for the Land Raiders, as others pointed out they cost 20 points more for the privelege of having T9 and better lascannons. Yes, they are better, but the general assumption is that everyone elses land raiders are going to be buffed to match when they get their next codex update (or maybe GW will finally realize the absolute stupidity of that update model and just buff all land raiders to the same standards in the inevitable 10th ed FAQ).

In response to the OP, I figure it is cocaine. Back in the beginning, it would have been weed and acid.

 G00fySmiley wrote:
its actually worse than that, in response to orks needing buffs and other armies liek marines being able to easily walk through them the answer is that they know and that (this is a paraphrase of what i was told directly "ork players like having a uphill battle where they are at a disadvantage to overcome. ork players are generally more experienced so in a typical pickup game will use all their tools to still manage a win. We don't want new players to be turned away if they lose repeatedly to a single faction" so yea basically orks are the NPC faction, new players need to have a shot vs an experienced ork player and that is by design. Then when asking how they should compete in tournaments and high level play they say "ork players are in general not interested in higher level play"

Who told you this?

This seems pretty pointless of a thread, ignore.

Hecaton wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
its actually worse than that, in response to orks needing buffs and other armies liek marines being able to easily walk through them the answer is that they know and that (this is a paraphrase of what i was told directly "ork players like having a uphill battle where they are at a disadvantage to overcome. ork players are generally more experienced so in a typical pickup game will use all their tools to still manage a win. We don't want new players to be turned away if they lose repeatedly to a single faction" so yea basically orks are the NPC faction, new players need to have a shot vs an experienced ork player and that is by design. Then when asking how they should compete in tournaments and high level play they say "ork players are in general not interested in higher level play"

Who told you this?

Response from playtesting codexes and talking to GW team on them being very powerful compared to Orks (and demons for that matter it was basically the same response). its been the same for years, both armies are supposed to be high skill cap armies that are believed to have more experienced player bases who need to be reigned in with weaker books to not detract from other factions in casual gaming. Apparently they will show up to GW store and beat little timmy and his fresh base coated space marines and then demoralize them from continuing with the hobby.

 G00fySmiley wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
its actually worse than that, in response to orks needing buffs and other armies liek marines being able to easily walk through them the answer is that they know and that (this is a paraphrase of what i was told directly "ork players like having a uphill battle where they are at a disadvantage to overcome. ork players are generally more experienced so in a typical pickup game will use all their tools to still manage a win. We don't want new players to be turned away if they lose repeatedly to a single faction" so yea basically orks are the NPC faction, new players need to have a shot vs an experienced ork player and that is by design. Then when asking how they should compete in tournaments and high level play they say "ork players are in general not interested in higher level play"

Who told you this?

Response from playtesting codexes and talking to GW team on them being very powerful compared to Orks (and demons for that matter it was basically the same response). its been the same for years, both armies are supposed to be high skill cap armies that are believed to have more experienced player bases who need to be reigned in with weaker books to not detract from other factions in casual gaming. Apparently they will show up to GW store and beat little timmy and his fresh base coated space marines and then demoralize them from continuing with the hobby.

The source for this claim is still unclear.

Kapteenigalaksi wrote:
Chaos boys don't have repulsors, so buffing the land raider seems fair.

Okay I had to chuckle at this.

"Chaos boys don't have <worst units in game>, so buffing the <2nd to worst units in game> seems fair.

I actually don't even have an opinion on this other than I thought that line was funny.

 G00fySmiley wrote:


Response from playtesting codexes and talking to GW team on them being very powerful compared to Orks (and demons for that matter it was basically the same response). its been the same for years, both armies are supposed to be high skill cap armies that are believed to have more experienced player bases who need to be reigned in with weaker books to not detract from other factions in casual gaming. Apparently they will show up to GW store and beat little timmy and his fresh base coated space marines and then demoralize them from continuing with the hobby.

Which playtesters? Which member of GW?

I want to see someone run some no-sponson Las Preds with a combi-melta. Not convinced its that great, because it doesn't really synergise with anything (Warpsmith I guess, but it doesn't strike as efficient) - and you'd probably be better off with vindicators - but it could be interesting.

Hecaton wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:


Response from playtesting codexes and talking to GW team on them being very powerful compared to Orks (and demons for that matter it was basically the same response). its been the same for years, both armies are supposed to be high skill cap armies that are believed to have more experienced player bases who need to be reigned in with weaker books to not detract from other factions in casual gaming. Apparently they will show up to GW store and beat little timmy and his fresh base coated space marines and then demoralize them from continuing with the hobby.

Which playtesters? Which member of GW?

NDA prevent answers to that question, conversation on why some factions are weak is outside that context so can mention some details (above) as its not revealing anything specifically to points or rules, but naming the name of the other party def in the NDA

 G00fySmiley wrote:
NDA prevent answers to that question, conversation on why some factions are weak is outside that context so can mention some details (above) as its not revealing anything specifically to points or rules, but naming the name of the other party def in the NDA

How long does this NDA last? NDAs must be limited in both time and scope.