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.

 Platuan4th wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:


the cataphractii were an old plastic kit.

The tartarosi are new afaik

Tartaros were released a year or two Cataphractii. They're not new.

Hu, all the more reasons for gw to get on with it.
I also hope that we will see for militia and auxilia plastified 20 blocks in kits, else we will lack community variety.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rihgu wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 CragHack wrote:
*Nerf Brutal 3
*Nerf Return fire to snapshots and make it so that it's provoked or must be done at the nearest unit.
*Nerf Lascannons (make them more expensive, can keep sunder, whatever)
*Work on internal balance so there's actually a point to consider taking Y vs N, not putting Y on shelf and forgetting that it exists as such.
For starters.

RELEASE A fething PDF WITH ALL THE USRS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER IN ONE PLACE!!1!one

Why brutal?
Right now it's one of the things keeping custodes and dreads from completly stomping over the competition, which they already do.

Reactions need in general a look at aswell.

Dreads are one of the few units that have access to Brutal 3, and is one of the reasons why they're stomping over the competition.

Yeah, fair, meaning that gw first gw would need to take a look at custodes aswell i guess.

Frankly in hindsight gw should also recheck translations and weapon stats first..

Yeah. That's why I've also said they need to look at internal balance seriously. Take Custodes book, for example. Only really good units are Guardians, Hataeron, Achillus with 2x fists, Tribune/Valdor and maybe Caladius Arachnus. Rest are either meh or absolute trash.
Or maybe take Knights book and compare Porphyrion and Asterius. Or Acheron with basic Questoris Knight

 CragHack wrote:
*

RELEASE A fething PDF WITH ALL THE USRS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER IN ONE PLACE!!1!one

This would be very nice!

Maybe someone else has already done it?

 Rihgu wrote:
Dreads are one of the few units that have access to Brutal 3, and is one of the reasons why they're stomping over the competition.

I think the bigger problem is them not being vehicles for the purposes of rules. It makes little sense that the type of weaponry that can potentially 1 shot a LR or spartan can only knock 1-3 wounds off a dread.

Keeping Brutal 3 would still make them hurt up close, but making them easier to take down would reduce a great deal of the frustration that comes from them being las sponges. Maybe their ID roll could be d6 rather than d3. It still keeps them resilient, but there's more chance of a lascannon going straight through them the way they do vehicles. Increase the points cost of lascannons as well perhaps.

While it would be an indirect buff to other infantry I think most people would be happier with that than every 3k list including at least 2-3 contemptors, usually because you expect everyone else to bringing them too.

Instant death on d6 would be better

 Arbitrator wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:
Dreads are one of the few units that have access to Brutal 3, and is one of the reasons why they're stomping over the competition.

I think the bigger problem is them not being vehicles for the purposes of rules. It makes little sense that the type of weaponry that can potentially 1 shot a LR or spartan can only knock 1-3 wounds off a dread.

Keeping Brutal 3 would still make them hurt up close, but making them easier to take down would reduce a great deal of the frustration that comes from them being las sponges. Maybe their ID roll could be d6 rather than d3. It still keeps them resilient, but there's more chance of a lascannon going straight through them the way they do vehicles. Increase the points cost of lascannons as well perhaps.

While it would be an indirect buff to other infantry I think most people would be happier with that than every 3k list including at least 2-3 contemptors, usually because you expect everyone else to bringing them too.

It is true that dreads have way higher durability than they should. Compare them to a similarly costed infantry or vehicle unit. The vehicle takes some hull points and they could be ineffective for a turn. The infantry unit takes wounds and they start losing guns and combat weapons. Unless a dread happens to take a concussive shot it's functioning at full capacity till that final wound.

A shaken equivalent would be nice if they took a wound. Drop their bs and ws to 4 for a turn or something. Evens the playing field a bit but still lets the dread stomp around. Maybe dreads should be SV3 instead? Let basic infantry units do some more damage?

Though I have found that a unit with phoenix rapiers will one shot a dread fairly nicely. Rending+murderous 6+ does that I guess.

cody.d. wrote:

 Arbitrator wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:
Dreads are one of the few units that have access to Brutal 3, and is one of the reasons why they're stomping over the competition.

I think the bigger problem is them not being vehicles for the purposes of rules. It makes little sense that the type of weaponry that can potentially 1 shot a LR or spartan can only knock 1-3 wounds off a dread.

Keeping Brutal 3 would still make them hurt up close, but making them easier to take down would reduce a great deal of the frustration that comes from them being las sponges. Maybe their ID roll could be d6 rather than d3. It still keeps them resilient, but there's more chance of a lascannon going straight through them the way they do vehicles. Increase the points cost of lascannons as well perhaps.

While it would be an indirect buff to other infantry I think most people would be happier with that than every 3k list including at least 2-3 contemptors, usually because you expect everyone else to bringing them too.

It is true that dreads have way higher durability than they should. Compare them to a similarly costed infantry or vehicle unit. The vehicle takes some hull points and they could be ineffective for a turn. The infantry unit takes wounds and they start losing guns and combat weapons. Unless a dread happens to take a concussive shot it's functioning at full capacity till that final wound.

A shaken equivalent would be nice if they took a wound. Drop their bs and ws to 4 for a turn or something. Evens the playing field a bit but still lets the dread stomp around. Maybe dreads should be SV3 instead? Let basic infantry units do some more damage?

Though I have found that a unit with phoenix rapiers will one shot a dread fairly nicely. Rending+murderous 6+ does that I guess.

That;s really it, they should never have made them monstrous creatures.

 Crablezworth wrote:

cody.d. wrote:

 Arbitrator wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:
Dreads are one of the few units that have access to Brutal 3, and is one of the reasons why they're stomping over the competition.

I think the bigger problem is them not being vehicles for the purposes of rules. It makes little sense that the type of weaponry that can potentially 1 shot a LR or spartan can only knock 1-3 wounds off a dread.

Keeping Brutal 3 would still make them hurt up close, but making them easier to take down would reduce a great deal of the frustration that comes from them being las sponges. Maybe their ID roll could be d6 rather than d3. It still keeps them resilient, but there's more chance of a lascannon going straight through them the way they do vehicles. Increase the points cost of lascannons as well perhaps.

While it would be an indirect buff to other infantry I think most people would be happier with that than every 3k list including at least 2-3 contemptors, usually because you expect everyone else to bringing them too.

It is true that dreads have way higher durability than they should. Compare them to a similarly costed infantry or vehicle unit. The vehicle takes some hull points and they could be ineffective for a turn. The infantry unit takes wounds and they start losing guns and combat weapons. Unless a dread happens to take a concussive shot it's functioning at full capacity till that final wound.

A shaken equivalent would be nice if they took a wound. Drop their bs and ws to 4 for a turn or something. Evens the playing field a bit but still lets the dread stomp around. Maybe dreads should be SV3 instead? Let basic infantry units do some more damage?

Though I have found that a unit with phoenix rapiers will one shot a dread fairly nicely. Rending+murderous 6+ does that I guess.

That;s really it, they should never have made them monstrous creatures.

Or, if insisting on doing so, making plasma and AC and krak nades and meltas not only breaching but also add a conditional brutal to them. Not brutal 3 but maybee 2?
That would also go a long way against Terminators and other SV 2+

That's just a race to the bottom really, this is like 8th ed all over again and idiocy of everything having ap modifiers and variable damage. It's terrible game design, and that's not just opinion, 8-9 has been objectively a worse turn based combined arms wargame, it's more like a card game.

 Crablezworth wrote:
8-9 has been objectively a worse turn based combined arms wargame, it's more like a card game.

Love seeing this description repeated around. Like one person said it offhandedly a few years ago and crowds have latched onto it. What does it even mean? Are you saying it's "more like a card game" than 7e? If so, how much more like a card game? 1% more? 10% more? Is it more like a card game than a turn based combined arms wargame? This is objectively untrue, as it's a turn based combined arms wargame without any mandatory cards (yes you can buy stratagem cards but they are not required nor do they even aid the gameplay that much). Do card games not need cards?

Giving plasma Brutal 2 if it breaches is fine, and even a good idea. It's VASTLY different than giving it d3 damage or whatever 8th did for it that you're complaining about. I don't even see a logical course to connect these two thoughts. "If you give plasma brutal 2 when it breaches, that's just ap modifiers and variable damage all over again!". I kinda see "variable damage" if I squint.

Not sure you know what the word objectively means. You're using it wrong.

I guess in design they wanted dreads to act like big chonky infantry. Which makes sense from a design point, they are in that weird place where they don't act like vehicles, titans or any other catagory. But they are a bit overtuned.

Perhaps a tweak to their save, or even just one or two wounds off their statline would do the trick? At the moment it feels like they are in their own little space when it comes to interactions. To deal with dreads easily you need a dread with a powerfist or a tonne of rending/breaching. Most anti tank and anti infantry just don't cut it with the combo of toughness, save, invul and instant death immunity. Hmm, actually, I wonder if it would tone them down if you could instant death them, representing poking it in the fleshy bits that let it function and shutting the whole thing down leaving an inert shell. The instant death rule isn't suuuuuper common after all, in ranged at least.

If you spam dreads it feels like it would be hard to answer the threat without list tailoring, which is unhealthy for the game meta.

I think a 3+ save would be the best tweak.

It would allow mid tier anti tank do some work on them, Missile launchers, auto cannons, even the heavy voltkite guns. Lets the toughness and wounds give them durability rather than the 2+ save.

cody.d. wrote:
It would allow mid tier anti tank do some work on them, Missile launchers, auto cannons, even the heavy voltkite guns. Lets the toughness and wounds give them durability rather than the 2+ save.

It'd also double their vulnerability to small arms fire. Well, the T7 ones, at least.

 JNAProductions wrote:

cody.d. wrote:
It would allow mid tier anti tank do some work on them, Missile launchers, auto cannons, even the heavy voltkite guns. Lets the toughness and wounds give them durability rather than the 2+ save.

It'd also double their vulnerability to small arms fire. Well, the T7 ones, at least.

Sorry, what do you mean by the T7 ones? Still need a 6 to wound em regardless.

cody.d. wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

cody.d. wrote:
It would allow mid tier anti tank do some work on them, Missile launchers, auto cannons, even the heavy voltkite guns. Lets the toughness and wounds give them durability rather than the 2+ save.

It'd also double their vulnerability to small arms fire. Well, the T7 ones, at least.

Sorry, what do you mean by the T7 ones? Still need a 6 to wound em regardless.

T8 models are immune to (most) small arms fire.
T7 aren't.

A 2+ save lets 1/6 wounds through.
A 3+ save lets 2/6 wounds through.

The fact that the atomantic deflector negates Instant Death I think is a big part of the problem with contemptors that is oft over looked. It means you can't rely on Melta Bombs, which are the one readily available ID dealing piece of wargear that everyone can access. Every squad sergeant can take them and in the past they were your back up plan for unexpected encounters with dreads/tanks. Now at best you're going to deal 3 wounds to it, and that's AFTER you've survived a full round of combat with the bloody thing.
There are only 4 types of basic wargear that deal Instant Death, distintegrators, paragon blades, aforementioned melta bombs and the contemptors own chainfist. There's no real reason I can see for the atomantic deflector granting immunity to Instant Death outside of some arbitrary reason to negate melta bombs, as ID dealing weapons just aren't that common to need the defense against it.

Even then, if you choose to equip your sergent with a meltabomb (which you may not have the points for) it's not a sure kill, it could also not come up in game. Still gotta hit, wound and fail that invul so it's not an auto win button if your opponent has a dread and you have a meltabomb.

Yeah i'd be pretty okay with automatic deflectors losing instant death immunity. Also means Prators have a chance of killing a dread rather than getting their face caved in ya know?

Yeah I think even a Knights Cenobium squad with Terranic Greatswords statistically loses 2 out of 5 guys in 1 round of combat with a melee contemptor, although they will put it down in the same combat.

It's just a shame apothecaries can't take terminator armour. Might get your elite termies to last a bit longer against them.

Dreadnoughts should be vulnerable to all of the various rules that hurt vehicles. Make Sunder reroll wounds against them, make Exoshock work on them, and allow Armourbane to cause Instant Death to them. If melta bombs can do it, then all melta weapons should be able to.

Sunder and exoshock should definitely work on them. It's very strange it doesnt.

I'd be for dropping them all down by a wound for sure. Maybe instant death on armourbane.

I don't think they should drop to a 3+ save. It's very easy to pile a ton of wounds into dreads. Without their 2+ save they'd be incredibly vulnerable

 Rihgu wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
8-9 has been objectively a worse turn based combined arms wargame, it's more like a card game.

Love seeing this description repeated around. Like one person said it offhandedly a few years ago and crowds have latched onto it. What does it even mean? Are you saying it's "more like a card game" than 7e? If so, how much more like a card game? 1% more? 10% more? Is it more like a card game than a turn based combined arms wargame? This is objectively untrue, as it's a turn based combined arms wargame without any mandatory cards (yes you can buy stratagem cards but they are not required nor do they even aid the gameplay that much). Do card games not need cards?

Giving plasma Brutal 2 if it breaches is fine, and even a good idea. It's VASTLY different than giving it d3 damage or whatever 8th did for it that you're complaining about. I don't even see a logical course to connect these two thoughts. "If you give plasma brutal 2 when it breaches, that's just ap modifiers and variable damage all over again!". I kinda see "variable damage" if I squint.

I don't think the card game comparison fits well on horus hearsy but in 9th edition its not a bad comparison. Most players are comparing it to magic the gathering and in mtg you win by playing card combos often setting up cards in your normal play phase and finishing the combo with a "surprise' instant.
9th edition 40k with its emphasis on auras and strategems to get results feels a lot like this. In old 40k you won by positioning your troops correctly and maneuvering the right units and weapons into position to bring enough disparity of force to destroy the opponent's units more efficiently, much as real armies might do. (Cynical aside, much of classic 40k was played on crimanly under terrianed boards and so it was more of a set up in right deployment and screw that whole movment part.)
In 9th you are usually destroying the opponent's units thru setting up combos of a unit an aura and a stragam (which gamplay wise function almost exactly like magic the gatherings instants) this combo play is what makes the game feel like mtg to many players. Whether that's an apt comparison or just an over used complaint is a matter of debate but its not one that came out of nowhere, the similarity of core gamplay loop is there even if the base systems are quite different.

Of course, what makes 9th feel like a card game is stratagems and (to a lesser degree) auras.

Not the Damage characteristic .

lurch wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
8-9 has been objectively a worse turn based combined arms wargame, it's more like a card game.

Love seeing this description repeated around. Like one person said it offhandedly a few years ago and crowds have latched onto it. What does it even mean? Are you saying it's "more like a card game" than 7e? If so, how much more like a card game? 1% more? 10% more? Is it more like a card game than a turn based combined arms wargame? This is objectively untrue, as it's a turn based combined arms wargame without any mandatory cards (yes you can buy stratagem cards but they are not required nor do they even aid the gameplay that much). Do card games not need cards?

Giving plasma Brutal 2 if it breaches is fine, and even a good idea. It's VASTLY different than giving it d3 damage or whatever 8th did for it that you're complaining about. I don't even see a logical course to connect these two thoughts. "If you give plasma brutal 2 when it breaches, that's just ap modifiers and variable damage all over again!". I kinda see "variable damage" if I squint.

I don't think the card game comparison fits well on horus hearsy but in 9th edition its not a bad comparison. Most players are comparing it to magic the gathering and in mtg you win by playing card combos often setting up cards in your normal play phase and finishing the combo with a "surprise' instant.
9th edition 40k with its emphasis on auras and strategems to get results feels a lot like this. In old 40k you won by positioning your troops correctly and maneuvering the right units and weapons into position to bring enough disparity of force to destroy the opponent's units more efficiently, much as real armies might do. (Cynical aside, much of classic 40k was played on crimanly under terrianed boards and so it was more of a set up in right deployment and screw that whole movment part.)
In 9th you are usually destroying the opponent's units thru setting up combos of a unit an aura and a stragam (which gamplay wise function almost exactly like magic the gatherings instants) this combo play is what makes the game feel like mtg to many players. Whether that's an apt comparison or just an over used complaint is a matter of debate but its not one that came out of nowhere, the similarity of core gamplay loop is there even if the base systems are quite different.

Adding a character to a unit, which then grants a buff, is much more analogous to card games than an aura which requires on-the-table positioning. Very few card games take positioning into account, and the ones I can actually think of that do are digital card games.

The comparison ends at stratagems being likened to instants/spell cards/whatever, if you ignore that card games usually involve building some sort of deck or otherwise randomize which "cards" you have access to at a given point. Sure, 40k 9th Edition is like a card game which cares about the positioning of your cards on the table and also you have access to every card in your deck at all times and expended cards remain available and basically allll the other design aspects of a card game are thrown out the window to force this desperate analogy to work.

Anyways, to the topic:

Wow. Typhon. Another upgrade sprue for a vehicle. Are they under the impression that this is a "tank game with infantry support pieces"? Give us the infantry, GW.

 Rihgu wrote:


Wow. Typhon. Another upgrade sprue for a vehicle. Are they under the impression that this is a "tank game with infantry support pieces"? Give us the infantry, GW.

Would that be because both tanks and blasts are badly conceived of in 2.0? The typhon used to have a massive blast, now it's 5 inches. Nice to have plastic for 1.0 tho I guess.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:


Wow. Typhon. Another upgrade sprue for a vehicle. Are they under the impression that this is a "tank game with infantry support pieces"? Give us the infantry, GW.

Would that be because both tanks and blasts are badly conceived of in 2.0? The typhon used to have a massive blast, now it's 5 inches. Nice to have plastic for 1.0 tho I guess.

Typhon actually has a decent set of rules for its blast. Sure it's only 5", but base AP3 with rending 4+, and Brutal(4) means it's at least a potent cannon. Compared to all the AP4 Rending 5+ stuff we see on every other tank.

It's still a vehicle, and a Lord of War at that, in a game where a single lascannon shot can just remove it from the board.

I have half the idea to play it because Crushing Strength synergizes with Sons of Horus pretty well, but I know I'll never even get a chance to tank shock a unit anyways so what's the point.

Having just played against one, Typhon's are still very good.
As for why it's being released, swapping little bits on the Spartan/Proteus kit to make a Typhon/likely Cerberus is easier than a new kit for Assault Marines. Sucks but it is what it is. Same reason the Deimos Pred and Scorpius are out instead of Assault Marines.

Typhon is a joke for 425 points and a Lord of War slot. You’re buying what is a worse version of a Demolisher cannon from the previous edition.

For that you could get an entire Contemptor talon or 20 lascannons or a Primarch. They’re a massive opportunity cost just to take the cool looking tank.

It would only ever make its points back if your opponent blocked everything up and didn’t take any anti tank to remove 6HP as it slowly rumbles towards you at 10 speed. You’d have to kill fifty marines or twenty terminators for it to be a win.

This is a rare case of Games Workshop not wanting my money. 😄

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
It would only ever make its points back if your opponent blocked everything up and didn’t take any anti tank to remove 6HP as it slowly rumbles towards you at 10 speed. You’d have to kill fifty marines or twenty terminators for it to be a win.

Only if you think in those terms, which neither I nor my opponents do. "Rule of Cool" and "Committing to the Bit" always win out over unit cost or tier listing.