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.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:


could be, though I am at this point used to my dark eldar being the worst army in the game. They have been for three out of the four editions I've played them now going into 9th.

I thought they were one of the strongest armies in 8th for a long time? So much that many people actually found their lazy PA update okay - they were already topdogs at that time and didn't need much improvement.
The model side is something else though. Their HQ roster especially is... lacking.

I think that was Scotsman's point...Drukhari were good in 8th, but before that the last time they weren't trash tier was, 5th?

The big issue with PA for Drukhari was that it contributed nothing at all. Nobody was asking for Black Heart and Prophets of the Flesh to be buffed, but there are a large number of really poor options, in an already small codex, that could have done with a lift to improve variety. Instead we got a name generator for £25 (?) and I didn't bother buying it.

the_scotsman wrote:
Here's a bit of rules comedy for you all today:

Here are the eldar units that received the smallest % point increases overall.

CHARACTERS: Farseer Skyrunner, Farseer, Asurmen

VEHICLES: Wave Serpent, Crimson Hunter, Hemlock Wraithfighter

INFANTRTY/BIKES: Shining Spears, Dark Reapers, Wraithguard w/wraithcannons

Ok, so what were the units GW thought were the MOST IMPORTANT TO NERF (again, I'm including wargear in here, don't hit me with this 'they just made the weapons cost less')

CHARACTERS: Prince Yriel, Autarch on foot, Warlock conclave on foot

VEHICLES: Wraithlord, Fire Prism, Nightspinner

INFANTRY: Guardians and Guardian Heavy Weapon Platform, Striking Scorpions, Swooping Hawks

Good fething gak, GW! Everything that anybody used in a fething tournament you decided to increase WAY WAY LESS than units nobody fething uses! Literally the only thing that ever saw tournament play in eldar lists that you managed to nerf is the Nightspinner, and the only units that got relatively buffed that WEREN'T competitive standbys is wraithguard and arguably vypers. What are you doing? Dark eldar is like this too, to an arguably lesser extent but still. What's up at the top of the list for lightest nerfs? Why it's the Razorwing Jetfighter and the Ravager, the units every drukhkari list spammed the hell out of last edition! What do we see down near the worst nerfed category? Oh look, it's the Cronos, Wyches, Hellions and Reavers, the worst units in Codex Drukhari!

You know, lists like this make me think even more that GW didn't start with CA19 points for rebalance, but some other balance point. I.e. for the crap units that have gotten points decreases in CA, they started from a higher baseline and then got nerfed. Meanwhile, the already solid things or things that received points increases in CA started from a lower baseline and therefore got hit less.

But, y'know, I don't know. The whole thing is just a complete kludge. I mean, yeah, there's obviously an algorithm, and GW was obviously lazy about the changes. But I think those two statements undersell just how lazy and crap this update was.

I guess, since my time starting in early 6th edition as a Tyranids player, I've seen some bad rules updates/balance passes (that's putting it mildly). But I don't think I've seen incompetence on such a broad and grand display before, or such a clear step backwards in balance. The FAQs of 7th had some blush of this (making drop pod doors count as part of the model, for example), but let's be fair, rules are harder. I really will give them a bit of credit on that. Points, though... there's just no excuse for this sort of balancing. Especially when the rules seem to be moving in such a good direction.

Maybe the Tournament foccussed playtesters were more likely to play with and argue for the units that they already owned and used?

 Mr Morden wrote:
Maybe the Tournament foccussed playtesters were more likely to play with and argue for the units that they already owned and used?

That couldn't be it! Why, if that were the answer, you'd see specific bugbears of tournament focused players like chaplain dreadnoughts, second-floor immunity, stacked to-hit modifiers and tripointing being a huge percentage of the focus of 9th edition's new ruleset, mission setups that looked identical to popular tournament houserules from ITC, a whole string of high-profile tournament players promoting the new edition as the best ever, and a point change list that does not require any of those tournament players to meaningfully restructure their meta power lists!

 Slayer6 wrote:
Fact Confirmed! GW = Blizzard!

Now we just need Disney to buy out GW and we can get around to having our Mickey Mouse army!

Activision bought blizzard .

Also, the thing with this joke is that, depending on if 40k media takes off, this is legitimately something that has a good chance of happening a few years into the future.

Maybe the Tournament foccussed playtesters were more likely to play with and argue for the units that they already owned and used?

Too much credit. Look at the way this was handled. GW didn't really consider these at all. It was a blanket formula followed by small select tweaks (likely based on GWs misconceptions on how everyone plays the game). This was never about balance. At all. It was about scaling the game differently.

DE got a decent index that buffed them significantly compared to earlier editions.
They then got further boosts in their codex. Like Guard, almost every unit was pointed aggressively, with maybe just the Chronos standing in for the Vanquisher Leman Russ in the "why bother" column - and even then, it was a relatively cheap source of tough wounds. Certain things (wych cult especially) would however subsequently drop off as the world grew progressively more lethal.

Their real value was in Eldar Soup. Concealed a bit by the meta-warping weight of the Castellan, various evolving forms of Eldar Soup would be the alternate power list for about 12 months (about 18 if you include conventional Craftworld Eldar and Ynnari before).
Once Eldar Soup got nerfed (no Doom/Jinx on DE units for instance after the April 2019 big FAQ, Ynnari cast to the outer dark) Dark Eldar seem to have largely left the competitive scene, something which the Marine domination from July/August 2019 did little to change.

The round of nerfs in CA19 took a faction already on the way out and threw it into the abyss (see for example, the LVO). PA1 gave Test of Skill flyers as a sort of sidegrade, and then a bunch of options which were hard nerfs on what you already had.

As I think Goonhammer rightly said - the problem with DE is that the faction has essentially remained stuck in amber since the codex was released. Unlike other factions, PA did not open up any alternative builds or units. So when you nerf them, the only thing the faction does is get worse.

Which if it was rocking an Ironhands win percentage would be fine - but those days are long gone.

Nice summation, Tyel.

Maybe I should just put the models I like most on a table, and if 90% of the time I spend the first 2 turns just taking them all off, Bah humbug. And avoid playing space marine players whenever possible... if I am feeling particularly masochistic I’ll try out that crusade mode and watch those battle scars rack up... and just keep fighting the long war!

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

sanguine40k wrote:
T'au Fusion is 18", for which we now pay 1.5 times as much as most other armies pay for Melta (and triple what BS4+ guard pay for it).

Fusion Blaster seems to be the only (non-vehicle) Melta weapon to have *INCREASED* in points...

And you are still outside of the magic 9" range, when you come in from reserves.

Special weapon balance is completely borked.

A PG i get for 10 pts, why should i bother with a melta?
Heck i get an AC for 10 pts aswell?

I find it so weird that people are flabbergasted over melta that used to be more expensive than plasma and now that its the same price its "why would I ever do that! "

AC have a higher constant shots with lower AP and the lowest strength (of the 3).
A plasma gun is like a half range AC with more AP and less damage until you OC and risk user death.
A metla is like a half range plasma with OC that has more AP and damage and doesn't kill the user.

When you start playing 9th you might see why you might like melta sometimes. And I can't stress this enough - melta isn't just for vehicles.

 harlokin wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:


could be, though I am at this point used to my dark eldar being the worst army in the game. They have been for three out of the four editions I've played them now going into 9th.

I thought they were one of the strongest armies in 8th for a long time? So much that many people actually found their lazy PA update okay - they were already topdogs at that time and didn't need much improvement.
The model side is something else though. Their HQ roster especially is... lacking.

I think that was Scotsman's point...Drukhari were good in 8th, but before that the last time they weren't trash tier was, 5th?

The big issue with PA for Drukhari was that it contributed nothing at all. Nobody was asking for Black Heart and Prophets of the Flesh to be buffed, but there are a large number of really poor options, in an already small codex, that could have done with a lift to improve variety. Instead we got a name generator for £25 (?) and I didn't bother buying it.

5th was playable vs Marines, trash vs GK and Necrons
6th 100% unplayable vs most armies unless you beaststarand didn't gunboat or venom spam
7th new codex was trash until Coven supplement came out, otherwise it was 3 kabals in venoms with 2 Lhameans and as many bikes as you could take.

5th and early 6th was lower tier over all but, late 6th and early 7th almost not even playable, late 7th had 2 viable builds.

8th was the first real time DE has been played well, 3rd and some of 5th with some of 7th you had the ability to do well, it was just very hard to play. 9th will tell soon enough, but i do not like how how DE was treated in 9th point changes at all.. Why TF is a Shock Prow, Agoniser, Venomblade, etc.. 5pts... Non of the point changes for DE actually makes any sense at all.

Why did hellions go up? No one touched them, GW can't even sell them, this was their one change to be viable, but nope... Why did Kabals go up 3pts but guardsmen 1pt? Why did Splinter cannons go to 15 pts? They are NOT as good as a HB in anyway but now are same cost, sure its Rapid 3, but its also poison with no AP and DE doesn't re-roll hits very easily and rrw1 is very hard to get (only 1 relic aura and it doesn't work inside vehicles). No one took a 2nd SC on Venoms anyways or on infantry b.c it wasn't worth it at 10pts, so why 15pts?

macluvin wrote:
Maybe I should just put the models I like most on a table, and if 90% of the time I spend the first 2 turns just taking them all off, Bah humbug. And avoid playing space marine players whenever possible... if I am feeling particularly masochistic I’ll try out that crusade mode and watch those battle scars rack up... and just keep fighting the long war!

...it's not like this is something a lot of people have been doing since doctrines got released.

If you play marines and you think "wow, sure is weird that I play so many marines vs marines games now" that's not just coincidence. Playing vs a primaris marine army feels like a game against a hideous mutated lovechild of 7th edition meta eldar with the invigorating static gunline playstyle of tau. They've even got the Timmy Turner's Dentist specialist units that Eldar aspect warriors used to be in 7th.

"Well yes, you have melta guns, but you see, OUR melta guns are THE MELTIEST, you don't DESERVE melta guns as melty and blasty as ours!"

"Oh sure, you have bikes too, but OUR bikes are THE BIKIEST, which is why only WE get special rules for our bikes smacking into you and giving us more melee attacks!"

"YOU only have regular, boring plasma guns and regular, boring plasma cannons, WE have macro assault heavy rapid plasma incineradicinators, so as you can see, it is the plasmiest, and deserves to be the best!"

I believe people is undervaluing special weapon squads with fusion guns or even infantry squads with a fusion gun on it. Specially if people starts spamming more vehicles in 9th.

 Galas wrote:
I believe people is undervaluing special weapon squads with fusion guns or even infantry squads with a fusion gun on it. Specially if people starts spamming more vehicles in 9th.

Maybe, but special weapon squads are very squishy. 6 Guardsmen with 3 meltas is not going to get in range if it is anything the opponent needs to worry about. So you have to use special deployment options or transports, which are really hard to get within 6" for the extra ability.

the_scotsman wrote:

macluvin wrote:
Maybe I should just put the models I like most on a table, and if 90% of the time I spend the first 2 turns just taking them all off, Bah humbug. And avoid playing space marine players whenever possible... if I am feeling particularly masochistic I’ll try out that crusade mode and watch those battle scars rack up... and just keep fighting the long war!

...it's not like this is something a lot of people have been doing since doctrines got released.

If you play marines and you think "wow, sure is weird that I play so many marines vs marines games now" that's not just coincidence. Playing vs a primaris marine army feels like a game against a hideous mutated lovechild of 7th edition meta eldar with the invigorating static gunline playstyle of tau. They've even got the Timmy Turner's Dentist specialist units that Eldar aspect warriors used to be in 7th.

"Well yes, you have melta guns, but you see, OUR melta guns are THE MELTIEST, you don't DESERVE melta guns as melty and blasty as ours!"

"Oh sure, you have bikes too, but OUR bikes are THE BIKIEST, which is why only WE get special rules for our bikes smacking into you and giving us more melee attacks!"

"YOU only have regular, boring plasma guns and regular, boring plasma cannons, WE have macro assault heavy rapid plasma incineradicinators, so as you can see, it is the plasmiest, and deserves to be the best!"

Well they opened Pandora’s box... now we have to live with it and there’s really no way to fix this that doesn’t screw somebody over... am I the only one that finds primaris marines models boring? I mean the old marines have beakies and mk VIII... the variety in the space marine kit! I don’t even play them.

 Trickstick wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I believe people is undervaluing special weapon squads with fusion guns or even infantry squads with a fusion gun on it. Specially if people starts spamming more vehicles in 9th.

Maybe, but special weapon squads are very squishy. 6 Guardsmen with 3 meltas is not going to get in range if it is anything the opponent needs to worry about. So you have to use special deployment options or transports, which are really hard to get within 6" for the extra ability.

Meh. Screw the bonus.

 Trickstick wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I believe people is undervaluing special weapon squads with fusion guns or even infantry squads with a fusion gun on it. Specially if people starts spamming more vehicles in 9th.

Maybe, but special weapon squads are very squishy. 6 Guardsmen with 3 meltas is not going to get in range if it is anything the opponent needs to worry about. So you have to use special deployment options or transports, which are really hard to get within 6" for the extra ability.

When you are paying 10 points for a melta shot you don't even need the damage bonus to make it worth it. I'm not saying it will be better than plasma but I would not be so fast to say it has no place.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I believe people is undervaluing special weapon squads with fusion guns or even infantry squads with a fusion gun on it. Specially if people starts spamming more vehicles in 9th.

Maybe, but special weapon squads are very squishy. 6 Guardsmen with 3 meltas is not going to get in range if it is anything the opponent needs to worry about. So you have to use special deployment options or transports, which are really hard to get within 6" for the extra ability.

Meh. Screw the bonus.

Wouldn't overcharged plasma deal more damage if you're not getting the melta range bonus?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I believe people is undervaluing special weapon squads with fusion guns or even infantry squads with a fusion gun on it. Specially if people starts spamming more vehicles in 9th.

Maybe, but special weapon squads are very squishy. 6 Guardsmen with 3 meltas is not going to get in range if it is anything the opponent needs to worry about. So you have to use special deployment options or transports, which are really hard to get within 6" for the extra ability.

Meh. Screw the bonus.

so then just take lascannons instead?

Thats the problem with melta. Theres a better gun if they don't get the melta rule.

macluvin wrote:
am I the only one that finds primaris marines models boring? I mean the old marines have beakies and mk VIII... the variety in the space marine kit! I don’t even play them.

The basics are ok, but the new characters & vets in Indomitus are fire.

macluvin wrote:
...am I the only one that finds primaris marines models boring? I mean the old marines have beakies and mk VIII... the variety in the space marine kit! I don’t even play them.

I've not actually built any, but I get a feeling that they are very "you have 5 poses and will like it". Is that the case? I always hate that, which is why I love the Cadian kit. You can make every Guardsman look different, even if there are only limited of each type of piece.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I believe people is undervaluing special weapon squads with fusion guns or even infantry squads with a fusion gun on it. Specially if people starts spamming more vehicles in 9th.

Maybe, but special weapon squads are very squishy. 6 Guardsmen with 3 meltas is not going to get in range if it is anything the opponent needs to worry about. So you have to use special deployment options or transports, which are really hard to get within 6" for the extra ability.

Meh. Screw the bonus.

Wouldn't overcharged plasma deal more damage if you're not getting the melta range bonus?

I also believe that with 5 point plasma you'll see one in each infantry squad. I mean. I would prefer to have one infantry squad less and have 10 infantry squads with a plasma gun each.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Maybe the Tournament foccussed playtesters were more likely to play with and argue for the units that they already owned and used?

Okey, but this would not explain things like the GSC changes. It is a codex writen in mind to be played alongside codex IG and codex Tyranid detachments. nerfing the costs of GSC stuff, when they are already losing a lot of unit, and not fixing any other their problems is a strange choice. Unless among the testers, there were zero people interested in making gsc a valid army to play.

Knights feel like that too. The way they were changed and how 9th works, it feels as if they were not made to be played in 9th ed. And it isn't just a few units elite army problem, there are missions that can only be done by infantry or psykers, and banner rising requires a unit to do nothing for both players turns.

 Galas wrote:
I believe people is undervaluing special weapon squads with fusion guns or even infantry squads with a fusion gun on it. Specially if people starts spamming more vehicles in 9th.

SWS's are great in terms of damage output per point invested. The problem is that they're not troops, they're tiny and trivially destroyed units, with no delivery mechanism.

That said, with regards to Meltaguns, they only have an advantage over Plasma Guns at 6" and under against big targets, and even that isn't actually particularly powerful, and only holds true if the target is not getting an invul. Anything over 6", or if the target has an Invul, and the PG is a dramatically superior tool.

Karol wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Maybe the Tournament foccussed playtesters were more likely to play with and argue for the units that they already owned and used?

Okey, but this would not explain things like the GSC changes. It is a codex writen in mind to be played alongside codex IG and codex Tyranid detachments. nerfing the costs of GSC stuff, when they are already losing a lot of unit, and not fixing any other their problems is a strange choice. Unless among the testers, there were zero people interested in making gsc a valid army to play.

Knights feel like that too. The way they were changed and how 9th works, it feels as if they were not made to be played in 9th ed. And it isn't just a few units elite army problem, there are missions that can only be done by infantry or psykers, and banner rising requires a unit to do nothing for both players turns.

It also relies on this insane idea that tournament players like stuff just because the numbers are good. Tournament players USE stuff with good number but LIKE all kinds of things. 90% of every game I play is in tournaments and my favorite models are dreadnaughts, mortifiers, immolators, and landspeeders. Dreadnaughts are only good NOW, immolators are arguably the worst armed transport in the game, landspeeders are painfully mediocre, and mortifiers are only just now approaching viable. If I was on the playtest team, these would be my pet units. Not exorcists, centurions, aggressors, or intercessors.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


so then just take lascannons instead?

Thats the problem with melta. Theres a better gun if they don't get the melta rule.

Which is 15 and subject to a move penalty on infantry. One LC for 3 meltaguns (or PG, of course). You need to wipe squads now as well. They don't blow off the table after 7/8 casualties.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:
landspeeders are painfully mediocre

Do you feel like they gained any traction with move & shoot? They seemed to be pretty popular in the early IH days.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

Wouldn't overcharged plasma deal more damage if you're not getting the melta range bonus?

Probably, but that's a 30% chance to kill yourself.

2 * .5 * .666 * .833 = 0.55 wounding hits on an Eradicator (for example) - this results in a little better than 50% chance to put 2 damage on
1 * .5 * .666 = 0.33 wounding hits - 33% * 66% = 22% to kill an Eradicator outright

Lasguns might be a better paired finisher though if the PG goes through as they should be able to do 1 wound.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


so then just take lascannons instead?

Thats the problem with melta. Theres a better gun if they don't get the melta rule.

Which is 15 and subject to a move penalty on infantry. One LC for 3 meltaguns (or PG, of course). You need to wipe squads now as well. They don't blow off the table after 7/8 casualties.

sure but, 12" vs 48", i'd rather pay more and give them lascannons if i want an anti-tank squad.

Or plasma if i want a swiss army knife squad

Karol wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Maybe the Tournament foccussed playtesters were more likely to play with and argue for the units that they already owned and used?

Okey, but this would not explain things like the GSC changes. It is a codex writen in mind to be played alongside codex IG and codex Tyranid detachments. nerfing the costs of GSC stuff, when they are already losing a lot of unit, and not fixing any other their problems is a strange choice. Unless among the testers, there were zero people interested in making gsc a valid army to play.

Its going to depend on how persuasive the playtesters are and how strongly GW feels about an army. I can easily see GW sticking more to their numbers on GSC, simply for how they perceive Ambush as deviating from the normal game rules.
There is a tax there. Some of it might even be justified for how easily GSC can claim or contest objectives and accomplish secondaries.

It doesn't explain everything, of course, and focused way too much on the CC units over bikes and things, but I suspect GW's attitude toward what the army might do with their special rules played a big role.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


sure but, 12" vs 48", i'd rather pay more and give them lascannons if i want an anti-tank squad.

Or plasma if i want a swiss army knife squad

And I wouldn't fault you for that.

I think A Tallarn player that wants to dump and run a couple squads of melta SWS out of a chimera can probably do so and not feel gimped.

Karol wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Maybe the Tournament foccussed playtesters were more likely to play with and argue for the units that they already owned and used?

Okey, but this would not explain things like the GSC changes. It is a codex writen in mind to be played alongside codex IG and codex Tyranid detachments. nerfing the costs of GSC stuff, when they are already losing a lot of unit, and not fixing any other their problems is a strange choice. Unless among the testers, there were zero people interested in making gsc a valid army to play.

Knights feel like that too. The way they were changed and how 9th works, it feels as if they were not made to be played in 9th ed. And it isn't just a few units elite army problem, there are missions that can only be done by infantry or psykers, and banner rising requires a unit to do nothing for both players turns.

The currently competitive units (the bikes, the acolytes, the kelermorph, and the achilles ridgerunner) all got fairly light points nerfs, while lesser used units got absolutely slam-dunked.

...Which is how it is for seemingly every faction. If the only person playtesting GSC had a currently meta tournament-competitive list, no way in hell did he provide any feedback about Purestrain Genestealers, Metamorphs, Goliath Rockgrinders, Cult Sentinels, etc.

Surprise surprise, which units in GSC got shat on the most?

Those ones.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Maybe the Tournament foccussed playtesters were more likely to play with and argue for the units that they already owned and used?

Okey, but this would not explain things like the GSC changes. It is a codex writen in mind to be played alongside codex IG and codex Tyranid detachments. nerfing the costs of GSC stuff, when they are already losing a lot of unit, and not fixing any other their problems is a strange choice. Unless among the testers, there were zero people interested in making gsc a valid army to play.

Its going to depend on how persuasive the playtesters are and how strongly GW feels about an army. I can easily see GW sticking more to their numbers on GSC, simply for how they perceive Ambush as deviating from the normal game rules.
There is a tax there. Some of it might even be justified for how easily GSC can claim or contest objectives and accomplish secondaries.

It doesn't explain everything, of course, and focused way too much on the CC units over bikes and things, but I suspect GW's attitude toward what the army might do with their special rules played a big role.

Point me at the durable GSC unit that can achieve any objectives in the new 9th ed missions for gak.

Sure, they can do a couple secondaries easly like the table quarters one, but you already get tabled playing as GSC like 90% of the time.

Putting 30% fewer units on the table? Your gaks gonna be gone turn 3-4 every game against any kind of competent opponent. GSC troops are made of paper, their elites are made of paper, and their vehicles are made of paper. They just fething die no matter how you build them.