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.

Luide wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:

Godless-Mimicry wrote:Grey Knights are still very good, but not as much as they were, thus they got nerfed. Their Force Weapons got worse, assault got worse (which made a lot of their options worse), vehicles got worse, and Rapid Fire weapons got a bit better taking away a little bit of the edge the Storm Bolters had. There are a few other things as well, but you get the point.

Yes, they got absolutely worse, but they got relatively better. 6th ed rules instigated a race for the bottom. GK were only slightly dinged, while other armies were crucified.
As such, GK are relatively better than other armies now. Therefore, practically speaking, they got buffed.

This is obviously false. GK got hit harder than most other armies. Note that GK also needed to get nerfed, but claiming they were relatively 'buffed' is plain lying. Lets compare other armies:
1) Necrons. Got 5 good changes for each bad one. One could say Necrons currently are one tier better than Tier 1 armies, like GK, IG and SW.
2) IG got mixed results. Valkyries and Vendettas were good before and are even better now. Vehicle squadrons got better. Some setups, like foot guard did suffer. But this doesn't mean IG got 'crucified', far from it.
3) SW: Didn't get hit that hard. Runepriests got relatively lot better, now that Hoods are nerfed.
4) BA. No charge from non-assault vehicle hurt these guys, but it hurt GK also.
5) Nids. Arguably got better with FMCs. Cover was weakened on one hand, but easier to get for MC's on other hand.
6) Tau. Rapid fire changes buffed them.
7) Eldar. Not sure about final effects. Skimmers got boost, Runes of Warding became better both relatively and absolutely with change in Hoods and Perils.
8) Orks. Nob bikers should still be viable, but not sure about other builds.

GK got hit hard by many things. Fortitude going from awesome to situational at best is good example. GK builds suffer a lot from inability to charge from non-assault vehicles, as did BA Razorspam. Power weapons going AP3 means GK suffered relatively more than other armies, because GK have more power weapons.
Now, these changes don't mean GK suck. It only means their power level is far more in level with other armies. Personally I think GK being nerfed was good thing.

I'm not really sure what Codex got 'crucified'. DE perhaps? Some specific army builds might have become unviable in 6e, that I can agree with. But IG as whole definitely didn't get 'crucified'.

I can't speak for much, but Orks are mostly fine. They took the codex and shook it all around and about, but in the end everything inside fell at the same level, just in different arrangements. But one of the most common enemies of mine is eldar, and i can tell you that they were bent over a gas station restroom toilet and raped repeatedly by most everything in the new rule book. Twice.

Eldar with Dark Eldar allies are looking swell though. Of course, that requires playing at 2000 points, and most people aren't so keen on that...

Luide wrote:This is obviously false. GK got hit harder than most other armies. Note that GK also needed to get nerfed, but claiming they were relatively 'buffed' is plain lying. Lets compare other armies

Wow, does everything look rose-colored to you, or just 40k armies that you don't play?

I mean, your lists is risible. You found the one thing that got better for guard and ignored everything else and then claimed that guard are "about the same"? Likewise, nob bikers got better, but that's one thing in a codex that otherwise got a lot worse. Just ask any killa kanz or old green tide player. Tau is particularly hilarious. Yes, rapid fire got buffed, that totally means that Tau is a better army than grey knights now.

GK went from the #1 army to the #2 army. They're still better than the 10 others, most of which got worse in aggregate. They'd still be at the top, despite getting "hit harder than most armies" were it not for newcron.

I mean, to use your own logic, where all an army needs is one thing that got better in order to mean that the whole army got better, GK just got ultrabuffed. After all, they can now cast prescience and a lot of other good psychic abilities (convenient that they're all psykers), and their psycannons can now glance vehicles to death easily rather than only looking for rends...

 Ailaros wrote:

Luide wrote:This is obviously false. GK got hit harder than most other armies. Note that GK also needed to get nerfed, but claiming they were relatively 'buffed' is plain lying. Lets compare other armies

Wow, does everything look rose-colored to you, or just 40k armies that you don't play?

I mean, your lists is risible. You found the one thing that got better for guard and ignored everything else and then claimed that guard are "about the same"? Likewise, nob bikers got better, but that's one thing in a codex that otherwise got a lot worse. Just ask any killa kanz or old green tide player. Tau is particularly hilarious. Yes, rapid fire got buffed, that totally means that Tau is a better army than grey knights now.

I never claimed Tau are better than GK. In fact, I said that GK are still tier 1 army. So please don't make any stupid remarks like this. What I said is that Tau got relatively better than they were in 5e, major difference. But if you're unable to see the difference, I'm not sure if there's any point in having this conversation.

And I also said some builds got nerfed. But as long as there are any tier 1 builds in Codex, it remains tier 1 codex. This is something that you are not willing to see. I understand that you don't like 6e because it nerfed your favourite army, foot guard, but that doesn't mean that Guard as whole didn't also get some boosts in forms of Vendettas, increased Leman Russ effectiviness, how Barrage weapons got relatively better etc.
In GK side I didn't even mention things like how DCA got relatively "huge" nerf, how changes in rapid fire relatively devalued storm bolters etc. GK are still good though.

What I said is that GK got hit relatively harder than many other armies. You, on other claimed that every other army got shafted relatively more than GK did, which is obviously not true. It is case where your favourite army sub-type got hit hard, and therefore you're not even willing to see what is the relative power level between armies now.

 Ailaros wrote:
Yes, they got absolutely worse, but they got relatively better. 6th ed rules instigated a race for the bottom.

Just out of curiosity, how can this be true when next post you say, I mean it is kinda hard to get relatively better if you lose #1 post, isn't it?

 Ailaros wrote:
GK went from the #1 army to the #2 army. They're still better than the 10 others, most of which got worse in aggregate. They'd still be at the top, despite getting "hit harder than most armies" were it not for newcron.

Yes, GK were hit relatively harder than most armies. This was absolutely necessary, as they were unbalanced in 5e, one of the main culprits having Fortitude . This means gap between GK and most other armies has lessened, instead of increased like you claimed has happened.

I can easily name five armies that didn't get hits as hard as GK did: C:SM, SW, Daemons, Tau, Tyranids. IG as whole got hit harder than those nerfed one way and boosted other ways but I still wouldn't go claiming that IG is 3rd tier army.

Luide wrote:
This is obviously false. GK got hit harder than most other armies. Note that GK also needed to get nerfed, but claiming they were relatively 'buffed' is plain lying. Lets compare other armies:
1) Necrons. Got 5 good changes for each bad one. One could say Necrons currently are one tier better than Tier 1 armies, like GK, IG and SW.
2) IG got mixed results. Valkyries and Vendettas were good before and are even better now. Vehicle squadrons got better. Some setups, like foot guard did suffer. But this doesn't mean IG got 'crucified', far from it.
3) SW: Didn't get hit that hard. Runepriests got relatively lot better, now that Hoods are nerfed.
4) BA. No charge from non-assault vehicle hurt these guys, but it hurt GK also.
5) Nids. Arguably got better with FMCs. Cover was weakened on one hand, but easier to get for MC's on other hand.
6) Tau. Rapid fire changes buffed them.
7) Eldar. Not sure about final effects. Skimmers got boost, Runes of Warding became better both relatively and absolutely with change in Hoods and Perils.
8) Orks. Nob bikers should still be viable, but not sure about other builds.

GK got hit hard by many things. Fortitude going from awesome to situational at best is good example. GK builds suffer a lot from inability to charge from non-assault vehicles, as did BA Razorspam. Power weapons going AP3 means GK suffered relatively more than other armies, because GK have more power weapons.
Now, these changes don't mean GK suck. It only means their power level is far more in level with other armies. Personally I think GK being nerfed was good thing.

I'm not really sure what Codex got 'crucified'. DE perhaps? Some specific army builds might have become unviable in 6e, that I can agree with. But IG as whole definitely didn't get 'crucified'.

That list is just bad. It highlights one or two things while ignoring numerous others. I'll just show some Eldar changes for the worse because that's the army I play, but even without playing Orks I can give you many examples of how they have gotten worse (and better).
a) No scoring from vehicles. Huge for Eldar. T4 3+ ATSKNF or T3 4+/5+ on a objective. And this is mostly objective focused game.
b) Power weapons. 2+ is not rare in marine armies, impossible in Eldar. Unwieldy slows Eldar (and DE) relatively more then it does others.
c) Overwatch. More powerful against T4 3+ or T3 4+/5+? Assaulting units with flamers: SMs shrug off, Eldar/DE don't.
d) HoW at base S.
e) NO assault vehicles means NO assault based mech forces. Especially for units made with high Init and low durability in mind.
f) BRB powers stealing Eldar "trademarks". Prescience often better than Guide, Misfortune similar effect to Doom (better or worse depending on target/attacker).
g) 3+ to Hit on vehicles no matter how fast you move. Our skimmers were almost always 6+ to hit. Now TACs in CC cause more HP loss than Long Fangs.
h) 3HP on almost anything. 35 point rhino, and 100 point Serpent.
i) Cover decaying makes higher save relatively better.
j) All reserves Alpha Strike denial? Not any more.
k) No fliers.
l) Whichblade anti-AV nerf.
m) Holofield close to usless, especially at such a high price.
n) No rapid fire weapons means we didn't get wide troops boost.
There are more.

You say skimmers got better. I guess this is because they got 5+ cover after moving? Yet you ignore numerous other things that made them worse (some because changes to all vehicles rather than skimmers), more so in low T, low Save armies.

FYI: This isn't just to whine about Eldar. Some of the points above are very mild or affect already supbar choices. We also got some boosts. I just wanted to show that other armies did get boned and in numerous places. It isn't as easy as pointing at other army and saying "skimmers better".

EDIT. Meaningless changes.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Your tanks spent the entire game stunned routinely? I played very tank heavy armies through both 4th and 5th, and never had it happen routinely, not significantly more than it occurs now. They either died, or you were able to hide them/move them out of harms way or destroy the opposing unit.

I can't possibly understand what kind of games you have played, unless your idea of "tank-heavy army" means Razorback or Chimera spam, in which case yes, they saturated enemy anti-tank so much that shaken/stunned results didn't matter much.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Vindicators are a special case, but the only way it's going to be different in 6th is if those hits were all glances and no pen's, otherwise 0 difference has been made in that regard, and it's more likely that it never gets a shot off due to being dead now with the same amount of firepower thrown at it.

Vindicators are not a special case. All tanks which rely on "one big gun" doing damage got better. Hammerheads, Boomwagons, Leman Russes, Whirlwinds etc.

Back in the 5th edition, if your AV13 vehicle was hit by a Missile launcher, penetration roll of 5+ meant that there was only very tiny chance that your vehicle got to shoot next turn. 1/6 chance on Glancing hit, 1/6 chance on Penetrating hit. Now, a single Glancing hit does nothing unless it removes the last hull point, and chances of surviving Penetrating Hit are also marginally better.

Of course, if you only played GK or CSM with Daemon Possessed vehicles, then the above does not apply.

Tanks are easier to kill in assaults now, that is true. OTOH, getting 4+ cover from shooting is easier now for tanks.

Right, but the tank also had utility in other ways and if it's stunned for 2 turns out of 6, that's fine, it's better than shooting 2 and being dead 4.

Except of course that what really happened was that same thing which shook/stunned your tank in R1, did it again at R2. Possibly with better result, especially if you couldn't move.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nox wrote:

Backfire wrote:

Hammerheads are better in 6th than they were in 5th. Not that it matters, since late-5th edition Tau armies didn't make much use of Hammerhead, or tanks in general.

Tau gained big time in 6th edition. Rapid fire is much better now. Bane of Tau army - multi-assault - got seriously nerfed. Overwatch also helps Tau. Weaker cover saves mean that Tau shooting is more effective.

Personally, I wouldn't say that Hammerheads are better now simply because it is way to easy to glance them to death in 6th Ed. Your Hammerheads have to stay alive to do damage and focused fire will eliminate them pretty quickly.

They were eliminated "pretty quickly" in 5th edition too. What usually happened was that massed S7/S8 fire stunned them or immobilized them, then something (anything) assaulted them, auto-hit and they were dead. Or then they just had Railgun ripped of. Sure you might had your Hammerhead "alive" longer, in the sense that it sometimes survived as Immobilized hulk with one Burst cannon left.

 Nox wrote:

Tau did get a boost in the Rapid Fire department but so did all other armies. That one for me comes out as pretty much a wash.

Overwatch helps against assault but given the fact that you only hit on a 6 and they still get a save means that in most cases you will be lucky to kill a single assaulting model or two before they rip through your Tau in assault.

Given the Tau's relatively week armor, reduced cover saves hurt them more than armies like Space Marines. Also, don't forget that the reduced cover saves, no outflank assaults, and magic forests all but killed the poor Kroot. Which in the past edition was a more popular (effective and cost effective) troop choice than the Fire Warrior.

Kroot are just as good, if not better now. Sure you can't assault from Outflank, but you seldom did anyway. Big thing is that Kroot screens are better now, because Multi-assault was nerfed (especially against Orks). And Tau use Rapid fire more than any other army, so that's a buff as Tau are also only army (I believe) with Rapid fire weapons with longer than 24" range.

Cover saves of 5th edition hurt Tau, not helped. Tau shooting was designed for little-cover 4th edition: in 5th, your valuable Plasma and Railgun shots were constantly screwed by ubiquitous 4+ cover.