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.

14 months just mean new sm codex can come any moment

 alextroy wrote:
Everyone is welcome to their opinion on an extra Wound Errata for CSM, but only GW's opinion matters.

Then why discuss anything?

There are many things we can have an interesting discussion on. Why GW won't produce an FAQ increase CSM Infantry models to 2 wounds 14 months after the release of Codex Space Marines is not going to be very interesting. Just a bunch of opinions about what is reasonable when GW has already shown us what they think is reasonable (aka not doing it).

How about we discuss something they actually did in this Balance Dataslate?

Alternately, if you don't want to discuss it, you can just... leave the conversation.

There's not much point in a fighting withdrawal if you just want to go.

Voss wrote:
Alternately, if you don't want to discuss it, you can just... leave the conversation.

I'm hoping he figures this out on his own.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:

Damn, that sounds like something that might just kill a couple of raiders, maybe require an admech list to spend 1cp to move a unit of serberys out of the way of the charge...if they get first turn and dont go second and get dumpstered before all their buffs go up, lol.

this is really a nothing, dude. They changed strats and abilities with the day 1 SM faqs as well, it's OK to admit this gak is just inexcusable at this point. The amount of effort that went into the drukhari or admech points tweaks is more than enough to have not created problems with a CSM wound tweak.

You know damn well there's more to it.

If a Strike is 22 with a Psilencer then a Noise Marine with a Sonic Blaster is going to be less. And you can take 20 of those with exploding hits on 5s.

With Chainswords that's 4 attacks. 10 of them would kill 18 skitari with no buffs what so ever.

Why would a Noise Marine with a sonic blaster have to cost less than a Strike with a psilencer? A huge part of the power budget might just be in combo potential. With how terribly balanced the recent releases have been the excuse of wanting to keep the game balanced just doesn't work, GW are releasing crazy rules and crazy day 1 supplements, they are not playing it safe and ensuring good balance. I would love if GW played it safe and updated matched play rules once a year, but you cannot say that while AdMech and Drukhari have been riding the meta like a whore CSM have to patiently sit in the church so the meta doesn't get shaken up.

 alextroy wrote:
Everyone is welcome to their opinion on an extra Wound Errata for CSM, but only GW's opinion matters. Gnashing your teeth every time they do and FAQ and don't do what you want is a waste of your time. They aren't going to start now 14 months after they release Codex Space Marines.

"Everybody is welcome to their opinion of grass-flavour ice cream, but only Ben&Jerries opinion matters..." the company will notice If nobody buys the flavour. You should not buy the ice cream if you don't like the flavour. Like if a +1S AP-3 D1 weapon cost the same as a +2S AP-4 D2 weapon I wouldn't buy the ice cream.

I think some people are overly zealous in their rhetoric, CSM aren't bad if you build a competitive FW list. 1W is to me a fluff issue first (they should have it because SM have it) and game design issue second (they should have it because they shouldn't be glass cannons), balance issue third (the faction is underwhelming at the moment and CA20 overcosted 1W Marines).

Voss wrote:

Now tell me what publication has superseded Codex Chaos Space Marines while also dropping units that are in it?

9e Core rulebook. Or depending on your perspective, several editions of CSM Codexes (up to 5). How long, for example, did that traitor legions book last? 6 months?

I'm curious about this claim regarding the 9e core rulebook - where in there has it said that certain datasheets from Codex: CSM 2.0 can't be used?

+ + +

My current working theory is that every time a post is made bitching about the lack of a +1W errata for CSM, GW push the release back another month At this rate, I think the schedule is for it to come out in the year 3,000...

 alextroy wrote:
Everyone is welcome to their opinion on an extra Wound Errata for CSM, but only GW's opinion matters. Gnashing your teeth every time they do and FAQ and don't do what you want is a waste of your time. They aren't going to start now 14 months after they release Codex Space Marines.

Something something. Gnashing your teeth every time somebody makes a legitimate complaint about GW's ineptitude is a waste of your time. Et cetera and so on.

 Dysartes wrote:

Voss wrote:

Now tell me what publication has superseded Codex Chaos Space Marines while also dropping units that are in it?

9e Core rulebook. Or depending on your perspective, several editions of CSM Codexes (up to 5). How long, for example, did that traitor legions book last? 6 months?

I'm curious about this claim regarding the 9e core rulebook - where in there has it said that certain datasheets from Codex: CSM 2.0 can't be used?

I'm not sure exactly where the other poster is going with their line of reasoning, but when did Vigilus Ablaze's specialist detachment content become forbidden?

EightFoldPath wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Voss wrote:

Now tell me what publication has superseded Codex Chaos Space Marines while also dropping units that are in it?

9e Core rulebook. Or depending on your perspective, several editions of CSM Codexes (up to 5). How long, for example, did that traitor legions book last? 6 months?

I'm curious about this claim regarding the 9e core rulebook - where in there has it said that certain datasheets from Codex: CSM 2.0 can't be used?

I'm not sure exactly where the other poster is going with their line of reasoning, but when did Vigilus Ablaze's specialist detachment content become forbidden?

CA20 I think.

EightFoldPath wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Voss wrote:

Now tell me what publication has superseded Codex Chaos Space Marines while also dropping units that are in it?

9e Core rulebook. Or depending on your perspective, several editions of CSM Codexes (up to 5). How long, for example, did that traitor legions book last? 6 months?

I'm curious about this claim regarding the 9e core rulebook - where in there has it said that certain datasheets from Codex: CSM 2.0 can't be used?

I'm not sure exactly where the other poster is going with their line of reasoning, but when did Vigilus Ablaze's specialist detachment content become forbidden?

The GT mode explicitly forbids their use. All other game modes (crusade, regular matched play, eternal war) still allow them unless you are running an Army of Reknown. It's not really clear how to purchase specialist detachments in crusade though.

Crusade doesn't allow them (or rather, there is no way to employ them. Pre-battle stratagems are forbidden, and the requisition to use them instead explicitly forbids using Specialist Detachments).

Ask your friends if it is okay.

I do really like the balance datasheet they released. Though I think it was too harsh on aircraft. I think they should have altered detachments.

- Patrols, Vanguard, Spearhead, and Outriders reduced to 0 - 1 flyer slots.
- Battalions and Brigades remain at 2.

So the only way to get 6 planes is minimum triple battalion. That's a lot of CP as well as a lot of wasted points on HQ and Troop tax.

I also wish they made Brigades more interesting. Give them 0 - 1 LoW and 0 - 1 fortification slots.

Jarms48 wrote:
I do really like the balance datasheet they released. Though I think it was too harsh on aircraft. I think they should have altered detachments.

- Patrols, Vanguard, Spearhead, and Outriders reduced to 0 - 1 flyer slots.
- Battalions and Brigades remain at 2.

So the only way to get 6 planes is minimum triple battalion. That's a lot of CP as well as a lot of wasted points on HQ and Troop tax.

I also wish they made Brigades more interesting. Give them 0 - 1 LoW and 0 - 1 fortification slots.

That is still way too easy to get 3 fliers, which was where the core problem existed.

0 Patrol, 1 Battalion, 2 Brigrade could work.

Or just limit the flyers that are the problem rather than trying to fix a specific problem with a general solution.

But what do I know...

EightFoldPath wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Voss wrote:

Now tell me what publication has superseded Codex Chaos Space Marines while also dropping units that are in it?

9e Core rulebook. Or depending on your perspective, several editions of CSM Codexes (up to 5). How long, for example, did that traitor legions book last? 6 months?

I'm curious about this claim regarding the 9e core rulebook - where in there has it said that certain datasheets from Codex: CSM 2.0 can't be used?

I'm not sure exactly where the other poster is going with their line of reasoning, but when did Vigilus Ablaze's specialist detachment content become forbidden?

'Superceded' has a pretty general meaning: ie, being made useless or irrelevant. When other marines (and a pile of weapons) were upgraded, chaos marines were left behind. Which has been the perennial story for multiple editions now.
'Datasheets can't be used' isn't the whole story, sometimes GW leaves armies as abandonware for a decade or so.

2 flyers in a 2000 points game is still a lot of flyers IMHO .

Agree, the limit for fliers is probably one of the better ideas GW had. There have been issues with spamming some of them going all the way back to 5th edition when they first became available for regular games.

 Blackie wrote:
2 flyers in a 2000 points game is still a lot of flyers IMHO .

Doesn't that really depend on the flyer itself?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
2 flyers in a 2000 points game is still a lot of flyers IMHO .

Doesn't that really depend on the flyer itself?

You'd think.
Probably also depends some upon the force they're being used against.

For ex; My buddies run his 3 Stormtalon Gunships (he loves those ugly little things) against my Necrons plenty of times. They've yet to be overly effective. Somewhat annoying at times, but never to the "Oh GW, save me & nerf his flyers!" point.

The rule of 3 was born because one flyrant was manageable but 7 were not. There was no way to fix that by points, since those kind of models have more impact the more they are.

This is the same situation. Flyers can go into critical mass, since they move block very effectively and can perform surgical strikes with no interaction with the opponent.

Limiting the overall number of flyers so that they can't reach critical mass is IMO a good approach.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
2 flyers in a 2000 points game is still a lot of flyers IMHO .

Doesn't that really depend on the flyer itself?

No, because we're not talking about limiting OP models, we're talking about limiting specific kinds of units. Flyers are like LoWs or superheroes, some of them aren't even good at all. But spamming them can easily bring problems.

As even GW itself pointed out if you want to bring lots of those play Aereonautica Imperialis or Adeptus Titanicus. They aknowledged that the game could easily get broken by making possible to bring multiple flyers to regular 40k games and they tried to fix it. Flyers, just like leading heroes (who have been capped to max 1 per detachment) or LoWs, were supposed to be centrepiece models. LoWs are harder to spam due to their much higher points costs but if one or more of those become spammable and bring mechanics issues, like flyers, GW will certainly put a cap on them as well.

 Blackie wrote:
No, because we're not talking about limiting OP models, we're talking about limiting specific kinds of units. Flyers are like LoWs or superheroes, some of them aren't even good at all. But spamming them can easily bring problems.

I don't ever remember a time when Air Cav was bringing "problems" to the game.

This seems like a general solution to a specific problem. If Ork and AdMech jets are causing issues, fix those issues. Don't feth over every other army with flyers because you made two factions too powerful.

This is why so many of us can't stand the way GW writes rules, and especially how they "balance" them. It's a hard swing of the mighty pendulum. As stated above, the reason the Rule of Three exists is because of people taking masses of Hive Tyrants with wings. Their solution? Limit what everyone can take rather than fixing the actual problem.

If GW was a school nurse, she'd amputate your leg if you came in with a grazed knee.

 Blackie wrote:
As even GW itself pointed out if you want to bring lots of those play Aereonautica Imperialis or Adeptus Titanicus.

Then that's the dumbest thing they've said in a while, and anyone who thinks that that's a genuine or reasonable solution, then, well, Dakka has politeness rules.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
2 flyers in a 2000 points game is still a lot of flyers IMHO .

Doesn't that really depend on the flyer itself?

The user you're talking to seems to have... issues with certain unit types, HBMC, so don't expect that rational a discussion.

There were definitely more elegant ways to resolve any perceived issues around AIRCRAFT and/or Ork buggies, that's for sure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:
As even GW itself pointed out if you want to bring lots of those play Aereonautica Imperialis or Adeptus Titanicus.

[CITATION REQUIRED]

What was actually said in the article about the balance patch was...

Warhammer 40,000 is certainly not intended to be a game controlled by duelling planes (we already have one of those in Aeronautica Imperialis!)...

That doesn't say what you're trying to spin it to say.

ccs wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
2 flyers in a 2000 points game is still a lot of flyers IMHO .

Doesn't that really depend on the flyer itself?

You'd think.
Probably also depends some upon the force they're being used against.

For ex; My buddies run his 3 Stormtalon Gunships (he loves those ugly little things) against my Necrons plenty of times. They've yet to be overly effective. Somewhat annoying at times, but never to the "Oh GW, save me & nerf his flyers!" point.

personally, the stormtalon should just not have the supersonic rules and be classed as a hover gunship. Then your friend could play with all 3.

I still think it's a good fix, but I would gladly play vs a 3 stormtalon list or aircav list etc, ignoring matched play rules won't get you kicked out of any special club.

The more elegant solution would surely be to limit flyers using the force oganisation chart?

I think that a lot of 40k's spam problems could be solved by restricting the force orgs more. For example limiting any army to just one of any type of force organisation chart and then limiting the more generalist charts so that they allowed less freedom to field all the specialist elements by reducing the allowance by one across the board. Then cap all force org charts to a max of one flier. That allows armies to lean into particular directions but prevents a complete skew.

For an air cav theme army, just let the guard take valkyries as dedicated transports.

I'm not sure where that leaves the ork list but if there are still problems with particular units, reduce the unit size caps or allow them to only be taken on a one to one basis with bikes, or require one unit of each type of buggy before taking a second of any one type, or just change the points/ rules for the offending models to prevent invalidating armies already bought.

GW have gone for a quick fix, which is fine in the short term, but I hope when they take another pass in 3 months they come up with some more elegant solutions.

That is a good idea Black Adder, a max of 1 Vanguard/Outrider/Spearhead would dampen quite a few spam/skew lists.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
This is why so many of us can't stand the way GW writes rules, and especially how they "balance" them. It's a hard swing of the mighty pendulum. As stated above, the reason the Rule of Three exists is because of people taking masses of Hive Tyrants with wings. Their solution? Limit what everyone can take rather than fixing the actual problem.

If GW was a school nurse, she'd amputate your leg if you came in with a grazed knee.

Probably the wrong leg too.

After the initial euphoria of getting a patch, I am not too happy with the way they've fixed several rules. I do hope these are emergency bandages and that they plan to peel them off and heal them properly in more detail later.

I'd like to see the 2 Aircraft MODEL limit be reverted and a more detailed reduction in the flyer slots being made. 0 slots in all patrols/outriders/vanguard/spearheads/battalions/brigades (I think that is all of them that give flyer slots), but then have a detachment bonus if your warlord is in the detachment of 1 flyer in a patrol, 2 in a battalion, 3 in a brigade.

I'd like to also see the Ork buggy change reverted. They need points increased and a change from 1~3 per unit to 1 per unit. That would limit each buggy to 3 of and the points increases would provide the remaining balance. Despite owning 6 Myphytic Blight Haulers I would not complain if they did away with vehicle squadrons, they feel like a balance nightmare for even a competent team of rules writers. I am assuming that they slapped this emergency rule in to the PDF because there are no points increases planned for Orks (so they couldn't just bring them forward like DE/AM) so if they hadn't done something we would have been looking at 9 months of buggy spam.

The Imp Guard, CSM, Knights changes all feel like they might get changed in the 9th edition codexes anyway.

A Baneblade is now officially easier to damage with a lasgun than a Leman Russ.

but it's okay, I'm sure making vehicles vulnerable to small arms could have no weird, immersion breaking repercussions and I definitely didn't say so when it happened.

It's a very poor oversight on GW's part by improving the Leman Russ and forgetting about the other iconic IG tanks.

But the Baneblade still has twice the wounds of a Leman Russ, so does that matter that much?