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.

ccs wrote:


That's shocking - a dedicated anti-tank platform is better vs tanks than MSU units toting some AT capability.

That's true. So in addition to killing a single Rhino, that 250pts of Kabalites can also kill two whole Marines (or one of they're in cover).

Truly it baffles me why Kabal isn't dominating the meta.

 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, right, why in 5th edition (IIRC) you had to do the following with a multi-melta to kill a dread, assuming melta range:

-hit on 3s
-rerolling pen on 5s (55% chance)
-destroy on 4+

Meaning you needed 6 multi-meltas to kill a dreadnought on average.

You what?

First, that was not rerolling pens. That was 2d6, amounting to average of 15 roll. 16 if the unit got easily cheesiable tank hunter. Name one dread that wouldn't be instantly penned by that. Second, Who says destroy? Wrecked killed it just as well. Immobilized? Melee dread pretty much killed for all intents and purposes. Weapon blown up? Ditto, most dread have 1 expensive gun, counts as kill too. Two glances? Dead. Hell, even stunned result, trivial to get, was pretty much kill for one turn. There is a reason very few people took walkers for multiple editions, not that people with rose glasses on who apparently completely forgot how crap the AV system (and vehicle rules in general, especially compared to MCs) were can tell you that.

And I like how people say heavy bolters and such are good vehicle killers now. Hello? Forgot 6th and 7th? Where rapid fire was king and no one ever took any AT? Scatbikes? Devs with HBs and tank hunter? Mass grav? Mass asscans? Two glances making 90% of vehicles instantly dead? Every time someone says USRs and AV were good I wonder what game they were playing, because it sure as hell wasn't 40K

 Amishprn86 wrote:
this is literally the 1st and only edition an AT weapon has a chance to not kill a Marine when the wound goes through

Already forgot how the HQs with eternal warrior were the most popular ones? Especially when they could join squads and magnet all AT shots to their chest, making their units immune to dozens of AT shots (if not close to 150+ if the model in question also had 3++ and FNP)? Especially the stupidly written books like BT or SW where eternal warrior was a cheap upgrade you could slap on any character (regular SM at least had EW locked behind expensive HQs) making deathstar brick units impossible to kill with your whole army in less than 12 turns (and then there was invisibility and biomancy stacking making it impossible to kill in less than 360+ turns, I math hammered it once out of curiosity)?

Again, I have no idea what game you were playing, because anyone praising AV or USR either was in meta softer than a marshmallow or never played the game seriously because they could be abused vastly harder than anything in 9th edition, damage inflation excepted.

 Irbis wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
this is literally the 1st and only edition an AT weapon has a chance to not kill a Marine when the wound goes through

Already forgot how the HQs with eternal warrior were the most popular ones? Especially when they could join squads and magnet all AT shots to their chest, making their units immune to dozens of AT shots (if not close to 150+ if the model in question also had 3++ and FNP)? Especially the stupidly written books like BT or SW where eternal warrior was a cheap upgrade you could slap on any character (regular SM at least had EW locked behind expensive HQs) making deathstar brick units impossible to kill with your whole army in less than 12 turns (and then there was invisibility and biomancy stacking making it impossible to kill in less than 360+ turns, I math hammered it once out of curiosity)?

I assume Amishprn86 meant regular Marines? Not the HQs with EW, bikes, invulnerable and other such protections.

 Blackie wrote:
Maybe because GW thought they had the same level of power creep when they released them. Or maybe because they want some factions (or even just specific units) to have more power creep than others.

How is that even a rational approach? "They only do it some of the because reasons!" If they thought they had the same level of creep doesn't that imply they're not intending creep and instead changing the way the game plays?

Why would they limit the sale of AIRCRAFT and buggies at the height of their popularity?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Maybe because GW thought they had the same level of power creep when they released them. Or maybe because they want some factions (or even just specific units) to have more power creep than others.

How is that even a rational approach? "They only do it some of the because reasons!" If they thought they had the same level of creep doesn't that imply they're not intending creep and instead changing the way the game plays?

Why would they limit the sale of AIRCRAFT and buggies at the height of their popularity?

Because they've been "changing the way the game plays" at random with every Codex release since late 5e. Ten years and four editions haven't given me any indication that they have any goal in mind other than tweaking things at random and occasionally panic-reacting if enough people complain about one thing. I don't think GW intends power creep any more than they intend anything else they do, I think they a) don't test things enough, b) don't let people who play the game within a mile and a half of the writing process, c) let the Primaris/Stormcast-fetishists in the sculpting team dictate how the rules work (but since they're sculptors they fail as often as they succeed in making their favorite faction overpowered), and d) make every single rules change in a vacuum with only the vaguest idea of what anything else does. Power creep happens by accident, and only because someone on the marketing department got it into their heads around ten years ago that buffs are more popular than nerfs, so every release since then has been an attempt to give buffs to everything, only because they have no clue how their game works whether any of it's actually an improvement is pretty random.

“Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity”.

Exactly. GW's goal is to sell more models.

If they think the meta has settled down then it's time to shake things up. If they think most of the playerbase already have enough of X unit, then that unit will not get any power creep. Aircraft and ork buggies became so predominant that invalidating collections for those who already bought them in bulk was an efficient way to push players to buy something else. At the same time units like aircraft or ork buggies are still very good for those who start the army and don't have the models yet.

Same for whole codexes that aren't extremely popular, at some point it may be the time to enhance those faction and sell more of their kits.

It's not "reasons", it's profit. Sometimes, considering the infinite amount of variables and options, cheesy combos might not be intended though and totally happen by accident, or negligence/incompetence when they underestimate the effect of the rules they write.

It makes perfect sense and I've accepted it a long time ago, we'll never get a RAW perfectly balanced game and I'm fine with that.

I don't think there's much evidence for this idea GW buffs and nerfs things in order to sell this grey plastic over that grey plastic. I think they just try to buff the weak units and nerf the ones which are too good. This is ultimately how most games would try to balance themselves.

For example, with the exception of say Incubi, the DE range is getting quite old. And therefore, by comparison to newer ranges, relatively cheap. So what's the mentality in making this the most powerful faction for the last 9 or so months? Why would GW want to sell £22~ Wrack of Wych Kits over say £31.50 Flayed One kits for instance?

Did they decide they had say too many Marine Dreadnoughts in stock, so needed to buff them? Did they sell too many Marine Tanks (not Razorbacks) at some point in the distant past, so they've generally been a bit rubbish?

I think the only difference is that in times past they didn't even pretend to balance the game - and now they are vaguely listening to feedback. But its still a lot slower than some people would like.

Exactly. GW's goal is to sell more models.

Not just new models.
GW wants to sell a new codex well.
Buyers need some incentive.

Tyel wrote:
I don't think there's much evidence for this idea GW buffs and nerfs things in order to sell this grey plastic over that grey plastic. I think they just try to buff the weak units and nerf the ones which are too good. This is ultimately how most games would try to balance themselves.

For example, with the exception of say Incubi, the DE range is getting quite old. And therefore, by comparison to newer ranges, relatively cheap. So what's the mentality in making this the most powerful faction for the last 9 or so months? Why would GW want to sell £22~ Wrack of Wych Kits over say £31.50 Flayed One kits for instance?

Did they decide they had say too many Marine Dreadnoughts in stock, so needed to buff them? Did they sell too many Marine Tanks (not Razorbacks) at some point in the distant past, so they've generally been a bit rubbish?

I think the only difference is that in times past they didn't even pretend to balance the game - and now they are vaguely listening to feedback. But its still a lot slower than some people would like.

Wracks, grotesques and court of the archon are among the most expensive units in the entire catalogue in terms of money. Always consider how many points the kit is worth. 5 wracks are just 40 points, court of the archon models or even grots are relatively cheap as standalone figures but the player needs a bunch of them to make a basic squad so the cost of just a min squad is pretty high in money even if it's pretty low in points. If units are cheap points wise the player needs more kits, hence that faction isn't cheaper than some of those which have newer ranges. Also, most of the older stuff is now exclusive of the GW online store which means only available at full price, while newer stuff can easily be bought at 25%-30% discounts.

SM for example are still among the cheapest factions in the game, even without relying on starters.

The Craftworld buffs look appropriate.

I expect Nids to have similar stat buffs across the line in their codex, with some gentle toning down of the mountain of rules we just received.

Devilgant devourers are the only codex weapon that comes to my mind that doesn't need further buffs or tweaks).

8th ed SM 2.0 set the new power level and the 9th edition weapon overhaul cemented it.

It has to be finished before we can talk about another "reset"...

 vipoid wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
this is literally the 1st and only edition an AT weapon has a chance to not kill a Marine when the wound goes through

Already forgot how the HQs with eternal warrior were the most popular ones? Especially when they could join squads and magnet all AT shots to their chest, making their units immune to dozens of AT shots (if not close to 150+ if the model in question also had 3++ and FNP)? Especially the stupidly written books like BT or SW where eternal warrior was a cheap upgrade you could slap on any character (regular SM at least had EW locked behind expensive HQs) making deathstar brick units impossible to kill with your whole army in less than 12 turns (and then there was invisibility and biomancy stacking making it impossible to kill in less than 360+ turns, I math hammered it once out of curiosity)?

I assume Amishprn86 meant regular Marines? Not the HQs with EW, bikes, invulnerable and other such protections.

Yes, basic Troops, not freaking characters.....

Dire Avengers: going to 3 shots S4 AP-1 24" range (50% increase +6" range increase)
wraithcannon: D3+3 damage 18" range (30% damage increase +6" range increase)
D-Scythe: D6 shots 12" range wound rolls of a 6 deal a MW (30% damage increase 4" range increase)
Shuriken Cannon: now 2 damage (100% damage increase vs W2+)
Howling Banshee: now 3A, D2 on the charge (150% damage increase vs W2+ on the charge)
Scatter laser: now 6 shots (50% damage increase)
Pulsar+Bright Lance: Now D3+3 (30% damage increase)
Fusion Gun: now D6+2 in melta range (30% damage increase)
Swooping Hawk: now 5 shots S4 autowound on a 6 to hit (60% damage increase vs preferred GEQ target)

A typical example of codex creep.
This the grace of the late birth.
I'm happy with it as it allows me to field my tanks with scatter lasers again.
Longer range than shuriken cannons and more dakka.

Pancakey wrote:
This trajectory will not stop until the game is completely reset again.

You're probably right.

 Fluid_Fox wrote:

Pancakey wrote:
This trajectory will not stop until the game is completely reset again.

You're probably right.

As a CSM player I don't even want a codex, I want 10th edition...

macluvin wrote:

 Fluid_Fox wrote:

Pancakey wrote:
This trajectory will not stop until the game is completely reset again.

You're probably right.

As a CSM player I don't even want a codex, I want 10th edition...

Wait patiently, you'll get your wish along about summer 2024.

macluvin wrote:

 Fluid_Fox wrote:

Pancakey wrote:
This trajectory will not stop until the game is completely reset again.

You're probably right.

As a CSM player I don't even want a codex, I want 10th edition...

10th edition but still with 8th codex?

ccs wrote:

macluvin wrote:

 Fluid_Fox wrote:

Pancakey wrote:
This trajectory will not stop until the game is completely reset again.

You're probably right.

As a CSM player I don't even want a codex, I want 10th edition...

Wait patiently, you'll get your wish along about summer 2024.

They said a few years in the survey. It could be as early as winter 2023 XD actually I would totally settle for a rebalanced version with an optional “official” game mode with basically rules that would be 9th equivalent of 8th edition indices. And semi annual balance patches so they can hopefully more subtly shift balance in the favor of different units without absolutely busting them.. a man can dream.

ccs wrote:

macluvin wrote:

 Fluid_Fox wrote:

Pancakey wrote:
This trajectory will not stop until the game is completely reset again.

You're probably right.

As a CSM player I don't even want a codex, I want 10th edition...

Wait patiently, you'll get your wish along about summer 2024.

That's aos4. He gets wish year earlier.

tneva82 wrote:

ccs wrote:

macluvin wrote:

 Fluid_Fox wrote:

Pancakey wrote:
This trajectory will not stop until the game is completely reset again.

You're probably right.

As a CSM player I don't even want a codex, I want 10th edition...

Wait patiently, you'll get your wish along about summer 2024.

That's aos4. He gets wish year earlier.

No, my crystal ball says '24 for 40k.
1) They won't get all the remaining Codices (and possibly SM supplements - Salamanders etc) out by the end of '22.
2) If they release anything actually "new" - say World Eaters.
3) Expect further delays in '22 due to Covid/shipping/manufacturing.
So some stuff is being shoved onto the 2023 calendar & stretched over about a 6-9 month period.
Fill in the remaining months until summer 2024 with Pyschic Awakening style filler materiel.

They won’t let petty things like psychic awakening supplements to get in the way of a new edition. And it’s not like they haven’t abruptly ended an edition after dropping a codex...

Just as an aside, I'm not sure why people think GW has to get all the 'dexes out before swapping editions.

They haven't in the past except for 8th and 3rd, both game reset editions.

They'll merrily trundle along, leaving armies unupdated for years at a time.

- someone who's opinion on 9th is roundly dismissed because "you can't compare 8th edition codexes to 9th edition codexes" and also who only has 8th edition codexes for all his armies.

Yep, I also believe that releasing 20+ codexes in just 3 years, which is a whole edition's lifespan, is pure madness. Especially if new editions aren't really that different in terms of chore mechanics; 8th and 9th for example don't differ significantly and most of 8th codexes work perfectly well in 9th.

Those that don't work in 9th belong to armies that were bland even in the previous edition, they might not need an update because the edition changed but because their codex was bland in the first place.

 Blackie wrote:
Exactly. GW's goal is to sell more models.

If they think the meta has settled down then it's time to shake things up. If they think most of the playerbase already have enough of X unit, then that unit will not get any power creep. Aircraft and ork buggies became so predominant that invalidating collections for those who already bought them in bulk was an efficient way to push players to buy something else. At the same time units like aircraft or ork buggies are still very good for those who start the army and don't have the models yet.

Same for whole codexes that aren't extremely popular, at some point it may be the time to enhance those faction and sell more of their kits.

It's not "reasons", it's profit. Sometimes, considering the infinite amount of variables and options, cheesy combos might not be intended though and totally happen by accident, or negligence/incompetence when they underestimate the effect of the rules they write.

It makes perfect sense and I've accepted it a long time ago, we'll never get a RAW perfectly balanced game and I'm fine with that.

You're using a form of survivorship bias and ignoring all evidence to the contrary to make your point and then post-hoc rationalizing changes as if things didn't need changes. The stupid thing GW did was alter points down for DE for unused units before they allowed nerfs in the remaining book to settle in.

You'll sit here and claim they wanted to see grots and wracks meanwhile the play percentage for Admech completely fell off a cliff. How does it make sense for them to disincentivize Admech entirely?

Pancakey wrote:
This trajectory will not stop until the game is completely reset again.

At which point people will clap it's the best edition EVER and GW are listening... until they're not, and repeat.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Codex creep sells models.
All other considerations secondary.
Game expendable.

Then why aren't all codexes creeped in equal measure?

That would require competent people being in charge of the rules

 Daedalus81 wrote:


You're using a form of survivorship bias and ignoring all evidence to the contrary to make your point and then post-hoc rationalizing changes as if things didn't need changes. The stupid thing GW did was alter points down for DE for unused units before they allowed nerfs in the remaining book to settle in.

You'll sit here and claim they wanted to see grots and wracks meanwhile the play percentage for Admech completely fell off a cliff. How does it make sense for them to disincentivize Admech entirely?

Because they unintentionally over nerfed those ad mech maybe? I talked about the company's strategy and I believe in what I said. But I'm also aware that balancing things in order to achieve the desired goals can be extremely difficult for something as wide as 40k and we all know that GW don't really play test a lot.

I can clearly see a pattern in GW's "fixes", but I'm also aware that a lot of the things they do end up with unexpected (for them) results. You should be able to see units that are intentionally pushed to increase sales like ork squigbuggies (trash before the new codex, OP after the release of the book) o unintentional cheesy combos such as liq guns spam in early 9th for DT drukhari. Other things are harder to define.

So applying this logic, what should we expect from the new Tau Codex? Riptides and Drones to be C tier, massed Kroot (can you even get these from GW any more?) up at S?

Tyel wrote:
So applying this logic, what should we expect from the new Tau Codex? Riptides and Drones to be C tier, massed Kroot (can you even get these from GW any more?) up at S?

No idea, it's all down to what GW thinks it will sell more. And their actual ability to write rules that reflect their expectations .

Maybe firewarriors, piranhas and devilfishes as the bulk of the army. But of course things will be shaken up somehow, it happened to all the previously released codexes.

The new Chaos Space Marine codex will allow you to roll to hit and wound your opponent (every codex comes with a loaded handgun and a guide on how to Mozambique Drill), taking damage creep to a whole new level.