Balance dataslate up, how did your faction pan out

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.

**Daedalus81**

Slipspace wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:

Everyone is under the same guidelines and GSC were not bottom of the barrel win rates like Admech. If GSC loses some tools and other armies lose some tools and also take a bunch of nerfs...

All this does is highlight why blanket changes in the middle of an edition are a bad idea. Most armies use CP in a fairly similar way. They maybe buy an extra detachment and take some number of WLTs and relics. All those armies are affected in roughly similar ways by this change and all will have to adapt in similar ways. That's why I'm sceptical of people complaining too much about - for example - their SM armies being nerfed as they can no longer take 3 relics and 4 WLT.

Daemons are different. Their list building was centred around using CPs to buff their army pre-game. Not in the way that it's nice to be able to have a Selfless Healer Apothecary and an Imperium's Sword Captain, while also regenerating CPs with you Adept of the Codex in a SM army. No, Daemons need their extra detachments if they want to run anything other than mono-god, otherwise they lose their sub-faction bonus. The Greater Daemons have been designed with the Exalted upgrade in mind. We know this because prior to getting it Greater Daemons were almost never taken and now they're the lynchpin of Daemon armies. GW decided to make that cost CP because at the time that was actually a fairly reasonable thing to do. Now it makes the army borderline unplayable.

Again, this isn't a case of "maybe you need to adapt and not run multiple detachments". It literally runs counter to how the army was designed. GW could have solved this in the points update and dataslate by making the Exalted upgrade cost points instead of CP and/or altering how mixed god armies work. They chose not to, probably because they don't really seem to think through their changes properly - as we see from the Steel Legion conversation above.

The Steel Legion conversation is a non sequitur. There are models that do not have AoC that still benefit from the old trait - as crappy as it is in comparison.

Don't get me wrong - I feel for Daemon players more than GSC.

**Dysartes**

Daedalus81 wrote:
The Steel Legion conversation is a non sequitur. There are models that do not have AoC that still benefit from the old trait - as crappy as it is in comparison.

Not following you here, Daed - if all IMPERIAL GUARD VEHICLE units gain AoC (as per the dataslate), how can any of them benefit from the Armageddon vehicle doctrine?

The INFANTRY part is fine, no arguments there, but the VEHICLE element is either disabled by AoC or disables it, one or the other. That part of the doctrine should've gotten the same swap out as the Salamanders or that one SoB Order did when they started to benefit from AoC.

**Daedalus81**

I get that and certainly they could have reworded the entire trait so that only vehicle catch no reroll wounds, but it isn't something that they wanted to bother thinking about for a book that's long overdue. I don't imagine Steel Legion was high on the priority list to make sure the game was in a healthy state.

**JNAProductions**

Daedalus81 wrote:
I get that and certainly they could have reworded the entire trait so that only vehicle catch no reroll wounds, but it isn't something that they wanted to bother thinking about for a book that's long overdue. I don't imagine Steel Legion was high on the priority list to make sure the game was in a healthy state.

It would take five minutes, if that.

**Dysartes**

Yeah, adding a similar bullet to the one in the Adepta Sororitas or Space Marines section would have taken so long. Here, I've drafted it in two minutes...

"Replace the second sentence in the second paragraph of the Armageddon: Industrial Efficiency trait on page 134 with ‘Each time an attack is made against a VEHICLE unit with this regimental trait, that attack’s wound roll cannot be re-rolled.' "

Might need to switch "trait" for "doctrine", but that's close enough for a draft version.

**Daedalus81**

You're talking about a faction that can take all T8 tanks for their army. Now with AoC and 2+ saves...I'm not entirely sure that giving no reroll wounds would be particularly balanced. "But but marines" - their vehicle choices have been worse in general than IG's and I don't see Salamanders running lots of tanks with any sort of synergy.

**CadianSgtBob**

Daedalus81 wrote:
You're talking about a faction that can take all T8 tanks for their army.

Sure, if you want to pretty much auto-lose because you have no screening elements to keep them from getting locked in combat by turn 2 at the latest and your single-model obsec units can't hold objectives against more than token opposition. LRBT spam has fundamental issues that make it a non-option no matter how many durability buffs it gets.

**JNAProductions**

Daedalus81 wrote:
You're talking about a faction that can take all T8 tanks for their army. Now with AoC and 2+ saves...I'm not entirely sure that giving no reroll wounds would be particularly balanced. "But but marines" - their vehicle choices have been worse in general than IG's and I don't see Salamanders running lots of tanks with any sort of synergy.

That would cause damage to be 6/7ths of what it is for RR1s to-wound.

If you were gonna win, but doing 15% less damage on some units caused you to lose, that sounds like a close game. That’s what we want, isn’t it?

**Daedalus81**

CadianSgtBob wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
You're talking about a faction that can take all T8 tanks for their army.

Sure, if you want to pretty much auto-lose because you have no screening elements to keep them from getting locked in combat by turn 2 at the latest and your single-model obsec units can't hold objectives against more than token opposition. LRBT spam has fundamental issues that make it a non-option no matter how many durability buffs it gets.

I wouldn't advise pure tanks, but you could get a lot of mileage out of 'By Lasgun and Bayonet' and 'Inflexible Command'. 'Boots on the Ground' is pretty straightforward also - keep a couple blocks out of LOS in your corners and stick a CC in a Chimera near a Command Squad. Have a backup Command Squad inside. Use LRBTs to sight block.

2 TC
CC
4x IS w/ Vox
2x 10 Scions
2x Command Squads with Standard and Vox
2x2 LRBTs
Manticore
Chimera

And you still have 250 or so points left. Domination missions might be tough, but I couldn't say one way or another. You could also do 'Special Orders' with more Scions to drop in using the CC in the Chimera to get them scoring.

Yes, the reroll wounds might not ultimately be significant, but IG did take on decent buffs. There's a lot of factors at play and trying to scry the future is impossible.

**Dysartes**

Daedalus81 wrote:
CadianSgtBob wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
You're talking about a faction that can take all T8 tanks for their army.

Sure, if you want to pretty much auto-lose because you have no screening elements to keep them from getting locked in combat by turn 2 at the latest and your single-model obsec units can't hold objectives against more than token opposition. LRBT spam has fundamental issues that make it a non-option no matter how many durability buffs it gets.

I wouldn't advise pure tanks, but you could get a lot of mileage out of 'By Lasgun and Bayonet' and 'Inflexible Command'. 'Boots on the Ground' is pretty straightforward also - keep a couple blocks out of LOS in your corners and stick a CC in a Chimera near a Command Squad. Have a backup Command Squad inside. Use LRBTs to sight block.

Make your mind up, Daed - first your concern is that the Guard could field a tank company, then as soon as someone points out that doesn't work in this edition, you're saying you wouldn't suggest someone should do so. Yes, an IG Tank Company with T8, 2+ save, AoC & no re-roll wounds would be a skew, for sure, but in 9th it probably doesn't function that well. Might be interesting to see it tested, though.

My point is about consistency in rules implementation. In three out of four cases where AoC affects a sub-faction that previously reduced AP-1 to AP0 (Salamanders, Iron Warriors and Order of the Valorous Heart), the sub-faction's rules have been changed (even though one of them is apparently going to be getting T9, 2+ save Land Raiders in the book releasing on Saturday, if what I'm seeing on here is accurate). There's no reason to leave one of them unchanged, even if the change doesn't end up being the exact same as the other three - my draft was assuming that it would be, but the designers might do something different.

**Jarms48**

I’m pretty excited, going to test my scion list with Hammer. If that doesn’t work out it’s TC, Sentinel, and Infantry Squad spam time.

**hardcore1six**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
And remember kids: Contempt will make your armour stronger, unless you have a shield. Shields are the natural enemy of contempt!

The full quote "My armour is contempt, my shield is disgust, my sword is my hatred"

So maybe they're cooking a rule in about shields being disgustingly resilient

**Slipspace**

Daedalus81 wrote:You're talking about a faction that can take all T8 tanks for their army.

Daedalus81 wrote:

I wouldn't advise pure tanks...

Uh...so, which is it? Are you worried about all tanks or not?

Seems liker a weird stance to take that a sub-faction with the same rule that has been re-written in other sub-factions so as not to invalidate it shouldn't get the same treatment, especially given IG are one of the worst factions in the game right now.

**Daedalus81**

The list I posted is 75% tanks so I'm not sure you guys pointing at my inconsistency is that relevant.

I'm not making a judgement on if GW should or should not have made that change, but offering reasons as to why I think they might not have wanted to. Armageddon is a pretty small faction and so likely easy to miss beyond any rationalization.

**Insectum7**

I haven't spent too much quality time with the points updates yet, but it looks like Lascannon armed vehicles have gotten a discount. The Razorback, Predator Annihilator and Land Raider got cuts. Interestingly in the case of the Razorback, they specifically increased the cost of the Assault Cannon while dropping the price of the Razorback.

**Blackie**

Insectum7 wrote:
Interestingly in the case of the Razorback, they specifically increased the cost of the Assault Cannon while dropping the price of the Razorback.

Yeah, I noticed but I still bring twin assault cannons since I consider them much more useful than lascannons. For the models I have, at least.

**FezzikDaBullgryn**

Given the fact that Custodes will have next to no starting CP now, I feel it's an overboard nerf to us, given how much pre-game CP we spend. Making several of our best strats once per game, really went overboard. But then I don't play competitive, so who cares. I just think nerfing us further was unwarranted.

**Unit1126PLL**

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Given the fact that Custodes will have next to no starting CP now, I feel it's an overboard nerf to us, given how much pre-game CP we spend. Making several of our best strats once per game, really went overboard. But then I don't play competitive, so who cares. I just think nerfing us further was unwarranted.

The changes to starting CP are in the matched play rulebook and don't apply to Crusade.

**H.B.M.C.**

Blackie wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
Interestingly in the case of the Razorback, they specifically increased the cost of the Assault Cannon while dropping the price of the Razorback.
Yeah, I noticed but I still bring twin assault cannons since I consider them much more useful than lascannons. For the models I have, at least.

I doubt Assault Cannons will be an option come the new Marine 'Dex.

**Blndmage**

Good thing Legends exists.

**vipoid**

Blndmage wrote:
Good thing Legends exists.

Ah yes, Legends. Where wargear goes to die.

**Insectum7**

vipoid wrote:
Blndmage wrote:
Good thing Legends exists.

Ah yes, Legends. Where wargear goes to die.

Yeah, it's not the solution.

**alextroy**

It is GW's solution

It is certainly better than them saying models are no longer supported for play in any way. They have already made it clear they are not necessarily going to carry something forward just because it was at one point a legal option/model/unit.

**Insectum7**

alextroy wrote:
It is GW's solution

It is certainly better than them saying models are no longer supported for play in any way. They have already made it clear they are not necessarily going to carry something forward just because it was at one point a legal option/model/unit.

Well in return it's my solution to stop giving GW my money and start supporting competing systems instead.

**alextroy**

A valid solution... you have any Adepta Sororitas units you need to unload?

**Blndmage**

And Legends are still valid for Matched Play.

**Dysartes**

alextroy wrote:
It is GW's solution

It is certainly better than them saying models are no longer supported for play in any way. They have already made it clear they are not necessarily going to carry something forward just because it was at one point a legal option/model/unit.

It would be a better solution if they were prepared to update the files when things get removed - it is two and a half years since anything was added to the non-FW Legends files, and a year and a half for the FW file, despite a number of units having disappeared from books in the meantime.

**vipoid**

Dysartes wrote:
alextroy wrote:
It is GW's solution

It is certainly better than them saying models are no longer supported for play in any way. They have already made it clear they are not necessarily going to carry something forward just because it was at one point a legal option/model/unit.

It would be a better solution if they were prepared to update the files when things get removed - it is two and a half years since anything was added to the non-FW Legends files, and a year and a half for the FW file, despite a number of units having disappeared from books in the meantime.

Or, you know, they could just not remove those options from the codex in the first place.

**CadianSgtBob**

Blndmage wrote:
And Legends are still valid for Matched Play.

In theory. In practice most people don't allow them, both because tournament rules are treated as the de facto standard and because they recognize that legends rules were a poor quality rush job to begin with and have not been updated despite various units/rules no longer functioning.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

vipoid wrote:
Or, you know, they could just not remove those options from the codex in the first place.

Yes, obviously that would be preferred. But if GW is going to remove them they need to at least treat legends rules like real rules and continue to update them as the game changes.

**Matt.Kingsley**

Not to mention that GW doesn't even update Legends frequently enough with the options they've been removing