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.

Ice_can wrote:

CWE go from bad to passable but your better with more appropriate weapons.
Dissy's go from good to insanely powerful by comparison.

Then fix the weapons! That's the real issue, Doom merely magnifies it.

I also don't see the reason in comparing Scatter Laser and Dissies. Two very different weapons with one of them never being picked these days comparatively. Would be fairer to compare it to StarCannons that have a very similar weapon profile and are actually cheaper. Yet you don't see many StarCannons on the table. Dissies have one less str than Starcannons(Starcannon would wound IG on 2+ compared to 3+ of dissie), cost 2 points more, but get instead a flat D2 whereas the Starcannon has a D3. Dissies get one extra shot.

Hell, why not make Dissies the same profile as StarCannons and the same cost? Then nobody could ever complain again about dissies being overpowered.

The interesting question would be: with StarCannons as is, and Dissies being what they are, what makes it so one is rarely to never picked and one is auto-pick? Would Dissies with Assault 2 still be auto-pick?

Ice_can wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Tripple dissy ravager vrs T6/7/8/9 3+ does 3.3 wounds 38 ppw

Tripple dissy ravager vrs Doomed T6/7/8/9 3+ does 5.6 wounds 22.3 ppw

2 twin scatter laser warwalkers vrs T6/7/8/9 3+ does .89 wounds 121 ppw

2 twin scatter laser warwalkers vrs Doomed T6/7/8/9 3+ does 1.49 wounds 72 ppw

The dissy gains 2.3 wounds from doom while the scatter laser gains .6 of a wound. That D2 and -3AP come in clutch.
In making it a generalist weapon, which is what Doom boosts like an Saturn 5 rocket.

....of course it does, versus vehicles. They are boosted the same percentage (ignoring that SLs would wound T6 on 4s) you're just starting from a much more efficient place because an anti-elite weapon is going to flex much better into vehicles than an anti-infantry weapon.

38ppw is not an unreasonable flex to anti-vehicle. An unbuffed helverin flexing into standard vehicles does 43ppw. a space marine with a plasma gun not on overcharge at a standard vehicle does 45.If you take an anti-elite or anti light vehicle weapon and try firing it into a medium vehicle, you tend to see in the 35-50 ppw range.

With Doom is where you start to see dissies pulling in the "as good or better than dedicated anti tank" range, while still being a really great anti-elite tool. When you start to do everything well, you have a balance problem.

So, could you bump dissies to 20pts, bumping them up to 42ppw and putting them right there in the sweet spot of efficiency alongside most choices that are good but not over the top? Yeah, you could. but if you resolve the doom interaction, you have a whole lot of other more pressing concerns to deal with before dissies having a toe over the line is the thing you most need to fix.

I never said dissy's were or were not broken it more they are clearly not costed appropriately to be effected by doom.
That was all I was trying to show with that comparison.

CWE go from bad to passable but your better with more appropriate weapons.
Dissy's go from good to insanely powerful by comparison.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eldarsif wrote:
Simply make Doom only useful to Asuryani and Doom becomes a non-issue in non-Asuryani armies. I feel like that should be the first avenue to be explored in regards to this.

In regards to Dissies being good comparatively to other codexes it is good to keep in mind the other options in the Drukhari codex. Splinter Weapons are not doing much these days to their lack of AP and with the removal of Blasterborns(or Trueborns) it is harder for Drukhari to get better AP except for single Blasters and Dark Lances in Kabalite Squads(and Scourges) with Blasters being the only real option due to it being assault.

Again, I think the biggest problem with a lot of these discussions is based on soup problems and by punishing a codex for soup you are reinforcing soup as the only viable path.

That was my original point but apparently had to defend that cross faction buffing is rarely well designed or costed.

While true, Eldar due have one fairly notorious weapon with the same profile as a disintegrator that clearly wasn't balanced around doom and had to be hit a few times to take into account its intereaction with the spell.

Reaper launcher. S5 ap-2 D2 IIRC.

Ion shields: This model gets a 4+ invulnerable save against ranged weapons with a damage characteristic of 1,2 or d3.

Knights fixed, thx bye.

This would give them a clear counter (heavy weapons), make them more resistant against mid-high tier weapons (like tanks, plasma, disintegrators, dark reapers and so on), give a role to melta over plasma and since rotate ion shields is already capped at 3++, it makes it so that Ion Bulwark is no longer an auto pick.

 Crimson wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

CWE go from bad to passable but your better with more appropriate weapons.
Dissy's go from good to insanely powerful by comparison.

Then fix the weapons! That's the real issue, Doom merely magnifies it.

Except that the point of the mathematical comparison was that without doom, Dissies perform pretty much exactly as an anti-elite weapon should when used against tanks. I.E., somewhat inefficiently.

In a mono-Drukhari list, Dissies perform the role they're supposed to perform: A weapon that spikes in damage potential against multiwound targets with low toughness and good Sv, and reduces in power vs high toughness or low saves/high invuln saves.

When affected by a psychic power that's not even in their codex, they start doing more damage than dedicated anti tank weaponry against tanks, because they were not costed with that power in mind.

When the power exists in the codex, it makes sense to take almost the same weapon (reaper launcher) and nerf its points cost. When it exists outside the codex, it makes far more sense to first REMOVE THE UNINTENDED INTERACTION and THEN look at how the weapon performs.

Should Bullgryn slabshields have been bumped in price by 20 points because you can do some stupid wonky combo with out-of-codex options to give them an invuln save and amp them up to 2++? No, obviously you should just remove the fact that they affect Invuln saves.

Make Supreme Command Detachment, Super Heavy Detachment and Airwing Detachment only available for Matched Play at 2001+pts. Failing that, allow them at 2000+pts and make most big tournaments 1999pts or less.

So yes, you can bring your single knight to a game....just not a whole bunch of them. Same for Commanders, you need to bring some troops with them.

Then of course we can look at the CPs again for the other detachments/battleforged etc.

the_scotsman wrote:


Except that the point of the mathematical comparison was that without doom, Dissies perform pretty much exactly as an anti-elite weapon should when used against tanks. I.E., somewhat inefficiently.

In a mono-Drukhari list, Dissies perform the role they're supposed to perform: A weapon that spikes in damage potential against multiwound targets with low toughness and good Sv, and reduces in power vs high toughness or low saves/high invuln saves.

When affected by a psychic power that's not even in their codex, they start doing more damage than dedicated anti tank weaponry against tanks, because they were not costed with that power in mind.

When the power exists in the codex, it makes sense to take almost the same weapon (reaper launcher) and nerf its points cost. When it exists outside the codex, it makes far more sense to first REMOVE THE UNINTENDED INTERACTION and THEN look at how the weapon performs.

How you know it is unintended? They wrote the Doom, they wrote the ally rules.

The Doom increases the power of CWE weapons just the same; if their weapons are not as point efficient than DE ones, then that is a balance issue without the Doom as well.

Should Bullgryn slabshields have been bumped in price by 20 points because you can do some stupid wonky combo with out-of-codex options to give them an invuln save and amp them up to 2++? No, obviously you should just remove the fact that they affect Invuln saves.

But it was the slabshield rules that got changed, not the buff.

It only shows that the margin of being useless and useful are very damn tight considering Starcannons and Dissies. My guess is that if StarCannons were to be made into Assault weapons you'd probably see more of them. Would probably be a nice fix for them.

But as you say Crimson, soup is probably the right way to play. Even I am starting to get around to that point.

Yeah dissies at 15ppm are fairly balanced in the drukhari codex. They become undercosted in some soups. Simple.

In fact several things in the drukhari codex should be buffed because they are very underwhelming despite people claim that drukhari are the best stand alone army. They'd definitely should get more buffs rather than nerfs. Even their most competitive units/options aren't overpowered at all without allies, just a few things are a bit undercosted, but nothing game breaking.

Nerfing the drukhari codex because WAAC players abuse some broken combos using more books would be dumb.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

CWE go from bad to passable but your better with more appropriate weapons.
Dissy's go from good to insanely powerful by comparison.

Then fix the weapons! That's the real issue, Doom merely magnifies it.

Why don't you fix doom and/or the interaction between different factions instead? The weapon is perfectly fine at 15 points. In fact several other options should be buffed to their level, starting with poison and drukhari's crappy flamers.

Imperium dudes have plasma guns at 11ppm. When plasma scions were a problem they weren't broken because of the weapon's profile, but due to the interactions between all the factors involved. Unit that was too cheap, effective weapon, free access to re-roll, could be spammed in huge numbers since there wasn't rule of three then, etc. GW got it right by fixing the combo, not the gun.

 Crimson wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:


Except that the point of the mathematical comparison was that without doom, Dissies perform pretty much exactly as an anti-elite weapon should when used against tanks. I.E., somewhat inefficiently.

In a mono-Drukhari list, Dissies perform the role they're supposed to perform: A weapon that spikes in damage potential against multiwound targets with low toughness and good Sv, and reduces in power vs high toughness or low saves/high invuln saves.

When affected by a psychic power that's not even in their codex, they start doing more damage than dedicated anti tank weaponry against tanks, because they were not costed with that power in mind.

When the power exists in the codex, it makes sense to take almost the same weapon (reaper launcher) and nerf its points cost. When it exists outside the codex, it makes far more sense to first REMOVE THE UNINTENDED INTERACTION and THEN look at how the weapon performs.

How you know it is unintended? They wrote the Doom, they wrote the ally rules.

The Doom increases the power of CWE weapons just the same; if their weapons are not as point efficient than DE ones, then that is a balance issue without the Doom as well.

Should Bullgryn slabshields have been bumped in price by 20 points because you can do some stupid wonky combo with out-of-codex options to give them an invuln save and amp them up to 2++? No, obviously you should just remove the fact that they affect Invuln saves.

But it was the slabshield rules that got changed, not the buff.

While we can't prove that games workshop doesn't take out-of-codex buffs into account when designing factions, I find it extremely likely given the unbuffed damage per point you get out of similar weapons from the craftworlds codex versus the drukhari/harlequin codex.

Someone mentioned the starcannon above, and I mentioned the reaper launcher.

Disintegrator: Assault 3, 36" range, S5, AP-3, D2, 15pts.

Starcannon: Heavy 2, 36" range, S6, Ap-3, Dd3, 13pts.

The Starcannon does less damage tan the Dissie for the points when fired without the buff, and 20% more with the buff. Besides having access to full re-rolls through Guide and Doom, the buff access within the codex between the two is identical.

in a world where Doom and Guide exist for the starcannon and the disintegrator, their costing makes sense. In a world where the disintegrator has access to a power that doesn't even exist in the same book, that most players may not even be aware of, their costing is pants-on-head absurd.

 Blackie wrote:


Why don't you fix doom and/or the interaction between different factions instead? The weapon is perfectly fine at 15 points. In fact several other options should be buffed to their level, starting with poison and drukhari's crappy flamers.

A reason has not been provided for the belief that Doom affects dissies somehow disproportionately, it affects them just as much as any other weapons, craftworld weapons included. And yes, there are a lot of underperforming Eldar options (both DE and CW) that should be buffed. This is really an Eldar faction internal balance issue. If CWE have not weapons that can work just as well with Doom than the dissies do, then either the dissies are too good or CWE weapons are not good enough. Doom really doesn't change anything here, it merely magnifies already existing disparity.

(I generally think that many D2 weapons in the game are too cheap, Imperial plasma included; they often get taken over dedicated antitank options, even when there is no doom-like buff available, yet they obviously perform better against infantry too.)

Interestingly enough the Reaper Launcher is costed at 22 points on a unit that is immune to -1 to hit and is mostly seen in Ynnari lists that double its fire making them Assault 4. Even then I have seen a dramatic decrease in use of Dark Reapers after the point changes.

Going over some of the winners in the past year I see mostly Dark Reapers still in Ynnari lists whereas they've gone out of favor in many non-Ynnari lists.

Again, as Crimson pointed out, perhaps it is the resistance to playing soup that is the bigger problem in all of this.

I don't have any left. GW was swift to gut fly keyword and first turn ds assault.

the_scotsman wrote:

The Starcannon does less damage tan the Dissie for the points when fired without the buff, and 20% more with the buff.

So you're saying Starcannon benefits from the Doom more? In any case, if there is disparity between these two weapons, then fix that. And if increasing the point costs would make unbuffed weapons not good enough, (I'm not convinced about that, dissies get taken without CWE allies too) then put the extra points (or some of them) on the source of the buff, the Farseer.

 Crimson wrote:

 Blackie wrote:


Why don't you fix doom and/or the interaction between different factions instead? The weapon is perfectly fine at 15 points. In fact several other options should be buffed to their level, starting with poison and drukhari's crappy flamers.

A reason has not been provided for the belief that Doom affects dissies somehow disproportionately, it affects them just as much as any other weapons, craftworld weapons included. And yes, there are a lot of underperforming Eldar options (both DE and CW) that should be buffed. This is really an Eldar faction internal balance issue. If CWE have not weapons that can work just as well with Doom than the dissies do, then either the dissies are too good or CWE weapons are not good enough. Doom really doesn't change anything here, it merely magnifies already existing disparity.

(I generally think that many D2 weapons in the game are too cheap, Imperial plasma included; they often get taken over dedicated antitank options, even when there is no doom-like buff available, yet they obviously perform better against infantry too.)

Doom is more powerful the lower the strenght of the weapon. CW weapons tend to be high strenght, while Drukhari only have blasters, dark lances and a few other minor wargears with good strenght.
CWE weapons are not worse that Drukhari weapons, but when you apply doom the drukhari weapons become much stronger.

What are scatterlasers and all the shuriken weapons then?

 Crimson wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

The Starcannon does less damage tan the Dissie for the points when fired without the buff, and 20% more with the buff.

So you're saying Starcannon benefits from the Doom more? In any case, if there is disparity between these two weapons, then fix that. And if increasing the point costs would make unbuffed weapons not good enough, (I'm not convinced about that, dissies get taken without CWE allies too) then put the extra points (or some of them) on the source of the buff, the Farseer.

Dissies get taken without CWE but is it because they are all-powerful or because they are really the only good option in that weapon category. This is why I'd be careful about over-nerfing and feel that a 5 point increase would be a decent start to begin with to see how it goes.

 Crimson wrote:
What are scatterlasers and all the shuriken weapons then?

Not saying that they don't have them, just saying that they have much more high strenght weapons than drukhari.

 Eldarsif wrote:

Dissies get taken without CWE but is it because they are all-powerful or because they are really the only good option in that weapon category. This is why I'd be careful about over-nerfing and feel that a 5 point increase would be a decent start to begin with to see how it goes.

But why are they the only goo option? Why are the other options not taken? This is an obvious balance issue. Bump the price of dissies a tiny bit and make the other guns a bit cheaper.

I find it really annoying that the first instinct of many people when a problem arises is to just start to ban stuff instead of finding the actual source of the problem and fixing it.

 Crimson wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:

Dissies get taken without CWE but is it because they are all-powerful or because they are really the only good option in that weapon category. This is why I'd be careful about over-nerfing and feel that a 5 point increase would be a decent start to begin with to see how it goes.

But why are they the only goo option? Why are the other options not taken? This is an obvious balance issue. Bump the price of dissies a tiny bit and make the other guns a bit cheaper.

I find it really annoying that the first instinct of many people when a problem arises is to just start to ban stuff instead of finding the actual source of the problem and fixing it.

I wouldn't bump the cost of the dissies, you would make the ravagers even more glassy than how they currently are, and glass cannons are bad for the game.
Change the role of dissies by giving them damage 1 (and reduce the cost). This makes them anti MEQ without trampling the AT role of the Dark lances.

Ravagers are not glass cannons currently. They are hard to kill at 36".

 Crimson wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:

Dissies get taken without CWE but is it because they are all-powerful or because they are really the only good option in that weapon category. This is why I'd be careful about over-nerfing and feel that a 5 point increase would be a decent start to begin with to see how it goes.

But why are they the only goo option? Why are the other options not taken? This is an obvious balance issue. Bump the price of dissies a tiny bit and make the other guns a bit cheaper.

I find it really annoying that the first instinct of many people when a problem arises is to just start to ban stuff instead of finding the actual source of the problem and fixing it.

Well, I did make a suggestion in another thread that splinter weapons should get some ability on 6 like a -1 to AP or perhaps even change how Blasters can be taken(a la Trueborn). Problem is accessibility to weapons, not the points and the Ravager is the only thing that gives you good access to a good weapon whereas you have to pay a hefty tax for every Blaster in the form of 4 Kabalite Warriors(technically 3 + 1 Sybarite).

Also, people are trying to fix stuff, not ban anything. With all of the suggestions above Doom is not going to be removed from the game. Modified, yes, but not removed or banned. They are just doubtful that Dissies are the real problem, but here we probably have a difference of intention more than anything else. You play and like soup whereas those who are arguing against may not like soup or don't want soup to be a requirement to play the game. Also, changing dissies would probably require more than point changes to the internal balance of the Drukhari which won't come until the next codex hits.

I personally see both points. If soup is the de facto way to play Warhammer 40.000 then I agree that dissies should go up even though it means Farseers will be an auto-include in all Aeldari armies. However, if talking to people who don't like soup then I agree with their point that perhaps Doom should be modified to not aid Drukhari. Both points are valid as they come from two different viewpoints about how to approach the game.

In short, I think people are overlooking the fact that some people in the discussion are pro-soup whereas others aren't. Perhaps we should all be more explicit about where we come from. For example, I am pretty much ambivalent about soup. I prefer an AoS ally system, but will adapt if it is clear there is a right way to play the game.

If you have a several weapon to choose from, but one is almost always chosen over others, that is a balancing fail completely irrespective of this Doom issue.

And I don't want Farseers to be mandatory to DE, but I don't want them to be mandatory to CWE either; you should be able to play an aspect host or a wraith host without one. If one character choice provides buffs so powerful that it is an autotake, then certainly one should increase point cost of the buffer, rather than everything it could potentially buff?

 Crimson wrote:
If you have a several weapon to choose from, but one is almost always chosen over others, that is a balancing fail completely irrespective of this Doom issue.

And I don't want Farseers to be mandatory to DE, but I don't want them to be mandatory to CWE either; you should be able to play an aspect host or a wraith host without one. If one character choice provides buffs so powerful that it is an autotake, then certainly one should increase point cost of the buffer, rather than everything it could potentially buff?

What you are arguing for is front-loading of point costs which is a bad game design unless you design the army to be played around that singular unit/method(which I feel like they are doing in AoS more than 40k).

Problem there is that to justify the cost of the buffer "Doom" becomes an auto-take to justify the cost. You just removed the auto-take from the buffer to the buff. You still have the same problem, its position is just different in the chain of events.

I actually think we have come down to a solution. Whether you agree with it isn't really relevant, but for sake of balance I think it is something that is important to weigh in on.

Psychic Powers should basically have a point cost like equipment. That way Doom can be costed based on its usefulness without front-loading all the cost on individual units. This is the ultimate solution. It removes all front-loading and puts the onus on the actual perpetrator. Hell, this could fix a lot of issues with a lot of psychic powers. That way you can balance the thing itself - as you have voiced a desire for - without banning anything(another thing you like), but at the same time appeal to non-soup players. Make WC also fixed for all psychic powers and have point costs and you have a system that has a reliable proc rate that can be balanced with points.

Damn, we got a stew going.

 Eldarsif wrote:

Problem there is that to justify the cost of the buffer "Doom" becomes an auto-take to justify the cost. You just removed the auto-take from the buffer to the buff. You still have the same problem, its position is just different in the chain of events.

Certainly true. I think this is a way lesser problem, but a problem nevertheless.

I actually think we have come down to a solution. Whether you agree with it isn't really relevant, but for sake of balance I think it is something that is important to weigh in on.

Psychic Powers should basically have a point cost like equipment. That way Doom can be costed based on its usefulness without front-loading all the cost on individual units. This is the ultimate solution. It removes all front-loading and puts the onus on the actual perpetrator. Hell, this could fix a lot of issues with a lot of psychic powers. That way you can balance the thing itself - as you have voiced a desire for - without banning anything(another thing you like), but at the same time appeal to non-soup players. Make WC also fixed for all psychic powers and have point costs and you have a system that has a reliable proc rate that can be balanced with points.

This would be great solution, yes. Same with relics, they should cost points too. Unfortunately I think it is higly unlikely that GW would actually do this.

This would be great solution, yes. Same with relics, they should cost points too. Unfortunately I think it is higly unlikely that GW would actually do this.

True, but I am a hopeful optimist.

 Crimson wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

The Starcannon does less damage tan the Dissie for the points when fired without the buff, and 20% more with the buff.

So you're saying Starcannon benefits from the Doom more? In any case, if there is disparity between these two weapons, then fix that. And if increasing the point costs would make unbuffed weapons not good enough, (I'm not convinced about that, dissies get taken without CWE allies too) then put the extra points (or some of them) on the source of the buff, the Farseer.

no. It benefits the same PERCENTAGE, and it starts as an obviously less powerful weapon - by 33% or more in almost all use cases, because it's Heavy 2 vs Assault 3.

It's nearly identical except that it has easy access to a buff that increases its power, making it stronger - but less crazy dramatically than if it were identical to the dissie. That's exactly how the two weapons should be balanced against each other. one has access to reroll 1s to hit in its codex, the other has access to full reroll to hit and to wound.

Putting 100% of the power budget in the buffing unit causes the problem of "well, what game size are we balancing around? 1000 points? 2000 points?" Buffing units will only be balanced at a single game size if you always put all the power budget into them. It makes more sense to split the cost between the unit doing the buffing and the unit with access to buffs.

95% of rules interactions in the game don't need to be balanced around souping because 95% of the time the different codexes don't buff each other. Why work so hard to preserve this one instance of debuffing psychic powers interacting when you could simply remove it as a factor?

the_scotsman wrote:

no. It benefits the same PERCENTAGE, and it starts as an obviously less powerful weapon - by 33% or more in almost all use cases, because it's Heavy 2 vs Assault 3.

Then the point costs of these weapons are wrong.

It's nearly identical except that it has easy access to a buff that increases its power, making it stronger - but less crazy dramatically than if it were identical to the dissie. That's exactly how the two weapons should be balanced against each other. one has access to reroll 1s to hit in its codex, the other has access to full reroll to hit and to wound.

What if I want to play a CWE army without a Farseer, what then? Now all my stuff is overcosted because I could have taken one... It is same problem than with Guilliman and Marines (granted, that is even more stupid, as Guilliman is a special character tied to one subfaction.)

Putting 100% of the power budget in the buffing unit causes the problem of "well, what game size are we balancing around? 1000 points? 2000 points?" Buffing units will only be balanced at a single game size if you always put all the power budget into them. It makes more sense to split the cost between the unit doing the buffing and the unit with access to buffs.

One Farseer cannot buff the whole army anyway. It is pretty weird army if all of your 2000 points can fire one doomed target, and even if they could, that would most likely be an absurd overkill.

95% of rules interactions in the game don't need to be balanced around souping because 95% of the time the different codexes don't buff each other. Why work so hard to preserve this one instance of debuffing psychic powers interacting when you could simply remove it as a factor?

Well, that's how debuffs generally work, they affect the target unit. It would just feel weird to me if this one worked differently.

Martel732 wrote:
Ravagers are not glass cannons currently. They are hard to kill at 36".

Like we've discussed in several other threads, Martel, Ravagers are a different to kill, but not flat out more durable. I definitely agree that they aren't glass cannons, they just fall in a different spot on the sliding scale of durability than most vehicles which means if you're preparing for mostly T7 3+, then Dark Eldar (And Harlequin, and Ork, and Custode, and Necron) vehicles are very likely to be inefficient to shoot at.

A T5 4+ 5++ platform makes strength over 6 inefficient, and AP over -1 inefficient, leading to a situation where you want autocannons or equivalent rather than lascannons or equivalent to hurt them.

Ravager: 125 pts
8.46 autocannons to kill
12.88 lascannons to kill

Rough imperial equivalent Razorback with twin assault cannon: 114 points
15 autocannons to kill
7.73 lascannons to kill

Definitely not a glass cannon, but it is also OK to have different classes of vehicles existing in the game that different weapons are more effective against.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

no. It benefits the same PERCENTAGE, and it starts as an obviously less powerful weapon - by 33% or more in almost all use cases, because it's Heavy 2 vs Assault 3.

Then the point costs of these weapons are wrong.

It's nearly identical except that it has easy access to a buff that increases its power, making it stronger - but less crazy dramatically than if it were identical to the dissie. That's exactly how the two weapons should be balanced against each other. one has access to reroll 1s to hit in its codex, the other has access to full reroll to hit and to wound.

What if I want to play a CWE army without a Farseer, what then? Now all my stuff is overcosted because I could have taken one... It is same problem than with Guilliman and Marines (granted, that is even more stupid, as Guilliman is a special character tied to one subfaction.)

Putting 100% of the power budget in the buffing unit causes the problem of "well, what game size are we balancing around? 1000 points? 2000 points?" Buffing units will only be balanced at a single game size if you always put all the power budget into them. It makes more sense to split the cost between the unit doing the buffing and the unit with access to buffs.

One Farseer cannot buff the whole army anyway. It is pretty weird army if all of your 2000 points can fire one doomed target, and even if they could, that would most likely be an absurd overkill.

95% of rules interactions in the game don't need to be balanced around souping because 95% of the time the different codexes don't buff each other. Why work so hard to preserve this one instance of debuffing psychic powers interacting when you could simply remove it as a factor?

Well, that's how debuffs generally work, they affect the target unit. It would just feel weird to me if this one worked differently.

If you want 250 point farseers, then I suppose we can have 250 point farseers, because you might take it in a 4000 point game and doom your opponent's warlord titan. To me, it seems to make much more sense to holistically base the point costs of a faction around the buffs they have access to, and trim the edge case interactions with other books by removing them.

 Phaeron Gukk wrote:
IG Orders cost 1CP per use, and Grand Strategist is changed to make the first order your warlord issues per turn free. Apparently mono-IG have literal mountains of CP with no worthwhile sink, so it shouldn't hurt them while limiting how much nonsense the Loyal 32 can get up to.

I don’t mind guard get orders for free but I must admit when 8th dropped this is exactly how I expected to be, I just assumed guard commands would cost command points... I was clearly insane