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.

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

Gotta disagree. 240pts of Dakkajets in a 2k point game isn't that much. "Oh no! its 120pts for 10 wounds 4+ save T6 that has -1 to hit!" at best that means dakkajetz are slightly under priced, but it absolutely doesn't mean you need to limit them to 2. I think 3 or 1/5th your army (To a minimum of 1 unit), whichever is less, would have been better. So at 2kpts you could take 3 flyers if they totaled less than 400pts. In the case of Orkz, the problem was people taking 2 dakkajetz and 2 Wazbomz. this limit would mean you COULD take 3 dakkajetz, but you couldn't afford a wazbom unless you only took 1 dakkajet.

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

Oh, no, not at all.

Other than the fact that it's utterly immersion-breaking, but who cares right?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
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.

And it still is a complete useless argument. No one is killing tanks, be it LR or Baneblades, with small arms fire.

If you are losing your Baneblades to basic guardsman you have WAY bigger issues then the supposed vulnerability of a baneblade.

 Ordana wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
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.

And it still is a complete useless argument. No one is killing tanks, be it LR or Baneblades, with small arms fire.

If you are losing your Baneblades to basic guardsman you have WAY bigger issues then the supposed vulnerability of a baneblade.

It's only useless if you care about immersion.

Besides, a 3+ save is worse than a 2+ save, no doubt about it - even against real anti-tank weapons. I suppose a reword of my post for those who are "THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IS THE RULES AND NOT IMMERSION" folks would say:

"And now a Baneblade is easier to damage than a Leman Russ with any given AT weapon"

Oh right, but it has more wounds. We should just make it T3 6+ with 144 wounds for all the amount anyone seems to care about other defensive stats.

If anything, baneblades should be nerfed to the same levels as other LoW like the monolith or the morkanaut.

Morkanauts aren’t low lol. They might have been placed there, but they’re heavy supports. They didn’t even give the main gun the kmb buffs, should be 3d3 d3 shots

Baneblade... nerfed? No one takes them anyway.

I don't think Jidmah likes LoW in 40k, which is a different perspective than I have but is nonetheless an understandable and respectable opinion.

I wouldn't mind going back to the way I'm using my LOW in 4th, which is as a second detachment of 1-3 and only in games of 2500 points or more. (i.e. the core 4th edition way to field baneblade companies)

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
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.

No, I think that honor goes to thier comments about why they F* over a bunch of Ork players buggy wise.
At least with the aircraft they implied there were mechanics issues (not that they explained what those were).
But they buggies? They invalidate hundreds of $ worth of models in peoples collections simply because they didn't like how people's armies LOOKED on the table??
you GW. And anyone who agrees with them.

And no, outside of KT2.0, I'm not an Ork player.

As someone who's been out of the loop for a while, could someone enlighten me as to what the flier changes were aimed at?

SemperMortis wrote:

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

Gotta disagree. 240pts of Dakkajets in a 2k point game isn't that much. "Oh no! its 120pts for 10 wounds 4+ save T6 that has -1 to hit!" at best that means dakkajetz are slightly under priced, but it absolutely doesn't mean you need to limit them to 2. I think 3 or 1/5th your army (To a minimum of 1 unit), whichever is less, would have been better. So at 2kpts you could take 3 flyers if they totaled less than 400pts. In the case of Orkz, the problem was people taking 2 dakkajetz and 2 Wazbomz. this limit would mean you COULD take 3 dakkajetz, but you couldn't afford a wazbom unless you only took 1 dakkajet.

pretty sure you mean 120pts for 12 wounds, 4+ save, T6 with 40 S6 Ap-2 shots....yeah, no problem to keep adding them in!

Super happy with a Matched Play restriction of 2 flyers. Narrative or games with friends? Sure, bring your aircav list, I'm all game for that!

Baneblades will be buffed to 2+ with the codex.

Leman russes being buffed to 2+ had nothing to do with actually buffing AM. It was just to avoid the backlash now that the GSC dex comes out with 2+ russes.

 vipoid wrote:
As someone who's been out of the loop for a while, could someone enlighten me as to what the flier changes were aimed at?

Flyers in general, last edition we had Craftworld Flyers running amok, this edition it was two recent Codex releases, Orks and AdMech. Stratoraptors and Fusilaves mainly. The problem is they can fly so fast that it doesn't really matter how much terrain you use, they're gonna find line of sight and shoot you, this increases lethality in the game and the game is absurdly lethal at the moment. The second problem is their bases can block where units can end their movement and you cannot engage them in melee with most melee units which can make them stupid to play against for some lists.

Spoletta wrote:
Baneblades will be buffed to 2+ with the codex.

Leman russes being buffed to 2+ had nothing to do with actually buffing AM. It was just to avoid the backlash now that the GSC dex comes out with 2+ russes.

That's a theory I hadn't considered. Seems plausible.

 vipoid wrote:
As someone who's been out of the loop for a while, could someone enlighten me as to what the flier changes were aimed at?

Specifically Admech and Orks aircraft, but aircraft in general is absurdly toxic to play against when good and forcing you to take less of them helps solve that problem.

Scions should probably get an exemption for their Valkyries which are mostly glorified transports, but they are fluffy for Scion armies and it is a shame they were a casualty of this otherwise very necessary update.

 Dysartes 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?

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

Absolutely, I think flyers and superheavies don't belong to 40k, so IMHO even 1 or 2 is still too many .

Bringing multiple of those has been a problem in the past and in the present, due to their mechanics not just stats. Some (most?) of them aren't really competitive but that's not the point. GW's fix is for competitive gaming, if you want to bring your fluffy skew list you still can, just in the most appropriate setting, which isn't matched play. Matched play isn't the only way of playing 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:

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

Gotta disagree. 240pts of Dakkajets in a 2k point game isn't that much. "Oh no! its 120pts for 10 wounds 4+ save T6 that has -1 to hit!" at best that means dakkajetz are slightly under priced, but it absolutely doesn't mean you need to limit them to 2. I think 3 or 1/5th your army (To a minimum of 1 unit), whichever is less, would have been better. So at 2kpts you could take 3 flyers if they totaled less than 400pts. In the case of Orkz, the problem was people taking 2 dakkajetz and 2 Wazbomz. this limit would mean you COULD take 3 dakkajetz, but you couldn't afford a wazbom unless you only took 1 dakkajet.

72 shots with S6 AP-1 BS5+ from 2 superfast platforms with the profile of a tank that can't be assaulted but can snipe anything is definitely something for 240 points. 84 shots with S6 AP-2 BS4+ is definitely A LOT for 240 points.

 vipoid wrote:
As someone who's been out of the loop for a while, could someone enlighten me as to what the flier changes were aimed at?

With the loss of fire arcs a flyer can move across the entire board in a single turn and can draw light of sight from any point, even a wing tip so its impossible to hide.

Combined with a native -1 to hit for protection and charge immunity from a lot of models its a very good base.

The only thing holding flyers back is that a lot of them have bad weapons or cost to much. But that also means that whenever GW gets the numbers wrong flyers quickly become oppressive. Admech did it with their flyers, Orks did it with their flyers and any future codex with a half-way decent flyer would do the same.

And without going first is no counter-play.

Spoletta wrote:
Baneblades will be buffed to 2+ with the codex.

Leman russes being buffed to 2+ had nothing to do with actually buffing AM. It was just to avoid the backlash now that the GSC dex comes out with 2+ russes.

That would solve a lot of problems. I just hope the codex is sooner than 2023, phrrrrbt.

The wait for dexes between the 3.5 edition IG and 5th edition IG was also six years.

 bullyboy wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

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

Gotta disagree. 240pts of Dakkajets in a 2k point game isn't that much. "Oh no! its 120pts for 10 wounds 4+ save T6 that has -1 to hit!" at best that means dakkajetz are slightly under priced, but it absolutely doesn't mean you need to limit them to 2. I think 3 or 1/5th your army (To a minimum of 1 unit), whichever is less, would have been better. So at 2kpts you could take 3 flyers if they totaled less than 400pts. In the case of Orkz, the problem was people taking 2 dakkajetz and 2 Wazbomz. this limit would mean you COULD take 3 dakkajetz, but you couldn't afford a wazbom unless you only took 1 dakkajet.

pretty sure you mean 120pts for 12 wounds, 4+ save, T6 with 40 S6 Ap-2 shots....yeah, no problem to keep adding them in!

Super happy with a Matched Play restriction of 2 flyers. Narrative or games with friends? Sure, bring your aircav list, I'm all game for that!

My apologies, you are correct its 12 wounds not 10... but its also not 40 S6 AP-2 Shots, its 36 AP-1 Shots which also hit on 5s. So it averages 12 hits a turn. You can use a once a game buff to make it 42 S6 AP-2 shots, but basing points value off a buffed unit is a bit ridiculous, which is also why Lootas were terrible in 8th once hte loota bomb went away. Heck, they just got better this edition and are still ranked in garbage tier because of how crap they are.

Dakkajets weren't breaking the game, at best, under optimal circumstances, with WAAAAGH and freeboota kulture proc'ing you could get 42 shots, 21 hits, 14 wounds and 9dmg vs a Marine profile. Under normal circumstances its 4dmg.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
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...

And if flyers in general can be a problem and points aren't the only way to solve things? Like all flyers move block and I haven't seen someone put up a fool proof solution to all the mechanics needed to make flyers unobtrusive.

I think LOW are fine as a centerpiece model. Very impressive center piece models they make. But spamming them would be a problem.

I would rather make LOW limited to just 1 per army, and only knight armies can bring a max of 3. Then make them feel appropriate as the center piece units they are. They are supposed to be center pieces no matter where they show up on the battlefield. To me, somehow, a 2000 point army other than knights should only be able to field 1. Because they are only supposed to show up in a big army. So having an army with 3 LOWs (because points allowed it), and then with just a bare bones skirmish force (again because points) just doesn't feel right.

I want my Lord of skulls to feel like a proper centerpiece model, with scary rules and stuff, but I want it to be there along with the rest of my appropriately big army. Lord of skulls are supposed to generate a huge following around it as CSM and cultists alike follow in its wake of destruction. Are three Lord of skulls supposed to just show up in a force with a token force?

Its just like the Baneblade. IG treats each baneblade as much more precious than a dozen leman Russ. So, given how many men and tanks that IG has, I can picture a Baneblade showing up in an IG army, but it would be absolutely surrounded by tons and tons of IG armor and troops. Can I picture 3 Baneblades by themselves with token IG troops around them ? I can't. It literally makes zero sense.

So, I would vote for making LOW appropriately powerful as befitting their status, and yet, still remain at the points they cost today. But I would want a bump in their abilities/stats while keeping them limited to 1 per army except for knights.

Like give all ground based LOW a 2+ armor save that ignores AP1. But limit them to 1 per army.

SemperMortis wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

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

Gotta disagree. 240pts of Dakkajets in a 2k point game isn't that much. "Oh no! its 120pts for 10 wounds 4+ save T6 that has -1 to hit!" at best that means dakkajetz are slightly under priced, but it absolutely doesn't mean you need to limit them to 2. I think 3 or 1/5th your army (To a minimum of 1 unit), whichever is less, would have been better. So at 2kpts you could take 3 flyers if they totaled less than 400pts. In the case of Orkz, the problem was people taking 2 dakkajetz and 2 Wazbomz. this limit would mean you COULD take 3 dakkajetz, but you couldn't afford a wazbom unless you only took 1 dakkajet.

pretty sure you mean 120pts for 12 wounds, 4+ save, T6 with 40 S6 Ap-2 shots....yeah, no problem to keep adding them in!

Super happy with a Matched Play restriction of 2 flyers. Narrative or games with friends? Sure, bring your aircav list, I'm all game for that!

My apologies, you are correct its 12 wounds not 10... but its also not 40 S6 AP-2 Shots, its 36 AP-1 Shots which also hit on 5s. So it averages 12 hits a turn. You can use a once a game buff to make it 42 S6 AP-2 shots, but basing points value off a buffed unit is a bit ridiculous, which is also why Lootas were terrible in 8th once hte loota bomb went away. Heck, they just got better this edition and are still ranked in garbage tier because of how crap they are.

Dakkajets weren't breaking the game, at best, under optimal circumstances, with WAAAAGH and freeboota kulture proc'ing you could get 42 shots, 21 hits, 14 wounds and 9dmg vs a Marine profile. Under normal circumstances its 4dmg.

The turn it matters the most they are 42 S6 AP-2 shots that most likely hit on 4+ that the opponent can't hide from. The turn after there are "only" 36 shots but they are still AP-2 and hit on 4+. Turn 3 or later they are most likely dead or the opponent is then dead so if they are alive they are only AP-1 and only hit on 5+ because nothing can trigger the bonus to hit.

When it comes to alpha strike lists the average damage a unit makes during the later turns is mostly irrelevant. Especially in a lethal game like 40k where most units often only get one full turn to really unleash their damage before they are wiped in the return fire.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
And if flyers in general can be a problem and points aren't the only way to solve things? Like all flyers move block and I haven't seen someone put up a fool proof solution to all the mechanics needed to make flyers unobtrusive.

I don't remember mentioning points as the solution to this, so it's odd that you'd counter with that.

And "move block" hasn't been the recent problem with flyers, and it's certainly not why GW is trying to limit them now. "I have lots of flyers and go anywhere on the table and can see you no matter what and annihilate you on turn one" has been the problem.

Eldenfirefly wrote:
I would rather make LOW limited to just 1 per army, and only knight armies can bring a max of 3.

Arbitrary restrictions are arbitrary. So 0-1 LoW whether it's a 500 point game or a 5000 point game?

The FoC has to mean something, and it has to scale with points values. That's how you build limitations into the rules.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And "move block" hasn't been the recent problem with flyers, and it's certainly not why GW is trying to limit them now. "I have lots of flyers and go anywhere on the table and can see you no matter what and annihilate you on turn one" has been the problem.

It's absolutely a compounding problem when you block their avenue to move forward, take the board, and get angles on softer units.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
It's absolutely a compounding problem when you block their avenue to move forward, take the board, and get angles on softer units.

*sigh*

"And 'move block' hasn't been the recent problem with flyers..."

Who cares about move blocking when you no longer have an army before your second turn?

I can certainly see how move blocking could be a problem for mass planes - no doubt about it! - but, again, that's not what I was saying, and not what the issue at hand is about.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
It's absolutely a compounding problem when you block their avenue to move forward, take the board, and get angles on softer units.

*sigh*

"And 'move block' hasn't been the recent problem with flyers..."

Who cares about move blocking when you no longer have an army before your second turn?

I can certainly see how move blocking could be a problem for mass planes - no doubt about it! - but, again, that's not what I was saying, and not what the issue at hand is about.

Sure it is. It's more a problem than ever before in an objective based mission set. Just because a couple tournaments meme'd the table wipe problem doesn't mean there wasn't also other problems.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The FoC has to mean something, and it has to scale with points values. That's how you build limitations into the rules.

The lack of scaling for large games is another minor quibble with the Matched Play rules - Onslaught caps out at 3k, when it wouldn't've taken much space to include some copy about "For every 1,000 points beyond this, increase detachment limit by 1", etc.

That, or the implication is that the Matched Play format breaks down after 3k, which is possible.

 Dysartes wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The FoC has to mean something, and it has to scale with points values. That's how you build limitations into the rules.

The lack of scaling for large games is another minor quibble with the Matched Play rules - Onslaught caps out at 3k, when it wouldn't've taken much space to include some copy about "For every 1,000 points beyond this, increase detachment limit by 1", etc.

That, or the implication is that the Matched Play format breaks down after 3k, which is possible.

Well, you can stretch it to 4k by just playing onslaught, but at 6k (2vs2 with each player running an onslaught force) the game definitely falls apart and not in a glorious way like old apoc games did. You run out of deployment space, any objective about holding the center is impossible, having units in a table quarter/deployment zone becomes trivial, kill secondaries max out by default and it's all the stratagems all the time.

Detachments, however, are the least problem you have. Worst case you are forced to bring some troops to form a battalion or a brigade as one of your detachments, but four spearheads, vanguards, outrider or super-heavy detachments can already hold a lot of points to bring whatever your collection allows.

Matched play is intended to be tournament play, which can't be 2500-3000 points games, let alone higher formats. In fact most TOs even enforce time limitations, because 2000 points games are already massive and not optimal to handle.

Outside matched play there's no cap on flyers or ork buggies.

 Blackie wrote:
Matched play is intended to be tournament play, which can't be 2500-3000 points games, let alone higher formats. In fact most TOs even enforce time limitations, because 2000 points games are already massive and not optimal to handle.

Outside matched play there's no cap on flyers or ork buggies.

I think the main reason for TO to use 1000/20000 is that the GT packs don't support onslaught.