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.

Points reductions only, pretty much. The issue I see with this is that it just shifts the meta. Units that don't get dramatic point decreases will either stay on the shelf, or take the spot of units that are now unplayable but become so with a points drop

I never printed the whole CA, so maybe this is a dumb question, but did any units in the last CA have their points cost lowered? Because the GK stuff only got points hiked comparing to the index stuff.

Karol wrote:

Points reductions only, pretty much. The issue I see with this is that it just shifts the meta. Units that don't get dramatic point decreases will either stay on the shelf, or take the spot of units that are now unplayable but become so with a points drop

I never printed the whole CA, so maybe this is a dumb question, but did any units in the last CA have their points cost lowered? Because the GK stuff only got points hiked comparing to the index stuff.

A lot of stuff did actually.

In general the story goes like this:

FAQs hammer down the worst offenders
CA slaps the minor offenders and props up the models that need an hand.

Expecting buffs from a FAQ is asking for disappointment.

yeah, but when the last CA came out. GK got slaped too, each FAQ the same happened, and no one can claim that anything GK had warrented a nerf. When March FAQ came GK weren't winning anything, not tournaments big or small, not even casual games. They maybe won stuff in narrative, but there you can litterly write in that this faction wins at the end of the game.

SemperMortis wrote:
We are 3 days from "Orktober" as GW put it. White Dwarf has zero leaks, sneak peaks or anything at all related to orkz except a fluff piece on a grot themed army somebody made. The FAQ and Errata don't even mention orkz....sweet.

FAQs and Erratas for an army getting a new codex next month. Yeah, that makes sense.

 Galef wrote:

Darsath wrote:
Really, I'm just trying to guess the kind of change that would appear in Chapter Approved that would be good enough to make these armies playable.

Points reductions only, pretty much. The issue I see with this is that it just shifts the meta. Units that don't get dramatic point decreases will either stay on the shelf, or take the spot of units that are now unplayable but become so with a points drop

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

I mean that a 1+ save would prevent AP- weapons being able to kill a unit so wouldn’t fit their design philosophy.

Except they already have a rule that says 1s always fail for armour saves for when 2+ saves are sitting in cover.

Exactly, 1s would still fail, so Terminators having a 1+ armour would play exactly as they do now against AP- weapons. It just gives them a better chance against AP-1 and up weapons

-

That is true! I did a forgetting.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
No, IG is going to be a bigger issue than ever. But power armor is supposed to get some love in CA.

IG basically won't change much beyond replacing the BA or Castellan in most top level Imperial lists to give a second detachment of cheap CP generation to support the combo unit over trying to support two of said unit.

The problem there is that IG still needs someone to bring the heavy armor. The current IG+Knights list works because you can hide *most* of the battalion in cover and at their points it's not too terrible to have them sit out and guard your CP regen warlord.

Now (with the FAQ), the CP regen isn't very powerful and you could just take the CP regen trait on the marines. You could double-bat/brigade the guard, but at that point the guard need to be able to lift their own weight. Which means getting engaged. Which means dying in droves. If half your list is 4+/5+ armor saves, than it doesn't matter that the other half of the list is 3+/4++.

 ChargerIIC wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
No, IG is going to be a bigger issue than ever. But power armor is supposed to get some love in CA.

IG basically won't change much beyond replacing the BA or Castellan in most top level Imperial lists to give a second detachment of cheap CP generation to support the combo unit over trying to support two of said unit.

The problem there is that IG still needs someone to bring the heavy armor. The current IG+Knights list works because you can hide *most* of the battalion in cover and at their points it's not too terrible to have them sit out and guard your CP regen warlord.

Now (with the FAQ), the CP regen isn't very powerful and you could just take the CP regen trait on the marines. You could double-bat/brigade the guard, but at that point the guard need to be able to lift their own weight. Which means getting engaged. Which means dying in droves. If half your list is 4+/5+ armor saves, than it doesn't matter that the other half of the list is 3+/4++.

Good points! Basically just shows how the CP battery has fixed and the Guard + X lists aren't nearly as bad as people have been screaming they will continue to be.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 ChargerIIC wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
No, IG is going to be a bigger issue than ever. But power armor is supposed to get some love in CA.

IG basically won't change much beyond replacing the BA or Castellan in most top level Imperial lists to give a second detachment of cheap CP generation to support the combo unit over trying to support two of said unit.

The problem there is that IG still needs someone to bring the heavy armor. The current IG+Knights list works because you can hide *most* of the battalion in cover and at their points it's not too terrible to have them sit out and guard your CP regen warlord.

Now (with the FAQ), the CP regen isn't very powerful and you could just take the CP regen trait on the marines. You could double-bat/brigade the guard, but at that point the guard need to be able to lift their own weight. Which means getting engaged. Which means dying in droves. If half your list is 4+/5+ armor saves, than it doesn't matter that the other half of the list is 3+/4++.

Good points! Basically just shows how the CP battery has fixed and the Guard + X lists aren't nearly as bad as people have been screaming they will continue to be.

They might be weaker but they are more mandatory than ever before thanks to GW recosting strategums on the assumption that everyone is running Guard CP detachments.

Thats the worst solution to the problem. At this point the only way this endorsement of IG models could be more obvious is if they released a box set with all the CP battery models in 1 box.

It also sees marines and Bobby G take a nerf to go 3 nerfs from 3 possible. #500 points in CA2018 to go 4 nerfs from 4.

Ice_can wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 ChargerIIC wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
No, IG is going to be a bigger issue than ever. But power armor is supposed to get some love in CA.

IG basically won't change much beyond replacing the BA or Castellan in most top level Imperial lists to give a second detachment of cheap CP generation to support the combo unit over trying to support two of said unit.

The problem there is that IG still needs someone to bring the heavy armor. The current IG+Knights list works because you can hide *most* of the battalion in cover and at their points it's not too terrible to have them sit out and guard your CP regen warlord.

Now (with the FAQ), the CP regen isn't very powerful and you could just take the CP regen trait on the marines. You could double-bat/brigade the guard, but at that point the guard need to be able to lift their own weight. Which means getting engaged. Which means dying in droves. If half your list is 4+/5+ armor saves, than it doesn't matter that the other half of the list is 3+/4++.

Good points! Basically just shows how the CP battery has fixed and the Guard + X lists aren't nearly as bad as people have been screaming they will continue to be.

They might be weaker but they are more mandatory than ever before thanks to GW recosting strategums on the assumption that everyone is running Guard CP detachments.

Thats the worst solution to the problem. At this point the only way this endorsement of IG models could be more obvious is if they released a box set with all the CP battery models in 1 box.

It also sees marines and Bobby G take a nerf to go 3 nerfs from 3 possible. #500 points in CA2018 to go 4 nerfs from 4.

The more Guard you bring to add in more CP, the less other stuff you're running and the weaker the mix becomes. This is an issue how?

Armies are more than a sum of their parts, a Guard brigade isn't weak on its own and provides a dimension that armies like Imperial Knights, Custodes, and various Space Marines chapters don't have.

I don't think GW is pushing people to buy more Guard - I think that the Bullgryn nerf and Chapter Approved are actually going to shake up Guard lists quite a lot - but until Chapter Approved arrives I think we will see a lot of Catachan brigades.

Because they're good. The CP doesn't hurt, though.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 ChargerIIC wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
No, IG is going to be a bigger issue than ever. But power armor is supposed to get some love in CA.

IG basically won't change much beyond replacing the BA or Castellan in most top level Imperial lists to give a second detachment of cheap CP generation to support the combo unit over trying to support two of said unit.

The problem there is that IG still needs someone to bring the heavy armor. The current IG+Knights list works because you can hide *most* of the battalion in cover and at their points it's not too terrible to have them sit out and guard your CP regen warlord.

Now (with the FAQ), the CP regen isn't very powerful and you could just take the CP regen trait on the marines. You could double-bat/brigade the guard, but at that point the guard need to be able to lift their own weight. Which means getting engaged. Which means dying in droves. If half your list is 4+/5+ armor saves, than it doesn't matter that the other half of the list is 3+/4++.

Good points! Basically just shows how the CP battery has fixed and the Guard + X lists aren't nearly as bad as people have been screaming they will continue to be.

They might be weaker but they are more mandatory than ever before thanks to GW recosting strategums on the assumption that everyone is running Guard CP detachments.

Thats the worst solution to the problem. At this point the only way this endorsement of IG models could be more obvious is if they released a box set with all the CP battery models in 1 box.

It also sees marines and Bobby G take a nerf to go 3 nerfs from 3 possible. #500 points in CA2018 to go 4 nerfs from 4.

The more Guard you bring to add in more CP, the less other stuff you're running and the weaker the mix becomes. This is an issue how?

Guard are not weak they are quirt effective at CC as Catachan, something they will spend a lot more time in due to the fly changes.
Also mono lists of knights now all need that guard CP as GW recosted knight strategums to force you into taking guard.

Darsath wrote:


The current design pushes these factions to ally in Command Points more, and punishes those who play solo Knights or solo Blood Angels.

Get this though - they're are the max of 3 detachments. They can't just ally in more CP now.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Darsath wrote:


The current design pushes these factions to ally in Command Points more, and punishes those who play solo Knights or solo Blood Angels.

Get this though - they're are the max of 3 detachments. They can't just ally in more CP now.

Well they can if they drop the BA or Knight but then they're opening holes in their list.

Even under soup lists I'd like to see some variety. Maybe some Mechanicus or Space Marines. Maybe we'll see Grey Knights actually fit into an ally role (in reality the slot they'd be the easiest to see in competitively), but currently I'm not so sure we'll see any real mix ups until Chapter Approved. However, that is quite some time to remain with the game in the state it currently is, and I hope it doesn't become too stale for some people to power through.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
We are 3 days from "Orktober" as GW put it. White Dwarf has zero leaks, sneak peaks or anything at all related to orkz except a fluff piece on a grot themed army somebody made. The FAQ and Errata don't even mention orkz....sweet.

FAQs and Erratas for an army getting a new codex next month. Yeah, that makes sense.

And the October White Dwarf?

SemperMortis wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
We are 3 days from "Orktober" as GW put it. White Dwarf has zero leaks, sneak peaks or anything at all related to orkz except a fluff piece on a grot themed army somebody made. The FAQ and Errata don't even mention orkz....sweet.

FAQs and Erratas for an army getting a new codex next month. Yeah, that makes sense.

And the October White Dwarf?

You've figured it out, they canceled the Ork codex.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 ChargerIIC wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
No, IG is going to be a bigger issue than ever. But power armor is supposed to get some love in CA.

IG basically won't change much beyond replacing the BA or Castellan in most top level Imperial lists to give a second detachment of cheap CP generation to support the combo unit over trying to support two of said unit.

The problem there is that IG still needs someone to bring the heavy armor. The current IG+Knights list works because you can hide *most* of the battalion in cover and at their points it's not too terrible to have them sit out and guard your CP regen warlord.

Now (with the FAQ), the CP regen isn't very powerful and you could just take the CP regen trait on the marines. You could double-bat/brigade the guard, but at that point the guard need to be able to lift their own weight. Which means getting engaged. Which means dying in droves. If half your list is 4+/5+ armor saves, than it doesn't matter that the other half of the list is 3+/4++.

Good points! Basically just shows how the CP battery has fixed and the Guard + X lists aren't nearly as bad as people have been screaming they will continue to be.

Incorrect - everything is relative. IG still have the best command point per detachment. The super list with BA castellan and brigade will get a minor nerf. Can easily bring 20+ CP to a game though - which in all actuality is enough to still dominate with. They will just stop playin every gaking stratagem because they can. They can just replace the castellan with 3x command russ and still blow people off the table and afford to spam BA captains. This is a very uninspired FAQ that will do little to affect what armies are at the top.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Darsath wrote:


The current design pushes these factions to ally in Command Points more, and punishes those who play solo Knights or solo Blood Angels.

Get this though - they're are the max of 3 detachments. They can't just ally in more CP now.

Good thing the rest of the IG codex sucks right? Get real.

If they replace the castellan with 3x command russes, then the fix has worked perfectly. 3 command russes are not even remotely comparable in power to a castellan.

Who says the Castellan will be replaced by more Guard?
If anything, it'll be the Smash Captain that gets replaced.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Who says the Castellan will be replaced by more Guard?
If anything, it'll be the Smash Captain that gets replaced.

And then the lists will be glorified gunlines, without assault elements, which has been demonstrated that it simply is not competitive enough.

Spoletta wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Who says the Castellan will be replaced by more Guard?
If anything, it'll be the Smash Captain that gets replaced.

And then the lists will be glorified gunlines, without assault elements, which has been demonstrated that it simply is not competitive enough.

Except with the change to FLY only applying in the mocement phase captain smash lost a big chuck of his selling point of being able to charge the big stuff and ignoring screens it's him not the castellan that will be dropped for more guard.
Flooding the board with mass infantry squads is now even more effective than it has been since 8th dropped.

Spoletta wrote:
If they replace the castellan with 3x command russes, then the fix has worked perfectly. 3 command russes are not even remotely comparable in power to a castellan.

That is false. In some cases, they are MUCH better.

I have no problem killing command russes with mi lass cannon predators or Plasma-Cannon devastators.

One 3++ Castellan? Hmm... not that much.

Ice_can wrote:

Guard are not weak they are quirt effective at CC as Catachan, something they will spend a lot more time in due to the fly changes.

This has been proven wrong in the past, stop repeating it.

It requires a very specific setup for even Catachans to "be quite effective at CC" and the bits required can't be everywhere at once.

 Galas wrote:
I have no problem killing command russes with mi lass cannon predators or Plasma-Cannon devastators.

One 3++ Castellan? Hmm... not that much.

I dont use ap dependent shooting anymore. You lost when you brought predators and paid marine prices for lascannons.

Martel732 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I have no problem killing command russes with mi lass cannon predators or Plasma-Cannon devastators.

One 3++ Castellan? Hmm... not that much.

I dont use ap dependent shooting anymore. You lost when you brought predators and paid marine prices for lascannons.

You're BS3+. You should be paying Marine prices for lascannons.

Degradation doesn't mean the item should cost less. Christ, I can't even imagine your whining if I paid BS5/6+ prices for Lascannons or Battle Cannons on LRBTs because of degrading stats.

I didn't mention degradation. You're making gak up now.

Marine gear is over costed across the board for the most part. A Las cannon certainly isnt worth 25 pts with all the invulns and quantum shields in the game.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Good thing the rest of the IG codex sucks right? Get real.

I think you don't understand.

Fact - the Castellan/BA/IG list has severely reduced CP.
Fact - with a 3 detachment limit they either use the current state of CP or lose one of their elements. If they remove all the BA for an IG battalion they STILL don't get to the same level of CP as before and they have 200 points to replace the role the captains had.

The BA were there for a reason and you can watch some of the stream to get an idea why.

Whether or not the fly rules change it up so that dropping them is a non-issue is a different problem.

Martel732 wrote:
I didn't mention degradation. You're making gak up now.

Marine gear is over costed across the board for the most part. A Las cannon certainly isnt worth 25 pts with all the invulns and quantum shields in the game.

If Marine gear is overcosted, then so is gear for Scions or Veterans in the Guard book.

And if a Lascannon isn't worth 25pts on a Marine why should it be worth 20 on a Guard unit?

 Kanluwen wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I didn't mention degradation. You're making gak up now.

Marine gear is over costed across the board for the most part. A Las cannon certainly isnt worth 25 pts with all the invulns and quantum shields in the game.

If Marine gear is overcosted, then so is gear for Scions or Veterans in the Guard book.

And if a Lascannon isn't worth 25pts on a Marine why should it be worth 20 on a Guard unit?

There is definitely an issue with cost on some things in the Marine codex (why in the Flip-Belt is a Bolt Carbine fifteen points despite being the same statline as the Auto bolt rifle for example), but the issue is more that the Lascannon is bad at it's job of killing tanks when compared to things like Autocannons or even Plasma.