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.
Tyel wrote: Leman Russ are too expensive. I'd expect a 15-20 point reduction in the codex.
If kept barebones I think a wyvern is better versus all targets in terms of points efficiency (and quite a bit better versus softer targets).
A fully tricked out Russ does more damage but also starts to become a bit of a points pinata. You are making your opponents anti-tank very efficient which isn't really desirable.
Plasma is just too cheap. I'd expect them to go up to 10 points per model, perhaps 12. Still not sure it would be enough but it would potentially add up.
I think many vehicles (outside of flyers and a few select undercosted artillery type units like basilisk carriages) tend to not be as durable as first claimed. Personally I'm hoping that once plasmaguns are nerfed to str6/str7 overcharged and a few other undercosted and highly efficient units are adjusted we will see leman russes and other vechicles last a bit longer and thus earn thier points back. It's pretty crazy to see multiple t8 3+ save units with 15+ wounds drop in 1 turn. And without invul saves this happens a lot vs the current overcharged plasma spam meta. Take plasma spam down a notch and people will rely more on lascannons and melta guns which while still good are a lot more expensive and easier to handle. And thus a squad of leman russes will last longer.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/31 18:20:16
IG are this edition's Eldar. Clearly top tier with a bag of great options -
Yeah this isn't quite true.
I stopped playing my Eldar during 7th because they where so strong they became boring to play. Almost the entire codex was too strong and could do with a nerf. There was almost no bad choices, only strong choices. Then add all the no-brainer detachments like free WS and BS-boosts.
Current IG is nothing like Eldar during 7th. IG has 2-3 broken units/combos which when spammed breaks the game. The vast majority of their units however are either balanced or outright weak. (With some being broken in the bad way, like the Deathstrike.) Conscript Spamm and Scion Spamm is overpowered. IG as an army isn't nearly overpowered. Remove these two units and IG won't win any tournaments. You could remove any 2 units from the 7th Ed. Eldar-codex and it would still be stupidly strong.
Unlike 7th Ed. Eldar, I still enjoy playing my 8th Ed. IG, but then I don't use conscripts either, and only ever use 1 squad of Scions.
IG are this edition's Eldar. Clearly top tier with a bag of great options -
Yeah this isn't quite true.
I stopped playing my Eldar during 7th because they where so strong they became boring to play. Almost the entire codex was too strong and could do with a nerf. There was almost no bad choices, only strong choices. Then add all the no-brainer detachments like free WS and BS-boosts.
Current IG is nothing like Eldar during 7th. IG has 2-3 broken units/combos which when spammed breaks the game. The vast majority of their units however are either balanced or outright weak. (With some being broken in the bad way, like the Deathstrike.) Conscript Spamm and Scion Spamm is overpowered. IG as an army isn't nearly overpowered. Remove these two units and IG won't win any tournaments. You could remove any 2 units from the 7th Ed. Eldar-codex and it would still be stupidly strong.
Unlike 7th Ed. Eldar, I still enjoy playing my 8th Ed. IG, but then I don't use conscripts either, and only ever use 1 squad of Scions.
but remove from 7th edition eldars, scatterbikes and warp spiders and they suddenly cant handle tournaments so easily, i looked so many eldar lists in 7th, almost each one had bikes and spiders.... so.... not so sure about what you saying, each army list if you remove 2-3 choices become less strong, demons (brimstones+spam smite), marines (girlyman+stormravens) and so on...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/31 18:31:17
3rd place league tournament
03-18-2018
2nd place league tournament
06-12-2018
3rd place league
tournament
12-09-2018
3rd place league tournament
01-13-2019
1st place league tournament
01-27-2019
1st place league
tournament
02-25-2019
MinscS2 wrote: You could remove any 2 units from the 7th Ed. Eldar-codex and it would still be stupidly strong.
Unlike 7th Ed. Eldar, I still enjoy playing my 8th Ed. IG, but then I don't use conscripts either, and only ever use 1 squad of Scions.
I am not sure I agree.
Scatbikes, Warp Spiders and Wraithknights were the problem Eldar units.
If you had taken those 3 away I doubt you would have seen much Eldar at tournaments in 7th. Perhaps a somewhat gimmicky wraithbomb?
If you were rocking things with your guardian defenders, banshees and vypers then more power to you but I'd be surprised if you were.
By comparison what's bad in the IG list? As I said above I think Leman Russ are overpriced and this is true for a lot of tank models (look at say the Fire Prism or the Hammerhead and its arguably even worse).
Once you take out conscripts, scions, the artillery, the cheap access to smite, heavy weapon squads though you are starting to run out of things.
What's left? Ogryns and Hellhounds? Even if they are not top tier they are probably better than ever (actually not sure on Ogryns - not seen them on a table for years).
MinscS2 wrote: Are Artillery and HWS considered OP now? That's new.
Why would you remove them? What does that even have to do with my post?
I don't really follow.
You said that in 7th the problem with Eldar was that everything was too strong.
I think this was a bit suspect - some units were better than others - but I think its fair to say there were very few outright bad choices. Certainly compared with say DE, Orks and Tyranids.
Today I would say IG are in a similar position. Most of their roster is good.
Its combining to produce a top tier army which is going to do well in tournaments.
You said that in 7th the problem with Eldar was that everything was too strong.
And I stand by that.
It's the first time in 15 years that I've stopped playing an army I own, because I found them to be so strong that they made for boring games.
And I didn't even field Scatterbikes and Wraithknights.
Today I would say IG are in a similar position. Most of their roster is good.
Let's just agree to disagree.
Without Conscripts and Scion-spamm, 8th Ed. IG are nothing like 7th Ed. Eldar.
I should also note that I'm not talking from a WAAC-perspective here, but from a casual/semi-competitive perspective.
I can make lists with 8th Ed. IG that doesn't feel like an autowin and where both I and my opponent will enjoy the game. I couldn't do that with 7th Ed. Eldar.
Gamgee wrote:Tau are totally good and fine though right Reece. Right guys? Clearly "everything" is good according to Reece.
Anyways now that this is over and surprise (not) that basically we all knew what would be the best stuff and what isn't can we finally get down to brass tacks and start balancing via faq's?
I don't want to wait a year for books for every army. The game is already 10x more boring than 7th ed because of how predictable it is and all I needed to do was some mathhammer and play two games to know this.
Top 10 finish in a major GT can hardly be considered a bad showing. Plenty of other factions didn't even make it that far; by the standards of the finish, Tau are doing about as well as Eldar right now in the competitive scene.
Unless you are playing pure book missions on a table with no LOS-blocking terrain, games should not be decided by pure Mathhammer.
And hopefully a price hike for Gulliman like many have been calling for. Maybe not a huge one but it needs to be enough.
Guilliman with Space Marines is fine cost-wise. It's when you pair him with things like Conscripts that he b comes problematic.
Personally I believe toning down Imperium Soup would go a long way toward balancing IG/AM. Perhaps a return to the old Two-source rule but modified for 8th Edition? I could see only allowing two Detachments in a Battle-Forged army, as well as only having up to two different Faction Keywords in a single army?
Plasma is just OP when the firer is expendable and overcharged is no significant risk.
Make overcharged a single mortal wound on a hit roll under your armour save. So 5+ guard will not want to do it often, although a marine player may risk it more.
MinscS2 wrote: Are Artillery and HWS considered OP now? That's new.
Why would you remove them? What does that even have to do with my post?
Anything that does damage to marines is considered OP by certain whiny marine players. Just ignore them, their opinions are not worth considering.
FFS they're saying LRBTs are too strong, a statement that'd make most Guard players laugh.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
You said that in 7th the problem with Eldar was that everything was too strong.
And I stand by that.
It's the first time in 15 years that I've stopped playing an army I own, because I found them to be so strong that they made for boring games.
And I didn't even field Scatterbikes and Wraithknights.
Today I would say IG are in a similar position. Most of their roster is good.
Let's just agree to disagree.
Without Conscripts and Scion-spamm, 8th Ed. IG are nothing like 7th Ed. Eldar.
I should also note that I'm not talking from a WAAC-perspective here, but from a casual/semi-competitive perspective.
I can make lists with 8th Ed. IG that doesn't feel like an autowin and where both I and my opponent will enjoy the game. I couldn't do that with 7th Ed. Eldar.
i guess you can easily show us some winning eldar lists at major 7th ed tournaments, without scatterbikes warp spiders and Wk... we'r wait...
3rd place league tournament
03-18-2018
2nd place league tournament
06-12-2018
3rd place league
tournament
12-09-2018
3rd place league tournament
01-13-2019
1st place league tournament
01-27-2019
1st place league
tournament
02-25-2019
MinscS2 wrote: Are Artillery and HWS considered OP now? That's new.
Why would you remove them? What does that even have to do with my post?
Anything that does damage to marines is considered OP by certain whiny marine players. Just ignore them, their opinions are not worth considering.
FFS they're saying LRBTs are too strong, a statement that'd make most Guard players laugh.
If the results prove anything, it is that competitive guard player's find all of the Leman Russ variants too expensive to include in their lists. The winning lists were all conscripts, plasma scions, ForgeWorld earthshaker carriage + Imperium smoothie.
i guess you can easily show us some winning eldar lists at major 7th ed tournaments, without scatterbikes warp spiders and Wk... we'r wait...
By bringing up tournaments, you showed that you didn't actually read my post.
I should also note that I'm not talking from a WAAC-perspective here, but from a casual/semi-competitive perspective.
I can make lists with 8th Ed. IG that doesn't feel like an autowin and where both I and my opponent will enjoy the game. I couldn't do that with 7th Ed. Eldar.
Besides, asking for tournament winners that didn't use the best (read: most op) a codex had to offer? Do such lists even exist?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/07/31 19:22:10
You said that in 7th the problem with Eldar was that everything was too strong.
And I stand by that.
It's the first time in 15 years that I've stopped playing an army I own, because I found them to be so strong that they made for boring games.
And I didn't even field Scatterbikes and Wraithknights.
Were you playing against people who just brought bad lists or something? For all of the coming out here against Eldar, they were nowhere nearly as bad as you're melodramatically making them out to be. I played Eldar in maybe 50% of my games over the last 2-3 years without WK/scatbike spam and it almost always made for a good game. Their units were good, but if you don't try to break the game and make fun/interesting lists, they're a blast.
Gamgee wrote: Tau are totally good and fine though right Reece. Right guys? Clearly "everything" is good according to Reece.
Anyways now that this is over and surprise (not) that basically we all knew what would be the best stuff and what isn't can we finally get down to brass tacks and start balancing via faq's?
I don't want to wait a year for books for every army. The game is already 10x more boring than 7th ed because of how predictable it is and all I needed to do was some mathhammer and play two games to know this.
Tau had a placing in the top 10, more than many other armies, not seeing where the issue is here. We dont even see Orks, Dark Eldar, Tyranids, Sisters, Grey Knights, Necrons, etc appear in this list. The only real big issue apparent in these lists is flyers and conscripts.
This is the exact problem I have with this win. Oh because Commanders are so good we can't look at rebalancing the Tau so they don't need to rely on bringing commanders which are unfluffy. It's as unfair as the old flyrant spam lists and people using them to justify the nids as balanced. Granted I don't think we're as bad as nids in 7th. Still it is incredibly boring spamming commanders and very unfluffy. I would like to see our other anti-tank options actually made worth while instead. If commanders are nerfed and nothing else is brought up it's going to kill Tau viability. Not to mention commanders are terrible at commanding Tau armies with almost pointless buffs if the commanders are brought up in points then they also need to get a lot better at offering buffs to still make them a viable choice as HQ. Then when they are not able to be spammed we can look into buffing other stuff up to do what the CMDers are doing in the current meta. I also think that whatever units are buffed up to take the CMDer don't have to be made as strong as commanders are now. Especially if conscripts and gulliman get nerfs to accompany them. I think this would be more than fair.
However I suspect we'll just see another round of nerfs across the board regardless of any facts, evidence, or discussions being had.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/31 20:29:04
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/01 01:40:08
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
Marmatag, Melissia is a guy (I believe from previous posts) but the rest is priceless
Melissia wrote: It's a combination of her durability and speed. Her synergy is actually kinda mediocre; she doesn't deep strike with seraphim, repentia just don't survive long enough to synergize with her, and we have no other assault units for her to synergize with (Seraphim aren't really an assault unit). She is a loner amongst the Sisters rather limited list of units.
Frankly Celestine should not be nerfed, though for a very different reason-- because she's literally the only named character Sisters players have, and one of only two (!!!) HQ slot choices we have.
And the other one is, at best, mediocre, being a 45 point, T3/S3/W5 model with a 3+/6++ save, that has pitiful equipment options (best melee weapon is 22 points for S6 AP-4 D3 damage at -1 to-hit, best shooting option is a combiweapon or storm bolter), no jump pack option, and only has the standard "reroll to-hit rolls of one" buff aura. Her only benefit is that she's cheap.
Then, the way to fix it is a little nerf to Celestine and a buff to the generic Canoness.
Gamgee wrote: Tau are totally good and fine though right Reece. Right guys? Clearly "everything" is good according to Reece.
Anyways now that this is over and surprise (not) that basically we all knew what would be the best stuff and what isn't can we finally get down to brass tacks and start balancing via faq's?
I don't want to wait a year for books for every army. The game is already 10x more boring than 7th ed because of how predictable it is and all I needed to do was some mathhammer and play two games to know this.
Tau had a placing in the top 10, more than many other armies, not seeing where the issue is here. We dont even see Orks, Dark Eldar, Tyranids, Sisters, Grey Knights, Necrons, etc appear in this list. The only real big issue apparent in these lists is flyers and conscripts.
This is the exact problem I have with this win. Oh because Commanders are so good we can't look at rebalancing the Tau so they don't need to rely on bringing commanders which are unfluffy. It's as unfair as the old flyrant spam lists and people using them to justify the nids as balanced. Granted I don't think we're as bad as nids in 7th. Still it is incredibly boring spamming commanders and very unfluffy. I would like to see our other anti-tank options actually made worth while instead. If commanders are nerfed and nothing else is brought up it's going to kill Tau viability. Not to mention commanders are terrible at commanding Tau armies with almost pointless buffs if the commanders are brought up in points then they also need to get a lot better at offering buffs to still make them a viable choice as HQ. Then when they are not able to be spammed we can look into buffing other stuff up to do what the CMDers are doing in the current meta. I also think that whatever units are buffed up to take the CMDer don't have to be made as strong as commanders are now. Especially if conscripts and gulliman get nerfs to accompany them. I think this would be more than fair.
However I suspect we'll just see another round of nerfs across the board regardless of any facts, evidence, or discussions being had.
I agree with this post. Saying that Tau are fine because Tau Commander can work is like saying that in 7th Tyranid where fine because Flyrant Spam was OP. (Just like Gamgee said). Not I'm saying Tau are as weak as Tyranid in 7th, they arent. Just like IG aren't as OP as Scatterbike and Wraitknight spam in 7th.
No, they have pretty bad internal balance. As a whole, Tau are one of the weakest armies with Orks. The Commander is just OP. They need to nerf him and buff the rest of the codex.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/07/31 21:14:51
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
I'm not sure how you fix it. This game has incredibly basic concepts towards support units.
it would be very interesting, and fitting, if Tau had troops that didn't even attack, but brought mobile generators, field dampeners, flux chambers, and other sci-fi things that basically amount to low mobility squads that enhance the other Tau units.
Maybe you bring a troop squad that's got a Gravmetric Stabilization Field, which allows them to create deep strike barriers.
I dunno. I know it's not feasible to reimagine a faction entirely, just disappointed that their troops amount to "guys with guns," when their army is really about "guys in mechs."
That said, Tau do have some very strong units. I understand that it's the same kind of 7th edition factions that relied on 1 unit. But please. At least you have something you can spam to be top tier. Some of us have to suck it up and get curb stomped with barely any viable units. Where would Grey Knights be without the Stormraven, and that's not even technically a "grey knight" themed unit?
There were like 3 Grey Knights players total at the BAO and none of them did anything. The best one actually ran conscripts and commissars, and a flyer wing... Doesn't that tell you something about that army?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/07/31 22:00:50
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
Galas wrote: Then, the way to fix it is a little nerf to Celestine and a buff to the generic Canoness.
No, it's really not.
The best way to fix this is to add more characters, both named and otherwise, to the HQ choices of the Sisters of Battle. And THEN, in the process of that, make each of them a valid choice for leading a Sisters army, while toning down Celestine. Even then, not much is needed to tone Celestine down; in order to make her as durable as she can be, you spend 250 points on her, which is extremely expensive for what she actually does. Sisters take her anyway because there's really just not much else of value we can take.
Just toning down Celestine and buffing up Canonesses won't improve the game for anyone. Instead of Celestine in every list, you'll have Canoness spam in every list, which doesn't improve the situation at all. Every list will STILL be the exact same, because there's no variety in the Sisters of Battle army list.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/07/31 22:38:18
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Celestine was a beast in all games. She alone occupied 3 turns of shooting by my fireprisms because she was literally in my fire base wrecking stuff, died, came back and did it again.
For 150pts, she was aces.
No madam, 40,000 is the year that this game is set in. Not how much it costs. Though you may have a point. - GW Fulchester The Gatling Guns have flamethrowers on them because this is 40k - DOW III
Galas wrote: Then, the way to fix it is a little nerf to Celestine and a buff to the generic Canoness.
No, it's really not.
The best way to fix this is to add more characters, both named and otherwise, to the HQ choices of the Sisters of Battle. And THEN, in the process of that, make each of them a valid choice for leading a Sisters army, while toning down Celestine. Even then, not much is needed to tone Celestine down; in order to make her as durable as she can be, you spend 250 points on her, which is extremely expensive for what she actually does. Sisters take her anyway because there's really just not much else of value we can take.
Just toning down Celestine and buffing up Canonesses won't improve the game for anyone. Instead of Celestine in every list, you'll have Canoness spam in every list, which doesn't improve the situation at all. Every list will STILL be the exact same, because there's no variety in the Sisters of Battle army list.
Well, yeah, I don't disagree with anything of that. Maybe this year is the year? or the next year...
Personally I think Celestine should go up in points instead of making her weaker.
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
Uriels_Flame wrote: Celestine was a beast in all games. She alone occupied 3 turns of shooting by my fireprisms because she was literally in my fire base wrecking stuff, died, came back and did it again.
For 150pts, she was aces.
Yep. And the funny part is, even if she was 300 points, with no Superia, you could still justify taking her. She is literally that good.
You want to shoot Celestine? I suppose you can, but that 2+/4++ offers pretty solid protection. And, she can heal D3 wounds per turn. Of course, you're only shooting her if the person controlling Celestine is letting you. When I set her up, I deploy her out of LOS of the big nasty stuff, and can rely on my first 24" move to close the distance. I don't let people shoot Celestine. If they do, it's because they're falling back in terror or i've exposed her intentionally.
You want to charge Celestine? You'll eat flamer overwatch, then you'll attack her. But before your next opportunity to attack, I will get 18 attacks in response. So in the span of you getting 1 attack, i've done 18 attacls + d6 flamer hits. Charge me. I'd love nothing more. Catch me in a bad combat? Fly fly fly away.
You want to ignore Celestine? I move 24" a turn. You can't ignore me.
You actually killed Celestine? I'm coming back on a 35/36 chance.
I say this as someone who uses Celestine in basically every game - she is way too good.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/07/31 23:46:53
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
Uriels_Flame wrote: Celestine was a beast in all games. She alone occupied 3 turns of shooting by my fireprisms because she was literally in my fire base wrecking stuff, died, came back and did it again.
For 150pts, she was aces.
Yep. And the funny part is, even if she was 300 points, with no Superia, you could still justify taking her. She is literally that good.
You want to shoot Celestine? I suppose you can, but that 2+/4++ offers pretty solid protection. And, she can heal D3 wounds per turn. Of course, you're only shooting her if the person controlling Celestine is letting you. When I set her up, I deploy her out of LOS of the big nasty stuff, and can rely on my first 24" move to close the distance. I don't let people shoot Celestine. If they do, it's because they're falling back in terror or i've exposed her intentionally.
You want to charge Celestine? You'll eat flamer overwatch, then you'll attack her. But before your next opportunity to attack, I will get 18 attacks in response. So in the span of you getting 1 attack, i've done 18 attacls + d6 flamer hits. Charge me. I'd love nothing more. Catch me in a bad combat? Fly fly fly away.
You want to ignore Celestine? I move 24" a turn. You can't ignore me.
You actually killed Celestine? I'm coming back on a 35/36 chance.
I say this as someone who uses Celestine in basically every game - she is way too good.
You can't nerf her though. Because reasons that suck!
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
That's not a "reason that sucks". That sucks, and it's a reason.
Including the reintroduction of the Sisters Non-Miltiant as characters and our dedicated transport selection and everything we have from FW, the Sisters of Battle have a total of 16 unit choices, of which:
Spoiler:
Celestine is a named character who basically is used as a crutch by the rest of the list.
The Canoness is our only non-named HQ unit, which is pretty much pointless and only used as filler as it has very minimal offense, defense, mobility, or support capability.
Dialogous/Hospitaller/Imagifier, are lackluster support units at best, and best used as filler to get more CP.
Celestians are an overpriced close combat unit without close combat wargear, not even worth using as filler nevermind for any particular purpose.
Repentia are an even MORE overpriced power fist delivery system without armor; the sad thing is, even as bad as they are right now, they're the strongest they've ever been. And considering they're 17 points for no armor save, two attacks, and an S6 AP-2 D2 weapon (meaning, it's weaker than a marine eviscerator or even power fist), that's saying something.
Mistress of Repentance, whose only purpose is to add rerolls to Repentia charges, further adding to the cost of the already expensive Repentia.
Battle Sisters Squads are our sole troops choice and are, at best, little more than a cheap but fragile method to deliver boltguns and are outshined in every way but price by tactical marines.
Dominions are our best non-character unit, and basically the only reason we're winning games at all right now with their Vanguard move and special weapon spam, and even then it wouldn't even be spectacular were it not for Celestine tying the enemy up due to how fragile they are.
Seraphim are still half-decent, but had both of their weapons options nerfed in the transition to 8th, and with no canoness jump pack they basically only function properly with Celestine's support.
Retributors are good if only because they're the only thing worth taking in the heavy support slot; heavy bolter spam is a thing this edition for hurting MEQ, and that's about it.
Exorcists USED to be our sole long-ranged anti-tank, now it's not really even that; it got nerfed hard, they're worse than the jok that is an LRBT right now.
The Rhino, which is more expensive than the one you get.
The Immolator, a more expensive Razorback that's only made great when used by dominions.
And the Repressor, which is pretty much the third thing that's saving Sisters of Battle lists after Celestine and Dominions.
Compare that to Space Marines, who have 35 unit options in their HQ choices alone. Das rite-- even ignoring Forgeworld, Space Marines have more than twice as many HQ-slot options as Sisters have options, period.
And thats it. That's all we have. Any nerf to Celestine should only come along with an expansion of our options to replace her, along with an expansion of our options in general.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/01 00:16:40
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Huge Infantry units that can shoot or put out some ranged offense are bad for the game in its current form, Conscripts fit into that. If they get nerfed, Brimstones will be next up. You just can't have models that cheap with the removal of Templates. I'm not advocating Templates return, Infantry just need to pay a tax for it if they're shooty. I play Orks and run 180 Boyz, it can't compete with any top-tier list. Why? No guns, they have to fit in to do damage. Also they're not as cheap as some options, nor should they be.
Even if Conscripts lose Orders or something they're still broken because they're cheap and invalidate Deep Strike. When Deep Strike doesn't work gunlines are the best available army. When gunlines are the best available army the game can get very boring, very fast. Cheap models can't exist in the quantities they do now, never mind the power level. If they're removed then things can open up, until then the top tier meta is decided barring a majorly OP Codex, which I don't think anyone wants.
The Prince of Excess wrote: Huge Infantry units that can shoot or put out some ranged offense are bad for the game in its current form, Conscripts fit into that. If they get nerfed, Brimstones will be next up. You just can't have models that cheap with the removal of Templates. I'm not advocating Templates return, Infantry just need to pay a tax for it if they're shooty. I play Orks and run 180 Boyz, it can't compete with any top-tier list. Why? No guns, they have to fit in to do damage. Also they're not as cheap as some options, nor should they be.
Even if Conscripts lose Orders or something they're still broken because they're cheap and invalidate Deep Strike. When Deep Strike doesn't work gunlines are the best available army. When gunlines are the best available army the game can get very boring, very fast. Cheap models can't exist in the quantities they do now, never mind the power level. If they're removed then things can open up, until then the top tier meta is decided barring a majorly OP Codex, which I don't think anyone wants.
then what is the use of conscripts if you can't deny deep strike with them. Their whole purpose becomes worthless.
The Prince of Excess wrote: Huge Infantry units that can shoot or put out some ranged offense are bad for the game in its current form, Conscripts fit into that. If they get nerfed, Brimstones will be next up. You just can't have models that cheap with the removal of Templates. I'm not advocating Templates return, Infantry just need to pay a tax for it if they're shooty. I play Orks and run 180 Boyz, it can't compete with any top-tier list. Why? No guns, they have to fit in to do damage. Also they're not as cheap as some options, nor should they be.
Even if Conscripts lose Orders or something they're still broken because they're cheap and invalidate Deep Strike. When Deep Strike doesn't work gunlines are the best available army. When gunlines are the best available army the game can get very boring, very fast. Cheap models can't exist in the quantities they do now, never mind the power level. If they're removed then things can open up, until then the top tier meta is decided barring a majorly OP Codex, which I don't think anyone wants.
then what is the use of conscripts if you can't deny deep strike with them. Their whole purpose becomes worthless.
Perhaps true. But the biggest Faction in the game, Imperium, being able to deny an entire ability from the game, period, seems bad to me. I would rather have a unit be useless than live in that world. Just my opinion.
5500 pts 
6500 pts 
7000 pts 
9000 pts 
13.000 pts 
~3000 (Fully Painted)
Coming Soon!
No madam, 40,000 is the year that this game is set in. Not how much it costs. Though you may have a point. - GW Fulchester 
The Gatling Guns have flamethrowers on them because this is 40k 
