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.

quickfuze wrote:

Chikout wrote:

Tau became hugely popular, not because they are a good army but because people like big robots.
GW are currently struggling to keep the baneblade in stock. If these points changes had such an impact, GW could easily solve their stock issues by increasing the price of out of stock items. The is demonstrably not the case.

1) are you insane? Tau became popular because they were literally curb stomping every army in every competitive scene......

2) Except they are not grossly adjusting points across models they sell. They are doing it to FW models which they get no balance sheet return on and shifting those funds over to their own. Which is EXACTLY why the likes of the banebalde and shadowsword etc didnt get the nerf bat that things like the fellblade, superchicken, or mastadon (wtf GW the tank was already bad for it's points).

He's talking about when Tau were first introduced (2000?) and gave Space Marines a run for their money in sales over their first 5 years in production. They were competitive, but not overly so.
Overall, I'm pretty sure that the point changes in CA is an attempt to balance gameplay. Forgeworld models have been shown to be a problem in competitive play and were adjusted.

Galas wrote:

Chikout wrote:

GW are currently struggling to keep the baneblade in stock. If these points changes had such an impact, GW could easily solve their stock issues by increasing the price of out of stock items. The is demonstrably not the case.

And why do you think Banebla... *coff* Shadowsword *coff*...des are out of stock everywhere?

GW's Plant in Nottingham is having power problems, which have been documented on Dakka and elsewhere. All 40k product has seen unprecedented demand since the release of 8th, and it makes sense to maximize production. The margins for producing big kits, like the Baneblades, etc are actually lower on a sprue-by-sprue basis than smaller kits, so they shift those machines over to producing smaller kits.

 Anpu-adom wrote:

Galas wrote:

Chikout wrote:

GW are currently struggling to keep the baneblade in stock. If these points changes had such an impact, GW could easily solve their stock issues by increasing the price of out of stock items. The is demonstrably not the case.

And why do you think Banebla... *coff* Shadowsword *coff*...des are out of stock everywhere?

GW's Plant in Nottingham is having power problems, which have been documented on Dakka and elsewhere. All 40k product has seen unprecedented demand since the release of 8th, and it makes sense to maximize production. The margins for producing big kits, like the Baneblades, etc are actually lower on a sprue-by-sprue basis than smaller kits, so they shift those machines over to producing smaller kits.

Alternatively, "the shadowsword got buffed to nonsense levels so people are rushing out to buy it".

 Anpu-adom wrote:

quickfuze wrote:

Chikout wrote:

Tau became hugely popular, not because they are a good army but because people like big robots.
GW are currently struggling to keep the baneblade in stock. If these points changes had such an impact, GW could easily solve their stock issues by increasing the price of out of stock items. The is demonstrably not the case.

1) are you insane? Tau became popular because they were literally curb stomping every army in every competitive scene......

2) Except they are not grossly adjusting points across models they sell. They are doing it to FW models which they get no balance sheet return on and shifting those funds over to their own. Which is EXACTLY why the likes of the banebalde and shadowsword etc didnt get the nerf bat that things like the fellblade, superchicken, or mastadon (wtf GW the tank was already bad for it's points).

He's talking about when Tau were first introduced (2000?) and gave Space Marines a run for their money in sales over their first 5 years in production. They were competitive, but not overly so.
Overall, I'm pretty sure that the point changes in CA is an attempt to balance gameplay. Forgeworld models have been shown to be a problem in competitive play and were adjusted.

Galas wrote:

Chikout wrote:

GW are currently struggling to keep the baneblade in stock. If these points changes had such an impact, GW could easily solve their stock issues by increasing the price of out of stock items. The is demonstrably not the case.

And why do you think Banebla... *coff* Shadowsword *coff*...des are out of stock everywhere?

GW's Plant in Nottingham is having power problems, which have been documented on Dakka and elsewhere. All 40k product has seen unprecedented demand since the release of 8th, and it makes sense to maximize production. The margins for producing big kits, like the Baneblades, etc are actually lower on a sprue-by-sprue basis than smaller kits, so they shift those machines over to producing smaller kits.

I admit there were a few offenders. The superchicken needed adjusted, Malefic lords needed it. But other than a few special cases, the rest were NOT competitive. Please tell me you are not saying you think the FW point adjustments were reasonable.....

 Anpu-adom wrote:

quickfuze wrote:

Chikout wrote:

Tau became hugely popular, not because they are a good army but because people like big robots.
GW are currently struggling to keep the baneblade in stock. If these points changes had such an impact, GW could easily solve their stock issues by increasing the price of out of stock items. The is demonstrably not the case.

1) are you insane? Tau became popular because they were literally curb stomping every army in every competitive scene......

2) Except they are not grossly adjusting points across models they sell. They are doing it to FW models which they get no balance sheet return on and shifting those funds over to their own. Which is EXACTLY why the likes of the banebalde and shadowsword etc didnt get the nerf bat that things like the fellblade, superchicken, or mastadon (wtf GW the tank was already bad for it's points).

He's talking about when Tau were first introduced (2000?) and gave Space Marines a run for their money in sales over their first 5 years in production. They were competitive, but not overly so.
Overall, I'm pretty sure that the point changes in CA is an attempt to balance gameplay. Forgeworld models have been shown to be a problem in competitive play and were adjusted.

In what world were even half of the Forgeworld models that got such silly adjustments shown a problem in tournaments? Even the ones that were problematic were hit way harder than similar GW models. Malefic lords definitley needed a nerf, but pumping their point cost to 80 was far more heavily handed than needed. On the other hand, Primaris Psykers, who are capable of pretty much the same level of abuse, saw an insignificant gak in their point costs, and Spiritseers didn't change at all.

So, earthshaker batteries are now 115 pts....roughly 7 pts more expensive than a basilisk, why?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So, earthshaker batteries are now 115 pts....roughly 7 pts more expensive than a basilisk, why?

It's simple, really, when you look at their respective profiles. 1) Earthshakers do not have a debilitating profile. 2) Earthshakers can fire even if enemy models are within 1"

Really? That's an odd ability to have.

DCannon4Life wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So, earthshaker batteries are now 115 pts....roughly 7 pts more expensive than a basilisk, why?

It's simple, really, when you look at their respective profiles. 1) Earthshakers do not have a debilitating profile. 2) Earthshakers can fire even if enemy models are within 1"

Is it really so simple? By the time a Basilisk suffers 6 wounds in order to be on a worse profile the battery has 1 wound left or dead so a 5+ to hit > dead. Earthshakers are smaller and cannot move so you should always be placing them in some random corner away from the enemy. In order for them to get locked in combat you either gotta be a really bad player or the enemy has destroyed all your units, thus it doesn't matter anymore.

So yes, his concerns are valid.

 Sidstyler wrote:
Personally the main thing that ticks me off about all this is that they're charging for it. The changes brought on are whatever, because if it doesn't work out then ideally they can keep tweaking it until they get it right. But I don't remember having to pay for balance patches for Starcraft or literally any other competitive game I've played, and you'd probably have people almost rioting over it if you tried. And we're talking about video games which cost far, far less. Selling the balance patches almost makes a cynical person think that the game is unbalanced on purpose to ensure the product has a purpose. At the very least I feel like it's in bad taste.

If they insist on selling it like this then I think they should at least make it cheap, like $20 or less. They won't turn a huge profit on it, no, but then again I don't really feel like they should be, since the main purpose of Chapter Approved in this iteration is to fix their mistakes anyway. They should be happy that people are willing to pay for it at all.

The book is $20 and has an additional 24 missions and the rules for apocalypse and campaigns in it as well as a "design a landraider" blip AND you get some warlord traits and strategems in there too.

This isn't just an errata, it's a full on patch and add on as well.
Well worth the money, and I am gladly going to pay it!

I don't care about Apocalypse, and I'm not too bothered about campaigns right now, either. I don't care about Land Raiders. I don't care about the Warlord Traits or the Stratagems.

So that leaves 24 missions, most of which likely won't see much action in matched play.

That doesn't strike me as being good value for money.

12 of those 24 missions are maelstrom and eternal war mission, the exact kind designed for matched play.

You're still getting a deal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just because you WANT to ignore half of the book, doesn't mean it is a bad book.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
12 of those 24 missions are maelstrom and eternal war mission, the exact kind designed for matched play.

You're still getting a deal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just because you WANT to ignore half of the book, doesn't mean it is a bad book.

Exactly!

I get that people are mad they are paying money for rules changes and points changes. But that doesn't mean the rest of the book is trash.

Thing is, it doesn't matter if the rest of the book is trash. The rest of it looks like it'll be great for the people inclined to care about it. I hope those people that manage to find appeal in everything in the book get some real quality material out of it.

But then there's the significant portion of the community who has to also pay for it just to keep up to date (in what a lot of people will agree is likely not a desirable direction in the first place) who don't get anything out of it. To us, it's bloat, tacked on to justify the price tag on something that shouldn't have one to begin with.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Um...are we only considering the Codex changes here, or everything? Most of the Codex changes are fine, but we have some real stinkers (IG meltaguns), and a vast number of incomprehensibly punitive FW nerfs, in most cases for no discernible reason, that would certainly kick that "90%" number to the curb.

Melta guns are consistent with their current pointing logic.

Not really, only Plasma guns are treated similarly. Other special & heavy weapons are not. There's very little consistent about *any* of this Errata.

Eh? I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing.

Every model in the game that is BS3 pays 17 points for a Melta Gun now.

My point was that why are we concerned that every model in the game pays the same for Plasma and Meltaguns, but not literally any other weapon? An IG BS3+ unit doesn't pay more for Lascannons, Sniper Rifles, Heavy Bolters, Missile Launchers, Autocannons, Plasma Cannons, Multi-Meltas, Demolisher Cannons (or the Twin counterparts of any of the above where applicable), etc than a BS4+ unit.

Why do Plasma Guns and Melta Guns have to be consistent...but nothing else? Why are they the only two weapons that must be standardized across all platforms and armies, but everything else can be taken at different costs according the context of the army they're in?

Mandragola wrote:
Something that keeps coming up is the idea that GW is just making these changes to sell more of this or that model. That is not how a big company like GW thinks. It wants to sell more models - not more of any particular kind of model.

And the way that it can sell more models is by making 40k a better game, so that more people will play it, enjoy it more and spend more money on it. It's really that simple. Their commercial interest is to find out what we want and to sell it to us. That's how they will make more money. It's how they have been making more money over the last year, and it's why their sales and their share price are way up.

There isn't some complicated conspiracy at work here. There's an honest attempt at better balance in points values to improve the game. That's not to say I think the points changes are perfect, or that they are the best solution in all cases (I think Bobby G's rules should be changed, not just his cost, for instance). But it's not about them hating FW - it's about them hating to see their game broken - which certain FW units have a tendency to do.

AHAHAHA how wonderfully naive idea. Reminds me of my nieces in their belief of santa claus

You SERIOUSLY believe that for example that forge world flier was SO AWESOMELY BROKEN that it justified 300% price hike? _300%_? If it was so broken you could bet your house it would have been dominating tournaments but so far I haven't seen any tournament list that even USED it let alone dominated it.

Or howabout GW giving 100% or more price hikes to FW models while their plastic equilavents, just as good IF NOT MORE BROKEN, gets no price hike at all despite being already in many cases cheaper than FW ones.

GW isn't even trying to pretend to be subtle about it. Make no mistake: Balance has zero concern for them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Um...are we only considering the Codex changes here, or everything? Most of the Codex changes are fine, but we have some real stinkers (IG meltaguns), and a vast number of incomprehensibly punitive FW nerfs, in most cases for no discernible reason, that would certainly kick that "90%" number to the curb.

Melta guns are consistent with their current pointing logic. You might disagree with the application of it, but it isn't random. Massive FW nerfs in quantity pale compared to all the other changes. The total point changes are certainly more broad, sure.

But I get the feeling that people see a Taurox going up 10 points and completely ignore the cost of the autocannons dropping by 6 points to make "the bigger picture" overwhelmingly negative.

Perceptions like that and things like the prism rifle for Shadow Specters, which in my opinion is entirely warranted when you compare it to a heavy flamer, that skew the reality of the situation. Every faction has flocked to their nerfs to cry out against them as bad before anyone else took a pencil to any of it.

Meltagun is SLIGHTLY better than plasma in very specific situation and bad in all others. It does not justify being near the same price. 13 for plasma? Melta needs to be more like 9 pts at most. Melta gun niche: Bit better against monsters and vehicles. Plasma gun niche: Good at killing everything bad at nothing.

It's absolutely bonkers anybody from GW would think melta gun is better. It's basically same damage output(4 vs 4.5) at the best melta situation so you are trading range, damage output beyond 6", price, effectivity on softer than T8 stuff etc for one ASM and hell of a price hike.

Only reason plasma should cost more is that GW wants nobody use anything but plasma. As it was it was so already for IG armies. Now even more so.

Conscripts are worse than infantry troops and gives you less flexibility and command points yet cost same...

Vanquisher cannon change was a joke.

Orks got like 5% of what they needed.

Malefic lords got 100% price hike, GW versions that were just as good got like few points more. Whopedoo. What a joke.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Um...are we only considering the Codex changes here, or everything? Most of the Codex changes are fine, but we have some real stinkers (IG meltaguns), and a vast number of incomprehensibly punitive FW nerfs, in most cases for no discernible reason, that would certainly kick that "90%" number to the curb.

Melta guns are consistent with their current pointing logic.

Not really, only Plasma guns are treated similarly. Other special & heavy weapons are not. There's very little consistent about *any* of this Errata.

That too. Logically ALL weapons should be different based on BS. Where's BS3+/BS4+ lascannon prices? Sniper rifles? Grenade launchers? Well not that anybody actually uses anything but plasma gun but still.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Anpu-adom wrote:
He's talking about when Tau were first introduced (2000?) and gave Space Marines a run for their money in sales over their first 5 years in production. They were competitive, but not overly so.
Overall, I'm pretty sure that the point changes in CA is an attempt to balance gameplay. Forgeworld models have been shown to be a problem in competitive play and were adjusted.

There were few units. Malefic lords being prime ones. Funny however basically all from FW got huge point increases while just as broken GW stuff got nothing or small. Primaris psyker was bloody good smite spammer tool same as ML. Why that got tiny price hike not even noticable while ML got 100%? Answer: PP is GW model rather than FW.

FW superheavies were often worse or about same as GW ones while costing same or more. They get huge price hikes, shadowsword gets nothing. Reason? Shadowsword is GW plastic. Better margins for GW so the more gamers buy that the more profit GW makes.

FW flier that got 300% price hike isn't even used regularly in tournaments. If it was so stupidly broken that it justified 300% price hike all tournaments would have seen one or two in most top-10 lists. You think GW is somehow so super smart they can only can see such a blindingly obviously broken unit? It would have to be pretty damn blindingly obviously broken to justify from going from 600 to 1800...

Anyone hear anything about fortifications?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So, earthshaker batteries are now 115 pts....roughly 7 pts more expensive than a basilisk, why?

FW resin. They want gamers to buy plastic for more £££ in GW's pocket. Batteries they are happy to sell to collectors and modelers who don't buy often multiples of same so who rather than 2 basilisk are more happy to buy battery and basilisk.

 quickfuze wrote:

I admit there were a few offenders. The superchicken needed adjusted, Malefic lords needed it. But other than a few special cases, the rest were NOT competitive. Please tell me you are not saying you think the FW point adjustments were reasonable.....

Whether they are/were competitive or not competitive or not cannot be the benchmark.

Even the stuff at the very bottom of tournament tables without a chance of winning anything is still part of the 2%-3% most powerful lists/units/combos in all of 40K. To be balanced, it needs (to aim) to be balanced against at least 80%-90% of what's out there.

Making balancing decision on the basis of the competitive scene would be basing decisions on a highly skewed and not very representative sample. That cannot end well.


It'd be like basing a consumer price index on a basket of goods based on consumer surveys only polling billionaires or trying to get information about healthy eating habits and obesity by studying only Olympic athletes.

Any information gained that way is worse than useless. It's misleading due to being based on a strongly biased sampling process.

 quickfuze wrote:
I admit there were a few offenders. The superchicken needed adjusted, Malefic lords needed it. But other than a few special cases, the rest were NOT competitive. Please tell me you are not saying you think the FW point adjustments were reasonable.....

Apologies, quickfuze, but what the heck is a "superchicken"?

 Dysartes wrote:

 quickfuze wrote:
I admit there were a few offenders. The superchicken needed adjusted, Malefic lords needed it. But other than a few special cases, the rest were NOT competitive. Please tell me you are not saying you think the FW point adjustments were reasonable.....

Apologies, quickfuze, but what the heck is a "superchicken"?

Aetaos'rau'keres, the superheavy Lord of Change. Referred to as Superchicken or Big Bird because Aetaos'rau'keres is kind of a mouthful.

Wonderwolf wrote:

 quickfuze wrote:

I admit there were a few offenders. The superchicken needed adjusted, Malefic lords needed it. But other than a few special cases, the rest were NOT competitive. Please tell me you are not saying you think the FW point adjustments were reasonable.....

Whether they are/were competitive or not competitive or not cannot be the benchmark.

Even the stuff at the very bottom of tournament tables without a chance of winning anything is still part of the 2%-3% most powerful lists/units/combos in all of 40K. To be balanced, it needs (to aim) to be balanced against at least 80%-90% of what's out there.

Making balancing decision on the basis of the competitive scene would be basing decisions on a highly skewed and not very representative sample. That cannot end well.


It'd be like basing a consumer price index on a basket of goods based on consumer surveys only polling billionaires or trying to get information about healthy eating habits and obesity by studying only Olympic athletes.

Any information gained that way is worse than useless. It's misleading due to being based on a strongly biased sampling process.

A significant number of titanic FW units were adjusted up in the same way; making them a major chunk of any 2000pt army (if they fit in it at all). The use of units like Aetaos'rau'keres & Tau'nar armour in tournaments has resulted in the design team saying very bluntly that these units have no place in the smaller-scale (<=2k), and if you want to use them you need to play larger games. This effectively rules many of these units out of the competitive scene, and I really don't think that's a bad thing. My take is that the existence of point values for things like Titans is there for lip service only. If you're actually taking a Warlord Titan to a game, does it really matter if it costs 4000 or 6000pts? Surely at a certain point those games are entering narrative / open play territory and many will prefer to build lists with power levels for the sake of sanity.

I also suspect that many of the AM points changes were a result of Index feedback rather than the codex. The lead time between the AM codex release in October and getting the CA book finalised, printed and distributed this month would be really, really tight - especially if it was produced in China. The next round of matched play point changes are due in March, and I will bet money that:
a) Some of nerfs get walked back (i.e. either by toning down the Commissar FAQ and/or Conscripts going back to 3pts)
b) Units like Shadowswords will get tweaked up in line with other super-heavies

The key thing to remember with this edition is that none of these changes are permanent. The price of iterative game balance is patience.

 xttz wrote:
A significant number of titanic FW units were adjusted up in the same way; making them a major chunk of any 2000pt army (if they fit in it at all). The use of units like Aetaos'rau'keres & Tau'nar armour in tournaments has resulted in the design team saying very bluntly that these units have no place in the smaller-scale (<=2k), and if you want to use them you need to play larger games. This effectively rules many of these units out of the competitive scene, and I really don't think that's a bad thing. My take is that the existence of point values for things like Titans is there for lip service only. If you're actually taking a Warlord Titan to a game, does it really matter if it costs 4000 or 6000pts? Surely at a certain point those games are entering narrative / open play territory and many will prefer to build lists with power levels for the sake of sanity.

While meanwhile GW plastic equilavents are completely fine and usable. Of course they are GW plastic so GW has vested interest in pushing those over FW resin.

 quickfuze wrote:

Chikout wrote:

Tau became hugely popular, not because they are a good army but because people like big robots.
GW are currently struggling to keep the baneblade in stock. If these points changes had such an impact, GW could easily solve their stock issues by increasing the price of out of stock items. The is demonstrably not the case.

1) are you insane? Tau became popular because they were literally curb stomping every army in every competitive scene......

It's a little of both, actually. I've personally seen way too many people over the years, both Tau players and people "on the fence" about them (long before 6th edition, too), expressing interest in Tau "titans" or just larger robot models in general, like the riptide and stormsurge, to believe that it was solely the rules that attracted people to them. That they also happened to be the most powerful things in the book for a couple years were just a nice bonus to people who were already dying for GW to release models like that.

Not to imply that no one started Tau between 2013-2016 because they were powerful, that would be stupid because there's always been people like that in every edition of the game. They play the new hotness and then when that gets stale they sell it all on eBay and use the cash to buy the new "best thing".

Also, Tau didn't "become" popular, they've always been a pretty good seller since their release. They had to be because there's no other explanation for why GW would have updated them so frequently over the years, while leaving armies like the much-beloved Sisters to rot. Tau clearly had the sales to warrant the attention because that's how GW have always operated: the armies that sell get new codices and models, and the ones that don't, don't. It's why we've gotten nearly suffocated with endless Space Marine releases while armies that "needed" updates were constantly ignored. The only time Tau have ever really been left wanting was during 5th edition, which is pretty impressive for a relatively new army that everyone claims to hate so much, and it's not because they're GW's "favorite" or "pet" like some conspiracy theorists have tried to suggest in the past, either. That was clearly always Space Marines and you'd have to be insane to suggest otherwise.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
The book is $20 and has an additional 24 missions and the rules for apocalypse and campaigns in it as well as a "design a landraider" blip AND you get some warlord traits and strategems in there too.

Where is it $20? The physical copy is either $35 or a whopping $75 with all the extras. The cheapest I can find is the digital ePub version for $25 and personally I'd prefer a physical copy over digital (I also don't have a working tablet anymore and have no desire to get a new one).

I've only ever seen one person at my FLGS with a physical copy of a FW book... So I have no condolences for the hikes. Books too expensive? Models too expensive? I'm seeing a trend.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
I've only ever seen one person at my FLGS with a physical copy of a FW book... So I have no condolences for the hikes. Books too expensive? Models too expensive? I'm seeing a trend.

To be fair, FW's indexes were actually the best priced if you got them digitally. iTunes had them for $16 a pop.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

You SERIOUSLY believe that for example that forge world flier was SO AWESOMELY BROKEN that it justified 300% price hike? _300%_? If it was so broken you could bet your house it would have been dominating tournaments but so far I haven't seen any tournament list that even USED it let alone dominated it.

Let's take a look at it shall we? I bet 90% of the people here have no idea what it does.

It can transport FIFTY models. It can even pack in a Rhino.
It has FORTY wounds at T9 and a 3+/5++
POTMS
You add 12" to any weapon targeting it. Meaning a melta gun will almost never be able to hit it and vastly reduces the chance other weapons can, too.
A 4+ VOID SHIELD THAT CAN BE EXTENDED TO ALL MODELS WITHIN 8"

Hoookaaay.

Let's break that down.

40 wounds with a 3+/4+++
That's some titan level gak right there. A warhound is 35 wounds at T9 with a 4+++, but no invuln. The base cost was previously 1,500 and is now 2,000.

A warhound has two weapons and some stompy feet. Let's say the macro plasma. So it gets 14 S10 -4 D4

This has 8 lascannons, 6 heavy bolters, and hellstrike missiles. Certainly not as great. So let's call that a wash, because this thing has 5 more wounds.
AND THEN ADD AN 8" 4+++ bubble. And a 50 model transport.

On what fething planet are you from where you think this was worth anywhere near 651 points?

So, yes, they priced it at 2,000 to get it out of matched play, because IT DOESN'T BELONG IN MATCHED PLAY.

I call bs on your bs.

Daedalus81 wrote:
Stormbird analysis.

Okie doke Daedalus, seeing as you are so far the only person I’ve seen legitimately defending the price hikes on any of the FW Lords of War, let’s keep this ball rolling.

Can you in any way come up with a similar defence for:

[Easy Difficulty] The Falchion going up by 200 points

[Medium Difficulty] The Fellblade going up by 200 points

[Hard Difficulty] The Typhon going up by 200 points

If you’re going to take the shortcut and say it’s because they don’t belong in normal games, why don’t the similarly powerful Baneblade Chassis tanks get the same treatment (despite being roughly equal in firepower/durability for close to literally half the cost)? Or Knights, or Wraithknights, or any other 20+ wound Lord of War? I would actually prefer to have all these units restricted to >3000pt games, but be realistically costed for those games.

I’m not trying to be snarky here, I am legitimately interested in the logic path that would make these (and many other) point jumps reasonable.

tneva82 wrote:

 xttz wrote:
A significant number of titanic FW units were adjusted up in the same way; making them a major chunk of any 2000pt army (if they fit in it at all). The use of units like Aetaos'rau'keres & Tau'nar armour in tournaments has resulted in the design team saying very bluntly that these units have no place in the smaller-scale (<=2k), and if you want to use them you need to play larger games. This effectively rules many of these units out of the competitive scene, and I really don't think that's a bad thing. My take is that the existence of point values for things like Titans is there for lip service only. If you're actually taking a Warlord Titan to a game, does it really matter if it costs 4000 or 6000pts? Surely at a certain point those games are entering narrative / open play territory and many will prefer to build lists with power levels for the sake of sanity.

While meanwhile GW plastic equilavents are completely fine and usable. Of course they are GW plastic so GW has vested interest in pushing those over FW resin.

You have repeated this 5 times in the same page. Maybe you should go to the park and eat a sandwich or something to cool off?

Not sure why GW would need to hike the points of an earth shaker cannon in order to sell more Basilisks.

That doesn’t logically add up. No one buying an Earthshaker cannon is doing so because it’s competitively better than a Basilisk.

It costs twice as much as the plastic kit, and is aimed at collectors. If it was super competitive people would be buying Basilisk kits in their droves and converting them into batteries.

I’ve not looked at all the points increases, because I’m not that interested.

So I’m curious, have they dramatically increased the points of the Armageddon pattern Basilisk too?

 Fafnir wrote:
Thing is, it doesn't matter if the rest of the book is trash. The rest of it looks like it'll be great for the people inclined to care about it. I hope those people that manage to find appeal in everything in the book get some real quality material out of it.

But then there's the significant portion of the community who has to also pay for it just to keep up to date (in what a lot of people will agree is likely not a desirable direction in the first place) who don't get anything out of it. To us, it's bloat, tacked on to justify the price tag on something that shouldn't have one to begin with.

So by your logic, more options = bloat.

Im guessing you stuck by your guns and didn't buy your armies codex (or wont buy it if it hasn't come out yet) by that reasoning then? that's just more options then an index...