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.

 Marmatag wrote:

Panzergraf wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

You could chain-reaction tanks to death until the arrival of Hull Points in 6th. All Apoc did was add the 4+ save to the Primary Weapon in 5th when weapon destroyed results were no longer random.

Oh, I guess I remember it wrong, then. But yeah, they were never really that powerful. And the Baneblade still isn't. In many cases it falls short of 3 regular Russes (more or less same cost), as it can't take orders or double its firepower when moving half or less.

Yeah but it can shoot while it's locked in combat, that's not to be underestimated. It also suffers no penalties for moving and shooting.

Yes, all of this is true.

And yet, by your own metric, superheavy-centric armies do about as well as Tactical Marines in the competitive scene (e.g. I think one placed highly once, and that's it).

The meta has evolved to counter super heavy. Just as it has evolved to counter space marines. You don't even see Guilliman lists doing well anymore.

You can thank Eldar for that, their codex is strong.

 Marmatag wrote:
The meta has evolved to counter super heavy. Just as it has evolved to counter space marines. You don't even see Guilliman lists doing well anymore.

You can thank Eldar for that, their codex is strong.

Yes, this is true.

The meta brings tons and tons and tons of antitank weapons, and then whines and complains they can't kill hordes, so then hordes are nerfed and people can continue bringing a ton of anti-tank guns. That's just how it is. :(

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
The meta has evolved to counter super heavy. Just as it has evolved to counter space marines. You don't even see Guilliman lists doing well anymore.

You can thank Eldar for that, their codex is strong.

Yes, this is true.

The meta brings tons and tons and tons of antitank weapons, and then whines and complains they can't kill hordes, so then hordes are nerfed and people can continue bringing a ton of anti-tank guns. That's just how it is. :(

No matter how many times you say that it doesn't change the fact that good anti-horde largely doesn't exist.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
The meta has evolved to counter super heavy. Just as it has evolved to counter space marines. You don't even see Guilliman lists doing well anymore.

You can thank Eldar for that, their codex is strong.

Yes, this is true.

The meta brings tons and tons and tons of antitank weapons, and then whines and complains they can't kill hordes, so then hordes are nerfed and people can continue bringing a ton of anti-tank guns. That's just how it is. :(

No matter how many times you say that it doesn't change the fact that good anti-horde largely doesn't exist.

It exists in melee, but people don't wanna bring that for other reasons.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
The meta has evolved to counter super heavy. Just as it has evolved to counter space marines. You don't even see Guilliman lists doing well anymore.

You can thank Eldar for that, their codex is strong.

Yes, this is true.

The meta brings tons and tons and tons of antitank weapons, and then whines and complains they can't kill hordes, so then hordes are nerfed and people can continue bringing a ton of anti-tank guns. That's just how it is. :(

No matter how many times you say that it doesn't change the fact that good anti-horde largely doesn't exist.

Yeah, if good anti horde existed, then we could be talking about a changing meta. If horde becomes dominant, bring anti-horde. If tanks become dominant because everyone is spamming anti-horde and people start using tanks, then bring anti tank.
But isn't the case. Theres no good anti horde weaponry that isn't efective too agaisn't elite units.

All of what you say doesn't change the fact that if you're having problems with 60 Genestealers, bringing 4 heavy bolters instead of 4 lascannons is probably a good place to start, instead of privately wondering if genestealers are OP.

I actually spam the feth out of heavy bolters, hurricane bolters, etc... because they look badass.

The problem is not that they don't kill hordes. They kill them, not enough, but they do the work. The problem is that they are even better at killing Space Marines, Terminators, etc...

You need the lascannons against IG lists that have shooty tanks protected by an endless wall of cheap chaff. The only option is to shot past the chaff. You can't even begin to kill it, especially with an elite list.

 Galas wrote:
Theres no good anti horde weaponry that isn't efective too agaisn't elite units.

Wasn't the case before.

no one took anti elite weapons in the past because of the ap1-2 premium

it was easier to just spam scatter lasers and other mid str high rate of fire weapons.

ether way isnt it a bit early to be screaming doom and gloom? its not even 2018 yet.

Oh, I'm not screaming doom and gloom. I apologize, you are right. I should leave this before this thread becomes again a battle of the same posters with the same arguments for other 30-40 pages.

 Galas wrote:
Oh, I'm not screaming doom and gloom. I apologize, you are right. I should leave this before this thread becomes again a battle of the same posters with the same arguments for other 30-40 pages.

Wasn't specifying anyone in general

first page was funny though.

Hordes by themselves aren't dominating the way people suggest. It's when you can bring a horde to screen undercosted artillery/tanks, while also deep striking super undercosted BS3+ anti-tank and anti-elite guns for cheaper than anyone else in the game, while also simultaneously having the best anti-horde weaponry in the game.

 Galas wrote:
I actually spam the feth out of heavy bolters, hurricane bolters, etc... because they look badass.

The problem is not that they don't kill hordes. They kill them, not enough, but they do the work. The problem is that they are even better at killing Space Marines, Terminators, etc...

I feel like this is misleading.

A hurricane bolter kills 10 points of Orks and 8.6 points of marines.
A HB is 8 and 8.6 respectively.
A Taurox Gat is 25 and 22.

An assault cannon would be no different. Any varying number of bolter shots would be no different.

Please help me understand "even better".

 Marmatag wrote:
Hordes by themselves aren't dominating the way people suggest. It's when you can bring a horde to screen undercosted artillery/tanks, while also deep striking super undercosted BS3+ anti-tank and anti-elite guns for cheaper than anyone else in the game, while also simultaneously having the best anti-horde weaponry in the game.

Cultists make CSM function as well.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I actually spam the feth out of heavy bolters, hurricane bolters, etc... because they look badass.

The problem is not that they don't kill hordes. They kill them, not enough, but they do the work. The problem is that they are even better at killing Space Marines, Terminators, etc...

I feel like this is misleading.

A hurricane bolter kills 10 points of Orks and 8.6 points of marines.
A HB is 8 and 8.6 respectively.
A Taurox Gat is 25 and 22.

An assault cannon would be no different. Any varying number of bolter shots would be no different.

Please help me understand "even better".

Well, yeah, Hordes with a 6+ save like Orks, Hormagants and Termagants aren't a problem. Daemonic chaff for 3pp with a 4++, or 4ppm units with a 5+, on the other hand...

It's less the 6+ save and more the price. Boyz cost 50% more than Guardsmen. Termagants are plenty durable. Cultists less so because they tend to have morale issues. Although unlike Guardsmen, the other two can have durability-enhancing traits. Horrors are just in a class of their own.

But, I mean, it's pretty hard to believe that someone who just happened to pick Orks to run the comparison with was doing so honestly. Everyone already knows all of this.

 Galas wrote:

Well, yeah, Hordes with a 6+ save like Orks, Hormagants and Termagants aren't a problem. Daemonic chaff for 3pp with a 4++, or 4ppm units with a 5+, on the other hand...

Ahh, gotcha. That makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.

I feel like Brims and Conscripts are in a pretty nerfed position and the solution is more finding a way around rather than through them, but that might be impractical, too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dionysodorus wrote:
But, I mean, it's pretty hard to believe that someone who just happened to pick Orks to run the comparison with was doing so honestly. Everyone already knows all of this.

Completely honestly. It was a very generalized statement that stuck out to me.

Brimstone Horrors should have a rule like Nurglings. Anything with -1AP or more should eliminate their invulnerable save, like Nurglings with Disgusting Resilient and Squiasheable.

But the Horror Family should be totally reworked. Theres should be two versions of Pink Horrours, the ones that divide and the ones that don't, with the price of the blue and brimstones on the cost.
Make Pink Horrours a chaff daemon with a decent ranged attack, so they can offer a interesting tactical choice to Daemons players compared with Daemonettes, Blodletters and Plaguebearers.

 Galas wrote:
Brimstone Horrors should have a rule like Nurglings. Anything with -1AP or more should eliminate their invulnerable save, like Nurglings with Disgusting Resilient and Squiasheable.

But the Horror Family should be totally reworked. Theres should be two versions of Pink Horrours, the ones that divide and the ones that don't, with the price of the blue and brimstones on the cost.
Make Pink Horrours a chaff daemon with a decent ranged attack, so they can offer a interesting tactical choice to Daemons players compared with Daemonettes, Blodletters and Plaguebearers.

We may yet see something like this with the new book. Crossing my fingers.

Daedalus81 wrote:
What is the difference between a marine with a bolter and a marine with a lascannon? They serve different roles, but have the same "body".

Well presumably the difference is the range of the lascannon allows the lascannon marine to sit way far back out of harm's way, likely in cover, and plink away, especially so because the lascannon being heavy means you don't want to move. One is meant to be a cheap generalist objective-grabber ideal to be thrown in a transport, the other a backline anti-tank/monster. Again looking at strictly "wounds/point" misses a ton, as range indirectly factors into durability. As does the codex/index internal balance as a whole. Is anti-tank super plentiful as is? Does it come at a premium? Is this supposed to be the army's weakness or strength? This should all factor into the points.

Daedalus81 wrote:
You don't point models on whether they are in cover or not.

Tell that to Vindicare assassins and ratlings. I'm not saying they're fairly or unfairly costed, but GW assumes you will have these in cover. Just as anyone would assume characters like commissars will be behind troops or artillery will be in the back or tanks will be bubble wrapped (that last one's a bit more questionable).

Daedalus81 wrote:
BS3vsBS4...This is covered by the cost of the weapons. See the BS3 Melta and BS4 Melta.

Is it? None of the tank weapons cost any more being taken on a tank commander. None of the special or heavy weapons besides plasma (and now melta) cost any more being taken on veteran squads. BS3 ratlings pay the same for their sniple rifles as BS4 special weapon squads.

Daedalus81 wrote:
on transports... And you have to buy a unit to put in it.

Yeah. But the wyvern doesn't have the option to transport anything, does it? I mean, it wouldn't make sense on an artillery piece and would go against what the weapon implies its role is, but the point stands; the ability to transport makes a unit more versatile, regardless of if you end up actually putting something in it or not.

Daedalus81 wrote:
At no point should rerolls be costed into the receiving unit. Nor are they currently. RG and devastators anyone? I don't see anyone calling for Devastators to get increased.

In the case of the wyvern the rerolls are basically costed into the unit as is. The wyvern has no options. It comes with the mortar and no other unit can take the mortar. It wouldn't make a difference if they put "rerolls to wound" in the weapon profile or in the unit profile. The end result is always the same.. I guess the hull heavy bolter would reroll too then? Hah.

Daedalus81 wrote:
Regiment benefits... These are a player choice. They are responsible for what their list turns into. I take a Defiler with the express purpose of using it alongside Blasphemous Machines and Daemonforge. If I didn't take it then I wouldn't use those CP. But at no point should I ever pay for CP I may or may not use.

In the case of taurox prime vs wyvern, which is what you're talking about here, no, it is not a player choice. The taurox prime can only ever have the tempestus regiment, if any, while the wyvern can have any other regiment. So that IS a big difference between the two.

Daedalus81 wrote:
There are too many differences... Not really.

Yes really. You're comparing an artillery piece to an elite transport. That's like me comparing a hellhound to a Valkyrie because they both put out lots of anti-infantry shots. They're in completely different worlds.

Daedalus81 wrote:
On not being able to compare marine melee rerolls to guard artillery rerolls... Are you sure about that? It gives us insight into their logic and VERY specifically tells us what rerolls to wounds means on a weapon where there are otherwise NO differences.

Yeah I'm pretty sure about it. Even if GW flat out said "you can pay half price for the wyvern mortar if you want it without the ability to reroll wounds" it STILL wouldn't prove that rerolling wounds is worth costing double because the big picture matters. Rerolling wounds is a lot more valuable on low strength weapons than it is high strength (since you'll likely wound anyway). It's a lot more valuable on weapons with a lot of shots. Weapons with lots of range. Would I pay double for a lascannon that rerolls to wound? Hell no! It's probably gonna wound anyway! Would I pay double for a hunter-seeker missile or a deathstrike that rerolls to hit? Hell no! They're one shot weapons.

And what do you mean weapons with no difference? The taurox gatling gun and the wyvern mortar have MOUNTAINS of differences.

What we're seeing here that the attempt to simplify wargear has exposed is that the base cost of some of their units are off.

You shouldn't need to adjust the price of the meltagun if the base unit was costed appropriately.

Scions should pay more for plasma than others.

Or, scions should just be costed appropriately.

 Marmatag wrote:
What we're seeing here that the attempt to simplify wargear has exposed is that the base cost of some of their units are off.

You shouldn't need to adjust the price of the meltagun if the base unit was costed appropriately.

Scions should pay more for plasma than others.

Or, scions should just be costed appropriately.

But then, when Scions can take different weapons, we enter in the problem of some weapons being just plain better with the unit if the cost of the sinergy of that unit with the generic weapon that has only 1 cost across all the army is pointed in the base cost of the body.

Scions are well priced, ever since plasma cost was increased.

 BoomWolf wrote:
Have you PLAYED MTG?

The obvious power cards are often detected before the set even out, and so does the bad, to the point of "strictly better" IS actually a thing there (two cards who are completely indentical except one is cheaper, or identical except one has a strict numerical advantage like doing 1 more point of damage)
Other than an odd metabreaker (like lictorshame), the meta soldifies within a week or two from a new release, bad cards never see play outside casual because they are instantly identified as such, etc.

If any, MTG has it far far worse, because at one point WoTC actually admitted to doing that on purpose. at least you can say GW is trying.

The only benefit MTG has, is the "standard rotation" that releases hundrends of new cards every year and then throws them out the game one and a half to two years after they come out, so nothing broken stays forever and the meta shifts constantly and cards go in and out of rotation.
Except, models are far more expensive and requrie some effort to assemble and paint, and if any wargame tried to pull THAT off, nobody would play it.

You know what happens to MTG balance once you take rotation out of the game? try going to a all-cards-allowed turnament (forgot the name).
The meta "evolved" so far that most decks there can with a good draw kill you before they even get a turn, and with a lousy draw, kill by turn 2. (if they are lucky enough that the enemy also draws badly enough to have them live that long)
Without the rotation, MTG is outright unplayable given just how poorly the balance in that game is.

Heck, MTG is so broken and pay=to-win that if EA made it, people would be burning trashcans on the streets.

This is a gross exaggeration of how Magic the Gathering works. You use the extreme of comparing standard to vintage/legacy. Try Modern tournaments. In modern you have everything (aside from a small ban list) to 8th edition. In Modern, every few standards, a new deck type emerges but most of the competitive Tier 1-2 decks remain the same. As new cards get introduced, you have more options, and most of thexe existing deck types have different variations and options. This allows decks to not only be customizable but less insane as "All cards allowed" and less of a price funnel as Standard. In fact, Wizards of the coast has been trying to murder Modern because they're upset that it's becoming more popular than standard and due to the way it works once you build a deck you never have to really buy a new one.

Matches between "Fast" decks usually end between round 3-5. Control, life based, and etc can really increase that to round 9+. Decks in Modern don't end the game on turn 1. Ever.

Also Magic is about as expensive as Warhammer 40k believe it or not. An entry level deck might cost only 250 dollars but you're not winning a major tournament with a 250 dollar deck. Most decks, even in standard, are upwards between 800-2400 dollars.

That being said, I don't really see the problem here and I am against the idea of balancing around the game by Power Level. Points is the better method of doing so.Price adjustments should be small but upping certain units by 15+ or lowering by the same is kind of crazy.

 Galas wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
What we're seeing here that the attempt to simplify wargear has exposed is that the base cost of some of their units are off.

You shouldn't need to adjust the price of the meltagun if the base unit was costed appropriately.

Scions should pay more for plasma than others.

Or, scions should just be costed appropriately.

But then, when Scions can take different weapons, we enter in the problem of some weapons being just plain better with the unit if the cost of the sinergy of that unit with the generic weapon that has only 1 cost across all the army is pointed in the base cost of the body.

Yeah...I don't think I saw anybody complaining about Meltaguns on Scions, it was always specifically Plasma. If anything, I was expecting Melta would go down 1-2 points and Plasma up 1-2 points more, to give Guard a reason to take Melta at all. Poor Veterans just got more expensive out of this too.

I mean, what are Guard's special weapons?
Grenade Launcher - 5 points, and strictly worse than a lasgun in many cases.
Flamer - 7 points, useful depending on circumstances, but too short ranged to defend against deep striking assault, and the main use of a Flamer is assault deterrence. Still useful, but those 7 points could be better spent elsewhere.
Melta - 12/17 points - expensive, single shot, and short ranged. On a hit it will hurt the enemy, even when not at 1/2 range, but the situation in which you are getting your big shot means that the enemy is closer than you would want them to be.
Hot Shot Volley Gun - Scions only, now 7 points. I got no serious complaints here.
Plasma Gun - 7/13 points - the "why not just take this" weapon. For same price of flamer, 3x the range, has good armor penetration, safe to fire at s7 but can be bumped up to s8 and damage 2 in a pinch to either chip down a big baddie or outright kill heavy infantry. Also 5 points cheaper than melta, and fires twice at melta's minimum range. So more spammable, more shots, and cheaper.

Even with melta at the straight 12 points for both 3+ and 4+ units, plasma was often the better choice since it can jack of all trade better.

I can see Marmatang's point though - if Scions be default didn't have deep strike and then paid 1-3 points for it, then Veterans and Command Squads wouldn't get saddled with as heavy nerfs to their guns. If the codex had done that, there would be a reason to take foot Scions/keep them in transports (they are cheaper), and the 3+ weapon price would only have gone up 3 points instead of 6. Same basic result, but it actually gives a reason to not deep strike them, and would mean Vets and Command Squads would be better able to compete with them. The granularity would be 16 point Vet with Plasma, 19 point Scion with Plasma, and 22 point deep strike Scion with plasma, rather than the current 19 point Vet and 22 point Scion.

Still, all this complaining aside, it isn't the end of the world. I'm not huge on Conscripts, prefer tanks to artillery, and my Chimera did not get nerfed, so when the biggest complaint I have personally is that a single weapon I like got a nerfed, I can live. And from what I understand, the Manticore at least truly did deserve its price hike.

Wow. After coming back from Blizzard's Heroes of the Storm forums, with the changes to Stealth Heroes and the Nerf to all the supports, I can say that... DakkaDakka, you are in comparison a place of joy, positiveness and reasonable analisis of every change GW does to his game

But theres something that doesn't change. It doesn't matter how many peoples said that is gonna uninstall the game or stop buying miniatures... they never do that.

And yes Kurhanik. I'll love for Scions to have Deepstrike has a hability they pay for like Primaris Reivers. I feel bad for using my 20 Scions with Hotshot volleyguns in Tauroxes Primes.

ThePorcupine wrote:

Well presumably the difference is the range of the lascannon allows the lascannon marine to sit way far back out of harm's way, likely in cover, and plink away, especially so because the lascannon being heavy means you don't want to move. One is meant to be a cheap generalist objective-grabber ideal to be thrown in a transport, the other a backline anti-tank/monster. Again looking at strictly "wounds/point" misses a ton, as range indirectly factors into durability. As does the codex/index internal balance as a whole. Is anti-tank super plentiful as is? Does it come at a premium? Is this supposed to be the army's weakness or strength? This should all factor into the points.

I think you might be missing the point, but I could be wrong.

The lascannon sits back, but it still pays the same base cost. Devastators are no more expensive than regular marines, but they serve different roles. It is not unreasonable to state that a T6 3+ chassis would be priced similarly to another T6 3+ chassis barring any extras.

Tell that to Vindicare assassins and ratlings. I'm not saying they're fairly or unfairly costed, but GW assumes you will have these in cover. Just as anyone would assume characters like commissars will be behind troops or artillery will be in the back or tanks will be bubble wrapped (that last one's a bit more questionable).

GW does not assume you have cover. Everyone can get cover. There is not need to point for it. A Vindicare or ratlings WILL have those special abilities in their base cost, because they go above and beyond the norm.

Is it? None of the tank weapons cost any more being taken on a tank commander. None of the special or heavy weapons besides plasma (and now melta) cost any more being taken on veteran squads. BS3 ratlings pay the same for their sniple rifles as BS4 special weapon squads.

There are always exceptions to the rule and a couple of under priced cannons on character tanks does not affect the game like 20 to 30 plasma guns that are undercosted. Veterans like infantry can take just one heavy. The impact is extremely limited. The problem is more pronounced when an entire unit can take such a weapon.

Yeah. But the wyvern doesn't have the option to transport anything, does it? I mean, it wouldn't make sense on an artillery piece and would go against what the weapon implies its role is, but the point stands; the ability to transport makes a unit more versatile, regardless of if you end up actually putting something in it or not.

At the cost of not taking bigger weapons. There is a trade off.

In the case of the wyvern the rerolls are basically costed into the unit as is. The wyvern has no options. It comes with the mortar and no other unit can take the mortar. It wouldn't make a difference if they put "rerolls to wound" in the weapon profile or in the unit profile. The end result is always the same.. I guess the hull heavy bolter would reroll too then? Hah.

Again I don't think you're quite understanding. The point was to demonstrate that the cost of the mortar is likely in that range, which makes the cost of the wyvern without weapons similar to other vehicles with that "chassis".

In the case of taurox prime vs wyvern, which is what you're talking about here, no, it is not a player choice. The taurox prime can only ever have the tempestus regiment, if any, while the wyvern can have any other regiment. So that IS a big difference between the two.

This isn't what I was referencing. You'll need to review the original thread.

Yes really. You're comparing an artillery piece to an elite transport. That's like me comparing a hellhound to a Valkyrie because they both put out lots of anti-infantry shots. They're in completely different worlds.

Devastator
Tactical Marine

Why aren't they different base costs?

Yeah I'm pretty sure about it. Even if GW flat out said "you can pay half price for the wyvern mortar if you want it without the ability to reroll wounds" it STILL wouldn't prove that rerolling wounds is worth costing double because the big picture matters. Rerolling wounds is a lot more valuable on low strength weapons than it is high strength (since you'll likely wound anyway). It's a lot more valuable on weapons with a lot of shots. Weapons with lots of range. Would I pay double for a lascannon that rerolls to wound? Hell no! It's probably gonna wound anyway! Would I pay double for a hunter-seeker missile or a deathstrike that rerolls to hit? Hell no! They're one shot weapons.

Fortunately for us both the mortar and the lightning claw are S4 weapons.

 Galas wrote:
Wow. After coming back from Blizzard's Heroes of the Storm forums, with the changes to Stealth Heroes and the Nerf to all the supports, I can say that... DakkaDakka, you are in comparison a place of joy, positiveness and reasonable analisis of every change GW does to his game

I think it's because at the end of the day, regardless of how any of us might disagree about anything in particular, we can all look fondly at our collections and take pride in the work we put into what we've physically built up, as well as the more social environment that tabletop games regularly develop. There's a place of shared empathy because we all can understand some core elements of the hobby that keep us coming back to it, which also serve to provide alternative sources of life to the hobby that allow it to exist beyond simple power balances and provide a bulwark for the absolute worst pain that a major change or shift in power may bring. Essentially, there's always something left to cling on to.

Breng77 wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I agree... you need poiints for structure for pick up games. Thats why I don't mind Power Level, and thats why I wrote Azyr Comp for AOS when it first came out.

Now for our 40k campaign coming up that uses Power Level you are restricted to a certain number of upgrades period. So you can't just take everything.

So again it requires agreed to restrictions, to work properly. The reason PL works for most pick up games is that if you play WYSIWYG most people have built things for points, so armies are not using every upgrade, if PL became the common means of balance, unless accompanied by restrictions, people would start to build their units with max upgrades.

Or not. Funny thing is player self-restriction CAN work. You can have tournament with tournament player asking to limit the spam and broken stuff and lo and behold players actually are capable of doing that. Been there, done that, seen that work.