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.

On one hand, it took them a year to sort their gak out with AoS, but they did with flying colours. I almost want to give them a year under that assumption.

On the other hand, they keep making the same mistakes they made in the past, while seemingly ignoring everything they did right for AoS, so it doesn't really go to inspire much hope. I mean, why are we having to wait for GW to figure out the stuff that they already got on lock before?

Competitive 40k has never been balanced. And never will.

Just found a group of friends and play the game modifying and tailoring the lists in order to have a fair match.

 ChargerIIC wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Are you referring to Tzeentch's Firestorm? That actually got math'd out to do less damage-per-cast than even the gakky rubric smite because of the awful WC 7. Also I'm pretty sure you can't replace smite with it so rubrics wouldn't be able to take it anyways.

Look it up in CA, the rules actually say you can replace your Smite power with their 9 dice version of smite before a game. Most forms of smite spam would be nerfed, but not thousand sons.

Look again. Before the battle, a THOUSAND SONS PSYKER can replace a psychic power (not Smite) with the following: Tzeentch's Firestorm

 Fafnir wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
You don't take Celestine without the Geminae, she's just not survivable enough without them (and since they're not named characters, one of them can take that shiny new relic sword, making it a significant buff for Celestine). Basically, they just gave you even more reason to run her with everything in the box. Most of the people that ran her aren't going to see much difference because of that.

This is demonstrably untrue. The top (Guard) lists that were taking Celestine were running her by herself as a suicide assassin. It's really only Sisters armies that were ever running her with the Geminae.

At that point though, I'd rather just take a bunch of Eversors.

Two Eversors can't move 24" across the board, jump over chaff screens to get to the good stuff, or claim/contest objectives. Nor can they give Bullgryns the potential to get a 2++ after strats/buffs. She was an absolute steal by herself at 150 points and could be crammed into any list without sacrificing much of anything.

I mean, Celestine's definitely hella good, and offers plenty to IG (more than she does Sisters), you've outlined more than I'd originally considered, but I'd argue that at least one Geminae is needed to maximize her efficiency, even before the nerf. The overall increased durability, combined with the ability for her to die and come back without having to be repositioned allows her to hold onto key points and lock up key units better. And now that the Geminae of access to a relic, they increase her damage output considerably too.

Even with an increase to her base cost, I seriously doubt anyone who was running her for their IG before will be changing their minds about her. They'll just be considering the option of bringing a regenerating girlfriend who gives an extra 3 S5/AP-3/D3 attacks with her.

I'veactually heard the argument that you want to be able to reposition her because you aren't using her to control key points so it is super powerful to be able to place her anywhere on the table. Also if they bring a girlfriend now they will be paying 75 points more than they were with just her at 150. So if sisters players were always bringing her friends and soup player were not, this seems like a good change because it hurts the soup players but not those sister players.

Except the girlfriend got a pretty big buff with the relic weapon, so there's now an offensive reason to actually take her.

I always take her with at least one girl in my soup army just because she's such a resilient magnet with them. But then again, my soup army runs a decent amount of Admech and relies on janky Dragoon shenanigans, so take of that what you will.

 Fafnir wrote:
Except the girlfriend got a pretty big buff with the relic weapon, so there's now an offensive reason to actually take her.

I always take her with at least one girl in my soup army just because she's such a resilient magnet with them. But then again, my soup army runs a decent amount of Admech and relies on janky Dragoon shenanigans, so take of that what you will.

Buff or not, paying 50-100 more points is paying a significant amount more points than most high end lists were spending previously. If you combine that with some of the other increases (Conscripts) A list that was taking say 100 conscripts and Celestine now has 150-200 points less to spend elsewhere in their army. If she was running in a Rowboat 6 razorback gunline, with a 100 conscript wall, that was 1410 points, now its 1669. So to pretend that there was no change is simply untrue. You mentioned eversors, Celestine was worth 2 eversors of points (more or less) before, now she costs almost 3.

I'm not saying you are wrong that people will add a friend to her now, but even in that case it is a significant change in points.

 Fafnir wrote:
...but Assault Marines are bad. Like... really, really bad. It's not a good comparison, because you're comparing them to crap. You're not just comparing them to units from another codex, which is already difficult, but you're comparing it to a unit that is widely accepted as being terrible.

They're tougher than marines.
They cost less than marines.
They are more flexible than marines.

Also, it's 10 points per model, not just to the unit. Spectres are now 33 points per man.

There's a problem when you set your baseline at the clearly undercosted value and set your expectations from there.
It was 10 points more than the other unit in my hypothetical.

So let me repose it in the language of op.

Scions are 9 points. T3 with a 4+, LD7, and can deepstrike.
Spectres are 8 points, T3 with a 4+, LD7, have a -1 to be hit, fly, the morale ability, and a second wound on the exarch.

They're either taking a melta gun at 17 points or a plasma gun at 13.

At 18" their plasma gun kills 1.73 spectres (60 points). The spectres kill 5.8 scions (128 points).
At 12" scions score 3.5 (120 points). spectres would still do 5.8.
At 8" scions are the same and spectres are at 7.8 (172 points).
In scions are charged they kill 1.2 and spectres do 7.8.

So from 18" to 24" scions are "better", but can't fly, move at half the speed, and can't affect morale. Spectres are a bit worse at hurting tanks and don't do 2 damage, but more than make up for it in hits.

Now could spectres be a little overcosted? Sure if we've valued flamer style weapons incorrectly, but there not too damned far from the mark.

If you compare them to units in the codex, Reapers and Spears were still better before the nerf.

Those are completely different units in completely different roles. Nor is it a valid point to compare to something that potentially needs a nerf.
And neither of those easily get -2 to be hit.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

fe40k wrote:


Shadow Spectres are ForgeWorld; that's the only reason for the price hike.

If it's FW, it got nuked to orbit (minus like one imperial flyer, which got decreased/buffed).

So there couldn't possibly be any other reason? None at all? They changed all those things that people thought were strong except one of them and all you have is BECUZ FAWGEWERLD!

No most of those units changed were considered underpowered for their initial cost then they raised the price further.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
...but Assault Marines are bad. Like... really, really bad. It's not a good comparison, because you're comparing them to crap. You're not just comparing them to units from another codex, which is already difficult, but you're comparing it to a unit that is widely accepted as being terrible.

They're tougher than marines.
They cost less than marines.
They are more flexible than marines.

And marines are tougher than servitors, cost less than servitors, and are more flexible than servitors. Your point? Because if we're going to arbitrarily compare everything to units that are widely known as being terrible, we might as well just bring ourselves down to the worst and most useless unit in the game. Assault marines have no viable role in the game, they're poorly performing and overcosted. To make any comparison justifying the nerf of another unit is pointless, since assault marines themselves are badly in need of a redesign.

Also, it's 10 points per model, not just to the unit. Spectres are now 33 points per man.

There's a problem when you set your baseline at the clearly undercosted value and set your expectations from there.
It was 10 points more than the other unit in my hypothetical.

The unit in your hypothetical was silly.

So let me repose it in the language of op.

Scions are 9 points. T3 with a 4+, LD7, and can deepstrike.
Spectres are 8 points, T3 with a 4+, LD7, have a -1 to be hit, fly, the morale ability, and a second wound on the exarch.

They're either taking a melta gun at 17 points or a plasma gun at 13.

Scions are always taking plasma, melta is awful.

At 18" their plasma gun kills 1.73 spectres (60 points). The spectres kill 5.8 scions (128 points).
At 12" scions score 3.5 (120 points). spectres would still do 5.8.
At 8" scions are the same and spectres are at 7.8 (172 points).
In scions are charged they kill 1.2 and spectres do 7.8.

Why are scions targetting spectres? That's a terrible idea, and this is a terrible comparison.

Scions will deepstrike after whatever it is they want to kill, pop it, and die a glorious death for the emperor. They should almost always make their points back (and often several times over).

Assuming no modifiers (and you can in this case, because Scions will always pick their target appropriately, that's their freaking job), command squad of 4 scions deepstriking into rapid fire range (because why the hell wouldn't you?) with their commander letting them reroll 1s to hit is going to put out 7.2 S8/AP-3/D2 hits. This costs 128 points.

Assuming no modifiers, a 4 man squad of Spectres within 18" firing with their Prism rifles on concentrated will put out 5.6 S8/AP-3/D1 hits. This unit costs 132 points (137 with exarch, because Spectres need to pay for theirs, unlike every other aspect warrior).

Even if the Spectres get into flamer range, a unit of 4 Spectres within 8" firing their diffuse beam will put out 14 S5/AP-1/D1 hits.

So even in flamer range, short of gaunts/boyz/guardsmen, all units that are far too point inefficient for Spectres to go after now, Scions will always be much more point efficient in their damage output.

The leadership aura is only effective in an extremely close range where you typically don't want anything left alive anyway, and flight and movement in general isn't important for Scions since they're a point-and-click mini-exterminatus anyway.

Now could spectres be a little overcosted? Sure if we've valued flamer style weapons incorrectly, but there not too damned far from the mark.

Flamers are trash, outside of a few gimmicky exceptions. The high new cost of Spectres has ensured that they are not an exception.

If you compare them to units in the codex, Reapers and Spears were still better before the nerf.

Those are completely different units in completely different roles. Nor is it a valid point to compare to something that potentially needs a nerf.
And neither of those easily get -2 to be hit.

Reapers are different roles (in that they just kill everything with abandon), but Spears outdo them in pretty much everything that you'd take Spectres for now. The only thing Spectres might beat Spears in is sitting back on objectives, but if you're doing that, you might as well take Rangers, who manage to do that better for a little more than a third of the price.

Also, both of those can easily get -2 to be hit with Alaitoc and Conceal.

Breng77 wrote:

Buff or not, paying 50-100 more points is paying a significant amount more points than most high end lists were spending previously. If you combine that with some of the other increases (Conscripts) A list that was taking say 100 conscripts and Celestine now has 150-200 points less to spend elsewhere in their army. If she was running in a Rowboat 6 razorback gunline, with a 100 conscript wall, that was 1410 points, now its 1669. So to pretend that there was no change is simply untrue. You mentioned eversors, Celestine was worth 2 eversors of points (more or less) before, now she costs almost 3.

I'm not saying you are wrong that people will add a friend to her now, but even in that case it is a significant change in points.

Though those conscripts will now have better ld, ws, bs, orders and ability togo to multiple places more freely.

hobojebus wrote:
No most of those units changed were considered underpowered for their initial cost then they raised the price further.

That's quite a statement.

Care to back it up?

I really don't understand the specter moaning.


Are they overpriced now? maybe, just maybe.

But their original cost was overpowered as hell, and it took about 5 minutes for a consensus to be formed among eldar players that they are the best unit in the "codex" due to having both sheer nearly unmatched damage efficiency, great flexibility, high mobility, good durability AND niche tricks up their sleeves.

Post nerf, honestly they still look pretty decent.

I'm not quite sure I understand the FW issue here. A lot of these units screamed Apocalypse, and now they're tailor made for it (since iirc the rules suggest using power level, not points, and those didn't change much for those units). Seems like a rousing success to me.

Lemondish wrote:
I'm not quite sure I understand the FW issue here. A lot of these units screamed Apocalypse, and now they're tailor made for it (since iirc the rules suggest using power level, not points, and those didn't change much for those units). Seems like a rousing success to me.

Definitely.

I believe the move intended to sideline Apoc units to achieve balance faster and it's clearly working.

None of these units can break the balance of matched play anytime soon.

Lemondish wrote:
I'm not quite sure I understand the FW issue here. A lot of these units screamed Apocalypse, and now they're tailor made for it (since iirc the rules suggest using power level, not points, and those didn't change much for those units). Seems like a rousing success to me.

even if we discount the superheavy stuff, there was lots of incomprehensible changes to smaller units. Earthshaker platforms being made more expensive than their more resilient and mobile Basilisk counterparts, Griffons and Rapiers and Heavy Mortars and Thudd Guns going up, Fire Raptors going *down* 60pts, etc.

There appears to largely be little rhyme or reason to the changes, and certainly lots of dramatic overswings.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Lemondish wrote:
I'm not quite sure I understand the FW issue here. A lot of these units screamed Apocalypse, and now they're tailor made for it (since iirc the rules suggest using power level, not points, and those didn't change much for those units). Seems like a rousing success to me.

even if we discount the superheavy stuff, there was lots of incomprehensible changes to smaller units. Earthshaker platforms being made more expensive than their more resilient and mobile Basilisk counterparts, Griffons and Rapiers and Heavy Mortars and Thudd Guns going up, Fire Raptors going *down* 60pts, etc.

There appears to largely be little rhyme or reason to the changes, and certainly lots of dramatic overswings.

Then show us a list where there is an actual majority of actual mistakes, rather than mentioning a few things and ignoring all the right calls that were made.

I haven't even read the damn book and I already know about more good calls than what you seem to consider bad calls.
But here's the thing, you might be wrong about some of them.
Maybe it's a good thing that Imperial soup doesn't have access to 3 point conscripts anymore.
Maybe the very fact that you could get a warm body for 3 points was a problem of balance in a game where most factions pay at least double that for their cheapest screening units.
Maybe not... who knows. The thing is, there are at least as many people who believe that fix was a good thing as there are people who think it was unnecessary overkill.

Earthshaker IS a good fix, even if it makes them more expensive than Basilisks.
The day Basilisks are a problem by themselves, they'll get more expensive.
If Earthshakers completely disappear from the face of competitive gaming, they'll get slight point drops at a later date, that's how it works.

Overall, I think there is very little overswing, I wouldn't even count Earthshakers and Malefic Lords as overswing tbh, neither were meant to be list-dominating options and both will still be taken in less competitive metas.

morgoth wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Lemondish wrote:
I'm not quite sure I understand the FW issue here. A lot of these units screamed Apocalypse, and now they're tailor made for it (since iirc the rules suggest using power level, not points, and those didn't change much for those units). Seems like a rousing success to me.

even if we discount the superheavy stuff, there was lots of incomprehensible changes to smaller units. Earthshaker platforms being made more expensive than their more resilient and mobile Basilisk counterparts, Griffons and Rapiers and Heavy Mortars and Thudd Guns going up, Fire Raptors going *down* 60pts, etc.

There appears to largely be little rhyme or reason to the changes, and certainly lots of dramatic overswings.

Then show us a list where there is an actual majority of actual mistakes, rather than mentioning a few things and ignoring all the right calls that were made.

I haven't even read the damn book and I already know about more good calls than what you seem to consider bad calls.

I was addressing specifically the FW stuff with the post above, not everything, however I neither have the book on hand right at this moment nor feel the need to sit there counting out a ratio of good calls to bad calls, there's more than enough terrible calls to undermine my faith in GW's ability and the effort they put in.

But I'm glad that you can be so confident without even having read it. Thats a strong position to debate from...

But here's the thing, you might be wrong about some of them.
Maybe it's a good thing that Imperial soup doesn't have access to 3 point conscripts anymore.

I wasnt addressing conscripts in my post about FW above.

however if we want to get into that, we have no idea what the justification is for the further conscript nerf. If theyre balancing it for soup lists, its about the only unit being looked at in such a manner seemingly, because armies as a whole are certainly not balanced that way by GW and it certainly wasnt for internal balance reasons because Infantry squads are a no brainer alternative at the same cost and better in every other way. Functionally, they might as well have just deleted them from thr game from a competitive aspect, it would have the same effect, the only advantage Conscripts have is squad size, which isn't enough to really matter and which IG have Stratagems to address in other ways if need be. They were already dramatically less popular with the codex than the index.

Earthshaker IS a good fix, even if it makes them more expensive than Basilisks.

Ah...methinks we're letting emotion cloud our judgement here.

The day Basilisks are a problem by themselves, they'll get more expensive.

That's a hell of an assumption. GW just had their 3rd chance to cost the Basilisk in the last 6 months, and chose not to do so.

If Earthshakers completely disappear from the face of competitive gaming, they'll get slight point drops at a later date, that's how it works.

In theory? Sure. Given GW's decades long track record, including this update, anyone holding their breath may be disappointed.

Overall, I think there is very little overswing, I wouldn't even count Earthshakers and Malefic Lords as overswing tbh, neither were meant to be list-dominating options and both will still be taken in less competitive metas.

the issue isnt that they got nerfed, its that they got nerfed into oblivion, there is no point to taking either, they might as well have just deleted them from the game, it would have the same effect on the competitive scene.

Im certainly not seeing where Griffons, Heavy Mortars, Quad Launchers, Rapiers, Medusas, etc all needed price hikes, these weren't exactly popular competitive units. Not sure why Fire Raptors needed to be monstrously cheaper (though my Iron Warriors may be happy about it).

morgoth wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
No most of those units changed were considered underpowered for their initial cost then they raised the price further.

That's quite a statement.

Care to back it up?

Sure thing right after its proven the price increases were justified.

hobojebus wrote:

morgoth wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
No most of those units changed were considered underpowered for their initial cost then they raised the price further.

That's quite a statement.

Care to back it up?

Sure thing right after its proven the price increases were justified.

You said "most".

That means you basically guarantee that 51% of the point cost adjustments are UP units that have been overcosted some more.

I seriously doubt that.

morgoth wrote:

Lemondish wrote:
I'm not quite sure I understand the FW issue here. A lot of these units screamed Apocalypse, and now they're tailor made for it (since iirc the rules suggest using power level, not points, and those didn't change much for those units). Seems like a rousing success to me.

Definitely.

I believe the move intended to sideline Apoc units to achieve balance faster and it's clearly working.

None of these units can break the balance of matched play anytime soon.

Are you seriously stating that is the Apoc units that threatened balance in the current edition?
Come on.

Also, as a general observation, to people that maintain that CA did a fantastic job in the right direction.
I ask: is nerfing thing to uselessness the right answer, and sign of the new, fantastic times? Because this is what GW used to do before, it just took more time because of the way the codices were produced.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

morgoth wrote:

Lemondish wrote:
I'm not quite sure I understand the FW issue here. A lot of these units screamed Apocalypse, and now they're tailor made for it (since iirc the rules suggest using power level, not points, and those didn't change much for those units). Seems like a rousing success to me.

Definitely.

I believe the move intended to sideline Apoc units to achieve balance faster and it's clearly working.

None of these units can break the balance of matched play anytime soon.

Are you seriously stating that is the Apoc units that threatened balance in the current edition?
Come on.

I'm fairly sure the team responsible for CA was told that some of the Apoc units were clearly undercosted.
Since they don't have infinite time for balancing, their conclusion was that the best thing would be to effectively remove those units from competitive play, as they're rarely ever played there anyway.
Now the only people who are going to play with them are people who are relaxed and mature enough to not give a gak if the PLs are slightly off.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Also, as a general observation, to people that maintain that CA did a fantastic job in the right direction.
I ask: is nerfing thing to uselessness the right answer, and sign of the new, fantastic times? Because this is what GW used to do before, it just took more time because of the way the codices were produced.

This is exactly why Guilliman and Assbacks only received a minor points buff.

I think 2017 is a bad time for points adjustments. All the books are not out, there hasn't been much time for everyone who plays to really figure things out let alone GW. 2018 chapter approved should be the really good point adjustment book..

morgoth wrote:

I'm fairly sure the team responsible for CA was told that some of the Apoc units were clearly undercosted.
Since they don't have infinite time for balancing, their conclusion was that the best thing would be to effectively remove those units from competitive play, as they're rarely ever played there anyway.
Now the only people who are going to play with them are people who are relaxed and mature enough to not give a gak if the PLs are slightly off.

The fact that you consider this ok is an example of why GW can keep getting away with such sloppiness.
Also, nice strawman with the maturity. People play with point and at a certain point level, and GW advertised the game in a way that "everything goes". If they really wanted to put limits (thing that I endorse) for primarchs and super-heavy there should be a 3k-4k points minimum for this kind of unit.
That I would love - but is not what happened. This is an horrible middle ground.
The way was done, you end with 1 fell blade every 2 baneblades an an high point game.
You cannot defend this and being intellectually honest. Is one of the two.

This is exactly why Guilliman and Assbacks only received a minor points buff.

So, to Counter my argument, you are bringing up Gulliman, that instead of being over-nerfed, is still under-costed.
Well, sure thing you told me about the right direction taken by CA!

Read through it today.
Decidedly underwhelmed Im afraid.
Some of the new missions do seem well thought out and the inclusion of PS, Apoc and SA along with a decent helping of terrain rules is appreciated.

But the points changes, new stratagems and army updates were sorely lacking and some bordering on pointless imo.

The ladder campaign and LR make yer own rules were similar White Dwarf Lite filler.

I actually enjoyed the make your own objective markers most

After reading it, surely the make your own, obj markers, ladder campaign etc could have been WD articles with the points updates for free and then a mini suppliment for those that want/like PS, SA and Apoc?
Felt like a bit of a cheap cash grab :(

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

The way was done, you end with 1 fell blade every 2 baneblades an an high point game.

I'm not sure what you're saying there.

So, to Counter my argument, you are bringing up Gulliman, that instead of being over-nerfed, is still under-costed.
Well, sure thing you told me about the right direction taken by CA!

RG got a modest increase. Suddenly jumping him by 100 points tells them nothing about the balance even if you FEEL differently.
When you want to find at which price a customer stops buying a product you increase the price incrementally until you see it drop off. Then you dial it back.

And with 25 points to RG plus 12 per Asscan RB a list with 5 RBs is now 85 points too expensive, which is enough to shift a full RB off the table.

Daedalus81 wrote:

I'm not sure what you're saying there.

I could have read the points wrong, people will correct me I guess.

RG got a modest increase. Suddenly jumping him by 100 points tells them nothing about the balance even if you FEEL differently.
When you want to find at which price a customer stops buying a product you increase the price incrementally until you see it drop off. Then you dial it back.

So why cannot they do the same with FW? This is a huge contradiction.
You are using 2 different standards for the huge increase in points for FW and the little increment for GW stuff that was too strong.

And with 25 points to RG plus 12 per Asscan RB a list with 5 RBs is now 85 points too expensive, which is enough to shift a full RB off the table.

Is not only a matter of tournament lists. Also, this is a good judgement for the Razorbacks, less for RG.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

So why cannot they do the same with FW? This is a huge contradiction.
You are using 2 different standards for the huge increase in points for FW and the little increment for GW stuff that was too strong.

Because a lot of those super heavies needed that sort of cost increase. The math proves it out - at least into the realm of reason.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

So why cannot they do the same with FW? This is a huge contradiction.
You are using 2 different standards for the huge increase in points for FW and the little increment for GW stuff that was too strong.

Because a lot of those super heavies needed that sort of cost increase. The math proves it out - at least into the realm of reason.

I don't think so tbh, those recosts are completely crazy, most of the Titans should probably be cheaper now rather than more expensive, given how much they lost.

The thing is GW just acted like this: we can't deal with this now, so it's off-limits when playing points, we'll balance FW stuff later when the core game seems stable and until then, you can still play all of that with PL.

I love Apoc, and that change by GW has finally convinced me that PL is the way to go for Apoc.
I really like the idea of less min/maxing and more rough estimates of value in that context.

I feel that overall, it's tying those awesome models with PL, which is intended for less competition and more enjoying miniatures, which makes perfect sense since none of that FW stuff ever won a GT anyway.

We might even see a day where people who don't care for competition all play PL and there's less misunderstandings between fluff bunnies and competitive gamers because they were offered game types that suit them.

morgoth wrote:

I don't think so tbh, those recosts are completely crazy, most of the Titans should probably be cheaper now rather than more expensive, given how much they lost.

The thing is GW just acted like this: we can't deal with this now, so it's off-limits when playing points, we'll balance FW stuff later when the core game seems stable and until then, you can still play all of that with PL.

I love Apoc, and that change by GW has finally convinced me that PL is the way to go for Apoc.
I really like the idea of less min/maxing and more rough estimates of value in that context.

I feel that overall, it's tying those awesome models with PL, which is intended for less competition and more enjoying miniatures, which makes perfect sense since none of that FW stuff ever won a GT anyway.

We might even see a day where people who don't care for competition all play PL and there's less misunderstandings between fluff bunnies and competitive gamers because they were offered game types that suit them.

I'm talking the intermediaries that you can still take in a normal game. The things they set cost to 2,000 points they clearly wanted out. So, yes, 2000 isn't likely the "right" price, but it isn't likely to matter much right now either, because they'll still wind up being almost the only model on the table in a 2K game.

 BoomWolf wrote:
I really don't understand the specter moaning.


Are they overpriced now? maybe, just maybe.

But their original cost was overpowered as hell, and it took about 5 minutes for a consensus to be formed among eldar players that they are the best unit in the "codex" due to having both sheer nearly unmatched damage efficiency, great flexibility, high mobility, good durability AND niche tricks up their sleeves.

Post nerf, honestly they still look pretty decent.

Spears were capable of higher damage efficiency in general and situationally better durability pre nerf, and Reapers were more efficient against multi-wound targets. They were still behind these two units (and hemlocks, IMO) before the nerf. Spectres were undercosted, but they did not deserve to get nerfed as badly as they did. 28 points would have removed them from the top competitive Eldar units, but would have at least made them viable in their role. As it stands, 33 points for a 1W model is just too much, especially considering that they'll never really be able to make their costs back against their intended targets. At their current price point, there's nothing in the game that jumps out as being a unit you'd want to put them up against.