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.

I've read a few comments on here about how Chapter Approved should have been free, some comments saying that it's a great balancer and others wondering if the FW game designers hit their heads before submitting this. I understand the latter thought.

I skimmed right through to see how my Chaos fare out of all this: doesn't affect me too much, the sorcerer price cut is nice but that's about it. Then I flip over to see if my FW flying units are still viable... What!? I really can't make sense of this, was the Fire Raptor really under powered enough to receive such a big price cut? I've been using that thing to melt armies. And what the hell did the Stormbird and the Thunderhawk do to deserve the nerf nuke? They were hardly being used that much and when they were it was in big games so they tended to always have something to take them on, and even if they were a bit OP, a 200-300% cost increase? Jesus!

Can anyone make heads or tales of this reasoning? Was there a sudden influx of SH flyers dominating tournaments? Help me with this.

All of the FW superheavies got supernerfed to essentially put a "for open play only" sticker on them. Why the Fire Raptor got buffed, I haven't a clue, but I'm certainly not gonna complain about it lol.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
All of the FW superheavies got supernerfed to essentially put a "for open play only" sticker on them. Why the Fire Raptor got buffed, I haven't a clue, but I'm certainly not gonna complain about it lol.

It's more that they got adjusted so that they'll feature in Apoc games and since the Chapter Approved comes with Apoc rules and since, lets face it, titans originally started selling well specifically for Apoc games it all makes sense. Also I think that balance wise titans are another "question" that armies have to answer. With large titans (not just the knight ones in GW plastic) you have to bring specific counters to deal with them or rely on specific objective types to win. So by having them gain a serious points increase you push them into a format of game where all players are likely to bring those answers and be able to fit them into their armies; rather than have titans as a wildcard in lower point matches.

Also don't forget we've not seen FW balance specifically for 8th edition yet; far as I'm aware Imperial Armour is still on the previous edition so this might just be laying the groundwork for changes in Titan units.

It obviously wasn't selling well enough, they need the shelf space.

 mrhappyface wrote:
I've read a few comments on here about how Chapter Approved should have been free, some comments saying that it's a great balancer and others wondering if the FW game designers hit their heads before submitting this. I understand the latter thought.

I skimmed right through to see how my Chaos fare out of all this: doesn't affect me too much, the sorcerer price cut is nice but that's about it. Then I flip over to see if my FW flying units are still viable... What!? I really can't make sense of this, was the Fire Raptor really under powered enough to receive such a big price cut? I've been using that thing to melt armies. And what the hell did the Stormbird and the Thunderhawk do to deserve the nerf nuke? They were hardly being used that much and when they were it was in big games so they tended to always have something to take them on, and even if they were a bit OP, a 200-300% cost increase? Jesus!

Can anyone make heads or tales of this reasoning? Was there a sudden influx of SH flyers dominating tournaments? Help me with this.

There appears to be no rhyme or reason to the massive FW changes, most people are scratching their heads.

 Overread wrote:

It's more that they got adjusted so that they'll feature in Apoc games and since the Chapter Approved comes with Apoc rules and since, lets face it, titans originally started selling well specifically for Apoc games it all makes sense. Also I think that balance wise titans are another "question" that armies have to answer. With large titans (not just the knight ones in GW plastic) you have to bring specific counters to deal with them or rely on specific objective types to win. So by having them gain a serious points increase you push them into a format of game where all players are likely to bring those answers and be able to fit them into their armies; rather than have titans as a wildcard in lower point matches.

Also don't forget we've not seen FW balance specifically for 8th edition yet; far as I'm aware Imperial Armour is still on the previous edition so this might just be laying the groundwork for changes in Titan units.

It's a good job they didn't turn on the Ork Titan equivalent with that thinking: the Ork players would have rioted.

Who cares FW is not proper GW they aren't allowed in tournaments and everything FW produces is overpowered. Everyone that buys FW is just a TFG WAAC BDSM Pay-to-win son of a gretchin lololo

 Galas wrote:
Who cares FW is not proper GW they aren't allowed in tournaments and everything FW produces is overpowered. Everyone that buys FW is just a TFG WAAC BDSM Pay-to-win son of a gretchin lololo

Damn kids these days with their more expensive, beautiful models and hit/miss rules, I remember the good old days when we would sacrifice our money and children directly to GW!

The titans *specifically* are still under pointed; though the Warhound just about hits the sweet spot I think.

If you've never played against a titan in a 'normal' game, the fact that you need _100_ bs 4 lascannons to take a Reaver down its first bracket with median rolls should give you an idea of the scale of feth involved. That it now costs a little under 51 lascannon HWTs is about right. In turn, 9 shadowswords would *maybe* stand a chance against one; whereas the paltry 5 before wouldn't make it past turn 3 assuming they got some miracle rolls.

As it stands now, i'd happily take equivalent points of IK against a warlord, as they'd actually stand a chance.

 malamis wrote:
The titans *specifically* are still under pointed; though the Warhound just about hits the sweet spot I think.

If you've never played against a titan in a 'normal' game, the fact that you need _100_ bs 4 lascannons to take a Reaver down its first bracket with median rolls should give you an idea of the scale of feth involved. That it now costs a little under 51 lascannon HWTs is about right. In turn, 9 shadowswords would *maybe* stand a chance against one; whereas the paltry 5 before wouldn't make it past turn 3 assuming they got some miracle rolls.

As it stands now, i'd happily take equivalent points of IK against a warlord, as they'd actually stand a chance.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a Reaver has 60 wounds, Toughness 10, a 3+ Armour save, and a degrading Void Shield save.

While still in the first bracket each BS 4 Lascannon does 0.26 damage (1*(4/6)*(2/6)*(2/6)*(7/2)) requiring 42.4 BS 4 Lascannons to reduce it to the next bracket
In the second bracket, each lascannon does 0.38 damage, (1*(4/6)*(2/6)*(3/6)*(7/2)), due to the degraded Void Shield, requiring 38.6 BS 4 Lascannons to reduce it to the third bracket
In the third bracket, each lascannon does 0.52 damage, (1*(4/6)*(2/6)*(4/6)*(7/2)), requiring 28.9 lascannons to reduce the Reaver to the 4th bracket
In the fourth and fifth brakets the Void Shield is immaterial as the armour save will meet or exceed this against a lascannon, each lascannon does 0.65 damage, requiring a further 29.3 BS 4 lascannons to reduce it through both brackets to 0 wounds

Total BS 4 lascannons required to kill a Reaver is 139.24.

 Galas wrote:
Who cares FW is not proper GW they aren't allowed in tournaments and everything FW produces is overpowered. Everyone that buys FW is just a TFG WAAC BDSM Pay-to-win son of a gretchin lololo

Ah yes TFG WAAC's indeed buy overpriced weak units that sums up most of FW stuff yeah right.

Nah this had nothing to do with balance but simple greed from GW to direct players to buy higher profit margin plastic over resin.

 Galas wrote:
Who cares FW is not proper GW they aren't allowed in tournaments and everything FW produces is overpowered. Everyone that buys FW is just a TFG WAAC BDSM Pay-to-win son of a gretchin lololo

Precisely

tneva82 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Who cares FW is not proper GW they aren't allowed in tournaments and everything FW produces is overpowered. Everyone that buys FW is just a TFG WAAC BDSM Pay-to-win son of a gretchin lololo

Ah yes TFG WAAC's indeed buy overpriced weak units that sums up most of FW stuff yeah right.

Nah this had nothing to do with balance but simple greed from GW to direct players to buy higher profit margin plastic over resin.

TFW you don't understand sarcasm.

ItsPug wrote:

 malamis wrote:
The titans *specifically* are still under pointed; though the Warhound just about hits the sweet spot I think.

If you've never played against a titan in a 'normal' game, the fact that you need _100_ bs 4 lascannons to take a Reaver down its first bracket with median rolls should give you an idea of the scale of feth involved. That it now costs a little under 51 lascannon HWTs is about right. In turn, 9 shadowswords would *maybe* stand a chance against one; whereas the paltry 5 before wouldn't make it past turn 3 assuming they got some miracle rolls.

As it stands now, i'd happily take equivalent points of IK against a warlord, as they'd actually stand a chance.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a Reaver has 60 wounds, Toughness 10, a 3+ Armour save, and a degrading Void Shield save.

While still in the first bracket each BS 4 Lascannon does 0.26 damage (1*(4/6)*(2/6)*(2/6)*(7/2)) requiring 42.4 BS 4 Lascannons to reduce it to the next bracket
In the second bracket, each lascannon does 0.38 damage, (1*(4/6)*(2/6)*(3/6)*(7/2)), due to the degraded Void Shield, requiring 38.6 BS 4 Lascannons to reduce it to the third bracket
In the third bracket, each lascannon does 0.52 damage, (1*(4/6)*(2/6)*(4/6)*(7/2)), requiring 28.9 lascannons to reduce the Reaver to the 4th bracket
In the fourth and fifth brakets the Void Shield is immaterial as the armour save will meet or exceed this against a lascannon, each lascannon does 0.65 damage, requiring a further 29.3 BS 4 lascannons to reduce it through both brackets to 0 wounds

Total BS 4 lascannons required to kill a Reaver is 139.24.

You're thinking too expensive


A squad of 40 cultists with Prescience and a few stratagems will deal 14+ Wounds on that Titan per turn


There is no chance for a titan to go ahead and win vs horde

Yeah, the titans are in a weird spot. With Macro weapons, they're supremely amazing at duking it out with other Titanic units, and complete ass at fighting hordes.

The Belicosa Volcano Cannon can single-handedly nuke a Warlord, but will kill 1d6 conscripts.

No wonder they're so hard to point correctly!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, the titans are in a weird spot. With Macro weapons, they're supremely amazing at duking it out with other Titanic units, and complete ass at fighting hordes.

The Belicosa Volcano Cannon can single-handedly nuke a Warlord, but will kill 1d6 conscripts.

No wonder they're so hard to point correctly!

I kind of like it that way.

M.

 Infantryman wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, the titans are in a weird spot. With Macro weapons, they're supremely amazing at duking it out with other Titanic units, and complete ass at fighting hordes.

The Belicosa Volcano Cannon can single-handedly nuke a Warlord, but will kill 1d6 conscripts.

No wonder they're so hard to point correctly!

I kind of like it that way.

M.

Me too, but it's very hard to cost. Do you cost it against my Foot Sister's horde, where it would be lucky to kill 30 models and make back ~300 points? Or do you cost it against my superheavy tank company where it could kill 3 or 4 tanks per turn (1.5-2k points)?

 Dovis wrote:


You're thinking too expensive

A squad of 40 cultists with Prescience and a few stratagems will deal 14+ Wounds on that Titan per turn


There is no chance for a titan to go ahead and win vs horde

Exactly how much CP do you have rolling around? I find it pretty hard to catch something that moves 20-24" with footsloggers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mrhappyface wrote:
and even if they were a bit OP, a 200-300% cost increase? Jesus!

Can anyone make heads or tales of this reasoning? Was there a sudden influx of SH flyers dominating tournaments? Help me with this.

"Even if they were a bit OP".

Perception is everything isn't it?

They don't need to dominate major tournaments to have their points addressed.

Im still salty about chaos terminators not getting the price cut every other terminator got. I was really hoping chaos termis would get the same buff, since the rumors leaked loyalist termi price cuts. Would be nice to see us not just be loyalist minus one like we were with indexes. And then become minus two with chapter approved.

macluvin wrote:
Im still salty about chaos terminators not getting the price cut every other terminator got. I was really hoping chaos termis would get the same buff, since the rumors leaked loyalist termi price cuts. Would be nice to see us not just be loyalist minus one like we were with indexes. And then become minus two with chapter approved.

Oh but CSM terminators get an extra attack! On a roll of 6 to hit... Against one faction... And you still need to roll to hit for that attack... And you can't get the extra attack if they're swinging with Power fists....

But really, CSM termie are so much better!

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Who cares FW is not proper GW they aren't allowed in tournaments and everything FW produces is overpowered. Everyone that buys FW is just a TFG WAAC BDSM Pay-to-win son of a gretchin lololo

Ah yes TFG WAAC's indeed buy overpriced weak units that sums up most of FW stuff yeah right.

Nah this had nothing to do with balance but simple greed from GW to direct players to buy higher profit margin plastic over resin.

TFW you don't understand sarcasm.

I thought the BDSM part was pretty obvious, but the "Lolololo" was intented to sell the deal

Dont forget that loyalists also get storm shields… and access to cataphractii termis which have that nice 4++.

 mrhappyface wrote:

macluvin wrote:
Im still salty about chaos terminators not getting the price cut every other terminator got. I was really hoping chaos termis would get the same buff, since the rumors leaked loyalist termi price cuts. Would be nice to see us not just be loyalist minus one like we were with indexes. And then become minus two with chapter approved.

Oh but CSM terminators get an extra attack! On a roll of 6 to hit... Against one faction... And you still need to roll to hit for that attack... And you can't get the extra attack if they're swinging with Power fists....

But really, CSM termie are so much better!

ItsPug wrote:


Correct me if I'm wrong, but a Reaver has 60 wounds, Toughness 10, a 3+ Armour save, and a degrading Void Shield save.

While still in the first bracket each BS 4 Lascannon does 0.26 damage (1*(4/6)*(2/6)*(2/6)*(7/2)) requiring 42.4 BS 4 Lascannons to reduce it to the next bracket
In the second bracket, each lascannon does 0.38 damage, (1*(4/6)*(2/6)*(3/6)*(7/2)), due to the degraded Void Shield, requiring 38.6 BS 4 Lascannons to reduce it to the third bracket
In the third bracket, each lascannon does 0.52 damage, (1*(4/6)*(2/6)*(4/6)*(7/2)), requiring 28.9 lascannons to reduce the Reaver to the 4th bracket
In the fourth and fifth brakets the Void Shield is immaterial as the armour save will meet or exceed this against a lascannon, each lascannon does 0.65 damage, requiring a further 29.3 BS 4 lascannons to reduce it through both brackets to 0 wounds

Total BS 4 lascannons required to kill a Reaver is 139.24.

Two issues with your numbers:

1. When referring to BS 4, I was using 4+; or (3/6); not (4/6). 27 lascannon dev squads would face a Reaver at equivalent points with 110 lascannons, and do worse with 8.15 average failed saves per board-wide salvo compared to HWT's 8.44.
2. 7/2 is a bit of an odd way to present d6 damage but fair enough; my numbers were using the pessimistic 3 average instead.

As for how to cost it; I just realised the old cost was exactly toughness * wounds * successful Armour save outcomes on d6. Too bad it factored in the weapons :|

GW just 1984'd the CA preview to remove all mention of Belisarius Cawl having a points increase, because he actually went down 10 points. Not even a note saying they incorrectly stated he would have had his points increased, just edited the article to make it look like it never stated that at all.

Wayniac wrote:
GW just 1984'd the CA preview to remove all mention of Belisarius Cawl having a points increase, because he actually went down 10 points. Not even a note saying they incorrectly stated he would have had his points increased, just edited the article to make it look like it never stated that at all.

They have corrected a mistake in one article. What more are you expecting? A note for something as small? Is with this kind of nitpicking that one show himsellf in a bad light about his bias towards GW.

 Galas wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
GW just 1984'd the CA preview to remove all mention of Belisarius Cawl having a points increase, because he actually went down 10 points. Not even a note saying they incorrectly stated he would have had his points increased, just edited the article to make it look like it never stated that at all.

They have corrected a mistake in one article. What more are you expecting? A note for something as small? Is with this kind of nitpicking that one show himsellf in a bad light about his bias towards GW.

Shadow deleting comments is nothing? He's going too far with his analogy, but I would be concerned about comments being shadow deleted, especially in a scenario where it was catching out the team on a point they weren't correct on.

FW seems to be all over the place. seems to me that there designers are just not on the same page as the rest of the office. which is a shame.

FW is a joke aside from cool looking models.

And Fire Raptors are strong, not sure why they needed a price drop. That must be a typo.

Darsath wrote:

 Galas wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
GW just 1984'd the CA preview to remove all mention of Belisarius Cawl having a points increase, because he actually went down 10 points. Not even a note saying they incorrectly stated he would have had his points increased, just edited the article to make it look like it never stated that at all.

They have corrected a mistake in one article. What more are you expecting? A note for something as small? Is with this kind of nitpicking that one show himsellf in a bad light about his bias towards GW.

Shadow deleting comments is nothing? He's going too far with his analogy, but I would be concerned about comments being shadow deleted, especially in a scenario where it was catching out the team on a point they weren't correct on.

Shadow deleting comments? They aren't deleting comments of no-one. They where mistaken with Cawl going down in points for whatever reason. They have changed it back now that has been known that isn't the case. Really, I don't see the problem with that.
Is like you are trying to subtly accuse the team of trying to misslead people? The rules team and the community team obviously aren't the same, and this isn't the first time they have had a mistake like this.
Obviously that shows a problem of comunnication that should be addresed, but nothing more.

 Galas wrote:

Darsath wrote:

 Galas wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
GW just 1984'd the CA preview to remove all mention of Belisarius Cawl having a points increase, because he actually went down 10 points. Not even a note saying they incorrectly stated he would have had his points increased, just edited the article to make it look like it never stated that at all.

They have corrected a mistake in one article. What more are you expecting? A note for something as small? Is with this kind of nitpicking that one show himsellf in a bad light about his bias towards GW.

Shadow deleting comments is nothing? He's going too far with his analogy, but I would be concerned about comments being shadow deleted, especially in a scenario where it was catching out the team on a point they weren't correct on.

Shadow deleting comments? They aren't deleting comments of no-one. They where mistaken with Cawl going down in points for whatever reason. They have changed it back now that has been known that isn't the case. Really, I don't see the problem with that.
Is like you are trying to subtly accuse the team of trying to misslead people? The rules team and the community team obviously aren't the same, and this isn't the first time they have had a mistake like this.
Obviously that shows a problem of comunnication that should be addresed, but nothing more.

If they are deleting comments, then it would be a problem. If not, then the issue is a non-starter.