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.
2018/02/21 09:23:56
Subject: What changes do you expect to see with the "Big FAQ" coming in March?
•The Avatar needs some serious readjustment. If they're not going to redesign him, they need to at least drop his cost by 75 points.
•Striking Scorpions are in the same boat. It'd be hilarious how bad they are if it wasn't so sad. Either drop them to 9ppm, or redesign them from the ground up.
•Banshees need a point reduction as well. Just like Scorpions, there is no universe where they should cost more than Genestealers.
•Wraithlords need Implaccable. And probably something else.
•Spiritseers need to go up in cost to at least 55ppm.
•Warp Spiders need to be redesigned. Make their guns get an extra shot for every 5 models in the target unit or something.
•Shadow Spectres need a point reduction. 27ppm MAX.
•Dire Avengers could probably use a small reduction in points, something like 10 or 11ppm. They're not bad, but they suffer a bit from master of none syndrome.
•Reapers need to be seriously nerfed, obviously. They'd still be a bargain at their old 36ppm. They should also lose their 'Inescapable Accuracy' rule on a turn where they move.
•Shining Spears could also go up a bit. Adjusting them to their base cost from the index while retaining their weapon costs from the codex would put them in a good place at 37ppm.
•Most of the Phoenix Lords could probably use a minor point decrease. You should also be able to take them as your general.
•Wraithknights need some serious point reduction.
What we'll probably get is just some nerfs to Reapers and Spears with little other adjustment, and then be left with the hollow remains of the Craftworlds codex instead.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/21 09:24:49
2018/02/21 11:08:59
Subject: What changes do you expect to see with the "Big FAQ" coming in March?
Why do people keep saying they want points changes when it been explicitly stated by GW that the bi-annual FAQ is for rules amd Chapter Approved is for points? It's even been said in this thread.
Anyway.
Expecting a Cawl nerf. Only reason I could see why he'd go down in points in CA. If I had to guess it would be his 9" aura ability.
Guilliman will probably lose reroll to wound aura but keep his hit rerolls or vice versa or go up to 10 wounds. Maybe both. Basing this on the tiny points increase he got in CA since whatever rule was changed wasn't significant enough to warrent his price staying the same but changed enough for him to avoid getting a bigger points hike.
Kastellan Robots double fire thing will probably get nerfed but I'm not sure how.
Lictors and stratagems relating to them will probably get a buff seeing as theres zero reason to take them right now. I would like to think Toxicrenes and the big psychic one I can't remember the name of might get a minor buff. Probably to its giant psychic wave power.
Other than that I think it's tough to predict what GW will do as we don't know their plans. The fact that they've chosen to keep points changes and rules changes makes predicting things difficult. I fully expect a load of "I CAN'T BELIEVE THEY DIDN'T FIX X CLEARLY GW ARE INCOMPETANT" because GW feel that the problem should be addressed via points changes instead of rules.
2018/02/21 12:37:26
Subject: What changes do you expect to see with the "Big FAQ" coming in March?
I'm hoping for something to stop tactical marines feeling more like crossing guards directing the local PDF (guard IS) to the front line. While it might be thematic for a choas space marine to be using a living cultist as a mest shield, it doesn't realy work fluff wise for the loyalists.
Give them a rule called tactical flexability and allow them to give you extra CP or something to make them not a I'm only taking them as I can't/won't soup option.
Space marine drivers edd, teaching spacemarines how chapter tactics and legion traits effect your vehicals.
Imperial guard paying your share of the bill 101 if you bring twice the guys no were not splitting the bar bill evenly.
Heroes 101 your supposed to be good at killing how about getting stuck in instead of standing around in the middle of your adoring fans hoping they'll do better just to impress you this is war, not a pop concert.
2018/02/21 13:13:31
Subject: What changes do you expect to see with the "Big FAQ" coming in March?
The main structural change I anticipate would be a limit to stacking the same effect - e.g. only one Feel No Pain style save, only the first -1 to hit counts, etc. There's already some instances of this in Codex Craftworlds, and it makes sense as a game-wide rule.
2018/02/21 13:46:18
Subject: What changes do you expect to see with the "Big FAQ" coming in March?
I would like to see fundamental changes to detachments to put the kibosh on soup lists, but that's something that would be in Chapter Approved (if it would ever happen) I would think.
I expect to see a change to Dark Reapers, probably changing the always hits on 3+ ability. I also expect to see errata saying Ynnari replaces the <Craftworld> keyword rather than adds to it, so you can't use a <Craftworld> stratagem on a unit in a Ynnari detachment. Maybe even going back to Ynnari being all or nothing like it was at the very start of 40k? Where either your entire army is Ynnari, or nothing is.
Not sure what else, really. Unit profiles are fair game, just not points (which would be in CA).
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame
2018/02/21 14:04:22
Subject: Re:What changes do you expect to see with the "Big FAQ" coming in March?
Drudge Dreadnought wrote: I'm hoping to see some help for the Marine statline in general. It doesn't help much to tweak individual units when pretty much every base MeQ is lackluster unless it has a huge number of special rules. Str 4, T4, 3+, 1A, and Str 4 shooting models that cost in the low to mid teens in points are pretty much never worth using across the board. This is a huge problem, because it covers the majority of Marine infantry.
Tac Marines, Assault Marines, Bikers, Chaos Marines, Raptors, etc are all not worth using. We see that marines and Chaos alike are using swarm +elites and heavies for their armies, usually as part of a soup list. More elite versions of these units like Cult Marines are generally a bit better off, but you still cannot make the core of your army based around them and end up with enough models on the board to be useful.
The MeQ statline has depreciated since previous editions due to the changes in AP and offensive power. A 3+ armor save is just not what it used to be in the new AP system. And on top of that, they got shafted in that many armies weapons moved to an equivalent AP in the new system, but basic bolters did not. They used to be AP 5, which ignored 5+ and 6+ saves, meaning basic bolter fire was an effective anti hoard weapon. Now they are AP 0, which means they lost a significant amount of offensive power against common units like guardsmen and boyz. Aura stacking helps bring their firepower level back, but other armies also got that.
I would argue that the basic MeQ statline is the hardest hit by a large amount of 8th's changes. To summarize:
1) AP changes made 3+ less strong
2) Bolters effectively losing AP made them so inefficient they are barely worth rolling
3) Lack of ability to lock foes in combat hurt marine units like assault marines that are proportionally lower damage but higher survivability compared to other melee units
4) Changes to template and blast weapons hit marines harder than other armies because they relied on them more to cover more army roles.
5) The combination of bolters becoming proportionally weaker and flamers/frag missiles becoming weaker, less reliable, and more expensive totally destroyed the ability to normal marine units to provide anti-swarm.
6) The new vehicle wound system hits marines hardest because they relied on low shot high damage weapons like Meltas for their anti tank. Meltas have gone up in price, and lost their ability to 1 shot vehicles, which has hugely decreased the potential of normal marine infantry to counter armor.
7) Power fist changes have hurt marines more than other races, as the power fist sergeant was often half of a squads melee damage output, a solid tank/monster deterrent, and the majority of an army's anti-character power. I'm not sad that this changed because it was silly, but it's still left them overall weaker.
8) In the past, marine infantry relied on a good armor save to out attrition their opponents. But now the offensive power of everyone has increased considerably, so they've lost their ability to take in damage without getting wiped out early. The changes to cover have also hurt them, but not necessarily more than other races.
9) The loss of mechanized lists due to transport changes has hurt too. You can no longer move, disembark, and shoot, which was a major trick of Tacs and CSM. And even if you could, you wouldn't want to as you no longer have the durability to receive a charge and whittle down a unit, or hold until reinforcements come. And drop pods can no longer come in close enough for short range melta shots, and as mentioned above those aren't what they used to be. And transports now cost an arm and a leg.
10) Loss of Pistol+bolter+ccw on many marine units (especially CSM)
11) They did get a couple points cheaper overall, but it's really not enough to help.
Even elite marines units just aren't that great. Berzerkers may be the exception because their special rule and weapons are so phenomenal. But consider the other cult troops: Plague marines give you a lot for their points, but their firepower is so low that it just doesn't matter. So we see poxwalker spam instead. Noise marines are cool and also have some nasty rules and guns, but the points add up really fast. If you try to build an army using more than a couple 5 man objective holding squads, you just won't have enough other stuff. And they die easily. And Rubrics, even with their new powers, just don't have enough firepower. And even with All is Dust, they are proportionally less survivable than most swarm infantry, point for point. These units are not bad in a vacuum (except maybe rubrics), and seem like what we should be forming our armies around. But it just doesn't work.
Primaris marines are more on the right track. If all MeQs had just been given that statline, things would be much different (except plasma spam would still pwn them.) The extra melee attack, extra ap point on bolt weapons, and extra wound really help. But we still don't see armies of primaris the way we saw armies of regular MeQs back in, say, 5th (my main point of comparison as I played it most.) Because even the extra stats at only a few extra points per model doesn't make the units worth using over swarm units + elites and heavy support. The exception may be Blood Angels, because they can stack enough buffs to make Primaris versatile, durable, and efficient in both shooting and melee.
Note I'm not saying that Marines and Chaos are weak overall. Their elite and soup lists are doing fine. But the standard marine infantry has gotten shafted by this edition and it needs help. But there's no easy fix either because the problems go beyond a small points change. It's the entire design philosophy of 8th. And it effect so many units that aren't united by keywords or common names that it'd be hard to change that many overall.
Some combination of the following would help, applied to everyone or only to marines (to represent their greater skill, bigger weapons, etc). I'm trying to keep away from all out statline changes.
A) Move all bolter weapons an AP lower for marines. Standard becomes AP -1, intercessor one becomes -2, heavy bolter -2, etc. This will also help their vehicles out. But it won't break currently good units like assault cannon razorbacks.
B) Make flamer/other former template weapons more reliable. Instead of d6 shots, let them be 3+d3, or an amount based on the size of the attacking unit.
C) Increase the power of pretty much all Chapter traits except Blood Angels and Death Guard to help infantry.
D) Bring back Bolter+Bolt Pistol+CCW for Tacs and CSM and their elite variants
E) Give Jump Pack troops the ability to lock enemies in close combat, or perhaps follow them if they fall back (can be based on leadership check.)
F) Award extra CP for detachments of basic MeQs
All that wishlisting aside, I doubt they'll touch this. Which means this is the edition of Xenos and Soup!
Important points about MEQ. Feels like this post needs it's own thread.
I would be surprised if the FAQ offers any improvements for MEQ or TEQ. You're completely right, the offense / defense is just not there for them this edition.
MinscS2 wrote: I hope and expect them to fix the Deathstrike.
It was absolute garbage in the Index, and since they didn't change a thing its absolute garbage in the Codex as well.
I feel like the Deathstrike is unlikely to ever have a place in non-narrative style games. You need to be really careful with it. I feel like a careless change could take it from being a bit crappy to "oh look it's the Deathstrike meta! Take loads, screen them and hold out a couple of turns and you can table your opponent with an instant 40+ mortal wounds, with more spilling over". It's a very flavourful and great looking model though.
Damn, I want to buy 5 and try that now. lol
TO of Death Before Dishonour - A Warhammer 40k Tournament with a focus on great battles between well painted, thematic armies on tables with full terrain.
I'm more curious how much GW will actually change genuine rules. If they don't do points adjustments, then a year is probably too long of a wait for the tournament meta. If they change too many rules they risk invalidating their own codices (which, let's be honest will be almost pointless in purchasing a year or more after release for most armies - the penalty of a "living ruleset").
I think if they don't do points adjustments, this could lead to some really poor see-sawing effects, of "trying" to fix a unti with rules when it simply needs a points adjustment, etc. I can see an issue with "Hey, this unit needs a point reduction" - "Well, we're not doing those on this go round, how can we change its rules instead?"
That doesn't seem like the best way to fix stuff.
I would like to see some help for stuff like Terminators. Even in a casual setting, they're really quite tough to justify, despite being cool.
2018/02/21 14:32:47
Subject: Re:What changes do you expect to see with the "Big FAQ" coming in March?
We’ll also use these to address balance issues in the game, so these might include a few changes to rules for overly powerful, or underrepresented units.
Yes? Rules, not points.
Are the points cost of a unit not part of its rules?
Considering the points are separate from the units, no they're not the same.
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
2018/02/21 14:40:59
Subject: What changes do you expect to see with the "Big FAQ" coming in March?
MrMoustaffa wrote: I would also expect to see changes to how indirect fire works, given I just picked up a manticore and am super stoked to try it My guess would be a -1 penalty when firing at units you can't see, but who knows what GW may try. Usually any time I have a unit I like become competitive gets nerfed so I expect to see artillery get some sort of nerf.
Are we still pretending manticores are competitive? When will this meme end? Basilisks are better against almost every target and STILL you practically never see them. In fact, vehicles in general are a rare sight unless you're eldar. Imperial armored companies are fluffy and non competitive and for some reason you think they should be driven into the dirt even more?
We need to encourage vehicles, not discourage them.
Manticores are competitive, what are you going on about? Due to the higher volume of shots they'll usually out damage a Basilisk too. Board clearing indirect fire will always have a competitive place.
Really, the problem is with ignoring LoS. We need to toss that rule or make models pay much more for it.
2018/02/21 14:46:02
Subject: Re:What changes do you expect to see with the "Big FAQ" coming in March?
Genestealers need to be nerfed. Moving and advancing 20 models 16-20" across the battlefield (kraken 3D6 for advancing, using the highest roll, doubling it with 1CP) and being able to charge with 3-4 attacks, and acid maws (AP-3 for free), for 12 pts. a model is a big nono.
2018/02/21 14:48:00
Subject: What changes do you expect to see with the "Big FAQ" coming in March?
NurglesR0T wrote: I'm hoping 2w models such as Terminators and Bikers are addressed and given a points reduction. Far too much saturation with 2+ damage weapons that makes any 'elite' multiwound model feel overpriced
This right now, my ravenwing and deathwing army has been shelf ed and is collecting dust because they are just such hot garbage right now. To many 2 wound weapons, and high AP that just rips them apart.
I would like to see a change to character targeting rules.
A Character can only be targeted in the shooting phase if the shooting model has a clear light of sight, and the character is more then 2" away from any of their allies units, excluding vehicles. Characters with 10 or more wound characterists, Vehicles, and monsters, are not subject to this rule and my be targeted so long as there is LoS.
Would love to see armor facings come back, maybe a +1 to wound on rear armor
Also wanna see firing arch come back. No more of this, im gonna shoot all my weapons outta this corner of my LR.
Finally i wanna see sensible targeting return. Meaning when drawing LoS to a unit, you ignore things like hair, horns, wings, magic swirly gak, weapons. Basically if you cant see the targets head, or body, you cant shoot it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
p5freak wrote: Genestealers need to be nerfed. Moving and advancing 20 models 16-20" across the battlefield (kraken 3D6 for advancing, using the highest roll, doubling it with 1CP) and being able to charge with 3-4 attacks, and acid maws (AP-3 for free), for 12 pts. a model is a big nono.
Well thats not just a stealer issue, thats a Deep strike and turn one charge issue.
Antoher thing i want to see is the removal of turn one deep strikes. I think unless your army has a super good fluffy reason, they should not be able to. Which is another issue, to much crap can deep strike now.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/21 14:49:16
To many unpainted models to count.
2018/02/21 14:52:01
Subject: What changes do you expect to see with the "Big FAQ" coming in March?
This right now, my ravenwing and deathwing army has been shelf ed and is collecting dust because they are just such hot garbage right now. To many 2 wound weapons, and high AP that just rips them apart.
I would like to see a change to character targeting rules.
A Character can only be targeted in the shooting phase if the shooting model has a clear light of sight, and the character is more then 2" away from any of their allies units, excluding vehicles. Characters with 10 or more wound characterists, Vehicles, and monsters, are not subject to this rule and my be targeted so long as there is LoS.
Would love to see armor facings come back, maybe a +1 to wound on rear armor
Also wanna see firing arch come back. No more of this, im gonna shoot all my weapons outta this corner of my LR.
They already published this FAQ! It came in a nice three-book set that looked like this:
TO of Death Before Dishonour - A Warhammer 40k Tournament with a focus on great battles between well painted, thematic armies on tables with full terrain.
Martel732 wrote: Too bad deep strike sucks horribly this edition. For all the people scared of first turn charge, your opponents must be rolling a lot of 9's.
There is a lot of stuff taht lets you get bonuses to the charge as well. I mean, tzaangors get +1 to the charge, so i only need to make an 8" charge, + i can reroll a single die for a command point, or if i got the spell off for no command points.
You can also deep strike and warp time stuff directly up to your enemy and just need to make a 3 inch charge. Or for alpha legion, just pop up 9" away, move, and make like a 4 inch charge. Its not hard to make it into combat outta a deep strike. I kept telling people that with garuneed deep strike, and being able to charge, its gonna get dumb, and it has, alpha strike is worse now then it was in 7th.
To many unpainted models to count.
2018/02/21 15:04:41
Subject: What changes do you expect to see with the "Big FAQ" coming in March?
p5freak wrote: Genestealers need to be nerfed. Moving and advancing 20 models 16-20" across the battlefield (kraken 3D6 for advancing, using the highest roll, doubling it with 1CP) and being able to charge with 3-4 attacks, and acid maws (AP-3 for free), for 12 pts. a model is a big nono.
What gets me is that, last I heard, Tyranid Genestealers are Troops and cheaper than Genestealer Genestealers for effectively the same model, ability-wise.
That's definitely gotta get reconciled if true.
2018/02/21 15:51:35
Subject: Re:What changes do you expect to see with the "Big FAQ" coming in March?
Drudge Dreadnought wrote: I'm hoping to see some help for the Marine statline in general. It doesn't help much to tweak individual units when pretty much every base MeQ is lackluster unless it has a huge number of special rules. Str 4, T4, 3+, 1A, and Str 4 shooting models that cost in the low to mid teens in points are pretty much never worth using across the board. This is a huge problem, because it covers the majority of Marine infantry.
Tac Marines, Assault Marines, Bikers, Chaos Marines, Raptors, etc are all not worth using. We see that marines and Chaos alike are using swarm +elites and heavies for their armies, usually as part of a soup list. More elite versions of these units like Cult Marines are generally a bit better off, but you still cannot make the core of your army based around them and end up with enough models on the board to be useful.
The MeQ statline has depreciated since previous editions due to the changes in AP and offensive power. A 3+ armor save is just not what it used to be in the new AP system. And on top of that, they got shafted in that many armies weapons moved to an equivalent AP in the new system, but basic bolters did not. They used to be AP 5, which ignored 5+ and 6+ saves, meaning basic bolter fire was an effective anti hoard weapon. Now they are AP 0, which means they lost a significant amount of offensive power against common units like guardsmen and boyz. Aura stacking helps bring their firepower level back, but other armies also got that.
I would argue that the basic MeQ statline is the hardest hit by a large amount of 8th's changes. To summarize:
1) AP changes made 3+ less strong
2) Bolters effectively losing AP made them so inefficient they are barely worth rolling
3) Lack of ability to lock foes in combat hurt marine units like assault marines that are proportionally lower damage but higher survivability compared to other melee units
4) Changes to template and blast weapons hit marines harder than other armies because they relied on them more to cover more army roles.
5) The combination of bolters becoming proportionally weaker and flamers/frag missiles becoming weaker, less reliable, and more expensive totally destroyed the ability to normal marine units to provide anti-swarm.
6) The new vehicle wound system hits marines hardest because they relied on low shot high damage weapons like Meltas for their anti tank. Meltas have gone up in price, and lost their ability to 1 shot vehicles, which has hugely decreased the potential of normal marine infantry to counter armor.
7) Power fist changes have hurt marines more than other races, as the power fist sergeant was often half of a squads melee damage output, a solid tank/monster deterrent, and the majority of an army's anti-character power. I'm not sad that this changed because it was silly, but it's still left them overall weaker.
8) In the past, marine infantry relied on a good armor save to out attrition their opponents. But now the offensive power of everyone has increased considerably, so they've lost their ability to take in damage without getting wiped out early. The changes to cover have also hurt them, but not necessarily more than other races.
9) The loss of mechanized lists due to transport changes has hurt too. You can no longer move, disembark, and shoot, which was a major trick of Tacs and CSM. And even if you could, you wouldn't want to as you no longer have the durability to receive a charge and whittle down a unit, or hold until reinforcements come. And drop pods can no longer come in close enough for short range melta shots, and as mentioned above those aren't what they used to be. And transports now cost an arm and a leg.
10) Loss of Pistol+bolter+ccw on many marine units (especially CSM)
11) They did get a couple points cheaper overall, but it's really not enough to help.
Even elite marines units just aren't that great. Berzerkers may be the exception because their special rule and weapons are so phenomenal. But consider the other cult troops: Plague marines give you a lot for their points, but their firepower is so low that it just doesn't matter. So we see poxwalker spam instead. Noise marines are cool and also have some nasty rules and guns, but the points add up really fast. If you try to build an army using more than a couple 5 man objective holding squads, you just won't have enough other stuff. And they die easily. And Rubrics, even with their new powers, just don't have enough firepower. And even with All is Dust, they are proportionally less survivable than most swarm infantry, point for point. These units are not bad in a vacuum (except maybe rubrics), and seem like what we should be forming our armies around. But it just doesn't work.
Primaris marines are more on the right track. If all MeQs had just been given that statline, things would be much different (except plasma spam would still pwn them.) The extra melee attack, extra ap point on bolt weapons, and extra wound really help. But we still don't see armies of primaris the way we saw armies of regular MeQs back in, say, 5th (my main point of comparison as I played it most.) Because even the extra stats at only a few extra points per model doesn't make the units worth using over swarm units + elites and heavy support. The exception may be Blood Angels, because they can stack enough buffs to make Primaris versatile, durable, and efficient in both shooting and melee.
Note I'm not saying that Marines and Chaos are weak overall. Their elite and soup lists are doing fine. But the standard marine infantry has gotten shafted by this edition and it needs help. But there's no easy fix either because the problems go beyond a small points change. It's the entire design philosophy of 8th. And it effect so many units that aren't united by keywords or common names that it'd be hard to change that many overall.
Some combination of the following would help, applied to everyone or only to marines (to represent their greater skill, bigger weapons, etc). I'm trying to keep away from all out statline changes.
A) Move all bolter weapons an AP lower for marines. Standard becomes AP -1, intercessor one becomes -2, heavy bolter -2, etc. This will also help their vehicles out. But it won't break currently good units like assault cannon razorbacks.
B) Make flamer/other former template weapons more reliable. Instead of d6 shots, let them be 3+d3, or an amount based on the size of the attacking unit.
C) Increase the power of pretty much all Chapter traits except Blood Angels and Death Guard to help infantry.
D) Bring back Bolter+Bolt Pistol+CCW for Tacs and CSM and their elite variants
E) Give Jump Pack troops the ability to lock enemies in close combat, or perhaps follow them if they fall back (can be based on leadership check.)
F) Award extra CP for detachments of basic MeQs
All that wishlisting aside, I doubt they'll touch this. Which means this is the edition of Xenos and Soup!
Good post. I agree mostly, but there are some flaws in my view.
Note I'm not saying that Marines and Chaos are weak overall. Their elite and soup lists are doing fine. But the standard marine infantry has gotten shafted by this edition and it needs help.
Wouldn't making mono marine lists stronger make the soup even stronger still thereby defeating the overall purpose?
A) Move all bolter weapons an AP lower for marines. Standard becomes AP -1, intercessor one becomes -2, heavy bolter -2, etc. This will also help their vehicles out. But it won't break currently good units like assault cannon razorbacks.
As long as they get a good point increase. Hurricane bolters would be even more desirable. Rubrics would go to -3 and Soul Reapers to -4...
D) Bring back Bolter+Bolt Pistol+CCW for Tacs and CSM and their elite variants
Only if a chainsword, bolt pistol, and bolter combination comes at a higher cost. Rubrics would be left in the dust there (heh heh). And Berzerkers would be even more absurd wouldn't they?
F) Award extra CP for detachments of basic MeQs
I think there may be more elegant solutions to that problem.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/21 15:52:57
2018/02/21 16:10:58
Subject: What changes do you expect to see with the "Big FAQ" coming in March?
Feel like the amount of disappoint is going to be really high - some wishlists seem incredible. Hoping for the best but likely reasonable to reflect on what to EXPECT vs what is WANTED. Ideally this should be 1:1 but experience has proven this to not be the reality.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/21 16:11:10
2018/02/21 16:28:46
Subject: What changes do you expect to see with the "Big FAQ" coming in March?
Audustum wrote: Manticores are competitive, what are you going on about? Due to the higher volume of shots they'll usually out damage a Basilisk too.
No. Do the math. Manticores cost 143 points. Basilisks cost 108. 143/108 = 1.324 as in a manticore costs 32.4% more than a basilisk. Now lets figure out the firepower vs what these things should be shooting (T7/8 things with 3+ or 2+ saves).
Manticore vs T7/8 3+ = average 7 shots = 3.5 hits = 2.33 wounds = 3.11 unsaved damage
Manticore vs T7/8 2+ = average 7 shots = 3.5 hits = 2.33 wounds = 2.33 unsaved damage
Basilisk vs T7/8 3+ = average 4.47 shots = 2.24 hits = 1.49 wounds = 2.49 unsaved damage
Basilisk vs T7/8 2+ = average 4.47 shots = 2.24 hits = 1.49 wounds = 1.99 unsaved damage
Now obviously 1 manticore does more damage than 1 basilisk, but that's because it costs 32.4% more. The question is, is it worth it? For that we compare the difference in cost to the difference in damage.
3.11/2.49 = 1.25. The manticore is 25% more damaging to vehicles with 3+ armor, but costs 32.4% more. Not worth it.
2.33/1.99 = 1.17. The manticore is 17% more damaging to vehicles with 2+ armor, but costs 32.4% more. Not worth it.
Hell, we can even look at targetting non-ideal units like marine infantry. Basilisk still comes out on top.
Manticore vs T4 3+ = average 7 shots = 3.5 hits = 2.91 wounds = 1.94 unsaved damage (any rollover from D3 damage is usually wasted. it's the same between the 2 artillery anyway)
Manticore vs T4 2+ = average 7 shots = 3.5 hits = 2.91 wounds = 1.46 unsaved damage
Basilisk vs T4 3+ = average 4.47 shots = 2.24 hits = 1.87 wounds = 1.56 unsaved damage
Basilisk vs T4 2+ = average 4.47 shots = 2.24 hits = 1.87 wounds = 1.25 unsaved damage
1.94/1.56 = 1.24. Not worth it.
1.46/1.25 = 1.17. Not worth it.
In fact, I can't think of any target that I'd rather shoot with a manticore than an equivalent number of points of basilisks.
Audustum wrote: Really, the problem is with ignoring LoS. We need to toss that rule or make models pay much more for it.
It's actually not a problem at all. You do not see indirect fire lists dominating tournaments. They're pretty uncommon, really. I'm curious why you think they're a "problem"? How do you define a "problem." At what point does something need fixing?
What is a problem are -1 to hit armies. Tournaments are saturated with them.
2018/02/21 16:32:15
Subject: Re:What changes do you expect to see with the "Big FAQ" coming in March?
A) Move all bolter weapons an AP lower for marines. Standard becomes AP -1, intercessor one becomes -2, heavy bolter -2, etc. This will also help their vehicles out. But it won't break currently good units like assault cannon razorbacks.
Why only Marines??????
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
Audustum wrote: Manticores are competitive, what are you going on about? Due to the higher volume of shots they'll usually out damage a Basilisk too.
No. Do the math. Manticores cost 143 points. Basilisks cost 108. 143/108 = 1.324 as in a manticore costs 32.4% more than a basilisk. Now lets figure out the firepower vs what these things should be shooting (T7/8 things with 3+ or 2+ saves).
Manticore vs T7/8 3+ = average 7 shots = 3.5 hits = 2.33 wounds = 3.11 unsaved damage
Manticore vs T7/8 2+ = average 7 shots = 3.5 hits = 2.33 wounds = 2.33 unsaved damage
Basilisk vs T7/8 3+ = average 4.47 shots = 2.24 hits = 1.49 wounds = 2.49 unsaved damage
Basilisk vs T7/8 2+ = average 4.47 shots = 2.24 hits = 1.49 wounds = 1.99 unsaved damage
Now obviously 1 manticore does more damage than 1 basilisk, but that's because it costs 32.4% more. The question is, is it worth it? For that we compare the difference in cost to the difference in damage.
3.11/2.49 = 1.25. The manticore is 25% more damaging to vehicles with 3+ armor, but costs 32.4% more. Not worth it.
2.33/1.99 = 1.17. The manticore is 17% more damaging to vehicles with 2+ armor, but costs 32.4% more. Not worth it.
Hell, we can even look at targetting non-ideal units like marine infantry. Basilisk still comes out on top.
Manticore vs T4 3+ = average 7 shots = 3.5 hits = 2.91 wounds = 1.94 unsaved damage (any rollover from D3 damage is usually wasted. it's the same between the 2 artillery anyway)
Manticore vs T4 2+ = average 7 shots = 3.5 hits = 2.91 wounds = 1.46 unsaved damage
Basilisk vs T4 3+ = average 4.47 shots = 2.24 hits = 1.87 wounds = 1.56 unsaved damage
Basilisk vs T4 2+ = average 4.47 shots = 2.24 hits = 1.87 wounds = 1.25 unsaved damage
1.94/1.56 = 1.24. Not worth it.
1.46/1.25 = 1.17. Not worth it.
In fact, I can't think of any target that I'd rather shoot with a manticore than an equivalent number of points of basilisks.
I would note that nothing in here has an invulnerables save. You also didn't factor in common bonuses like the Catachan re-roll on number of shots which helps the Manticore substantially over the Basilisk.
Compare the number of wounds vs. Magnus, Dreadknight Grandmasters or Custodes Jetbikes and I believe the picture starts to look different.
You also didn't math any T7 targets with -1 to Hit, like the common flyer. The Manticore fares better here as well.
The models have differences besides their main gun to justify points as well. The Mant is T7. The Basilisk is T6. The Basilisk explodes, the Manticore does not.
This analysis also failed to account for the fact that the Manticore benefits more from re-roll auras, such as the MoO due to firing a larger volume of shots.
In short, there's a lot missing from your frame of reference.
Audustum wrote: Really, the problem is with ignoring LoS. We need to toss that rule or make models pay much more for it.
It's actually not a problem at all. You do not see indirect fire lists dominating tournaments. They're pretty uncommon, really. I'm curious why you think they're a "problem"? How do you define a "problem." At what point does something need fixing?
What is a problem are -1 to hit armies. Tournaments are saturated with them.
There can be more than one problem. The obvious solution, however, is to give MORE units Dark Reapers like abilities so TAC can make an answer to Hit penalties.
Indirect fire lists are not the top dominant at the moment, but that wasn't my statement. My statement was that they will always have a place, and they will. The problem with them arises from their taking all counterplay away in a strategy game. You can't run from them, you can't hide from them, you can't shoot them back and you have no choice but to sit there and take their punishment as you plow through chaff. That's bad design. Simply requiring LoS on them solves the issue or increase the cost associated with having the power to shoot from out of LoS.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/02/21 17:10:23
2018/02/21 17:13:21
Subject: What changes do you expect to see with the "Big FAQ" coming in March?
The fluff is like ketchup and mustard on a burger. Yes it's desirable, yes it makes things better, but no it doesn't fundamentally change what you're eating and no you shouldn't just drown the whole meal in it.
2018/02/21 17:27:26
Subject: What changes do you expect to see with the "Big FAQ" coming in March?
p5freak wrote: Genestealers need to be nerfed. Moving and advancing 20 models 16-20" across the battlefield (kraken 3D6 for advancing, using the highest roll, doubling it with 1CP) and being able to charge with 3-4 attacks, and acid maws (AP-3 for free), for 12 pts. a model is a big nono.
What gets me is that, last I heard, Tyranid Genestealers are Troops and cheaper than Genestealer Genestealers for effectively the same model, ability-wise.