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.

Yeah the fly assault nerf was the most harmful and dumbest way of addressing what they were trying to fix. Especially with them not backing down on the horrific "can't assault the marine on the barrel because he has a wide stance on his base, no wobbly model syndrome" position they took earlier this year.

 Red Corsair wrote:
In classic fashion, rather then simply adjust the cost of blood angel captains, they decide to use a broad stroke and hit everything with similar movement. When they first started FAQ'ing things this edition I gave them some wiggle room for making that error, but at this point it is pretty embarrassing for them. If you don't like the way a unit you create is being exploited then target that unit, what was the point in everything having unique bespoke rules all on their own sheet if your still patching the problems with a shotgun approach?

the problem is with ONE specific build of the Blood Angels Captain. A price change nerfs the other, completely non-problematic builds of the Blood Angels Captain.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
In classic fashion, rather then simply adjust the cost of blood angel captains, they decide to use a broad stroke and hit everything with similar movement. When they first started FAQ'ing things this edition I gave them some wiggle room for making that error, but at this point it is pretty embarrassing for them. If you don't like the way a unit you create is being exploited then target that unit, what was the point in everything having unique bespoke rules all on their own sheet if your still patching the problems with a shotgun approach?

the problem is with ONE specific build of the Blood Angels Captain. A price change nerfs the other, completely non-problematic builds of the Blood Angels Captain.

Right because theres really any of those around lol.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
the problem is with ONE specific build of the Blood Angels Captain. A price change nerfs the other, completely non-problematic builds of the Blood Angels Captain.

Right because theres really any of those around lol.

Perhaps if they fixed the problem at the source, then you WOULD see other captains around? I'm not sure if the issue could be put down to the stratagem, the wargear or what, but changing the way all FLY units work to get at one specifically unbalanced variety of a BA captain does seem to be a bit of an overstep?

Right, that's literally what I said and he decided to get hung up on semantics.

For the record I could care less how they balance each problem. Points, nerf the relics etc.

 Red Corsair wrote:
In classic fashion, rather then simply adjust the cost of blood angel captains, they decide to use a broad stroke and hit everything with similar movement. When they first started FAQ'ing things this edition I gave them some wiggle room for making that error, but at this point it is pretty embarrassing for them. If you don't like the way a unit you create is being exploited then target that unit, what was the point in everything having unique bespoke rules all on their own sheet if your still patching the problems with a shotgun approach?

GW has bespoke rules, but they're still using the same old pendulum for balance changes.

They need bespoke pendulums.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
In classic fashion, rather then simply adjust the cost of blood angel captains, they decide to use a broad stroke and hit everything with similar movement. When they first started FAQ'ing things this edition I gave them some wiggle room for making that error, but at this point it is pretty embarrassing for them. If you don't like the way a unit you create is being exploited then target that unit, what was the point in everything having unique bespoke rules all on their own sheet if your still patching the problems with a shotgun approach?

the problem is with ONE specific build of the Blood Angels Captain. A price change nerfs the other, completely non-problematic builds of the Blood Angels Captain.

If the fly of that captain is problem howabout up the price of the jump pack and thunder hammer of that captain?

tneva82 wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
In classic fashion, rather then simply adjust the cost of blood angel captains, they decide to use a broad stroke and hit everything with similar movement. When they first started FAQ'ing things this edition I gave them some wiggle room for making that error, but at this point it is pretty embarrassing for them. If you don't like the way a unit you create is being exploited then target that unit, what was the point in everything having unique bespoke rules all on their own sheet if your still patching the problems with a shotgun approach?

the problem is with ONE specific build of the Blood Angels Captain. A price change nerfs the other, completely non-problematic builds of the Blood Angels Captain.

If the fly of that captain is problem howabout up the price of the jump pack and thunder hammer of that captain?

Here is something better. Give Relics prices again. They should never have been free in the first place. It clearly hasn't worked well since all relics are not created equal.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
In classic fashion, rather then simply adjust the cost of blood angel captains, they decide to use a broad stroke and hit everything with similar movement. When they first started FAQ'ing things this edition I gave them some wiggle room for making that error, but at this point it is pretty embarrassing for them. If you don't like the way a unit you create is being exploited then target that unit, what was the point in everything having unique bespoke rules all on their own sheet if your still patching the problems with a shotgun approach?

the problem is with ONE specific build of the Blood Angels Captain. A price change nerfs the other, completely non-problematic builds of the Blood Angels Captain.

If the fly of that captain is problem howabout up the price of the jump pack and thunder hammer of that captain?

Here is something better. Give Relics prices again. They should never have been free in the first place. It clearly hasn't worked well since all relics are not created equal.

That too though I'm not sure how big part of slamquinus is really relics and how much of it is fly, 3++, thunderhammer and strategems allowing DS(and even T1 if so want)+charge 3d6" past screens.

But yeah relics and warlord traits should have cost points. Ditto for chapter traits etc as they aren't equal to each other anyway and top of that don't affect each units equally but ah well. All of those aren't changing any time soon.

 ProtoClone wrote:
What's everyone's take on the changes to flipbelt?

Personally I would have left them in the special category like Reivers and GK Interceptors as still getting all the goodness. The designers thought otherwise, to the extent that Reivers and GK needed the help more than almost anything in the game they were correct but I do not think harlequins really needed to take the hit.

Oh boy. Some of those FB comments... They nerfed my Broken combo! Waaah!!

I had to stop reading. I'm dizzy from all the eye rolls.

Havs no fear, ladies and gentlemen, the Warhammer (player) Community is working diligently on the new Fall broken meta changer, ready to ruin your table top games, internationally, for half a year at a time.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
All right, did Ogryn really need a nerf? Now they need a points slashing.

My understanding is that it's not really a nerf but it nerfs something that soup was doing?

Slabshields grant +2 to your save rolls. People were using ways to grant Ogryn Bodyguards and Bullgryn Invulnerable Saves(I think one of the Knights has a stratagem for that?) and then stacking it with "Take Cover!", the Psyker power in the Guard book, and Slabshields' text...at least that's the impression I've been given.

Wasn't a soup thing, it was a Ogryn bodyguard with a slabshield and the Deathmask of Ollanius to get a 4+ inv save, with +2 to the role (plus regain a wound each turn).
In at least one of the games they showed from Nova had an invulnerable Ogryn bodyguard running around on his own as a tarpit unit.

Not a massive nerf at all, just that combo on the bodyguard and the ogryns just so the rule is consistent across the two units.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Oh boy. Some of those FB comments... They nerfed my Broken combo! Waaah!!

I had to stop reading. I'm dizzy from all the eye rolls.

Havs no fear, ladies and gentlemen, the Warhammer (player) Community is working diligently on the new Fall broken meta changer, ready to ruin your table top games, internationally, for half a year at a time.

Don't blame players for breaking the game balance. Fault lies 100% on GW fair and square. GW holds 100% responsibility, players 0%.

tneva82 wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Oh boy. Some of those FB comments... They nerfed my Broken combo! Waaah!!

I had to stop reading. I'm dizzy from all the eye rolls.

Havs no fear, ladies and gentlemen, the Warhammer (player) Community is working diligently on the new Fall broken meta changer, ready to ruin your table top games, internationally, for half a year at a time.

Don't blame players for breaking the game balance. Fault lies 100% on GW fair and square. GW holds 100% responsibility, players 0%.

If a game mostly runs fine, then the people breaking it are at fault. Not saying that 8th is great, but it does hold better in decent metas than in horrible ones.

It's fault of GW for breaking it with their bad rules and worse playtesting.

GW is the one creating rules. THEY are fault regardless of how much white knights might try to excuse them.

GW's official stance on game balance is:

"Our game has a large social contract attached to it. When you go into a game, you talk with your opponent about the kind of game you want to play. If you can't agree on the kind of game you want to play, then don't play with that person."

Taking this into account, GW is under no obligation to create a balanced game. Their motivation is to create a game that also happens to sell models. It's 100% the fault of the players to expect a perfectly balanced game from a company that's making a game to sell models.

If you don't agree with that, that's fine. Just keep in mind that you're 100% in control of the games you play. You don't have to play against that WAAC gamer that keeps frequenting your store to test out his Eldar soup lists. You might have more fun playing the other guy that just wants to make his Iron Hands army work in a casual setting.

If you go to a tournament, it's 100% on you to bring the most cheesy, broken, spammy garbage you can put together and play, and if you don't like those sorts of games, why are you playing them?

Seems like some people just want to whine about how their army got nerfed.
Big Deal.

In video games, MMOs and such, when players find an exploit, they use it. Until the Devs fix it.
That's basically what GW did here with the Fly rule. They fixed an exploit.
"Boohoo, now my army is trash"
Heard it last FAQ.
How about "Adapt and overcome"?
Nope.....
"Just gonna wait til someone else puts up the next Weblist that I'm gonna copy."

“WE WANT BALANCE!”

<GW does some balancing>

“NO NOT LIKE THAT! Balance the other armies not mine!”



Love it.

From my understanding, when concerned with Flip Belts, it took away some of the appeal of Harlequins, their mobility. As someone who wants to play them, that was a selling point on getting them. So yeah, I am a little bummed at the nerf we received. Good thing I only really invested in them as a Kill Team.

 helgrenze wrote:
Seems like some people just want to whine about how their army got nerfed.
Big Deal.

In video games, MMOs and such, when players find an exploit, they use it. Until the Devs fix it.
That's basically what GW did here with the Fly rule. They fixed an exploit.
"Boohoo, now my army is trash"
Heard it last FAQ.
How about "Adapt and overcome"?
Nope.....
"Just gonna wait til someone else puts up the next Weblist that I'm gonna copy."

How on Earth was charging over screens an exploit?

Why should a few guardmen on the ground stop a daemon prince flying over their heads?

 OnWingsOfFire wrote:

 helgrenze wrote:
Seems like some people just want to whine about how their army got nerfed.
Big Deal.

In video games, MMOs and such, when players find an exploit, they use it. Until the Devs fix it.
That's basically what GW did here with the Fly rule. They fixed an exploit.
"Boohoo, now my army is trash"
Heard it last FAQ.
How about "Adapt and overcome"?
Nope.....
"Just gonna wait til someone else puts up the next Weblist that I'm gonna copy."

How on Earth was charging over screens an exploit?

Why should a few guardmen on the ground stop a daemon prince flying over their heads?

Hmm, Can the jumped over unit fire Overwatch? Since THEY are not being charged, the BRB says no.
It's an exploit. The Jumping unit avoids what could be a catastrophic encounter to gain an advantage. It's an exploit due to there being an unclear rule concerning the Fly mechanic. That's what they did, clarified the Fly rule, eliminating the exploit.

 helgrenze wrote:

 OnWingsOfFire wrote:

 helgrenze wrote:
Seems like some people just want to whine about how their army got nerfed.
Big Deal.

In video games, MMOs and such, when players find an exploit, they use it. Until the Devs fix it.
That's basically what GW did here with the Fly rule. They fixed an exploit.
"Boohoo, now my army is trash"
Heard it last FAQ.
How about "Adapt and overcome"?
Nope.....
"Just gonna wait til someone else puts up the next Weblist that I'm gonna copy."

How on Earth was charging over screens an exploit?

Why should a few guardmen on the ground stop a daemon prince flying over their heads?

Hmm, Can the jumped over unit fire Overwatch? Since THEY are not being charged, the BRB says no.
It's an exploit. The Jumping unit avoids what could be a catastrophic encounter to gain an advantage. It's an exploit due to there being an unclear rule concerning the Fly mechanic. That's what they did, clarified the Fly rule, eliminating the exploit.

Just because you say 'since I can't fire overwatch it's an exploit' doesn't make it so. There was no exploit, the unit being jumped is not being charged and has no reason to think that it could fire overwatch.

You're just happy you got a buff.

 OnWingsOfFire wrote:
You're just happy you got a buff.

What Buff? I run 2 units with Fly, an Assault Squad with a LT, and a Vanguard Vet Squad with a Chaplain. I have never used the "Jump over units on a charge" exploit because I never needed to.

You are just annoyed that you can't do that anymore because they clarified the Fly rule.
Would you rather they changed the Overwatch Rule to allow the overflown unit to shoot?

 helgrenze wrote:

 OnWingsOfFire wrote:
You're just happy you got a buff.

What Buff? I run 2 units with Fly, an Assault Squad with a LT, and a Vanguard Vet Squad with a Chaplain. I have never used the "Jump over units on a charge" exploit because I never needed to.

You are just annoyed that you can't do that anymore because they clarified the Fly rule.
Would you rather they changed the Overwatch Rule to allow the overflown unit to shoot?

I'm gonna go ahead and stop you right there. 'Exploit' doesn't mean 'rule I don't like'. Charging over top of things in the charge phase was a feature, not a bug. It was the 0" charges that were the problem. GW's typical 'We need to change the bathwater, so screw the baby' style of rules writing is why suddenly daemonprinces forget they have wings for 2 full phases of the game now.

I just want to say....do we really want to just see big guns/knights surrounded by circles of cheap troops? Is that what this game is? Because it looks and plays terrible if so. Allowing units to fly over screens is not a gimmick, it was part of the rules. The battlefield is very dynamic, it should be, you have jet fighters, guys with jump packs, flying bikes, monsters with wings, and dancing acrobats.. You should set up units to countercharge, or put bigger gaps in screens etc. Why is it OK to nerf a rule just so you can sit there and point and click shoot with no repercussions? Dull and boring.
My biggest pet peeve with 8th is the need to screen. It just looks terrible on the tabletop and sucks for armies that don't have cheap throw away troops. At least by removing Turn 1 deepstrike it is mitigated for alpha strikes, but with the nerf to fly, screens will be back in spades as it now has become cake to let the guns sit and shoot without any counter threat.

 bullyboy wrote:
At least by removing Turn 1 deepstrike it is mitigated for alpha strikes, but with the nerf to fly, screens will be back in spades as it now has become cake to let the guns sit and shoot without any counter threat.

All according to Reece's plan...

 bullyboy wrote:
Allowing units to fly over screens is not a gimmick, it was part of the rules.

Or it's an oversight they just corrected.

You don't know the intent of the rules writers.