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.

Drop pods are the faq ruling are better than the gak units that go inside.

@andy
Strictly speaking, the whole Open, Narrative, Matched Play deal was designed to separate people into games they like. GW should just throw some crippling restrictions on matched play, while reminding everyone that narrative play does also exist so that newbies aren't bamboozled into thinking matched play is the only legit way to play.

Am I the only one OK with the prevalence of so many troops on the battlefield now?

It was something sorely missing from 7th. If someone had said then that IG infantry, cultists, Kabalite Warriors etc we’re going to be a great choice next edition we would have all been thrilled.

Troops should be a 100% auto pick in any list and this edition widely does that. The only thing left to do is fix a few of the subpar troops like Tac’s and CSM squads and we’re golden.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dandelion wrote:
@andy
Strictly speaking, the whole Open, Narrative, Matched Play deal was designed to separate people into games they like. GW should just throw some crippling restrictions on matched play, while reminding everyone that narrative play does also exist so that newbies aren't bamboozled into thinking matched play is the only legit way to play.

It might be the age group I’m at but trying to ask anyone for a game that isn’t matched play you’ll be laughed at and assumed you’re trying to crack out some broken cheese list.

GW had the right idea with organised play rules. That’s where they need to go nuts with hard restrictions and continuous rules updates. The US tournament scene needs to be insulated from the rest of the hobby, it’s leaking is toxic to the rest of us

 SHUPPET wrote:


My opinions only. Me and my group won’t be affected at all really
This is kind of the problem. The rules are aimed at fixing the competitive scene. They don't. From the point of a casual player you feel unaffected. That isn't exactly a great outcome that makes the patch worthwhile for anybody..

I think it depends on the army. Someone can be casual as it gets, but if GW suddenly decides to nerf their army, because some other unit in another codex is too good in top tournaments, there is nothing they can do. It is not like you can suddenly invent your own rules and make opponents play them.

The 3 biggest changes or nerfs to GK, came from GW dealing with a with some other stuff. And GK players can do nothing about it. It is probablly the same with other armies. We had a BA player, as in he used more the cpt with scouts, and after the deep strike nerfs he just quit, and from peoplle told about him, he played since 5th ed.

So while I can imagine that tournament players are happy about the nerfs to few BA units,but people that play them at stores as actual armies and have to play agains eldar or IG are less happy.

It might be the age group I’m at but trying to ask anyone for a game that isn’t matched play you’ll be laughed at and assumed you’re trying to crack out some broken cheese list.

To play narrative you need three things a lot of time and an opponent you can trust. Now those are rare, but I can imagine both are achivable in some places around the world. The third thing is a huge model collection, and that is hurdle most players can't cross. You can't play a narrative game when all you have is 2000pts of one army.

glados wrote:

It might be the age group I’m at but trying to ask anyone for a game that isn’t matched play you’ll be laughed at and assumed you’re trying to crack out some broken cheese list.

People are so weird...

As for your second point about organized play: people have already adopted the organized play rules into their regular matched play games so I'd just roll them into the same thing. Hopefully the more matched play gets restricted, the more people will realize it's not the core of warhammer, and that Narrative actually is. I know I'm not going to bother with matched play anymore, it has my least favorite rules in it now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:

To play narrative you need three things a lot of time and an opponent you can trust. Now those are rare, but I can imagine both are achivable in some places around the world. The third thing is a huge model collection, and that is hurdle most players can't cross. You can't play a narrative game when all you have is 2000pts of one army.

You can play narrative however you like. It's just matched play with fewer restrictions and PL instead of points, you don't need 2000 pts of anything to play. And most matched play restrictions weren't even in the original rules.

Just realized that the gulf between the local narrative scene and the tournament scene has widened. The narrative players are universally ignoring the errata on Fly while the tournament players are celebrating it.

I guess we're not even playing the same game anymore.

Seriously, why couldn't that have been a matched play only rule?

The only people celebrating the Fly change were people who are upset their screens weren't 100% effective 100% of the time. Now Shooting armies are even more brain dead, and how dare their opponent not be forced to run into their guns if they're not playing one of the chosen few.

glados wrote:
Am I the only one OK with the prevalence of so many troops on the battlefield now?

It was something sorely missing from 7th. If someone had said then that IG infantry, cultists, Kabalite Warriors etc we’re going to be a great choice next edition we would have all been thrilled.

Troops should be a 100% auto pick in any list and this edition widely does that. The only thing left to do is fix a few of the subpar troops like Tac’s and CSM squads and we’re golden.

I agree with this, up to a point.

Troops choices should be more common, and they should be a worthwhile backbone to your army.

However, troops choices should -not- be significantly more powerful than all of your elite options.

This came to my attention recently in a Bloodletters vs Bloodcrushers comparison. Bloodletters ended up being something like 5x more powerful and 7x tougher point for point than taking Bloodcrushers.

Which makes it "whats the point in taking any elites, if the troops are so much better for the points?"

There are a few exceptions, mostly with units that perform something that the troops options simply can't do, like have toughness 8.

(For a more 'imperial' viewpoint, as I know everything ends up coming back to those filthy corpse lovers, it's the difference between say... Conscripts, and Terminators. Who would bring terminators, when conscripts do everything better for a fraction of the cost.)

My takeaways on the whole thing:
General stuff:
FLY nerf: Hoo boy, this one was huge. Lots of units just lost a lot of their usefulness. Shining Spears, Daemon Princes, Vertus Praetors, and many other units will be feeling this one for sure. Even stuff that already isn't hitting top tables took this one in the butt (looking at you Assault Marines, Sanguinary Guard, Raptors. Screens are going to be more prevalent now that you don't have to worry about enemy flying models just jumping over them.
Turn 2 Reserves: This is not as big a deal as it seems, unless you are Drukhari (bringing in 3 Ravagers from your board edge on your first turn) or Space Wolves (CotW on Long Fangs to hide them turn 1). Other armies probably have similar tricks that I'm not familiar with. Most players weren't bringing in their reserves until turn 2 anyway due to the previous restriction of having to bring them in in your own deployment zone.
CP Regen nerf: Imperial Soup just took a massive hit, while many other armies won't notice that much. This is a really good change, as it forces players to actually have to make decisions on whether to pop certain strats. There were too many WL traits and relics that were auto-includes (such as Kurov's Aquila) that are now no longer the best, so maybe we'll see a little more variety now.
Prepared Positions: Going second vs. a shooty army is no longer the death sentence it used to be. As has been noted many times in this thread and others however, some armies (Daemons, Knights, etc.) gain no benefit from it at all unfortunately.
Faction specific:
Space Marines: Raven Guard, the second best thing in the book after Guilliman, just took one in the nuts thanks to the nerf to their infiltrate strat. As if this book needed nerfs... The CP thing hurt them as well, but that mainly only affects the Guilliman lists. It was also clarified that an Apothecary cannot resurrect an Armorium Cherub.
Grey Knights: Nothing in this FAQ hurts them specifically, but they are still crap. Hopefully Chapter Approved helps them out some.
Dark Angels: Same change to the Cherub, but otherwise they didn't get hit too bad.
Blood Angels: They are going to be feeling this one. On Wings of Fire went up to 2CP, so between the CP regen change, the FLY changes, and this, Smash Captains are not nearly as nasty as they were. They are still okay, as at least on one turn they'll hit like trucks, but they are easier to screen out now.
Deathwatch: Nothing too dire here. Slight clarification on the anti-Tau strat, but honestly Deathwatch got through pretty well. Prepared Positions will really help them survive with their low model count, should they have to go second.
Space Wolves: Lots of changes, including some nerfs. Chooser of the Slain is now restricted to Space Wolves units, and FW Chaplain Dreads can no longer take the Armor of Russ. Also, no more turn 1 outflanking with Long Fangs to protect them (although you could wait until turn 2 to bring them in if you don't mind not having the firepower turn 1). Most of the other stuff is clarifications or fixing typos and stuff.
Ad Mech: Stygies VIII got hit just like RG and AL did, but otherwise Ad Mech are doing okay, or at least not any worse than they already were.
Astra Militarum: The CP changes hurt them, but mostly just the soup builds. Ogryns and Bullgryns don't get 2++ saves anymore due to the changes to Slab Shields, so we probably won't see many of those anymore.
Imperial Knights: The changes to CP regen indirectly hurt Knights as many of them took the Loyal 32 just for CP farming. Between this, the addition of the Prepared Positions strat, and the increase in CP costs of some much-abused stratagems, Knights got hit pretty hard. They are still okay, though, just not as busted in a soup list.
Adeptus Custodes: The FLY nerf hurts the jetbikes, but otherwise they didn't take too bad of a hit. They are in a pretty good place right now.
Chaos Space Marines: Alpha Legion infiltration took the same nerf as Raven Guard did. Thanks to Warptime it won't hurt as much, but no more putting 80+ cultists in your opponent's face turn 1. Several units also got hit hard by the FLY keyword changes, notably Daemon Princes, Heldrakes, Raptors, and Warp Talons.
Death Guard: Morty really doesn't like the FLY nerf. Otherwise, DG didn't fare too badly. Prepared Positions is pretty nice on their already resilient units.
Thousand Sons: Nothing was directly done to them, but Magnus and Princes were affected by the FLY nerf.
Chaos Daemons: These guys got beat over the head very badly. Warp Surge was the only thing keeping Bloodthirsters alive even as gimmick units, and now they can't get a 3++, which they need if they want to live. Even the problem child that the change was aimed at (Lord of Change with The Impossible Robe) was already not a top tier unit. The FLY nerf hurts a lot of stuff, too, and Daemons get nothing from the Prepared Positions strat since they rely on invulnerable saves. It is not a good time to be a Daemons player right now.
Renegade Knights: It was confirmed that they can summon Daemons if the Renegade Knight in question is a Character, but otherwise they are largely unaffected.
Craftworlds: The main thing that affects them is the FLY nerf, which makes Shining Spears less deadly. Of course, the soup lists that they often appear in got hit by other things.
Drukhari: The big change is the fact that Agents of Vect now costs a whopping 4CP, and it can only be used if there are KotBH units alive on the battlefield. The Reserves changes mean that Ravagers can't just pop up in your DZ turn 1 now, they must either wait until turn 2 or start on the battlefield. The CP regen nerf means that other traits besides Labyrinthine Cunning might be worth a look now (don't know if that's true as I don't own the book).
Harlequins: Flip Belts got hit with the same nerf as FLY units; they only work in the Movement phase. Otherwise, nothing specifically changes them. They lost a fair bit of mojo due to the fact that all of their units either have a Flip Belt or can FLY, but are still solid IMO.
Ynnari: Most of what was included for them was clarification about Warlord Traits, Relics, and Stratagems that are available to them. Otherwise, the same changes to the other Aeldari armies affect them. I think they are still VERY solid because Soulburst is such a powerful mechanic (and the FLY change doesn't affect Soulburst movement since it says "as if it is the Movement phase").
Tyranids: Yet another army that will feel the FLY nerf, as Flyrants now can't charge over screens. I think we'll see more Dakka Flyrants now, but otherwise the army will be unaffected.
Genestealer Cults: I feel really bad for GSC players right now. Cult Ambush no longer ignores the Reserves rules, so there goes their most useful mechanic. Hopefully GW delivers on their promise to fix them with the codex...
Orks: Overall I think Orks got better, as the only unit that really cares about the FLY nerf is Stormboyz, and they are still pretty good for their cost. The Prepared Positions strat will really help them survive going second, as it will cut their casualties from small arms in half. They are of course also expecting a codex soon...
Necrons: Canoptek Wraiths got hit with the same changes as FLY units and Harlequin Flip Belts. Otherwise I think they are about the same, which is to say pretty bad. Hopefully CA fixes their overcosted and underpowered units.
T'au Empire: Looks like it was clarified that Savior Protocols does not protect against Psychic attacks, as they are not caused by a ranged or melee weapon. Otherwise the only nerf that really hurts Tau is the CP change, meaning the Puretide chip is no longer a must take item. I think they are still very good.

Overall I think the FAQ will help the game. CP regeneration was getting out of control, at least for Imperial armies, and some of the problem stratagems got nerfed as well. It's great to see GW taking an interest in the state of the game, and adjusting things as necessary to keep things balanced. They aren't perfect, and some armies really need some love (looking at you Grey Knights), but at least they are trying, which is more than they used to do.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
The only people celebrating the Fly change were people who are upset their screens weren't 100% effective 100% of the time. Now Shooting armies are even more brain dead, and how dare their opponent not be forced to run into their guns if they're not playing one of the chosen few.

That's a bit generalist. I will agree that shooting did get some teeth back, but we're not moving back into 5-7th's shooting only thing just yet. 8th still pushes you to be doing damage basically every phase to be effective (because in a game were everything dies fast the best defense is a strong offense to weaken the opponent's offense). Flying based melee units took a hit, but honestly there were some legit issues with those units that had to be addressed (0+" charges from atop buildings for example) and while that means you'll need to take two turns to charge something behind a screen which makes things like the Smashcaptain less BS in terms of being on the table.

The units who got hit by this who didn't deserve it were units that very few people were using and need a massive overhaul even before the Fly change happened. Or does someone want to tell me that without changing Fly that Assault Marines and the +1 versions of Assault Marines were really that good without sinking massive amounts of points into them (like DCA with a crap ton of good weapons mixed into a blob).

Lemondish wrote:
Also, do you really want your local scene to force that due that likes Knights to bring a full Knight list? That'd be a nightmare for both you and them.

And where's the problem with that? Would be much more reasonable army to face than present


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
Reading the comments about soup, when soup is bad is when it’s done to only gain advantage from the rules. When it is down for thematic reasons and not to cherry pick the best bits then it works fine. Again its the players not the rules. And I know “but if it’s in the rules then people will do it!”, and it’s true. But don’t encourage them by given them trophies and prizes.

No issue is with rules or even more clearly with authors of said rules. They are to blame

glados wrote:
Am I the only one OK with the prevalence of so many troops on the battlefield now?

It was something sorely missing from 7th. If someone had said then that IG infantry, cultists, Kabalite Warriors etc we’re going to be a great choice next edition we would have all been thrilled.

Troops should be a 100% auto pick in any list and this edition widely does that. The only thing left to do is fix a few of the subpar troops like Tac’s and CSM squads and we’re golden.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dandelion wrote:
@andy
Strictly speaking, the whole Open, Narrative, Matched Play deal was designed to separate people into games they like. GW should just throw some crippling restrictions on matched play, while reminding everyone that narrative play does also exist so that newbies aren't bamboozled into thinking matched play is the only legit way to play.

It might be the age group I’m at but trying to ask anyone for a game that isn’t matched play you’ll be laughed at and assumed you’re trying to crack out some broken cheese list.

GW had the right idea with organised play rules. That’s where they need to go nuts with hard restrictions and continuous rules updates. The US tournament scene needs to be insulated from the rest of the hobby, it’s leaking is toxic to the rest of us

No one has a problem with the troops they have to bring - only if the troops they are forced to bring are complete crap. It all comes down to points. Some troops are much better than others plus some are much cheaper than others. Cheaper troops = more CP - that is what people have a problem with.

If the main issue with FLY was the 0 inch charges (which again, appeared to only be with WAAC tourney players never saw that nor played it like that in my gaming community) Then all GW had to do was rewrite the rule in a way where that was no longer possible.

Just change it so that you have to account for vertical distance, problem solved. Instead like the fools they are they completely over-correct on this issue where they didn't go nearly far enough for the CP IG+knights issue.

They didn't want capt smash charging over screens. They knew exactly what they were going after.

Martel732 wrote:
They didn't want capt smash charging over screens. They knew exactly what they were going after.

According to Frontline Gaming's podcast it's possible that the issue came out of how hard it is to screen out a single model basically making it take away from player agency.

I'm not taking sides on this, but it's possible that they did go after the Smash Captain and other lone models with similar abilities on purpose. If that's the case it makes sense why Interceptors and Reivers didn't get touched: their ability to make those kind of short charges from above (or below) only work in full units and not lone models.

I agree that it was obnoxious. I wish BA had been designed with effective units, not just effective characters.

Martel732 wrote:
I agree that it was obnoxious. I wish BA had been designed with effective units, not just effective characters.

BA are a Marine army with a bit more punch in melee, and we all know how well Marine armies in general are doing. Relics can at least make the characters good, but we didn't see a lot to make the units good since the issue goes back to the Marines themselves.

Here's to hoping the claims that CA has something to fix Marines are true I guess.

EldarExarch wrote:
If the main issue with FLY was the 0 inch charges (which again, appeared to only be with WAAC tourney players never saw that nor played it like that in my gaming community) Then all GW had to do was rewrite the rule in a way where that was no longer possible.

Just change it so that you have to account for vertical distance, problem solved. Instead like the fools they are they completely over-correct on this issue where they didn't go nearly far enough for the CP IG+knights issue.

That became very common once gw specifically said that's how it works

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I agree that it was obnoxious. I wish BA had been designed with effective units, not just effective characters.

BA are a Marine army with a bit more punch in melee, and we all know how well Marine armies in general are doing. Relics can at least make the characters good, but we didn't see a lot to make the units good since the issue goes back to the Marines themselves.

Here's to hoping the claims that CA has something to fix Marines are true I guess.

Why would GW actively let a large portion of their player base stew for 'fixes' for over a year?
Is Games Workshop the same corporation that we almost fell in love with time last year? Or is this some kind of consumer stockholm syndrome.

We wont be seeing anything for this CA when it comes to major fixes, that'll be in the next codex they can sell off. This CA we'll be seeing some rules for T3 Marines and minimal actual game adjustments.

Look on the bright side, Marines will once again be the best codex as soon as their own book of power creep comes around early next year.

 Eonfuzz wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I agree that it was obnoxious. I wish BA had been designed with effective units, not just effective characters.

BA are a Marine army with a bit more punch in melee, and we all know how well Marine armies in general are doing. Relics can at least make the characters good, but we didn't see a lot to make the units good since the issue goes back to the Marines themselves.

Here's to hoping the claims that CA has something to fix Marines are true I guess.

Why would GW actively let a large portion of their player base stew for 'fixes' for over a year?
Is Games Workshop the same corporation that we almost fell in love with time last year? Or is this some kind of consumer stockholm syndrome.

We wont be seeing anything for this CA when it comes to major fixes, that'll be in the next codex they can sell off. This CA we'll be seeing some rules for T3 Marines and minimal actual game adjustments.

Look on the bright side, Marines will once again be the best codex as soon as their own book of power creep comes around early next year.

Large rule changes would only come in CA or a new codex. If they're planning on touching up all the Marine armies at the same time CA is the better way to do it.

That said, it could have been partially because of a combination of identifying why Marines aren't working in 8th, playtesting possible changes and then cementing those changes.

Having said that, I don't know if anything really is coming, it's just something I've seen bandied about enough to make me curious on what is going to happen in CA.

Niiru wrote:

glados wrote:
Am I the only one OK with the prevalence of so many troops on the battlefield now?

It was something sorely missing from 7th. If someone had said then that IG infantry, cultists, Kabalite Warriors etc we’re going to be a great choice next edition we would have all been thrilled.

Troops should be a 100% auto pick in any list and this edition widely does that. The only thing left to do is fix a few of the subpar troops like Tac’s and CSM squads and we’re golden.

I agree with this, up to a point.

Troops choices should be more common, and they should be a worthwhile backbone to your army.

However, troops choices should -not- be significantly more powerful than all of your elite options.

This came to my attention recently in a Bloodletters vs Bloodcrushers comparison. Bloodletters ended up being something like 5x more powerful and 7x tougher point for point than taking Bloodcrushers.

Which makes it "whats the point in taking any elites, if the troops are so much better for the points?"

There are a few exceptions, mostly with units that perform something that the troops options simply can't do, like have toughness 8.

(For a more 'imperial' viewpoint, as I know everything ends up coming back to those filthy corpse lovers, it's the difference between say... Conscripts, and Terminators. Who would bring terminators, when conscripts do everything better for a fraction of the cost.)

Idk where the balance should fall on this though...
Taking an example from my own army, SoB; we can pay 2 ppm on top of a the cost of a BSS to take a Celestian Squad with +1WS, +1A, +1ld and a special rule that no one is convinced by on each model.
That's as perfect a balance as we're going to get, but players are going to see it as overpowered in Soup or not worthwhile.
Having said that, there's a need to fix a lot of choices to get them that balanced for casual play.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Having said that, I don't know if anything really is coming, it's just something I've seen bandied about enough to make me curious on what is going to happen in CA.

Something, not nearly enough, game will still be unbalanced. Some FW resin will go from barely playable to uber junk.

GK players were dead convinced CA2017 helps them, it didn't. They expected spring FAQ to help them, it didn't. They expected fall faq help them, didn't even touch them. Never put up too much hopes of changes in faq/ca.

tneva82 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Having said that, I don't know if anything really is coming, it's just something I've seen bandied about enough to make me curious on what is going to happen in CA.

Something, not nearly enough, game will still be unbalanced. Some FW resin will go from barely playable to uber junk.

GK players were dead convinced CA2017 helps them, it didn't. They expected spring FAQ to help them, it didn't. They expected fall faq help them, didn't even touch them. Never put up too much hopes of changes in faq/ca.

Not to mention there's a race that is totally unplayable because of the last FAQ (Inquisition).
GW has shown time and time again that if they don't have to support something - they wont.

glados wrote:
Am I the only one OK with the prevalence of so many troops on the battlefield now?

It was something sorely missing from 7th. If someone had said then that IG infantry, cultists, Kabalite Warriors etc we’re going to be a great choice next edition we would have all been thrilled.

Troops should be a 100% auto pick in any list and this edition widely does that. The only thing left to do is fix a few of the subpar troops like Tac’s and CSM squads and we’re golden.

I couldn't disagree with this more. Not all Troops are equal and many people, myself included, don't like to always have Troops as an army choice because of theme. Solo Deathwing, Ravenwing or Iyanden spirit hosts shouldn't have to take a Troops slot when it doesn't fit the fluff. My Ravenwing army is lucky to get 5 CPs and suffers from being an Elite force in a game dominated by cheap hordes.

Unless GW wants to bring back specific formations that reward certain builds with more CPs or call certain units "Troops" in certain armies (bikers in Ravenwing for example), then I don't see this pattern shifting.

 bullyboy wrote:

glados wrote:
Am I the only one OK with the prevalence of so many troops on the battlefield now?

It was something sorely missing from 7th. If someone had said then that IG infantry, cultists, Kabalite Warriors etc we’re going to be a great choice next edition we would have all been thrilled.

Troops should be a 100% auto pick in any list and this edition widely does that. The only thing left to do is fix a few of the subpar troops like Tac’s and CSM squads and we’re golden.

...in a game dominated by cheap hordes.

Why do people say this? The game is dominated now by Knights (Which is the complete opposite of hordes).

Yeah, the game hasn't been dominated by hordes since... conscripts? Which was what, like, a year ago?

95% of the time every tourney lists takes the bare minimum amount of troops and loads up on as many smash captains/knights/jetbikes as possible.

ThePorcupine wrote:
Yeah, the game hasn't been dominated by hordes since... conscripts? Which was what, like, a year ago?

95% of the time every tourney lists takes the bare minimum amount of troops and loads up on as many smash captains/knights/jetbikes as possible.

Which should tell you something about the strength of Guardsmen that the top lists at NOVA all maxed out on 6 of them

 SHUPPET wrote:

ThePorcupine wrote:
Yeah, the game hasn't been dominated by hordes since... conscripts? Which was what, like, a year ago?

95% of the time every tourney lists takes the bare minimum amount of troops and loads up on as many smash captains/knights/jetbikes as possible.

Which should tell you something about the strength of Guardsmen that the top lists at NOVA all maxed out on 6 of them

Are they "ChEaP hOrDeS" though?

iirc Rippers, Grots and Conscripts are all cheaper than them - and yet they aren't dominating tournaments.
I mean, yeah sure. This one unit is pretty good for its cost but it isn't... "dominated by cheap hordes."



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ZergSmasher wrote:

Orks: Overall I think Orks got better, as the only unit that really cares about the FLY nerf is Stormboyz, and they are still pretty good for their cost. The Prepared Positions strat will really help them survive going second, as it will cut their casualties from small arms in half. They are of course also expecting a codex soon...

Casualties aren't being cut in half.
I think what you meant is "Their chance to pass an armour save is doubled from 16% to 32%"

 Eonfuzz wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

ThePorcupine wrote:
Yeah, the game hasn't been dominated by hordes since... conscripts? Which was what, like, a year ago?

95% of the time every tourney lists takes the bare minimum amount of troops and loads up on as many smash captains/knights/jetbikes as possible.

Which should tell you something about the strength of Guardsmen that the top lists at NOVA all maxed out on 6 of them

Are they "ChEaP hOrDeS" though?

iirc Rippers, Grots and Conscripts are all cheaper than them - and yet they aren't dominating tournaments.
I mean, yeah sure. This one unit is pretty good for its cost but it isn't... "dominated by cheap hordes."

I'm not saying anything abut cheap hordes sorry, just talking about Guardsmen

I haven't really thought about which "achetype" dominates the meta, but if I was to, cheap hordes have their place but I wouldn't say they are dominating, they implies everything else is struggling.

60 Catachan bodies for sub 250 pts probably is what you could call a "cheap" horde though. That's a lot of really cheap bodies.

 Eonfuzz wrote:

 ZergSmasher wrote:

Orks: Overall I think Orks got better, as the only unit that really cares about the FLY nerf is Stormboyz, and they are still pretty good for their cost. The Prepared Positions strat will really help them survive going second, as it will cut their casualties from small arms in half. They are of course also expecting a codex soon...

Casualties aren't being cut in half.
I think what you meant is "Their chance to pass an armour save is doubled from 16% to 32%"

Which amounts to 20% less casualties so far from halving. Also doesn't account to possibility of orks having 5++ to begin with from KFF which beats 5+ big time. That strategem sounds nice but as it helps more the better armour you have...well orks are dependant on getting good vehicles with codex(which also gives strategems so 2 CP stings more). At least now it's practically free. 2 CP from 18 is no big deal when you have just rulebook strategems and this


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SHUPPET wrote:

I'm not saying anything abut cheap hordes sorry, just talking about Guardsmen

I haven't really thought about which "achetype" dominates the meta, but if I was to, cheap hordes have their place but I wouldn't say they are dominating, they implies everything else is struggling.

60 Catachan bodies for sub 250 pts probably is what you could call a "cheap" horde though. That's a lot of really cheap bodies.

But if they are so awesome why not 120 of them? 180? 240? Orks are fielding 50% more costly boyz in those numbers. If those catachans are so awesome why not more of them...Or maybe they are there just for some cheap chaff and CP rather than being so awesome on their own. They are awesome because they boost up others by CP to do the real job.