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 hope they make Tzeentch playable again, so I'm not paying for the Sins of Brimstone horrors for an entire edition.

 Cephalobeard wrote:
I hope they make Tzeentch playable again, so I'm not paying for the Sins of Brimstone horrors for an entire edition.

What about the sins of free splitting horrors?

Primordus wrote:Everybody talks about SM, Custodes and stuff like that...

But has anyone noticed in what sorry state admech is currently?

I mean, you go Cawlstar gunline or GO HOME. Synodian dragoons are the other only options being SPAMMED to the max, yet most of the codex is utter

-2 Hq choices, canticles are complitely random, OR 2 CP/battleround (unless you cawl it)
- Reroll aura dominus ONLY in shooting
- Wound boost is non existant, only 1 relic with 18 inch range, for reroll wound rolls of 1 BUT FW specific
- you either go repairman or your warlord is useless
- Skitarii pay premium (7 or 8 pts for vanguard) for +1 BS and the 6++
- transport is non existent
- meelee choices are like paper, no meelee boost besides canticles
- Lack of overall synergy
- most of the codex, besides some unites are just plain MEH!!!
- Kastelan robot is must pick with Cawl, but if there is no cawl its utter MEH
- 2 CP + minimum 120 pts tax for trying to improve BS of the robots for 1 shooting to 3+

What do you guys think, is this ok? Or am I just being too negative?

1. Agreed we need more. Still better then the index when we had 1! The only other character that could fit is the Datasmith but I wonder if the old 7th edition skitarii way of making the alphas characters could be implemented. Canticles aren't that bad but they do need a rework. don't know if it should just be abandoned for a single ability like the SM's know no fear (not saying that ability just a single one) or not, maybe something like the old skitarii ability were you could increase BS or WS at the cost of the other.
2. that is a huge bull%^#@ thing as well. Also it's only for the shooting phase so it does not work in overwatch.
3. Not a big deal but annoying. Also Ryza has a way of dealing with that (but only in the fight phase so....)
4. Agreed, a lot of the warlord traits are useless.
5. You are also paying for the weapons that are very useful on the whole.
6. Not anymore but still too limited.
7. Agreed but it is a shooting army so that's to be expected.
8+9+10+11. A big problem with the Ad Mech codex is that it was an early codex and therefore was trying to be similar to the 7th ed codex's by keeping the old formations relevant, creating stratagems to mimic them like elimination volley not realizing that the new edition would create a new meta game and that the old ways did not work anymore.

 Cephalobeard wrote:
I hope they make Tzeentch playable again, so I'm not paying for the Sins of Brimstone horrors for an entire edition.

I feel your pain. Windriders and WraithKngihts will probably still be paying for 7E if CA doesn't lower their cost by a significant amount

-

Thanks for the explaining guys. By the way the Paying for stuff thing is that like banter or actual thing, does GW really make units of factions bad, because they were good at some time in the past?

 Cephalobeard wrote:
I hope they make Tzeentch playable again, so I'm not paying for the Sins of Brimstone horrors for an entire edition.

Pink horrors are great though. 30 man bobs pump out 90 easily buff-able shots. Plus they all have 4++ saves.

Really - nothing tzeentch is bad. LOC is very good when you buff him as your warlord. Burning chariots are good too. What is your complaint?

Karol wrote:
Thanks for the explaining guys. By the way the Paying for stuff thing is that like banter or actual thing, does GW really make units of factions bad, because they were good at some time in the past?

Yes, but it's just because they don't realize how much different the unit is under the new rules.

Karol wrote:
Thanks for the explaining guys. By the way the Paying for stuff thing is that like banter or actual thing, does GW really make units of factions bad, because they were good at some time in the past?

All to often if a unit is too strong at some point in the meta GW will over compensate by making that unit far too weak at a later date.

My guess is most balance adjustments will be in the form of price reductions, rather than points increases.

Establishing that balance is a game of relative value, you can improve armies with points reductions, and that pisses less people off than points increases.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Broadly speaking GW have rarely done balance changes at all, usually only with codex releases. In the last CA they did buff some things minorly, but generally they dont do much for poorly performing units.

There were some reasonable reductions of points in Chapter Approved. Arguably not enough - but then the meta was a bit weird given the number of available codexes and the churn. I feel three flavour soup dominance is much more locked in now.

It really comes down to effort. Expecting "Index 2.0" for every faction is setting yourself up for disappointment. I can't imagine there will be any faction specific special rules. I hope for something on soup but that is probably optimistic.

Points can however be altered relatively freely.

It wouldn't really be beyond the wit of man to get 2 people to run through each codex and identify units which are obviously terrible/too good. They can inform themselves either from looking at tournament data, or by building a relatively simple spreadsheet.

It does require GW to have a vague "baseline" which they compare to (and if this is the basic Marine at 13 points we have clearly moved far away from it) but again - that's not that difficult. It doesn't have to be perfect.

Karol wrote:
Thanks for the explaining guys. By the way the Paying for stuff thing is that like banter or actual thing, does GW really make units of factions bad, because they were good at some time in the past?

Okay...lets see.

What were the most powerful units in 7th without taking into account synergy.
Wraithknights - probably best unit in 7th eddition - now it's one of the worst.
Windriders - easily the best troop choice - now they are middling on the lower end.
Riptides - Super OP. Practically indestructible. Now it's a little above average.
Stormsurges - Super OP - now they are in the above average category
Devastator centurions - Obvious best in slot choice for space marines (Melts even the most powerful foe without invo saves) - now obviously the worst unit in the entire game
Thunderwolves - OP a feth - now they seem to be...average?
Wolfen - Super OP - now...average?

Not seeing any consistency here. Maybe I am missing some units but I've gone over this again and again. It is completely random. They quite simply pull points out of a hat for most of this stuff. Without doing any math-hammer. Play-testing is a lie too. This gak was not play-tested.

 KingGarland wrote:

Karol wrote:
Thanks for the explaining guys. By the way the Paying for stuff thing is that like banter or actual thing, does GW really make units of factions bad, because they were good at some time in the past?

All to often if a unit is too strong at some point in the meta GW will over compensate by making that unit far too weak at a later date.

This basically. the WraithKnight, for example, was way too cheap in 7E and although all units were updated and 8E is a different system, it seems fairly obvious that GW "overcompensated" with its 8E points cost.

It's good that GW can identify an issued existed, but also frustrating when they go too far in the opposite direction. WKs went from "take at least 1 in EVERY tourney list" to "don't even bother taking one in a casual game" literally overnight.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Play-testing is a lie too. This gak was not play-tested.

I don't think I can agree with this. I do think they play-test, they just don't intentionally try to break the game over their knee like Bane with an aging vigilante, which WAAC players do.
So the play testing they do does not root out the biggest issues in hard core competitive play, which is never the intent of GW for 40K to be played
Which is a problem, sure, but I wouldn't say they don't play-test

-

Playtesting can result in weird results. If you have someone good playing GK or Necrons versus a non-optimised list played by someone who isn't that great its not obvious they are that bad - or at least not to the point where they need 10-20% point reductions as some have claimed here. Just because something is bad mathematically doesn't mean the dice always show that outcome.

With that said when a Centurion Dev with Las/Missile costs more than a Dreadnought with the same (ish) armament you have to wonder. Although arguably the Centurion shoots better (it can move, it ignores cover, the cent missile launcher is better etc) but its still 50+ points per wound in a world of mortal wounds and high AP multi-damage weapons.

I guess the problem is the design envelope doesn't really work. Give them say 6 wounds a model - and you are very close to the unit just being dreadnoughts but better.

The sky isn't falling. The game is pretty close to balanced right now.

Marines will see some love, and I would imagine so will Necrons. Other than that, you'll see minor points tweaks would be my guess. I believe Grey Knights will be singled out - they kind of have to be.

The only faction right now - the ONLY faction - that's unplayable is Grey Knights. Every other faction can be played and you can win games with it.

 Stux wrote:

 Dr. Mills wrote:
As a pure Custodes player, I'll chip in with what I personally think would help Custodes to be a mono faction that doesn't rely on jet bikes.

Allarus Terminators:
Make them 4++ to begin rather than 5++
Make their grenade launcher D6 shots but -2AP
If these buffs aren't applied, then their cost should be reduced by 8-10pts.

Venerable Contemptor Dread:
2+ Armour Save
Affected by the custodians +1 to invulnerable in a mono detachment
The ability to take other weapon options that Relic Contemptor dreads can
If these buffs are applied, then a points will increase with weapon options. If not, then a reduction of 15pts is needed.

Custodian Wardens:
Reduce points cost by 4-5pts

Venerable Land Raider:
Needs the ability to be another land raider type than the standard one (FW ones not applicable)
Reduction of points depending on type chosen, but base venerable land raider should be at least 30pts cheaper.

All Custodes:
All spear/axe weapons are Assault 2. Helps alleviate Custodes crippling lack of fire power on troop models.
Sentinel blade will stay pistol 2, but should be 2D like spear weapons.
Cost reduction of the misericordia to 3pts

Main issue I have with Wardens is they really don't have a niche. I really struggle to find a use case for them, when alternatively I could take regular Custodian Guards and fill out Troop slots instead.

Guardians have access to Castellan Axes?

Spoletta wrote:
Realistically I expect the following:

1) 6 new missions with progressive scoring, very similar to the GH2 missions.
2) Point increases to Dissie cannons, Grotesque and Talons.
3) Point increases to bananas.
4) Infantry squads to 5 points and Artemia nerfed into FW realm.
5) Point increase or squad cap decrease to hive guards.
6) Point increase to Gallant. Point increase to Castellan OR nerf to Cawl's Wrath.
7) A huge load of small point reductions to all the stuff that doesn't get used.

I'm quite curious to see if this rumored gift to marines is really going to happen or not.

Don't forget that a significant portion of this book will be the SoB beta codex.

== wrote:[== 765760 10202431 null]

 Stux wrote:

 Dr. Mills wrote:
As a pure Custodes player, I'll chip in with what I personally think would help Custodes to be a mono faction that doesn't rely on jet bikes.

Allarus Terminators:
Make them 4++ to begin rather than 5++
Make their grenade launcher D6 shots but -2AP
If these buffs aren't applied, then their cost should be reduced by 8-10pts.

Venerable Contemptor Dread:
2+ Armour Save
Affected by the custodians +1 to invulnerable in a mono detachment
The ability to take other weapon options that Relic Contemptor dreads can
If these buffs are applied, then a points will increase with weapon options. If not, then a reduction of 15pts is needed.

Custodian Wardens:
Reduce points cost by 4-5pts

Venerable Land Raider:
Needs the ability to be another land raider type than the standard one (FW ones not applicable)
Reduction of points depending on type chosen, but base venerable land raider should be at least 30pts cheaper.

All Custodes:
All spear/axe weapons are Assault 2. Helps alleviate Custodes crippling lack of fire power on troop models.
Sentinel blade will stay pistol 2, but should be 2D like spear weapons.
Cost reduction of the misericordia to 3pts

Main issue I have with Wardens is they really don't have a niche. I really struggle to find a use case for them, when alternatively I could take regular Custodian Guards and fill out Troop slots instead.

Guardians have access to Castellan Axes?

They don't - Stux was pointing out (rightly I might add) that Custodian wardens are in a bad position within the internal balance of the codex.
They have the option to take either spears or axes, and have misericordias included with a 6+++ save, and that's it.

They struggle to make an impact as they are in essance guardian squads with a misericordia and 6+++.You'll be better off taking cheaper guardian squads than wardens. They either need a small points decrease of 4-6pts to make them worthwhile to use, or an increase in stats such as a 5+++ save, 4 wounds and 4 attacks, they are elites, and as such need better baseline stats to show it.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Karol wrote:
Thanks for the explaining guys. By the way the Paying for stuff thing is that like banter or actual thing, does GW really make units of factions bad, because they were good at some time in the past?

Okay...lets see.

What were the most powerful units in 7th without taking into account synergy.
Wraithknights - probably best unit in 7th eddition - now it's one of the worst.
Windriders - easily the best troop choice - now they are middling on the lower end.
Riptides - Super OP. Practically indestructible. Now it's a little above average.
Stormsurges - Super OP - now they are in the above average category
Devastator centurions - Obvious best in slot choice for space marines (Melts even the most powerful foe without invo saves) - now obviously the worst unit in the entire game
Thunderwolves - OP a feth - now they seem to be...average?
Wolfen - Super OP - now...average?

Not seeing any consistency here. Maybe I am missing some units but I've gone over this again and again. It is completely random. They quite simply pull points out of a hat for most of this stuff. Without doing any math-hammer. Play-testing is a lie too. This gak was not play-tested.

FLG does the play-testing I believe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dr. Mills wrote:

== wrote:[== 765760 10202431 null]

 Stux wrote:

 Dr. Mills wrote:
As a pure Custodes player, I'll chip in with what I personally think would help Custodes to be a mono faction that doesn't rely on jet bikes.

Allarus Terminators:
Make them 4++ to begin rather than 5++
Make their grenade launcher D6 shots but -2AP
If these buffs aren't applied, then their cost should be reduced by 8-10pts.

Venerable Contemptor Dread:
2+ Armour Save
Affected by the custodians +1 to invulnerable in a mono detachment
The ability to take other weapon options that Relic Contemptor dreads can
If these buffs are applied, then a points will increase with weapon options. If not, then a reduction of 15pts is needed.

Custodian Wardens:
Reduce points cost by 4-5pts

Venerable Land Raider:
Needs the ability to be another land raider type than the standard one (FW ones not applicable)
Reduction of points depending on type chosen, but base venerable land raider should be at least 30pts cheaper.

All Custodes:
All spear/axe weapons are Assault 2. Helps alleviate Custodes crippling lack of fire power on troop models.
Sentinel blade will stay pistol 2, but should be 2D like spear weapons.
Cost reduction of the misericordia to 3pts

Main issue I have with Wardens is they really don't have a niche. I really struggle to find a use case for them, when alternatively I could take regular Custodian Guards and fill out Troop slots instead.

Guardians have access to Castellan Axes?

They don't - Stux was pointing out (rightly I might add) that Custodian wardens are in a bad position within the internal balance of the codex.
They have the option to take either spears or axes, and have misericordias included with a 6+++ save, and that's it.

They struggle to make an impact as they are in essance guardian squads with a misericordia and 6+++.You'll be better off taking cheaper guardian squads than wardens. They either need a small points decrease of 4-6pts to make them worthwhile to use, or an increase in stats such as a 5+++ save, 4 wounds and 4 attacks, they are elites, and as such need better baseline stats to show it.

Every time I play against a custodian list, I do tend to whittle them down by the end of turn 5, stealing the game from them.

But it is literally mentally exhausting for me. 2+/3++ all god emperor day. I've just quit playing against anyone with the golden men. It's not fun.

I think the problem with play testing is the fox guarding the hen house now. Some armies keep coming in underneath the radar like Ynnari.

 G00fySmiley wrote:

timetowaste85 wrote:CA is unnecessary if we have the digital edition, right? I have a digital CD book; I dont need to buy this at all, right?

its GW I doubt they will add it in to digital for free. I don't think they did in 2017, its the yearly way to squeeze out a few bucks in what could have been a erratta, but they do throw in new missions and some stuff that makes it worth it.

They did. Points costs are adjusted in the enhanced edition, though they take a few weeks to update.

 Galef wrote:


I don't think I can agree with this. I do think they play-test, they just don't intentionally try to break the game over their knee like Bane with an aging vigilante, which WAAC players do.
So the play testing they do does not root out the biggest issues in hard core competitive play, which is never the intent of GW for 40K to be played
Which is a problem, sure, but I wouldn't say they don't play-test

Still doesn't expalin why they let something like the GK codex be made. Even in a super casual setting they suck. A primaris army using DW rules can walk over a GK army, and it is not like DW are the pinacle of power. At the same time, if they weren't planning to break the meta, how can one explain stuff like super point efficient ravellans or anything eldar in Inari, or the ++4 DE stuff. How the hell did GW come to the idea that a unit of dark reapers, soul bursting from another unit of dark reapers is ok, but giving a normal smite to a GK unit is too OP? I understand missing some rule interactions or some tournament packs making a unit super efficient. But one just has to look how much a unit of shining spears cost and how much a unit of even regular termintors cost to be mind blown.

It's good that GW can identify an issued existed, but also frustrating when they go too far in the opposite direction. WKs went from "take at least 1 in EVERY tourney list" to "don't even bother taking one in a casual game" literally overnight.

What was the Grey Knights OP stuff in 7th ed? Was it the interceptors or something like that?

It wouldn't really be beyond the wit of man to get 2 people to run through each codex and identify units which are obviously terrible/too good. They can inform themselves either from looking at tournament data, or by building a relatively simple spreadsheet.

Ok, but then they come to an army like GK, no one plays GK at tournaments, so there is no data to check what is being and what is not being used. So they leave it as it is. I wish GW did something like real designers talk about new codex, and not the we wanted them to feel special-and-look at the new models etc Like stuff when the codex designer shows how he thinks the army should work, shows combos, outside and inside codex synergies. This way people would know what the designers goal was, and if he happens to miss something , they can ask questions about it AND those could be easilly cleared up in a FAQ or a CA.

With GK right now, I don't even know what questions could be asked other then, what were you drinking while you copy pasted the index or something like that.

From what I have been told the tester for the GK codex just insulted all GK players, told them that they use the wrong units, play the wrong way and his way of playing GK made no sense when comparing to what other armies were playing at the time or right now. And those dudes have to know stuff 3-6 months in advance with how printing and codex supply works.

== wrote:[== 765760 10202450 null]I think the problem with play testing is the fox guarding the hen house now. Some armies keep coming in underneath the radar like Ynnari.

That's mostly because the Ynnari core concept of breaking the action economy is so powerful that even repeated attempts to tone it down aren't enough.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
I hope they make Tzeentch playable again, so I'm not paying for the Sins of Brimstone horrors for an entire edition.

Pink horrors are great though. 30 man bobs pump out 90 easily buff-able shots. Plus they all have 4++ saves.

Really - nothing tzeentch is bad. LOC is very good when you buff him as your warlord. Burning chariots are good too. What is your complaint?

Honest question Xeno: Do you believe nothing in this game is as bad as the various Adeptus Astartes factions? I've seen you say that Reanimation Protocols is actually a good rule, and now I see you claim that the Lord of Change is "very good". These are things you can only say with a fundamental lack of understanding for armies other than your own.

Scythed hierodule to get an invul save or points reduction.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
I hope they make Tzeentch playable again, so I'm not paying for the Sins of Brimstone horrors for an entire edition.

Pink horrors are great though. 30 man bobs pump out 90 easily buff-able shots. Plus they all have 4++ saves.

Really - nothing tzeentch is bad. LOC is very good when you buff him as your warlord. Burning chariots are good too. What is your complaint?

Honest question Xeno: Do you believe nothing in this game is as bad as the various Adeptus Astartes factions? I've seen you say that Reanimation Protocols is actually a good rule, and now I see you claim that the Lord of Change is "very good". These are things you can only say with a fundamental lack of understanding for armies other than your own.

Yeah... RP is a good rule on paper and in small games it can border on OP.. but practically any opponent who doesn't know or doesn't have the ability to wipe out and focus a unit/s down each turn has bigger problems than facing Necrons.

== wrote:[== 765760 10202450 null]I think the problem with play testing is the fox guarding the hen house now. Some armies keep coming in underneath the radar like Ynnari.

Playtesters don't have limitless models or time. They likely do what they can.

Additionally, things have come out at break neck speed. They're almost done with monthly codex releases and we can settle in and get a real perspective of the game.

This next CA is a good opportunity for GW to start tying up loose ends.

The playtesters themselves aren't the be all end all of the playtesting process; it's difficult to realistically claim that "the foxes are guarding the henhouse" when Reece himself has some very strong, negative opinions on many of the top lists out there right now. This is a guy who stubbornly goes to tournaments with tier 2 lists because he just doesn't enjoy hopping to and from whatever the current Frankensteined hotness is.

Sometimes, the playtesters don't have the time to test a specific problem and it gets through. Sometimes, the playtesters note a problem (not even necessarily a balance problem, it could be an actual glitch in the way the game works) and their calls for change go unanswered because the developers run out of time before the publishing date, or the developers decide it isn't as much of a problem as the playtesters think it is, or a whole host of other reasons. It's incredibly simplistic to place the blame at the feet of the playtesters for any balance issues because the final decision of what gets published is completely out of their hands.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

Honest question Xeno: Do you believe nothing in this game is as bad as the various Adeptus Astartes factions? I've seen you say that Reanimation Protocols is actually a good rule, and now I see you claim that the Lord of Change is "very good". These are things you can only say with a fundamental lack of understanding for armies other than your own.

The LoC isn't terrible. +4 smite/gateway is pretty neat, but it doesn't have enough spells to be flexible.

And as usual it gets shot off by the big toys and is a wee bit too high in points, but it's not like it needs to drop by half.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
The playtesters themselves aren't the be all end all of the playtesting process; it's difficult to realistically claim that "the foxes are guarding the henhouse" when Reece himself has some very strong, negative opinions on many of the top lists out there right now. This is a guy who stubbornly goes to tournaments with tier 2 lists because he just doesn't enjoy hopping to and from whatever the current Frankensteined hotness is.

Sometimes, the playtesters don't have the time to test a specific problem and it gets through. Sometimes, the playtesters note a problem (not even necessarily a balance problem, it could be an actual glitch in the way the game works) and their calls for change go unanswered because the developers run out of time before the publishing date, or the developers decide it isn't as much of a problem as the playtesters think it is, or a whole host of other reasons. It's incredibly simplistic to place the blame at the feet of the playtesters for any balance issues because the final decision of what gets published is completely out of their hands.

With how fast things have come out, this has to be a huge issue. To debug 40k completely would likely take months, if not a year and that would require it to be static. That means no new models, rules, releases or any other changes till we had one massive patch. There are things that GW could do a bit better like more beta rule release like sisters are getting before the final book but balancing the behemoth that is 40k is a tough task.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
I hope they make Tzeentch playable again, so I'm not paying for the Sins of Brimstone horrors for an entire edition.

Pink horrors are great though. 30 man bobs pump out 90 easily buff-able shots. Plus they all have 4++ saves.

Really - nothing tzeentch is bad. LOC is very good when you buff him as your warlord. Burning chariots are good too. What is your complaint?

Honest question Xeno: Do you believe nothing in this game is as bad as the various Adeptus Astartes factions? I've seen you say that Reanimation Protocols is actually a good rule, and now I see you claim that the Lord of Change is "very good". These are things you can only say with a fundamental lack of understanding for armies other than your own.

Yeah... RP is a good rule on paper and in small games it can border on OP.. but practically any opponent who doesn't know or doesn't have the ability to wipe out and focus a unit/s down each turn has bigger problems than facing Necrons.

Knowing is half the battle. You still have to finish off the units. Opponent starts out strong in a shooting phase but then starts rolling blanks. Wow - you basically just lost a turn. How could you say that isn't powerful? It might only happen 1 out of 5 games - but it does happen. When it happens you probably win.