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.

== 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.

I hate Ynnari and don't own a single space elf, but this is wrong. Ynnari have gotten repeatedly struck by the nerfbat pretty much from the first FAQ onward. It's not them slipping under the radar, it's that they fundamentally break the game such that 3+ major nerfs still haven't kept them off of top tables. As Nick Nanavati pointed out, they essentially start with 25+ CP just by existing due to all the free actions that normally cost 2-3CP. That's hard to balance correctly, if it's even possible.

Also would people give the play tester conspiracy thing a rest already? It's a tired meme at this point and no one has given anything even resembling convincing proof of it existing.

While I'm here, here's my predictions:

Artemia Hellhound - Points Increase
Guardsmen - Points Increase to 5

Castellan - Points increase
Gallant - Points increase

Leviathan Dread - Points increase (I hope not, but it's almost certain to happen I think)

Dawneagle jetbikes - Same cost
Dawneagle captain - 1 per detachment restriction

Allarus - Point decrease

Chainfist - Point decrease (I so desperately want a reason to field these so this is a pure wishlist item)
Terminators - Point decrease
Land Raider - Point decrease

As a tangent, I wonder if reroll saves of 1 for Terminators would give them the boost they need to be viable. It would make them almost impervious to small arms fire, make them die slower to AP-1/-2, and still leaves them vulnerable to AP -3 so they maintain a weakness.

Okay, I'm wishlisting here, but these are the things I'd like to see in CA2018 for the armies I play. I know that many/most of them probably won't happen this way, but it's actually fun to speculate.
Dark Angels (many of these would be good on Marines in general):
-Basic non-Primaris Marine bodies (Tacticals, Assault, Devastators) reduced to 11 points per model. Honestly, Assault Marines would probably still totally suck balls, but at least Tacticals might be viable as an alternative to Scouts.
-Scouts reduced to 10 points per model. Sniper Rifles reduced to 2 points. Camo Cloaks reduced to 1 point per model.
-Make Assault Marines have 2 attacks base. They are still 1 wound models and so would not totally step on the toes of Primaris Reivers or Inceptors.
-Reduce the costs of most of the special and heavy weapon options. Plasma is probably okay as is, but Flamers should cost 5, Meltaguns should be 10, Grav should also be 10 as it is weaker than Plasma. Grav-cannons should be 20 rather than the ludicrous 28 they currently are. They should also bring back the Grav-amp rerolls for the cannons to make them viable. Multi-melta should only cost like 15. Missile Launcher and Lascannon are probably okay as they are, but could come down to 20 without seriously breaking the game. Heavy Bolter is fine the way it is. Plasma Cannon should be slightly cheaper due to having variable number of shots.
-Get rid of the higher costs of special Primaris weapons on Intercessors and Hellblasters. Auto bolt rifles and stalkers should cost the same as the normal ones; ditto for the assault/heavy plasma incinerators. Stalker Bolt Rifles should also have a Sniper type rule (Mortal wounds on 6's to wound) or be increased to Heavy 2.
-Vehicles need to get access to Grim Resolve (or other Chapter Tactics in the case of vanilla marines). Every other army's traits affect all of their units pretty much, so why not Marines?
-Deathwing Terminators (indeed, all terminators in the game currently) need a special rule that says all incoming damage is reduced by 1 to a minimum of 1. This would make them less susceptible to being blinked out by autocannons, overcharged plasma, etc. They could probably use a points drop as well.
-Drop Pods should have to abide by the 9" rule, but their cargo should be able to get closer. This would give them a niche and might make them playable.
-A lot of stuff I haven't already mentioned need points drops too, notably Land Speeders, Attack Bikes, and Land Raiders. None of these are anywhere close to durable enough for their points, and for the first two, if they move they gimp their shooting, so they don't have the firepower to make up for their lack of durability.

Chaos Space Marines:
-Basic CSM squads reduced to 11 points per model, just like their loyalist counterparts need. They also need all of the same weapon price reductions. There's a reason you always see Cultists rather than Marines in competitive Chaos lists.
-Raptors and Warp Talons need both a price drop and to go to 2 attacks base.
-Possessed need either a built-in FnP type save, or a price drop, or both. They aren't terrible as is, but they lack a niche (Berzerkers are pretty much always better).
-Just like loyalists, the Legion Traits should apply to all units, not just certain ones. That might help make things like Predators and Forgefiends better in an Alpha Legion list, and would make Maulerfiends scary in a World Eaters or Renegades list (just to name some examples).
-Also like loyalists, a lot of units are overpriced, notably the Dinobots and Mutilators.
-Daemon Princes should probably get the same god allegiance rules as their Codex: Chaos Daemons counterparts (Unstoppable Ferocity for Khorne, Disgustingly Resilient for Nurgle, etc.). Perhaps even things like Possessed and Warp Talons should get these abilities as well.

Tau Empire:
-Crisis Suits need at least a 15 points reduction in the base cost, along with a reduction is cost for most if not all of their weapons. I think a good way to do this would be to give each weapon 2 costs: one for regular Crisis suits, another for Commanders. Similar to how many of the Support Systems cost different amounts depending on what is equipped with it.
-Stormsurge needs a price drop, or it needs the Battlesuit keyword so that Drones can protect it. I'd be okay with Savior Protocols requiring a 4+ instead of a 2+ for a Stormsurge (because it's big and hard to cover). What I'd love to see for a Surge is a new Stratagem for 2 or 3 CP that lets it shoot twice if it is anchored, but that's not going to happen.
-The Hammerhead's railgun needs to be 2d6 damage, or 4d3, or something. It's just so pathetic right now. Even just being flat 6 damage would be decent. Ion Cannon is both better AND cheaper, and that's a problem (here's hoping they don't increase the cost of Ion Cannons to compensate...).
-Pathfinders need a built-in -1 to be hit or something, as they are currently just too squishy to be good. It doesn't help that Markerlights in general are kind of meh.
-The Ghostkeel's stealth drones need a Character-like rule, as currently it's way too easy to just swat them and get rid of the suit's protection. Indeed, a lot of the drones typically taken singly (Pulse Accelerator, Grav-inhibitor, Guardian, Shadowsun's special ones) need this.

Imperial Knights:
-Castellan probably does need a points increase, but not a huge one. The CP increase to the Order of Companions strat already has weakened it, and it has to pay 3CP to use Rotate Ion Shields. I hope it doesn't have to pay for being a main ingredient of soup.
-Ion Bulwark should probably be ineligible for Rotate Ion Shields. No more 3++ saves on Knights would reduce the crazy durability and help keep them under control, while still being pretty good.
-I'm not sure but what the Stomping Feet need some kind of a rework, as there is currently almost never any reason to actually use a Knight's melee weapons. Maybe give the actual melee weapons an alternative profile, like how Mortarion and the Bloodthirster of Insensate Rage are?

Daemons:
-All Greater Daemons need at least an 80 point drop, perhaps more. Especially now that Warp Surge has been capped at a 4++. They are currently priced into unplayability in competitive lists. Especially poor Kairos Fateweaver...
-Be'lakor probably also needs an 80 point drop. He was already overcosted in the Index, and then in the codex GW actually increased his cost. It's like they hate him.
-Several other units need varying price drops, including Bloodcrushers, Beasts of Nurgle, Screamers, Flamers, and also especially Soul Grinders.

Death Guard:
-Possessed should be T5 and have Disgustingly Resilient. They are Daemons of Nurgle in this codex, so their statline should reflect that. Likewise, Chaos Lords and Sorcerers should get this as well. Helbrutes and Defilers should probably get DR.
-Deathshroud Terminators should have some kind of reroll charges or something, because currently if they fail to get into combat, they'll just be kited forever.
-Plague Marines probably need to come down to 15 points per model.
-Death Guard psykers should have access to the normal CSM psychic powers as well as the Contagion ones, kind of like how Thousand Sons do. At least the actual Sorcerers should get this, even if Malignant Plaguecasters and Morty don't.

Space Wolves:
-TWC need something to help them get into combat better, as currently Wulfen outclass them completely. Maybe just a points reduction to make them easier to fit into a list would be enough, but reroll charges would be even better.
-Many of the same price reductions that vanilla Marines need are also needed for SW. Grey Hunters and Blood Claws should be 11 points, for example.
-Santa Grimnar needs to be able to hide. His main weakness in the sleigh is having more than 9 wounds.
-Wulfen should be able to ride in any transport (except perhaps the Repulsor), counting as 2 models as they normally do. They'd actually be good cargo for a Drop Pod if this were allowed.

These are just some of the thoughts I had, and I'm sure others have thought of the same things before.

 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.

Well for one I play most the armies. Necrons are one of the few armies I don't paly - but I play against them a lot. I have a pretty good understanding of what their problems are. Daemons issue is beta smite was unnecessary and really weakens the army. They have solid units though. Bring TS along for the ride and you can beat anything with them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

RogueApiary wrote:

== 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.

I hate Ynnari and don't own a single space elf, but this is wrong. Ynnari have gotten repeatedly struck by the nerfbat pretty much from the first FAQ onward. It's not them slipping under the radar, it's that they fundamentally break the game such that 3+ major nerfs still haven't kept them off of top tables. As Nick Nanavati pointed out, they essentially start with 25+ CP just by existing due to all the free actions that normally cost 2-3CP. That's hard to balance correctly, if it's even possible.

Also would people give the play tester conspiracy thing a rest already? It's a tired meme at this point and no one has given anything even resembling convincing proof of it existing.

While I'm here, here's my predictions:

Artemia Hellhound - Points Increase
Guardsmen - Points Increase to 5

Castellan - Points increase
Gallant - Points increase

Leviathan Dread - Points increase (I hope not, but it's almost certain to happen I think)

Dawneagle jetbikes - Same cost
Dawneagle captain - 1 per detachment restriction

Allarus - Point decrease

Chainfist - Point decrease (I so desperately want a reason to field these so this is a pure wishlist item)
Terminators - Point decrease
Land Raider - Point decrease

As a tangent, I wonder if reroll saves of 1 for Terminators would give them the boost they need to be viable. It would make them almost impervious to small arms fire, make them die slower to AP-1/-2, and still leaves them vulnerable to AP -3 so they maintain a weakness.

Ynnari are strong - but really it's just spears with protect and 10 man dark reapers with fire and fade are OP. They give up really good army traits and battle focus to get it. How man CP is your whole army having -1 to hit or 6+fnp worth? Ynnari aren't even necessarily the best way to run eldar.

What do I expect?

Dakka as a whole will denounce it as a ripoff and incompetently written. Dakkanaughts will delight in malicious glee as each poster takes a turn gaking on it. Dakka will once again joyfully display it has become a parody of itself.


For the actual book, I have no idea.

Looking at the Ork announcement, I'm starting to get the feeling that all Get's Hot weapons might be changing to only overheat on unmodified 1s.

When they had only revealed the Dragsta I didn't think anything of it because GW made it sound like it has abilities that give it +2 to hit (rather than a native BS3+), but the Morkanaut's new Kustom Mega-Zappa has the same wording.

Also @Xeno if you think the Smite changes are why LoC and Daemons as a whole are bad... I'm not sure what to say. What really has screwed Daemons is the beta DS rules because it invalidates the only power play the codex really had going for it (Alpha-striking Bloodletter Bomb).
Well that and the fact there is really bad internal balance amongst the non-troop units.

The Newman wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

The Newman wrote:
I fully expect GW to continue proving that they don't have a single clue what they're doing.

I'm hoping that they'll do something drastic to address what a terrible spot Marines are in, but I won't be a bit surprised if vanilla marines get nerfed down to GK levels and GK get rendered completely unplayable and GW puts out some sort of unintentionally hilarious statement about the awsome changes they made to help basic Marines and GK compete in the current meta because they write rules like a spastic chimp with the self awareness of frog spawn.

I also expect this thread to wind up as 20+ pages of such utter bile directed at GW and 40k that any new player who comes here looking for advice and reads through it will come away convinced that they're much better off going back to WoW or LoL or whatever they were doing before the cool plastic mens caught their attention.

My favourite part about this post is that it lacks self-awareness.

I invoke Poe's Law.

While I do sincerely hope GW addresses Space Marines and I don't have a lot of faith that GW recognizes just how much of a boost they actually need (or their ability fix it without breaking anything else), Chapter Approved and the FAQs are worlds away from the GW that published 5th edition when there were armies still limping along on their 3rd edition codexes.

The funny part about even this edit is that it also lacks self awareness. You're implying here that GW game designers are so incompetent that they will both fail to do enough and simultaneously do too much that it breaks the game. Ridiculous!

And I imagine you think you know exactly what is necessary. Mmhmm. Tell me more while I shake out this salt shaker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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

-

It's not a problem GW needs to address. You don't ever want WAAC players weighing in. Force those fools out like the AoS reboot did and never look back.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:

 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.

Well, to easily dispel any belief in bias, I will point out that there's a consistent pattern of defensive stat overvaluation when it comes to infantry. Particularly with the point cost of a 3+ or better, or multiple wounds.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 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.

So that 1 game out of 5 that you might win because the opponent whiffed average rolls is a powerful ability? Right... RP aside, if your opponent is rolling cold, chances are you'll win either way.

As I said, in small games it is a very good ability, but as more units and firepower are brought forward in larger games it doesn't scale well at all - but they are costed to the point as if expecting you to roll RP every turn, where in reality - using you're example, 4 games out of 5 you will never get to use.

It's hard to balance and keep it making sense narratively without lazily resorting to a FNP save like last edition.

Well, to easily dispel any belief in bias, I will point out that there's a consistent pattern of defensive stat overvaluation when it comes to infantry. Particularly with the point cost of a 3+ or better, or multiple wounds.

I don't know what it is, if it is bias or not. One thing I do know, is that there is no explanation I can think of, well maybe other then them not working on the GK codex at all and just doing an index copy past and adding some bad relics, why the same group of people both in the design and testing team, made within the same 6 months a codex like eldar and a codex like grey knights.

Its like a world olympic class sports man suddenly losing in a 200m dash to a bunch of 18-25 year olds. It only rises questions I can find anwsers for. I makes even less sense if one assumes GW is a company that actually wants to sell its Grey Knight models. I mean if we were to be cynical, it would have been better to not make the codex at all and leave it at the index stage. the index GK were better, then the codex GK.

Well, by and large the underlying systemic problem IMO is that, Index-to-Codex, offensive is almost always improved far more significantly than the defensive.

It's happening again with the Ork previews: More shots for certain weapons, more re-rolls, more exploding 6s, stratagems to pile on even more damage, fight twice, shoot twice, get even better re-rolls, etc.. and I haven't seen a single bonus to something defensive yet.

If you'd field the same Ork army Index-to-Codex, model for model, I am almost certain the Codex-version will have a lot of firepower and offensive output, while the defensive capacities of the same models will be virtually unchanged.

With a few exceptions (mainly -1-to-hit-armies, +1 Invul stuff like Prophets of Flesh and Ion Bulwark, and perhaps now the FAQ strat for going second), that's been true for every Codex.

That will and has inevitably lead to every army becoming ever more "glasscannon"-like unless you're consciously going with some extreme defensive strategy like mega-hordes or stacking -1s as much as you can, etc.. which is also frustrating to play against.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Well, by and large the underlying systemic problem IMO is that, Index-to-Codex, offensive is almost always improved far more significantly than the defensive.

It's happening again with the Ork previews: More shots for certain weapons, more re-rolls, more exploding 6s, stratagems to pile on even more damage, fight twice, shoot twice, get even better re-rolls, etc.. and I haven't seen a single bonus to something defensive yet.

If you'd field the same Ork army Index-to-Codex, model for model, I am almost certain the Codex-version will have a lot of firepower and offensive output, while the defensive capacities of the same models will be virtually unchanged.

With a few exceptions (mainly -1-to-hit-armies, +1 Invul stuff like Prophets of Flesh and Ion Bulwark, and perhaps now the FAQ strat for going second), that's been true for every Codex.

That will and has inevitably lead to every army becoming ever more "glasscannon"-like unless you're consciously going with some extreme defensive strategy like mega-hordes or stacking -1s as much as you can, etc.. which is also frustrating to play against.

Hah. Defensive buffs? Orks got softer per point compared to index. Will take less shots to take down ork army than before.

 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?

I'm going to, respectfully, disengage at the assessment that nothing of theirs is bad. I will concede that Pink horrors, and only pink horrors, are in a very workable place.

A LoC is "fine" when only using other Daemon units as an example, but even then it's now worse with the Warp Surge adjustment, and still very poor compared to other options (Like simply taking two Thousand Son princes for the same cost). Burning chariots are quite not fine, in my experience, as their fragility is not outweighed by the damage they can cause, and only having WS4+ makes taking them into melee where they would appear to indicate they'd like to be doesn't quite work out. If you want to see Burning Chariots that DO actually have a thematic place and are worth taking, I ask you to just take a moment to see what they do in AOS.

Screamers, Heralds, Flamers, etc, etc, are all quite poor for their cost, and the boon of tzeentch is so wildly out of place for them as an army it's crazy, to me.

I offer you, very simply, the history of Tzeentch as my example for my complaints. It's long now been a very psychic focused army, and the codex turned them into a gunline instead. If we look to them in AoS, where they have all very interesting abilities (like Lords of Change casting psychic powers through Exalted Flamers, to gain extra range, etc.) and synergies, that it just makes me frown when considering them for 40k, as they are.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 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.

It starts base with a 3++ invun and -1 damage with a relic and warlord trait combo. It's extremely durable.

Wasn't tzeench in AoS like super OP, hit by nerfs like eldar every FAQ, but still winning event after event, till the new edition killed the tzeench armies?

 Cephalobeard 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?

I'm going to, respectfully, disengage at the assessment that nothing of theirs is bad. I will concede that Pink horrors, and only pink horrors, are in a very workable place.

A LoC is "fine" when only using other Daemon units as an example, but even then it's now worse with the Warp Surge adjustment, and still very poor compared to other options (Like simply taking two Thousand Son princes for the same cost). Burning chariots are quite not fine, in my experience, as their fragility is not outweighed by the damage they can cause, and only having WS4+ makes taking them into melee where they would appear to indicate they'd like to be doesn't quite work out. If you want to see Burning Chariots that DO actually have a thematic place and are worth taking, I ask you to just take a moment to see what they do in AOS.

Screamers, Heralds, Flamers, etc, etc, are all quite poor for their cost, and the boon of tzeentch is so wildly out of place for them as an army it's crazy, to me.

I offer you, very simply, the history of Tzeentch as my example for my complaints. It's long now been a very psychic focused army, and the codex turned them into a gunline instead. If we look to them in AoS, where they have all very interesting abilities (like Lords of Change casting psychic powers through Exalted Flamers, to gain extra range, etc.) and synergies, that it just makes me frown when considering them for 40k, as they are.

Fair points. How would you feel if the smite nerf was pulled? As we all basically get around it by spamming smite with TS units. Also - try running LOC with TS DP - works great for me. LOC tanks - and heavy mortal damage takes the day.

The main change I feel or want for my army (Templars);
Neophytes get a 1-2 Point Reduction
Initaites (And PAnMarines in General) 1 point reduction
MELEE Weapons for Non-Characters points reduced a third to half
ASSAULT Special Weapons cut in half

And then on a super wishlisty;
New Warlord Trait (+1 Damage for Non Relics)
Updated/Modified Tactic, something like a Non-CHARACTER Black Templar unit within 6” of a model with CHAMPION Keyword attacking with a melee weapon of -1 or greater may attack an additional time with that weapon.

In general rework Strategems that require 3 of the same model. Finally a general change for vindicators and similar unit; “If model shoots a unit with 10 or more Wounds roll 1d6”. Given addendum Vindi ignore heavy penalties.

And fix inquisition

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

Exalted!!!!



Thank you for this comedy gold!

Pancakey wrote:

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

Exalted!!!!



Thank you for this comedy gold!

He means at the competitive level where people bring nothing but the best options in an ITC format. I understand what he means. He's not saying that every codex is balanced to every codex and that all the models in each codex are viable. That is what balance really means. He's saying that the competitive meta is kinda balanced when you factor soup and all the rest. It's just disappointing to a lot of people that this is the path they chose to balance the game.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Cephalobeard 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?

I'm going to, respectfully, disengage at the assessment that nothing of theirs is bad. I will concede that Pink horrors, and only pink horrors, are in a very workable place.

A LoC is "fine" when only using other Daemon units as an example, but even then it's now worse with the Warp Surge adjustment, and still very poor compared to other options (Like simply taking two Thousand Son princes for the same cost). Burning chariots are quite not fine, in my experience, as their fragility is not outweighed by the damage they can cause, and only having WS4+ makes taking them into melee where they would appear to indicate they'd like to be doesn't quite work out. If you want to see Burning Chariots that DO actually have a thematic place and are worth taking, I ask you to just take a moment to see what they do in AOS.

Screamers, Heralds, Flamers, etc, etc, are all quite poor for their cost, and the boon of tzeentch is so wildly out of place for them as an army it's crazy, to me.

I offer you, very simply, the history of Tzeentch as my example for my complaints. It's long now been a very psychic focused army, and the codex turned them into a gunline instead. If we look to them in AoS, where they have all very interesting abilities (like Lords of Change casting psychic powers through Exalted Flamers, to gain extra range, etc.) and synergies, that it just makes me frown when considering them for 40k, as they are.

Fair points. How would you feel if the smite nerf was pulled? As we all basically get around it by spamming smite with TS units. Also - try running LOC with TS DP - works great for me. LOC tanks - and heavy mortal damage takes the day.

If Tzeentch were to gain a rule, or even changing their Boon to allow them to cast smite without limits like Thousand Sons, it would be a good step in the right direction.

I'd still be upset Eldar have 18+ Psychic powers, meanwhile the daemons made of magic that serve the literal god of magic have 6, but it'd be a good start.

== 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.

Actually the playtesters have a great deal of integrity.

And GW is aware of Ynnari as a problem. The problem really is that they're defined in such a way that makes them unfair. You can't have a mechanic like soulburst and also be balanced, those two things are fundamentally at odds. It is highly likely that Ynnari are squatted (eventually), and the HQs are turned into generic DE/Eldar HQs, providing solid benefits but without the Ynnari nonsense.

I'll also note I'd like to see:

Preceptors reduced in points. They cost more than a Crusader for half the shots (depending on loadout) and more than a gallant for worse melee. The buff should also be a 12" Range, rather than 6", since Guilliman gives the same buff with a 12" range and costs less, as well as being able hide and return to life.

Possible point reduction for Warglaives. As it stands, you rarely see a Warglaive, and I think a 10pt or so Reduction for Armigers would do quite well.

If people want to give Ynnari a hard pass okay but honestly they are quite broken and there has been plenty of opportunity to address them properly. I don’t understand how this army can even exist in its present form.

 Cephalobeard wrote:
I'll also note I'd like to see:

Preceptors reduced in points. They cost more than a Crusader for half the shots (depending on loadout) and more than a gallant for worse melee. The buff should also be a 12" Range, rather than 6", since Guilliman gives the same buff with a 12" range and costs less, as well as being able hide and return to life.

Possible point reduction for Warglaives. As it stands, you rarely see a Warglaive, and I think a 10pt or so Reduction for Armigers would do quite well.

I know it's greedy but I'd love Preceptors also available for Traitoris as well.

 chimeara wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
I'll also note I'd like to see:

Preceptors reduced in points. They cost more than a Crusader for half the shots (depending on loadout) and more than a gallant for worse melee. The buff should also be a 12" Range, rather than 6", since Guilliman gives the same buff with a 12" range and costs less, as well as being able hide and return to life.

Possible point reduction for Warglaives. As it stands, you rarely see a Warglaive, and I think a 10pt or so Reduction for Armigers would do quite well.

I know it's greedy but I'd love Preceptors also available for Traitoris as well.

Absolutely.

"meanwhile the daemons made of magic that serve the literal god of magic have 6"
The Demons faction as a whole have 18, don't they? CWE as a whole has 12. That seems right.

Besides, CWE psykers are also limited to picking from 6 powers - no psykers can pick from both CWE tables.

Put anther way, Farseers and Warlocks each have the same options as a Primairs Psyker or a Librarian. If Tzeench should have more power options than Farseers, shouldn't Farseers have more options than Imperial Guard flunkies?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for balance, which was a more fun game:
-6e Eldar or Marines vs Orkz or CSM? What could they do in the face of Grav Bikers or Serpent Spam or Seer Council?
-7e Eldar or Marines vs Orkz or Guard? Da boyz or the Guardsmen might as well not even set up vs Scat Bikes, Spiders, WK, Gladius, Obsec Spam, SuperBestFriends, etc

Compare those matchups to:

-8e Eldar or Guard vs AdMech or Marines? It's an uphill battle, but nowhere near as much a blowout as the 6e/7e scenarios

The difference between the top books and the bottom books is a *lot* closer in 8th than it was in 6th or 7th.

 Marmatag wrote:
And GW is aware of Ynnari as a problem. The problem really is that they're defined in such a way that makes them unfair. You can't have a mechanic like soulburst and also be balanced, those two things are fundamentally at odds. It is highly likely that Ynnari are squatted (eventually), and the HQs are turned into generic DE/Eldar HQs, providing solid benefits but without the Ynnari nonsense.

I think its more likely we will get a Ynnari release in 2019/2020 and rather than piggybacking on already good Eldar/DE options and breaking them "Ynnari units" will be designed with soulburst in mind.

Bharring wrote:
"meanwhile the daemons made of magic that serve the literal god of magic have 6"
The Demons faction as a whole have 18, don't they? CWE as a whole has 12. That seems right.

Besides, CWE psykers are also limited to picking from 6 powers - no psykers can pick from both CWE tables.

Put anther way, Farseers and Warlocks each have the same options as a Primairs Psyker or a Librarian. If Tzeench should have more power options than Farseers, shouldn't Farseers have more options than Imperial Guard flunkies?

Certainly. However, just as an example, Thousand Sons have access to... 3 Trees of powers? So, 18?

Meanwhile, again, Tzeentch has only 6. This is a broader issue of Daemons all being jammed into one codex, but I'm sure you can understand my point all the same.

Now, to your point of who should have what amount, yes. I'd say the tier should be Tzeentch > Eldar/Thousand Sons > Normal Grey Knights (Their powers are often described in books as just manifestations of their emotions, not always something they control perfectly) > Librarians/Sorcerers > Imperial Psykers and the like.

Manifestations of Magic, Students of Magic, Naturally gifted and psychically enhanced, enhanced, and then just gifted.

If that makes sense?

Alternatively, just give Tzeentch something akin to AoS, where they manipulate their rolls, to properly reflect what they're supposed to be, and I'll accept that over less powers and more uses of Smite as a cantrip.

Makes sense. Your continuum looks about right.

I miss the "book powers" from 6e, and to a lesser extent 7e. You could give more personality to your psykers that way. Obviously, it's hard to balance (Invis....). But it was fun.

Cynical answer: I expect more salt, because that's what I expect everytime GW releases something at this point.

As for the book itself, points reshuffling is a given, perhaps some additional rules for armies that still won't have a codex (GSC, Sisters of Silence, Inquisition), the beta rules we all know Sisters of Battle are getting, likely narrative/open play only rules for looted wagons (because of course GW isn't going to make them matched play and put them in the codex), and maybe some new missions.

If we're really good this year, maybe some more universal strats and expanded terrain rules. But that's just wishlisting.

Tzeentch also has access to improved smite in a lot of places that other armies don't.

And if you actually make Treason of Tzeentch work on a Castellan, it more than pays for itself.

== wrote:[== 765760 10203270 null]If people want to give Ynnari a hard pass okay but honestly they are quite broken and there has been plenty of opportunity to address them properly. I don’t understand how this army can even exist in its present form.

Dude. In 7th edition they got 2 soul burst actions per death - it activated on their own deaths - and it could happen unlimited amount of times. Yeah - that was broken. It's completely fine the way it is now. The issue is shinning spears. I repeat - the issue is shinning spears.

I expect -
Shinning spears will not be nerfed in chapter approved though. So eldar armies that build around them will continue to dominate.

They'll probably keep nerfing fly though - pretty soon fly units wont even be able to jump over walls.