Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2018/10/31 00:00:18
Subject: Chapter Approved 2018, What do we expect?
valdier wrote: Necrons need about a 10-25% reduction across the board on all but:
Infantry need to either be immune to morale or can't lose more than 1d3 models on a failed roll.
Tomb blades and Destroyers.
Monolith and Obelisk need roughly a 50% reduction.
I would like to see the monolith return to being the support vehicle for the silver tide. Add a 5++ aura to troop units within 6" of it. Give it a 5++ save or quantum shielding. Increase the to wound by +1 for troops within the same aura.
Fix Gauss to be a mortal wound on 6's vs all non-infantry.
Fix Tesla to be on an unmodified roll of 6.
Overlord change to reroll misses aura.
Fliers need quantum shielding.
Doom Scythe to 2d3 attacks, changed to assault or ignores heavy.
Spiders become characters
That could make them at least competitive (Still low tier 1 or high tier 2 *maybe*). It also doesn't make any model better than their equivalent in other armies for the same price.
lol
back to the drawing board for you friendo
"still just upper mid tier" right
The Necron codex is bad, but with opinions like these I guarantee it's not responsible for a single one of your losses.
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
2018/10/31 00:08:06
Subject: Chapter Approved 2018, What do we expect?
...we'll wait for the codex...
...we'll wait for the faq...
...we'll wait for the CA...
...we'll wait for the next edition...
We're nearly through the entire 8th edition; and there's been minimal change in GW's ability to write codexs', and even less in their ability to balance armies, and individual units.
I'm very curious what changes in CA2018 - but I'm not getting my hopes up.
2018/10/31 00:10:21
Subject: Re:Chapter Approved 2018, What do we expect?
valdier wrote: At 50% off the Monolith would barely be playable, and *still* not competitive.
Barely playable? That's 190 points, which is the same as a Las Pred.
The monolith has 9 more wounds, T8, living metal, and no heavy penalty. I'm sure it does less damage overall, but it's a transport and very durable. It's not worth 381, but definitely not 190 either.
2018/10/31 00:12:08
Subject: Chapter Approved 2018, What do we expect?
fe40k wrote: ...we'll wait for the codex...
...we'll wait for the faq...
...we'll wait for the CA...
...we'll wait for the next edition...
We're nearly through the entire 8th edition; and there's been minimal change in GW's ability to write codexs', and even less in their ability to balance armies, and individual units.
I'm very curious what changes in CA2018 - but I'm not getting my hopes up.
I'm just going to wait to see what it has to offer. Of course, let Games Workshop show it in the best light that they can, and more importantly now than ever with the importance on this release on the future of the game. Really though, my biggest concern is the red flags I'm seeing around the marketing of the book before the big push comes in November.
2018/10/31 00:13:24
Subject: Chapter Approved 2018, What do we expect?
fe40k wrote: ...we'll wait for the codex...
...we'll wait for the faq...
...we'll wait for the CA...
...we'll wait for the next edition...
We're nearly through the entire 8th edition; and there's been minimal change in GW's ability to write codexs', and even less in their ability to balance armies, and individual units.
I'm very curious what changes in CA2018 - but I'm not getting my hopes up.
Red Herring.
GW has been making changes, adding beta rules, and progressing those rules through feedback. Codexes have largely become more complex save Necrons who seem like they were forced out.
Just because they haven't done what you want doesn't mean they haven't done anything at all.
2018/10/31 00:15:05
Subject: Re:Chapter Approved 2018, What do we expect?
valdier wrote: At 50% off the Monolith would barely be playable, and *still* not competitive.
Barely playable? That's 190 points, which is the same as a Las Pred.
The monolith has 9 more wounds, T8, living metal, and no heavy penalty. I'm sure it does less damage overall, but it's a transport and very durable. It's not worth 381, but definitely not 190 either.
You also forgot fly, which is important as it means it won't get tied down on combat. However, using Living Metal as a main plus is certainly generous for sure. For me, I wouldn't ever pay more than 300 points for such a model. It dies a lot faster than people think, and it's transport ability not allowing you to bring characters with a unit is pretty painful.
2018/10/31 00:50:27
Subject: Re:Chapter Approved 2018, What do we expect?
You also forgot fly, which is important as it means it won't get tied down on combat. However, using Living Metal as a main plus is certainly generous for sure. For me, I wouldn't ever pay more than 300 points for such a model. It dies a lot faster than people think, and it's transport ability not allowing you to bring characters with a unit is pretty painful.
Sure, I agree.
I think the other half of the problem is knights normalizing a price range for models with T8 and 20+ wounds (or damage output for their price range). We now have a mental anchor - are knights too cheap or everything else to expensive?
It's more complex than that and not likely solved all in one swoop.
2018/10/31 00:53:19
Subject: Chapter Approved 2018, What do we expect?
fe40k wrote: ...we'll wait for the codex...
...we'll wait for the faq...
...we'll wait for the CA...
...we'll wait for the next edition...
We're nearly through the entire 8th edition; and there's been minimal change in GW's ability to write codexs', and even less in their ability to balance armies, and individual units.
I'm very curious what changes in CA2018 - but I'm not getting my hopes up.
What evidence do you have for declaring we’re nearly through the entire 8th edition?
2018/10/31 01:32:57
Subject: Chapter Approved 2018, What do we expect?
DudleyGrim wrote: I really think the necron players who are expecting a complete codex overhaul in CA are deluding themselves and setting themselves up for disappointment. Necrons probably will never be a top tier army in 8th edition, and I am ok with this. I do really hope for some points reductions though, maybe a look at repricing or errata-ing some of our less powerful stratagems.
240 pts for a max squad of warriors kinda sucks, but 200 would be pretty cool, like wise a monolith at 400 is AWFUL, but 230 would make it at least playable.
If we could just field MORE units, I think we'd have a much better baseline to worth with.
Agreed. I would be satisfied if a typical 2k necron list would be 1.8k with CA 2018. I dont expect any major rules changes. RP will stay the same.
Marines are more or less in the same situation. A 10-15% point reduction and replacing all the "take three of this not-great thing and spend CPs to make it less not great" strategems that nobody uses is about the best I think we should really expect.
I do have my fingers crossed for making the basic Marine character auras 9" instead of 6" or adding some CP regeration to basic Captains (or both) to help non-Ultramarine armies feel less penalized for not being able to take Girly-man though.
valdier wrote: Necrons need about a 10-25% reduction across the board on all but:
Probably. It depends. A 25% point reduction on warriors would bring them down to 8pts, which is excessive.
valdier wrote: Infantry need to either be immune to morale or can't lose more than 1d3 models on a failed roll.
Necrons are already LD10 across the board and there's a WL trait that makes them immune to morale. Such a rule is unnecessary.
Tomb blades and Destroyers.
Uh what? Did you mean to write something and forgot?
Monolith and Obelisk need roughly a 50% reduction.
Hah, no. Monoliths need a reduction, but that's way too much.
I would like to see the monolith return to being the support vehicle for the silver tide. Add a 5++ aura to troop units within 6" of it. Give it a 5++ save or quantum shielding. Increase the to wound by +1 for troops within the same aura.
The monolith never did any of those things. It should buff RP. Or maybe FNP, idk. What the monolith really needs is for it to be able to deploy units from the tomb world on arrival. You have to wait until turn 3 in order to use it as intended.
Fix Gauss to be a mortal wound on 6's vs all non-infantry.
Oh joy, yet ,more mortal wounds, and on a basic weapon as well How about just +1 to damage on a 6?
Fix Tesla to be on an unmodified roll of 6.
No argument there, although that would be more of a sidestep than a buff. Yes, you can advance now and shoot at -1 hit mod protected things without losing tesla procs, but on the flip side the tesla immortal + MWBD combo would be now be impossible. Annihilation barges would benefit most of all though; they can't benefit from MWDB, so losing it doesn't matter.
Overlord change to reroll misses aura.
Why though? MWBD is good. I'd much rather have that than yet another reroll aura.
Fliers need quantum shielding.
Probably, but flyers are crap in general
Doom Scythe to 2d3 attacks, changed to assault or ignores heavy.
Why would you give a Doom Scythe 2D3 attacks in combat? Unless you mean the Deathray. A flat 3 shots would be better in terms of flow and balance, imo. All flyers need to ignore heavy. Its not just a Doom Scythe problem. Because flyers are gak.
Spiders become characters
Sure, makes sense I guess.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/10/31 10:30:01
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
2018/10/31 02:28:00
Subject: Chapter Approved 2018, What do we expect?
fe40k wrote: ...we'll wait for the codex...
...we'll wait for the faq...
...we'll wait for the CA...
...we'll wait for the next edition...
We're nearly through the entire 8th edition; and there's been minimal change in GW's ability to write codexs', and even less in their ability to balance armies, and individual units.
I'm very curious what changes in CA2018 - but I'm not getting my hopes up.
Do you really believe 8th edition is going to end in 2019? I remember rumblings that this was going to stick around as a "living edition" for a while. I'd expect 8.5 at some point to re-consolidate the rules from CA and FAQ changes, and give us a new wave of releases (likely at a slower rate so they can update more armies with new kits) before we see 9th ed.
Regarding how well GW writes codexes, I'd argue it's improved. Or do you really feel that 8th ed codexes are the same as 6th and 7th ed?
2018/10/31 02:56:04
Subject: Re:Chapter Approved 2018, What do we expect?
alextroy wrote: I'm hoping the Ork Codex points changes are a harbinger of what they do to most of the rest of the Codexes, which generally is:
Characters are more expensive
Light Infantry (aka under 10 points) are more expensive
Medium and Heavy Infantry and Bikes are less expensive
Transports are less expensive
Weapon cost are more balanced to actual effectiveness
Can't say we can ask for much better than that.
It definitely feels like a change in how they're designing the game and if it's how they make the rest of the game in the long run we should be seeing a nice shake up all over.
2018/10/31 03:16:20
Subject: Chapter Approved 2018, What do we expect?
fe40k wrote: ...we'll wait for the codex...
...we'll wait for the faq...
...we'll wait for the CA...
...we'll wait for the next edition...
We're nearly through the entire 8th edition; and there's been minimal change in GW's ability to write codexs', and even less in their ability to balance armies, and individual units.
I'm very curious what changes in CA2018 - but I'm not getting my hopes up.
Do you really believe 8th edition is going to end in 2019? I remember rumblings that this was going to stick around as a "living edition" for a while. I'd expect 8.5 at some point to re-consolidate the rules from CA and FAQ changes, and give us a new wave of releases (likely at a slower rate so they can update more armies with new kits) before we see 9th ed.
Same was said for AOS, took around 3 years to for a revised edition. Was more of a refinement then a full blown new edition and borrowing some concepts they developed in 40k.
Would expect the same for 8th ed. A couple years and there will be a new edition set. Current model is a hybrid for both systems. Release a CA/GH each year as a "living" model to revise the meta and after a couple iterations, consolidate into a revised new "edition".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/10/31 03:16:41
"Courage and Honour. I hear you murmur these words in the mist, in their wake I hear your hearts beat harder with false conviction seeking to convince yourselves that a brave death has meaning.
There is no courage to be found here my nephews, no honour to be had. Your souls will join the trillion others in the mist shrieking uselessly to eternity, weeping for the empire you could not save.
To the unfaithful, I bring holy plagues ripe with enlightenment. To the devout, I bring the blessing of immortality through the kiss of sacred rot.
And to you, new-born sons of Gulliman, to you flesh crafted puppets of a failing Imperium I bring the holiest gift of all.... Silence."
- Mortarion, The Death Lord, The Reaper of Men, Daemon Primarch of Nurgle
5300 | 2800 | 3600 | 1600 |
2018/10/31 03:19:21
Subject: Chapter Approved 2018, What do we expect?
fe40k wrote: ...we'll wait for the codex...
...we'll wait for the faq...
...we'll wait for the CA...
...we'll wait for the next edition...
We're nearly through the entire 8th edition; and there's been minimal change in GW's ability to write codexs', and even less in their ability to balance armies, and individual units.
I'm very curious what changes in CA2018 - but I'm not getting my hopes up.
Do you really believe 8th edition is going to end in 2019? I remember rumblings that this was going to stick around as a "living edition" for a while. I'd expect 8.5 at some point to re-consolidate the rules from CA and FAQ changes, and give us a new wave of releases (likely at a slower rate so they can update more armies with new kits) before we see 9th ed.
Same was said for AOS, took around 3 years to for a revised edition. Was more of a refinement then a full blown new edition and borrowing some concepts they developed in 40k.
Would expect the same for 8th ed. A couple years and there will be a new edition set. Current model is a hybrid for both systems. Release a CA/GH each year as a "living" model to revise the meta and after a couple iterations, consolidate into a revised new "edition".
AoS also has the General's Handbook in the meantime which served as a kind of pseudo-index/main rulebook for consolidated changes in the middle of that cycle which we haven't seen applied to 40k in the same way, so while the models are similar, they're not identical.
2018/10/31 03:26:12
Subject: Chapter Approved 2018, What do we expect?
Is that not what Chapter Approved and the 6 monthly big FAQ does? (genuine question)
"Courage and Honour. I hear you murmur these words in the mist, in their wake I hear your hearts beat harder with false conviction seeking to convince yourselves that a brave death has meaning.
There is no courage to be found here my nephews, no honour to be had. Your souls will join the trillion others in the mist shrieking uselessly to eternity, weeping for the empire you could not save.
To the unfaithful, I bring holy plagues ripe with enlightenment. To the devout, I bring the blessing of immortality through the kiss of sacred rot.
And to you, new-born sons of Gulliman, to you flesh crafted puppets of a failing Imperium I bring the holiest gift of all.... Silence."
- Mortarion, The Death Lord, The Reaper of Men, Daemon Primarch of Nurgle
5300 | 2800 | 3600 | 1600 |
2018/10/31 03:29:34
Subject: Chapter Approved 2018, What do we expect?
NurglesR0T wrote: Is that not what Chapter Approved and the 6 monthly big FAQ does? (genuine question)
Not to the level the General's Handbook did. CA only gives points changes, not all points in the game. And it didn't give an updated version of errata'd datasheets either.
2018/10/31 07:04:10
Subject: Chapter Approved 2018, What do we expect?
(Btw, I've actually written for award winning books in the game industry and edited for the same numbers intensive system [#2 selling game in the world at the time], since you mentioned it)
Sure Tell me, how come that most of us mostly disagree with your rule suggestions ?
2018/10/31 07:09:40
Subject: Chapter Approved 2018, What do we expect?
fe40k wrote: ...we'll wait for the codex...
...we'll wait for the faq...
...we'll wait for the CA...
...we'll wait for the next edition...
We're nearly through the entire 8th edition; and there's been minimal change in GW's ability to write codexs', and even less in their ability to balance armies, and individual units.
I'm very curious what changes in CA2018 - but I'm not getting my hopes up.
Do you really believe 8th edition is going to end in 2019? I remember rumblings that this was going to stick around as a "living edition" for a while. I'd expect 8.5 at some point to re-consolidate the rules from CA and FAQ changes, and give us a new wave of releases (likely at a slower rate so they can update more armies with new kits) before we see 9th ed.
Regarding how well GW writes codexes, I'd argue it's improved. Or do you really feel that 8th ed codexes are the same as 6th and 7th ed?
Sooner or later 8th ed will replace. "Living rules". Hah. GW isn't going to stop their cycle of new editions and new codexes. If anything Age of Sigmar shows opposite.
Codexes aren't same sure. They are more pretty more smoke&mirror. Old GW is same as new GW except GW has added more smoke&mirror. In terms of quality and balance it has gone DOWNHILL but GW manages to mask it improvement. Smoke&mirror.
2024 painted/bought: 109/109
2018/10/31 07:17:28
Subject: Chapter Approved 2018, What do we expect?
NurglesR0T wrote: Is that not what Chapter Approved and the 6 monthly big FAQ does? (genuine question)
Not to the level the General's Handbook did. CA only gives points changes, not all points in the game. And it didn't give an updated version of errata'd datasheets either.
So if the FAQ does not bring rules changes or points changes, and the CA doesn't change rules either, then what does change the rules for better in 8th ed ?
Regarding how well GW writes codexes, I'd argue it's improved. Or do you really feel that 8th ed codexes are the same as 6th and 7th ed?
I don't know about necrons, but I did download an old GK of some sort and it had 4 pages of special gear, a ton more units that are no where in the codex right now, The only difference was the nemezis dread knight wasn't in the book, but maybe it didn't exist back when the codex was legal. It ain't on any of the art in the book anyway. But even within 8th ed, the index GK were a better army, then the codex GK, specialy with every new FAQ added. So I don't know anything about necron, but from my army perspective their books get worse with time.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
2018/10/31 07:44:06
Subject: Chapter Approved 2018, What do we expect?
(Btw, I've actually written for award winning books in the game industry and edited for the same numbers intensive system [#2 selling game in the world at the time], since you mentioned it)
Sure Tell me, how come that most of us mostly disagree with your rule suggestions ?
Because most of you have never played necrons and really don't have an idea of what you are talking about in regards to them?
They are utterly bad. Terrible bad. All but 3-4 units in the codex unplayable bad.
The monolith is the perfect example. People talking about it being 300 points as potentially reasonable. Lets compare to a land raider.
Monolith 381
Land Raider with multi-melta 383
Penalties for heavy, both negate
Transport: Land raider can carry characters and can transport turn 1. Monolith can carry no characters, can't act as a transport till turn 3, and if it dies, all units waiting to transport are killed. 100% of them. Monolith is not a functional transport on any level.
Movement: Land raider 10", Monolith 6" Although Monolith can fly... which, if you surround it doesn't matter, because it's size makes it too big to escape with fly.
Wounds: Monolith has 4 more but a 1 point worse save, we can call that even probably.
Defensive Abilities: Land Raider has smoke launchers, Monolith has "regen 1 wound per turn". If either comes into play, -1 to hit is significantly better.
So far the land raider is ahead in pretty much every category, significantly so in some. Now lets look at offense.
Land Raider with twin las, twin assault and multi does 9.18 wounds to a leman russ, and 4.68 to marines.
Monolith does with 4 gauss flux arcs, and a particle whip, 4.44 wounds to a leman russ, and 5.78 to marines.
it does literally less than half of the damage against high toughness enemies. It does slightly better, *only* against low armor, low toughness units.
Did I mention the land raiders main weapons have twice the range?
So the land raider is better in almost every category, on almost every front, and it's weapons against important targets do twice the damage... but the garbage monolith should be around 300 points? Seriously?
In the time it takes a monolith to kills 1 land raider, the land raider has killed 2 monoliths (short by a wound or two but close). How is that not worth twice the points if it has twice the killing power, and is better in every other category? (BTW, If they start at max range, the land raider gets to kill 4 monoliths before the monolith can kill 1 land raider.)
On top of that, nobody plays the land raider today because they are too expensive point wise. It is over costed, and so is the monolith, massively.
Btw, Gauss mortal wounding on a 6 is more of an extreme version of it I have been advocating gauss should be rending for a long time (as can be seen in my previous posts). I realize mortals on a 6 is the extreme end, I was just being snarky
Automatically Appended Next Post: Long multiple quote response incoming, sorry.
valdier wrote: Necrons need about a 10-25% reduction across the board on all but:
Probably. It depends. A 25% point reduction on warriors would bring them down to 8pts, which is excessive.
Noting that marines themselves are overcosted, I don't think it's overly excessive, but agreed, I would but them in the 10-15% range, which is why I said 10-25%. That is a range that needs to be adjusted per model/unit type. Somewhere in that range.
Necrons are already LD10 across the board and there's a WL trait that makes them immune to morale. Such a rule is unnecessary.
That doesn't help when warriors are taken in squad sizes of 20. You shouldn't have only one WL trait that makes silver tide playable. That is supposed to be a mainstay of the army, not the only way to play it.
Uh what? Did you mean to write something and forgot?
I was saying tomb blades and destroyers are fine, they don't need any adjustments. They are the two definitively good-ish units we have in the army this edition... it's arguable true about 1 or 2 others.
Hah, no. Monoliths need a reduction, but that's way too much.
Nah, see the comparison I did in the previous post. A land raider can kill 2-4 monoliths before a monolith could do 1, and has better stats in pretty much every category.
The monolith never did any of those things. It should buff RP. Or maybe FNP, idk.
What the monolith really needs is for it to be able to deploy units from the tomb world on arrival. You have to wait until turn 3 in order to use it as intended.
I know it never did those things, I was trying to say, at it's current cost, to justify it, it would need to do something similar. I would prefer to have it capable of transporting turn 1, and allowing characters with the units transported.
Oh joy, yet mortal wounds, and on a basic weapon as well How about just +1 to damage on a 6?
I have actually advocated a lot for rending on Gauss, +1 damage would be fine honestly as well. Mortal wounds on gauss was just a reflection back to the old gauss glance days
Fix Tesla to be on an unmodified roll of 6.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: No argument there, although that would be more of a sidestep than a buff. Yes, you can advance now and shoot at -1 hit mod protected things without losing tesla procs, but on the flip side the tesla immortal + MWBD combo would be now be impossible. Annihilation barges would benefit most of all though; they can't benefit from MWDB, so losing it doesn't matter.
Agreed, Tesla is a broken concept with the -1 to hit issue everywhere. This would at least semi-resolve that. It would allow them to cost Tesla without assuming mwbd is a requirement.
Overlord change to reroll misses aura.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Why though? MWBD is good. I'd much rather have that than yet another reroll aura.
Because MWBD isn't that good. It is attached to a horribly over costed character that exists only to provide a +1 to hit to a single unit each round.
Agreed, this is kind of an attempt to make them less "suck"
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Why would you give a Doom Scythe 2D3 attacks in combat? Unless you mean the Deathray. A flat 3 shots would be better in terms of flow and balance, imo.
All flyers need to ignore heavy. Its not just a Doom Scythe problem. Because flyers are gak.
Yes, I meant on the death ray and should have better stated that. 2d3 would put it close to d.eldar flyers in output of damage.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/10/31 08:01:20
Mostly proof of how badly GW messed up the Necron codex.
Seriously, tell me where I'm wrong in my assessment compared to units in other armies.
(Btw, I've actually written for award winning books in the game industry and edited for the same numbers intensive system [#2 selling game in the world at the time], since you mentioned it)
No one mentioned gakk. He just said that your post showed that game design isn't an easy thing to do. You just decided to inform us you wrote some books based on or for games. How is that relevant to anything?
You might "write" and "edit" books in the game industry but that doesn't explain gakk about your assessment? Nor have anything to do with this forum?
Anyway here's my assessment.
Necrons are a pretty good singular Codex that does well in non-competitive games. However, once you put necrons against armies that can Ally and soup e.g. BA + Knights, Harlequins + Ynarri, Nurgle + Khorne etc we are gakk. Tbh, most singular Codex armies don't preform well due to the lack of allying. You can say that T'au do well time to time and I am sure Orkz will change things up until CA18 but, in a game where GW encourages allying and playing several factions in 1 army, no singular Codex army is going to stand a chance in this meta. The only way to fix 40k is to restrict allying and how it works.
In terms of what Necrons need for more viability.
Monolith needs to be roughly 250-281pts to be playable. Or, make it T9-10, keep it at 381pts.
Doomsday Arks needs to be 173pts or have the ability to go into 3 models per unit like Leman Russ's. Ghost Ark should be 130-140pts
Warriors at 10-11 ppm, Immortals at 15 ppm, same with the deathmarks. Lychguard need to be 16ppm with both the Warscythe and Sword+board costing the same price e.g. Warscythe = 11pts, Sword+Board = 11pt.
Doomscythe needs to ignore moving and firing heavy weapons and it's gun needs more reliability.
Wraiths need a good 10pt drop per model.
Obelisk should be 320pts seeing as it's a LoW and the T vault could do with either costing 340pts. give or take.
Triarch Stalker should have ignore moving and firing heavy weapons. Also, all Triarch should be treated like IK Freeblades. While not being part of a dynasty they should be given some buffs to make them playable. It's kind of slow to have 90% of your units get a Codex buff and let a few units as they are because they lack any dynasty support.
Spyders need a rule that gives it the character Keyword or an ability to "look out sir" onto Scarabs that are nearby. And for the gloom prism to deny D3 pysker powers.
fe40k wrote: ...we'll wait for the codex...
...we'll wait for the faq...
...we'll wait for the CA...
...we'll wait for the next edition...
We're nearly through the entire 8th edition; and there's been minimal change in GW's ability to write codexs', and even less in their ability to balance armies, and individual units.
I'm very curious what changes in CA2018 - but I'm not getting my hopes up.
What evidence do you have for declaring we’re nearly through the entire 8th edition?
Nearly might be pushing it. But we're likely over half way. Evidence being past experience of editions of 40k and how long Sigmar 1e lasted.
2018/10/31 08:24:07
Subject: Chapter Approved 2018, What do we expect?
tneva82 wrote: Now that's good excuse for lazy game design! Just like GW. Can't be bothered to do the job they are paid for so put out any crap.
C'mon, give the guys a break. They've been doing a better job the past couple years than they have been in previous decades before. At least they're listening to their customers somewha...
WTF. I'm actually defending GW now?!? What has the world come to?!? Every now and then I have to remind myself what they did to WFB 8th.
No. I would give them if a break if it hadn't taken said decades to actually realize we want a balanced game. A year and a half of half arsed and lazy updates is not going to erase those decades of them totally fething up, and besides some decent PR, their rules writing hasn't really improved. They just take 6 months to write a "patch" and change a few points costs that could have been done in an hour tops, and people give them applause saying how amazing the "new GW" is. Power creep is real, the recent fluff makes me gag, and the nerfing of "OP" stuff without addressing the source of problem is lazy trash.
Bruh. Lighten up. I'm in agreeance with you.
Lol. My bad. Half alseep and reading this is no excuse. Sorry!
2018/10/31 08:28:21
Subject: Chapter Approved 2018, What do we expect?
Spyders need a rule that gives it the character Keyword or an ability to "look out sir" onto Scarabs that are nearby. And for the gloom prism to deny D3 pysker powers.
You mean scarabs should look out sir for spyders ? Gloom prisms should be -2 to psychic powers at 12", and -1 at 24".
2018/10/31 08:55:39
Subject: Chapter Approved 2018, What do we expect?
(Btw, I've actually written for award winning books in the game industry and edited for the same numbers intensive system [#2 selling game in the world at the time], since you mentioned it)
Sure Tell me, how come that most of us mostly disagree with your rule suggestions ?
Because most of you have never played necrons and really don't have an idea of what you are talking about in regards to them?
They are utterly bad. Terrible bad. All but 3-4 units in the codex unplayable bad.
The monolith is the perfect example. People talking about it being 300 points as potentially reasonable. Lets compare to a land raider.
Monolith 381
Land Raider with multi-melta 383
Penalties for heavy, both negate
Transport: Land raider can carry characters and can transport turn 1. Monolith can carry no characters, can't act as a transport till turn 3, and if it dies, all units waiting to transport are killed. 100% of them. Monolith is not a functional transport on any level.
Movement: Land raider 10", Monolith 6" Although Monolith can fly... which, if you surround it doesn't matter, because it's size makes it too big to escape with fly.
Wounds: Monolith has 4 more but a 1 point worse save, we can call that even probably.
Defensive Abilities: Land Raider has smoke launchers, Monolith has "regen 1 wound per turn". If either comes into play, -1 to hit is significantly better.
So far the land raider is ahead in pretty much every category, significantly so in some. Now lets look at offense.
Land Raider with twin las, twin assault and multi does 9.18 wounds to a leman russ, and 4.68 to marines.
Monolith does with 4 gauss flux arcs, and a particle whip, 4.44 wounds to a leman russ, and 5.78 to marines.
it does literally less than half of the damage against high toughness enemies. It does slightly better, *only* against low armor, low toughness units.
Did I mention the land raiders main weapons have twice the range?
So the land raider is better in almost every category, on almost every front, and it's weapons against important targets do twice the damage... but the garbage monolith should be around 300 points? Seriously?
In the time it takes a monolith to kills 1 land raider, the land raider has killed 2 monoliths (short by a wound or two but close). How is that not worth twice the points if it has twice the killing power, and is better in every other category? (BTW, If they start at max range, the land raider gets to kill 4 monoliths before the monolith can kill 1 land raider.)
On top of that, nobody plays the land raider today because they are too expensive point wise. It is over costed, and so is the monolith, massively.
Btw, Gauss mortal wounding on a 6 is more of an extreme version of it I have been advocating gauss should be rending for a long time (as can be seen in my previous posts). I realize mortals on a 6 is the extreme end, I was just being snarky
Automatically Appended Next Post: Long multiple quote response incoming, sorry.
valdier wrote: Necrons need about a 10-25% reduction across the board on all but:
Probably. It depends. A 25% point reduction on warriors would bring them down to 8pts, which is excessive.
Noting that marines themselves are overcosted, I don't think it's overly excessive, but agreed, I would but them in the 10-15% range, which is why I said 10-25%. That is a range that needs to be adjusted per model/unit type. Somewhere in that range.
Necrons are already LD10 across the board and there's a WL trait that makes them immune to morale. Such a rule is unnecessary.
That doesn't help when warriors are taken in squad sizes of 20. You shouldn't have only one WL trait that makes silver tide playable. That is supposed to be a mainstay of the army, not the only way to play it.
Uh what? Did you mean to write something and forgot?
I was saying tomb blades and destroyers are fine, they don't need any adjustments. They are the two definitively good-ish units we have in the army this edition... it's arguable true about 1 or 2 others.
Hah, no. Monoliths need a reduction, but that's way too much.
Nah, see the comparison I did in the previous post. A land raider can kill 2-4 monoliths before a monolith could do 1, and has better stats in pretty much every category.
The monolith never did any of those things. It should buff RP. Or maybe FNP, idk.
What the monolith really needs is for it to be able to deploy units from the tomb world on arrival. You have to wait until turn 3 in order to use it as intended.
I know it never did those things, I was trying to say, at it's current cost, to justify it, it would need to do something similar. I would prefer to have it capable of transporting turn 1, and allowing characters with the units transported.
Oh joy, yet mortal wounds, and on a basic weapon as well How about just +1 to damage on a 6?
I have actually advocated a lot for rending on Gauss, +1 damage would be fine honestly as well. Mortal wounds on gauss was just a reflection back to the old gauss glance days
Fix Tesla to be on an unmodified roll of 6.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: No argument there, although that would be more of a sidestep than a buff. Yes, you can advance now and shoot at -1 hit mod protected things without losing tesla procs, but on the flip side the tesla immortal + MWBD combo would be now be impossible. Annihilation barges would benefit most of all though; they can't benefit from MWDB, so losing it doesn't matter.
Agreed, Tesla is a broken concept with the -1 to hit issue everywhere. This would at least semi-resolve that. It would allow them to cost Tesla without assuming mwbd is a requirement.
Overlord change to reroll misses aura.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Why though? MWBD is good. I'd much rather have that than yet another reroll aura.
Because MWBD isn't that good. It is attached to a horribly over costed character that exists only to provide a +1 to hit to a single unit each round.
Agreed, this is kind of an attempt to make them less "suck"
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Why would you give a Doom Scythe 2D3 attacks in combat? Unless you mean the Deathray. A flat 3 shots would be better in terms of flow and balance, imo.
All flyers need to ignore heavy. Its not just a Doom Scythe problem. Because flyers are gak.
Yes, I meant on the death ray and should have better stated that. 2d3 would put it close to d.eldar flyers in output of damage.
For someone who writes and edits book you might want to look at a codex before you start claiming landraiders in imaginary configurations exsist.
Secondly you also overlooked the inherent advantage that being able to deepstrike such a heavy unit has.
2018/10/31 10:37:52
Subject: Chapter Approved 2018, What do we expect?
On the marine topic I saw a fairly eloquent fix, with some adjustment that doesnt need a million point reductions. (Marines becoming a horde army is a mistake imo)
All MEQ get a rule something like armoured ceramaite (or whatever name you want): reduce ap (ie ap value +1) on incoming attacks from ranged weapons by 1.
TEQ: either 2d6 for saves or +2 to the AP. I prefer the 2d6 over the +2. Feels like it starts messing with fluff of plasma chewing through armour.
We are the sons of Sanguinius, the protectors of Mankind. Aye, we are indeed the Angels of Death.
~4100
~1660
5300 | 
2800 | 
1600 | 
Tell me, how come that most of us mostly disagree with your rule suggestions ?
I have been advocating gauss should be rending for a long time (as can be seen in my previous posts). I realize mortals on a 6 is the extreme end, I was just being snarky 
IG 4000+
Custodes 2500
Knights 1500
Chaos / Daemons / Death Guard : 7500+ 
Angels Redemptive: 5000 pts