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.

 Skerr wrote:

 Sasori wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Some guy on TSons FB confirmed TS point changes, but denied the smite change. He seems pretty confident in any case.

Points going up/down or did he not elaborate?

Down I had heard though any word on Wargear?

Down - with a prophecy of other unspecified equipment costs dropping as well.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Assuming these points changes to Thousand Sons are accurate, is this enough to actually make Rubrics and Scarabs worth using? I know in the past they've been borderline.

They're going to be pretty decent in context of all other changes.




I should note the guy saying this is a podcaster in Cali.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Necronplayer wrote:

 ph34r wrote:

The only good IG infantry unit that is good is the Infantry Squad and you want to make them cost 50% more? Do Veterans, who are already bad, get worse? Do all IG infantry models just no longer get taken ever?

As someone already mentioned, they are different roles.

And good/bad is relative. If infantry squad goes to 5-6ppm, conscripts look pretty good relative to it. The fact is IS is one of the most popular units in the game. Do you really not see an issue in game balance with that?

Veteran/Infantry Squads are effectively the same damn thing. 10 models with a HWT, Sergeant, Vox, and Special Weapon. The only difference is that the Veteran Squad can ditch an additional 2 Lasguns for Special Weapons that the Infantry Squad can't.

Infantry Squads are "one of the most popular units in the game" because it lets schmucks cheese the Command Point system. That's where the vast majority of "the popularity" is coming from.
Conscripts aren't going to see a resurgence. It just ain't gonna happen. The effectiveness there was Conscripts and Commissars, Commissars are trash tier now. They're worse versions of Ethereals from the Tau's original release.

Nobody whined this much about Guard Infantry Squads for editions prior. Remove the ability to cheese the CPs with Brigades and we can shut nonsense like yours down.

Nobody whined about Infantry in prior editions because they died to a stiff breeze. You can't be serious with this post.

You're never, ever going to convince him Guard shouldn't cost so much they don't exist on the table. Don't bother.

Just needs Soup to lose shared CPs from formations.

Job’s a good ‘un.

Looking at the blurry image for the Indomitus Crusaders Formation, I'm pretty sure the 'Bolt Storm' stratagem says that units with bolters firing at half range automatically hit their targets.

Could be fun. Intercessors hit on 3s anyway and usually have Captain support, but automatically hitting with 20 Str 4 Ap -1 bolters could ruin some days. Useful, but not an auto-use, exactly as stratagems should be.

 Cephalobeard wrote:
You're never, ever going to convince him Guard shouldn't cost so much they don't exist on the table. Don't bother.

He isn't wrong though. The level of bias in here is hilarious. I play guard and chaos, it's obvious both are too good at their task. That said, I would like them to stop using points as the only balancing metric. They should tweak keywords and stratagems wording as well.

BTW he is right about CP farming. CP should all start equal between armies based on game size and you should spend them on special detachments similar to how the new formations are looking. People shouldn't NEED the loyal 32 in order to have the CP to run an army.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
You're never, ever going to convince him Guard shouldn't cost so much they don't exist on the table. Don't bother.

He isn't wrong though. The level of bias in here is hilarious. I play guard and chaos, it's obvious both are too good at their task. That said, I would like them to stop using points as the only balancing metric. They should tweak keywords and stratagems wording as well.

And it's funny that I get called out as being obstinate when certain individuals keep popping up in any Guard related thread to shout about how it's "not really soup that's the problem!" and that Guard just need Infantry Squads to cost more so that Conscripts are "viable again"(they wouldn't be, and anyone saying they would be is daft) and somehow that's going to fix the soup issues...

BTW he is right about CP farming. CP should all start equal between armies based on game size and you should spend them on special detachments similar to how the new formations are looking. People shouldn't NEED the loyal 32 in order to have the CP to run an army.

I've been starting to toy with the idea that elite armies should use up multiple slots for their units. Might sound strange, but it's worth exploring a bit IMO.

It's funny how backwards CPs and stratagems currently are. Conceptually speaking, more focused armies should benefit more from them, not less. A mono Blood Angel army should have more ability to do Blood Angel-y things. Allied armies should have less capacity to utilize specific, specialized rules.

I imagine $oup is good for business, however.

I'm not saying he's wrong or isn't wrong. I'm just saying the discussion is pointless. No one is convincing anyone of anything on that topic.

Everyone has their opinion. At this point, we'll know what the "big bosses" think once we book drops, and then that'll be all that matters.

We can have equal CP when my IG can have stratagems that are as powerful as an elite army's stratagems and not have to spend multiple stratagems to get the same effect. Until then equal CP is just another "buff space marines, nerf IG" demand.

I saw someone mention that the CA18 would bring a return to automatic first turns for the player who finishes deploying first.

What is this rumour based on? The fact that one of the missions previewed shows this text?

As far as I know the current missions have this same text but we're playing under the Matched Play revision that finishing deployment first gives you +1 for the roll.

Is there some other basis for this rumour that the game would be returning to ridiculous drop minimization meta?

 Therion wrote:
I saw someone mention that the CA18 would bring a return to automatic first turns for the player who finishes deploying first.

What is this rumour based on? The fact that one of the missions previewed shows this text?

As far as I know the current missions have this same text but we're playing under the Matched Play revision that finishing deployment first gives you +1 for the roll.

Is there some other basis for this rumour that the game would be returning to ridiculous drop minimization meta?

Considering every major tournament (iirc) changed their rules strictly to NOT have that rule, I cannot see a world in which you will need to worry about automatic first turns, at least in a competitive setting. Even then, if you're playing open, who cares because you can make your own rules.

 Peregrine wrote:
We can have equal CP when my IG can have stratagems that are as powerful as an elite army's stratagems and not have to spend multiple stratagems to get the same effect. Until then equal CP is just another "buff space marines, nerf IG" demand.

*Looks at the Space Marine codex.* Sure, you can have my 'elite army' stratagems...

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Assuming these points changes to Thousand Sons are accurate, is this enough to actually make Rubrics and Scarabs worth using? I know in the past they've been borderline.

Good chance. after all it seems like the meta will shift to promote the marine statline more to the field with the horde troopers getting more expensive and marines getting cheaper-and that's a favorable matchup for rubrics/scarabs.
2 points may not seem like much, but it stacks with 5 point per flamer too so they got more viable, and 7 points per termi means if you used to run a scarab bomb, you get a 70 point discount now-that's some serious discount.

Overall, you can expect rubrics and scarabs to be at least viable now.

If the rumor of the full smite, cannons at 5,etc are also true, you can expect them to be top tier.

 Cephalobeard wrote:

 Therion wrote:
I saw someone mention that the CA18 would bring a return to automatic first turns for the player who finishes deploying first.

What is this rumour based on? The fact that one of the missions previewed shows this text?

As far as I know the current missions have this same text but we're playing under the Matched Play revision that finishing deployment first gives you +1 for the roll.

Is there some other basis for this rumour that the game would be returning to ridiculous drop minimization meta?

Considering every major tournament (iirc) changed their rules strictly to NOT have that rule, I cannot see a world in which you will need to worry about automatic first turns, at least in a competitive setting. Even then, if you're playing open, who cares because you can make your own rules.

I don't fear that, I'm just curious what the rumor posted in this thread is based on (other than bullgak). Even if GW dropped the ball and made such a rule, tournaments would never adopt it because it simply ruins the meta and/or forces organisers to put 10 skyscraper size walls on the table to prevent games being decided on 1a.

So interesting thing that I've noticed about the new missions - they don't have that "who deploys first gets +1 to their roll" thing, like what the last CA had.

Does that mean that +1 thing isn't meant to be applied to all missions, including the BRB ones?

 BoomWolf wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Assuming these points changes to Thousand Sons are accurate, is this enough to actually make Rubrics and Scarabs worth using? I know in the past they've been borderline.

Good chance. after all it seems like the meta will shift to promote the marine statline more to the field with the horde troopers getting more expensive and marines getting cheaper-and that's a favorable matchup for rubrics/scarabs.
2 points may not seem like much, but it stacks with 5 point per flamer too so they got more viable, and 7 points per termi means if you used to run a scarab bomb, you get a 70 point discount now-that's some serious discount.

Overall, you can expect rubrics and scarabs to be at least viable now.

If the rumor of the full smite, cannons at 5,etc are also true, you can expect them to be top tier.

I don't buy it.

We've heard a lot about the nerfing of cheap chaff, but the only thing we've heard about big stuff (knights, etc) is that the lesser used big centerpiece models are getting buffed and the current cream of the crop is staying right there. If the Tsons rumore are confirmed, that probably means Princes and Ahriman are staying unchanged, and the current structure of "bring in some soup for CP and screen, slap on Ahriman and however many princes you want, enjoy your whole army being nothing but untargetable characters where you can buff any one of them to oblivion and wipe a squad/knight."

if competitive players can't bring cultists, they'll bring brimstones to provide the CPs.

Rubrics being 20pts or 18pts doesn't really matter. there are no marine bodies for them to hunt in competitive play, and they still give up 3x the points that guardsmen do to gak like knight weapons. Scrabs I can conceivably see, but still, what does a squad of scarabs do better than a DP that can fling itself across the table and alpha down a priority target?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Therion wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:

 Therion wrote:
I saw someone mention that the CA18 would bring a return to automatic first turns for the player who finishes deploying first.

What is this rumour based on? The fact that one of the missions previewed shows this text?

As far as I know the current missions have this same text but we're playing under the Matched Play revision that finishing deployment first gives you +1 for the roll.

Is there some other basis for this rumour that the game would be returning to ridiculous drop minimization meta?

Considering every major tournament (iirc) changed their rules strictly to NOT have that rule, I cannot see a world in which you will need to worry about automatic first turns, at least in a competitive setting. Even then, if you're playing open, who cares because you can make your own rules.

I don't fear that, I'm just curious what the rumor posted in this thread is based on (other than bullgak). Even if GW dropped the ball and made such a rule, tournaments would never adopt it because it simply ruins the meta and/or forces organisers to put 10 skyscraper size walls on the table to prevent games being decided on 1a.

The rumor is based off reading the one mission GW previewed today.

With things like First Strike, Elite vs. Horde also favors Elite. Elites have no issue getting at least one death on first turn. Hordes struggle a little more (at least my friend with Tyranids seems to ).

I really want to see the Liberator Strike Force. The Indomitus Crusaderss Stratagem is beyond cool for someone using Intercessors. If the LSF isn't stellar, I will probably be using the Indomitus Crusaders instead since I have three squads of Intercessors as is (but do I make all three RF Bolt Rifle with a Power Fist on the Sergeant or do I make at least one have Stalker Bolt Rifles?!). Some talk has been that the Liberator Strike Force is likely to do something with Sternguard (or Veterans in general), which would be cool for me. If I can combine the two, I would be in great shape.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
So interesting thing that I've noticed about the new missions - they don't have that "who deploys first gets +1 to their roll" thing, like what the last CA had.

Does that mean that +1 thing isn't meant to be applied to all missions, including the BRB ones?

The only thing it ever applied to was CA missions, unless players chose to extend it to other missions as well, by way of a house rule.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
With things like First Strike, Elite vs. Horde also favors Elite. Elites have no issue getting at least one death on first turn. Hordes struggle a little more (at least my friend with Tyranids seems to ).

I really want to see the Liberator Strike Force. The Indomitus Crusaderss Stratagem is beyond cool for someone using Intercessors. If the LSF isn't stellar, I will probably be using the Indomitus Crusaders instead since I have three squads of Intercessors as is (but do I make all three RF Bolt Rifle with a Power Fist on the Sergeant or do I make at least one have Stalker Bolt Rifles?!). Some talk has been that the Liberator Strike Force is likely to do something with Sternguard (or Veterans in general), which would be cool for me. If I can combine the two, I would be in great shape.

I'm partially biased based on the fact I have a purely Primaris Crimson Fists force, but I hope it applies to some of the primaris units. In the lore, Crimson Fists got smashed (again) and heavily reinforced with Primaris, so it would make sense.

 Peregrine wrote:
We can have equal CP when my IG can have stratagems that are as powerful as an elite army's stratagems and not have to spend multiple stratagems to get the same effect. Until then equal CP is just another "buff space marines, nerf IG" demand.

Sounds good. My predators are going to get a toughness bump and the turrets will fire twice though. Sound good?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
You're never, ever going to convince him Guard shouldn't cost so much they don't exist on the table. Don't bother.

He isn't wrong though. The level of bias in here is hilarious. I play guard and chaos, it's obvious both are too good at their task. That said, I would like them to stop using points as the only balancing metric. They should tweak keywords and stratagems wording as well.

And it's funny that I get called out as being obstinate when certain individuals keep popping up in any Guard related thread to shout about how it's "not really soup that's the problem!" and that Guard just need Infantry Squads to cost more so that Conscripts are "viable again"(they wouldn't be, and anyone saying they would be is daft) and somehow that's going to fix the soup issues...

BTW he is right about CP farming. CP should all start equal between armies based on game size and you should spend them on special detachments similar to how the new formations are looking. People shouldn't NEED the loyal 32 in order to have the CP to run an army.

I've been starting to toy with the idea that elite armies should use up multiple slots for their units. Might sound strange, but it's worth exploring a bit IMO.

The Soup issue was fixed the moment they decapitated the very concept of CP farming. Infantry squads are just stupid strong to begin with and a .5 to 1 point increase is deserved.

That isn't to say that Conscripts being thrown to 4 points wasn't silly after everything happened with the codex. I'm all for them going back to 3 points, or making it so that further bought Conscripts after the initial 20 are cheaper (Horus Heresy has a similar system).

the_scotsman wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Assuming these points changes to Thousand Sons are accurate, is this enough to actually make Rubrics and Scarabs worth using? I know in the past they've been borderline.

Good chance. after all it seems like the meta will shift to promote the marine statline more to the field with the horde troopers getting more expensive and marines getting cheaper-and that's a favorable matchup for rubrics/scarabs.
2 points may not seem like much, but it stacks with 5 point per flamer too so they got more viable, and 7 points per termi means if you used to run a scarab bomb, you get a 70 point discount now-that's some serious discount.

Overall, you can expect rubrics and scarabs to be at least viable now.

If the rumor of the full smite, cannons at 5,etc are also true, you can expect them to be top tier.

I don't buy it.

We've heard a lot about the nerfing of cheap chaff, but the only thing we've heard about big stuff (knights, etc) is that the lesser used big centerpiece models are getting buffed and the current cream of the crop is staying right there. If the Tsons rumore are confirmed, that probably means Princes and Ahriman are staying unchanged, and the current structure of "bring in some soup for CP and screen, slap on Ahriman and however many princes you want, enjoy your whole army being nothing but untargetable characters where you can buff any one of them to oblivion and wipe a squad/knight."

if competitive players can't bring cultists, they'll bring brimstones to provide the CPs.

Rubrics being 20pts or 18pts doesn't really matter. there are no marine bodies for them to hunt in competitive play, and they still give up 3x the points that guardsmen do to gak like knight weapons. Scrabs I can conceivably see, but still, what does a squad of scarabs do better than a DP that can fling itself across the table and alpha down a priority target?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Therion wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:

 Therion wrote:
I saw someone mention that the CA18 would bring a return to automatic first turns for the player who finishes deploying first.

What is this rumour based on? The fact that one of the missions previewed shows this text?

As far as I know the current missions have this same text but we're playing under the Matched Play revision that finishing deployment first gives you +1 for the roll.

Is there some other basis for this rumour that the game would be returning to ridiculous drop minimization meta?

Considering every major tournament (iirc) changed their rules strictly to NOT have that rule, I cannot see a world in which you will need to worry about automatic first turns, at least in a competitive setting. Even then, if you're playing open, who cares because you can make your own rules.

I don't fear that, I'm just curious what the rumor posted in this thread is based on (other than bullgak). Even if GW dropped the ball and made such a rule, tournaments would never adopt it because it simply ruins the meta and/or forces organisers to put 10 skyscraper size walls on the table to prevent games being decided on 1a.

The rumor is based off reading the one mission GW previewed today.

IT'S ALSO WRONG. THAT MISSION DOES NOT USE ALTERNATING DEPLOYMENT, SO WHO FINISHES DEPLOYING FIRST IS BASED ON A ROLLOFF, NOT NUMBER OF DROPS. THINK 7TH'S DEPLOYMENT SYSTEM.

THIS HAS BEEN AN ALL CAPS PSA. THANK YOU AND HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.

The fact the Victrix Guard shows an image where the only Primaris are the Calgar box set, I have hope. Hope!

IanVanCheese wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
With things like First Strike, Elite vs. Horde also favors Elite. Elites have no issue getting at least one death on first turn. Hordes struggle a little more (at least my friend with Tyranids seems to ).

I really want to see the Liberator Strike Force. The Indomitus Crusaderss Stratagem is beyond cool for someone using Intercessors. If the LSF isn't stellar, I will probably be using the Indomitus Crusaders instead since I have three squads of Intercessors as is (but do I make all three RF Bolt Rifle with a Power Fist on the Sergeant or do I make at least one have Stalker Bolt Rifles?!). Some talk has been that the Liberator Strike Force is likely to do something with Sternguard (or Veterans in general), which would be cool for me. If I can combine the two, I would be in great shape.

I'm partially biased based on the fact I have a purely Primaris Crimson Fists force, but I hope it applies to some of the primaris units. In the lore, Crimson Fists got smashed (again) and heavily reinforced with Primaris, so it would make sense.

That is what I am hoping for. They should have few regular Marines left. My current list is only Pedro, a Devastator Squad, and two Predators as my regular Marines, the rest is all Primaris.

I really hope they don't make Tzzagors a point more. Better would be if the Blades cost 1 point in stead of free. TGors with auto pi and chain sword are not even really worth 7, if you ever used them, it is the -1 on the blades that are the problem.

I'd like to see a points tweek on most of the Slaanesh daemons, I feel they are slightly over costed at the moment, at least compared to other daemon units that fulfil a similar or same niche.

The Keep of secrets going down to 150pts is a nice start though likely not enough for it to see play outside casual games.

Players getting to automatically go first depending on drops should never have been lost, IMO.

Those big models and transports helping you guarantee first turn helped against the power of spamming units for command points.

The fact people complained about transport costs, but also complained about this system always struck me as silly.

We still use it in my group, and bringing an extra transport to pile 6 characters in gives me a lot of security to make my harlies get first turn.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Players getting to automatically go first depending on drops should never have been lost, IMO.

Those big models and transports helping you guarantee first turn helped against the power of spamming units for command points.

The fact people complained about transport costs, but also complained about this system always struck me as silly.

We still use it in my group, and bringing an extra transport to pile 6 characters in gives me a lot of security to make my harlies get first turn.

It doesn't work in competitive play. Too easy to build a sub 5 drop leafblower list that can wipe half your opponents army in one turn. The rule didn't come from nowhere. Bringing a transport in this situation is either how you guarantee going first or suicide. Nothing was actually 'transporting' anything during the time this rule was standard. If you did that with your harlequins in a real game, they'd pop the transport and get a free character kill. Tournaments were already instituting the current rule just to keep games from ending turn 1.

Not sure on where I stand on the 'fewer drops = +1' vs 'fewer drops = go first' debate, but I do like the idea of whoever is going first having to deploy their whole army first.

Being able to reliably counter-deploy would do wonders to mitigate not getting first turn.