Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/03/04 16:51:26
Subject: Shadowspear Obliterators rule change?
|
 |
Automated Rubric Marine of Tzeentch
Netherlands
|
AnomanderRake wrote:topaxygouroun i wrote:The problem is that the 100 pt mark is the Hellbrute territory (post weapons) and that one sports T7 and 8 wounds. A single infantry model for 100 points feels awkward.
Not sure he really counts as an "infantry model". At T5/W4/2+ the closest statline comparison I've got is an Allarus Terminator, who costs around 80pts, is a bit tougher due to 4++ and a 6+ FNP in the psychic phase, but doesn't have anything like the damage output (4 8/-2/d3 in melee is all well and good but 6 8/-2/d3 at range is way, way better).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TwinPoleTheory wrote: AnomanderRake wrote:Maybe? At 100PPM you're paying about +60% points for T5, an extra Wound, +50% firepower, a melee weapon, and the ability to take squads of 1-3 instead of exactly 3. Not sure it's a "huge nerf" given how massive a bump to survivability T4->T5 is.
Not really a maybe. It takes 3 squads from being about 1/3 of your points to about 1/2. It reduces their survivability because there will be less to protect them from assault and short range firepower.
If Abaddon ends up changing and/or going up in cost you've now taken one of the more consistent list configurations that CSM has and seriously kneecapped it, since that would push the combo up over half your points, now you can't deepstrike that package onto the table. This further reduces survivability for a very small number of units.
The cost of getting 36 shots out of your deepstrike package of Obliterators will have gone up from 585 (65pts/model for nine models) to 600 (100pts/model for six models). They will have 24 wounds (6*4) instead of 27 (9*3) and be protected by T5 where they had T4 before. The alpha-strike potential will be different and you won't be running the exact same list anymore but I still fail to see how this is a "huge nerf".
The concern is that it will probably won't be 100 pts but more close to 120 for a PL6 model. If you redo the math with that, you end up with 720 pts vs 585, and this is a huge point difference.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/03/04 16:58:04
Subject: Shadowspear Obliterators rule change?
|
 |
Morphing Obliterator
|
topaxygouroun i wrote:The concern is that it will probably won't be 100 pts but more close to 120 for a PL6 model. If you redo the math with that, you end up with 720 pts vs 585, and this is a huge point difference.
Not to mention fewer net wounds to absorb damage. The +1 T makes some difference, but it's not like people were turning Bolters on Obliterators to wipe them off the table. The weapons generally shooting at Obliterators will be much happier only having to kill 2 of them instead of 3 of them.
However, it sounds like Rake has already locked in his position on the topic, so until we actually have data, the debate is probably pointless.
|
"In relating the circumstances which have led to my confinement in this refuge for the demented, I am aware that my present position will create a natural doubt of the authenticity of my narrative." |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/03/04 17:05:13
Subject: Shadowspear Obliterators rule change?
|
 |
Veteran Inquisitor with Xenos Alliances
|
PL is not directly proportionate to point cost. GW has said what they do is they take an average of the cheapest and most expensive ways to load out the unit.
Obliterators have no options, so they will be something of the purest correlation between PL and points.
At the same time, if we're honest, the Obliterator is something of mini-Dreadnought and tends to be used to fill a similar niche. Sitting around 150pts... higher strength, more toughness more wounds, less of a save, longer range weapons. How does a Hellbrute vs 2 new Obliterators stack up? I think they'd win... How about 2 Hellbrutes vs 3 new Obliterators? I think it'd be closer, but the Hellbrutes I think would likely win, if for nothing else than being able to keep their distance. So its pretty obvious, Obliterators at 70pts are too cheap; and at 100 pts too expensive.
If for a moment we pretended their stats remained the same, and only their weapon improved... they're armed now with something in the ball park of 3 plasma guns... and would have a cost much like the centurion... 70 + 3xPG... That's 90 some points before the stat increases. Its easy to see why GW would make them a 100pts+... even if holistically they shouldn't be. Somewhere between 85-95 pts is probably the appropriate cost.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/03/04 17:12:02
Subject: Shadowspear Obliterators rule change?
|
 |
Powerful Phoenix Lord
|
The +1 T does make a difference against MLs, Lascannons, Meltas and Supercharged Plasma, which were being used to kill Oblits. You still need the same number of Supercharged Plasma wounds to kill an Oblit, but you will be wounding on 3+, not 2+ like before. The extra wound also helps against d6 damage weapons that roll low. A Lascannon had a 66% chance to 1-shot an Obit before (assuming hit, wound and failed invul). That's down to only 50% now, even less considering they no longer wound on 2+ In the end, I really feel like this is both a nerf and a boost at the same time, which should strike a nice balance. -
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/04 17:12:08
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/03/04 17:19:34
Subject: Shadowspear Obliterators rule change?
|
 |
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter
|
TwinPoleTheory wrote:topaxygouroun i wrote:The concern is that it will probably won't be 100 pts but more close to 120 for a PL6 model. If you redo the math with that, you end up with 720 pts vs 585, and this is a huge point difference.
Not to mention fewer net wounds to absorb damage. The +1 T makes some difference, but it's not like people were turning Bolters on Obliterators to wipe them off the table. The weapons generally shooting at Obliterators will be much happier only having to kill 2 of them instead of 3 of them.
However, it sounds like Rake has already locked in his position on the topic, so until we actually have data, the debate is probably pointless.
True. I look forward to seeing them on the table so we can see if they work like I think they will, like you guys think they will, or somewhere in between.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/03/04 17:27:40
Subject: Re:Shadowspear Obliterators rule change?
|
 |
Morphing Obliterator
|
There was no need to change the Obliterator. It was one of the few consistent performing units in the CSM codex. It's like the Russians redesigning the AK-47, why?
Perhaps focus your efforts on the units that never see the field instead.
|
"In relating the circumstances which have led to my confinement in this refuge for the demented, I am aware that my present position will create a natural doubt of the authenticity of my narrative." |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/03/04 17:28:04
Subject: Shadowspear Obliterators rule change?
|
 |
Automated Rubric Marine of Tzeentch
Netherlands
|
aka_mythos wrote:PL is not directly proportionate to point cost. GW has said what they do is they take an average of the cheapest and most expensive ways to load out the unit.
Obliterators have no options, so they will be something of the purest correlation between PL and points.
At the same time, if we're honest, the Obliterator is something of mini-Dreadnought and tends to be used to fill a similar niche. Sitting around 150pts... higher strength, more toughness more wounds, less of a save, longer range weapons. How does a Hellbrute vs 2 new Obliterators stack up? I think they'd win... How about 2 Hellbrutes vs 3 new Obliterators? I think it'd be closer, but the Hellbrutes I think would likely win, if for nothing else than being able to keep their distance. So its pretty obvious, Obliterators at 70pts are too cheap; and at 100 pts too expensive.
If for a moment we pretended their stats remained the same, and only their weapon improved... they're armed now with something in the ball park of 3 plasma guns... and would have a cost much like the centurion... 70 + 3xPG... That's 90 some points before the stat increases. Its easy to see why GW would make them a 100pts+... even if holistically they shouldn't be. Somewhere between 85-95 pts is probably the appropriate cost.
A hellbrute with las/missile is 120 pts tho, nowhere close to 150. If you feeling bold, a plasma cannon/missile hellbrute is 96 pts. An obliterator shoots bettter than that, but is a lot weaker.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/03/04 17:30:03
Subject: Shadowspear Obliterators rule change?
|
 |
Mekboy on Kustom Deth Kopta
|
I like the look of them, I hope they are field-able so that I can see them across the table from my orks. I imagine if they cost to many points GW will adjust them as they will want to sell the new plastic. it is the same reason I am pretty sure the mediocre performing ork buggies will see some changes as well, gotta push that plastic!
|
10000 points 7000
6000
5000
5000
2000
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/03/04 17:31:36
Subject: Re:Shadowspear Obliterators rule change?
|
 |
Automated Rubric Marine of Tzeentch
Netherlands
|
TwinPoleTheory wrote:There was no need to change the Obliterator. It was one of the few consistent performing units in the CSM codex. It's like the Russians redesigning the AK-47, why?
Perhaps focus your efforts on the units that never see the field instead.
But that...that...That would require...effort...
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/03/04 17:35:07
Subject: Re:Shadowspear Obliterators rule change?
|
 |
Powerful Phoenix Lord
|
TwinPoleTheory wrote:There was no need to change the Obliterator. It was one of the few consistent performing units in the CSM codex. It's like the Russians redesigning the AK-47, why? Perhaps focus your efforts on the units that never see the field instead.
Performance aside, the new model absolutely required new rules. Those things look like Chaos-ified Centurions and the current "Terminator with +1W and a better gun" rules would not do it justice. -
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/04 17:35:35
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/03/04 17:52:13
Subject: Shadowspear Obliterators rule change?
|
 |
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter
|
aka_mythos wrote:...If for a moment we pretended their stats remained the same, and only their weapon improved... they're armed now with something in the ball park of 3 plasma guns... and would have a cost much like the centurion... 70 + 3xPG... That's 90 some points before the stat increases. Its easy to see why GW would make them a 100pts+... even if holistically they shouldn't be. Somewhere between 85-95 pts is probably the appropriate cost.
A thought experiment:
The statblock is a weird one to find comparisons for so I don't have a lot of data points here, but we can reasonably say that the Obliterator statblock here falls between that of a Centurion (-1 W, no built-in Deep Strike or Invulnerable save) at 40pts and that of a Custodian Terminator (+2" move, +1 WS/ BS, +1 Invulnerable save) at 65pts. Placing it a bit closer to the Centurion than the Custodian since the Custodian has more toys gives us an approximate chassis cost of 50pts.
The best comparison to the melee weapon is probably force weapons given d3 damage but a low Strength buff. Force weapons are 8-10pts; they come on S4 bodies instead of S5, but the cost of the body's Strength should be baked into the cost of the body, so we're probably looking at 5-6pts.
There aren't many weapons with random S or AP so I'm going to run with the idea that it's 8/-2/d3 since it's better and worse in equal proportions. With that in mind some comparable weapons:
-Centurion Missile Launcher: Same damage profile, d3 shots (averages to 2) and 36" range. 75pts to get the same average firepower, but the range probably drops it down to a 60-70pt weapon.
-Missile Launcher: Two Fleshmetal shots are a bit better than one krak missile since two d3 damage shots are more flexible and more reliable than one d6-damage shot. Fleshmetal lacks the frag mode, however, though it makes up some for the lack of range with the Assault type. Three missile launchers are 60pts after Chapter Approved, so let's call it 50-60pts for the fleshmetal gun.
-Plasma (Overcharging): For pure damage output one Fleshmetal gun is worse than three overcharging plasma guns at rapid fire range. Let's estimate the cost as somewhere between three plasma guns (six shots at 12") and six plasma guns (six shots at 24") for an average of 49.5pts; the plasma has better AP but it also has a chance of blowing the user up, so I'll call 50pts the lower bound for my estimate of the Fleshmetal gun.
This produces a generous estimate of 50pts and a harsh estimate of 70pts for the value of the fleshmetal gun, split the difference and it's a 60pt gun on a 50pt chassis with a 5pt melee weapon for a ballpark cost of 115pts +/- 20pts (assuming a possible error of 10pts either way on both chassis and gun). Within a reasonable margin for a 6PL model, I think.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/03/04 18:17:39
Subject: Shadowspear Obliterators rule change?
|
 |
Veteran Inquisitor with Xenos Alliances
|
AnomanderRake wrote: aka_mythos wrote:...If for a moment we pretended their stats remained the same, and only their weapon improved... they're armed now with something in the ball park of 3 plasma guns... and would have a cost much like the centurion... 70 + 3xPG... That's 90 some points before the stat increases. Its easy to see why GW would make them a 100pts+... even if holistically they shouldn't be. Somewhere between 85-95 pts is probably the appropriate cost.
A thought experiment:
The statblock is a weird one to find comparisons for so I don't have a lot of data points here, but we can reasonably say that the Obliterator statblock here falls between that of a Centurion (-1 W, no built-in Deep Strike or Invulnerable save) at 40pts and that of a Custodian Terminator (+2" move, +1 WS/ BS, +1 Invulnerable save) at 65pts. Placing it a bit closer to the Centurion than the Custodian since the Custodian has more toys gives us an approximate chassis cost of 50pts.
The best comparison to the melee weapon is probably force weapons given d3 damage but a low Strength buff. Force weapons are 8-10pts; they come on S4 bodies instead of S5, but the cost of the body's Strength should be baked into the cost of the body, so we're probably looking at 5-6pts.
There aren't many weapons with random S or AP so I'm going to run with the idea that it's 8/-2/d3 since it's better and worse in equal proportions. With that in mind some comparable weapons:
-Centurion Missile Launcher: Same damage profile, d3 shots (averages to 2) and 36" range. 75pts to get the same average firepower, but the range probably drops it down to a 60-70pt weapon.
-Missile Launcher: Two Fleshmetal shots are a bit better than one krak missile since two d3 damage shots are more flexible and more reliable than one d6-damage shot. Fleshmetal lacks the frag mode, however, though it makes up some for the lack of range with the Assault type. Three missile launchers are 60pts after Chapter Approved, so let's call it 50-60pts for the fleshmetal gun.
-Plasma (Overcharging): For pure damage output one Fleshmetal gun is worse than three overcharging plasma guns at rapid fire range. Let's estimate the cost as somewhere between three plasma guns (six shots at 12") and six plasma guns (six shots at 24") for an average of 49.5pts; the plasma has better AP but it also has a chance of blowing the user up, so I'll call 50pts the lower bound for my estimate of the Fleshmetal gun.
This produces a generous estimate of 50pts and a harsh estimate of 70pts for the value of the fleshmetal gun, split the difference and it's a 60pt gun on a 50pt chassis with a 5pt melee weapon for a ballpark cost of 115pts +/- 20pts (assuming a possible error of 10pts either way on both chassis and gun). Within a reasonable margin for a 6PL model, I think.
In the whole Obliterator vs Hellbrute... the inconsistency of the Obliterator due to the randomness of its weapons in particular no longer having weapons with consistent damage output, relies largely on the volume of shots to try and balance that in averages. And it does tend to. It however also a question of how much is consistent performance worth vs peak positive performance and peak under performance. Two other areas the Obliterator is challenged versus previous editions, versus the Hellbrute, and versus its Its imperial counter part, is its greatly reduced range and the lack of an auto hitting flamer weapons. But we also can't measure a unit entirely on offensive output, defense and surviabilty have to factor in.
An extra wound helps mitigate the loss of an extra obliterator. The extra toughness helps with the increased vulnerability that comes with the reduced number models. Its about 1/3 fewer hits getting through, while requiring 1/3 more damage to kill the model. Its arguably a 50% survivability boost making the two Oblits capable of tanking that many more shots.
I think in practice I'd worry about them becoming a bigger target for the weapons that can overkill them.
topaxygouroun wrote:
A hellbrute with las/missile is 120 pts tho, nowhere close to 150. If you feeling bold, a plasma cannon/missile hellbrute is 96 pts. An obliterator shoots bettter than that, but is a lot weaker.
You're right, I was thinking of its old point cost.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/03/04 18:45:34
Subject: Shadowspear Obliterators rule change?
|
 |
Omnipotent Necron Overlord
|
TwinPoleTheory wrote: AnomanderRake wrote:Scanning the CSM book I think Obliterators are internally all right; approximate the d3s in the weapon profile as 2s for 8/-2/d3 and it looks to me like they're not wildly out of line with the rest of the Heavy Support section (they tend to be squishier but have comparable or better damage output than the armour).
If they end up costing over 100 ppm that's a pretty huge nerf to one of the few consistent performers in the Codex.
It seems a buff to me. You get more power out of your stratagems now. Classic GW - making the best selections in a book better for no apparent reason. I am not complaining though - just pointing out GW doesn't really understand their game very well. I wish Centurions got this treatment too but Alas...
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/04 18:46:51
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/03/04 18:54:45
Subject: Re:Shadowspear Obliterators rule change?
|
 |
Powerful Phoenix Lord
|
It's a bizarre change, owing only to the model becoming increasingly large. The easier route would have been to call them something else, like a Greater Obliterator or something silly.
My main interest is how tournaments, etc. will respond to this. Fielding the old models (which thousands of players obviously have) will make them pretty powerful for how small they are (and how easily you could hide them). I personally won't be using the new rules as I don't think my kit-bashed old Obliterators can justify the bumped stat-line. None of my buddies care.
I do think overall it's a net nerf, solely because they'll now be immediate targets - even moreso than before, so they'll be lavished with much more hostile attention. I do think they're going to be eye-wateringly expensive, and regardless of armour and toughness, it's still a 4-wound model which can't hide like a character. Considering certain Hellbrutes can be nearly 100 points now (with cheap options), it'll be a tough thing to justify on a 4-wound model.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/03/04 19:02:30
Subject: Shadowspear Obliterators rule change?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Anyone else consider running them next to Feculant Gnarlmaws? Gives them +2 to their save unless I am wrong.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/03/04 19:16:37
Subject: Shadowspear Obliterators rule change?
|
 |
Morphing Obliterator
|
Xenomancers wrote:It seems a buff to me. You get more power out of your stratagems now. Classic GW - making the best selections in a book better for no apparent reason. I am not complaining though - just pointing out GW doesn't really understand their game very well. I wish Centurions got this treatment too but Alas...
Covered earlier in the thread, there will be less around to support a full deployment of them, that same full deployment that cost ~1/3 of your points before is now closer ~1/2 your points. Yes, it's more shots, but we also ended up paying for a hand to hand upgrade they didn't need. As Galef mentioned earlier, the increased toughness makes them slightly more durable in some ways, but with a net loss of wounds at a similar point cost I think that's going to end up being a wash ultimately. It's just GW design interns who couldn't design their way out of a paper bag again.
|
"In relating the circumstances which have led to my confinement in this refuge for the demented, I am aware that my present position will create a natural doubt of the authenticity of my narrative." |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/03/04 19:31:31
Subject: Re:Shadowspear Obliterators rule change?
|
 |
Omnipotent Necron Overlord
|
Elbows wrote:It's a bizarre change, owing only to the model becoming increasingly large. The easier route would have been to call them something else, like a Greater Obliterator or something silly.
My main interest is how tournaments, etc. will respond to this. Fielding the old models (which thousands of players obviously have) will make them pretty powerful for how small they are (and how easily you could hide them). I personally won't be using the new rules as I don't think my kit-bashed old Obliterators can justify the bumped stat-line. None of my buddies care.
I do think overall it's a net nerf, solely because they'll now be immediate targets - even moreso than before, so they'll be lavished with much more hostile attention. I do think they're going to be eye-wateringly expensive, and regardless of armour and toughness, it's still a 4-wound model which can't hide like a character. Considering certain Hellbrutes can be nearly 100 points now (with cheap options), it'll be a tough thing to justify on a 4-wound model.
Stratagem and spell efficiency are the things that matter in this game. I'm not sure how a #1 priority target becomes more of a #1 priority target. +1 to hit now effects up to 12 more shots same with +1 to wound. Same with defensive buffs now affecting 3 additional wounds with different break points. Basically - it's very similiar to what would happen if dark reapers suddenly became max squad size 14 - everyone would just start taking 14 instead of 10. Automatically Appended Next Post: TwinPoleTheory wrote: Xenomancers wrote:It seems a buff to me. You get more power out of your stratagems now. Classic GW - making the best selections in a book better for no apparent reason. I am not complaining though - just pointing out GW doesn't really understand their game very well. I wish Centurions got this treatment too but Alas...
Covered earlier in the thread, there will be less around to support a full deployment of them, that same full deployment that cost ~1/3 of your points before is now closer ~1/2 your points. Yes, it's more shots, but we also ended up paying for a hand to hand upgrade they didn't need. As Galef mentioned earlier, the increased toughness makes them slightly more durable in some ways, but with a net loss of wounds at a similar point cost I think that's going to end up being a wash ultimately. It's just GW design interns who couldn't design their way out of a paper bag again.
True they don't need the CC ability but we don't know what they cost yet. If the points cost is equally efficient per damage as it was before - the CC damage is just free bonus. Have to reserve judgement on that until we know the points cost. Overall though we have a general idea through power level that the ball park figure is going to be efficient. In that case it's a buff.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/04 19:35:37
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/03/04 19:35:46
Subject: Re:Shadowspear Obliterators rule change?
|
 |
Courageous Space Marine Captain
|
Galef wrote:Performance aside, the new model absolutely required new rules. Those things look like Chaos-ified Centurions and the current "Terminator with +1W and a better gun" rules would not do it justice.
Indeed! And if they are to be proper Chaos Centurions, they obviously needs to cost as much as a Dreadnought while being way worse!
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/03/04 19:37:12
Subject: Re:Shadowspear Obliterators rule change?
|
 |
Omnipotent Necron Overlord
|
Crimson wrote: Galef wrote:Performance aside, the new model absolutely required new rules. Those things look like Chaos-ified Centurions and the current "Terminator with +1W and a better gun" rules would not do it justice.
Indeed! And if they are to be proper Chaos Centurions, they obviously needs to cost as much as a Dreadnought while being way worse!
I couldn't have said it better myself BUT I have not lost all faith that Cents will get fixed at the beginning of 9th ed.
|
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/03/04 19:39:44
Subject: Shadowspear Obliterators rule change?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
dan2026 wrote:Anyone else consider running them next to Feculant Gnarlmaws? Gives them +2 to their save unless I am wrong.
Well, it depends if they meant gnarlmaws to affect faction or keyword NURGLE DAEMONS. They clarified for stratagems, but not this it seems.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/03/04 19:42:05
Subject: Re:Shadowspear Obliterators rule change?
|
 |
Morphing Obliterator
|
Xenomancers wrote:True they don't need the CC ability but we don't know what they cost yet. If the points cost is equally efficient per damage as it was before - the CC damage is just free bonus. Have to reserve judgement on that until we know the points cost. Overall though we have a general idea through power level that the ball park figure is going to be efficient. In that case it's a buff.
You're cherry picking to support your point. A conservative estimate has this increasing the cost of a full deployment by 315 points, if we're lucky, 375 if we're not. At a certain point the sliding scale of efficiency breaks down if they're the only significant deployment you're putting on the table.
|
"In relating the circumstances which have led to my confinement in this refuge for the demented, I am aware that my present position will create a natural doubt of the authenticity of my narrative." |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/03/04 19:52:50
Subject: Re:Shadowspear Obliterators rule change?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Xenomancers wrote: Crimson wrote: Galef wrote:Performance aside, the new model absolutely required new rules. Those things look like Chaos-ified Centurions and the current "Terminator with +1W and a better gun" rules would not do it justice.
Indeed! And if they are to be proper Chaos Centurions, they obviously needs to cost as much as a Dreadnought while being way worse!
I couldn't have said it better myself BUT I have not lost all faith that Cents will get fixed at the beginning of 9th ed.
The Beta Bolter rule for them WAS a good start to be fair.
|
CaptainStabby wrote:If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote:BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote:Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote:ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/03/04 20:05:22
Subject: Re:Shadowspear Obliterators rule change?
|
 |
Omnipotent Necron Overlord
|
TwinPoleTheory wrote: Xenomancers wrote:True they don't need the CC ability but we don't know what they cost yet. If the points cost is equally efficient per damage as it was before - the CC damage is just free bonus. Have to reserve judgement on that until we know the points cost. Overall though we have a general idea through power level that the ball park figure is going to be efficient. In that case it's a buff.
You're cherry picking to support your point. A conservative estimate has this increasing the cost of a full deployment by 315 points, if we're lucky, 375 if we're not. At a certain point the sliding scale of efficiency breaks down if they're the only significant deployment you're putting on the table.
Not sure why were talking about a full deployment when you only ever need to bring 1 unit and super buff it. That unit alone is as effective 6 more oblitz and will likely cost around 700 points less. The difference in cost for that 1 unit will mean something like dropping single basilisk or half a unit of zangors or a single shaman. For that you are gonna get 12 more quality shots hitting on 2's rerolling 1 and likely wounding on 2's. Or in other words - a trade everyone competitive player would take EVERY TIME. It's a buff.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/04 20:05:52
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/03/04 20:20:46
Subject: Re:Shadowspear Obliterators rule change?
|
 |
Morphing Obliterator
|
Xenomancers wrote:Not sure why were talking about a full deployment when you only ever need to bring 1 unit and super buff it. That unit alone is as effective 6 more oblitz and will likely cost around 700 points less. The difference in cost for that 1 unit will mean something like dropping single basilisk or half a unit of zangors or a single shaman. For that you are gonna get 12 more quality shots hitting on 2's rerolling 1 and likely wounding on 2's. Or in other words - a trade everyone competitive player would take EVERY TIME. It's a buff.
Because there's more than one way to play and buff them, as pointed out earlier the Feculant Gnarlmaw makes them significantly more durable, Locus of Virulence can improve their damage. If you go Tzeentchian, you have Daemonspark and Flickering Flames which you can use alongside Veterans. Both options significantly reduce your CP burn and/or free it up to be used elsewhere.
There are several ways to skin that cat.
Edited for grammar.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/04 20:21:28
"In relating the circumstances which have led to my confinement in this refuge for the demented, I am aware that my present position will create a natural doubt of the authenticity of my narrative." |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/03/04 20:34:19
Subject: Re:Shadowspear Obliterators rule change?
|
 |
Omnipotent Necron Overlord
|
TwinPoleTheory wrote: Xenomancers wrote:Not sure why were talking about a full deployment when you only ever need to bring 1 unit and super buff it. That unit alone is as effective 6 more oblitz and will likely cost around 700 points less. The difference in cost for that 1 unit will mean something like dropping single basilisk or half a unit of zangors or a single shaman. For that you are gonna get 12 more quality shots hitting on 2's rerolling 1 and likely wounding on 2's. Or in other words - a trade everyone competitive player would take EVERY TIME. It's a buff.
Because there's more than one way to play and buff them, as pointed out earlier the Feculant Gnarlmaw makes them significantly more durable, Locus of Virulence can improve their damage. If you go Tzeentchian, you have Daemonspark and Flickering Flames which you can use alongside Veterans. Both options significantly reduce your CP burn and/or free it up to be used elsewhere.
There are several ways to skin that cat.
Edited for grammar.
The only Oblitz I see are Slaneesh so they can shot twice because it's broken AF. Ignore everything I am saying about builds that aren't trying to amp max damage because it's all I am addressing. Plus 95% of the time it's all that gets used in competitive.
Plus correct me if I am wrong but feculents can't affect Oblitz can they?
|
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/03/04 20:46:56
Subject: Re:Shadowspear Obliterators rule change?
|
 |
Morphing Obliterator
|
Xenomancers wrote:Plus correct me if I am wrong but feculents can't affect Oblitz can they?
Nurgle Obliterators are affected by Feculent Gnarlmaws, it's especially effective with Alpha Legion. You can't use any of the Stratagems in the book on them, that's pretty much it though.
Also, Tzeentchian Obliterators buffed with Daemonspark and Flickering Flames alongside Veterans of the long war, means that even if you get a crap roll on your weapons you're still wounding T8 on a 3+ and re-rolling 1s or allows you split +1 to wound out to two different units if you're already wounding on 3+.
|
"In relating the circumstances which have led to my confinement in this refuge for the demented, I am aware that my present position will create a natural doubt of the authenticity of my narrative." |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/03/04 20:52:11
Subject: Shadowspear Obliterators rule change?
|
 |
Norn Queen
|
So since the Datasheet is just "Obliterators", and not Adjective VerbNoun you're now forced to use this datasheet, you cannot use the one in the CSM codex. The game simply cannot work any other way (otherwise you can still use pre-nerf Commissars and Conscripts, and double up on Index Zerkers and Codex Zerkers in tournaments) and GW insists you must use the latest datasheet for your unit. Good work GW.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/03/04 20:59:40
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/03/04 21:12:07
Subject: Re:Shadowspear Obliterators rule change?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
TwinPoleTheory wrote: Xenomancers wrote:Plus correct me if I am wrong but feculents can't affect Oblitz can they?
Nurgle Obliterators are affected by Feculent Gnarlmaws, it's especially effective with Alpha Legion. You can't use any of the Stratagems in the book on them, that's pretty much it though.
Also, Tzeentchian Obliterators buffed with Daemonspark and Flickering Flames alongside Veterans of the long war, means that even if you get a crap roll on your weapons you're still wounding T8 on a 3+ and re-rolling 1s or allows you split +1 to wound out to two different units if you're already wounding on 3+.
I still like the idea of Khorne ones supported by The Crimson Crown relic, as it doesnt require much in the way of CP or support.
|
CaptainStabby wrote:If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote:BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote:Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote:ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/03/04 21:29:52
Subject: Re:Shadowspear Obliterators rule change?
|
 |
Morphing Obliterator
|
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:I still like the idea of Khorne ones supported by The Crimson Crown relic, as it doesnt require much in the way of CP or support.
That's also a pretty decent one, especially with Veterans to trigger the Crown on a 5+, which in theory would end up netting you 4 extra shots on average, or 2 extra shots per squad without Veterans. Throw in re-rolls to hit and you're probably getting 5 or 3 extra shots per squad. Personally I like the Tzeentch approach to counteract some of the weapon variability.
|
"In relating the circumstances which have led to my confinement in this refuge for the demented, I am aware that my present position will create a natural doubt of the authenticity of my narrative." |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/03/04 21:46:13
Subject: Shadowspear Obliterators rule change?
|
 |
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer
|
BaconCatBug wrote:So since the Datasheet is just "Obliterators", and not Adjective VerbNoun you're now forced to use this datasheet, you cannot use the one in the CSM codex. The game simply cannot work any other way (otherwise you can still use pre-nerf Commissars and Conscripts, and double up on Index Zerkers and Codex Zerkers in tournaments) and GW insists you must use the latest datasheet for your unit.
Good work GW.
Is it sad I'm not sure if your "good work GW" is sarcastic or not?
|
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame |
|
 |
 |
|