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.

 Lord Blackscale wrote:
Just ran the first round of an escalation league on Saturday. At 500 points one player brought a unit of three obliterators, at the 65 point cost, and in both games they played the other player was tabled in 2 turns. I think 65 is way too low, but 115 is too much. However, even as a chaos player myself, I would rather they be 115 than 65. But that is just based on my current experience.

with any luck the FAQ'll find a nice comprimise cost of 80-90 points per for them

The FAQ will clearly be 115.

 BoomWolf wrote:
The FAQ will clearly be 115.

And if it's not?

Than I'll be outright shocked because it would be the most incompetent GW has been in a long, long while not to FAQ them to 115, as they clearly are intended to be.

Agreed. If the next CSM FAQ doesn't correct the ppm of Oblits to 115, it will NOT be because they are supposed to be 65ppm, it will be because GW missed the boat ....AGAIN...on the points value.
Due to the release timing, it is abundantly clear Oblits are supposed to be 115ppm, but that was missed in the CSM Codex reprint/update.

Anyone arguing otherwise is mistaken, regardless of whether GW fixes their mistake or not.

Arguable the new Oblits are worth less than 115ppm, but given the two values we have been given 115 is the correct one.

-

 Galef wrote:
Agreed. If the next CSM FAQ doesn't correct the ppm of Oblits to 115, it will NOT be because they are supposed to be 65ppm, it will be because GW missed the boat ....AGAIN...on the points value.
Due to the release timing, it is abundantly clear Oblits are supposed to be 115ppm, but that was missed in the CSM Codex reprint/update.

Anyone arguing otherwise is mistaken, regardless of whether GW fixes their mistake or not.

Arguable the new Oblits are worth less than 115ppm, but given the two values we have been given 115 is the correct one.

-

Technically, this is not correct. It is how I have played it, to avoid alienating my opponent, but the "correct" points cost is the one in the most recent publication. Until and unless GW FAQs the points cost (which I suspect they will), 65 (and units of 3) is the "correct" way to field Oblits.

Something can be technically correct and still be wrong. I think most of us acknowledge that 65ppm is a copy-paste left-over they forgot to change and that the intended ppm is 115.

I am glad most of us would play Oblits at 115ppm, but it is a bit disappointing to see so many players advocating for them at 65ppm on a technicality.
I know for some players it will be an honest mistake, but I truly hope those that are trying to "game the system" and spam 65ppm T5, 4W, 6 shot Oblits go out and buy tons of them just to have GW correct their error and make all those 9 Oblit lists much more costly, potentially forcing those players to drop several from their lists to sit on shelves until CA2019 drops them to 95-105ppm like they probably should be

-

 Galef wrote:
Something can be technically correct and still be wrong. I think most of us acknowledge that 65ppm is a copy-paste left-over they forgot to change and that the intended ppm is 115.

I am glad most of us would play Oblits at 115ppm, but it is a bit disappointing to see so many players advocating for them at 65ppm on a technicality.
I know for some players it will be an honest mistake, but I truly hope those that are trying to "game the system" and spam 65ppm T5, 4W, 6 shot Oblits go out and buy tons of them just to have GW correct their error and make all those 9 Oblit lists much more costly, potentially forcing those players to drop several from their lists to sit on shelves until CA2019 drops them to 95-105ppm like they probably should be

-

Logic dictates that's statement follow one rule,
A =\= non(A)

You stated A= Non(A)

Something can be technically correct and still be wrong

Pls dont do that, also so long we don't see the faq we really don't know what is meant and it is solely gw to blame for it.

The great news is that everybody in my local group believes that you need to show your rules if asked. Since the only place this exists is in the new codex, GW has already made a boatload of money on the power gamers looking to take advantage of the mistake.

You gotta love the power gamers. They instantly gravitate to the broken rules interactions they read about online - makes it easier to police the game in a casual setting. Easy enough to say no to a cheesy list like that.

I do feel really bad about those who will be in a tournament setting against these gamers, though. Unless TOs unilaterally decide otherwise (it's their right), they have a compelling argument to play with those rules.

I also will feel really bad for everybody if their points costs aren't addressed. I feel like Oblits staying at 65 points per will be a huge mistake for both internal and external balance for however long the issue remains. And I will laugh in your face if you legit try and argue it's fair. It isn't.

Lemondish wrote:
The great news is that everybody in my local group believes that you need to show your rules if asked. Since the only place this exists is in the new codex, GW has already made a boatload of money on the power gamers looking to take advantage of the mistake.

You gotta love the power gamers. They instantly gravitate to the broken rules interactions they read about online - makes it easier to police the game in a casual setting. Easy enough to say no to a cheesy list like that.

I do feel really bad about those who will be in a tournament setting against these gamers, though. Unless TOs unilaterally decide otherwise (it's their right), they have a compelling argument to play with those rules.

I also will feel really bad for everybody if their points costs aren't addressed. I feel like Oblits staying at 65 points per will be a huge mistake for both internal and external balance for however long the issue remains. And I will laugh in your face if you legit try and argue it's fair. It isn't.

Except here is the problem.

Bolt Rifle + Storm of Fire = 4+ saving Oblits. They die to a stiff breeze. They're a glass cannon, and it's fine for them to stay at 65 pts.

text removed,.

Reds8n

Yeah I don't think 115ppm oblits are really that good (Ok , the full wombo combo is but thats another problem) but NUOblits at 65ppm are just... blergh.

I wouldn't tell anybody to not play them if he really wants but I would refuse a game with them. It will be completely unfair, theres just no point in playing a game with 9 NuOblits at 65ppm.

At least when you are playing something like non ultra competitive Dark Angels or pure adeptus custodes like myself.

But I just can't agree with people that believes NuOblits are fine at 65ppm.

Imagine thinking Obliterators were a good unit pre-nerf. They were doing nothing competitively, and thats even in an army that has a serious lack of AT. They needed a buff, desperately, and now that they got them, people who struggle with unit evaluation think they need a nerf.

Look at some of the stuff in this game. If you really think 200 pts for a 3 man T5 terminator unit, that deepstrikes turn 2, dies after, and needs to eat up every single buff you own to perform, is in anyway OP you're kidding yourself.

I think Hive Guard are a little overrated and I still wouldn't trade my Hive Guard out for Obliterators if you let me - and that's in Tyranids, an army that at least has a close combat presence to somewhat support a glass cannon unit that needs to DS within 24" of a target.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Deciding that this MUST BE a misprint and anyone playing by the rules is a power gamer, is also just absurd to me. Is there any proof at all that this is a misprint, or is this just poor balance evaluation on display?

I say so, top players say so, and the stats say so. Chaos has gotten multiple top 16 finishes at pretty much every GT since the release of the CSM dex. Unless it's happened super recently, not a single one of them had Obliterators. Don't even try to tell me it was due to a lack of representation either, one of the NOVA's there was literally 8 out of top 16 finishes were Chaos and not a single Obliterator present. And thats when Obliterators were at their prime, they could DS turn 1, so could Cultists, and warptime out of DS was a thing. What on earth makes you think they were a competitive unit, with no placings, after multiple nerfs to that lol at 65 pts?


Low level players will have it come in and blow up a landraider with no support units in position though and have their opinion shaped by that, so that's why the unit never seems to measure up to the narrative around it

Well, that's typically what one does when they cannot form an honest rebuttal you ones statement.

10 Intercessors + 1 Captain, Bolt Rifles + Storm of Fire = 2 of three dead obliterators.

 Togusa wrote:

Spoiler:

Lemondish wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

Lemondish wrote:
The great news is that everybody in my local group believes that you need to show your rules if asked. Since the only place this exists is in the new codex, GW has already made a boatload of money on the power gamers looking to take advantage of the mistake.

You gotta love the power gamers. They instantly gravitate to the broken rules interactions they read about online - makes it easier to police the game in a casual setting. Easy enough to say no to a cheesy list like that.

I do feel really bad about those who will be in a tournament setting against these gamers, though. Unless TOs unilaterally decide otherwise (it's their right), they have a compelling argument to play with those rules.

I also will feel really bad for everybody if their points costs aren't addressed. I feel like Oblits staying at 65 points per will be a huge mistake for both internal and external balance for however long the issue remains. And I will laugh in your face if you legit try and argue it's fair. It isn't.

Except here is the problem.

Bolt Rifle + Storm of Fire = 4+ saving Oblits. They die to a stiff breeze. They're a glass cannon, and it's fine for them to stay at 65 pts.

This is me laughing in your face.

Well, that's typically what one does when they cannot form an honest rebuttal you ones statement.

10 Intercessors + 1 Captain, Bolt Rifles + Storm of Fire = 2 of three dead obliterators.

This seems like an edge case situation. I'd be more concerned about the fact that they're 1W less tough against FRF SRF guardsmen than a blob of space marine intercessors.

Also, 10 Intercessors + Captain w/ Storm of Fire results in an average of 20*(2/3+1/6*2/3)*(1/6*1/3+1/6*1/2)=2 wounds from the Intercessors and half a wound from the Captain, for considerably less than 2/3 dead obliterators. The same unit without Storm of Fire nets 2.16 average wounds per turn, so introducing into the matter Storm of Fire doesn't seem to have a significant effect.

Lmao.

I didn't cite my own results genius, I referenced the results of TOP TOURNAMENT PLAYERS, who's results, and statements, both clash your baseless assertions. This is what competitive means - the ability to make top tables.

There was no cherry picking, I literally cited EVERY SINGLE GT SO FAR IN 8TH as my point of reference without a single exception lol.

Your reply is so weak.

You have a low level grasp on the game, you have no supporting evidence to your argument, you are just trying to dismiss overwhelming evidence that you might be wrong, with antisocial behavior "laugh in your face" .

Why did all the guys who picked Obliterators end up missing the top tables while all the Chaos players who did make top 8s or even 16s, didn't run them?

You are arguing that they can perform well at a lower level of play, and that's exactly my point. They are a scrub crusher and they have one big turn so people remember that. They were never a top competitive unit at all, not even close. If you are going to dismiss the stats that verify that and the top players who've said the same, you need to formulate a more compelling counter argument than "here's my LOL'ing in your face #rekt"

 SHUPPET wrote:
Lmao.

I didn't cite my own results genius, I referenced the results of TOP TOURNAMENT PLAYERS, who's results, and statements, both clash your baseless assertions. This is what competitive means - the ability to make top tables.

There was no cherry picking, I literally cited EVERY SINGLE GT SO FAR IN 8TH as my point of reference without a single exception lol.

Your reply is so weak.

You have a low level grasp on the game, you have no supporting evidence to your argument, you are just trying to dismiss overwhelming evidence that you might be wrong, with antisocial behavior "laugh in your face" .

Why did all the guys who picked Obliterators end up missing the top tables while all the Chaos players who did make top 8s or even 16s, didn't run them?

You are arguing that they can perform well at a lower level of play, and that's exactly my point. They are a scrub crusher and they have one big turn so people remember that. They were never a top competitive unit at all, not even close. If you are going to dismiss the stats that verify that and the top players who've said the same, you need to formulate a more compelling counter argument than "here's my LOL'ing in your face #rekt"

That's all wonderful, but your data is only useful gauging them in the perspective as a top table unit. They can be too strong without being instant-win GT broken. Plenty of people consider the loota ball really strong, but that didn't sweep the top tables by storm either. More to the point I'm fairly sure at the new profile at 65 points they fall into that window.

Or maybe your unit evaluation is just bad.

If a unit hasn't cracked top tables at a GT once in 2 years, even though plenty of people tried to take it, chances are that unit isn't that great at all.

I'm not talking about where they currently sit at 65 points - I think that's a good points cost for them, and we may finally see them worthy of competitive play. I was talking about them pre-buff, to someone saying they were a great unit over the last two years - sorry, that's just wrong. I have a pretty well supported stance here, "nah they good" tells me you are playing at that level a little bit below competitive where they can compete more. Good players aren't losing to Obliterators.

Dudeface wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Lmao.

I didn't cite my own results genius, I referenced the results of TOP TOURNAMENT PLAYERS, who's results, and statements, both clash your baseless assertions. This is what competitive means - the ability to make top tables.

There was no cherry picking, I literally cited EVERY SINGLE GT SO FAR IN 8TH as my point of reference without a single exception lol.

Your reply is so weak.

You have a low level grasp on the game, you have no supporting evidence to your argument, you are just trying to dismiss overwhelming evidence that you might be wrong, with antisocial behavior "laugh in your face" .

Why did all the guys who picked Obliterators end up missing the top tables while all the Chaos players who did make top 8s or even 16s, didn't run them?

You are arguing that they can perform well at a lower level of play, and that's exactly my point. They are a scrub crusher and they have one big turn so people remember that. They were never a top competitive unit at all, not even close. If you are going to dismiss the stats that verify that and the top players who've said the same, you need to formulate a more compelling counter argument than "here's my LOL'ing in your face #rekt"

That's all wonderful, but your data is only useful gauging them in the perspective as a top table unit. They can be too strong without being instant-win GT broken. Plenty of people consider the loota ball really strong, but that didn't sweep the top tables by storm either. More to the point I'm fairly sure at the new profile at 65 points they fall into that window.

Mhm, atleast unlike you he defined his position accuratley and consciesly.

So let me ask you, what do you then deem to strong?

Just catching up, obliterators at either points value could be called many things but "Glass Cannon" isn't one of them - 12 wounds, T5, 2+/5++, easy to get into cover or hide out of LOS. This is not a glass cannon.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Lmao.

I didn't cite my own results genius, I referenced the results of TOP TOURNAMENT PLAYERS, who's results, and statements, both clash your baseless assertions. This is what competitive means - the ability to make top tables.

There was no cherry picking, I literally cited EVERY SINGLE GT SO FAR IN 8TH as my point of reference without a single exception lol.

Your reply is so weak.

You have a low level grasp on the game, you have no supporting evidence to your argument, you are just trying to dismiss overwhelming evidence that you might be wrong, with antisocial behavior "laugh in your face" .

Why did all the guys who picked Obliterators end up missing the top tables while all the Chaos players who did make top 8s or even 16s, didn't run them?

You are arguing that they can perform well at a lower level of play, and that's exactly my point. They are a scrub crusher and they have one big turn so people remember that. They were never a top competitive unit at all, not even close. If you are going to dismiss the stats that verify that and the top players who've said the same, you need to formulate a more compelling counter argument than "here's my LOL'ing in your face #rekt"

That's all wonderful, but your data is only useful gauging them in the perspective as a top table unit. They can be too strong without being instant-win GT broken. Plenty of people consider the loota ball really strong, but that didn't sweep the top tables by storm either. More to the point I'm fairly sure at the new profile at 65 points they fall into that window.

Mhm, atleast unlike you he defined his position accuratley and consciesly.

So let me ask you, what do you then deem to strong?

My definition of too strong is a unit that could reliably recoup more than it's own points value turn on turn safely with few to no real hard counters. New oblits at 200 pts a unit throwing out 36 autocannon rounds on a bad day with just basic stratagems has a fair chance of getting close to that ideal.

Dudeface wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Lmao.

I didn't cite my own results genius, I referenced the results of TOP TOURNAMENT PLAYERS, who's results, and statements, both clash your baseless assertions. This is what competitive means - the ability to make top tables.

There was no cherry picking, I literally cited EVERY SINGLE GT SO FAR IN 8TH as my point of reference without a single exception lol.

Your reply is so weak.

You have a low level grasp on the game, you have no supporting evidence to your argument, you are just trying to dismiss overwhelming evidence that you might be wrong, with antisocial behavior "laugh in your face" .

Why did all the guys who picked Obliterators end up missing the top tables while all the Chaos players who did make top 8s or even 16s, didn't run them?

You are arguing that they can perform well at a lower level of play, and that's exactly my point. They are a scrub crusher and they have one big turn so people remember that. They were never a top competitive unit at all, not even close. If you are going to dismiss the stats that verify that and the top players who've said the same, you need to formulate a more compelling counter argument than "here's my LOL'ing in your face #rekt"

That's all wonderful, but your data is only useful gauging them in the perspective as a top table unit. They can be too strong without being instant-win GT broken. Plenty of people consider the loota ball really strong, but that didn't sweep the top tables by storm either. More to the point I'm fairly sure at the new profile at 65 points they fall into that window.

Mhm, atleast unlike you he defined his position accuratley and consciesly.

So let me ask you, what do you then deem to strong?

My definition of too strong is a unit that could reliably recoup more than it's own points value turn on turn safely with few to no real hard counters. New oblits at 200 pts a unit throwing out 36 autocannon rounds on a bad day with just basic stratagems has a fair chance of getting close to that ideal.

So, oblits since the start of 8th were a throwaway one trick Pony.

Secondly ppm recuperation rate says not anything about the unit,

Thirdly: using cp for the 36 rounds makes this unit not good, it just goes to show that the stratagem is bonkers, which remained unchanged since the codex. So since gw does not balance around stratagems half the time and the other half suddenly incorporates cost in pts tax for units there is a case to be made that you would've to cut the ammount of shots in half, too 18, which would seem a lot less bad.

I don't even play Chaos, but yeah, RAW Those obliterators are 65pts a model. It is very clearly a Fethup on GW's part, because you know, apparently hiring an editor or actual play testers is just too demanding for a company GW's size.

SemperMortis wrote:
I don't even play Chaos, but yeah, RAW Those obliterators are 65pts a model. It is very clearly a Fethup on GW's part, because you know, apparently hiring an editor or actual play testers is just too demanding for a company GW's size.

What makes it clear that it's a mistake? Balance alone clearly isn't a consensus, is there anything else that makes it clearly a printing mistake? Asking again because last time I got no response.

 SHUPPET wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
I don't even play Chaos, but yeah, RAW Those obliterators are 65pts a model. It is very clearly a Fethup on GW's part, because you know, apparently hiring an editor or actual play testers is just too demanding for a company GW's size.

What makes it clear that it's a mistake? Balance alone clearly isn't a consensus, is there anything else that makes it clearly a printing mistake? Asking again because last time I got no response.

Probably because there is literally no reason for them to drop them from 115pts per model to 65 pts per model a week later with no data stating they were underperforming, but there is reason to think that the codex was copy/pasted since the old cost was 65 and GW have consistently made typos and errors in their publications.

However lets ignore the consistant errors they have made in the past and believe they released the new updated datasheets and increased points on accident and felt it needed to go back to the old points just because.

 Eihnlazer wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
I don't even play Chaos, but yeah, RAW Those obliterators are 65pts a model. It is very clearly a Fethup on GW's part, because you know, apparently hiring an editor or actual play testers is just too demanding for a company GW's size.

What makes it clear that it's a mistake? Balance alone clearly isn't a consensus, is there anything else that makes it clearly a printing mistake? Asking again because last time I got no response.

Probably because there is literally no reason for them to drop them from 115pts per model to 65 pts per model a week later with no data stating they were underperforming, but there is reason to think that the codex was copy/pasted since the old cost was 65 and GW have consistently made typos and errors in their publications.

However lets ignore the consistant errors they have made in the past and believe they released the new updated datasheets and increased points on accident and felt it needed to go back to the old points just because.

The fact that it is a likely copy and paste error is further highlighted by the fact that they have been given a new dataslate where they can be taken in units of 1-3 and each model is PL6. Then in the points section they come in only units of 3 and PL roughly translates to 20 points per model meaning they should be somewhere between 110-130 being PL6.

I know PL=20pts isn't hard and fast especially since the points drops in Chapter approved but with the new CSM codex they actually went back and altered lots of units PL to bring them back in line making the Obliterators stand out even more as an obvious mistake.

Is a mistake because the datasheed says the units are 1-3 but the point cost has 3 as the unit size, just like the old unit.

I dont know about top tables. In general deepstriking units then to suck in top tables because players know how to screen, thats why GSC arent as powerfull as many said.
But saying a unit sucks because it is not used in tournaments winning lists, I think is wrong, because tournament lists use the most busted units by definition. And I know. Complaining that bowser sucks instead of using fox is a scrub mentality but this is not a videogame, I payed as much for my miniatures and rules as the next guy, I think I deserve for them to be balanced and usable, each one with his own tactical uses.(And please refrain from the "you only want any random mix of units to be equally powerfull? Lololo")

How quickly does GW normally do codex FAQs? This inconsistency is pretty annoying.

 lare2 wrote:
How quickly does GW normally do codex FAQs? This inconsistency is pretty annoying.

2 weeks, i also asked for them if they would fully update with the faq to codex 2.0 which they said they would.