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.

I just had a thought: Maybe 65ppm IS the correct points....because the gun is supposed to be Assault D6, not Assault 6.
If they are D6 instead of straight 6, even at 65ppm Nublits are probably questionable for competition

-

 Galef wrote:
I just had a thought: Maybe 65ppm IS the correct points....because the gun is supposed to be Assault D6, not Assault 6.
If they are D6 instead of straight 6, even at 65ppm Nublits are probably questionable for competition

-

The weapon basically has the same average profile as a tau ion cannon except it is flat 3 instead of d3. Except that weapon is a main battle tank and is D6 shots....Obviously the ion cannon is a better weapon still and is on a more durable profile with more range - but should the price difference really be much more than 2:1? 2 oblitz is clearly better than 1 ion cannon hammerheads.

 Xenomancers wrote:
well 36 lasguns and 2 bolter shots for 41 points is what you really get. Beyond the point. Each shot is a potential kill. There needs to be an overall value for the chance a kill as baseline. A baseline cost just for having 1 wound. These are things that are needed to make elite infantry have some relevance.

You need to add 15 to that, half a company commander, if we're being semantic. That's 38 lasgun shots [or 36 lasgun shots and 2 frags] for 55 points.

A Leman Russ Tank Gun can do 36 wounds in one turn. Will it ever, no.

The maximum potential isn't really important. The distribution is though.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
well 36 lasguns and 2 bolter shots for 41 points is what you really get. Beyond the point. Each shot is a potential kill. There needs to be an overall value for the chance a kill as baseline. A baseline cost just for having 1 wound. These are things that are needed to make elite infantry have some relevance.

You need to add 15 to that, half a company commander, if we're being semantic. That's 38 lasgun shots [or 36 lasgun shots and 2 frags] for 55 points.

A Leman Russ Tank Gun can do 36 wounds in one turn. Will it ever, no.

The maximum potential isn't really important. The distribution is though.

Your wrong...but whatever. Roll great with some bolters vs guard and you kill 40 points. Roll great with some lasguns and you kill 130 points of marines. That alone invalidates your argument. Literally - invalidates it. The amount I play and see unlikely things happen. These things have to be accounted for.

Lets also not forget. Bolters and lasguns are equal weapons against t5 and t 8 targets. Except the lasgun costs 3 times less per damage without even factoring in doubling it's shots from FRFSRF. The junk can't be defended in an honest way.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
well 36 lasguns and 2 bolter shots for 41 points is what you really get. Beyond the point. Each shot is a potential kill. There needs to be an overall value for the chance a kill as baseline. A baseline cost just for having 1 wound. These are things that are needed to make elite infantry have some relevance.

You need to add 15 to that, half a company commander, if we're being semantic. That's 38 lasgun shots [or 36 lasgun shots and 2 frags] for 55 points.

A Leman Russ Tank Gun can do 36 wounds in one turn. Will it ever, no.

The maximum potential isn't really important. The distribution is though.

Your wrong...but whatever. Roll great with some bolters vs guard and you kill 40 points. Roll great with some lasguns and you kill 130 points of marines. That alone invalidates your argument. Literally - invalidates it.

Roll great with some bolters and you can kill a Leman Russ tank, too. But the logic of that is sort of beside the point. The distribution does matter.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
well 36 lasguns and 2 bolter shots for 41 points is what you really get. Beyond the point. Each shot is a potential kill. There needs to be an overall value for the chance a kill as baseline. A baseline cost just for having 1 wound. These are things that are needed to make elite infantry have some relevance.

You need to add 15 to that, half a company commander, if we're being semantic. That's 38 lasgun shots [or 36 lasgun shots and 2 frags] for 55 points.

A Leman Russ Tank Gun can do 36 wounds in one turn. Will it ever, no.

The maximum potential isn't really important. The distribution is though.

Your wrong...but whatever. Roll great with some bolters vs guard and you kill 40 points. Roll great with some lasguns and you kill 130 points of marines. That alone invalidates your argument. Literally - invalidates it. The amount I play and see unlikely things happen. These things have to be accounted for.

Lets also not forget. Bolters and lasguns are equal weapons against t5 and t 8 targets. Except the lasgun costs 3 times less per damage without even factoring in doubling it's shots from FRFSRF. The junk can't be defended in an honest way.

Roll great with a Dev squad, and you can delete a 3++ Castellan in one turn (I think they cap out at 48W in damage? Maybe more with Grav?)
Roll great with a Reaper squad, and you cap out at 40W in damage - less than that of the Dev squad.

By your argument, clearly, the Dev squad is better!

Or, put it this way:
-Roll great with a Guard squad, and 100 AP-2 wounds deletes 100 Guardsmen
-Roll great with a Marine squad and 100 AP-2 wounds kills nothing

Never will you roll that great - but that's the "maximum potential". But we all know that won't happen.

Bharring wrote:

Roll great with a Dev squad, and you can delete a 3++ Castellan in one turn (I think they cap out at 48W in damage? Maybe more with Grav?)

60 with Grav and Cherub. Totally broken.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 grouchoben wrote:
So you're saying GW purposely printed an incorrect codex?

GW are just incompetent.

It's not a mistake if it's printed deliberately, is his point.

Well you can be deliberately incompetent. Happens daily. Today for example I wrestled bad in training and faked an injury I no longer have just to be first in cold bath.

No, I do not think the new points value is valid. However I am likely in the minority in the fact that I don't think OLD 65 points is worth the new rules anyway. I personally think that GW over values specific things. Wounds and Toughness ratio is set to high for GW.

It's very likely the 65ppm is a copy/paste error. But by GW's own admission the newest book takes precedence so until an FAQ they are 65ppm with the new profile. Yes, it's definitely in the "cheeseweasel" category to do that, but it's also the way the rules work per GW themselves. If they are so bone-headed as to never proofread anything (which we know they are) then that's on them, not on anyone who buys a codex and expects it to be correct.

Does anyone know the email you can contact GW on for FAQs and whatnot? Impatient waiting to know what points these actually are.

Wayniac wrote:
It's very likely the 65ppm is a copy/paste error. But by GW's own admission the newest book takes precedence so until an FAQ they are 65ppm with the new profile. Yes, it's definitely in the "cheeseweasel" category to do that, but it's also the way the rules work per GW themselves. If they are so bone-headed as to never proofread anything (which we know they are) then that's on them, not on anyone who buys a codex and expects it to be correct.

Most TOs are not letting people take them at 65 points though as they know it's probably a typo. So you would only get to play them at 65 points in a casual game which is generally not a great look.

I took a full unit to a local tourney last weekend. At 345 points they are to random to be good. Out of 3 games they generally only got 1 turn of shooting so 6 chances at shooting with double shooting strat. I rolled 3 damage once 2 damage twice and 1 damage 3 times out of the six times I shot. Keep in mind this was with gaze of fate rerolls as well. Granted that was some pretty bad luck to get the 1 damage that many times but at 345 points that unit is fething gak when it rolls 1 damage. At 345 points the damage should be d3+1 so always 2 minimum. While I am 100% sure the 65 points is a typo that is really what the unit is worth. The new melee profile has been 100% irrelevant in all of my games that tourney and all the practice games leading up to it. They just get shot off the board the next turn after they arrived from deepstrike.

Weird play: Take 3 of them, make them Nurgle, put them next to the Nurgle daemon tree. Without any other support whatsoever (no stratagems, spells, legion traits etc), they already have 0+ armor save. They save lascannons on a 3+. Just saying. we could deploy them on the field instead of deepstriking and create a no-go zone of 24" around them.

Wayniac wrote:

 lare2 wrote:
Does anyone know the email you can contact GW on for FAQs and whatnot? Impatient waiting to know what points these actually are.

It's 40kfaq@gwplc.com but they don't reply to emails, the best you can hope for is them addressing it in the FAQ.

Cheers dude. Will give it a try nonetheless.

 small_gods wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
It's very likely the 65ppm is a copy/paste error. But by GW's own admission the newest book takes precedence so until an FAQ they are 65ppm with the new profile. Yes, it's definitely in the "cheeseweasel" category to do that, but it's also the way the rules work per GW themselves. If they are so bone-headed as to never proofread anything (which we know they are) then that's on them, not on anyone who buys a codex and expects it to be correct.

Most TOs are not letting people take them at 65 points though as they know it's probably a typo. So you would only get to play them at 65 points in a casual game which is generally not a great look.

Huh, I've actually heard the opposite and most people ARE letting them be taken at 65 because of the "latest publication" rule.

 small_gods wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
It's very likely the 65ppm is a copy/paste error. But by GW's own admission the newest book takes precedence so until an FAQ they are 65ppm with the new profile. Yes, it's definitely in the "cheeseweasel" category to do that, but it's also the way the rules work per GW themselves. If they are so bone-headed as to never proofread anything (which we know they are) then that's on them, not on anyone who buys a codex and expects it to be correct.

Most TOs are not letting people take them at 65 points though as they know it's probably a typo. So you would only get to play them at 65 points in a casual game which is generally not a great look.

Errrr what? BCP would disagree with you on that, do you have a source for this, or are you just saying it how you "feel" it should be? That's not what most TO's are doing at all.

Everyone knows it's a misprint though. TO's should really not be letting them be played at 65 points. Really though - with nonsense like this out there why would anyone attend if everyone is just going to be spamming 50% off obliz?

 Xenomancers wrote:
Everyone knows it's a misprint though. TO's should really not be letting them be played at 65 points. Really though - with nonsense like this out there why would anyone attend if everyone is just going to be spamming 50% off obliz?

But until the FAQ nobody can be 100% sure. It's likely a misprint but GW being GW it's hard to tell for sure.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Everyone knows it's a misprint though. TO's should really not be letting them be played at 65 points. Really though - with nonsense like this out there why would anyone attend if everyone is just going to be spamming 50% off obliz?

Why do people attend when everyone is just 50% castellan 50% ynnari?

Wayniac wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Everyone knows it's a misprint though. TO's should really not be letting them be played at 65 points. Really though - with nonsense like this out there why would anyone attend if everyone is just going to be spamming 50% off obliz?

But until the FAQ nobody can be 100% sure. It's likely a misprint but GW being GW it's hard to tell for sure.

The problem is that this view is subjective. I, for example, am 100% sure that it is a misprint. And I am not alone. So I don't think it's fair to say "nobody" is 100% sure
But I can acknowledge that there are those out there with some doubt...for some reason...because we aren't GW

All the evidence and prior actions of GW leave me with no doubt this is a typo. There is no other logic behind it that fits.
But I don't play Oblits, or currently play in tourneys, so I have the luxury of discussing the obvious right answer with all my casual opponents who all agree 115ppm is correct.

My fear is that the next FAQ will miss this obvious oversight because, as you put it, "GW being GW" and everyone with "doubts" will feel vindicated that the points were meant to be 65ppm, when the majority of use can see the error.

-

Final warning to all participants, as I am getting tired of seeing this thread light up my dashboard so often: RULE #1, to be polite to other users is not optional.

 Galef wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Everyone knows it's a misprint though. TO's should really not be letting them be played at 65 points. Really though - with nonsense like this out there why would anyone attend if everyone is just going to be spamming 50% off obliz?

But until the FAQ nobody can be 100% sure. It's likely a misprint but GW being GW it's hard to tell for sure.

The problem is that this view is subjective. I, for example, am 100% sure that it is a misprint. And I am not alone. So I don't think it's fair to say "nobody" is 100% sure
But I can acknowledge that there are those out there with some doubt...for some reason...because we aren't GW

All the evidence and prior actions of GW leave me with no doubt this is a typo. There is no other logic behind it that fits.
But I don't play Oblits, or currently play in tourneys, so I have the luxury of discussing the obvious right answer with all my casual opponents who all agree 115ppm is correct.

My fear is that the next FAQ will miss this obvious oversight because, as you put it, "GW being GW" and everyone with "doubts" will feel vindicated that the points were meant to be 65ppm, when the majority of use can see the error.

-

That's not what 100% sure means. You think you are fully sure. But you don't actually have any confirmation, and GW could just as easily rule it to be 65 pts going forward.

That is certainly right. I cannot know for sure. And what's worse, even if GW DOES rule that 65ppm is correct, we STILL won't be sure it the current situation was a mistake and GW just rolled with it, rather than it being their true intention from the start.

But I truly believe the best HOUSE rule is to read between the lines and err on the side for caution and assume 115ppm is correct. It's a shame many TOs appear to be ruling this to allow a clearly OP points value to be used.

-

 SHUPPET wrote:

 small_gods wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
It's very likely the 65ppm is a copy/paste error. But by GW's own admission the newest book takes precedence so until an FAQ they are 65ppm with the new profile. Yes, it's definitely in the "cheeseweasel" category to do that, but it's also the way the rules work per GW themselves. If they are so bone-headed as to never proofread anything (which we know they are) then that's on them, not on anyone who buys a codex and expects it to be correct.

Most TOs are not letting people take them at 65 points though as they know it's probably a typo. So you would only get to play them at 65 points in a casual game which is generally not a great look.

Errrr what? BCP would disagree with you on that, do you have a source for this, or are you just saying it how you "feel" it should be? That's not what most TO's are doing at all.

No I've been to two tournaments since CSM 2.0 and am going to a third this weekend. They all have oblits priced at 115 points. I asked myself and was told that I couldn't bring them at 65 so I brought a different list.

Not sure if that's different in other parts of the world but that seems to be the consensus in the UK.

Have you had different experiences?

 Galef wrote:
That is certainly right. I cannot know for sure. And what's worse, even if GW DOES rule that 65ppm is correct, we STILL won't be sure it the current situation was a mistake and GW just rolled with it, rather than it being their true intention from the start.

But I truly believe the best HOUSE rule is to read between the lines and err on the side for caution and assume 115ppm is correct. It's a shame many TOs appear to be ruling this to allow a clearly OP points value to be used.

-

? clearly OP, what was that with subjective allready?

The unit never made toptables or top 16s.

Also the TO's in this case just hold themselves to GW's ruling that the newest rule iteration allways takes precedent.
Is it a bad situation, absolutely, point in case if they had a competent writing stuff that would've not slipped thorugh. but allas, GW stated they produce models mainly.

"Clearly OP" is pretty subjective. I think it's CLEARLY fine, and this forum is doing what it did for Kelermorph in recent memory, and a ton of other gak prior. Oblits will be fine at this point cost. Ruling against things that you think is OP is a very dangerous attitude.

Warning, unpopular opinion : take away INFANTRY from the new Obliterators and replace it with MONSTER. They'll be fine at 65pts and the game will be far healthier.

 SHUPPET wrote:
"Clearly OP" is pretty subjective. I think it's CLEARLY fine, and this forum is doing what it did for Kelermorph in recent memory, and a ton of other gak prior. Oblits will be fine at this point cost. Ruling against things that you think is OP is a very dangerous attitude.

Fair point, probably shouldn't have used the word "clearly". I agree that its subjective.
I was just observing all the discuss about people looking at the new statline at the old price and coming to the consensus that they are a "must-take" unit.
Historically, a unit that gets this kind of stat buff with no price increase and is fairly unanimously considered "good" ends up being "OP" pretty quite.
It's really difficult to not assume this will be the case with Nublits if left unchecked.

7E WraithKnight comes to mind. It went from a 240pt Heavy Support MC to a 325pt LoW GC. Even with the point jump, it was in every Eldar list.

-