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.

Martel732 wrote:
Guard strats are a minor point compared to the rest of their tech..

Yes, exactly. But even if you were to say, nerf some of their units randomly, you'd have just as good a chance to be nerfing gak like techpriests, valkyries, officers of the fleet, leman russ vanquishers, tauroxes, chimeras, ogryns, hydras, and all the other gak in the codex that really isn't all that OP unless you're completely blinded by rage.

Meanwhile, you've got infantry squads, company commanders, basilisks, sgt harker, leman russ battle tanks and mortar teams that are and have been too strong since the codex released. Pretty much any time a codex is too meta dominant, it's the top 25% of units (if that large of a fraction) with their optimal wargear loadouts that are actually causing the problem, and if you step outside of those the units are average at best.

but the internet hates actually understanding what the problem is, and loves kneejerking to "THE WHOOOOLE BOOK IS THE OP PLS NERF EVERYTHING IN IT 50% POINTS HIKE SHOULD NTO GET COMMAND PTS KTHX"

Make loyal 32 cost substantially more. Look at grots. Look at cultists. Then look at guardsmen. They are absurd now.

RogueApiary wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Have you ever heard of these things called points? Or do you just not play with them as it's not like it matters to you?

Models cost points we play points levels a model is supposed to pay an appropriate points cost for it's avarage performance on the table top.

I did hear of points (or PL as an alternative). Which is why tying CP to points makes one of those two resources redundant. The only reason to have points/PL and CP (or points/PL and model count or whatever) separate is so people can make separate choices in how they build their armies. If two limited resources are set to a fixed exchange rate, one is redundant.

No your incorrect, having a fixed exchange rate creates consistency, so you arn't being doubel rewarded with both cheap units and extra CP due to being able to field multiple detachments.

While someone qith more expensive unita gets punished twice with fewer bodied and also fewer CP.

So you actually think a 1000 point guard list havibg 20CP and a 1000 point Marine list being 8 Cp is a fairer and better solution than saying at 1000 points you get 10CP each?

Assuming you couldn't let Knights use the 20 Guard CP? Yes. Guard Stratagems are utter garbage even compared to the mediocre SM ones.

Playable AM Stratagems:
Take cover
Consolidate squads
Fight to the death
Overlapping fields of fire (which you won't have because Catachan is the better doctrine pick 9 times out of 10)
Defensive Gunners (if you're using this, you're probably losing anyway)
Vengeance for Cadia (Nice if you have a Chaos opponent. Dead weight against everything else)

Nobody brings guard for their incredible Stratagems, so yeah, they should probably get more CP starting out in your scenario than the marine player. It's when you toss in expensive, powerful strats with a ton of CP generation that there's a problem.

Yeah no...I would trade the entire space marine codex stratagems for take cover....

 Xenomancers wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Have you ever heard of these things called points? Or do you just not play with them as it's not like it matters to you?

Models cost points we play points levels a model is supposed to pay an appropriate points cost for it's avarage performance on the table top.

I did hear of points (or PL as an alternative). Which is why tying CP to points makes one of those two resources redundant. The only reason to have points/PL and CP (or points/PL and model count or whatever) separate is so people can make separate choices in how they build their armies. If two limited resources are set to a fixed exchange rate, one is redundant.

No your incorrect, having a fixed exchange rate creates consistency, so you arn't being doubel rewarded with both cheap units and extra CP due to being able to field multiple detachments.

While someone qith more expensive unita gets punished twice with fewer bodied and also fewer CP.

So you actually think a 1000 point guard list havibg 20CP and a 1000 point Marine list being 8 Cp is a fairer and better solution than saying at 1000 points you get 10CP each?

Assuming you couldn't let Knights use the 20 Guard CP? Yes. Guard Stratagems are utter garbage even compared to the mediocre SM ones.

Playable AM Stratagems:
Take cover
Consolidate squads
Fight to the death
Overlapping fields of fire (which you won't have because Catachan is the better doctrine pick 9 times out of 10)
Defensive Gunners (if you're using this, you're probably losing anyway)
Vengeance for Cadia (Nice if you have a Chaos opponent. Dead weight against everything else)

Nobody brings guard for their incredible Stratagems, so yeah, they should probably get more CP starting out in your scenario than the marine player. It's when you toss in expensive, powerful strats with a ton of CP generation that there's a problem.

Yeah no...I would trade the entire space marine codex stratagems for take cover....

Yeah you would...if you could use it on space marines, where getting cover halves the damage you take from ap- weapons.

on 40pt guard squads that start and cap at 10 models, take cover is a minor annoyance.

Its more like salt in the wound, but your point stands.

Like Bladestorm in 6E/7E: it didn't really impact the outcome of the game, but it did pour salt in the wound.

Where the heck is the FAQ? Any word on when it's supposed to drop?

 rollawaythestone wrote:
Where the heck is the FAQ? Any word on when it's supposed to drop?

I expected it on Monday, but it did not come. Now that the Survey is up, I get the feeling the FAQ isn't going to drop until AFTER the Survey closes.
So at the earliest, we are looking at next Tuesday (because it's a Holiday weekend, so Monday is likely a no-go as well)

Does anyone remember how long the last survey was open?

-

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Have you ever heard of these things called points? Or do you just not play with them as it's not like it matters to you?

Models cost points we play points levels a model is supposed to pay an appropriate points cost for it's avarage performance on the table top.

I did hear of points (or PL as an alternative). Which is why tying CP to points makes one of those two resources redundant. The only reason to have points/PL and CP (or points/PL and model count or whatever) separate is so people can make separate choices in how they build their armies. If two limited resources are set to a fixed exchange rate, one is redundant.

No your incorrect, having a fixed exchange rate creates consistency, so you arn't being doubel rewarded with both cheap units and extra CP due to being able to field multiple detachments.

While someone qith more expensive unita gets punished twice with fewer bodied and also fewer CP.

So you actually think a 1000 point guard list havibg 20CP and a 1000 point Marine list being 8 Cp is a fairer and better solution than saying at 1000 points you get 10CP each?

Assuming you couldn't let Knights use the 20 Guard CP? Yes. Guard Stratagems are utter garbage even compared to the mediocre SM ones.

Playable AM Stratagems:
Take cover
Consolidate squads
Fight to the death
Overlapping fields of fire (which you won't have because Catachan is the better doctrine pick 9 times out of 10)
Defensive Gunners (if you're using this, you're probably losing anyway)
Vengeance for Cadia (Nice if you have a Chaos opponent. Dead weight against everything else)

Nobody brings guard for their incredible Stratagems, so yeah, they should probably get more CP starting out in your scenario than the marine player. It's when you toss in expensive, powerful strats with a ton of CP generation that there's a problem.

Yeah no...I would trade the entire space marine codex stratagems for take cover....

Yeah you would...if you could use it on space marines, where getting cover halves the damage you take from ap- weapons.

on 40pt guard squads that start and cap at 10 models, take cover is a minor annoyance.

Yeah it's not like they have units like bullgryns (a top tier competitive option) that benefit from it hugely.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:

 rollawaythestone wrote:
Where the heck is the FAQ? Any word on when it's supposed to drop?

I expected it on Monday, but it did not come. Now that the Survey is up, I get the feeling the FAQ isn't going to drop until AFTER the Survey closes.
So at the earliest, we are looking at next Tuesday (because it's a Holiday weekend, so Monday is likely a no-go as well)

Does anyone remember how long the last survey was open?

-

That survey seemed geared to figure which direction advertising should be focusing. Not with core rules adjustments.

 Galef wrote:

 rollawaythestone wrote:
Where the heck is the FAQ? Any word on when it's supposed to drop?

I expected it on Monday, but it did not come. Now that the Survey is up, I get the feeling the FAQ isn't going to drop until AFTER the Survey closes.
So at the earliest, we are looking at next Tuesday (because it's a Holiday weekend, so Monday is likely a no-go as well)

Does anyone remember how long the last survey was open?

-

From the way some pod casts etc have been talking they have already seen it, so probably next week isn't going to be a bad guess.

In the Hordes versus elite debate, the game has needed to revamp weapons for some time to allow high rate of fire when dealing with larger units. Flamers should get 1D6 shots per 5 models in the unit as the most egregious example.

Ice_can wrote:
The really the fundamental mechanics being slanted to favour hoards is the route of the balance issues.
The AP system changes favourslight armour over heavy, ie hoards, the wounding chart changes favours lower T over Higher T, ie hoards, the detachment system was supposed to allow for more eccentric builds but with a downside, favours elite armies.
CP favouring hoards was stacking the deck too far, in one direction.

None of the changes in 8th edition saw piles of gold and gems becoming more effective in winning a game.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 rollawaythestone wrote:
Where the heck is the FAQ? Any word on when it's supposed to drop?

I expected it on Monday, but it did not come. Now that the Survey is up, I get the feeling the FAQ isn't going to drop until AFTER the Survey closes.
So at the earliest, we are looking at next Tuesday (because it's a Holiday weekend, so Monday is likely a no-go as well)

Does anyone remember how long the last survey was open?

-

That survey seemed geared to figure which direction advertising should be focusing. Not with core rules adjustments.

wasn't suggesting that GW was holding off the FAQ to make changes to it based on the Survey. I was trying to imply that GW doesn't want the Survey affected by knee-jerk reactions to things that are in (or missing from) the FAQ.
So in that regard, I would expect the FAQ NOT to come out until after the Survey closes

-

 Dysartes wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
The really the fundamental mechanics being slanted to favour hoards is the route of the balance issues.
The AP system changes favourslight armour over heavy, ie hoards, the wounding chart changes favours lower T over Higher T, ie hoards, the detachment system was supposed to allow for more eccentric builds but with a downside, favours elite armies.
CP favouring hoards was stacking the deck too far, in one direction.

None of the changes in 8th edition saw piles of gold and gems becoming more effective in winning a game.

Don't be ridiculous they're not talking about this kind of hoard.


They are talking about this kind.

 Galef wrote:

 rollawaythestone wrote:
Where the heck is the FAQ? Any word on when it's supposed to drop?

I expected it on Monday, but it did not come. Now that the Survey is up, I get the feeling the FAQ isn't going to drop until AFTER the Survey closes.
So at the earliest, we are looking at next Tuesday (because it's a Holiday weekend, so Monday is likely a no-go as well)

Does anyone remember how long the last survey was open?

-

As ordana noted - last year it was 3 week post Adepticon. That would put us on this coming Monday. They certainly won't override the Survey with a big distraction like the FAQs.

 Xenomancers wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Have you ever heard of these things called points? Or do you just not play with them as it's not like it matters to you?

Models cost points we play points levels a model is supposed to pay an appropriate points cost for it's avarage performance on the table top.

I did hear of points (or PL as an alternative). Which is why tying CP to points makes one of those two resources redundant. The only reason to have points/PL and CP (or points/PL and model count or whatever) separate is so people can make separate choices in how they build their armies. If two limited resources are set to a fixed exchange rate, one is redundant.

No your incorrect, having a fixed exchange rate creates consistency, so you arn't being doubel rewarded with both cheap units and extra CP due to being able to field multiple detachments.

While someone qith more expensive unita gets punished twice with fewer bodied and also fewer CP.

So you actually think a 1000 point guard list havibg 20CP and a 1000 point Marine list being 8 Cp is a fairer and better solution than saying at 1000 points you get 10CP each?

Assuming you couldn't let Knights use the 20 Guard CP? Yes. Guard Stratagems are utter garbage even compared to the mediocre SM ones.

Playable AM Stratagems:
Take cover
Consolidate squads
Fight to the death
Overlapping fields of fire (which you won't have because Catachan is the better doctrine pick 9 times out of 10)
Defensive Gunners (if you're using this, you're probably losing anyway)
Vengeance for Cadia (Nice if you have a Chaos opponent. Dead weight against everything else)

Nobody brings guard for their incredible Stratagems, so yeah, they should probably get more CP starting out in your scenario than the marine player. It's when you toss in expensive, powerful strats with a ton of CP generation that there's a problem.

Yeah no...I would trade the entire space marine codex stratagems for take cover....

Yeah you would...if you could use it on space marines, where getting cover halves the damage you take from ap- weapons.

on 40pt guard squads that start and cap at 10 models, take cover is a minor annoyance.

Yeah it's not like they have units like bullgryns (a top tier competitive option) that benefit from it hugely.

This is the kind of pants-on-head kneejerk madness that I'm talking about here.

In what possible fething universe is a bullgryn a "top tier competitive option"??? When have they EVER been a significant part of the competitive meta? Maybe back in the day of allied celestine Imperium detachment right after the codex dropped they got used in one list and everyone lost their minds?

It takes 500-600 points of bullgryns+support to kill a single rhino equivalent vehicle in melee. They are hideously inefficient at removing enemy models, and while they're great at one thing (not dying) there is nobody on the planet who doesn't understand at this point that it is infinitely easier to remove a fully decked out and buffed bullgryn squad than it is their points equivalent in naked guard bodies.

You know when you might see people taking bullgryn? in your magical world where CP is totally fixed and everyone gets the same amount. Then maybe someone will consider plopping 500 points of bullgryns down in a maxed out squad to defend their artillery. But in a world where command points exist, people seem to get that giving up a gigantic chunk of board cover and 12 or so command points to field a pillow fisted fatty who punches like a pair of autocannons when fully buffed and costs more than an entire squad of guardsmen for a single model is an incredibly dumb fething idea.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Have you ever heard of these things called points? Or do you just not play with them as it's not like it matters to you?

Models cost points we play points levels a model is supposed to pay an appropriate points cost for it's avarage performance on the table top.

I did hear of points (or PL as an alternative). Which is why tying CP to points makes one of those two resources redundant. The only reason to have points/PL and CP (or points/PL and model count or whatever) separate is so people can make separate choices in how they build their armies. If two limited resources are set to a fixed exchange rate, one is redundant.

No your incorrect, having a fixed exchange rate creates consistency, so you arn't being doubel rewarded with both cheap units and extra CP due to being able to field multiple detachments.

While someone qith more expensive unita gets punished twice with fewer bodied and also fewer CP.

So you actually think a 1000 point guard list havibg 20CP and a 1000 point Marine list being 8 Cp is a fairer and better solution than saying at 1000 points you get 10CP each?

Assuming you couldn't let Knights use the 20 Guard CP? Yes. Guard Stratagems are utter garbage even compared to the mediocre SM ones.

Playable AM Stratagems:
Take cover
Consolidate squads
Fight to the death
Overlapping fields of fire (which you won't have because Catachan is the better doctrine pick 9 times out of 10)
Defensive Gunners (if you're using this, you're probably losing anyway)
Vengeance for Cadia (Nice if you have a Chaos opponent. Dead weight against everything else)

Nobody brings guard for their incredible Stratagems, so yeah, they should probably get more CP starting out in your scenario than the marine player. It's when you toss in expensive, powerful strats with a ton of CP generation that there's a problem.

Yeah no...I would trade the entire space marine codex stratagems for take cover....

Yeah you would...if you could use it on space marines, where getting cover halves the damage you take from ap- weapons.

on 40pt guard squads that start and cap at 10 models, take cover is a minor annoyance.

Yeah it's not like they have units like bullgryns (a top tier competitive option) that benefit from it hugely.

This is the kind of pants-on-head kneejerk madness that I'm talking about here.

In what possible fething universe is a bullgryn a "top tier competitive option"??? When have they EVER been a significant part of the competitive meta? Maybe back in the day of allied celestine Imperium detachment right after the codex dropped they got used in one list and everyone lost their minds?

It takes 500-600 points of bullgryns+support to kill a single rhino equivalent vehicle in melee. They are hideously inefficient at removing enemy models, and while they're great at one thing (not dying) there is nobody on the planet who doesn't understand at this point that it is infinitely easier to remove a fully decked out and buffed bullgryn squad than it is their points equivalent in naked guard bodies.

You know when you might see people taking bullgryn? in your magical world where CP is totally fixed and everyone gets the same amount. Then maybe someone will consider plopping 500 points of bullgryns down in a maxed out squad to defend their artillery. But in a world where command points exist, people seem to get that giving up a gigantic chunk of board cover and 12 or so command points to field a pillow fisted fatty who punches like a pair of autocannons when fully buffed and costs more than an entire squad of guardsmen for a single model is an incredibly dumb fething idea.

So, not to make this awkward, but Bullgryns ARE top tier in the competitive circuit. Tony Kopach took 8 Bullgryns as part of his list that got 1st at Hammer in the New Year 2019 and Brandon Grant won LVO 2019 with 9 Bullgryns in his list, just to name two prominent ones. It's used as an almost impossible to kill board control unit; plugging up an avenue to try and strike at the Castellan while hopefully holding an objective. EDIT: And with a priest, as Daedalus81 points out below.

the_scotsman wrote:

This is the kind of pants-on-head kneejerk madness that I'm talking about here.

In what possible fething universe is a bullgryn a "top tier competitive option"??? When have they EVER been a significant part of the competitive meta? Maybe back in the day of allied celestine Imperium detachment right after the codex dropped they got used in one list and everyone lost their minds?

It takes 500-600 points of bullgryns+support to kill a single rhino equivalent vehicle in melee. They are hideously inefficient at removing enemy models, and while they're great at one thing (not dying) there is nobody on the planet who doesn't understand at this point that it is infinitely easier to remove a fully decked out and buffed bullgryn squad than it is their points equivalent in naked guard bodies.

You know when you might see people taking bullgryn? in your magical world where CP is totally fixed and everyone gets the same amount. Then maybe someone will consider plopping 500 points of bullgryns down in a maxed out squad to defend their artillery. But in a world where command points exist, people seem to get that giving up a gigantic chunk of board cover and 12 or so command points to field a pillow fisted fatty who punches like a pair of autocannons when fully buffed and costs more than an entire squad of guardsmen for a single model is an incredibly dumb fething idea.

I'm not certain that's a good review on the standing of Bullgryns. They're not pants on head broken, but they are featuring quite regularly in top Castellan lists, which forces an opponent to split off anti-tank to bring them down over tackling the Castellan. 9 of them with a priest is 46 S7 attacks, which is nothing to scoff at.

GW said it would be "April" so knowing them, either next week or the 29th, so they can still claim they released it in April.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 rollawaythestone wrote:
Where the heck is the FAQ? Any word on when it's supposed to drop?

I expected it on Monday, but it did not come. Now that the Survey is up, I get the feeling the FAQ isn't going to drop until AFTER the Survey closes.
So at the earliest, we are looking at next Tuesday (because it's a Holiday weekend, so Monday is likely a no-go as well)

Does anyone remember how long the last survey was open?

-

As ordana noted - last year it was 3 week post Adepticon. That would put us on this coming Monday. They certainly won't override the Survey with a big distraction like the FAQs.

This following Monday is a bank holiday following Easter Sunday.

Got my butt wipped by bullgryns at LVO. List didn't even have a castellan and I did. He combined indestructible bullgryns to abuse the character targeting rules. 2 hero land speeders with basically reroll everything and ignore cover killing all my infantry. I literally have nothing to shoot at while 2 land speeds that are untargetable because hq's are flying them. Yet another busted aspect of this game.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Got my butt wipped by bullgryns at LVO. List didn't even have a castellan and I did. He combined indestructible bullgryns to abuse the character targeting rules. 2 hero land speeders with basically reroll everything and ignore cover killing all my infantry. I literally have nothing to shoot at while 2 land speeds that are untargetable because hq's are flying them. Yet another busted aspect of this game.

I get that there's upthread evidence that Bullgryns aren't unusable competitively, but this just sounds like getting outplayed by a list built handle the type of list you brought.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Got my butt wipped by bullgryns at LVO. List didn't even have a castellan and I did. He combined indestructible bullgryns to abuse the character targeting rules. 2 hero land speeders with basically reroll everything and ignore cover killing all my infantry. I literally have nothing to shoot at while 2 land speeds that are untargetable because hq's are flying them. Yet another busted aspect of this game.

And the problem here in your eyes is the durable unit that your opponent plopped in front of the 2 untargetable characters who each put out more firepower than two razorbacks in a guilliman aura, and not those characters?

What's stopping an opponent from using pretty much any durable unit for that purpose? Or just a chaff screen?

I'll admit, you got me on Bullgryns being a unit people seem to have been taking january-february 2019 in the Castellanhammer funtime of ITC. chalk it up to me being so utterly bored of that set of houserules I stopped giving two gaks about it. I hear from local ork players that combos that rely on low wound, invulnerable save and character keyword protection buff models are going to have a super easy time dealing with the vindicare assassin being added to the meta, I'm sure the Priest+Astropath combo that bullgryns rely on will be real easy to keep alive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

This is the kind of pants-on-head kneejerk madness that I'm talking about here.

In what possible fething universe is a bullgryn a "top tier competitive option"??? When have they EVER been a significant part of the competitive meta? Maybe back in the day of allied celestine Imperium detachment right after the codex dropped they got used in one list and everyone lost their minds?

It takes 500-600 points of bullgryns+support to kill a single rhino equivalent vehicle in melee. They are hideously inefficient at removing enemy models, and while they're great at one thing (not dying) there is nobody on the planet who doesn't understand at this point that it is infinitely easier to remove a fully decked out and buffed bullgryn squad than it is their points equivalent in naked guard bodies.

You know when you might see people taking bullgryn? in your magical world where CP is totally fixed and everyone gets the same amount. Then maybe someone will consider plopping 500 points of bullgryns down in a maxed out squad to defend their artillery. But in a world where command points exist, people seem to get that giving up a gigantic chunk of board cover and 12 or so command points to field a pillow fisted fatty who punches like a pair of autocannons when fully buffed and costs more than an entire squad of guardsmen for a single model is an incredibly dumb fething idea.

I'm not certain that's a good review on the standing of Bullgryns. They're not pants on head broken, but they are featuring quite regularly in top Castellan lists, which forces an opponent to split off anti-tank to bring them down over tackling the Castellan. 9 of them with a priest is 46 S7 attacks, which is nothing to scoff at.

Like I said: A full squad buffed with a priest deals just enough damage to bring down a basic T7 3+ vehicle, for 450+ points (depending on how many buff characters you bring for them).

 ClockworkZion wrote:

This following Monday is a bank holiday following Easter Sunday.

So, Tuesday then. It's not like a bank holiday stops anything from happening that whole week. I work retail and my company gives no gaks.

Last year on Good Friday GW posted 6 articles including a WD preview and DE stratagems.

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Got my butt wipped by bullgryns at LVO. List didn't even have a castellan and I did. He combined indestructible bullgryns to abuse the character targeting rules. 2 hero land speeders with basically reroll everything and ignore cover killing all my infantry. I literally have nothing to shoot at while 2 land speeds that are untargetable because hq's are flying them. Yet another busted aspect of this game.

I get that there's upthread evidence that Bullgryns aren't unusable competitively, but this just sounds like getting outplayed by a list built handle the type of list you brought.

I give him full credit for a creative list and well thought out list. It's still a gimmick. If I had to rate the most egregious things in 40k character targeting is a top 3 offender.
#1 CP system and stratagem imbalance (needs to go to Detachments cost CP with static starting number)
#2 Braindead point costs ( Only the application of common sense and removal of bias will fix this)
#3 Character targeting rules (needs a complete redesign)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Got my butt wipped by bullgryns at LVO. List didn't even have a castellan and I did. He combined indestructible bullgryns to abuse the character targeting rules. 2 hero land speeders with basically reroll everything and ignore cover killing all my infantry. I literally have nothing to shoot at while 2 land speeds that are untargetable because hq's are flying them. Yet another busted aspect of this game.

And the problem here in your eyes is the durable unit that your opponent plopped in front of the 2 untargetable characters who each put out more firepower than two razorbacks in a guilliman aura, and not those characters?

What's stopping an opponent from using pretty much any durable unit for that purpose? Or just a chaff screen?

I'll admit, you got me on Bullgryns being a unit people seem to have been taking january-february 2019 in the Castellanhammer funtime of ITC. chalk it up to me being so utterly bored of that set of houserules I stopped giving two gaks about it. I hear from local ork players that combos that rely on low wound, invulnerable save and character keyword protection buff models are going to have a super easy time dealing with the vindicare assassin being added to the meta, I'm sure the Priest+Astropath combo that bullgryns rely on will be real easy to keep alive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

This is the kind of pants-on-head kneejerk madness that I'm talking about here.

In what possible fething universe is a bullgryn a "top tier competitive option"??? When have they EVER been a significant part of the competitive meta? Maybe back in the day of allied celestine Imperium detachment right after the codex dropped they got used in one list and everyone lost their minds?

It takes 500-600 points of bullgryns+support to kill a single rhino equivalent vehicle in melee. They are hideously inefficient at removing enemy models, and while they're great at one thing (not dying) there is nobody on the planet who doesn't understand at this point that it is infinitely easier to remove a fully decked out and buffed bullgryn squad than it is their points equivalent in naked guard bodies.

You know when you might see people taking bullgryn? in your magical world where CP is totally fixed and everyone gets the same amount. Then maybe someone will consider plopping 500 points of bullgryns down in a maxed out squad to defend their artillery. But in a world where command points exist, people seem to get that giving up a gigantic chunk of board cover and 12 or so command points to field a pillow fisted fatty who punches like a pair of autocannons when fully buffed and costs more than an entire squad of guardsmen for a single model is an incredibly dumb fething idea.

I'm not certain that's a good review on the standing of Bullgryns. They're not pants on head broken, but they are featuring quite regularly in top Castellan lists, which forces an opponent to split off anti-tank to bring them down over tackling the Castellan. 9 of them with a priest is 46 S7 attacks, which is nothing to scoff at.

Like I said: A full squad buffed with a priest deals just enough damage to bring down a basic T7 3+ vehicle, for 450+ points (depending on how many buff characters you bring for them).

It's more like the firepower of 2 storm talons with heavy bolters and AC in gmans aura + ignore cover. AND I CANT shoot them. At least though GMAN is untargetable - you can still shoot the things he is buffing. Which is actually quite an effective way to beat him. Shooting at bullgryns with 0+ saves is a good way to lose a game.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Got my butt wipped by bullgryns at LVO. List didn't even have a castellan and I did. He combined indestructible bullgryns to abuse the character targeting rules. 2 hero land speeders with basically reroll everything and ignore cover killing all my infantry. I literally have nothing to shoot at while 2 land speeds that are untargetable because hq's are flying them. Yet another busted aspect of this game.

I get that there's upthread evidence that Bullgryns aren't unusable competitively, but this just sounds like getting outplayed by a list built handle the type of list you brought.

I give him full credit for a creative list and well thought out list. It's still a gimmick. If I had to rate the most egregious things in 40k character targeting is a top 3 offender.
#1 CP system and stratagem imbalance (needs to go to Detachments cost CP with static starting number)
#2 Braindead point costs ( Only the application of common sense and removal of bias will fix this)
#3 Character targeting rules (needs a complete redesign)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Got my butt wipped by bullgryns at LVO. List didn't even have a castellan and I did. He combined indestructible bullgryns to abuse the character targeting rules. 2 hero land speeders with basically reroll everything and ignore cover killing all my infantry. I literally have nothing to shoot at while 2 land speeds that are untargetable because hq's are flying them. Yet another busted aspect of this game.

And the problem here in your eyes is the durable unit that your opponent plopped in front of the 2 untargetable characters who each put out more firepower than two razorbacks in a guilliman aura, and not those characters?

What's stopping an opponent from using pretty much any durable unit for that purpose? Or just a chaff screen?

I'll admit, you got me on Bullgryns being a unit people seem to have been taking january-february 2019 in the Castellanhammer funtime of ITC. chalk it up to me being so utterly bored of that set of houserules I stopped giving two gaks about it. I hear from local ork players that combos that rely on low wound, invulnerable save and character keyword protection buff models are going to have a super easy time dealing with the vindicare assassin being added to the meta, I'm sure the Priest+Astropath combo that bullgryns rely on will be real easy to keep alive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

This is the kind of pants-on-head kneejerk madness that I'm talking about here.

In what possible fething universe is a bullgryn a "top tier competitive option"??? When have they EVER been a significant part of the competitive meta? Maybe back in the day of allied celestine Imperium detachment right after the codex dropped they got used in one list and everyone lost their minds?

It takes 500-600 points of bullgryns+support to kill a single rhino equivalent vehicle in melee. They are hideously inefficient at removing enemy models, and while they're great at one thing (not dying) there is nobody on the planet who doesn't understand at this point that it is infinitely easier to remove a fully decked out and buffed bullgryn squad than it is their points equivalent in naked guard bodies.

You know when you might see people taking bullgryn? in your magical world where CP is totally fixed and everyone gets the same amount. Then maybe someone will consider plopping 500 points of bullgryns down in a maxed out squad to defend their artillery. But in a world where command points exist, people seem to get that giving up a gigantic chunk of board cover and 12 or so command points to field a pillow fisted fatty who punches like a pair of autocannons when fully buffed and costs more than an entire squad of guardsmen for a single model is an incredibly dumb fething idea.

I'm not certain that's a good review on the standing of Bullgryns. They're not pants on head broken, but they are featuring quite regularly in top Castellan lists, which forces an opponent to split off anti-tank to bring them down over tackling the Castellan. 9 of them with a priest is 46 S7 attacks, which is nothing to scoff at.

Like I said: A full squad buffed with a priest deals just enough damage to bring down a basic T7 3+ vehicle, for 450+ points (depending on how many buff characters you bring for them).

It's more like the firepower of 2 storm talons with heavy bolters and AC in gmans aura + ignore cover. AND I CANT shoot them. At least though GMAN is untargetable - you can still shoot the things he is buffing. Which is actually quite an effective way to beat him. Shooting at bullgryns with 0+ saves is a good way to lose a game.

Comparing Bullgryn with storm talons is a terribly disingenuous comparison and you know it. Bullgryn move 6" and you have to be either desperate or stupid to get charged by them. Meanwhile, the Storm Talons can character snipe, have a native -1 outside of hover, and can reach out to 24" after they've moved 20". Comparing the two is as useful as comparing the damage output of a Predator with it's points equivalent in grots.

You have to admit though, the only meta into which this strategy functions is one in which the only kinds of firepower your opponent has is low rof single damage anti tank and low strength ap- firepower. Basically, if they have a standard castellan meta list OR a standard ynnari with harlequin biker anti-castellan meta list.

An ork loota bomb list with a standard da jump blob of boyz chunks out 5 of those bullgryns straight through their 2+ saves. Drukhari venomspam does the same thing. Thousand Sons smitespam does the same thing. Deathwatch with 2+ to wound ammo do the same thing. And now imperial lists have access to the Vindicare who can spend a single CP and have a VERY solid chance to ace one or both of those support characters making the bullgryn combo tough to deal with.

The actual problem with that list has nothing to do with 42pt T5 3W bodies that will almost always get a 2+ save. There are plenty of papers that cover that particular rock, the player just happened to realize he was looking at an utterly homogenous Scissors meta and brought the list accordingly.

the_scotsman wrote:

Like I said: A full squad buffed with a priest deals just enough damage to bring down a basic T7 3+ vehicle, for 450+ points (depending on how many buff characters you bring for them).

It's the combination of hit decent and hard to kill that makes them "scary". I don't think they're broken - just at least good enough to see top tables more often.

You're misunderstanding him. He's not comparing the bullgryns to a random flyer. He's noting that the list he lost to was a wall of bullgryns with a Ravenwing Talonmaster in Land Speeder and a Sammael in Sableclaw standing behind them.

That's about 400 points and has 4 autocannons+4 heavy bolters that reroll to hit and reroll 1s to wound, with ignore cover. Which is, let's be clear, not a TON of firepower for that points value, but it's extremely good at dealing with the guardsmen horde that standard castellan lists rely on to score points and hold objectives.

Take that list against many - most, even - competitive lists and it'll fall flat. Not enough firepower to deal with venomspam or bring down a Primarch Party. Not enough wounds to deal with smitespam+Warptime daemon princes. super susceptible to crumbling to something like a guilliguns list that'll just drown it in wounds and chew through the 2+ saves. That's how smart counter-meta works.

Wayniac wrote:
GW said it would be "April" so knowing them, either next week or the 29th, so they can still claim they released it in April.

. . . if GW releases the FAQ on April 29th, they can claim they released the FAQ in April because they released the FAQ in April. They actually would have had a day to spare. What is it with people acting like if GW doesn't release something the first week of the month, they missed the deadline?