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.

 Xenomancers wrote:
ITC is a different game though. The victory conditions are different. The rules for terrain are different. The thing that bothers me the most is units are artificially inflated by the secondary rules. Some armies have less total points you can score off them (this is really silly).

No, its not. There is some small penalty for cheap (undercosted) bodies. The horror.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
ITC is a different game though. The victory conditions are different. The rules for terrain are different. The thing that bothers me the most is units are artificially inflated by the secondary rules. Some armies have less total points you can score off them (this is really silly).

And how is this any different when playing the missions from CA17 and then the missions from CA18?

Everything is different! Different game!

The CA17/CA18 are the win/lose conditions are the ones written to work with the game rules, point values, etc.. as published.

CA17 would obviously be best played with Codex publications and FAQs up to about Winter 2017, not beyond.

ITC simply has different win/lose conditions. To be "balanced", the ITC would need to have their own point costs for all units and possibly change some rules for units to better fit this set of win/lose conditions.

 Xenomancers wrote:
ITC is a different game though. The victory conditions are different. The rules for terrain are different. The thing that bothers me the most is units are artificially inflated by the secondary rules. Some armies have less total points you can score off them (this is really silly).

They've added some new secondaries lately to help with this. "Gangbusters" means units with multiple models that have 3+ wounds each (like Talos, Skyweavers, Bullgryns) give up 1 victory point for every 6 wounds inflicted. So a full Bullgryn star of 8 of them is worth a full 4 secondary points, same if someone tries to spam Skyweaver bikes. Talos are worth a secondary point for each kill, which makes them a lot less attractive now that they're actually worth points to the opponent. The "Engineers" secondary is pretty good as well, you can sit a unit of troops on an objective out of line of sight of most things, and just score +1 secondary point per turn with it.

So they're trying to add new secondaries to make it harder for armies to completely deny points.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
ITC is a different game though. The victory conditions are different. The rules for terrain are different. The thing that bothers me the most is units are artificially inflated by the secondary rules. Some armies have less total points you can score off them (this is really silly).

And how is this any different when playing the missions from CA17 and then the missions from CA18?

Everything is different! Different game!

Because one is produced by GW and the other is fan fiction?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
ITC is a different game though. The victory conditions are different. The rules for terrain are different. The thing that bothers me the most is units are artificially inflated by the secondary rules. Some armies have less total points you can score off them (this is really silly).

And how is this any different when playing the missions from CA17 and then the missions from CA18?

Everything is different! Different game!

Chapter approved missions have random victory conditions. Both armies have the same objectives though. ITC you pic your secondaries. That is a pretty big difference. I happen to like ITC rules - it's just sad that we need them. I'm really not sure that ITC rules affect balance that much though - except for things like mortars and obviously the infantry keyword being so strong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Horst wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
ITC is a different game though. The victory conditions are different. The rules for terrain are different. The thing that bothers me the most is units are artificially inflated by the secondary rules. Some armies have less total points you can score off them (this is really silly).

They've added some new secondaries lately to help with this. "Gangbusters" means units with multiple models that have 3+ wounds each (like Talos, Skyweavers, Bullgryns) give up 1 victory point for every 6 wounds inflicted. So a full Bullgryn star of 8 of them is worth a full 4 secondary points, same if someone tries to spam Skyweaver bikes. Talos are worth a secondary point for each kill, which makes them a lot less attractive now that they're actually worth points to the opponent. The "Engineers" secondary is pretty good as well, you can sit a unit of troops on an objective out of line of sight of most things, and just score +1 secondary point per turn with it.

So they're trying to add new secondaries to make it harder for armies to completely deny points.

That is good I suppose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
ITC is a different game though. The victory conditions are different. The rules for terrain are different. The thing that bothers me the most is units are artificially inflated by the secondary rules. Some armies have less total points you can score off them (this is really silly).

No, its not. There is some small penalty for cheap (undercosted) bodies. The horror.

I don't really get that as a take away. I don't think any army benefits from ITC rules more that IG.

Pleasestop wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
ITC is a different game though. The victory conditions are different. The rules for terrain are different. The thing that bothers me the most is units are artificially inflated by the secondary rules. Some armies have less total points you can score off them (this is really silly).

And how is this any different when playing the missions from CA17 and then the missions from CA18?

Everything is different! Different game!

Because one is produced by GW and the other is fan fiction?

GW is the biggest source of fan fiction. Look at the goobs they hire.

Wayniac wrote:
That they will delay it as long as possible while avoiding being called out for lying. It should have been out already.

And what exactly did they lie about? They still have two weeks to release the FAQ in April. "Released in April" doesn't mean "first day in April". It means "sometime in the month of April."

 EnTyme wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
That they will delay it as long as possible while avoiding being called out for lying. It should have been out already.

And what exactly did they lie about? They still have two weeks to release the FAQ in April. "Released in April" doesn't mean "first day in April". It means "sometime in the month of April."

My expectation going foward is to expect the FAQ on the last day of the month. Anything earlier is a bonus.

 EnTyme wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
That they will delay it as long as possible while avoiding being called out for lying. It should have been out already.

And what exactly did they lie about? They still have two weeks to release the FAQ in April. "Released in April" doesn't mean "first day in April". It means "sometime in the month of April."

im pretty sure that what they meant. GW wont release it when may comes around, they WILL release it in april, to avoir anyone calling them liars. Hes not saying that GW already did lie .

Well, if I recall correctly, they have not met a single "release date" for any of these periodic books. They always get delayed. GW really should follow the industry standard and just never give dates. Blizzard learned this lesson from WoW updates.

They should just post, "We are working on a FAQ."

the_scotsman wrote:

Tyel wrote:

VladimirHerzog wrote:

Yeah giving 4++ to everything is way stronger than the rest, but how would you nerf it ? its litterally a 1-point difference, and because the game uses D6's it doesnt offer the granularity required. Only way i could see a nerf to it would be for it to only work in the shooting OR fight phase, or for it to work only from attacks outside x" (kinda like the -1 to hit traits many armies have)

Just make it reroll 1s. Still a reasonable bump.

Yeah. There is a weird, pointless moratorium on GW doing anything to balance army traits or unit rules except through release of a codex that just kind of...needs to stop. I don't know. There are like a dozen army traits that just need total reworks at this point.

Too Good:

-Catachan
-All -1 to hit traits
-Cadian
-Tau (again with the best trait also being the one that has the characters!)
-Evil Sunz
-Deffskullz
-Coven of...4++..iness. I can't even remember the subfaction names for Drukhari and they're like my main faction lol. They're such a non-decision.
-The harlequin speedy trait that is an auto-include


To bad:

-Almost too many to list, but the total never-usefuls should probably be looked at, like

-Tzeentch
-Black Templars
-Word bearers
-Valhallan
-All the eldar ones that are not -1 to hit
-all the leadership debuff ones in every faction
-blood axes
-Grey knights
-Space puppers

I really wouldn't call Cadian that good. And Orks deserve better traits as even with DDD they still have a bigger hill to climb. Traits also need to be in context of everything else they get.

GK trait is really good IF they had more full smites. +1 to cast and deny army wide is nothing to scoff at.

I think the issue is the vagueness. People read/see/hear "April" and set their expectations to April. When April comes, it is understandable to think "any day now" and have that anticipation build to the point of impatience.
GW can avoid this by being a bit more clear and say "Late April" That instantly sets the expectation at the "proper" time

-

Valhallan is certainly not a useless trait. Guard can lose a lot of infantry to morale. If you're taking some Guard Infantry to hold objectives with some Knights, Valhallan is a totally legit choice. If you're taking Tank Commanders, then you want Cadian or Catachan, but Valhallan is a good choice for just infantry battalions.

 Galef wrote:
I think the issue is the vagueness. People read/see/hear "April" and set their expectations to April. When April comes, it is understandable to think "any day now" and have that anticipation build to the point of impatience.
GW can avoid this by being a bit more clear and say "Late April" That instantly sets the expectation at the "proper" time

-

Sure. They did have a "FAQ Preview article" (now a month old again already) saying it was basically finished.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/03/19/coming-soon-warhammer-40000-2019-faqs-update-1gw-homepage-post-2/

Would be nice to at least get an acknowledgement, perhaps in this format, telling us what's going on, another rough update on the time line (e.g. "late april" or even "may" ... if that's it, just communicate).

Instead there's radio silence, questions on Facebook, etc.. just get all deleted. Seems weird.


Also not ideal, IMO, that they drag to the Chaos post-Codex FAQ along with it. Stuff like 65pts. Oblits should IMO be addressed quicker, whether or not such Codex typos fall roughly in the time frame of the bi-annual FAQ or not.

There a lot more examples of traits that are too good compared to others.

Lets just get into the real bizarre though. DE flayed skull.
If you are in a transport or have fly keyword....
you get - ignore cover - reroll 1's (even if you moved) and +3 movement (any one of those is good enough to be it's own trait) So basically 3 army traits.
Plus you also have power from pain. Which grants -
6+ FNP
Reroll charges
hit on 2's in CC
Fearless

That is basically 4 more army traits...And you wonder why DE do so well. Certainly they must pay more points for all these abilities right? Nope - undercosted almost across the board.

VladimirHerzog wrote:
Yeah giving 4++ to everything is way stronger than the rest, but how would you nerf it ? its litterally a 1-point difference, and because the game uses D6's it doesnt offer the granularity required. Only way i could see a nerf to it would be for it to only work in the shooting OR fight phase, or for it to work only from attacks outside x" (kinda like the -1 to hit traits many armies have)

Well, as you've already alluded to, there are many possible ways to nerf it.

But then, surely it doesn't even need to be a buff to invulnerable saves? I imagine +1T or such would keep it as the most durable subfaction, without making the units stupidly tough.

 Galef wrote:
I think the issue is the vagueness. People read/see/hear "April" and set their expectations to April. When April comes, it is understandable to think "any day now" and have that anticipation build to the point of impatience.
GW can avoid this by being a bit more clear and say "Late April" That instantly sets the expectation at the "proper" time

-

Do I want it NOW? You're damn right I do, but I don't think pandering to entitlement or impatience is necessary or wise.

They told us why they were delaying it. They told us the timeframe to expect it. If they miss April then people can complain, but it's pretty easy for us to look back and see they took 3 weeks post Adepticon last year to release and I don't see why this year would be any different.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

I really wouldn't call Cadian that good.

Speaking as a Cadian player, I consider the Cadian trait to be exactly what every <Regiment> equivalent trait should aspire to.

It has a fluffy element(the reroll 1s to hit when stationary) and a mechanic altering element(if you put the reroll 1s to hit Order on your infantry units, they get to reroll all to Hits instead) that synergizes with the faction specific Warlord Trait(On a 4+, issue the same Order to a second unit of the same type). Coupled with the Laurels of Command(On a 4+, issue a second Order to the same unit), you're potentially hitting 4 units at a time with two Orders each.

It can be very strong if done properly, and the Tank Commander being able to issue an Order and tag two LRBTs at a time with it is nothing to sneeze at.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

I really wouldn't call Cadian that good.

Speaking as a Cadian player, I consider the Cadian trait to be exactly what every <Regiment> equivalent trait should aspire to.

It has a fluffy element(the reroll 1s to hit when stationary) and a mechanic altering element(if you put the reroll 1s to hit Order on your infantry units, they get to reroll all to Hits instead) that synergizes with the faction specific Warlord Trait(On a 4+, issue the same Order to a second unit of the same type). Coupled with the Laurels of Command(On a 4+, issue a second Order to the same unit), you're potentially hitting 4 units at a time with two Orders each.

It can be very strong if done properly, and the Tank Commander being able to issue an Order and tag two LRBTs at a time with it is nothing to sneeze at.

Right, but it does require standing still and getting some decent rolls, which makes it less attractive in my eyes.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

I really wouldn't call Cadian that good.

Speaking as a Cadian player, I consider the Cadian trait to be exactly what every <Regiment> equivalent trait should aspire to.

It has a fluffy element(the reroll 1s to hit when stationary) and a mechanic altering element(if you put the reroll 1s to hit Order on your infantry units, they get to reroll all to Hits instead) that synergizes with the faction specific Warlord Trait(On a 4+, issue the same Order to a second unit of the same type). Coupled with the Laurels of Command(On a 4+, issue a second Order to the same unit), you're potentially hitting 4 units at a time with two Orders each.

It can be very strong if done properly, and the Tank Commander being able to issue an Order and tag two LRBTs at a time with it is nothing to sneeze at.

Right, but it does require standing still and getting some decent rolls, which makes it less attractive in my eyes.

Yeah, but how often do I really want to be moving my Heavy Weapon Squads?

It also doesn't help that the Relic of Lost Cadia bolstered them up so much early on(and was commonly used illegally on a Primaris Psyker in a Spearhead to boot), leading to the whole "Cadia's OP" view.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

I really wouldn't call Cadian that good.

Speaking as a Cadian player, I consider the Cadian trait to be exactly what every <Regiment> equivalent trait should aspire to.

It has a fluffy element(the reroll 1s to hit when stationary) and a mechanic altering element(if you put the reroll 1s to hit Order on your infantry units, they get to reroll all to Hits instead) that synergizes with the faction specific Warlord Trait(On a 4+, issue the same Order to a second unit of the same type). Coupled with the Laurels of Command(On a 4+, issue a second Order to the same unit), you're potentially hitting 4 units at a time with two Orders each.

It can be very strong if done properly, and the Tank Commander being able to issue an Order and tag two LRBTs at a time with it is nothing to sneeze at.

Right, but it does require standing still and getting some decent rolls, which makes it less attractive in my eyes.

I feel like it's also apt to be looking at the comparison between Cadia and Black Templars/khorne daemons

Why is black templars the worst trait ever while Khorne Daemons is average/maybe even good?

Marine melee units are bad. Like, terrible horrible awful no-good bad. ESPECIALLY the deep striking marine melee units. Khorne melee units are decent, and the ones you can grant deep strike through a stratagem are pretty f-ing sexy glass cannons, capable of ripping through even the most indefensibly broken screen hordes. want to carve up a 60 guardsman screen without breaking a sweat? letterbomb is your CP-sink. So the reroll charge trait is pretty solid, because it can be applied to that one unit that likes to deep strike, where charge rerolls are super valuable.

Cadian trait is straight up a worse version of the Ork bad moonz trait and the Dark Angels trait. But guard units love to stand stationary and shoot.So they get a lot of mileage out of that. And it synergizes nicely with their orders, as Kanluwen pointed out.

I can agree about the issue with Melee Marines in the current meta. To get -decent- melee out of my Templars I'm running them as Veteran Intercessors just to get the 3 attacks each, and even then I'm backing them with Helbrecht for the re-rolls and the ability to buff Power Fists to S10.

The only reason cadian is taken is because of the reroll to hit order. The trait is freaking bad. Kinda like ultramarines - bad trait - reroll wounds is worth the loss of a good trait.

Cadian also has good character support and also the overall best stratagem in the codex. Possibly the best relic.

 vipoid wrote:

VladimirHerzog wrote:
Yeah giving 4++ to everything is way stronger than the rest, but how would you nerf it ? its litterally a 1-point difference, and because the game uses D6's it doesnt offer the granularity required. Only way i could see a nerf to it would be for it to only work in the shooting OR fight phase, or for it to work only from attacks outside x" (kinda like the -1 to hit traits many armies have)

Well, as you've already alluded to, there are many possible ways to nerf it.

But then, surely it doesn't even need to be a buff to invulnerable saves? I imagine +1T or such would keep it as the most durable subfaction, without making the units stupidly tough.

I would love to get some T8 talosi

VladimirHerzog wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

VladimirHerzog wrote:
Yeah giving 4++ to everything is way stronger than the rest, but how would you nerf it ? its litterally a 1-point difference, and because the game uses D6's it doesnt offer the granularity required. Only way i could see a nerf to it would be for it to only work in the shooting OR fight phase, or for it to work only from attacks outside x" (kinda like the -1 to hit traits many armies have)

Well, as you've already alluded to, there are many possible ways to nerf it.

But then, surely it doesn't even need to be a buff to invulnerable saves? I imagine +1T or such would keep it as the most durable subfaction, without making the units stupidly tough.

I would love to get some T8 talosi

T8 would be easier to deal with than 4++.

T8 is meaningless if its only backed up by a 3+... Case in point wraithlord. Back in the day when old AP was in place and you couldint hurt a T8 with a low str weapon that made sense.

Its not just the wraithlord. So many weapons have at least -1 ap its problem...

Just to throw it out there...Titanic units should be BS4/5 unles they are shooting at other titanic units imo.

I think there seem to be three disparate influences in how GW approaches subfactions: Timmy, Johnny and Spike.

And they seem to be in charge of separate codexes.


Spike codexes treat subfactions as a purely mechanical bonus you get for limiting yourself to just detachments of that codex, or of subgroups within that bonus. These traits are often (but not always) simple, but they're always just flatly better than not having the trait.

Spike seems to have been in charge of the mono-subfaction marine codexes, Custodes, Drukhari and Daemons.

Timmy is the fluffbeard subfaction creator. He gets a list of the different subfactions and their fluff, and assigns them subfaction traits that attempt to align with that fluff with no regard for the balance implications. Any units that are not "the guys" of the subfactions don't get traits, because they're not the guys and not as a balancing factor. Timmy designed Sisters, Marines, CSM, Eldar, GSC, Necrons, and Admech.

Johnny is the subfaction creator who treats the army as a baseline and attempts to use the subfaction traits to encourage players to make weird, creative builds out of their armies. Decisions to deny subfaction traits to particular units are fluff based, but also used as a balance factor - Johnny denies subfaction traits to Gretchin units and militarum tempestus/advisor units to differentiate them and to try and make sure they don't outshine what he sees as the "main choices". Johnny designed Orks, Guard, Harlequins, the new Renegade CSMs, and Tyranids.

Obviously I'm not saying 100% for certain these are three different guys who never work together, but I think you can easily see distinctions between the simple, blunt bonuses that are most of the subfactions in the Drukhari codex or the "congrats, you're playing Custodes" bonus, and the creative encouraging to go for different builds and playstyles in the Guard/Tau books.

What I am saying is we need to find Johnny, and get him to hire an entire creative team, as he may be the only glimmer of hope we have.

This is going to sound odd, but one of the things I'd most want to see in an FAQ is for Rangers to lose <Craftworld>, for the Timmy reasons the_scotsman just pointed out.

the_scotsman wrote:
I think there seem to be three disparate influences in how GW approaches subfactions: Timmy, Johnny and Spike.

And they seem to be in charge of separate codexes.


Spike codexes treat subfactions as a purely mechanical bonus you get for limiting yourself to just detachments of that codex, or of subgroups within that bonus. These traits are often (but not always) simple, but they're always just flatly better than not having the trait.

Spike seems to have been in charge of the mono-subfaction marine codexes, Custodes, Drukhari and Daemons.

Timmy is the fluffbeard subfaction creator. He gets a list of the different subfactions and their fluff, and assigns them subfaction traits that attempt to align with that fluff with no regard for the balance implications. Any units that are not "the guys" of the subfactions don't get traits, because they're not the guys and not as a balancing factor. Timmy designed Sisters, Marines, CSM, Eldar, GSC, Necrons, and Admech.

Johnny is the subfaction creator who treats the army as a baseline and attempts to use the subfaction traits to encourage players to make weird, creative builds out of their armies. Decisions to deny subfaction traits to particular units are fluff based, but also used as a balance factor - Johnny denies subfaction traits to Gretchin units and militarum tempestus/advisor units to differentiate them and to try and make sure they don't outshine what he sees as the "main choices". Johnny designed Orks, Guard, Harlequins, the new Renegade CSMs, and Tyranids.

Obviously I'm not saying 100% for certain these are three different guys who never work together, but I think you can easily see distinctions between the simple, blunt bonuses that are most of the subfactions in the Drukhari codex or the "congrats, you're playing Custodes" bonus, and the creative encouraging to go for different builds and playstyles in the Guard/Tau books.

What I am saying is we need to find Johnny, and get him to hire an entire creative team, as he may be the only glimmer of hope we have.

The Drukharii bonuses are strong, but I don't think you could argue they ignore the flavour. They are almost all really well suited to the background of their factions. Poison Tongue and Flayed skull in particular are great flavour wise, but there aren't any that fail to encourage playing the builds the subfaction favours in the fluff.

Drager wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
I think there seem to be three disparate influences in how GW approaches subfactions: Timmy, Johnny and Spike.

And they seem to be in charge of separate codexes.


Spike codexes treat subfactions as a purely mechanical bonus you get for limiting yourself to just detachments of that codex, or of subgroups within that bonus. These traits are often (but not always) simple, but they're always just flatly better than not having the trait.

Spike seems to have been in charge of the mono-subfaction marine codexes, Custodes, Drukhari and Daemons.

Timmy is the fluffbeard subfaction creator. He gets a list of the different subfactions and their fluff, and assigns them subfaction traits that attempt to align with that fluff with no regard for the balance implications. Any units that are not "the guys" of the subfactions don't get traits, because they're not the guys and not as a balancing factor. Timmy designed Sisters, Marines, CSM, Eldar, GSC, Necrons, and Admech.

Johnny is the subfaction creator who treats the army as a baseline and attempts to use the subfaction traits to encourage players to make weird, creative builds out of their armies. Decisions to deny subfaction traits to particular units are fluff based, but also used as a balance factor - Johnny denies subfaction traits to Gretchin units and militarum tempestus/advisor units to differentiate them and to try and make sure they don't outshine what he sees as the "main choices". Johnny designed Orks, Guard, Harlequins, the new Renegade CSMs, and Tyranids.

Obviously I'm not saying 100% for certain these are three different guys who never work together, but I think you can easily see distinctions between the simple, blunt bonuses that are most of the subfactions in the Drukhari codex or the "congrats, you're playing Custodes" bonus, and the creative encouraging to go for different builds and playstyles in the Guard/Tau books.

What I am saying is we need to find Johnny, and get him to hire an entire creative team, as he may be the only glimmer of hope we have.

The Drukharii bonuses are strong, but I don't think you could argue they ignore the flavour. They are almost all really well suited to the background of their factions. Poison Tongue and Flayed skull in particular are great flavour wise, but there aren't any that fail to encourage playing the builds the subfaction favours in the fluff.

I guess? I can see that for the kabal traits, at least some of them are fairly involved, but the wych cult and coven traits are....pretty simplistic.

+1S
+1A
advance and charge.

The real substance to them is the fact that you have to severely limit your army options to get them, and besides that, they're just...real strong.

And also, like I said: I don't think these are necessarily literally just three dudes, qho go into rooms, never talk to each other, and come out with codexes. But you can see three different design styles.

One who comes up with different army styles, then assigns bonuses to encourage those styles, then assigns subfactions to those bonuses (inventing a few or resurrecting weird dead ones as needed)

One who comes up with strong bonuses to encourage limitations in your army structure

And one that starts with different subfactions and assigns bonuses to those subfactions, liberally making use of previous ideas that others have created because he knows they're likely to be uncontroversial.

It could be a dozen-man team, it could be two guys. It could be the work of one guy whose philosophy changed midway through and then the process got scrambled by when they wanted to release what. it could be one guy who designs one way on a time crunch and one way when he's got the luxury to think it all through.

There certainly seem to be trends with exceptions within codexes. The militarum tempestus bonus trait follows the Spike pattern in a largely Johnny-style codex. Some Timmy codexes (probably accidentally) encourage creative Johnny-style unique builds and change up optimal wargear and unit choices, like Salamanders in Space Marines.