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.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:


By your logic, how is a Deffskullz ork army not the single most broken thing in the entire universe?

6++

Reroll 1 dice to hit, and wound, and to deal damage, every unit, twice per turn.

Reroll 1 or both dice to charge.

Obsec on all infantry.

Mob rule for morale.

FIVE things that in another army could be conceived as as an army trait! FIVE! And you get your pick of 95% of the units in the codex to get that, compared to Flayed Skull kabalites, which have...let's see.... a grand total of seven, I think, different units that can possibly get their trait?

Hmmm...strange, though, they don't seem like they're the most OP army in the game. They seem like we've seen one single list using that trait. And, weird, but the flayed skull trait also seems like a pretty rare thing to see in competitive lists, it's not unheard of but it's certainly not the go-to for eldar soup.

It's almost like judging how OP something is by the NUMBER of different special rules that apply to their army is...kind of a silly thing to base an assumption of balance on.

Drukhari get two of those special rules on turn 4 and turn 5. What competitive game of 40k has actually gone to that turn in 8th edition? Also, morale immunity on an MSU faction, and reroll charges - we were just talking about how kickass reroll charges is on space marines.

pretty much every army gets some kind of special rule that applies at the army level or most of the army level that's printed at the beginning of the book. Trying to figure out who's OP using that metric is like trying to determine who's op using your own local meta rather than basing that opinion on actual data oh wait...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh my god I just realized harlequins from the soaring spite have

advance and fire assault weapons with no penalty

advance and charge

fall back and charge

fall back and shoot

army-wide Fly (or Fly equivalent)

models that Fly treat their pistols as assault weapons

Models embarked on models that Fly treat their pistols as assault weapons

Oh my gooooooooood look at all those rules Harlequins must be winning all the tournaments, nobody can compete!

I'm not quite following the arguments for this, but I feel like something needs pointing out.

Deffskullz trait is really, really good. Any army would kill to have it. Marines would be broken good with it.

The reason it isn't broken with Orks is because 5s to hit happens half as often and melee is harder to do than ranged.

Harlequins aren't flipping around with pistols, because knights are more threatening right now and carrying haywire is way easier to get in range and make an impact with doom than those pistols will be (not to mention the fly nerf).

And to add Harlequins are also 20pts for a FP and no melee weapon each model with a 6" range 1 wound T3, no -1 to hit. Skyweavers are 45pts for 3 wounds -1 to hit, 4+/4++ (so caver works) 24" and can move 22". Troupes are just trash and a Starweaver doesnt make them better, just more costly for what a bike does but better.

Troupes are trash, for shooting CWE does it better, for melee DE does it better, for both take Bikes (Skyweavers and Shining Spears) there isnt a good reason to take troupes at all. EDIT: Wyches are everything Troupes are but better, double the wounds for 33% more damage at the same cost, yeah they dont have 4++, but a 6+/6++/6+++ but they have double the wounds and still a 4++ in melee, can ignore moral (only 1 flees), over all for 100pts 10 girls with better melee options (more damage) and a FnP is better than 5 Troupes with less damage and a 4++ that can move slightly faster but not fast enough to get enough into melee turn 1, you always are in mele turn 2 where run and charge isnt needed on foot models.

Sterling191 wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:


Tau weapons are S5. One of the key benefits of S5 is wounding T8 on a 5+ starting, so yes? Also, the Tau basic guns aren't AP-1/-2 like the DW ones are. Chaos bolters still wound on 5's even with VotLW, so not sure where you were going with that unless you mean Havocs,

Not against a T7 target.

If you're gonna crap on Deathwatch getting a +1 to wound against a theoretical T7 superheavy, evaluate the similar things other armies get in the same context, not what they presently do against T8.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

RogueApiary wrote:
[Lorewise, I don't think it's necessary to explain why lowering the toughness of a Knight makes no sense.

Fluff is a gak balancing tool.

I didn't say it was a good one? I said opening up Knights to small arms counter makes no sense from either gameplay OR fluff, and is therefore completely indefensible. Maybe finish mastering reading comprehension before dabbling in game design?

Do wych es have a 6++ against shooting?

Hard agree that troupes are trash at melee if you give them the swirds, but comparing 10 naked wych es to 5 troupes with fusions is a little bit goofy. That's like saying assault marines are way better than vanvets because vanvets are super inefficient in melee when you give them all inferno pistols and chainswords.

Like....yeah bro you're paying for the fusion pistols...

They always have a 6++ the wych suit is 6+/6++ then Dodge in melee for a 4++

But if you want shooting S8, just take Firedragons, they do it for better and same points, with a 12" rang e over 6" they can DS and shoot instead of spending points on a starweaver, they still can Run and shoot like normal or go Ynnari and shoot twice, they also re-roll hits of 1.

Or just take Skyweavers for anti-tank

 Amishprn86 wrote:
They always have a 6++ the wych suit is 6+/6++ then Dodge in melee for a 4++

But if you want shooting S8, just take Firedragons, they do it for better and same points, with a 12" rang e over 6" they can DS and shoot instead of spending points on a starweaver, they still can Run and shoot like normal or go Ynnari and shoot twice, they also re-roll hits of 1.

Or just take Skyweavers for anti-tank

Damn! I've played wych es with just their armor save all god damn edition!

Seems like taking a melee oriented unit, gearing them to shoot tanks, snd expecting them to kill infantry like a unit that only kills infantry or shoot tanks like a unit that only shoots tanks is a stupid idea.

Like, I hope my fusion troupe doesn't clear chaff like wyches do. I also hope it doesn't kill tanks like fire dragons do. Its a jack of all trades which means in soup hammer 40k yes you just take two specialist units from 2 different codexes instead.

I dunno if I agree that Troupes are that bad compared to Wyches - it depends what you're pitting them against. If I've not screwed up my math then some well equipped Players are much more effective against MEQ and TEQ than Wyches, which are in turn vastly more effective against GEQ.

They're not the best unit ever, but they're also hardly completely useless.

Dude....Orks have a 5++ invo save bubble that can be extended to 18" bubble with command points....Why would you take a 6++ save trait?

Evilsuns....+1 advance and charge moves AND ignore pentalies for advancing AND FREE reroll charges AND DAKKA DAKKA.

Uhhhh - I have to seriosuly question your motives if you don't think it is flat out absurd that a model get access to all these abilities for basically free. Like...Pick 1 - or 2....you dont get all 5.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Dude....Orks have a 5++ invo save bubble that can be extended to 18" bubble with command points....Why would you take a 6++ save trait?

Evilsuns....+1 advance and charge moves AND ignore pentalies for advancing AND FREE reroll charges AND DAKKA DAKKA.

Uhhhh - I have to seriosuly question your motives if you don't think it is flat out absurd that a model get access to all these abilities for basically free. Like...Pick 1 - or 2....you dont get all 5.

The 6++ trait also comes with a salamanders reroll to hit wound and damage and obsec on all infantry.

And yet, amazingly, orks are not dominating all tournaments all the time. You can rage and cry about abilities all you like, it doesn't change that things cost things. Properly costed, who cares if a unit gets no army wide abilities or 10.

Guardsmen have NO army wide abilities besides their regiment trait our of the box. Nothing that doesn't require purchasing models to get it. And yet they are tournament dominant. Deffskulls have no less than 6 (if you count their trait as 3) and yet we've seen them finish like fifth in one tournament.

Like, argue from incredulity all you like, you can phrase any number of stupid things the same way.

"Ultramarines get rapid fire weapons at 24" AND fall back and shoot AND combat squads AND reroll failed morale AND +1LD? Come on maybe you get one of those abilities but not all five!!!1!"

It doesn't matter. Their gak costs points. Some of those abilities don't come up that often.

RogueApiary wrote:
...I didn't say it was a good one? I said opening up Knights to small arms counter makes no sense from either gameplay OR fluff, and is therefore completely indefensible. Maybe finish mastering reading comprehension before dabbling in game design?

This is a huge chunk of why Knights as a Codex are really screwey. If you allow T8 armies and then say "Oh, sorry, all the guns we require you to take as a tax for taking any larger weapons don't actually do anything in this matchup" then you have to make anti-tank weapons even more cost-effective than they are now to allow a "normal" all-comers list with a varied distribution of weapons to engage a varied distribution of targets to have a chance of playing against the Knights army, which makes non-Knight-tier armour further down the table into tissue-paper uselessness (the major reason the Repulsor is bad is that all-comers armies have to be prepared to engage a Knight, and an army that can engage a Knight can casually one-round a Repulsor with no difficulty), so instead they allow small arms to engage a Knight in a meaningful way.

If superheavies were restricted to Apocalypse games and/or allowed in normal games only as a 0-1 auxiliary in a 2,000pt army you could tone down the anti-armour weapons, things with intermediate toughness could exist, and you'd see a wider variety of army builds/models, but the fact that GW thinks 2,000pts of Knights should be a fair matchup against 2,000pts of anything else borks a lot of the basic math of the game.

 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.

Wait, so my 117 point unit of 9 Scarab Swarms is worth as much as a full Bullgyn unit that costs HOW much?

 Burnage wrote:
I dunno if I agree that Troupes are that bad compared to Wyches - it depends what you're pitting them against. If I've not screwed up my math then some well equipped Players are much more effective against MEQ and TEQ than Wyches, which are in turn vastly more effective against GEQ.

They're not the best unit ever, but they're also hardly completely useless.

But thats were you are wrong, wyches deal more damage given equal points

 AnomanderRake wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:
...I didn't say it was a good one? I said opening up Knights to small arms counter makes no sense from either gameplay OR fluff, and is therefore completely indefensible. Maybe finish mastering reading comprehension before dabbling in game design?

This is a huge chunk of why Knights as a Codex are really screwey. If you allow T8 armies and then say "Oh, sorry, all the guns we require you to take as a tax for taking any larger weapons don't actually do anything in this matchup" then you have to make anti-tank weapons even more cost-effective than they are now to allow a "normal" all-comers list with a varied distribution of weapons to engage a varied distribution of targets to have a chance of playing against the Knights army, which makes non-Knight-tier armour further down the table into tissue-paper uselessness (the major reason the Repulsor is bad is that all-comers armies have to be prepared to engage a Knight, and an army that can engage a Knight can casually one-round a Repulsor with no difficulty), so instead they allow small arms to engage a Knight in a meaningful way.

If superheavies were restricted to Apocalypse games and/or allowed in normal games only as a 0-1 auxiliary in a 2,000pt army you could tone down the anti-armour weapons, things with intermediate toughness could exist, and you'd see a wider variety of army builds/models, but the fact that GW thinks 2,000pts of Knights should be a fair matchup against 2,000pts of anything else borks a lot of the basic math of the game.

Or just cap the invuln save, which is the thing holding back high str/high AP/high dmg from cost effectively doing their job. If you remember early 8th, Knights weren't dominant. It was when they got Ion Bulwark from the codex combined with RIS things where they started to dominate.

 Blndmage wrote:

 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.

Wait, so my 117 point unit of 9 Scarab Swarms is worth as much as a full Bullgyn unit that costs HOW much?

No, the rule specifically excludes units with the SWARM keyword.

I rarely post, because most of the time all you dudes who get more table time than me can normally answer more accurately than I can, and typically more quickly.

But I will say, when I opened this topic (as I check Dakka about once a month if I'm lucky these days) I was kind of expecting to see some thoughts on how to make the game better.

I guess I was hopelessly optimistic. I did read through 39 pages of vitriol and anger.

I really like this game. I've played at least one game (and one was all it took for 6th and 7th edition for me) of every edition since I started playing at the middle of 2nd edition just before dark millennium came out I think in '95. (yeah, I'm 40, I'm old) Sure, there are things I would like to see improved on, since I'm typically a mono-codex Iyanden, Grey Knight, and Blood Angels player, but I think it's getting to be in a better spot, and I think if there were a few things I would like to see change, I would like to see:

Stratagems and relics can only come from the faction your warlord is chosen from.

The amount of points allowed for allies or alternate detachments is no more than 33% of the total game points (I know, my mono-codex bias is showing just a bit here)

If I'm trying to be objective here, I think the Wave Serpent should go up in points just a bit, Ynnari needs some help getting toned down, they are pretty silly as is. -1 to hit stacking needs to be looked at too. As an Eldar player with 3 Hemlocks, it can be pretty backbreaking (and I'm not even playing the best flyers, I'm just playing what I like) and Eldari stratagems need to be looked at I think. some are just, in my opinion, just a bit too cheap.

I actually think that Tactical squads need to be about 10 or 11 points per model, with reductions in their transports and wargear, the same can be said for Intercessors, they need to come down too, and I think, even at their new cost, the repulsor might be just a tad too expensive, or it should be given a 5++ or something to stop it from just auto-dying to lascannons. Also, please, please let the Reavers take a decent melee weapon on their sergeant.

Grey Knights need to change a bit differently I feel. I feel like to make them stronger, just go through the Codex, and wherever the world *Daemon is found, replace it with *Enemy, and then correct for anything silly (like you couldn't have squads just running around auto causing 3 MW, so smite would have to change)

I would like to see missions where only troops selections can score objectives.

Just some observations from a "filthy casual". ps. going to my first ITC event (just showing up to play games honestly, I don't care about the tournament placing and such) any hints anyone wants to throw my way in a PM? (I don't want to take the subject too far OT)

Don't let the forum tone get to you. As far as I can tell many top tournament players also do not post regularly here. They're too busy rolling dice.

As for ITC - look at some common lists and determine how you would pick secondaries against those lists. It will save you a ton of time to be familiar with the thought process.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Dude....Orks have a 5++ invo save bubble that can be extended to 18" bubble with command points....Why would you take a 6++ save trait?

Evilsuns....+1 advance and charge moves AND ignore pentalies for advancing AND FREE reroll charges AND DAKKA DAKKA.

Uhhhh - I have to seriosuly question your motives if you don't think it is flat out absurd that a model get access to all these abilities for basically free. Like...Pick 1 - or 2....you dont get all 5.

The 6++ trait also comes with a salamanders reroll to hit wound and damage and obsec on all infantry.

And yet, amazingly, orks are not dominating all tournaments all the time. You can rage and cry about abilities all you like, it doesn't change that things cost things. Properly costed, who cares if a unit gets no army wide abilities or 10.

Guardsmen have NO army wide abilities besides their regiment trait our of the box. Nothing that doesn't require purchasing models to get it. And yet they are tournament dominant. Deffskulls have no less than 6 (if you count their trait as 3) and yet we've seen them finish like fifth in one tournament.

Like, argue from incredulity all you like, you can phrase any number of stupid things the same way.

"Ultramarines get rapid fire weapons at 24" AND fall back and shoot AND combat squads AND reroll failed morale AND +1LD? Come on maybe you get one of those abilities but not all five!!!1!"

It doesn't matter. Their gak costs points. Some of those abilities don't come up that often.

Orks don't have a lot of weapons on infantry that benefit from Deffskullz. To make the most efficient use they need to take dreads, 'nauts, nobs, and other vehicles. It is far "safer" to take a swarm of gretchin and not have to move your anti-tank or worry about direct counters.

It has nothing to do with Orks being bad or the trait not being good. It is simply tournament players choosing the best tool with the greatest room for mishap.

Grey Knights need to change a bit differently I feel. I feel like to make them stronger, just go through the Codex, and wherever the world *Daemon is found, replace it with *Enemy, and then correct for anything silly (like you couldn't have squads just running around auto causing 3 MW, so smite would have to change)

I would like to see missions where only troops selections can score objectives.

the thing about Grey Knight though is that they don't really have many anti demon special rules. They have the smite and the re-roll in melee. And I doubt people would be ok with GK re-rolling all dice vs everyone, as they don't want us to have normal smite either.

 Blndmage wrote:

 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.

Wait, so my 117 point unit of 9 Scarab Swarms is worth as much as a full Bullgyn unit that costs HOW much?

Swarms are explicitly excluded from that secondary.

 Burnage wrote:
I dunno if I agree that Troupes are that bad compared to Wyches - it depends what you're pitting them against. If I've not screwed up my math then some well equipped Players are much more effective against MEQ and TEQ than Wyches, which are in turn vastly more effective against GEQ.

They're not the best unit ever, but they're also hardly completely useless.

As someone who’s got both armies, I think wyches are objectively better at pretty much everything. The reason you give players Fusion pistols is because it gives them a role, i.e. anti-tank, especially in a Soaring Spite army (which is how I painted my army). Wyches can’t fill that role because you can get at most 1 blast pistol in the squad. If you give melee weapons to troupers as well as Fusion you are making 25ish point T3 4+ guys. At that level of investment, they just can’t compete efficiently against 8 point wyches. Even if you drop the Fusion, which I generally do when playing my quins, a squad of players with special weapons just can’t match the damage output of a 10 girl wych squad w/3 specials. Shardnet makes it even more lopsided since it keeps them in combat if they don’t kill their target, which is something quins just can’t do at all.

Look, I love Harlequins, and have 30+ players all painted up with freehand checks, but they are just not very good this edition. They were actually really good in 7th, too, so it’s kind of a shame.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Burnage wrote:
I dunno if I agree that Troupes are that bad compared to Wyches - it depends what you're pitting them against. If I've not screwed up my math then some well equipped Players are much more effective against MEQ and TEQ than Wyches, which are in turn vastly more effective against GEQ.

They're not the best unit ever, but they're also hardly completely useless.

But thats were you are wrong, wyches deal more damage given equal points

This got me curious, so I ran the numbers. It's not as straightforward to answer as you might expect because Harlequins and Wychs have so many different bloody configurations, but I ran with approximately 100 points of each assuming a) no upgraded pistols on either squad, and b) no +1 to hit from Power from Pain. And assuming I haven't messed any math up somewhere, of course.

Against GEQ:



Against MEQ:



Against TEQ:



So basic Harlequins definitely kind of suck in all scenarios, and against GEQ Wychs are the clearly dominant option... but Players with Caresses or Embraces don't seem that bad relatively against MEQ or TEQ? With that said, I'm still hoping that they get buffed from the FAQ with at least a revert to the flip belt change.

Edit: Updated TEQ to fix an error and add in 3 Shardnet & Impalers as options.

 Burnage wrote:

Spoiler:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Burnage wrote:
I dunno if I agree that Troupes are that bad compared to Wyches - it depends what you're pitting them against. If I've not screwed up my math then some well equipped Players are much more effective against MEQ and TEQ than Wyches, which are in turn vastly more effective against GEQ.

They're not the best unit ever, but they're also hardly completely useless.

But thats were you are wrong, wyches deal more damage given equal points

This got me curious, so I ran the numbers. It's not as straightforward to answer as you might expect because Harlequins and Wychs have so many different bloody configurations, but I ran with approximately 100 points of each assuming a) no upgraded pistols on either squad, and b) no +1 to hit from Power from Pain. And assuming I haven't messed any math up somewhere, of course.

Against GEQ:

[spoiler]
Wyches + 1 S + 1 A + three Hydra 15.70
Wyches + 1 S + 1 A 15.70
Wyches + 2 A + three Hydra 15.36
Wyches + 2 A 14.67
Wyches + 1A + three Hydra 12.33
Wyches + 1 S + three Hydra 11.85
Wyches + 2 S + three Hydra 11.85
Wyches + 1 S 11.85
Wyches + 2 S 11.85
Wyches + 1 A 11.78
Frozen Stars (Caress) 11.11
Frozen Stars (Embrace) 11.11
Wyches + three Hydra 9.31
Frozen Stars (Kiss) 9.26
Harlequins (Caress) 8.89
Harlequins (Embrace) 8.89
Frozen Stars (Blade) 8.89
Wyches 8.89
Harlequins (Kiss) 7.41
Harlequins (Blade) 7.11

Against MEQ:

Spoiler:

Frozen Stars (Caress) 7.41
Frozen Stars (Embrace) 6.94
Wyches + 1 S + 1 A + three Hydra 6.67
Wyches + 2 S + three Hydra 6.37
Harlequins (Caress) 5.93
Wyches + 2 S 5.93
Wyches + 1 S + 1 A 5.89
Wyches + 2 A + three Hydra 5.81
Harlequins (Embrace) 5.56
Wyches + 1 S + three Hydra 5.03
Wyches + 2 A 4.89
Wyches + 1 A + three Hydra 4.67
Wyches + 1 S 4.44
Frozen Stars (Kiss) 4.17
Wyches + 1 A 3.93
Wyches + three Hydra 3.52
Harlequins (Kiss) 3.33
Frozen Stars (Blade) 2.96
Wyches 2.96
Harlequins (Blade) 2.37

Against TEQ:

Spoiler:

Frozen Stars (Caress) 5.56
Frozen Stars (Embrace) 5.56
Wyches + 1 S + 1 A + three Hydra 4.83
Frozen Stars (Kiss) 4.64
Wyches + 2 S + three Hydra 4.52
Harlequins (Caress) 4.44
Harlequins (Embrace) 4.44
Wyches + 2 A + three Hydra 4.30
Harlequins (Kiss) 3.71
Wyches + 1 S + three Hydra 3.64
Wyches + 1A + three Hydra 3.44
Wyches + 2 S 2.96
Wyches + 1 S + 1 A 2.94
Wyches + three Hydra 2.59
Wyches + 2 A 2.44
Wyches + 1 S 2.22
Wyches + 1 A 1.96
Frozen Stars (Blade) 1.48
Wyches 1.48
Harlequins (Blade) 1.19

So basic Harlequins definitely kind of suck in all scenarios, and against GEQ Wychs are the clearly dominant option... but Players with Caresses or Embraces don't seem that bad relatively against MEQ or TEQ? With that said, I'm still hoping that they get buffed from the FAQ with at least a revert to the flip belt change.

Thanks for running the math - that is obviously not a small task when considering all the different variations in potential loadouts for those squads! One other thing to keep in mind is that the Shardnet + Impaler loadout (which I consider to be pretty much mandatory to take at least one of in each squad) deals a flat 2 damage. That should actually help quite a bit when dealing with Primaris and TEQ type targets, which also typically have 2 wounds. Not sure exactly how easy it is to model that, but it's another small advantage to keep in mind when considering wyches over Harlequins.

When I have been running quins lately, it is typically either as an outrider with Shadowseer plus three units of haywire skyweavers alongside my DE or CWE, or a Patrol with a single unit of fusion quins in a Starweaver and a single large unit of skyweavers. I can kind of justify a single skyweaver full of players, especially as I tend to play more casually and thus can afford to waste about 100 points on a unit I like. Some opponents who are unfamiliar with the army still fall for the old Twilight Pathways double-move trick to get the Starweaver up field and blow up a vehicle on the first turn, too, so it can be a nice distraction carnifex that lets my fragile Kabal vehicles hang back unharmed, and Raiders full of Wyches move up unchalleged for a turn, while my opponent freaks out trying to blow up the Harlequins who just showed up in their lines on the first turn.

I agree that Harlequins need the old flip belt rules back, too. The "no fly in the assault phase" rule was intended to nerf things like smash captains and flying hive tyrants that had a relatively small footprint and have huge potential damage output. Harlequins were pretty much an unintended casualty of that rules change, and it hurt them a lot more than it hurt those other models, and they didn't deserve it because they weren't exactly dominating to begin with.

 Asmodas wrote:

 Burnage wrote:

Spoiler:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Burnage wrote:
I dunno if I agree that Troupes are that bad compared to Wyches - it depends what you're pitting them against. If I've not screwed up my math then some well equipped Players are much more effective against MEQ and TEQ than Wyches, which are in turn vastly more effective against GEQ.

They're not the best unit ever, but they're also hardly completely useless.

But thats were you are wrong, wyches deal more damage given equal points

This got me curious, so I ran the numbers. It's not as straightforward to answer as you might expect because Harlequins and Wychs have so many different bloody configurations, but I ran with approximately 100 points of each assuming a) no upgraded pistols on either squad, and b) no +1 to hit from Power from Pain. And assuming I haven't messed any math up somewhere, of course.

Against GEQ:

[spoiler]
Wyches + 1 S + 1 A + three Hydra 15.70
Wyches + 1 S + 1 A 15.70
Wyches + 2 A + three Hydra 15.36
Wyches + 2 A 14.67
Wyches + 1A + three Hydra 12.33
Wyches + 1 S + three Hydra 11.85
Wyches + 2 S + three Hydra 11.85
Wyches + 1 S 11.85
Wyches + 2 S 11.85
Wyches + 1 A 11.78
Frozen Stars (Caress) 11.11
Frozen Stars (Embrace) 11.11
Wyches + three Hydra 9.31
Frozen Stars (Kiss) 9.26
Harlequins (Caress) 8.89
Harlequins (Embrace) 8.89
Frozen Stars (Blade) 8.89
Wyches 8.89
Harlequins (Kiss) 7.41
Harlequins (Blade) 7.11

Against MEQ:

Spoiler:

Frozen Stars (Caress) 7.41
Frozen Stars (Embrace) 6.94
Wyches + 1 S + 1 A + three Hydra 6.67
Wyches + 2 S + three Hydra 6.37
Harlequins (Caress) 5.93
Wyches + 2 S 5.93
Wyches + 1 S + 1 A 5.89
Wyches + 2 A + three Hydra 5.81
Harlequins (Embrace) 5.56
Wyches + 1 S + three Hydra 5.03
Wyches + 2 A 4.89
Wyches + 1 A + three Hydra 4.67
Wyches + 1 S 4.44
Frozen Stars (Kiss) 4.17
Wyches + 1 A 3.93
Wyches + three Hydra 3.52
Harlequins (Kiss) 3.33
Frozen Stars (Blade) 2.96
Wyches 2.96
Harlequins (Blade) 2.37

Against TEQ:

Spoiler:

Frozen Stars (Caress) 5.56
Frozen Stars (Embrace) 5.56
Wyches + 1 S + 1 A + three Hydra 4.83
Frozen Stars (Kiss) 4.64
Wyches + 2 S + three Hydra 4.52
Harlequins (Caress) 4.44
Harlequins (Embrace) 4.44
Wyches + 2 A + three Hydra 4.30
Harlequins (Kiss) 3.71
Wyches + 1 S + three Hydra 3.64
Wyches + 1A + three Hydra 3.44
Wyches + 2 S 2.96
Wyches + 1 S + 1 A 2.94
Wyches + three Hydra 2.59
Wyches + 2 A 2.44
Wyches + 1 S 2.22
Wyches + 1 A 1.96
Frozen Stars (Blade) 1.48
Wyches 1.48
Harlequins (Blade) 1.19

So basic Harlequins definitely kind of suck in all scenarios, and against GEQ Wychs are the clearly dominant option... but Players with Caresses or Embraces don't seem that bad relatively against MEQ or TEQ? With that said, I'm still hoping that they get buffed from the FAQ with at least a revert to the flip belt change.

Thanks for running the math - that is obviously not a small task when considering all the different variations in potential loadouts for those squads! One other thing to keep in mind is that the Shardnet + Impaler loadout (which I consider to be pretty much mandatory to take at least one of in each squad) deals a flat 2 damage. That should actually help quite a bit when dealing with Primaris and TEQ type targets, which also typically have 2 wounds. Not sure exactly how easy it is to model that, but it's another small advantage to keep in mind when considering wyches over Harlequins.

When I have been running quins lately, it is typically either as an outrider with Shadowseer plus three units of haywire skyweavers alongside my DE or CWE, or a Patrol with a single unit of fusion quins in a Starweaver and a single large unit of skyweavers. I can kind of justify a single skyweaver full of players, especially as I tend to play more casually and thus can afford to waste about 100 points on a unit I like. Some opponents who are unfamiliar with the army still fall for the old Twilight Pathways double-move trick to get the Starweaver up field and blow up a vehicle on the first turn, too, so it can be a nice distraction carnifex that lets my fragile Kabal vehicles hang back unharmed, and Raiders full of Wyches move up unchalleged for a turn, while my opponent freaks out trying to blow up the Harlequins who just showed up in their lines on the first turn.

I agree that Harlequins need the old flip belt rules back, too. The "no fly in the assault phase" rule was intended to nerf things like smash captains and flying hive tyrants that had a relatively small footprint and have huge potential damage output. Harlequins were pretty much an unintended casualty of that rules change, and it hurt them a lot more than it hurt those other models, and they didn't deserve it because they weren't exactly dominating to begin with.

i feel like you also need to factor in somehow the fact that Harlequins have access to better buffs as well. Put wyches near their basic HQ and they're rerolling 1 to hit. Put harlequins near their basic HQ that costs the same amount and they're getting a full reroll to wound (and reroll 1 to hit if you used a stratagem on the troupe master at the beginning of the game)

They also have psykers that provide some much needed durability buffs as well as turn 1 charge capability, they advance and charge out of the box (if you set the wyches to Red Grief to make the mobility equal the wyches perform far worse in the comparison) and they have fall back and shoot+fight.

No Escape is a super great ability but its impact does scale down with the skill of the person playing the melee army, because you do have access to kidnapping an enemy model to prevent a fall back.

Karol wrote:

Grey Knights need to change a bit differently I feel. I feel like to make them stronger, just go through the Codex, and wherever the world *Daemon is found, replace it with *Enemy, and then correct for anything silly (like you couldn't have squads just running around auto causing 3 MW, so smite would have to change)

I would like to see missions where only troops selections can score objectives.

the thing about Grey Knight though is that they don't really have many anti demon special rules. They have the smite and the re-roll in melee. And I doubt people would be ok with GK re-rolling all dice vs everyone, as they don't want us to have normal smite either.

Honestly Grey Knights should all just get the Ordo Malleus keyword and the Quarry rule. They would at least then be actually good against Chaos and Daemons which is what they should be good against. Being able to add in Inquisitors and relatively affordable mooks to some of their detachments while remaining pure Ordo Malleus would mitigate some of their more general problems. It would be a start.

By far the easiest way to make GKs playable in a competitive sense is to give every unit Psybolt Ammo for free instead of it being a once per turn 1 unit only Stratagem.
Deathwatch are good because their special ammo is standard. GKs could easily follow suit and not be broken.

Side note: One this I always found odd about GKs, even in prior editions when they were "good": Their primary targets are Daemons....which rarely have armour....So why in the Emphah's name do they think it's a good idea to have Power Weapons? Ya know, the weapons that are designed to punch armour.
This is one of the primary reasons GKs will NEVER be the ideal counter to Daemons as they should be.

-

It's not that they were Power Weapons, it's that they were Force Weapons, and could one-shot Greater Daemons.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
It's not that they were Power Weapons, it's that they were Force Weapons, and could one-shot Greater Daemons.

But my point stands. One-shotting GDs is great and all, but Dreadknights were designed to 1v1 GDs. The regular Strike Squad, Terminators, etc are meant to deal with the Daemon Horde. Sure D3 Damage makes it easier to take down the Beasts and Cavalry, but 'Letters, 'Nettes, PB, and Horrors? Nemesis weapons are overkill against them. And NOT the good kind of overkill, in which the weapons are effective against them, but the bad kind of overkill in which all the extra bonus AP and Damage are a complete and utter waste against them.
As in, a Strike with Force Sword kills just as many 1W Daemons as a regular Space Marine with a chainsword.

This just seems an odd choice of standard weapon (both in-game and fluff-wise) to equip your anti-Daemon super-secret Boy band.
Stormbolters make sense, though, so I guess they got that right

-

Grey Knights will always be bad until GW get around to 'Primarising' them. Like with the Necrons, they slowly make them unpopular with bad rules so when peoples entire collections get invalidated there isn't as much bad feeling.

I'd like to see the rule of 3 removed. It was added at a time before Castellans, Assassins, and the new missions.

Three Castellans is ok, nine Talos is ok. But you mustn't take four Death Company Dreadnoughts because that would be broken. Typical ham fisted response to a few bad eggs that ruined it for the rest of us and hurt more armies than it healed.

 Galef wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
It's not that they were Power Weapons, it's that they were Force Weapons, and could one-shot Greater Daemons.

But my point stands. One-shotting GDs is great and all, but Dreadknights were designed to 1v1 GDs. The regular Strike Squad, Terminators, etc are meant to deal with the Daemon Horde. Sure D3 Damage makes it easier to take down the Beasts and Cavalry, but 'Letters, 'Nettes, PB, and Horrors? Nemesis weapons are overkill against them. And NOT the good kind of overkill, in which the weapons are effective against them, but the bad kind of overkill in which all the extra bonus AP and Damage are a complete and utter waste against them.
As in, a Strike with Force Sword kills just as many 1W Daemons as a regular Space Marine with a chainsword.

This just seems an odd choice of standard weapon (both in-game and fluff-wise) to equip your anti-Daemon super-secret Boy band.
Stormbolters make sense, though, so I guess they got that right

-

Back when I played them in 4th, Psycannons and Incinerators both ignored Invulnerable saves. They were a limited army back then without many options, but they used to be extremely powerful against Daemons. The power armor squads could cut through hordes like butter, and the Grandmasters could easily solo the Greater Daemons. I don't know why they ever removed that rule, it made GK pretty awesome.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Dude....Orks have a 5++ invo save bubble that can be extended to 18" bubble with command points....Why would you take a 6++ save trait?

Evilsuns....+1 advance and charge moves AND ignore pentalies for advancing AND FREE reroll charges AND DAKKA DAKKA.

Uhhhh - I have to seriosuly question your motives if you don't think it is flat out absurd that a model get access to all these abilities for basically free. Like...Pick 1 - or 2....you dont get all 5.

The 6++ trait also comes with a salamanders reroll to hit wound and damage and obsec on all infantry.

And yet, amazingly, orks are not dominating all tournaments all the time. You can rage and cry about abilities all you like, it doesn't change that things cost things. Properly costed, who cares if a unit gets no army wide abilities or 10.

Guardsmen have NO army wide abilities besides their regiment trait our of the box. Nothing that doesn't require purchasing models to get it. And yet they are tournament dominant. Deffskulls have no less than 6 (if you count their trait as 3) and yet we've seen them finish like fifth in one tournament.

Like, argue from incredulity all you like, you can phrase any number of stupid things the same way.

"Ultramarines get rapid fire weapons at 24" AND fall back and shoot AND combat squads AND reroll failed morale AND +1LD? Come on maybe you get one of those abilities but not all five!!!1!"

It doesn't matter. Their gak costs points. Some of those abilities don't come up that often.

Orks are topping tournaments right now. In a lot of configurations. So many I can't really name them all. Evilsuns usually make up the core of the army. Badmoons usually for the lootas. Sometimes freebootas show up. I havn't seen deathskulls but they probably do show up some too. You are right though - deathskulls is salamanders trait plus one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Horst wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
It's not that they were Power Weapons, it's that they were Force Weapons, and could one-shot Greater Daemons.

But my point stands. One-shotting GDs is great and all, but Dreadknights were designed to 1v1 GDs. The regular Strike Squad, Terminators, etc are meant to deal with the Daemon Horde. Sure D3 Damage makes it easier to take down the Beasts and Cavalry, but 'Letters, 'Nettes, PB, and Horrors? Nemesis weapons are overkill against them. And NOT the good kind of overkill, in which the weapons are effective against them, but the bad kind of overkill in which all the extra bonus AP and Damage are a complete and utter waste against them.
As in, a Strike with Force Sword kills just as many 1W Daemons as a regular Space Marine with a chainsword.

This just seems an odd choice of standard weapon (both in-game and fluff-wise) to equip your anti-Daemon super-secret Boy band.
Stormbolters make sense, though, so I guess they got that right

-

Back when I played them in 4th, Psycannons and Incinerators both ignored Invulnerable saves. They were a limited army back then without many options, but they used to be extremely powerful against Daemons. The power armor squads could cut through hordes like butter, and the Grandmasters could easily solo the Greater Daemons. I don't know why they ever removed that rule, it made GK pretty awesome.

They used to be superautocannons. Now they are worse....makes no sense. The weapon should be rapidfire 2 Str 7 ap -1 flat 2.

 Galef wrote:
By far the easiest way to make GKs playable in a competitive sense is to give every unit Psybolt Ammo for free instead of it being a once per turn 1 unit only Stratagem.
Deathwatch are good because their special ammo is standard. GKs could easily follow suit and not be broken.

Side note: One this I always found odd about GKs, even in prior editions when they were "good": Their primary targets are Daemons....which rarely have armour....So why in the Emphah's name do they think it's a good idea to have Power Weapons? Ya know, the weapons that are designed to punch armour.
This is one of the primary reasons GKs will NEVER be the ideal counter to Daemons as they should be.

-

Deathwatch are good because veterans can take cheap stormshields.

Gk's are more expensive marines that die as easily as cheap marines.
That is their fundamental problem and has always been their problem since their introduction in the Daemonhunter codex. (not counting earlier Index Astares rules because no one I know actually played them).

The 'good' GK lists through the editions either didn't use GK's at all (abusing cheap henchman and Psybolt ammo) or were Draigo-stars.

All this talk about sub-faction bonuses makes me lament the Necron sub-factions.
Mephrit should be the most "generically good" code (extra -1AP at half range) except muh 5++ is plastered everywhere.

Imotekh the Memelord is key for doubling up on My Will Be Done so you're not burning 1CP a turn in a codex where a not-trash Battalion costs >650pts. Unfortunately, Imotekh is in the Sautekh Dynasty and the Air Wing detachment don't have a HQ slot, so typically you're stuck giving your Tesla Immortals the ability to turn their Assault guns into Assault guns and not the -1AP they desperately want. Yusssssssss.

Nihilakh exists at this point only to make the super-swingy DDAs less swingy. D6 shots -> D6 damage is a trash stat-line unless you pour CP and HQs into it. Guess what Necrons struggle with?

The worst part - it's common practice to break codes in a Necron Outrider because the deep strike strat you want for your Destroyers is gated behind Nephrekh but how many times do I have to tell you stop making my Tesla Immortals run you freakin' nerds a single -1 to hit and I might as well run my Immortals off the dang table. Novokh is a melee code for a faction that moves 5'' and doesn't like running, but Wraiths and "Ghetto Celestine" D-Lords like the stratagems so whatever.

So one wish for the FAQ: The AP of Gauss weaponry applies for the Invuln saves of Vehicles. The AP of GK weaponry applies for the Invuln saves of Demons.