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.

 Ishagu wrote:
You are wrong, as I said. The actual people who literally test the rules on behalf of GW are saying that the auras don't impact the cost.

Which brings us right back to the original conclusion that you drove right by: GW is deliberately pricing certain units to be inferior.

Which is incredibly stupid.

 Ishagu wrote:

It's the same way that relics, stratagems and craftworld/chapter/legion/ork clan tactics don't impact the cost of units.
Where is the additional cost piled on Eldar flyers for that Alaitoc trait?

You're really gonna sit there with a straight face and say that particular aspect warriors and flyers havent been nerf-batted because of Alaitoc or Ynnari rulesets?

Because thats a lie and you know it.

 Ishagu wrote:

You're angry, looking for things to point a finger at. In your mind you have exaggerated the problems. You are calling GW stupid despite the fact that they have created the most popular tabletop game and have just broken their profit records for a third year in a row.
I suggest you relax, and maybe take a break.

The logical fallacy is strong with this one. If money was an indicator of product quality, big tobbaco must have had the best products in the world for a few decades despite the fact that they murdered tens of thousands of people.

 Ishagu wrote:


Wait until the next Marine book comes out at the least before calling people stupid. Let's review the army again at that point.

I deal with the facts in front of me, not some pipedream of a perfect codex that'll never happen. If and when new rules are released, I'll re-evaluate my position. Precisely as I did yesterday when GW made their latest moronic rules decision.

Calm down, take a deep breath. No reason to be angry.

If you're not happy with the model or rules play something else.

 Ishagu wrote:
You are wrong, as I said. The actual people who literally test the rules on behalf of GW are saying that the auras don't impact the cost.

So why is all marine stuff overcosted then?

 Crimson wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
You are wrong, as I said. The actual people who literally test the rules on behalf of GW are saying that the auras don't impact the cost.

So why is all marine stuff overcosted then?

bEcAuSe GaMeS wOrKsHoP hAs A sUpEr SeCrEt PlAn ThAt MaGiCalLy FiXeS eVeRyThIng

 Ishagu wrote:
Calm down, take a deep breath. No reason to be angry.

If you're not happy with the model or rules play something else.

For once can you not be a patronizing jackass? People are fully capable of playing, and being happy while playing, factions while recognizing the flaws in said factions, or others.

I gotta admit if I knew the people that did the play testing I'd be asking them a lot of questions

 Crimson wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
You are wrong, as I said. The actual people who literally test the rules on behalf of GW are saying that the auras don't impact the cost.

So why is all marine stuff overcosted then?

Because the Marine books, all of them, were the first books written for 8th edition. The release schedule does not always reflect the completion schedule of the books. This was confirmed by the FLG guys directly. Sometimes there is over a year between a unit being tested and it's release. The same applies to a codex.

It's a case of 1st codex syndrome. Let's just wait for the next book and see what changes it brings. It's literally around the corner.

The Newman wrote:

Reemule wrote:
The Newman, he is speaking on a point per point basis. A Cap and LT provide roughly 1/2 as much use, but cost far less than 1/2 of Gman's points.

That might have been what he meant, but it's definitely not what he said. He said they were just as good and left more points for other stuff, not that they're as good for the points and 200 points of other stuff balances it out overall.

And to be fair I didn't even disagree about whether g-man was worth the points over the Cap'n / Leiutenant combo.

You still have to get 2 HQs with Gman if you want a batallion and the hq's really suck. It is more tax.

 Ishagu wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
You are wrong, as I said. The actual people who literally test the rules on behalf of GW are saying that the auras don't impact the cost.

So why is all marine stuff overcosted then?

Because the Marine books, all of them, were the first books written for 8th edition. The release schedule does not always reflect the completion schedule of the books. This was confirmed by the FLG guys directly. Sometimes there is over a year between a unit being tested and it's release. The same applies to a codex.

It's a case of 1st codex syndrome. Let's just wait for the next book and see what changes it brings. It's literally around the corner.

I'm not holding out much hope based on the Chaos Marine 2.0 Codex. There were more or less no balance changes, outside of better Havoc's and arguably worse (once points were confirmed) Obliterators.

 Ishagu wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
You are wrong, as I said. The actual people who literally test the rules on behalf of GW are saying that the auras don't impact the cost.

So why is all marine stuff overcosted then?

Because the Marine books, all of them, were the first books written for 8th edition. The release schedule does not always reflect the completion schedule of the books. This was confirmed by the FLG guys directly. Sometimes there is over a year between a unit being tested and it's release. The same applies to a codex.

It's a case of 1st codex syndrome. Let's just wait for the next book and see what changes it brings. It's literally around the corner.

Where is this corner, oh “I’ve talked to the playtesters” wise one?

 Ishagu wrote:

Because the Marine books, all of them, were the first books written for 8th edition.

And this explains swiftly increasing the cost of a brand new unit now?

It's a case of 1st codex syndrome. Let's just wait for the next book and see what changes it brings. It's literally around the corner.

Yes. I am sure that the new weaponless lieutenant will fix everything!

Yeah people forget that by the time you bring Guilliman in you've typically spent near 600 points on three character and made your list very static on top.

I should mention that at the moment Astartes don't really have strats on the same level as some of the recent books. If the next codex fixes this issue we might see a requirement to bring in even more characters, and possibly reducing the value of Guilliman once abilities that affect movement or deployment become more common place. Will be interesting once it drops. I imagine we might hear something on Sat.

Not long ago I was told it would be September, which is possible if we have a few weeks of previews and pre-orders starting on the 3rd of August.

@ Crimson. To be honest I'm really not sure what happened in the case of the new Repulsor. Maybe the datasheet in the box was wrong, maybe this new one is wrong, maybe the various weapon upgrades will get cost reductions in the next codex, who knows?
It's very unlikely to be a balance update. It took GW over a year to address the Castellan for example, despite an outcry on a daily basis from all corners of the community. They are very slow to enact change like this if it's regarding pure balance adjustment.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

bort wrote:

The Newman wrote:
A Captain and Lieutenant cannot be mathematically as useful as rowboat since rerolling failed to-wounds is inherently better than rerolling 1s and rerolling misses is better than rerolling 1s (or getting three CPs is better than spending CPs for Master of the Chapter).

Is that and being beastly in melee worth 200+ more points? Got me there. Throw in losing the Ravenguard trait and strats to get the full use out of him and I'd say no.

Yes, Gman being better is just common sense. As to the value of the increase you need to look at what he is buffing. If I recall, the rough numbers are capt+lt buffs by 35% and Gman by 70% (depends on weapon, but let’s go with this 2x for 2x cost). So the question is what is 35% of what you will have in his bubble? In a 2000 pt list, this is likely to be more than 200pts, so Gman is worth the cost difference. If you were to keep all 1600pts inside, he’s worth it for buffs alone and the beatstick portion totally free.

That’s why he breaks marine pricing, with him everything is essentially 35% better than for chapters without him at a fixed rate tax that is too high in small games and too low at medium and larger.


And back to the tank, well, the nerf gets me off the fence of maybe getting any. Just not worth the cost in points or dollars now.

You won't ever win games with your whole army within 6" of Bobby.

The perception problem starts here where everyone goes, "Oh look how much better bolters are with Bobby!" when that isn't the use case on the table.

Additionally he's a LOW, which means a whole other detachment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I don't know a single player that doesn't care about the point costs of their models. Like literally no one I know is like - oh this model went up 30 points - I think I'll go buy it. New player old player? Don't matter. This nerf is a legit mistake that will only serve to cost them money and nerfs the weakest faction in the game short of GK. It's a joke. Someone needs to admit to their mistake and fix it. Now.

Why should a model get double tap for free? This is the paradox of the LRBT is it not?

The LRBT does fire twice for free though. GW even saw fit to drop tank commanders 25 points. There is a clear Astra militarum bias at GW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stux wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
You are wrong, as I said. The actual people who literally test the rules on behalf of GW are saying that the auras don't impact the cost.

So why is all marine stuff overcosted then?

Because the Marine books, all of them, were the first books written for 8th edition. The release schedule does not always reflect the completion schedule of the books. This was confirmed by the FLG guys directly. Sometimes there is over a year between a unit being tested and it's release. The same applies to a codex.

It's a case of 1st codex syndrome. Let's just wait for the next book and see what changes it brings. It's literally around the corner.

I'm not holding out much hope based on the Chaos Marine 2.0 Codex. There were more or less no balance changes, outside of better Havoc's and arguably worse (once points were confirmed) Obliterators.

Choas space marines have some issues that need fixing. A lot of the same issues loyalist have - they are a much stronger army though because of good stratagems and psychic powers.

You can succeed ins spite of yourself. GW's been doing it for 25 years.

 Ishagu wrote:
Yeah people forget that by the time you bring Guilliman in you've typically spent near 600 points on three character and made your list very static on top.

I should mention that at the moment Astartes don't really have strats on the same level as some of the recent books. If the next codex fixes this issue we might see a requirement to bring in even more characters, and possibly reducing the value of Guilliman once abilities that affect movement or deployment become more common place. Will be interesting once it drops. I imagine we might hear something on Sat.

Not long ago I was told it would be September, which is possible if we have a few weeks of previews and pre-orders starting on the 3rd of August.

@ Crimson. To be honest I'm really not sure what happened in the case of the new Repulsor. Maybe the datasheet in the box was wrong, maybe this new one is wrong, maybe the various weapon upgrades will get cost reductions in the next codex, who knows?
It's very unlikely to be a balance update. It took GW over a year to address the Castellan for example, despite an outcry on a daily basis from all corners of the community. They are very slow to enact change like this if it's regarding pure balance adjustment.

Yeah I can't believe this was intentional. It was a mistake. They wont admit it's a mistake though and marine players will suffer.

It's actually likely that the new Executioner had a point increase because of the other chapters that just gained access:

Dark Angels stratagem - Weapons from the Dark Age.
This makes the tank very, very powerful, with 2D6 Str9 AP-4 3Damage shots.

Also the Malleus Doctrine and Furor Doctrine available to Deathwatch, it grant +1 to wound to a unit, making this tank incredibly damaging when targeting the right units. Wounding on a 4+ at worst with all those Gatling and heavy bolter shots against anything Troop, Heavy Support or LoW? The Laser wounding other tanks on a 2+ also as a result.

These are the likely culprits IF it is indeed a balance adjustment.

Those DA with a sub 30% win rate as a monodex and sub 40% as primary faction? Sounds like they needed a powerful, cheapish tank to me.

 Ishagu wrote:
I just had a thought.

It's actually likely that the new Executioner had a point increase because of the other chapters that just gained access:

Dark Angels stratagem - Weapons from the Dark Age.
This makes the tank very, very powerful, with 2D6 Str9 AP-4 3Damage shots.

Also the Malleus Doctrine and Furor Doctrine available to Deathwatch, it grant +1 to wound to a unit, making this tank incredibly damaging when targeting the right units. Wounding on a 4+ at worst with all those Gatling and heavy bolter shots against anything Troop, Heavy Support or LoW? The Laser wounding other tanks on a 2+ also as a result.

These are the likely culprits if it is indeed a balance adjustment.

Gotta move dem goalposts somehow eh?

Following your logic, every Codex:SM unit available to Deathwatch should have their unit costs increased, and any plasma unit available to Dark Angels should also have their costs increased. Oh and every melee weapon should have its cost increased cause Blood Angels do the smashy smash. Lets also not forget that every Space Wolves available unit needs to be up-costed because they can get permanent cover and a -1 to hit.

Try harder.

If this were an E-game, they might be able to achieve that level of detail. As it is, GW mistakes the paste jar for their latte.

Lol, you guys. Calm down. I don't think this is the reason. The way some of you react is like children!

I'm saying that in the very unlikely scenario where this is indeed some balance update, this would be a more probably reason.

It's so suspicious that it's the OLD cost. This screams cut and paste error. How many times have GW done this? Their editors probably don't play, and so they don't know when they are putting a BS value in a book or update.

Martel732 wrote:
If this were an E-game, they might be able to achieve that level of detail.

There's precedent for it if GW really wanted to do it. SIA alters unit costs for shared datasheets based on differing capabilities.

 Ishagu wrote:
The way some of you react is like children!

Dont present bs arguments and you wont get called on your bs. Its a simple concept.

Martel732 wrote:
It's so suspicious that it's the OLD cost. This screams cut and paste error. How many times have GW done this? Their editors probably don't play, and so they don't know when they are putting a BS value in a book or update.

Yep. Didn't GW recently say that both tanks were ready at the same time but they decided to hold this one back?


Edit:

Removed - BrookM

But why don't they just fix their cut and paste error?

 Ishagu wrote:
Lol, you guys. Calm down. I don't think this is the reason. The way some of you react is like children!

I'm saying that in the very unlikely scenario where this is indeed some balance update, this would be a more probably reason.

I think it was a mistake. As you said earlier. auras and strats do not effect the cost of other units. It's should effect this.

Martel732 wrote:
But why don't they just fix their cut and paste error?

Because it's a unit that isn't even in a codex, and the codex is likely out in the next month.

Martel732 wrote:
But why don't they just fix their cut and paste error?

Because it is easier to say it was intended. This is literally why.

 Ishagu wrote:
Lol, you guys. Calm down. I don't think this is the reason. The way some of you react is like children!

FYI, your patronising tone does not make you look any smarter.

All they have to do is edit the original file, then reconvert to pdf, then repost. That's like a minute. They don't need to wait until a book comes.

 Ishagu wrote:
I just had a thought.

It's actually likely that the new Executioner had a point increase because of the Dark Angels stratagem - Weapons from the Dark Age.

This makes the tank very, very powerful, with 2D6 Str9 AP-4 3Damage shots.

Also the Malleus Doctrine and Furor Doctrine available to Deathwatch, it grant +1 to wound to a unit, making this tank incredibly damaging when targeting the right units. Wounding on a 4+ at worst with all those Gatling and heavy bolter shots against anything Troop, Heavy Support or LoW? The Laser wounding other tanks on a 2+ also as a result.

These are the likely culprits if it is indeed a balance adjustment.

The DA codex is statistically the worse performing codex in the game right now. (https://www.40kstats.com/)

2d6 shots is very swingy and at 36" range, you will often have to move to get in range to use the gun... removing the ability to double shoot.

Only 1 unit in the entire army can benefit from the stratagem per turn. What's the point of giving out stratagems if you are just going to increase the cost of the units accordingly? If WotDA is overpowered increase it's cost. You say they are not costing units based on Guilliman's buffs but they are costing them based on DA and DW stratagems?

They have left Alaitoc Flyers, Disco lords, and Plaguebearers run around undercosted for the better part of a year but feel the need to nerf a unit based on the possibility that one of the worst codexes in the game might get a leg up for a few months?!?

And before you bring up the "mythical marine codex" coming soon(TM)... I have no guarantee that that codex will help Dark Angels, since they might not even be affected by that codex, and that codex is NOT coming out before NOVA for which I'm hoping to take my DA to but this nerf does apply to it.

Finally, get off your high horse, we don't have your amazing connections to nebulous beta-testers and inside information. We're stuck waiting for scraps of information and keep being disappointed by releases that do little to improve the deficiencies in our armies... This is the only balance update we have seen since chapter approved 2018, and it was a nerf. How can you act like it's not frustrating?

 Ishagu wrote:
If by high horse you mean I don't announce that the sky is falling every time I post something I think I'd rather stay on it lol

Nobody is saying the sky is falling. Folks are simply (and in this case justifiably) expressing confusion and dismay as to why GW make balancing decisions that make no sense.