Switch Theme:

Chapter Approved 2019  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Well, IG do seem pretty cost effective for 4 ppm. They may be T3, but they do have a 33% chance of negating damage from small arms fire, and can have a high RoF with orders. They should probably be 5ppm, or have worse armor.

Or you can accept that you're not going to get to outright ignore armor anymore.
Or that to have that "high RoF", they're losing every other benefit that could potentially be gained from Orders.
Or that there's a limited range on that Order, which albeit is larger than if someone were to have an aura--but the downside is that there's no layering without a specific Relic and that without a specific Regimental Warlord Trait it only affects a single target.

But we've been over this for who knows how long. Grass is always greener on the other side to someone who doesn't actually understand the way the mechanisms work. There are people who still think that Scions can take Orders from <Regiment> Officers.

Then again, with GW upping the RoF on weapons, to the point that there's now a heavy weapon on an infantry platform that has 8 shots and can be taken multiple times, they probably need to be that cheap right now.

Said before, saying again:
Guard need a complete, 100% overhaul as to what the standard Guard Infantry Squad consists of now that Skitarii exist.
   
Made in us
Auspicious Aspiring Champion of Chaos






It would be cool to see things like Grots, Conscripts, etc. gain a new keyword like Chaff or something similar. Any unit with that keyword takes up it normal slot, but doesn't count against the minimum requirement or only counts as half a unit.

2000 Khorne Bloodbound (Skullfiend Tribe- Aqshy)
1000 Tzeentch Arcanites (Pyrofane Cult - Hysh) in progress
2000 Slaves to Darkness (Ravagers)
 
   
Made in fr
Trazyn's Museum Curator





on the forum. Obviously

 EnTyme wrote:
It would be cool to see things like Grots, Conscripts, etc. gain a new keyword like Chaff or something similar. Any unit with that keyword takes up it normal slot, but doesn't count against the minimum requirement or only counts as half a unit.


Maybe <Expendable> would be a better term.
Because that's what they are.

What I have
~4100
~1660

Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!

A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble

 
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.

 EnTyme wrote:
It would be cool to see things like Grots, Conscripts, etc. gain a new keyword like Chaff or something similar. Any unit with that keyword takes up it normal slot, but doesn't count against the minimum requirement or only counts as half a unit.

You don't need a keyword.

There's literally a fricking rule on the Conscripts that could be expanded for this:
Raw Recruits

Giving similar rules that prevent units from benefiting from certain aspects of the army that are troublesome, such as "A Grot's Life"(Gretchin) or "Gibbering Hordes"(Nurglings) would be far, far simpler.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/12 17:50:49


 
   
Made in us
Slaanesh Veteran Marine with Tentacles






Voss wrote:
 TedNugent wrote:
 Virules wrote:
 TedNugent wrote:
So rather than changing the way CP, battalions or brigades work, or the insanely overpowered strategem stacking combos that have promulgated like weeds the last two years and continue to get worse let's nerf grots. Makes total sense and will clearly fix the balance.

Toughness 2. 6+ armor save. 12" range pistol 1.

That people are literally only getting them to fill mandatory battalion slots should tell you everything about the state of the game.



I think you are underestimating the value of 3 ppm infantry that has a (short) ranged attack, can used to push out deep strikes, screen against assaults, and benefits from strong Ork morale negation and can benefits from big mek shield. Plus of course the insanely strong grot screen strat. I could see grots going up to 4 ppm. I agree that termagaunts or some other models may seem better pound for pound but orks overall are doing extremely well compared to some of those other factions.

Of course, guardsmen are also grossly undercosted at 4 ppm regardless what happens to grots.


Those overpowered Grots.

Yes, they are. It isn't a matter of their gun or their stats, but their strategic and mechanical uses in the game system.
They're 'game the game' units, and the closest thing GW has to a policy on that is 'people shouldn't do it' and a shrug.

They are undercosted ablative wounds that are holding up overcosted units/armies. Most Tau units are still overcosted when you compare them to other armies so the price difference is due to access to drones. Both casual and competitive units. A Riptide with ATS and TL/VT costs roughly the same as a CSM Leviathan with Butcher cannons and stripped off meltaguns. A DC Ravager or a single missileside. A Y'Vahra with ATS and TL or a Knight Errant with autocannons.

If anything increasing the cost of drones is going to make Tau lists even less varied than they already are. Crisis will be harder to protect so they are only going to be more of a suicide unit even with weapon cost reductions. Y'Vahras are already over 100pts more than a Riptide and burn through drones faster as a direct result of their range, this will only make it worse. Broadsides are more efficient than crisis at missiles, can take non-LOS secondary weapons, and don't require sacrificing a weapon slot to take support systems. Riptides are long enough range to keep the drones relatively far away from small arms fire, better novacharge options, and has access to branched nova while the FW variants do not. Commanders almost never rely on SP so they will be even more important now. What exactly is this accomplishing other than competitive tau lists now have 20% less drones?
   
Made in it
Shas'la with Pulse Carbine





 DominayTrix wrote:
What exactly is this accomplishing other than competitive tau lists now have 20% less drones?

Other than satisfying non-Tau players with zero understanding about the total lack of coherent rules and internal balance in the Tau Codex?
Nothing at all.


 
   
Made in ca
Commander of the Mysterious 2nd Legion





 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
 LunarSol wrote:
Generally speaking, GW has a weird design gap, where there are models that really want to fill a battlefield role that is lesser than Troop, but that's as low as their scale goes. Several things like Grots make more sense in something more along the Elite/Fast Attack slots, but don't fit those descriptions. In a lot of ways, Grots should probably be declared Dedicated Transports.


Maybe units like grots or conscripts shouldn't take up slots at all? Like, there's no limit as to how many of them you can field, they just cost points?
It would certainly kill CP farms.

Infantry Squads need platoons again. That would help kill CP farms as well, as it would be more expensive to fill out slots with them.


create a new troop type: "Chaff" you can take 2 chaff units for every 1 troop. it'd force you to take your basic troops, but allow you to pad your army out with chaff units

so If I was running a CSM army, I'd take ohh... 6 5 man CSM squads, and then toss 12 cultists squads down. the cultists wouldn't generate command points, etc, they'd just be bullet sponges.

IMHO it'd work nicely for units like grots and cultists, which... let's face it, aren't part of the ordered order of battle for chaos and orks. they're just fodder thrown ahead to soak up bullets for the troops you give a damn about

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
 LunarSol wrote:
tneva82 wrote:

Uuuh seeing orks need minimum 2 bat's to work requiring about 1200 pts for troops then is...harsh.


10 Boyz costs 200 points?


I think he means maxed out squads

(30*7)*6 = 1260


I know what he means; I'm just pointing out that 1200 is far from "minimum". The minimu is 420 for two battalions. The 840 you're spending beyond that nets you 120 boyz that do a lot more than just give out CP. If they're not.... don't buy them.
   
Made in gb
Mekboy on Kustom Deth Kopta






 LunarSol wrote:
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
 LunarSol wrote:
tneva82 wrote:

Uuuh seeing orks need minimum 2 bat's to work requiring about 1200 pts for troops then is...harsh.


10 Boyz costs 200 points?


I think he means maxed out squads

(30*7)*6 = 1260


I know what he means; I'm just pointing out that 1200 is far from "minimum". The minimu is 420 for two battalions. The 840 you're spending beyond that nets you 120 boyz that do a lot more than just give out CP. If they're not.... don't buy them.


10 boyz are useless. They need to be taken in massive squads to be even remotely effective. Hence tnevas point.
   
Made in de
Stealthy Space Wolves Scout




Germany, Frankfurt area

Of course leviathan gets nerfed because I just bought one. Glad it was from ebay and not FW.

I also bought, assembled and painted the loyal 32 + 2 tank commanders just a few weeks before the new SM dex dropped after resisting for 2 years

 
   
Made in gb
Mighty Vampire Count






UK

Basic Guard need a massive review in terms of models and rules

New models including other regiments and women
bring back options such as close combat weapons, carapace armour etc etc.

Currently they are slightly too cheap IMO - especially when compared to Cultists.

I AM A MARINE PLAYER

"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos

"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001

www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/528517.page

A Bloody Road - my Warhammer Fantasy Fiction 
   
Made in us
Krazed Killa Kan






Voss wrote:
 TedNugent wrote:
 Virules wrote:
 TedNugent wrote:
So rather than changing the way CP, battalions or brigades work, or the insanely overpowered strategem stacking combos that have promulgated like weeds the last two years and continue to get worse let's nerf grots. Makes total sense and will clearly fix the balance.

Toughness 2. 6+ armor save. 12" range pistol 1.

That people are literally only getting them to fill mandatory battalion slots should tell you everything about the state of the game.



I think you are underestimating the value of 3 ppm infantry that has a (short) ranged attack, can used to push out deep strikes, screen against assaults, and benefits from strong Ork morale negation and can benefits from big mek shield. Plus of course the insanely strong grot screen strat. I could see grots going up to 4 ppm. I agree that termagaunts or some other models may seem better pound for pound but orks overall are doing extremely well compared to some of those other factions.

Of course, guardsmen are also grossly undercosted at 4 ppm regardless what happens to grots.


Those overpowered Grots.

Yes, they are. It isn't a matter of their gun or their stats, but their strategic and mechanical uses in the game system.
They're 'game the game' units, and the closest thing GW has to a policy on that is 'people shouldn't do it' and a shrug.

So in other words, the game mechanic of overpowered strategems and min troop requirements need to be changed, not T2 models with no offensive capability that are nothing more than easily shot off the board meatshields. Got it.

Rather than changing any of those gamey mechanics, nerf a unit that has historically been utterly useless and considered suboptimal for years and is literally only taken to fill the requirements of those gamey mechanics.

You should work for GW.

Let's be honest, no one put any thought to this change beyond looking at the usage stats and swinging a hammer blindly.

Also, have you considered shooting at them with literally anything, for example boltguns, lasguns, etc? They literally are T2 with a 6+ and Ld4. I'm pretty sure you could try shooting at them. They're three points of literally nothing but a wound.

Fang, son of Great Fang, the traitor we seek, The laws of the brethren say this: That only the king sees the crown of the gods, And he, the usurper, must die.
Mother earth is pregnant for the third time, for y'all have knocked her up. I have tasted the maggots in the mind of the universe, but I was not offended. For I knew I had to rise above it all, or drown in my own gak. 
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Mr Morden wrote:
Basic Guard need a massive review in terms of models and rules

New models including other regiments and women
bring back options such as close combat weapons, carapace armour etc etc.

Currently they are slightly too cheap IMO - especially when compared to Cultists.


TBF 5 pts and NO trait is territorry you shouldn't even start to compare to imo.
(altough there is still a worse kind of cultist, the R&H cultist, that is stradled with the same but additionally has not even fixed morale )

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
Made in us
Terrifying Doombull




 TedNugent wrote:
Voss wrote:
 TedNugent wrote:
 Virules wrote:
 TedNugent wrote:
So rather than changing the way CP, battalions or brigades work, or the insanely overpowered strategem stacking combos that have promulgated like weeds the last two years and continue to get worse let's nerf grots. Makes total sense and will clearly fix the balance.

Toughness 2. 6+ armor save. 12" range pistol 1.

That people are literally only getting them to fill mandatory battalion slots should tell you everything about the state of the game.



I think you are underestimating the value of 3 ppm infantry that has a (short) ranged attack, can used to push out deep strikes, screen against assaults, and benefits from strong Ork morale negation and can benefits from big mek shield. Plus of course the insanely strong grot screen strat. I could see grots going up to 4 ppm. I agree that termagaunts or some other models may seem better pound for pound but orks overall are doing extremely well compared to some of those other factions.

Of course, guardsmen are also grossly undercosted at 4 ppm regardless what happens to grots.


Those overpowered Grots.

Yes, they are. It isn't a matter of their gun or their stats, but their strategic and mechanical uses in the game system.
They're 'game the game' units, and the closest thing GW has to a policy on that is 'people shouldn't do it' and a shrug.

So in other words, the game mechanic of overpowered strategems and min troop requirements need to be changed, not T2 models with no offensive capability that are nothing more than easily shot off the board meatshields. Got it.

Rather than changing any of those gamey mechanics, nerf a unit that has historically been utterly useless and considered suboptimal for years and is literally only taken to fill the requirements of those gamey mechanics.

You should work for GW.

Let's be honest, no one put any thought to this change beyond looking at the usage stats and swinging a hammer blindly.

Also, have you considered shooting at them with literally anything, for example boltguns, lasguns, etc? They literally are T2 with a 6+ and Ld4. I'm pretty sure you could try shooting at them. They're three points of literally nothing but a wound.



Someone else can try.

Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 TedNugent wrote:
Voss wrote:
 TedNugent wrote:
 Virules wrote:
 TedNugent wrote:
So rather than changing the way CP, battalions or brigades work, or the insanely overpowered strategem stacking combos that have promulgated like weeds the last two years and continue to get worse let's nerf grots. Makes total sense and will clearly fix the balance.

Toughness 2. 6+ armor save. 12" range pistol 1.

That people are literally only getting them to fill mandatory battalion slots should tell you everything about the state of the game.



I think you are underestimating the value of 3 ppm infantry that has a (short) ranged attack, can used to push out deep strikes, screen against assaults, and benefits from strong Ork morale negation and can benefits from big mek shield. Plus of course the insanely strong grot screen strat. I could see grots going up to 4 ppm. I agree that termagaunts or some other models may seem better pound for pound but orks overall are doing extremely well compared to some of those other factions.

Of course, guardsmen are also grossly undercosted at 4 ppm regardless what happens to grots.


Those overpowered Grots.

Yes, they are. It isn't a matter of their gun or their stats, but their strategic and mechanical uses in the game system.
They're 'game the game' units, and the closest thing GW has to a policy on that is 'people shouldn't do it' and a shrug.

So in other words, the game mechanic of overpowered strategems and min troop requirements need to be changed, not T2 models with no offensive capability that are nothing more than easily shot off the board meatshields. Got it.

Rather than changing any of those gamey mechanics, nerf a unit that has historically been utterly useless and considered suboptimal for years and is literally only taken to fill the requirements of those gamey mechanics.

You should work for GW.

Let's be honest, no one put any thought to this change beyond looking at the usage stats and swinging a hammer blindly.

Also, have you considered shooting at them with literally anything, for example boltguns, lasguns, etc? They literally are T2 with a 6+ and Ld4. I'm pretty sure you could try shooting at them. They're three points of literally nothing but a wound.

whilest yes, that is correct i also managed to strangle my opponent to death with R&H chaff. (which is worse by virtue of higher pricetag)
Never underestimate a model that just exists on a 25 slotta base, especially when flags , auras and psy get involved.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
Made in gb
Mekboy on Kustom Deth Kopta






Not Online!!! wrote:
 TedNugent wrote:
Voss wrote:
 TedNugent wrote:
 Virules wrote:
 TedNugent wrote:
So rather than changing the way CP, battalions or brigades work, or the insanely overpowered strategem stacking combos that have promulgated like weeds the last two years and continue to get worse let's nerf grots. Makes total sense and will clearly fix the balance.

Toughness 2. 6+ armor save. 12" range pistol 1.

That people are literally only getting them to fill mandatory battalion slots should tell you everything about the state of the game.



I think you are underestimating the value of 3 ppm infantry that has a (short) ranged attack, can used to push out deep strikes, screen against assaults, and benefits from strong Ork morale negation and can benefits from big mek shield. Plus of course the insanely strong grot screen strat. I could see grots going up to 4 ppm. I agree that termagaunts or some other models may seem better pound for pound but orks overall are doing extremely well compared to some of those other factions.

Of course, guardsmen are also grossly undercosted at 4 ppm regardless what happens to grots.


Those overpowered Grots.

Yes, they are. It isn't a matter of their gun or their stats, but their strategic and mechanical uses in the game system.
They're 'game the game' units, and the closest thing GW has to a policy on that is 'people shouldn't do it' and a shrug.

So in other words, the game mechanic of overpowered strategems and min troop requirements need to be changed, not T2 models with no offensive capability that are nothing more than easily shot off the board meatshields. Got it.

Rather than changing any of those gamey mechanics, nerf a unit that has historically been utterly useless and considered suboptimal for years and is literally only taken to fill the requirements of those gamey mechanics.

You should work for GW.

Let's be honest, no one put any thought to this change beyond looking at the usage stats and swinging a hammer blindly.

Also, have you considered shooting at them with literally anything, for example boltguns, lasguns, etc? They literally are T2 with a 6+ and Ld4. I'm pretty sure you could try shooting at them. They're three points of literally nothing but a wound.

whilest yes, that is correct i also managed to strangle my opponent to death with R&H chaff. (which is worse by virtue of higher pricetag)
Never underestimate a model that just exists on a 25 slotta base, especially when flags , auras and psy get involved.

He's not underestimating them. He's simply stating that increasing their points by a third to 4ppm is one of the most stupid kneejerk reactions ever to have jerked because Grots, regardless of their 'strategic and mechanical use in the game' aren't worth 4ppm. They are clearly, undeniably, worse than every other 4ppm model in the game. Even with Grot shields. Even with their CP farming abilities. If they go up, every other low cost troop in the game needs to go up. Including Cultists, Conscripts, Infantry, Storm Guardians, Gaunts etc

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/12 20:06:47


 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





One of the biggest issue with GW games is that their model design is mostly restricted to measurements of DPS and durability. It leads to masses of units with overlapping purpose that result in the most efficient one being taken.

Grots are one of the few units that are "inefficient" but have a unique battlefield role that makes them worth taking regardless. This is a GOOD thing. The game needs more of it. Grots can be worse than Guard even if they cost the same as long as they are good at the job they're designed for. That's not to say I think they SHOULD cost the same as Guard, just that only determining their cost on the basis of their combat capabilities is the fastest way to min-max most of the game out of consideration.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:

He's not underestimating them. He's simply stating that increasing their points by a third to 4ppm is one of the most stupid kneejerk reactions ever to have jerked because Grots, regardless of their 'strategic and mechanical use in the game' aren't worth 4ppm. They are clearly, undeniably, worse than every other 4ppm model in the game. Even with Grot shields. Even with their CP farming abilities. If they go up, every other low cost troop in the game needs to go up. Including Cultists, Conscripts, Infantry, Storm Guardians, Gaunts etc


Do all of those units gain the ability to shield more valuable targets?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/12 20:10:25


 
   
Made in gb
Mekboy on Kustom Deth Kopta






 LunarSol wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:

He's not underestimating them. He's simply stating that increasing their points by a third to 4ppm is one of the most stupid kneejerk reactions ever to have jerked because Grots, regardless of their 'strategic and mechanical use in the game' aren't worth 4ppm. They are clearly, undeniably, worse than every other 4ppm model in the game. Even with Grot shields. Even with their CP farming abilities. If they go up, every other low cost troop in the game needs to go up. Including Cultists, Conscripts, Infantry, Storm Guardians, Gaunts etc


Do all of those units gain the ability to shield more valuable targets?

No. Nor do Grots.

The ability to shield 1 (one) valuable INFANTRY target (not targetS) is provided via a stratagem that can only be used once per phase and only against shooting attacks.

Are Orks ‘valuable’ targets costed as if they are shielded by Grots and that explains their universal lack of durability for their price (T4, 6+)? Yes, I think so.

Much like Tau, Orks require a full rewrite of most of the codex if we lose our ability to effectively shield against damage for our elite units. This is a nerf, and only a nerf to our competitive build in the Marine meta and it will simply make Orks less able to compete.

As to those that have said this change is to encourage fluffy options - is it fluffy for every SM list to have Scouts instead of tacs? Why aren’t they nerfed?
   
Made in us
Lone Wolf Sentinel Pilot






Iowa

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
 LunarSol wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:

He's not underestimating them. He's simply stating that increasing their points by a third to 4ppm is one of the most stupid kneejerk reactions ever to have jerked because Grots, regardless of their 'strategic and mechanical use in the game' aren't worth 4ppm. They are clearly, undeniably, worse than every other 4ppm model in the game. Even with Grot shields. Even with their CP farming abilities. If they go up, every other low cost troop in the game needs to go up. Including Cultists, Conscripts, Infantry, Storm Guardians, Gaunts etc


Do all of those units gain the ability to shield more valuable targets?

No. Nor do Grots.

The ability to shield 1 (one) valuable INFANTRY target (not targetS) is provided via a stratagem that can only be used once per phase and only against shooting attacks.

Are Orks ‘valuable’ targets costed as if they are shielded by Grots and that explains their universal lack of durability for their price (T4, 6+)? Yes, I think so.

Much like Tau, Orks require a full rewrite of most of the codex if we lose our ability to effectively shield against damage for our elite units. This is a nerf, and only a nerf to our competitive build in the Marine meta and it will simply make Orks less able to compete.

As to those that have said this change is to encourage fluffy options - is it fluffy for every SM list to have Scouts instead of tacs? Why aren’t they nerfed?

Tenth Company force. It’s fluffy. In the case of Blood Angels, Scout army is also fluffy.

If the truth can destroy it, then it deserves to be destroyed. 
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





Spoiler:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
 TedNugent wrote:
Voss wrote:
 TedNugent wrote:
 Virules wrote:
 TedNugent wrote:
So rather than changing the way CP, battalions or brigades work, or the insanely overpowered strategem stacking combos that have promulgated like weeds the last two years and continue to get worse let's nerf grots. Makes total sense and will clearly fix the balance.

Toughness 2. 6+ armor save. 12" range pistol 1.

That people are literally only getting them to fill mandatory battalion slots should tell you everything about the state of the game.



I think you are underestimating the value of 3 ppm infantry that has a (short) ranged attack, can used to push out deep strikes, screen against assaults, and benefits from strong Ork morale negation and can benefits from big mek shield. Plus of course the insanely strong grot screen strat. I could see grots going up to 4 ppm. I agree that termagaunts or some other models may seem better pound for pound but orks overall are doing extremely well compared to some of those other factions.

Of course, guardsmen are also grossly undercosted at 4 ppm regardless what happens to grots.


Those overpowered Grots.

Yes, they are. It isn't a matter of their gun or their stats, but their strategic and mechanical uses in the game system.
They're 'game the game' units, and the closest thing GW has to a policy on that is 'people shouldn't do it' and a shrug.

So in other words, the game mechanic of overpowered strategems and min troop requirements need to be changed, not T2 models with no offensive capability that are nothing more than easily shot off the board meatshields. Got it.

Rather than changing any of those gamey mechanics, nerf a unit that has historically been utterly useless and considered suboptimal for years and is literally only taken to fill the requirements of those gamey mechanics.

You should work for GW.

Let's be honest, no one put any thought to this change beyond looking at the usage stats and swinging a hammer blindly.

Also, have you considered shooting at them with literally anything, for example boltguns, lasguns, etc? They literally are T2 with a 6+ and Ld4. I'm pretty sure you could try shooting at them. They're three points of literally nothing but a wound.

whilest yes, that is correct i also managed to strangle my opponent to death with R&H chaff. (which is worse by virtue of higher pricetag)
Never underestimate a model that just exists on a 25 slotta base, especially when flags , auras and psy get involved.

He's not underestimating them. He's simply stating that increasing their points by a third to 4ppm is one of the most stupid kneejerk reactions ever to have jerked because Grots, regardless of their 'strategic and mechanical use in the game' aren't worth 4ppm. They are clearly, undeniably, worse than every other 4ppm model in the game. Even with Grot shields. Even with their CP farming abilities. If they go up, every other low cost troop in the game needs to go up. Including Cultists, Conscripts, Infantry, Storm Guardians, Gaunts etc


Considering where cultists stand atm i don't think so if this exemple would indeed be true, but generally i am also not opposed to a general hike in price of infantry.

Regardless i think, like most here btw, that this is ridicoulus but i also think that this situation has more to do with the general sizecreep that happened and the core mechanics of CP, detachments and stratagems.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 An Actual Englishman wrote:

As to those that have said this change is to encourage fluffy options - is it fluffy for every SM list to have Scouts instead of tacs? Why aren’t they nerfed?


FWIW, I consider Scouts the #1 example of the problem.
   
Made in gb
Mekboy on Kustom Deth Kopta






 Apple Peel wrote:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:
 LunarSol wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:

He's not underestimating them. He's simply stating that increasing their points by a third to 4ppm is one of the most stupid kneejerk reactions ever to have jerked because Grots, regardless of their 'strategic and mechanical use in the game' aren't worth 4ppm. They are clearly, undeniably, worse than every other 4ppm model in the game. Even with Grot shields. Even with their CP farming abilities. If they go up, every other low cost troop in the game needs to go up. Including Cultists, Conscripts, Infantry, Storm Guardians, Gaunts etc


Do all of those units gain the ability to shield more valuable targets?

No. Nor do Grots.

The ability to shield 1 (one) valuable INFANTRY target (not targetS) is provided via a stratagem that can only be used once per phase and only against shooting attacks.

Are Orks ‘valuable’ targets costed as if they are shielded by Grots and that explains their universal lack of durability for their price (T4, 6+)? Yes, I think so.

Much like Tau, Orks require a full rewrite of most of the codex if we lose our ability to effectively shield against damage for our elite units. This is a nerf, and only a nerf to our competitive build in the Marine meta and it will simply make Orks less able to compete.

As to those that have said this change is to encourage fluffy options - is it fluffy for every SM list to have Scouts instead of tacs? Why aren’t they nerfed?

Tenth Company force. It’s fluffy. In the case of Blood Angels, Scout army is also fluffy.

It’s no more, or less fluffy than a few Meks banding together with a bunch of Grots and Lootas. That is actually a thing that happens in the fluff.
   
Made in us
Lone Wolf Sentinel Pilot






Iowa

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
 Apple Peel wrote:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:
 LunarSol wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:

He's not underestimating them. He's simply stating that increasing their points by a third to 4ppm is one of the most stupid kneejerk reactions ever to have jerked because Grots, regardless of their 'strategic and mechanical use in the game' aren't worth 4ppm. They are clearly, undeniably, worse than every other 4ppm model in the game. Even with Grot shields. Even with their CP farming abilities. If they go up, every other low cost troop in the game needs to go up. Including Cultists, Conscripts, Infantry, Storm Guardians, Gaunts etc


Do all of those units gain the ability to shield more valuable targets?

No. Nor do Grots.

The ability to shield 1 (one) valuable INFANTRY target (not targetS) is provided via a stratagem that can only be used once per phase and only against shooting attacks.

Are Orks ‘valuable’ targets costed as if they are shielded by Grots and that explains their universal lack of durability for their price (T4, 6+)? Yes, I think so.

Much like Tau, Orks require a full rewrite of most of the codex if we lose our ability to effectively shield against damage for our elite units. This is a nerf, and only a nerf to our competitive build in the Marine meta and it will simply make Orks less able to compete.

As to those that have said this change is to encourage fluffy options - is it fluffy for every SM list to have Scouts instead of tacs? Why aren’t they nerfed?

Tenth Company force. It’s fluffy. In the case of Blood Angels, Scout army is also fluffy.

It’s no more, or less fluffy than a few Meks banding together with a bunch of Grots and Lootas. That is actually a thing that happens in the fluff.

Is it given special attention in the ork codex? In the Blood Angels codex, it gets a section describing the occurrence of Scout armies.
[Thumb - 924CED72-F840-44C6-840F-FF4FA03EBC44.png]


If the truth can destroy it, then it deserves to be destroyed. 
   
Made in gb
Mekboy on Kustom Deth Kopta






 Apple Peel wrote:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:
 Apple Peel wrote:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:
 LunarSol wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:

He's not underestimating them. He's simply stating that increasing their points by a third to 4ppm is one of the most stupid kneejerk reactions ever to have jerked because Grots, regardless of their 'strategic and mechanical use in the game' aren't worth 4ppm. They are clearly, undeniably, worse than every other 4ppm model in the game. Even with Grot shields. Even with their CP farming abilities. If they go up, every other low cost troop in the game needs to go up. Including Cultists, Conscripts, Infantry, Storm Guardians, Gaunts etc


Do all of those units gain the ability to shield more valuable targets?

No. Nor do Grots.

The ability to shield 1 (one) valuable INFANTRY target (not targetS) is provided via a stratagem that can only be used once per phase and only against shooting attacks.

Are Orks ‘valuable’ targets costed as if they are shielded by Grots and that explains their universal lack of durability for their price (T4, 6+)? Yes, I think so.

Much like Tau, Orks require a full rewrite of most of the codex if we lose our ability to effectively shield against damage for our elite units. This is a nerf, and only a nerf to our competitive build in the Marine meta and it will simply make Orks less able to compete.

As to those that have said this change is to encourage fluffy options - is it fluffy for every SM list to have Scouts instead of tacs? Why aren’t they nerfed?

Tenth Company force. It’s fluffy. In the case of Blood Angels, Scout army is also fluffy.

It’s no more, or less fluffy than a few Meks banding together with a bunch of Grots and Lootas. That is actually a thing that happens in the fluff.

Is it given special attention in the ork codex? In the Blood Angels codex, it gets a section describing the occurrence of Scout armies.

Your case for proving something is lore accurate is to provide a quote from the most recent codex?

Yes, they are mentioned specifically. It’s a MASSIVE part of the Snakebite lore. Not that it matters - I could make the same argument of almost any competitive list. Do Eldar only take flyers when they go to war? No? Maybe if GW actually buffed Eldar units they wouldn’t have to?
   
Made in us
Lone Wolf Sentinel Pilot






Iowa

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
 Apple Peel wrote:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:
 Apple Peel wrote:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:
 LunarSol wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:

He's not underestimating them. He's simply stating that increasing their points by a third to 4ppm is one of the most stupid kneejerk reactions ever to have jerked because Grots, regardless of their 'strategic and mechanical use in the game' aren't worth 4ppm. They are clearly, undeniably, worse than every other 4ppm model in the game. Even with Grot shields. Even with their CP farming abilities. If they go up, every other low cost troop in the game needs to go up. Including Cultists, Conscripts, Infantry, Storm Guardians, Gaunts etc


Do all of those units gain the ability to shield more valuable targets?

No. Nor do Grots.

The ability to shield 1 (one) valuable INFANTRY target (not targetS) is provided via a stratagem that can only be used once per phase and only against shooting attacks.

Are Orks ‘valuable’ targets costed as if they are shielded by Grots and that explains their universal lack of durability for their price (T4, 6+)? Yes, I think so.

Much like Tau, Orks require a full rewrite of most of the codex if we lose our ability to effectively shield against damage for our elite units. This is a nerf, and only a nerf to our competitive build in the Marine meta and it will simply make Orks less able to compete.

As to those that have said this change is to encourage fluffy options - is it fluffy for every SM list to have Scouts instead of tacs? Why aren’t they nerfed?

Tenth Company force. It’s fluffy. In the case of Blood Angels, Scout army is also fluffy.

It’s no more, or less fluffy than a few Meks banding together with a bunch of Grots and Lootas. That is actually a thing that happens in the fluff.

Is it given special attention in the ork codex? In the Blood Angels codex, it gets a section describing the occurrence of Scout armies.

Your case for proving something is lore accurate is to provide a quote from the most recent codex?

Yes, they are mentioned specifically. It’s a MASSIVE part of the Snakebite lore. Not that it matters - I could make the same argument of almost any competitive list. Do Eldar only take flyers when they go to war? No? Maybe if GW actually buffed Eldar units they wouldn’t have to?


“As to those that have said this change is to encourage fluffy options - is it fluffy for every SM list to have Scouts instead of tacs? Why aren’t they nerfed?”

I was just informing you that scout armies are fluffy, as you seemed not to know. Now you won’t complain about heavy scout inclusion not being fluffy, won’t you?

If the truth can destroy it, then it deserves to be destroyed. 
   
Made in gb
Mekboy on Kustom Deth Kopta






 Apple Peel wrote:
Spoiler:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:
 Apple Peel wrote:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:
 Apple Peel wrote:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:
 LunarSol wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:

He's not underestimating them. He's simply stating that increasing their points by a third to 4ppm is one of the most stupid kneejerk reactions ever to have jerked because Grots, regardless of their 'strategic and mechanical use in the game' aren't worth 4ppm. They are clearly, undeniably, worse than every other 4ppm model in the game. Even with Grot shields. Even with their CP farming abilities. If they go up, every other low cost troop in the game needs to go up. Including Cultists, Conscripts, Infantry, Storm Guardians, Gaunts etc


Do all of those units gain the ability to shield more valuable targets?

No. Nor do Grots.

The ability to shield 1 (one) valuable INFANTRY target (not targetS) is provided via a stratagem that can only be used once per phase and only against shooting attacks.

Are Orks ‘valuable’ targets costed as if they are shielded by Grots and that explains their universal lack of durability for their price (T4, 6+)? Yes, I think so.

Much like Tau, Orks require a full rewrite of most of the codex if we lose our ability to effectively shield against damage for our elite units. This is a nerf, and only a nerf to our competitive build in the Marine meta and it will simply make Orks less able to compete.

As to those that have said this change is to encourage fluffy options - is it fluffy for every SM list to have Scouts instead of tacs? Why aren’t they nerfed?

Tenth Company force. It’s fluffy. In the case of Blood Angels, Scout army is also fluffy.

It’s no more, or less fluffy than a few Meks banding together with a bunch of Grots and Lootas. That is actually a thing that happens in the fluff.

Is it given special attention in the ork codex? In the Blood Angels codex, it gets a section describing the occurrence of Scout armies.

Your case for proving something is lore accurate is to provide a quote from the most recent codex?

Yes, they are mentioned specifically. It’s a MASSIVE part of the Snakebite lore. Not that it matters - I could make the same argument of almost any competitive list. Do Eldar only take flyers when they go to war? No? Maybe if GW actually buffed Eldar units they wouldn’t have to?


“As to those that have said this change is to encourage fluffy options - is it fluffy for every SM list to have Scouts instead of tacs? Why aren’t they nerfed?”

I was just informing you that scout armies are fluffy, as you seemed not to know. Now you won’t complain about heavy scout inclusion not being fluffy, won’t you?

A throwaway paragraph in the most recent codex does not a fluffy army make, youngling.

Are they only included in Ba lists? No. Well I never!
   
Made in us
Lone Wolf Sentinel Pilot






Iowa

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
 Apple Peel wrote:
Spoiler:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:
 Apple Peel wrote:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:
 Apple Peel wrote:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:
 LunarSol wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:

He's not underestimating them. He's simply stating that increasing their points by a third to 4ppm is one of the most stupid kneejerk reactions ever to have jerked because Grots, regardless of their 'strategic and mechanical use in the game' aren't worth 4ppm. They are clearly, undeniably, worse than every other 4ppm model in the game. Even with Grot shields. Even with their CP farming abilities. If they go up, every other low cost troop in the game needs to go up. Including Cultists, Conscripts, Infantry, Storm Guardians, Gaunts etc


Do all of those units gain the ability to shield more valuable targets?

No. Nor do Grots.

The ability to shield 1 (one) valuable INFANTRY target (not targetS) is provided via a stratagem that can only be used once per phase and only against shooting attacks.

Are Orks ‘valuable’ targets costed as if they are shielded by Grots and that explains their universal lack of durability for their price (T4, 6+)? Yes, I think so.

Much like Tau, Orks require a full rewrite of most of the codex if we lose our ability to effectively shield against damage for our elite units. This is a nerf, and only a nerf to our competitive build in the Marine meta and it will simply make Orks less able to compete.

As to those that have said this change is to encourage fluffy options - is it fluffy for every SM list to have Scouts instead of tacs? Why aren’t they nerfed?

Tenth Company force. It’s fluffy. In the case of Blood Angels, Scout army is also fluffy.

It’s no more, or less fluffy than a few Meks banding together with a bunch of Grots and Lootas. That is actually a thing that happens in the fluff.

Is it given special attention in the ork codex? In the Blood Angels codex, it gets a section describing the occurrence of Scout armies.

Your case for proving something is lore accurate is to provide a quote from the most recent codex?

Yes, they are mentioned specifically. It’s a MASSIVE part of the Snakebite lore. Not that it matters - I could make the same argument of almost any competitive list. Do Eldar only take flyers when they go to war? No? Maybe if GW actually buffed Eldar units they wouldn’t have to?


“As to those that have said this change is to encourage fluffy options - is it fluffy for every SM list to have Scouts instead of tacs? Why aren’t they nerfed?”

I was just informing you that scout armies are fluffy, as you seemed not to know. Now you won’t complain about heavy scout inclusion not being fluffy, won’t you?

A throwaway paragraph in the most recent codex does not a fluffy army make, youngling.

Are they only included in Ba lists? No. Well I never!

You can call anything a throwaway paragraph, but it does not make you correct. Do you really want me to pull up codex-compliant chapter structure diagram as well and spoon-feed it to you?

If the truth can destroy it, then it deserves to be destroyed. 
   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought




San Jose, CA

 Apple Peel wrote:
Spoiler:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:
 Apple Peel wrote:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:
 Apple Peel wrote:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:
 LunarSol wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:

He's not underestimating them. He's simply stating that increasing their points by a third to 4ppm is one of the most stupid kneejerk reactions ever to have jerked because Grots, regardless of their 'strategic and mechanical use in the game' aren't worth 4ppm. They are clearly, undeniably, worse than every other 4ppm model in the game. Even with Grot shields. Even with their CP farming abilities. If they go up, every other low cost troop in the game needs to go up. Including Cultists, Conscripts, Infantry, Storm Guardians, Gaunts etc


Do all of those units gain the ability to shield more valuable targets?

No. Nor do Grots.

The ability to shield 1 (one) valuable INFANTRY target (not targetS) is provided via a stratagem that can only be used once per phase and only against shooting attacks.

Are Orks ‘valuable’ targets costed as if they are shielded by Grots and that explains their universal lack of durability for their price (T4, 6+)? Yes, I think so.

Much like Tau, Orks require a full rewrite of most of the codex if we lose our ability to effectively shield against damage for our elite units. This is a nerf, and only a nerf to our competitive build in the Marine meta and it will simply make Orks less able to compete.

As to those that have said this change is to encourage fluffy options - is it fluffy for every SM list to have Scouts instead of tacs? Why aren’t they nerfed?

Tenth Company force. It’s fluffy. In the case of Blood Angels, Scout army is also fluffy.

It’s no more, or less fluffy than a few Meks banding together with a bunch of Grots and Lootas. That is actually a thing that happens in the fluff.

Is it given special attention in the ork codex? In the Blood Angels codex, it gets a section describing the occurrence of Scout armies.

Your case for proving something is lore accurate is to provide a quote from the most recent codex?

Yes, they are mentioned specifically. It’s a MASSIVE part of the Snakebite lore. Not that it matters - I could make the same argument of almost any competitive list. Do Eldar only take flyers when they go to war? No? Maybe if GW actually buffed Eldar units they wouldn’t have to?


“As to those that have said this change is to encourage fluffy options - is it fluffy for every SM list to have Scouts instead of tacs? Why aren’t they nerfed?”


I was just informing you that scout armies are fluffy, as you seemed not to know. Now you won’t complain about heavy scout inclusion not being fluffy, won’t you?


good luck with that one. Marines use the right tool for the right job....right? Scouts offer a bunch of advantages on the battlefield.

Note that I am not defending loading up on scouts to game the game, that's just lame.
   
Made in ca
Commander of the Mysterious 2nd Legion





keep in mind as an advance scout force for Marines scouts making up the bulk of a marine force can make some sense. that said, I think even GW thinks scout spamming is lame while aknowledging that for some people the idea of running a marine advance rtecon force is a fun concept. hence vanguard marines.

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in au
Hissing Hybrid Metamorph






It’s a shame GW are so against just making CP’s equal to everyone’s lists no matter what you take. Just give everyone, like, 12 or whatever is a good number. Would put a stop to this cheap infantry spamming instantly.
   
 
Forum Index » News & Rumors
Go to: