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.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Aenar wrote:
I just hope some of the reviewers who get these advance copies of the CA will upload their videos tomorrow, going very slowly through pages well in focus so you can clearly read all the points.
The first reviewer to do that gets many views just from me.

Or you could wait a week, and legally acquire the information.

Nothing illegal about watching a guy on the internet going over point changes and using BS instead of buying the book. ^^

 vipoid wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You want to encourage mono armies? There's an easy way to do that. Guess what it is?

BETTER INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL BALANCE

It's hard to grasp I know.

I mean, if you really want to encourage mono armies you could just remove allies in Matched Play.

I've already shown why allies aren't part of the balance problem. Do I really need to do that again?

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
A lying heretic, I HAVE SEEN YOUR METAL REPENTIAS /J

I don't have any. I do have DCA, but I used Privateer Press "Daughters of the flame" models, painted in all gold (BLING!). And I even green-stuffed away the buttcrack and the bra-looking breastplate.
Picture of the original models (I don't have pictures of mine, I should make some):

Spoiler:

/ J stands for joke

*sticking my fingers in my ears*
What? I can't hear you over the fingers in my ears. I guess you are saying that you don't believe me until I post pictures? Then I have to post some pics of my awesome DCA and it definitely isn't some kind of silly excuse just because I want to show them!
YOU LEFT ME NO CHOICE /J

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
Honestly, Super Doctrines are good, it encourages people to play mono faction over souping.

The problem is that everyone doesn't have one.

The other problem (which is more of a GW think-space problem) is that factions that are inherently mono faction (Orks, Tyranids, Necrons), and GW might decide that those factions don't need mono-klan/Hive Fleet/Tomb world super doctrine esque rules, and GW might not give them anything like that.

You want to encourage mono armies? There's an easy way to do that. Guess what it is?

BETTER INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL BALANCE

It's hard to grasp I know.

Actually the better external balance is the less likely people will run mono, discounting special rules that aren't attached to a model like the super doctrines are.

Space Marines will not and should not ever have anything that fills the same role as a guardsman; <5 point dudes that just take up space is not within the style of that faction. As such, as long as controlling space with numerous small models is useful, a Space Marine player is always going to want to borrow from the IG unless you give them a very good reason not to.

Super Doctrines as they ended up being written are way over the top in power level but the idea of unique benefits you get for sticking to your faction's theme (and all the strengths and weaknesses that come with it) is sound. I'd still prefer just a blanket ban on soup but it's a decent enough compromise.

 vipoid wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You want to encourage mono armies? There's an easy way to do that. Guess what it is?

BETTER INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL BALANCE

It's hard to grasp I know.

I mean, if you really want to encourage mono armies you could just remove allies in Matched Play.

IMO, a change that would help with that and aid in other balancing issues would be to invert the dynamic of obtaining CP. Right now the default amount is tiny and the vast majority of CP are gained from detachments, whereas it should be reversed. Give everyone a base CP of 10 (or whatever, just picking a number here) and make a battalion give +4 while the others (bar fortification, patrol, and aux) give +2.

Then just say your army must pick a primary faction and can only use stratagems from them and you have yourself some restrained soup without eliminating the option to mix forces.

 Crazyterran wrote:
How are you going to external balance 4ppm guardsmen, or even 5ppm when you can take 30 of them and a pair of cheap HQs and get 5 CP and plenty of bodies to stand on objectives?

Tying CP generation to the ability to fill HQ and Troop slots as cheaply as possible was the single biggest mistake in the 8th edition and the ultimate source of large variety of problems.

 Crazyterran wrote:
How are you going to external balance 4ppm guardsmen, or even 5ppm when you can take 30 of them and a pair of cheap HQs and get 5 CP and plenty of bodies to stand on objectives?

Lock army generated CP to the faction keyword generating them. Done. If that turns out to not be enough then also force the army into using only the library of strats tied to the warlord.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You want to encourage mono armies? There's an easy way to do that. Guess what it is?

BETTER INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL BALANCE

It's hard to grasp I know.

I mean, if you really want to encourage mono armies you could just remove allies in Matched Play.

IMO, a change that would help with that and aid in other balancing issues would be to invert the dynamic of obtaining CP. Right now the default amount is tiny and the vast majority of CP are gained from detachments, whereas it should be reversed. Give everyone a base CP of 10 (or whatever, just picking a number here) and make a battalion give +4 while the others (bar fortification, patrol, and aux) give +2.

Then just say your army must pick a primary faction and can only use stratagems from them and you have yourself some restrained soup without eliminating the option to mix forces.

This would incentivize people not to take battalions since you get the same CP for 2 HQ's + your best units; I don't think I'd mind that honestly, but GW would.

I think what I'd do is attach the amount of CP you get to HQ datasheets; you get more for better commanders (usually points related but with exceptions - I could see a Chaos Lord giving more CP than a Daemon Prince for example). Then you limit the non-troop based detachments to 1 HQ choice per detachment if you still want people to take battalions.

This would also have a neat side effect in not screwing over themed armies as hard - if you want to take a bunch of bikes, take bike HQ's and you'll still get a fair amount of CP.

GW aren't going to get rid of super doctrines, so it's moot. They might enforce moving through them as a nerf, so that's the realistic best way to fix them.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

This would incentivize people not to take battalions since you get the same CP for 2 HQ's + your best units; I don't think I'd mind that honestly, but GW would.

I think what I'd do is attach the amount of CP you get to HQ datasheets; you get more for better commanders (usually points related but with exceptions - I could see a Chaos Lord giving more CP than a Daemon Prince for example). Then you limit the non-troop based detachments to 1 HQ choice per detachment if you still want people to take battalions.

This would also have a neat side effect in not screwing over themed armies as hard - if you want to take a bunch of bikes, take bike HQ's and you'll still get a fair amount of CP.

Something along these lines would be my preferred option. Though I'd also suggest that CPs should be mostly generated each turn, rather than given all at once at the beginning of the game.

Honestly, though, I'd like to see CPs and Stratagems be more integrated, rather than at the moment when they're largely just tacked on. e.g. instead of auras, give some/all HQs unique abilities that they can activate with CPs (similar to Command Abilities in AoS).

 Crazyterran wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah I super enjoyed having my 2W gsc bike squad completely dismantled by a 5 man intercessor squad in my last game because the game had gone to turn 3 and their fists magically turned into plasma guns.

I'm sorry what?

I too want to know about the magical -3 ap space marine fists

my guess is he's refering to the +1 damage in melee white scars get in assault doctrine as their super doctrine.

What about a system where every army of a given points value starts with a given number of CP.
Let's just say 15 at 2000pts.
Then, every detachment costs some.
Brigades cost 1
Battalions cost 3.
The specialist elites, heavy, hq etc. detachments cost 6.

So that way you have 2 choices as a list writer.
Write a mono faction list using 1 detachment. The benefit you get is more CP.
OR
Write a list with multiple detachments from different factions. The benefit you get is a wider array of units to choose from, potentially covering for the weaknesses of any given faction.

Thoughts?

BrianDavion wrote:if they're overly average at everything though they SUCK. that's kinda the problem marines have had for ages. a second attack isn't worth much on a gunline unit.

That's the price you pay for being good at everything.

Use your melee capability to fight a gunline army, use your shooting ability to fight a melee army. Don't complain that you need to be competent at melee and really good at shooting because you want to use your troops exclusively as a gunline and don't expect to pay for the melee capability.

Like I said: if you want to be equally good at everything, then you should be perfectly average at everything. Being merely competent, without any glaring weaknesses, is great for new players. Low skill floor, low skill ceiling. If you want to be hyper-specialized, then Marines aren't for you.

Dysartes wrote:There's quite a difference between talking about the contents of a small section of the book and, as described by the person I was responding to, "going very slowly through pages well in focus so you can clearly read all the points" - the latter is pandering to the Battlescribe Generation, who seem to believe they deserve to get the content of books/expansions without paying for the product.

I guess the 'Battlescribe Generation' is tired of balance changes being put behind a paywall.

I'll be 100% honest: I haven't bought a Chapter Approved ever, nor have I bought Vigilus. My group shares a single Vigilus book and we all get points costs from Battlescribe. $50 is too much for a couple of pages of relevant content.

Dysartes wrote:You mean I imagined the WHC preview article about PA3 and what it gives for 'Nids? I'll hold my hand up to not knowing how significant the changes are, but what they aren't is nothing.

AFAIK the Tyranid content in PA3 isn't providing a freebie bonus for being all-Tyranid and not souping in GSC, which was the point of the post you were responding to.

If I remember correctly, I spoke to the dev who headed the ork codex in terms of rules and points. His told me he was no longer working on it and was moved to AoS. Might explain the lack of interest in Ork point adjustments.

 catbarf wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:if they're overly average at everything though they SUCK. that's kinda the problem marines have had for ages. a second attack isn't worth much on a gunline unit.

That's the price you pay for being good at everything.

Use your melee capability to fight a gunline army, use your shooting ability to fight a melee army. Don't complain that you need to be competent at melee and really good at shooting because you want to use your troops exclusively as a gunline and don't expect to pay for the melee capability.

Like I said: if you want to be equally good at everything, then you should be perfectly average at everything. Being merely competent, without any glaring weaknesses, is great for new players. Low skill floor, low skill ceiling. If you want to be hyper-specialized, then Marines aren't for you.

Dysartes wrote:There's quite a difference between talking about the contents of a small section of the book and, as described by the person I was responding to, "going very slowly through pages well in focus so you can clearly read all the points" - the latter is pandering to the Battlescribe Generation, who seem to believe they deserve to get the content of books/expansions without paying for the product.

I guess the 'Battlescribe Generation' is tired of balance changes being put behind a paywall.

I'll be 100% honest: I haven't bought a Chapter Approved ever, nor have I bought Vigilus. My group shares a single Vigilus book and we all get points costs from Battlescribe. $50 is too much for a couple of pages of relevant content.

Dysartes wrote:You mean I imagined the WHC preview article about PA3 and what it gives for 'Nids? I'll hold my hand up to not knowing how significant the changes are, but what they aren't is nothing.

AFAIK the Tyranid content in PA3 isn't providing a freebie bonus for being all-Tyranid and not souping in GSC, which was the point of the post you were responding to.

As a nid player, I'll confirm. We are only getting a handful of stratagems. There's 1 or 2 decent ones, but they are specialized to monsters that aren't normally taken. Points remain to be seen. But none of the glaring problems have been fixed. We still hit on 4s in both melee and shooting outside of genestealers and HQ. Half our current strats are still broken, specially with reserves. We get adaptations now, but they require us to give up our warlord traits. We have 1 new relic that's meh? All in all, the book seems to be a side grade. We sure as hell get nothing for free. Anything that resembles a second doctrine requires CP to activiate and is usually gated behind requirements like getting into combat, killing the entire unit, and then living to use it again the next turn. We are already CP usage heavy, have no actual skills to restore CP, and now we need to spend CP to change our monsters or give abilities.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah I super enjoyed having my 2W gsc bike squad completely dismantled by a 5 man intercessor squad in my last game because the game had gone to turn 3 and their fists magically turned into plasma guns.

I'm sorry what?

I too want to know about the magical -3 ap space marine fists

my guess is he's refering to the +1 damage in melee white scars get in assault doctrine as their super doctrine.

Yeah I knew as soon as I employed slight hyperbole it'd get jumped on. 17 S4 Ap-1 D2 Demolished 8 bikes and the rest just got yeeted by morale.

the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah I knew as soon as I employed slight hyperbole it'd get jumped on. 17 S4 Ap-1 D2 Demolished 8 bikes and the rest just got yeeted by morale.

Yes White Scars are op because they killed your bikes, nerf them!

I am using the hyperbole correctly?

Mchagen wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah I knew as soon as I employed slight hyperbole it'd get jumped on. 17 S4 Ap-1 D2 Demolished 8 bikes and the rest just got yeeted by morale.

Yes White Scars are op because they killed your bikes, nerf them!

I am using the hyperbole correctly?

This is a C effort. You missed a prefect opportunity to complain about tangentially related Space Marine issues. You need to step up your game.

So now the question is when do the first review pop up?

The suspense is killing me!

Oh yeah. Marines suck something something etc.

 alextroy wrote:

Mchagen wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah I knew as soon as I employed slight hyperbole it'd get jumped on. 17 S4 Ap-1 D2 Demolished 8 bikes and the rest just got yeeted by morale.

Yes White Scars are op because they killed your bikes, nerf them!

I am using the hyperbole correctly?

This is a C effort. You missed a prefect opportunity to complain about tangentially related Space Marine issues. You need to step up your game.

How about this one: An assault marine squad killed something! please nerf GW!

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Aenar wrote:
I just hope some of the reviewers who get these advance copies of the CA will upload their videos tomorrow, going very slowly through pages well in focus so you can clearly read all the points.
The first reviewer to do that gets many views just from me.

Or you could wait a week, and legally acquire the information.

Nothing illegal about watching a guy on the internet going over point changes and using BS instead of buying the book. ^^

Very legal and very cool

Personally I'm dying to find out if harlequin troupes actually went down at all. Also wondering about my dark eldar.

Tetsu0 wrote:

Personally I'm dying to find out if harlequin troupes actually went down at all. Also wondering about my dark eldar.

I’m pretty sure it’s been confirmed that they went down two points to 11. I’m curious whether their weapons have changed, though one rumour is that neuro disrupters went down to 5 points, which is still too high IMO.

I’m also curious about Drukhari. I hope heat lances went down a bunch, as well as beast packs and hellions. I’m hoping for a reduction for mandrakes and incubi too, but not expecting one.

 Apple Peel wrote:
Maybe Tau stuff
https://m.imgur.com/gallery/cJoqzqg

Any clue on the source for this? Saw it elsewhere, but it wasn't explicitly sourced that I could see.

If true... my goodness, did they drop a lot of points. Stealth suits and Stormsurges both seemed to get pretty massive drops. Kroot dropped a lot just because they were already so cheap. Crisis Suits have a few cheaper weapons and a slightly cheaper chassis, but Commanders also benefit from cheaper weapons, so they're still better (probably always will be).

No change in shield drone points listed in this leak, which puts it on somewhat shaky ground, depending on how solid the 12 pt shield drone rumor is supposed to be.

The drone rumor was debunked, so these could be true.

Also, this tau leak is quite unclear. It refers to the differences between the codex points and CA19 points, so many times that you read "Reduced" it was already reduced in CA18, it is not an additiional buff.

Atlatl Jones wrote:

Tetsu0 wrote:

Personally I'm dying to find out if harlequin troupes actually went down at all. Also wondering about my dark eldar.

I’m pretty sure it’s been confirmed that they went down two points to 11. I’m curious whether their weapons have changed, though one rumour is that neuro disrupters went down to 5 points, which is still too high IMO.

I’m also curious about Drukhari. I hope heat lances went down a bunch, as well as beast packs and hellions. I’m hoping for a reduction for mandrakes and incubi too, but not expecting one.

I think I can live with five points for a neuro disruptor. Four points would have been ideal to make them a real hard choice with fusion pistols. I could see my self using them now in a soaring spite list with a mix of fusion and disruptor pistoliers in starweavers running around.

I'm hoping for a drop in price for the drukhari mercenary units that don't benefit from faction traits, especially incubi and scourges. Medusae are one of my pet favorite DE units. They are pretty over priced though after they completely neutered them in 8th edition. It would be nice to see them drop too, would honestly prefer them to return back to having flamer weapons though. It looks like helions and reavers have gone down if the rumors are true which makes them pretty enticing. I also want to see if my voidraven bombers have avoided the nerf bat that hit the razorwing jet fighter.

 lolman1c wrote:
If I remember correctly, I spoke to the dev who headed the ork codex in terms of rules and points. His told me he was no longer working on it and was moved to AoS. Might explain the lack of interest in Ork point adjustments.

How does that explain people photoing and uploading pages of ca? All those comes from devs?

 nintura wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:if they're overly average at everything though they SUCK. that's kinda the problem marines have had for ages. a second attack isn't worth much on a gunline unit.

That's the price you pay for being good at everything.

Use your melee capability to fight a gunline army, use your shooting ability to fight a melee army. Don't complain that you need to be competent at melee and really good at shooting because you want to use your troops exclusively as a gunline and don't expect to pay for the melee capability.

Like I said: if you want to be equally good at everything, then you should be perfectly average at everything. Being merely competent, without any glaring weaknesses, is great for new players. Low skill floor, low skill ceiling. If you want to be hyper-specialized, then Marines aren't for you.

Dysartes wrote:There's quite a difference between talking about the contents of a small section of the book and, as described by the person I was responding to, "going very slowly through pages well in focus so you can clearly read all the points" - the latter is pandering to the Battlescribe Generation, who seem to believe they deserve to get the content of books/expansions without paying for the product.

I guess the 'Battlescribe Generation' is tired of balance changes being put behind a paywall.

I'll be 100% honest: I haven't bought a Chapter Approved ever, nor have I bought Vigilus. My group shares a single Vigilus book and we all get points costs from Battlescribe. $50 is too much for a couple of pages of relevant content.

Dysartes wrote:You mean I imagined the WHC preview article about PA3 and what it gives for 'Nids? I'll hold my hand up to not knowing how significant the changes are, but what they aren't is nothing.

AFAIK the Tyranid content in PA3 isn't providing a freebie bonus for being all-Tyranid and not souping in GSC, which was the point of the post you were responding to.

As a nid player, I'll confirm. We are only getting a handful of stratagems. There's 1 or 2 decent ones, but they are specialized to monsters that aren't normally taken. Points remain to be seen. But none of the glaring problems have been fixed. We still hit on 4s in both melee and shooting outside of genestealers and HQ. Half our current strats are still broken, specially with reserves. We get adaptations now, but they require us to give up our warlord traits. We have 1 new relic that's meh? All in all, the book seems to be a side grade. We sure as hell get nothing for free. Anything that resembles a second doctrine requires CP to activiate and is usually gated behind requirements like getting into combat, killing the entire unit, and then living to use it again the next turn. We are already CP usage heavy, have no actual skills to restore CP, and now we need to spend CP to change our monsters or give abilities.

Woa there, Nids have feeding tendrils, so everything's balanced

Nid stuff being leaked isn't bad actually, hugely better than the one previewed.

But again, if anyone expects buffs to the already estabilished builds (GS kraken bomb), they havn't understood how GW works.

You always buff the bad stuff. It is good for internal balance and for sales, why wouldn't they do that?

But there is already a thread for that.

Except with the marines. Marines gw is happy to buff good stuff. Others can have even bad units nerfed further.

if this is true, it seems like a bad joke