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.

In many ways, things were far more fragile in prior editions! Lest we forget:

- Weapons wounded on a 2+ when strength was higher than toughness by 2 or more
- All-or-nothing AP system meant that and models with a 3+ save never got it against anti-tank weapons, and models with a 6+ or 5+ save almost never got their save at all
- Power weapons/fists/klaws etc. ignored all armor saves
- Template weapons were ruinously devastating against bunched-up units or horde armies where a scatter would always hit *something*
- Flamer weapons were devastating against GEQ units. In particular Heavy Flamer profile weapons (S5 AP4 flamer template) would kill GEQ on 2+ for every hit, and you could get 5 or 6 hits per weapon with decent positioning
- Characters and HQ units generally had only 3 wounds, monsters had 5 or 6 max, and the Instant death rule meant that multi-wound T3 and T4 models were dead meat against high-strength anti-tank weapons
- Vehicles could be destroyed with a single powerful shot or "glanced to death" in later editions, and were dead meat virtually 100% of the time against high-strength multi-attack melee units with melta bombs, power fists/klaws etc.

All of this deadliness has been diluted in 8th edition. In isolation, the core rules changes make everything substantially *more* durable compared to all prior editions. However GW balanced things out in the army and unit rules by increasing the number of shots and attacks across the board, and adding a trillion rules to grant re-re-rolls and even more extra attacks, substituting number of dice for effectiveness of individual dice. On paper I think it's probably a wash (except for vehicles, those really are more durable) whose net effect is to slow down the part of the game where you roll and tally dice.

What really makes 8th edition more killy is the following:

Ridiculous strategems: "shoot twice" and "fight twice" strats basically give you double the points' worth of killiness for free (CPs don't really cost anything as long as you were already going to build a coherent army list). Other strategems are similarly ridiculous.

Defective terrain rules: Area terrain no longer automatically blocks line of sight, so long-range guns can see and kill anything. Cover now grants you a puny +1 save that barely matters especially for low-save models, rather than the strong 5+ or even 4+ save that couldn't be ablated by anything except flamer weapons that it granted in previous editions.

Excessive speed and precision of everything: close-combat units routinely get first-turn charges now. Deep strike units arrive at the precise time and location to deliver the perfect fusillade or charge move right where it's needed. Weapons and powers that used to be random are now quite reliable. You can move and shoot heavy weapons with only a minor penalty, and shoot assault weapons with a similarly minor penalty. Vehicles move at full speed and fire all their guns. And so on.


Basically, before 8th edition, your units died quickly when they were vulnerable, but could hide and defend themselves, and everything's killing power was either knowable or random. Now there's nowhere to hide, everything can reliably kill you, and anything that can kill you can potentially do it again a second time when you least expect it.

I'd agree, but if I'm honest I don't think you'd find anyone who disagrees. More to the point, I've never seen someone state that the core rules were the cause of 8th edition's over-killy nature. A lot of people enjoyed 8th during the indexes, prior to the massive arms race/power creep that came out.

The game's core design, I suppose you could argue, does lead to this kind of thing. Doing away with the BS levels was a bad design idea, and limited GW's ability to appropriately stat units. Same goes for WS (which could have easily been simplified to a comparison like S/T became), etc.

There has never been a version of 40K where units so readily have 2+ or 3+ with re-rolls...and 4-5-6-7 attacks each, etc. GW leaned far too heavily in the CCG style "mega combo" gameplay, and the game is much poorer for it. GW has returned to the comfort of the "ignore this/re-roll that" game design bible that they're so terrified to stray from...and again the game is poorer for it. Auras have turned armies into clumps of models stomping around the table in a big mass, etc.

As you state, a handful of wildly too powerful stratagems just complicate things further.

I think you are missing out on a big factor, going to ground and jink, those two rules made it way harder to kill stuff and in return made it harder to get killed. Lightning Fast Reflexes 1-3 times per game and Take Cover once every ten games are not replacements and allow the units to fire at more or less full power next turn.

What is your rules proposal though or do you want proposals?

All shoot twice and fight twice Stratagems should be +1 CP. Dakkax3 and Veterans of the Long War should only apply for the next attack, not the rest of the phase. Plasma Specialists and Destruction Protocols should be +1 CP when used on units with 4+ plasma weapons/gauss cannons. Rotate Ion Shields should be 2/3 CP instead of 1/3. Knight Relics and WL traits should cost 2 (3 for Dominus) CP instead of 1/3 (same for Dominus). Stratagems that makes a unit easier to kill after it has taken damage like what Tau Sept and Sautekh Dynasty have should be +1 CP. Chapter Master should grant re-rolls of 2s, not all rolls. The Salamanders flamer stratagem should only make you re-roll the number of shots not automatically get maximum number of shots. Combat Doctrines needs to be nerfed or Super Doctrines needs to be removed.

Units should be allowed to dodge at the cost of WS/BS 6+ and no Advance next turn, units that dodge should get a 5++. Hard terrain needs to be introduced and should grant +1 to saving throws. Units should act as barricades unless they dodge, some units should act as hard terrain. All terrain should act as barricades. Units should be able to get the benefit of cover from multiple sources. Units should get the benefit of hard cover if they are not in LOS. All units should benefit from cover if every model in the unit is at least 50% obscured from the firing model.

I don't think I'd make changes to the effectiveness of shooting on the move, it would be a huge mess, while the above suggestions would cause a lot of waves and would change a bazillion things but at first glance, I think it would improve the balance and experience of the game. Making heavy -2 to hit on the move or RF -1 to hit when you move would probably make the game less balanced. I love that characters do other things than act as beatsticks, the constant re-rolls is unfortunate game design because it takes time, but I don't want to only ever see HQs be suicide hammerers.

It's also an issue of abundance of T8 units. Prior to 8th ed, AV14 was still rare. Now every other units are T8, so every army needs to be tailored to be able to deal with that.

With the changes to how AP works, even -1AP causes huge reduction in survivability for expensive units that pay for the improved defense while having diminishing returns on cheaper, more expendable units.

I mean, my proposal would be to basically return the core rules to where they were in 5th edition, while backporting the vehicles-are-just-big-multi-wound-models mechanics from 8th and incrementally fixing the problems in 5th. But I know that's crazy talk.

It just seems like ever since 5th edition, the game has been terribly unstable, with big unbalanced changes that fundamentally change the scope and gameplay coming hot and heavy. I left the game after not liking 6th edition due to the radical changes and excessive complication, and the more I try 8th after returning earlier this year, the more I find that I just don't like it for the same reasons. :/

I'd say a major, major issue with durability is the fact that weapon ranges have gotten absurd, and unit speed has become absurd.


There is no need to deploy smartly if I can hit anything on the table.

Reducing ranged weapon distances, may help units stay on the table for longer, since a whole army's worth of firepower can't immediately be in range turn 1

I don't recall that weapon ranges have appreciably increased over the editions. Bolters are still 24", Lascannons and Missile Launchers still 48", Pulse Rifles are still 30", Shuriken Catapults are still 12" and so on.

Rather what's changed is a vastly reduced ability to escape from line of sight behind terrain and protect yourself by being in cover; increased ability to move and shoot effectively; more re-rolls to ensure that more shots hit; and of course the "shoot twice" strategems.

Pointed Stick wrote:
I don't recall that weapon ranges have appreciably increased over the editions. Bolters are still 24", Lascannons and Missile Launchers still 48", Pulse Rifles are still 30", Shuriken Catapults are still 12" and so on.

Rather what's changed is a vastly reduced ability to escape from line of sight behind terrain and protect yourself by being in cover; increased ability to move and shoot effectively; more re-rolls to ensure that more shots hit; and of course the "shoot twice" strategems.

While I agree with all your points in the second paragraph I feel you're missing one thing.

Range has increased for one faction. Loyalist marines.

 skchsan wrote:
It's also an issue of abundance of T8 units. Prior to 8th ed, AV14 was still rare. Now every other units are T8, so every army needs to be tailored to be able to deal with that.

Except that many things used to be the equivalent of toughness 8. AV 14 equates to toughness 10, not 8.

Zustiur wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
It's also an issue of abundance of T8 units. Prior to 8th ed, AV14 was still rare. Now every other units are T8, so every army needs to be tailored to be able to deal with that.

Except that many things used to be the equivalent of toughness 8. AV 14 equates to toughness 10, not 8.

In theory it does, but if you consider HP and AV damage chart, T8 is not very off from AV14.

The difference is that before AP4 weaponry did nothing to 3+ save models, now they are generally AP-2 which cut a 3+ model's save in half. Cover used to allow things like Orks and Guardsmen to get effectively a 4+ invulnerable save, now AP can negate cover quite easily.

That is where the lethality came from, along with the general bloat of shot numbers (I remember when the Punisher was released and being Heavy 20 was utterly ludicrous).

Bolters used to be one shot at 24" or two at 12" if you stayed still, or one shot at 12" if you moved. That got changed to two shots at 12" if you moved, and now it's full effectiveness no matter if you move or not. Storm Bolters and Assault Cannons have also increased in shot amount. Lasguns have gone from 1 shot at 12" on the move to 4 shots at 12" on the move. Heavy Weapons went from being unable to be Infantry fireable on the move, to hitting on 6's, to being -1 to hit on the move. Vehicles used to be limited in how many guns they got to shoot on the move, with the biggest guns requiring you to remain still. Now they can move willy-nilly and fire at full effectiveness or a token -1 to hit if they move.

And while blast templates are thankfully dead and gone, their removal did result in a proliferation of tightly bunched low cost infantry spam since you no longer had to spend 45 minutes making sure they were spaced out so blast weapons could hit at most 3 models instead of the potential 7 if you were bunched up.

Restrictions and limitations keep evaporating.

Weapons are made to kill the unkillable. The unkillable is made to withstand those weapons. And around and around we go.

Pre-8th, a Melta Gun was really-freaking-deadly. Even one had a not-insignificant chance to pop just about anything in the game. But you had to get within 6". And it was *much* harder to do that. So mobility was important.

Lascannons could handle the AT work if you didn't want to get close and use MGs. But they lost the overwhelming odds of hurting the target (second dice within 6"), and did less damage even when they did (AP1 was a lot more likely to pop things).

This gave you a tradeoff between ranged firepower and up close killiness. A good tradeoff.

Then there were different profiles for different threats. Flamers would roast Orks for days. But did little to Traitor Marines, and nothing to armor. Plasma Guns would fry those Traitor Marines with ease. But had too low volume to do anything to Orkz, and weren't that scary to armor. Melta would melt armor. But barely concerned Orkz at all, and was too limited to do too much to Traitor Marines.

Good tradeoffs.

But now we have ranged firepower that competes with Melta. And anti-horde weapons have the ROF to handle elites. And anti-MEQ weapons have the ROF for hordes and firepower for armor.

Couple this with reduced restrictions on move-and-fire, much freeer deployment, various "I-move-for-days" rules, and exceptions/alterations to just about every rule under the sun. It's a bloated mess of "Do whatever you want, if you can put the rules together". There's no restraint. No consistent vision. No real tradeoff, because the OP unit does the other units' jobs even better. Just a "I have MOAR" mentality.

Which coincides with being a Marine shifting from "I have the kit/deployment options to handle that" to "I am MOAR GOODAR"... Because nothing says "Marines" like "MOAR DAKKA", special rules/deployments from millenia of practice, more excessive speed than a Dark Eldar, enough firepower to make T'au blush, and enough super-special-rules to make Codex Craftworlds laugh.

40k necessarily loses granularity as the size of the forces increases.

Maybe this was the unfortunate tradeoff to incorporate armies of knights and flyers into the game?

Yoyoyo wrote:
40k necessarily loses granularity as the size of the forces increases.

Maybe this was the unfortunate tradeoff to incorporate armies of knights and flyers into the game?

And yet another reason why those things should have been Apocalypse-only.

Bharring wrote:
Restrictions and limitations keep evaporating.

Weapons are made to kill the unkillable. The unkillable is made to withstand those weapons. And around and around we go.

Pre-8th, a Melta Gun was really-freaking-deadly. Even one had a not-insignificant chance to pop just about anything in the game. But you had to get within 6". And it was *much* harder to do that. So mobility was important.

Lascannons could handle the AT work if you didn't want to get close and use MGs. But they lost the overwhelming odds of hurting the target (second dice within 6"), and did less damage even when they did (AP1 was a lot more likely to pop things).

This gave you a tradeoff between ranged firepower and up close killiness. A good tradeoff.

Then there were different profiles for different threats. Flamers would roast Orks for days. But did little to Traitor Marines, and nothing to armor. Plasma Guns would fry those Traitor Marines with ease. But had too low volume to do anything to Orkz, and weren't that scary to armor. Melta would melt armor. But barely concerned Orkz at all, and was too limited to do too much to Traitor Marines.

Good tradeoffs.

But now we have ranged firepower that competes with Melta. And anti-horde weapons have the ROF to handle elites. And anti-MEQ weapons have the ROF for hordes and firepower for armor.

Couple this with reduced restrictions on move-and-fire, much freeer deployment, various "I-move-for-days" rules, and exceptions/alterations to just about every rule under the sun. It's a bloated mess of "Do whatever you want, if you can put the rules together". There's no restraint. No consistent vision. No real tradeoff, because the OP unit does the other units' jobs even better. Just a "I have MOAR" mentality.

Which coincides with being a Marine shifting from "I have the kit/deployment options to handle that" to "I am MOAR GOODAR"... Because nothing says "Marines" like "MOAR DAKKA", special rules/deployments from millenia of practice, more excessive speed than a Dark Eldar, enough firepower to make T'au blush, and enough super-special-rules to make Codex Craftworlds laugh.

This. I'd take the old all or nothing system over the mess that it is now.

One of the biggest issues is that there is an optimal profile for killing everything. High Rof, 2D, Decent AP, Decent S weapons. 7th edition had the same issue with eldar bike spam destroying everything, but was still mitigated slightly because they couldn't deal with AV13 (without a psychic spell IIRC)

We no longer have AVs, and with the changes to S/T these weapons got slightly less effective vs MEQs and the like but much more effective against vehicles. It's okay to have weapons that are equally effective against a broad variety of targets. It's not okay to have those weapons be more effective then specialist counter parts.

And seeing that these weapons are all consistently high ROF I would suggest reducing the amount of attacks by ~25-33 percent.

 skchsan wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Restrictions and limitations keep evaporating.

Weapons are made to kill the unkillable. The unkillable is made to withstand those weapons. And around and around we go.

Pre-8th, a Melta Gun was really-freaking-deadly. Even one had a not-insignificant chance to pop just about anything in the game. But you had to get within 6". And it was *much* harder to do that. So mobility was important.

Lascannons could handle the AT work if you didn't want to get close and use MGs. But they lost the overwhelming odds of hurting the target (second dice within 6"), and did less damage even when they did (AP1 was a lot more likely to pop things).

This gave you a tradeoff between ranged firepower and up close killiness. A good tradeoff.

Then there were different profiles for different threats. Flamers would roast Orks for days. But did little to Traitor Marines, and nothing to armor. Plasma Guns would fry those Traitor Marines with ease. But had too low volume to do anything to Orkz, and weren't that scary to armor. Melta would melt armor. But barely concerned Orkz at all, and was too limited to do too much to Traitor Marines.

Good tradeoffs.

But now we have ranged firepower that competes with Melta. And anti-horde weapons have the ROF to handle elites. And anti-MEQ weapons have the ROF for hordes and firepower for armor.

Couple this with reduced restrictions on move-and-fire, much freeer deployment, various "I-move-for-days" rules, and exceptions/alterations to just about every rule under the sun. It's a bloated mess of "Do whatever you want, if you can put the rules together". There's no restraint. No consistent vision. No real tradeoff, because the OP unit does the other units' jobs even better. Just a "I have MOAR" mentality.

Which coincides with being a Marine shifting from "I have the kit/deployment options to handle that" to "I am MOAR GOODAR"... Because nothing says "Marines" like "MOAR DAKKA", special rules/deployments from millenia of practice, more excessive speed than a Dark Eldar, enough firepower to make T'au blush, and enough super-special-rules to make Codex Craftworlds laugh.

This. I'd take the old all or nothing system over the mess that it is now.

Indeed, to all the above.

I will throw an example into the ring of "movement" in 8th vs 7th being ridiculous by using one of the most ridiculous movement armies of 7th, Craftworld eldar, even w/o the 3/3 special HW bikes which broke every rule of 40k and troops. We played the All Around Defense scenario from Vigillus Ablaze. We played it twice through. Once with Eldar vs Dark Angels 7th flavored but with command points because hey the scenario gives you free command points so we just went with it (it worked fine). It was infantry only fight. But eldar infantry are fast and can shoot on the run w/o penalty. Plus bladestorm makes a mockery of armor (serious OP thing that). But there was plenty of cover and we designed the terrain to place the center of the table with lots of line of sight blocking terrain and barricades to man. It was fun as hell. Even with OP eldar of 7th the game was a close fight with the game ending early because of small children getting up from naps. It was a fast game, it was fun. Later we reset, same terrain, same "power level" as it were but with CSM and Marines, 8th edition, full rules, etc. Holy hell those CSM ran like eldar across the board. It was crazy. The Crapmaris Marines were pretty damn crazy too. Over all 8th was even FASTER but it was crazy, kinda stupid. All these silly rules and the terrain mattered less. It ended with a CSM victory. The wife stated that it was strange seeing CSM move and fight like eldar but that the Primaris she felt kind of better represented the "toughness" of spacemarines from the fluff. 8th was way more killy and that was even vs one of the most broken armies of 7th that had more silly gak packed in it's codex than anyone else.

Though we did have a really fun moment in the 7th edition game where for the first time the Striking Scorpions actually wiped out an entire combat squad of tactical marines on the the charge with their mandi-blasters. It never happened like that before. Ever, in all my games of 40k. She rolled all 4+s and I rolled all 1s and 2s for armor saves. BAM, mega-kill. They then butchered the gak out of the Interrogator Chaplain. And for the record my dice hated me so much at this point that the overwatch also failed to hit anything even at BS2. 15 attacks vs a chaplain before the exarc even got to use his slow-claw. Chaps was already on 2 wounds remaining so he was statistically quite dead. Unsurprisingly he was very dead in fact. +1S on those scorpion chainswords makes a huge difference and if you have an avatar near by to combo it they get even more attacks and hit as S5 instead of S4. Never under-esitmate the proper use of an avatar in 7th. My wife has mastered the avatar of khane by keeping him out of LOS, etc. Should see what she does with a full squad of storm guardians+ avatar on the charge. It hits like a mac truck.

The new armour penetration rules are what breaks the game.

It makes it difficult to field a small, elite force. GK for example are being charged a premium in points for abilities and equipment that, because of their armour being made from cardboard now, cannot use. Nemesis Force Weapons for example, what used to be the best generic melee weapon in the game, is useless because troopers cannot get into melee combat, the amount of - AP weapons is staggering.

The new rules, favour spam armies above all else it seems. Also, there is a huge lack of bespoke rules, what happened to all the GK bespoke rules? The Shrouding being the best example, it made their small numbers viable because there was no across board massacre. The Necrons are also another force that suffers from this a lot, what used to be perhaps the toughest out and out force in the game is now fodder most of the time. Half of their bespoke rules have been dumbed down or so watered down it's not all that decent. Resurrection Orbs being a prime example.

In their quest to make the game easier, Games Workshop for me have dumbed it down too much and took far too much of what made individual armies unique.

Gary_1986 wrote:
Also, there is a huge lack of bespoke rules, what happened to all the GK bespoke rules? The Shrouding being the best example, it made their small numbers viable because there was no across board massacre. The Necrons are also another force that suffers from this a lot, what used to be perhaps the toughest out and out force in the game is now fodder most of the time. Half of their bespoke rules have been dumbed down or so watered down it's not all that decent. Resurrection Orbs being a prime example.

In their quest to make the game easier, Games Workshop for me have dumbed it down too much and took far too much of what made individual armies unique.

I don't think a lack of bespoke rules is the problem. Units have more bespoke rules than they've ever had before. If anything, I think the problem here is that bespoke rules are no longer limited to "special" units; now everyone gets them, which dilutes elite units' specialness (and slows down the game, and makes it easier to gimp your units by forgetting their special rules, and makes it harder to learn your opponents armies' capabilities, and...)

Pointed Stick wrote:

Gary_1986 wrote:
Also, there is a huge lack of bespoke rules, what happened to all the GK bespoke rules? The Shrouding being the best example, it made their small numbers viable because there was no across board massacre. The Necrons are also another force that suffers from this a lot, what used to be perhaps the toughest out and out force in the game is now fodder most of the time. Half of their bespoke rules have been dumbed down or so watered down it's not all that decent. Resurrection Orbs being a prime example.

In their quest to make the game easier, Games Workshop for me have dumbed it down too much and took far too much of what made individual armies unique.

I don't think a lack of bespoke rules is the problem. Units have more bespoke rules than they've ever had before. If anything, I think the problem here is that bespoke rules are no longer limited to "special" units; now everyone gets them, which dilutes elite units' specialness (and slows down the game, and makes it easier to gimp your units by forgetting their special rules, and makes it harder to learn your opponents armies' capabilities, and...)

Agree everything seems to be bland now and using the same tactics. Most of the stratagems don't really differ across armies. I could go into a list but honestly I find nobody cares. I like the models so I keep painting, I own enough models to probably paint for the next decade, and I have a friend who once a year or so won't mind busting out some 5th edition. He likes actually being able to play his Deathwing army.

Stratagems offering mechanical bonuses (+X to Y, re-rolls, better stats etc.) was a major mistake.

Stratagems would work better if there were less but each one had a major change on how the unit it was affecting played, be it through more/different movement, ignoring terrain, suppressing fire etc. That way they become an actual tool to be used to carry out a plan, rather than just a way to eliminate the RNG for the optimal unit to kill what it needs to kill.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Stratagems offering mechanical bonuses (+X to Y, re-rolls, better stats etc.) was a major mistake.

Stratagems would work better if there were less but each one had a major change on how the unit it was affecting played, be it through more movement, ignoring terrain, suppressing fire etc. That way they become an actual tool to be used to carry out a plan, rather than just a way to eliminate the RNG for the optimal unit to kill what it needs to kill.

I disagree, if instead of having sub-faction bonuses and/or stratagems that improve general killiness we just had stratagems to represent the sub-factions that are killier the game would be better and I do think some sub-factions should be killier.

 vict0988 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Stratagems offering mechanical bonuses (+X to Y, re-rolls, better stats etc.) was a major mistake.

Stratagems would work better if there were less but each one had a major change on how the unit it was affecting played, be it through more movement, ignoring terrain, suppressing fire etc. That way they become an actual tool to be used to carry out a plan, rather than just a way to eliminate the RNG for the optimal unit to kill what it needs to kill.

I disagree, if instead of having sub-faction bonuses and/or stratagems that improve general killiness we just had stratagems to represent the sub-factions that are killier the game would be better and I do think some sub-factions should be killier.

If a subfaction is meant to be killer then it can pay points for special rules which make it killier

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Stratagems offering mechanical bonuses (+X to Y, re-rolls, better stats etc.) was a major mistake.

Stratagems would work better if there were less but each one had a major change on how the unit it was affecting played, be it through more movement, ignoring terrain, suppressing fire etc. That way they become an actual tool to be used to carry out a plan, rather than just a way to eliminate the RNG for the optimal unit to kill what it needs to kill.

I disagree, if instead of having sub-faction bonuses and/or stratagems that improve general killiness we just had stratagems to represent the sub-factions that are killier the game would be better and I do think some sub-factions should be killier.

If a subfaction is meant to be killer then it can pay points for special rules which make it killier

Which it can through CP with Stratagems but cannot with free sub-faction tactics

it's high time that subfaction traits get a pricepoint imo.

Not Online!!! wrote:
it's high time that subfaction traits get a pricepoint imo.

They should have had them from the start.

Not Online!!! wrote:
it's high time that subfaction traits get a pricepoint imo.

In points or cp?

I'd say points as it allows much more space for balance. Theirs a lot more points in a match to work with.

Or just remove subfaction traits entirely.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
it's high time that subfaction traits get a pricepoint imo.

They should have had them from the start.

Thank you, infact some prottype traits in 7th allready had that.... it's as if GW is learn resistent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
it's high time that subfaction traits get a pricepoint imo.

In points or cp?

I'd say points as it allows much more space for balance. Theirs a lot more points in a match to work with.

in pts of course.

Or is it really much of a competition between an WB CSM and an AL csm?

Not Online!!! wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
it's high time that subfaction traits get a pricepoint imo.

They should have had them from the start.

Thank you, infact some prottype traits in 7th allready had that.... it's as if GW is learn resistent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
it's high time that subfaction traits get a pricepoint imo.

In points or cp?

I'd say points as it allows much more space for balance. Theirs a lot more points in a match to work with.

in pts of course.

Or is it really much of a competition between an WB CSM and an AL csm?

The imbalance could have been made up by better Stratagems, WL traits and Relics. AL should have gotten little to nothing in terms of upgrades, just enough to be on-par or slightly better than the Renegade Chapters and WB needed to have gotten what they got or maybe even better. The fact they produced CSM v.1.9 without an upgraded WB Trait was shameful.