Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
So Chaos Spawn are 20 points for 5 wounds at T5... wow.

I mean, maybe in ITC with some secondaries they aren't worth it but outside that , I see them as great units to just annoy your opponent, tie down stuff, etc... 300 points for 75 R5 wounds.

Yea I quite liked spawn at 25 even if grotesques were better.

Also that apostle price is more palatable

Well except you play r&h then you pay 33 pts still, because gw is stupid and can't proveread.

Looks like buggies are coming down. And Smashas only up by 2 (oh em gee sales tactic).

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Looks like buggies are coming down.

Yeah, chuffed about this if it happens. I love the models and if I can squeeze some more in without having to miss out on as many Boyz as I want, this is great.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
So Chaos Spawn are 20 points for 5 wounds at T5... wow.

I mean, maybe in ITC with some secondaries they aren't worth it but outside that , I see them as great units to just annoy your opponent, tie down stuff, etc... 300 points for 75 R5 wounds.

Yea I quite liked spawn at 25 even if grotesques were better.

Also that apostle price is more palatable

Well except you play r&h then you pay 33 pts still, because gw is stupid and can't proveread.

I know it's not the solution for tournaments...but do you play with people who would really give a gak if you put your cultists at 4 points, and your spawn at 20, etc? I feel like outside of a tournament you could "common sense" change a lot of R&H. If you're that die-hard about it and can't wait for the rather inevitable plastic launch...just fix it.

 Elbows wrote:


I know it's not the solution for tournaments...but do you play with people who would really give a gak if you put your cultists at 4 points, and your spawn at 20, etc? I feel like outside of a tournament you could "common sense" change a lot of R&H. If you're that die-hard about it and can't wait for the rather inevitable plastic launch...just fix it.

I don't dabble in R&H so I couldn't say if it's wise to have super cheap spawn alongside guard stuff, but I think it's a combination of lazy and potential future plans for a codex for R&H (based around the new models).

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Elbows wrote:


I know it's not the solution for tournaments...but do you play with people who would really give a gak if you put your cultists at 4 points, and your spawn at 20, etc? I feel like outside of a tournament you could "common sense" change a lot of R&H. If you're that die-hard about it and can't wait for the rather inevitable plastic launch...just fix it.

I don't dabble in R&H so I couldn't say if it's wise to have super cheap spawn alongside guard stuff, but I think it's a combination of lazy and potential future plans for a codex for R&H (based around the new models).

Considering the infantry is overpriced by20-25% , no.

Also I am more annoyed because of the fact that the obvious changes didn't happen.

Well, in a 2000 pt infantry GK army, you have 200 pts left after the revision.
Not a bad move by GW.
But the lowering of points, especially for the GKSS (from 21 to 17), was inevitable.
I wonder that it didn't came out earlier.

Moreover, I wonder when battlescribe will have the pt changes updated.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, in a 2000 pt infantry GK army, you have 200 pts left after the revision.
Not a bad move by GW.
But the lowering of points, especially for the GKSS (from 21 to 17), was inevitable.
I wonder that it didn't came out earlier.

Moreover, I wonder when battlescribe will have the pt changes updated.

Probably not until like a week after it releases. It's technically not out yet.

Everyone is complaining about Chaos...Right now Aquillon Terminators cost the same as Allarus Terminators.


I'm convinced GW just wanted to see more models on tables.

The Leviathan didn't get a hit, which boggles the mind.

For a year strikes cost more then interceptors. For a year, GW forgot that it costed the psycannon on a razorback as if it was a heavy psycannon. Never fixed it. not in the CA faq/errata, not in the spring or autum FAQ. I wonder if they change it now.

In general I think the only rules they really read, are those for new stuff they worked for. If they are just doing a copy paste, and on top of it they don't have data from people playing the army a lot, they just miss stuff. I mean who at the studio is suppose to stand up and tell them they made an error?

I for one certainly cannot see what sort of criteria GW is making changes by.

Looking at the IG changes, they made russ tanks inexplicably cheaper, made Mortars expensive enough that they're never going to be seen again, decided the Wyvern of all things needed a nerf, made Astropaths cheaper again, and none of the units that really need help and never see the table got any help at all, while Tank Commanders remain criminally undercosted.

I think they're operating by Ouiji board. It's certainly not gameplay feedback.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I for one certainly cannot see what sort of criteria GW is making changes by.

Looking at the IG changes, they made russ tanks inexplicably cheaper, made Mortars expensive enough that they're never going to be seen again, decided the Wyvern of all things needed a nerf, made Astropaths cheaper again, and none of the units that really need help and never see the table got any help at all, while Tank Commanders remain criminally undercosted.

I think they're operating by Ouiji board. It's certainly not gameplay feedback.

In general I agree that its hard to see what drives the changes other then 'we have a surplus of model X, go make it cheaper so we sell some'. Tho you can justify Leman Russes by saying they are never taken, its always Tank Commanders, and if GW thinks they are not undercosted then the basic Leman Russ is to cheap.
Mortar teams were criminally undercosted.

Not a clue why Astropaths needed to be cheaper when they were already a really cheap way to get some psykers for denial into a IG army.

The LR shouldn't be more expensive than the Demolisher now that the Demo cannon went from Heavy d3 (d6 on units of 5+ models) to a straight Heavy d6. Not saying the LR should have gone down necessarily.

Althought with what happened with the Marine suppliments practically everything else getting cheaper does bring things closer to being in line. I fully expect there to be another hot-patch to bump Marines up a notch or two in the not-too-distant future. Probably after the Christmas sales.

Marines don't need pts increases, they need rules adjustments, which is what the FAQs are for anyways, I don't expect any rules changes before LVO. After the LVO we'll probably know how the meta settles and exactly what changes would be fair, GW can implement changes in a month or two after that since they don't need to do a production run and can implement the rules immediately after proofreading them (ha ha). If BA become a boogieman it might not make any sense to nerf Intercessors, Flyers, Repulsor Executioner, Eliminators, TFC, Aggressors and Assault Centurions which I think are currently the strongest SM units, but probably a side-note in a BA army.

TFC is probably the most common unit, but only partially because of its pts, it'd probably still be taken if it was 20 more pts at least as once to use the Stratagems it has.

Dont think mono BA is gonna take over the meta. Cant see how due to how the new rules dont solve the 2 BA weaknesses, handling enemy screens and lack of cheap CP. But imperial or astartes soup with BA might on the other hand. If it does I hope they just make the offending rules only available to mono BA instead of nerfing the whole faction to the ground.

 vict0988 wrote:
If BA become a boogieman it might not make any sense to nerf Intercessors, Flyers, Repulsor Executioner, Eliminators, TFC, Aggressors and Assault Centurions which I think are currently the strongest SM units, but probably a side-note in a BA army.

TFC is probably the most common unit, but only partially because of its pts, it'd probably still be taken if it was 20 more pts at least as once to use the Stratagems it has.

That's not how balancing works, If the current SM's lists are dumpstering everyone (and from the looks of it they mostly are) then they need to be brought back in line, regardless of whether or not BA uses different units to dominate aswell or even more (those units obv need to brought in line aswell).

If you just nerf what the #1 army brings without realising that the #2 army is also unhealthy for everything below it your not going to get a somewhat balanced field.

 Ordana wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
If BA become a boogieman it might not make any sense to nerf Intercessors, Flyers, Repulsor Executioner, Eliminators, TFC, Aggressors and Assault Centurions which I think are currently the strongest SM units, but probably a side-note in a BA army.

TFC is probably the most common unit, but only partially because of its pts, it'd probably still be taken if it was 20 more pts at least as once to use the Stratagems it has.

That's not how balancing works, If the current SM's lists are dumpstering everyone (and from the looks of it they mostly are) then they need to be brought back in line, regardless of whether or not BA uses different units to dominate aswell or even more (those units obv need to brought in line aswell).

If you just nerf what the #1 army brings without realising that the #2 army is also unhealthy for everything below it your not going to get a somewhat balanced field.

On the other hand, the #2 army might not be as oppressive once #1 is removed because other lists might be able to handle #2, but not #1.

 Ordana wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
If BA become a boogieman it might not make any sense to nerf Intercessors, Flyers, Repulsor Executioner, Eliminators, TFC, Aggressors and Assault Centurions which I think are currently the strongest SM units, but probably a side-note in a BA army.

TFC is probably the most common unit, but only partially because of its pts, it'd probably still be taken if it was 20 more pts at least as once to use the Stratagems it has.

That's not how balancing works, If the current SM's lists are dumpstering everyone (and from the looks of it they mostly are) then they need to be brought back in line, regardless of whether or not BA uses different units to dominate aswell or even more (those units obv need to brought in line aswell).

If you just nerf what the #1 army brings without realising that the #2 army is also unhealthy for everything below it your not going to get a somewhat balanced field.

Let's assume BA Assault Marines become the new hotness and they don't make any use of the units I mentioned, then it would not make sense to nerf Assault Marines and the units I mentioned, instead GW should nerf the things that make the units I mentioned OP and the things that make Assault Marines OP. Otherwise, you end up with each unit only being viable within a single sub-faction, you might like WS bikes being more pts-efficient but I think we can agree that other sub-factions should be able to field bikes in some capacity without being ridiculed in the list forum right?

BA could hypothetically counter SM while being bad against certain other armies, so you could have a situation where BA are technically OP because they have a 52+% win-rate against every faction and 80% win-rate against SM and thus sort of keep them in check. Nerfing number two could hurt balance more than it helps unless properly tested and you account for how it is going to affect the meta.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
If BA become a boogieman it might not make any sense to nerf Intercessors, Flyers, Repulsor Executioner, Eliminators, TFC, Aggressors and Assault Centurions which I think are currently the strongest SM units, but probably a side-note in a BA army.

TFC is probably the most common unit, but only partially because of its pts, it'd probably still be taken if it was 20 more pts at least as once to use the Stratagems it has.

That's not how balancing works, If the current SM's lists are dumpstering everyone (and from the looks of it they mostly are) then they need to be brought back in line, regardless of whether or not BA uses different units to dominate aswell or even more (those units obv need to brought in line aswell).

If you just nerf what the #1 army brings without realising that the #2 army is also unhealthy for everything below it your not going to get a somewhat balanced field.

Let's assume BA Assault Marines become the new hotness and they don't make any use of the units I mentioned, then it would not make sense to nerf Assault Marines and the units I mentioned, instead GW should nerf the things that make the units I mentioned OP and the things that make Assault Marines OP. Otherwise, you end up with each unit only being viable within a single sub-faction, you might like WS bikes being more pts-efficient but I think we can agree that other sub-factions should be able to field bikes in some capacity without being ridiculed in the list forum right?

Ah you mean it like that, my bad.
Yes the rules for SM's in general are the problem (Doctrines + super Doctrines + Shock assault is to much) not the units themselves per say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
If BA become a boogieman it might not make any sense to nerf Intercessors, Flyers, Repulsor Executioner, Eliminators, TFC, Aggressors and Assault Centurions which I think are currently the strongest SM units, but probably a side-note in a BA army.

TFC is probably the most common unit, but only partially because of its pts, it'd probably still be taken if it was 20 more pts at least as once to use the Stratagems it has.

That's not how balancing works, If the current SM's lists are dumpstering everyone (and from the looks of it they mostly are) then they need to be brought back in line, regardless of whether or not BA uses different units to dominate aswell or even more (those units obv need to brought in line aswell).

If you just nerf what the #1 army brings without realising that the #2 army is also unhealthy for everything below it your not going to get a somewhat balanced field.

On the other hand, the #2 army might not be as oppressive once #1 is removed because other lists might be able to handle #2, but not #1.

That is not the case here. We know Marines are oppressive, to pretty much everyone.

Marine units are still quite poor. Its all the bolt on rules they shoehorned in that fethed it all up.

 Ordana wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I for one certainly cannot see what sort of criteria GW is making changes by.

Looking at the IG changes, they made russ tanks inexplicably cheaper, made Mortars expensive enough that they're never going to be seen again, decided the Wyvern of all things needed a nerf, made Astropaths cheaper again, and none of the units that really need help and never see the table got any help at all, while Tank Commanders remain criminally undercosted.

I think they're operating by Ouiji board. It's certainly not gameplay feedback.

In general I agree that its hard to see what drives the changes other then 'we have a surplus of model X, go make it cheaper so we sell some'. Tho you can justify Leman Russes by saying they are never taken, its always Tank Commanders, and if GW thinks they are not undercosted then the basic Leman Russ is to cheap.
Mortar teams were criminally undercosted.

Not a clue why Astropaths needed to be cheaper when they were already a really cheap way to get some psykers for denial into a IG army.

I can understand the leman russ to some degree, however gw killed it's place with the sizecreep and prevalence of knights and antiknight lists.

I believe the wyvern got the kick due to the vigilus doubleshooting,but that is my guess.

Overall it feels wierd,also why nerf normal ogryns!?!

A lot of things for a Militarum Tempestus list went down, as I look. Tempestor Primes are now 35 points. Troop Scions are 7 points. Astropaths are down. Lascannons are down in case your Valks had those.

Wait Ogryns were nerfed?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Wait Ogryns were nerfed?

Yep,basic ones,not the bullgrins,basic ones

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Wait Ogryns were nerfed?

Makes sense, it's what Guard players have been taking lately to counter-charge the SM meta, we can't have armies having answers to marines now can we?


Edit:

Tau

Ghostkeel unchanged

And back on the shelf Tau go again. Wallet not complaining, still haven't bought a single one and so it will remain.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Wait Ogryns were nerfed?

Yep,basic ones,not the bullgrins,basic ones

Yeah screw paying money for this product. Again. They really don't want my money for their rules it seems.

Buy sm, 3 models for 50+CHF.
What you don't think that is good value?

Too bad./J

Honestly i feel that that race to the bottom is becoming clear, margins on sm must be higher therefore force sales of sm and screw xenos or fw for that matter, also screw csm because how dare you demand an actual working baseline, play soup you pleb.......

Just stupid


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LoftyS wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Wait Ogryns were nerfed?

Makes sense, it's what Guard players have been taking lately to counter-charge the SM meta, we can't have armies having answers to marines now can we?


Edit:

Tau

Ghostkeel unchanged

And back on the shelf Tau go again. Wallet not complaining, still haven't bought a single one and so it will remain.

Tau are xenos, therefore inferior, therefore you must be bad.....
/J

But seriously,they couldn't even be bothered to fix the issues,just drop points on everything instead.

Heck my daemonengine list now just lost enough points for another 1.5 daemonengines......

LoftyS wrote:

Tau

Ghostkeel unchanged

And back on the shelf Tau go again. Wallet not complaining, still haven't bought a single one and so it will remain.

Didn't its weapons go down?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Wait Ogryns were nerfed?

Yep,basic ones,not the bullgrins,basic ones

Yeah screw paying money for this product. Again. They really don't want my money for their rules it seems.

Seems like a mis-key.

I'd assume so, but then again one would think gw would manage to propperly type in and copy paste stuff correctly.

hey last year CA had the point cost of a psycanon on a razorback bumped as if the razorback had a heavy psycannon, that a NDK can carry. People pointed it out to GW whole year, and they didn't fix it.

So I would say GW often can't even copy paste properly.

Not Online!!! wrote:
I'd assume so, but then again one would think gw would manage to propperly type in and copy paste stuff correctly.

I mean...this is GW. Part of the fun is finding mistakes.