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.

 Crimson wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Malefic lords are a prime example - good and efficient at what they did, but so cheap that you'd want more than 3, the moment they become expensive enough not to want more than 3, you want 0 because you move to the next best/cheapest option instead. Maybe that's an issue with soup, or FW/GW doing a horrid job of keeping rules updated, who knows. Either way there was a unit that was manageable with 3 but not able to be priced "accordingly" because you'll always want more than 3 or none.

Or a simpler answer: they increased their point cost too much. Also, the diminishing smites rule exits now, which seriously restricts the usefulness of spamming cheap psykers.

So how many points are they worth? Universally ofc for the multitude variations of factions that can take them via souping.

 Crimson wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Malefic lords are a prime example - good and efficient at what they did, but so cheap that you'd want more than 3, the moment they become expensive enough not to want more than 3, you want 0 because you move to the next best/cheapest option instead. Maybe that's an issue with soup, or FW/GW doing a horrid job of keeping rules updated, who knows. Either way there was a unit that was manageable with 3 but not able to be priced "accordingly" because you'll always want more than 3 or none.

Or a simpler answer: they increased their point cost too much. Also, the diminishing smites rule exits now, which seriously restricts the usefulness of spamming cheap psykers.

The cost was appropriate for the time. It no longer is, but GW isn't caring much about R&H at the moment. I suspect a codex is in their future.

Dudeface wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Malefic lords are a prime example - good and efficient at what they did, but so cheap that you'd want more than 3, the moment they become expensive enough not to want more than 3, you want 0 because you move to the next best/cheapest option instead. Maybe that's an issue with soup, or FW/GW doing a horrid job of keeping rules updated, who knows. Either way there was a unit that was manageable with 3 but not able to be priced "accordingly" because you'll always want more than 3 or none.

Or a simpler answer: they increased their point cost too much. Also, the diminishing smites rule exits now, which seriously restricts the usefulness of spamming cheap psykers.

So how many points are they worth? Universally ofc for the multitude variations of factions that can take them via souping.

53.

 Crimson wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Malefic lords are a prime example - good and efficient at what they did, but so cheap that you'd want more than 3, the moment they become expensive enough not to want more than 3, you want 0 because you move to the next best/cheapest option instead. Maybe that's an issue with soup, or FW/GW doing a horrid job of keeping rules updated, who knows. Either way there was a unit that was manageable with 3 but not able to be priced "accordingly" because you'll always want more than 3 or none.

Or a simpler answer: they increased their point cost too much. Also, the diminishing smites rule exits now, which seriously restricts the usefulness of spamming cheap psykers.

Yeah they became some asinine point value. Aren't they like 60?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Malefic lords are a prime example - good and efficient at what they did, but so cheap that you'd want more than 3, the moment they become expensive enough not to want more than 3, you want 0 because you move to the next best/cheapest option instead. Maybe that's an issue with soup, or FW/GW doing a horrid job of keeping rules updated, who knows. Either way there was a unit that was manageable with 3 but not able to be priced "accordingly" because you'll always want more than 3 or none.

Or a simpler answer: they increased their point cost too much. Also, the diminishing smites rule exits now, which seriously restricts the usefulness of spamming cheap psykers.

So how many points are they worth? Universally ofc for the multitude variations of factions that can take them via souping.

I love when people try to bring up allies as though that affects costing too much. The only problem with that is bad internal + external balance. People might not be taking Whirlwinds for example because not only were they not good, but if you wanted artillery Guard has good options. If you nerfed the hell out of Guard Artillery, that doesn't make you take Whirlwinds, it just makes you not take either!

No, they're 80! A 30-point model getting a 50 point increase and suddenly becoming unusable isn't exactly the best possible example if one wants to demonstrate that issues cannot be fixed with point adjustments...

Dudeface wrote:

Thanks, so it being "unusable" is a demonstration of making a unit that's good enough to use but not spam? I mean it's almost like I said that they pointed them out of existence or something.

Sorry, but your example was silly. Of course over 150%price increase is going to make an unit unusable! There are plenty of units in the game, which are taken but not spammed. Ergo, such thing is possible. Also, there is nothing in Malefic Lords that make them somehow cumulatively better, quite the opposite. They're very similar to Primaris Psykers and those are taken but not spammed. There is no reason to think that a sane increase of making them fiftyish points would not have solved the problem.

 Crimson wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Thanks, so it being "unusable" is a demonstration of making a unit that's good enough to use but not spam? I mean it's almost like I said that they pointed them out of existence or something.

Sorry, but your example was silly. Of course over 150%price increase is going to make an unit unusable! There are plenty of units in the game, which are taken but not spammed. Ergo, such thing is possible. Also, there is nothing in Malefic Lords that make them somehow cumulatively better, quite the opposite. They're very similar to Primaris Psykers and those are taken but not spammed. There is no reason to think that a sane increase of making them fiftyish points would not have solved the problem.

It was a giant point slap in the early days. Before smite nerf and before Ro3. If they had pointed them to 53 they still would have been taken en masse at that time. They SHOULD come down now, but GW has seen fit to not touch R&H at all.

 Crimson wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Thanks, so it being "unusable" is a demonstration of making a unit that's good enough to use but not spam? I mean it's almost like I said that they pointed them out of existence or something.

Sorry, but your example was silly. Of course over 150%price increase is going to make an unit unusable! There are plenty of units in the game, which are taken but not spammed. Ergo, such thing is possible. Also, there is nothing in Malefic Lords that make them somehow cumulatively better, quite the opposite. They're very similar to Primaris Psykers and those are taken but not spammed. There is no reason to think that a sane increase of making them fiftyish points would not have solved the problem.

At no point did I assert that they wouldn't be unusable at that point, quite the opposite, I stated people would move onto the next most efficient choice for the same role/slot once it crossed the tipping point.

People took them because they were cheap smite and at 53 points, they would still be the cheapest smite chaos had access to iirc. So whilst academic, they would likely still have taken more than 3 if they wanted to smite spam.

That sentiment remains true until either the damage output from the smites becomes inefficient, or another option has a better statline/output doing the smiting for less.

For what it's worth I don't think I'd bother with a malefic lord for 53 points now, contributes less to my army than some other casters and a slightly cheap smite isn't enticing enough on it's own.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Thanks, so it being "unusable" is a demonstration of making a unit that's good enough to use but not spam? I mean it's almost like I said that they pointed them out of existence or something.

Sorry, but your example was silly. Of course over 150%price increase is going to make an unit unusable! There are plenty of units in the game, which are taken but not spammed. Ergo, such thing is possible. Also, there is nothing in Malefic Lords that make them somehow cumulatively better, quite the opposite. They're very similar to Primaris Psykers and those are taken but not spammed. There is no reason to think that a sane increase of making them fiftyish points would not have solved the problem.

It was a giant point slap in the early days. Before smite nerf and before Ro3. If they had pointed them to 53 they still would have been taken en masse at that time. They SHOULD come down now, but GW has seen fit to not touch R&H at all.

Very much agreed!

Dudeface wrote:

People took them because they were cheap smite and at 53 points, they would still be the cheapest smite chaos had access to iirc. So whilst academic, they would likely still have taken more than 3 if they wanted to smite spam.

Perhaps, but it is only a problem if the unit is too good for its points. I mean army with six malefic lords is inherently no more problematic than an army with three malefic lords and three birdgoat shaman things. And both are fine if they pay commensurate points for their effectiveness. Besides, smite spamming has serious diminishing returns now, as is spamming psykers who all choose their powers from same discipline. So this at least absolutely is a problem that did not require Ro3 to solve which was the original point of this whole tangent.

 Crimson wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

People took them because they were cheap smite and at 53 points, they would still be the cheapest smite chaos had access to iirc. So whilst academic, they would likely still have taken more than 3 if they wanted to smite spam.

Perhaps, but it is only a problem if the unit is too good for its points. I mean army with six malefic lords is inherently no more problematic than an army with three malefic lords and three birdgoat shaman things. And both are fine if they pay commensurate points for their effectiveness. Besides, smite spamming has serious diminishing returns now, as is spamming psykers who all choose their powers from same discipline. So this at least absolutely is a problem that did not require Ro3 to solve which was the original point of this whole tangent.

Very true they solved it another manner which was eloquent for the most part in comparison. I think rule of 3 is a necessary temp fix for them at present, it also allows design space to make something that is intentionally too good on the grounds you can't have too many. That of course is shady practice but they'll do what they'll do.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Thanks, so it being "unusable" is a demonstration of making a unit that's good enough to use but not spam? I mean it's almost like I said that they pointed them out of existence or something.

Sorry, but your example was silly. Of course over 150%price increase is going to make an unit unusable! There are plenty of units in the game, which are taken but not spammed. Ergo, such thing is possible. Also, there is nothing in Malefic Lords that make them somehow cumulatively better, quite the opposite. They're very similar to Primaris Psykers and those are taken but not spammed. There is no reason to think that a sane increase of making them fiftyish points would not have solved the problem.

It was a giant point slap in the early days. Before smite nerf and before Ro3. If they had pointed them to 53 they still would have been taken en masse at that time. They SHOULD come down now, but GW has seen fit to not touch R&H at all.

Gw didn't seem very interested in fixing most fw units prices in ca. At least malefic lords were a bit of a problem when they got their nerf. I still haven't heard a good explanation for why they nerfed the hellforged/relic super heavys.

Honestly I think they either forgot about most fw units or were just too lazy to fix them in ca.

I'd be fine with a competitive/matched play FW ban. The leviathan dread has grown tedious in particular.

Martel732 wrote:
I'd be fine with a competitive/matched play FW ban. The leviathan dread has grown tedious in particular.

By that logic ban Marines in general.

Martel732 wrote:
I'd be fine with a competitive/matched play FW ban. The leviathan dread has grown tedious in particular.

I would too TBH, it's pretty clear GW doesn't take FW into account when designing their codices. any tourny that bans legends should if they're being fair, ban FW

BrianDavion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'd be fine with a competitive/matched play FW ban. The leviathan dread has grown tedious in particular.

I would too TBH, it's pretty clear GW doesn't take FW into account when designing their codices. any tourny that bans legends should if they're being fair, ban FW

Because feth CSM players amirite?

Contemptors are fine for loyalists though. I'll keep tilting at this windmill to highlight how daft a FW ban would be in today's game.

So you ban source of books that has least amount of balance issues and leave source of most balance issues.

There's reason why you don't see FW units dominating tournaments. Because compared to GW units they suck. GW doesn't allow resin models to be even decent and GW is the one doing the rules for FW models.

BrianDavion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'd be fine with a competitive/matched play FW ban. The leviathan dread has grown tedious in particular.

I would too TBH, it's pretty clear GW doesn't take FW into account when designing their codices. any tourny that bans legends should if they're being fair, ban FW

So you have a complaint about ONE unit out of how many, when there are codex offenders that have been worse over the years?

Ban codexes.

Forgeworld and legends only.

nareik wrote:
Ban codexes.

Forgeworld and legends only.

It would probably improve the balance quite a bit.

I make a post complaining about how gw left many fw units massively overpriced and therefore uncompetitive and suddenly people start up the old ban fw chant again. Because we need to ban all those uncompetitive units just because of the leviathan.

Gadzilla666 wrote:
I make a post complaining about how gw left many fw units massively overpriced and therefore uncompetitive and suddenly people start up the old ban fw chant again. Because we need to ban all those uncompetitive units just because of the leviathan.

Some of the people here are too dumb to math, unfortunately.

Gadzilla666 wrote:
I make a post complaining about how gw left many fw units massively overpriced and therefore uncompetitive and suddenly people start up the old ban fw chant again. Because we need to ban all those uncompetitive units just because of the leviathan.

Hey, they want to ban the Legends too and those don't even have the Leviathan! 'Ban stuff for balance' brigade has never made much sense.

 Crimson wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
I make a post complaining about how gw left many fw units massively overpriced and therefore uncompetitive and suddenly people start up the old ban fw chant again. Because we need to ban all those uncompetitive units just because of the leviathan.

Hey, they want to ban the Legends too and those don't even have the Leviathan! 'Ban stuff for balance' brigade has never made much sense.

I don't know you could balance the game pretty easily with banning. Just ban everything except for tac marines.

pm713 wrote:

I don't know you could balance the game pretty easily with banning. Just ban everything except for tac marines.

Yes, that is the logical endpoint of the balance via bans approach.

The leviathan is actually a pretty good example of gw's lazy rules writing as the superior loyalist version is actually 6 points cheaper than the hellforged version. Although my numbers are coming from battlescribe as I haven't gotten to pick up ca 2019 yet so if I'm wrong correct me.

Gadzilla666 wrote:
The leviathan is actually a pretty good example of gw's lazy rules writing as the superior loyalist version is actually 6 points cheaper than the hellforged version. Although my numbers are coming from battlescribe as I haven't gotten to pick up ca 2019 yet so if I'm wrong correct me.

Battlescribe is not a good basis for an argument. They're both the same cost and have always been as near as I can tell.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
The leviathan is actually a pretty good example of gw's lazy rules writing as the superior loyalist version is actually 6 points cheaper than the hellforged version. Although my numbers are coming from battlescribe as I haven't gotten to pick up ca 2019 yet so if I'm wrong correct me.

Battlescribe is not a good basis for an argument. They're both the same cost and have always been as near as I can tell.

Thanks for straightening that out for me. But it still begs the question of whether they should have the same cost. The loyalist version has a better invul, the ability to be repaired by tech marines, and all the various rules advantages currently afforded by c:sm and the supplements.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
The leviathan is actually a pretty good example of gw's lazy rules writing as the superior loyalist version is actually 6 points cheaper than the hellforged version. Although my numbers are coming from battlescribe as I haven't gotten to pick up ca 2019 yet so if I'm wrong correct me.

Battlescribe is not a good basis for an argument. They're both the same cost and have always been as near as I can tell.

Thanks for straightening that out for me. But it still begs the question of whether they should have the same cost. The loyalist version has a better invul, the ability to be repaired by tech marines, and all the various rules advantages currently afforded by c:sm and the supplements.

Why should the Leviathan cost more because of Techmarines repairing better than Warpsmiths? I'm not saying they should be the same points, but ultimately that's a bad argument.

Units aren't costed to external abilities. The only difference as you noted is the 4++ vs the 5++/4++ in melee, but then the Hellforged gets +1A (for double melee), can heal in melee, and doesn't cover half the table when it blows (half as often as the loyalist version).

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Units aren't costed to external abilities. The only difference as you noted is the 4++ vs the 5++/4++ in melee, but then the Hellforged gets +1A (for double melee), can heal in melee, and doesn't cover half the table when it blows (half as often as the loyalist version).

Erm.. they totally are. Every single time a balance discussion for CSM shooting happens it turns into *~But Cacophony~* *~But VOTLW~* Cultists cost more than guardsman for a year because of external abilities. Tau are balanced around markerlights/SP. Knights had their CP costs driven up across the board in response to CP batteries. Ynnari warped both DE and CWE costs. Gulliman had to be reworked because he was too strong of an influence on balance and was warping everything that he could touch in the codex. Thousand Sun DP cost more than CSM DP.