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.
Kanluwen wrote: It was posted in other region prices, not USD.
$60 for Pteraxii is stupid. It's just stupid.
It's Electropriests level of stupid. I have zero Electropriests and it looks like I will have zero Pteraxii.
The SC is $95 rather than $100, which is legitimately a great deal as the Skorpius and Techpriest alone are $105, the Skitarii bring it up to $149 once the price bump hits. So you save $50.
Those prices are freaking steep. The flyer is a bit expensive for what it is. For comparison razorwing jetfighters were 45 and are currently 50 USD while void ravens are 80 USD. The ad mech flyer is 100 USD. It's not too bad. What bugs me the most is the price of those cavalry. 60 USD which is 20 USD more than my dark eldar reaver jet bikes in the same numbers and I don't know if the firepower is worth it.
The Pteraxii are definitely expensive but if you compare them to scourge even if it sounds expensive understand they get a full squad of the same weapon in one pack. Yes scourge get more weapon types but they only get one per box set meaning you need 12 box sets just to outfit 3 full units (which is bs). Also gw increased the cost of scourge from 25 USD to 30 USD and now 34 USD. 12 sets of scourge just to get 3 full units of a unit that doesnt even get faction traits is pure garbage and not worth the current cost of over 400 USD. I only have to buy 3 pteraxii box sets (180 USD) and to outfit the same amount of models as 12 scourge box sets. Scourge weapon options mostly don't matter because they're a suicide anti tank unit in an edition where vehicles are far too durable against such things.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/06/01 07:48:31
Suddenly the good old 3++ doomchicken is rocking a -1 to hit or 6+ fnp, which has wierd 9th ed style (assumingly) wording.
I'm more worried about the t8 GUOtbh but the greater daemon tables are good, some of the strats are solid (wbb nurglings and instant cast on 9 horrors?!) But they still haven't addressed the core issues of the book imo, just given all units situational buffs.
I don't think it's weird 9th ed wording. I think it's a new part of the ability: For every wound you block with it, he regains an extra wound later. That's...pretty sweet.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Overall, I'd say this is about an average power boost from a PA book. Nothing spectacular, nothing particularly terrible. Good to see attention paid to the lackluster and cool greater daemons, but they're the only units IMO that are significantly boosted with these new rules.
I will give them credit where credit is due understanding that DURABILITY IS A PROBLEM for pretty much everyone, and a significant number of the exalted buffs are durability buffs. That's very good.
But these new stratagems are faiiiiirly meh, and oddly the best ones are on units that are already good, rather than targeting units that need real help. There's nothing particularly great for struggling units like Daemonettes, bloodletters, soul grinders, etc. The Slaanesh Cav -1 to hit strat seems good for 8th but if -1 to hit mods are easier to obtain in 9ths terrain rework in a world without stacking mods it'll be pretty unimpressive. Scent of Blood seems fairly solid, advance+charge with +2 to charge for hounds seems like you could feasibly pull off a turn 1 charge with them if you plunk a model off the board with a skull cannon or something, but I think the Brass Stampede and Bound in Brass and Bone both sound a whole lot better than they'd work in practice. Halving damage from shooting on a unit that's got as few wounds as a khorne chariot I doubt would be particularly effective, and the problem with Crushers has never been doing damage once you're in combat, it's always getting stomped flat before you get in.
As someone who only uses Tzeentch stuff, I seem to have gotten the best of the bunch. IMO, there's no reason not to roll 2 random benefits for all your Lords of Change, and between the LOC himself, Ahriman, DPTz, and Magnus you've got plenty of options for a competitive Tzeentch Daemons warlord to easily unlock the relics. And 3/4 of the strats seem like stuff I'd gladly use on the units in question - a guaranteed smite on a unit of horrors even after your LoCs and Heralds do their smiting first, +1 to wound for Screamers, the ability for a unit of 6 flamers to dish out ~4 mortal wounds in addition to their regular damage on the drop, all those are solid. Khorne got done worst by, for sure, but whether that's because the rules are necessarily the worst or because Khorne started in the worst position I'm not sure.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/01 12:16:33
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
Crimson wrote: Isn't there that dedicated price whine thread? From now on couldn't we take all the price whining there and let other threads be about actual content?
At least daemons are getting some real flavour rules, even if they might not be the most competitive buffs. The polar opposite of the Deathwatch White Dwarf update (which was strong, of course, simply because Doctrines and vanilla SM strats).
Do remember that 9th ed means a new codex might not be as far away as you think, as well. Hard to say, though.
Some of these stratagems have me ordering redundant units that so far I've ran only one of.
Cover is going to change a lot so perhaps cover will mean more now. Cover is absolutely useless for models with ZERO armor save. +1 to an armor save that doesn't exist doesn't do jack for most daemons.
I think cover should modify the invul save as well. The +1 assume the shot doesn't hit at full force, like it ricochets of hits a tree branch thus slowing velocity. Invul saves for Daemons is their natural resilience to harm either through thick tough hide, near immunity to pain or magic/psychic ability. So that same bullet, shell, lasbolt is going to be effected by that wall or tree branch the same way as if it were a fully armored terminator behind that wall.
I know invul saves are NEVER modified but cover should do SOMETHING in regards to invulnerable saves.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/02 21:56:35
NinthMusketeer wrote: I think it is strange that cover affects armor and is not a -1 to hit penalty.
Likely to give the off player something to do. If it adds to their cover, then they get to participate in their opponent's turn beyond just removing casualties.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I think it is strange that cover affects armor and is not a -1 to hit penalty.
It fits into cover vs concealment. Concealment would be staying unseen or poorly seen and be the -1 to hit. cover is something actually blocking the shot like a wall or rubble. A strong enough shot will just punch through the cover anyways, so making it an armor modifier makes sense,.
Things like camo cloaks and similar ought to be on the concealment - to hit side though, rather than + to cover saves. Or they could go the opposite of a lot of the reroll auras and do something like "when using a ranged weapon to target this unit with camouflage, unmodified 6s must be rerolled.
And daemons are still screwed because cover is absolutely pointless except in the rare circumstance you can hide an entire unit.
Not advocating for actual armor for daemons but I think daemons in cover should be harder to kill than daemons out in the open like anything else.
I hope that 9th incorporates the ITC rule making all the first floors of building LOS blocking regardless of windows and crap, either that or improve the inv save of ALL daemon units by 1 (in the 9th ed codex of course).
jivardi wrote: And daemons are still screwed because cover is absolutely pointless except in the rare circumstance you can hide an entire unit.
Not advocating for actual armor for daemons but I think daemons in cover should be harder to kill than daemons out in the open like anything else.
I hope that 9th incorporates the ITC rule making all the first floors of building LOS blocking regardless of windows and crap, either that or improve the inv save of ALL daemon units by 1 (in the 9th ed codex of course).
You really think that a unit of 30 pink horrors should have a 3+ inv when in cover ?
NinthMusketeer wrote: I think it is strange that cover affects armor and is not a -1 to hit penalty.
Likely to give the off player something to do. If it adds to their cover, then they get to participate in their opponent's turn beyond just removing casualties.
Ultimately I'm not sure whether it's a 100% good thing or not. On one hand, reducing the To Hit does make more sense, but it means you play less of a role in your opponent's turn. I'd rather have something to do beyond just taking my minis off the table, and I feel that 8th is very similar to 2nd Ed in this regard - it's mostly removing casualties as things are so much more deadly.
The other side of the coin is what we had in 3rd-7th, with cover saves and the AP system. Looking at the two in comparison, I'd prefer the AP system (despite its inherent flaws) because it meant that a 3+ save was a 3+ save. The armour Marines wore actually meant something, and I've never been so shocked as the demo 3rd Ed game where the Marines got to make their saves. This is after years of 2nd Ed were Bolter Marines might as well have not existed their armour was so pointless. Of course, you could argue that that applies to only certain armies, meaning that for Guard, Orks or 'Nids, you were just removing casualties as well - no different to now. But then again there were cover saves, so, that mitigated that somewhat.
I don't think either system is perfect, and it's hard to advocate for one over the other given that they both have glaring flaws. If I had to choose, I'd take the one that makes things more durable, which is, IMO, the AP/cover save system from 3rd-7th. This would lessen the damage of the Alpha Strike 1st turn. That's not to say that 1st turn wasn't important in previous editions, but with damage rolls and endless sources of mortal wounds, and AP-x up the wazoo, things don't last as long as they used to.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I think it is strange that cover affects armor and is not a -1 to hit penalty.
It fits into cover vs concealment. Concealment would be staying unseen or poorly seen and be the -1 to hit. cover is something actually blocking the shot like a wall or rubble. A strong enough shot will just punch through the cover anyways, so making it an armor modifier makes sense.
Things like camo cloaks and similar ought to be on the concealment - to hit side though, rather than + to cover saves. Or they could go the opposite of a lot of the reroll auras and do something like "when using a ranged weapon to target this unit with camouflage, unmodified 6s must be rerolled.
I think you largely illustrated the issue with blocking vs concealment, in that an armor modifier is being applied in situations where it does not make sense. On the other hand one can far more commonly reason that intervening objects make a target more difficult to hit. Having it modify armor also leads to situations like daemons, genestealers, or anything with a similar/better invul save to its armor being exactly as difficult to harm when it is behind so-called cover; those concrete barricades may as well be invisible tissue paper.
jivardi wrote: And daemons are still screwed because cover is absolutely pointless except in the rare circumstance you can hide an entire unit.
Not advocating for actual armor for daemons but I think daemons in cover should be harder to kill than daemons out in the open like anything else.
I hope that 9th incorporates the ITC rule making all the first floors of building LOS blocking regardless of windows and crap, either that or improve the inv save of ALL daemon units by 1 (in the 9th ed codex of course).
You really think that a unit of 30 pink horrors should have a 3+ inv when in cover ?
What do you propose to make daemons more survivable? I wouldn't mind a -1 to hit while in cover but with the rumored -1 MAX to hit roll penalties taking 20 plaguebearers to get the -1 to hit is pointless..take 19 of them, save some points and still get the -1 to hit while in cover (which is where 99% of the time my PB's are).
jivardi wrote: What do you propose to make daemons more survivable? I wouldn't mind a -1 to hit while in cover but with the rumored -1 MAX to hit roll penalties taking 20 plaguebearers to get the -1 to hit is pointless..take 19 of them, save some points and still get the -1 to hit while in cover (which is where 99% of the time my PB's are).
Without knowing how cover will work in 9th, i cant propose anything.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I don't think either system is perfect, and it's hard to advocate for one over the other given that they both have glaring flaws. If I had to choose, I'd take the one that makes things more durable, which is, IMO, the AP/cover save system from 3rd-7th. This would lessen the damage of the Alpha Strike 1st turn. That's not to say that 1st turn wasn't important in previous editions, but with damage rolls and endless sources of mortal wounds, and AP-x up the wazoo, things don't last as long as they used to.
Lessen the damage of Alpha Strike?
Let's see, GEQ unit vs flamers in old system: no armor save, no cover, opponent just takes his models off table without getting to do anything.
GEQ unit vs flamers in new system: 5+ armor save, 4+ in cover, flamers have 0 AP in the first turn so nyah.
GEQ unit vs bolters in old system: no armor save, sudden 5+ in cover unless enemy has common ignore cover rule, drastic change in durability depending on small change in placement (that often led to arguments) is not that good game design.
GEQ unit vs bolters in new system: 5+ armor save, 4+ in cover. Less durable you say?
GEQ unit vs heavy bolters and such in old system: now even expensive units with carapace 4+ save have no armor save, making the upgrade worse than useless.
GEQ unit vs heavy bolters and such in new system: 6+ armor save still, 5+ in cover. 5+/4+ with carapace. Better than old system in all cases, unless enemy stacks AP bonuses, then equal to old system. Still not seeing it.
Tanks in old system: zero armor save, high chance of being blown up with first shot or just being glanced to death with a couple of mid str shots. Add to that AV10 most vehicles had on some facings (or all facings if you had broken Tau rules) making them as durable as wet paper and, well...
Tanks in new system: actual armor save vs everything but strongest weapons, big HP pool, no being instantly made useless with immobilized or weapon blown up damage roll even if the tank was otherwise fine, mid str weapons wounding on 6+ is more of a meme than actual threat. You were saying?
Funny how you mention mortal wounds as the sources of these are pretty rare and often either blockable or require opportunity costs - they are nothing like endless torrents of D shots Eldar and Tau could spew from every orifice in 7th edition from common guns (thanks Kelly for making something that was unique infantry handgun into cheap as chips titan killers). You'd have a point if we were talking about start of 8th edition when Forge World broke the rules in their "totes balanced" usual way with endless cheap chaos psyker spam throwing dozens of mortal wounds every turn but that thankfully had been fixed in weeks from multiple angles. Certainly nothing like Tau and Eldar getting more and more broken garbage (culminating in outright untargetable armies by the end of it) whole edition without a single fix.
Granted, Marines have problems with durability - but they are outlier, not the norm. SM, Sisters and such could be fixed with a rule saying say "Power Armour: reroll failed armor saves unless S of enemy gun is larger than your T" or "Power Armour: ignore first point of AP unless S of enemy gun is 6 or higher" without needing to change the rest of the system.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I don't think either system is perfect, and it's hard to advocate for one over the other given that they both have glaring flaws. If I had to choose, I'd take the one that makes things more durable, which is, IMO, the AP/cover save system from 3rd-7th. This would lessen the damage of the Alpha Strike 1st turn. That's not to say that 1st turn wasn't important in previous editions, but with damage rolls and endless sources of mortal wounds, and AP-x up the wazoo, things don't last as long as they used to.
Lessen the damage of Alpha Strike?
Let's see, GEQ unit vs flamers in old system: no armor save, no cover, opponent just takes his models off table without getting to do anything.
GEQ unit vs flamers in new system: 5+ armor save, 4+ in cover, flamers have 0 AP in the first turn so nyah.
GEQ unit vs bolters in old system: no armor save, sudden 5+ in cover unless enemy has common ignore cover rule, drastic change in durability depending on small change in placement (that often led to arguments) is not that good game design.
GEQ unit vs bolters in new system: 5+ armor save, 4+ in cover. Less durable you say?
GEQ unit vs heavy bolters and such in old system: now even expensive units with carapace 4+ save have no armor save, making the upgrade worse than useless.
GEQ unit vs heavy bolters and such in new system: 6+ armor save still, 5+ in cover. 5+/4+ with carapace. Better than old system in all cases, unless enemy stacks AP bonuses, then equal to old system. Still not seeing it.
Tanks in old system: zero armor save, high chance of being blown up with first shot or just being glanced to death with a couple of mid str shots. Add to that AV10 most vehicles had on some facings (or all facings if you had broken Tau rules) making them as durable as wet paper and, well...
Tanks in new system: actual armor save vs everything but strongest weapons, big HP pool, no being instantly made useless with immobilized or weapon blown up damage roll even if the tank was otherwise fine, mid str weapons wounding on 6+ is more of a meme than actual threat. You were saying?
Funny how you mention mortal wounds as the sources of these are pretty rare and often either blockable or require opportunity costs - they are nothing like endless torrents of D shots Eldar and Tau could spew from every orifice in 7th edition from common guns (thanks Kelly for making something that was unique infantry handgun into cheap as chips titan killers). You'd have a point if we were talking about start of 8th edition when Forge World broke the rules in their "totes balanced" usual way with endless cheap chaos psyker spam throwing dozens of mortal wounds every turn but that thankfully had been fixed in weeks from multiple angles. Certainly nothing like Tau and Eldar getting more and more broken garbage (culminating in outright untargetable armies by the end of it) whole edition without a single fix.
Granted, Marines have problems with durability - but they are outlier, not the norm. SM, Sisters and such could be fixed with a rule saying say "Power Armour: reroll failed armor saves unless S of enemy gun is larger than your T" or "Power Armour: ignore first point of AP unless S of enemy gun is 6 or higher" without needing to change the rest of the system.
Mid strengths are 5-7, High is 8+, low is 4 or less, mid strength weapons don't wound on 6+, they wound of 5+, add in rerolls and that goes to the equivalent of 4.x. depending upon the reroll mechanic.
Additionally in the old system you didnt get full rerolls to hit often.
Also your using guard as your reference point for a balanced unit, the army that gained more durability in the edition change than any other.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/03 14:12:49
5000pts 
6000pts 
3000pts
