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.

 vipoid wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
It's a transport for delivering assault troops first and a gunboat second. It would be nice if it could actually do its primary role.

I feel that the inability to disembark from transports - even Assault or open-topped transports - after they've moved is a big misstep from 8th.

Would it really break the game if the rule was something like "if an Assault Transport or Open-Topped transport moves, its passengers may still disembark. However, if they do so, then they must be placed within 3" of the vehicle and cannot otherwise Move or Advance in the movement phase."?

(Land Raiders would have an Assault Transport rule or keyword.)

Many armies can deep strike units with 80+% chances of making their charge and there are multiple instances of units which charge turn one by just moving/advancing across the board. If you'd just change all open topped/former assault vehicles to allow disembarking as part of their charge move I'm fairly sure nothing would break - especially considering the high cost of transports have in general.

1) Bloodthirster: Make this unit the TRUE close combat monster god it deserves to be! No degradeable statline, 4++ invul, 2+ armor and demon stratagem works so you can give him 3++. And a anti fallback rula akin to skarbrand.

2) Terminators: Give em atleast 1 wound more.

3) Maulerfiend: He needs alot of help, i suggest siegecrawler rule that makes him move in ruins and WS 3+ for starters.

Tyel wrote:
Cynically everything can be fixed by sufficient points reductions - I think however some units have some more fundamental problems.

I agree the predator is bad - but thats just because 175 points for (theoretically) 6 buffed up autocannon shots and 2 lascannons with a 11 wounds (so degrading), T7/3+ defensive statline is a joke. Knock it down towards 130-140 points and it would still be boring (because new stuff gets loads of special rules baked in) but it would be respectable enough.

Same with the forgefiend - which at least gets a 5++. But the reality is a relatively small number of shots on base BS 4+ has a high probability of disappointment (in a world of many modifiers). GW made the decision long ago that the 5++ was a good trade for having lower WS/BS. But then they started throwing out 5++ saves as if they are nothing. So the daemon engine platform is just overcosted for what it is.

Similar story with Hellions. Right now, incredibly fragile, don't do much beyond die. Knock them down a couple of points though, and you potentially have great movement, shooting, melee. Just spam them everywhere.

To be fair most tanks are bad

Predators

Hammerheads

Part of it is T7 flat sucks
GW was way too conservative on wound counts and Damage values

Not to mention the additional mess of the stucking plaster fixes applied to IG and Repulsives, here have free shots because we are GW and can't see that this will screw the balance of these weapons across vehicals to

Like a battle cannons has exactly the same stats as a Rapid fire battle cannon, it just costs 68 points less for same BS skill. Not to mention can get reroll number of shots for free.

Vanquisher cannons vrs Railguns vrs Heavy Laser Destroyer
15 points vrs 30pts vrs 40pts
Number of shots is stationary or half distance
2 vrs 1 vrs 4
3+or 4+ vrs 4+ or 5+ Vrs 3+ to hit

Like seriously WTAF how is it a shock nobody takes such rediculous over costed trash?

Ice_can wrote:

Part of it is T7 flat sucks
GW was way too conservative on wound counts and Damage values

Imo just changing the wound chart back to pre-8th, so S4 and 5 aren't wounding T7 on 5+. It's also little weird that the Predator only has 11 wounds to the Rhinos 10, considering it previously had a frontal armor of 13 to the Rhinos 11.

I'm not as much concerned about the wounds as the lack of T8 on the Predator. The Exorcist was also 13/11/10 pre-8th edition, but it translated to T8 and W12 in the 8th Edition Index at the same time the Predator got T7 W11.

Rapid fire battlecannon = regular fire battlecannon.

 alextroy wrote:
I'm not as much concerned about the wounds as the lack of T8 on the Predator. The Exorcist was also 13/11/10 pre-8th edition, but it translated to T8 and W12 in the 8th Edition Index at the same time the Predator got T7 W11.

Exorcists have always been slightly tougher than the standard rhino chassis because all the ornamentation on the front and sides is extra armour.

Martel732 wrote:
Rapid fire battlecannon = regular fire battlecannon.

The 22 points vrs 90 points disagrees.
Not to mention its 2 x D6 shots rerollable vrs 2d6 shots no rerolls

So its actually Battle cannon=more shots than Rapid Fire Battle cannon for way less points.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I'm not as much concerned about the wounds as the lack of T8 on the Predator. The Exorcist was also 13/11/10 pre-8th edition, but it translated to T8 and W12 in the 8th Edition Index at the same time the Predator got T7 W11.

Exorcists have always been slightly tougher than the standard rhino chassis because all the ornamentation on the front and sides is extra armour.

I'm pretty sure the Predator was also 13/11/10 exactly like the Exorcist.

Giving predators POTMS would be an improvement. Marines should want to move, including their tanks.

Tyel wrote:
Cynically everything can be fixed by sufficient points reductions - I think however some units have some more fundamental problems.

I agree the predator is bad - but thats just because 175 points for (theoretically) 6 buffed up autocannon shots and 2 lascannons with a 11 wounds (so degrading), T7/3+ defensive statline is a joke. Knock it down towards 130-140 points and it would still be boring (because new stuff gets loads of special rules baked in) but it would be respectable enough.

To get it down to 135 points with two Lascannon sponsons you'd have to get the base price with just the turret gun down to 85. ...actually, considering where the Hunter and Stalker are sitting that sounds about right. You'd need to knock another 10 points or so off the Vindicator though.

Ice_can wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Rapid fire battlecannon = regular fire battlecannon.

The 22 points vrs 90 points disagrees.
Not to mention its 2 x D6 shots rerollable vrs 2d6 shots no rerolls

So its actually Battle cannon=more shots than Rapid Fire Battle cannon for way less points.

I know its really bad. I was being sarcastic.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fix the IG flyers, too.

 Yarium wrote:


#3 - Carnifex. I'm going to date myself here, but there was an era when Carnifex were not just shooting units. They were close combat battering rams. They were THE "distraction Carnifex"! I just don't know what to do with them now. They have too few inaccurate attacks to kill infantry, and are too low a strength to deal significant damage to tanks. Either make their attacks x2 Strength, or up their accuracy and number of attacks, or even both!

This is purely about melee fexes right? cause shooting ones are great

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
This is purely about melee fexes right? cause shooting ones are great

You mean one particular config of a Carnifex is great.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
This is purely about melee fexes right? cause shooting ones are great

You mean one particular config of a Carnifex is great.

Yep just like most units that have a pretty optimal loadout

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
This is purely about melee fexes right? cause shooting ones are great

You mean one particular config of a Carnifex is great.

Yep just like most units that have a pretty optimal loadout

in an ideal world there wouldn't be an "optimal" allways use loadout.

Cue slaanesh mark for CSm... or such nonsense.

for sure. I was just checking if he thinks Dakkafex are too inaccurate with too few dice to deal with infantry or something like the description gave, because they actually have the best BS in the dex and the cheapest source of S6 dakka, they chew infantry up. So I'm guessing he was just talking about melee ones but wanted to be sure he knows that you can still get good mileage from the old Carnifex.

Dakkafex has been the optimal for like a decade now tho

Not Online!!! wrote:

 grouchoben wrote:
Transports of nearly all varieties desperately need a look. Chief among them Landraiders, Devilfish & Corvus Blackstars.

Is there atm one Transport that is actually worth it ?

Raiders and Venoms because they don't generally give up action economy.

The core problem with transports is that they're intended to make units FASTER and as they currently exist they make units SLOWER 9 times out of 10. You either move up the board and give up a shooting action, or you jump out immediately and...why did you buy a transport?

Transports as their rules currently work just don't operate in "three-turn 40k" which is what 8th has become. A unit that waits 1 turn to be able to do its thing just ends up getting killed after accomplishing nothing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Giving predators POTMS would be an improvement. Marines should want to move, including their tanks.

Honestly, there are few enough situations where I look at a vehicle and think "that should be penalized for moving and shooting" that I feel like vehicles should just have an "Artillery" keyword that conveys additional restrictions in the same manner as FLYER, FLY, CHARACTER, Etc.

By default, vehicles and monsters should be able to move and fire their weapons. Then, you segregate out stuff like Basilisks, Broadsides, Whirlwinds, Wyverns, Doomdsay Arks etc and say "you guys are the stationary vehicles"

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
for sure. I was just checking if he thinks Dakkafex are too inaccurate with too few dice to deal with infantry or something like the description gave, because they actually have the best BS in the dex and the cheapest source of S6 dakka, they chew infantry up. So I'm guessing he was just talking about melee ones but wanted to be sure he knows that you can still get good mileage from the old Carnifex.

Dakkafex has been the optimal for like a decade now tho

Shame the hades autocannon still Stuck on the dakkafiend, would Love a twin hades autocannon turret, atleast that one would be worth the 40- 60 pts.

anyway my picks:


#1 Purestrains. Not complete gak by any means, just completely redundant and pointless. The dex is literally named after the unit. Make it a desirable choice because they are so iconic and this annoys the hell out of me. They were 110% nerfed to push new model sales and it's so unbelievably blatant that this one actually disgusts me.


#2 Berzerkers. The rules are fine. They just need a points drop. World Eaters are so fuckin iconic to 40k and they aren't being seen because of a couple of Points of baggage on their datasheet.

#3 Tactical Marines. Goes hand in hand with Rhinos and Drop pods. These units are the absolutely core of the aesthetic and feel of 40k to me. It's depressing that they have been made so redundant, apparently consciously so. A points rebalance to themselves and their transports oughta do it. (Or maybe one in the opposite direction for their wildly OP superduper big brothers would be better).

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
anyway my picks:


#1 Purestrains. Not complete gak by any means, just completely redundant and pointless. The dex is literally named after the unit. Make it a desirable choice because they are so iconic and this annoys the hell out of me. They were 110% nerfed to push new model sales and it's so unbelievably blatant that this one actually disgusts me.

Yeah uh, this one. Whoever decided that regular, bog-standard ass deep strike was worth the loss of subfaction traits AND a points hike from 12ppm to 15ppm AND a swap from Troops with Obsec to Elites AND a loss of every stratagem and unit interaction in Codex Nids that might make genestealers good was a moron.

They're so utterly redundant when acolytes and metamorphs exist it's not funny. And I have 2 full Space Hulk sets worth of genestealers

Actually you see Berzerkers, if they get access to mobility, hence AL beeing atm the secondary pick beyond the possessed.

The reason you atm don't see berzerkers is also folded into the reason why you don't see most Transports, which has to do with the 3 turn syndrom scotsman has pointed out.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
for sure. I was just checking if he thinks Dakkafex are too inaccurate with too few dice to deal with infantry or something like the description gave, because they actually have the best BS in the dex and the cheapest source of S6 dakka, they chew infantry up. So I'm guessing he was just talking about melee ones but wanted to be sure he knows that you can still get good mileage from the old Carnifex.

Dakkafex has been the optimal for like a decade now tho

I know the Dakkafex is good. I have two of them. I'd like my other 12 'Fexes to be useful though.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
This is purely about melee fexes right? cause shooting ones are great

You mean one particular config of a Carnifex is great.

Yep just like most units that have a pretty optimal loadout

in an ideal world there wouldn't be an "optimal" allways use loadout.

Cue slaanesh mark for CSm... or such nonsense.

That's been an inherent problem in the system for as long as it has existed. Even in 2nd when weapons had one profile against Vehicles and a different profile against infantry there was still generally only one or two "good" configurations because you couldn't split fire. Which is really strange in a system where most squads are closer to Tac Marines with their 10,000+ potential configurations* than to Incursors with their eight.

I'm not sure that's a problem with a good solution. Warmachine had much more varied stats unit-to-unit and evaluating a list still generally came down to "can I handle DEF 18 ARM 12 and DEF 12 ARM 22?" because if you could handle those two extremes then anything the wasn't that good died if you looked at it funny and it strongly encouraged skew lists. There's something to be said for a game where the answer to "How do I handle 500 Imperial Guardsmen?" isn't wildly different from the answer to "How do I handle four Imperial Knights?"

* That's actually not an exaggeration. 9 choices for heavy/special weapon X 16 sergeant options of pistols, combi-bolters, and melee weapons X 8 more options for the Sergeant's off-hand X squad sizes from 5-9 is 8000+ options, plus another 3000 for the special case for squad size 10 where it's 6 choices for heavy weapon X 3 choices for special weapon X all the serg options. In practice 90% of those loads are meaningless right out of the gate because any squad size over MSU is ruled out by Morale, but 1600+ potential configurations on the MSU is still mental.

the_scotsman wrote:
By default, vehicles and monsters should be able to move and fire their weapons. Then, you segregate out stuff like Basilisks, Broadsides, Whirlwinds, Wyverns, Doomdsay Arks etc and say "you guys are the stationary vehicles"

This is probably my number 1 general want from 9th edition/8.5th edition.
I'm possibly even willing to just remove the heavy rule full stop. There isn't any obvious reason why say Havocs and Retributors should ignore it beyond the recognition they would be rubbish without it.
But with GW having made that recognition, surely the same applies to just about every comparable unit in everyone else's codex?

You could then as you say have Artillery rules or something for weapons/platforms that are clearly meant to be stationary. Or such weapons could have a Doomsday Ark style profile.

Otherwise you end up with the rather incongruous (but accurate) reality that dark lances have to be cheaper than blasters (and still suck), because -1 to hit when you move is *worse* than having 18" longer range.
And anything heavy with a 4+ BS basically never moves, because heavy would hurt enough even without the absurd number of units on the table can have a -1 to hit, if not more.

I think Purestrains are just screwed. They, metamorphs and acolytes all essentially fill the same slot (charge stuff, tear up with massed rending claws) - and there isn't the design space to be meaningfully different.
I've not done the maths, but I'm not really sure Abbs occupy a meaningfully different design spot - or at least when armed with picks and roadsigns. I guess if they all had hammers - but its going to be niche, and the current points don't have it make sense.

Tyel wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
By default, vehicles and monsters should be able to move and fire their weapons. Then, you segregate out stuff like Basilisks, Broadsides, Whirlwinds, Wyverns, Doomdsay Arks etc and say "you guys are the stationary vehicles"

This is probably my number 1 general want from 9th edition/8.5th edition.
I'm possibly even willing to just remove the heavy rule full stop. There isn't any obvious reason why say Havocs and Retributors should ignore it beyond the recognition they would be rubbish without it.
But with GW having made that recognition, surely the same applies to just about every comparable unit in everyone else's codex?

You could then as you say have Artillery rules or something for weapons/platforms that are clearly meant to be stationary. Or such weapons could have a Doomsday Ark style profile.

Otherwise you end up with the rather incongruous (but accurate) reality that dark lances have to be cheaper than blasters (and still suck), because -1 to hit when you move is *worse* than having 18" longer range.
And anything heavy with a 4+ BS basically never moves, because heavy would hurt enough even without the absurd number of units on the table can have a -1 to hit, if not more.

I think Purestrains are just screwed. They, metamorphs and acolytes all essentially fill the same slot (charge stuff, tear up with massed rending claws) - and there isn't the design space to be meaningfully different.
I've not done the maths, but I'm not really sure Abbs occupy a meaningfully different design spot - or at least when armed with picks and roadsigns. I guess if they all had hammers - but its going to be niche, and the current points don't have it make sense.

I mean...they occupy the same design space as metas and acos but only because the difference between T4 5++ and T3 5+ has become essentially meaningless in Tablehammer 40 Minutes. I'd honestly be fine with them not getting cult ambush and operating as they do in codex tyranids, as "rush across the board" units.

"EVERYTHING DEEP STRIKES" is kind of a weird thing that I wish GSC could leave behind. I'm sick of having to design only deep strike alpha armies. I want the mad max vehicle elements to actually work.

 alextroy wrote:
I'm not as much concerned about the wounds as the lack of T8 on the Predator. The Exorcist was also 13/11/10 pre-8th edition, but it translated to T8 and W12 in the 8th Edition Index at the same time the Predator got T7 W11.

GW tends to be extremely inconsistent about vehicle toughness over time. The Exorcist is actually particularly weird, as in a relative sense it's gotten uparmored to Russ status whereas before both the Exorcist and Predator, being up-armored APC's, were always weaker than a Russ hull, and GW seems to have otherwise mushed most other AV12/13 (and some 11) vehicles into T7. This isn't the only case, in 2E, a Land Raider wasn't any better armored than a Russ tank, and a Demolisher was better armored than either. 3E rolls around, the Russ gets AV14/12/10, the Demolisher gets 14/13/11, and the Land Raider gets 14/14/14, 5E the normal Russ gets side AV13, and with 8E all the Russ tanks just get made T8 W12 3+ while the Land Raider becomes T8 W16 2+, and lets not talk about Wave Serpents

Tyel wrote:
I think Purestrains are just screwed. They, metamorphs and acolytes all essentially fill the same slot (charge stuff, tear up with massed rending claws) - and there isn't the design space to be meaningfully different.
I've not done the maths, but I'm not really sure Abbs occupy a meaningfully different design spot - or at least when armed with picks and roadsigns. I guess if they all had hammers - but its going to be niche, and the current points don't have it make sense.

They don't have to be the standout best choice to be balanced somewhat decently. gw KNOWS how to balance Purestrains - they've already done it once. Codex Tyranid Stealers are not OP, but are a desirable choice, that might not fit into every build but is a playable unit.


Purestrains were also the most popular unit in the first wave GSC release (for being the best "bomb" unit), and also a unit plenty players already had the model for, since it's datasheet is basically identical in every way to Codex Tyranids, except for a loss of upgrades. They are iconic to the dex which is literally NAMED and designed after the lore of the unit.

Yet, with the release of a new range of models, Purestrains are left inexplicably at 15 ppm as opposed to 12ppm, and completely cut out of benefiting from any sort of chapter tactic. Why? We KNOW what sort of points cost this datesheet is considerable at. The GSC strats to buff/apply them are not significantly stronger than the Tyranid ones (in fact I think most would agree they are significantly worse). They don't fill some role that the army is meant to be slim on like melee for Tau or something, they have a borderline identical role to other units in the dex and the "GSC bomb" is basically iconic to the faction. So why were they so blatantly designed to be a deliberately weaker option? I'm usually not one for the "GW makes things weak on purpose to sell models!", but in this case, the unit literally exists in another dex and is balanced perfectly. There was no attempt made to fix Purestrains, and a deliberate attempt to make them WORSE going into the new dex. No, I do not believe that it's a coincidence that it is the oldest model in the entire GSC range, that it is a model that is shared with another faction, and that a new range of models dropped at the same time. GW wanted to push people buy a new range of units to play GSC. One of the pricier ranges to collet at that.

1. Tidewall Shieldline - Give it a 4+ Shield without points increase.
2. Tidewall Gunrig - Give it a 4+ Shield without points increase.
3. Tidewall Droneport - Alter it's Drone Control Systems to be useable with any four friendly <DRONE> models on the battlefield. No points increase.

I had fun using Shieldline and Gunrig before 8th edition got codices, now damage potential of all armies got so extremely much higher that these "Fortifications" get destroyed by an amused look of any faction one might play against.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
They don't have to be the standout best choice to be balanced somewhat decently. gw KNOWS how to balance Purestrains - they've already done it once. Codex Tyranid Stealers are not OP, but are a desirable choice, that might not fit into every build but is a playable unit.

Well yeah. I think some GW pricing theories are conspiracy - but this is a fairly clear view they didn't want to have "Codex Purestrain Genestealer" - where genestealers were clearly better than acolytes/metamorphs/abbs so very few bothered to buy the new models, and the optimal list was just 100+ genestealers deep striking in and hoping on charge rolls and invul saves.

Lets say purestrain genestealers were troops with cult ambush. Should they be 12 points? I'm not sure. Probably wouldn't break the game - although I think its a list which would eat newer/weaker players. Arguably though massed acolytes do that now. You have the bar between "balance" and "obnoxiousness". Obnoxiousness doesn't matter for competitive players - they will just live and adapt. But it puts off more casual players, and GW tends to quickly intervene when they think thats a problem.

Really I think there needs to be a bigger design differential between these units. I don't think its just a function of 3 turn 40k reducing T3/5+ and T4/5++. That's always going to be a fairly marginal differentiation - and tbh, always has been when the offensive output is essentially the same. Which is really the problem with assault. Across almost the whole of 40k you basically have lots of lowish strength/none or -1 AP attacks, or a smaller number of S8/10~ loads of AP, 3/D6 damage attacks. But at some point - especially with rending claws - lots of attacks do everything you need and there isn't a significant enough distinction between wiping hordes, killing Primaris and cracking knights.

But I agree not having a chapter tactic is stupid and not having any synergy with anything the Patriarch is really stupid. It isn't fun or interesting.
As the_scotsman says, the fact GSC are just deepstrike all the time is bad - but really, its a bad codex. It was a cool concept on release - with lots of rules to stick together (aside from Genestealers), when compared with some relatively non-synergistic books. But compared with say the Sisters of Battle, you realise the synergy is all contrived and forced. As a result there are not multiple interesting concepts (even if some things are better than others), but rather a jigsaw made of a few quickly identified plug and play options with a lot of obviously inferior combinations you unsurprisingly don't see taken.