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.

I'm available on weekdays too

Did anyone notice that the wording of the legion trait for Bile’s dudes includes all units with the trait? Is this different than the wording of the current chaos space marine codex? Is GW finally updating us to rolling the legion traits to all units (except cultists for obvious reasons)

macluvin wrote:
Did anyone notice that the wording of the legion trait for Bile’s dudes includes all units with the trait? Is this different than the wording of the current chaos space marine codex? Is GW finally updating us to rolling the legion traits to all units (except cultists for obvious reasons)

No, that's how all the legion traits are worded in the codex. It's still just infantry, bikers, and dreadnoughts. I made the same mistake at first. Csm don't get nice things like that.

macluvin wrote:
Did anyone notice that the wording of the legion trait for Bile’s dudes includes all units with the trait? Is this different than the wording of the current chaos space marine codex? Is GW finally updating us to rolling the legion traits to all units (except cultists for obvious reasons)

Probably covered in the War of the Spider thread:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/270/786986.page#10826194

macluvin wrote:
Is GW finally updating us to rolling the legion traits to all units (except cultists for obvious reasons)

Which obvious reasons are those?

 Eldarain wrote:

macluvin wrote:
Is GW finally updating us to rolling the legion traits to all units (except cultists for obvious reasons)

Which obvious reasons are those?

Because they'd be too good, obviously.

I mean, Cultists that can REROLL MORALE? Heavens forbid!

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:

macluvin wrote:
Is GW finally updating us to rolling the legion traits to all units (except cultists for obvious reasons)

Which obvious reasons are those?

Because they'd be too good, obviously.

I mean, Cultists that can REROLL MORALE? Heavens forbid!

Or even worse, SCARY CULTISTS !

It would be FRIGHTENING! (Ok, I'll see myself out).

I like that cultists don't get the benefit. It is very fluffy and underlines their role as expendable scrubs. Plus, if it would not benefit them much anyway it is also not much of a loss. If it would benefit them significantly... well, there's the reason for them not to have it.

I could see a strategem for 'veteran cultists' that lets a unit get included though, maybe with some other benefit to represent CSM-aspirants.

I'd agree if they were costed as throw away chaff. But they've been at or above guardsmen the entire edition.

They've shown a willingness to have traits that apply different effects to varying units. They either should have been costed properly in their exempt from power from paint status or given their own trait in each legion.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I like that cultists don't get the benefit. It is very fluffy and underlines their role as expendable scrubs. Plus, if it would not benefit them much anyway it is also not much of a loss. If it would benefit them significantly... well, there's the reason for them not to have it.

I could see a strategem for 'veteran cultists' that lets a unit get included though, maybe with some other benefit to represent CSM-aspirants.

They really need some other rules for Cultists. Like giving them a Grot Shield equiv as a universal rule and/or let them "heal" d3 dead model as more cultists come out of the woodwork to support them, and give them a toned down Legion trait so it feels like they emulate the Legion they serve.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I like that cultists don't get the benefit. It is very fluffy and underlines their role as expendable scrubs. Plus, if it would not benefit them much anyway it is also not much of a loss. If it would benefit them significantly... well, there's the reason for them not to have it.

I could see a strategem for 'veteran cultists' that lets a unit get included though, maybe with some other benefit to represent CSM-aspirants.

They really need some other rules for Cultists. Like giving them a Grot Shield equiv as a universal rule and/or let them "heal" d3 dead model as more cultists come out of the woodwork to support them, and give them a toned down Legion trait so it feels like they emulate the Legion they serve.

I've suggested they get a rule to treat all infantry/bikers like they had the Character rule to block them for targeting purposes, and then they lose that rule when they get to below 5 dudes.

Hard to believe they'd hike cultists' price by 50% without giving them something significant to boost their value. All the indications are that not a 50% price hike is far more than most units are seeing.

Of course, this is GW, so you never know. They might have just woke up, rolled out of bed, and decided "cultists should be terrible and nobody should use them, let's hike their points to the point where nobody will."

yukishiro1 wrote:
Hard to believe they'd hike cultists' price by 50% without giving them something significant to boost their value. All the indications are that not a 50% price hike is far more than most units are seeing.

Of course, this is GW, so you never know. They might have just woke up, rolled out of bed, and decided "cultists should be terrible and nobody should use them, let's hike their points to the point where nobody will."

it's possiable that GW concluded overly cheap hoard units like cultists, grots, guards etc where a bit too too and over all the costs of those cheap units went up to a greater proportion then elites.

BrianDavion wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Hard to believe they'd hike cultists' price by 50% without giving them something significant to boost their value. All the indications are that not a 50% price hike is far more than most units are seeing.

Of course, this is GW, so you never know. They might have just woke up, rolled out of bed, and decided "cultists should be terrible and nobody should use them, let's hike their points to the point where nobody will."

it's possiable that GW concluded overly cheap hoard units like cultists, grots, guards etc where a bit too too and over all the costs of those cheap units went up to a greater proportion then elites.

Yes...but that would be super dumb. Did anyone really think one of 8th edition's problems was that cheap horde units were overpowered? Were lists full of 300 grots or cultists tearing up the competitive scene?

That's about as mental at looking at 8th edition and saying: "you know the problem with this edition? stuff doesn't die fast enough! we need more, deadlier shooting!"

...oh wait.

yukishiro1 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Hard to believe they'd hike cultists' price by 50% without giving them something significant to boost their value. All the indications are that not a 50% price hike is far more than most units are seeing.

Of course, this is GW, so you never know. They might have just woke up, rolled out of bed, and decided "cultists should be terrible and nobody should use them, let's hike their points to the point where nobody will."

it's possiable that GW concluded overly cheap hoard units like cultists, grots, guards etc where a bit too too and over all the costs of those cheap units went up to a greater proportion then elites.

Yes...but that would be super dumb. Did anyone really think one of 8th edition's problems was that cheap horde units were overpowered?

That was in fact one of the starting problems for 8th edition. I've never actually seen someone question that before, as it was the focus of the Needful Conscript Nerfing and the Unnecessary Commissar Annihilation.
Cheap guns and wounds and loads and loads of attack dice (and rerolls) were one of most mathematically effective approaches to the game before it was buried under the Marine Doctrine Problem. A conscript unit was able to turn up and roll a couple hundred dice to solve problems. (30 models, 60 attacks, doubled to 120 because First Rank, Second Rank, rerolls for various characters means 200+ dice just for hit rolls for a single unit, and then you move on to wounds). Various morale rules meant they stood there and soaked whatever was thrown at them.

Cultist had to be hit with point increases and specifically excluded from special rules and strats AND marines had to get free innate buffs (to shooting and melee attacks) before people even started considering that taking space marines instead might be a good idea.

So, yes. The cheap horde units were absolutely a problem child of 8th.

When it released? Sure. We're talking about 8th edition as it exists now. When's the last time a list full of hundreds of grots, conscripts or cultists was dominating the competitive scene in 8th edition?

That's like saying they're going to increase the points costs of razorwing flocks by 200% because they were the go-to list in the first two months of 8th.

The main use of these units was a CP farm, and that isn't there any more. If anything, they should be going down in price relative to other units, not up.

Why on earth would GW nerf cultists by not having them generate CP, and then also kick up their cost by 50%? Makes no sense from a balance perspective, unless there is something very good about big units they haven't revealed yet.

Not saying there is, mind you. It could well just be "this doesn't make sense, but we're doing it anyway."

Voss wrote:


Cultist had to be hit with point increases and specifically excluded from special rules and strats AND marines had to get free innate buffs (to shooting and melee attacks) before people even started considering that taking space marines instead might be a good idea.

So, yes. The cheap horde units were absolutely a problem child of 8th.

But that's because CSM are terrible, not because cultists were good. And besides...all those things already happened. They already got nerfed so bad that CSM squads, which are terrible, became a valid option. Why kick up their points AGAIN after the massive nerf to them from how CP is generated?

Eh. I think you're undervaluing cheap wounds and attacks, and you're still far too focused on the percentage increase rather than actual point cost, and how that compares to their effectiveness.

The changed to-wound chart helps too. Previously, cheap units couldn't threaten a large swath of opposition. Now they can.

Well, I stand corrected. I guess there really are people who thought cultists were still overpowered after CA 2019. You learn something new every day.

I guess you could go with that takeaway. I was aiming more for not extrapolating too much from a single 9th edition data point, and providing some relevant context

yukishiro1 wrote:
Why kick up their points AGAIN after the massive nerf to them from how CP is generated?

Because 9th isn't 8th and we'll be seeing points bumps across the board to compensate?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Why kick up their points AGAIN after the massive nerf to them from how CP is generated?

Because 9th isn't 8th and we'll be seeing points bumps across the board to compensate?

They're getting points kicked up by 50%. This is far more than we've been led to understand is the average increase. We went over this already a few posts ago.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
P.S. I know a lot of people here think what Reece says is useless, but he also said on his podcast today that there are even more rules that discourage taking large units that are yet to come out. So it doesn't sound like there's anything for big units that we haven't been told that makes them much more valuable.

So basically: cultists are losing their CP generation, getting blown up easier by blast weapons, and there are even more rules that discourage you taking them as big units that we haven't even seen yet...and getting increased in cost by 50% to boot. All for a unit was already getting replaced by CSM - which are also terrible (there's a reason nobody ever takes tactical squads any more) - because they got nerfed so hard. Talk about the nerf bat!

yukishiro1 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Why kick up their points AGAIN after the massive nerf to them from how CP is generated?

Because 9th isn't 8th and we'll be seeing points bumps across the board to compensate?

They're getting points kicked up by 50%. This is far more than we've been led to understand is the average increase. We went over this already a few posts ago.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
P.S. I know a lot of people here think what Reece says is useless, but he also said on his podcast today that there are even more rules that discourage taking large units that are yet to come out. So it doesn't sound like there's anything for big units that we haven't been told that makes them much more valuable.

So basically: cultists are losing their CP generation, getting blown up easier by blast weapons, and there are even more rules that discourage you taking them as big units that we haven't even seen yet...and getting increased in cost by 50% to boot. All for a unit was already getting replaced by CSM - which are also terrible (there's a reason nobody ever takes tactical squads any more) - because they got nerfed so hard. Talk about the nerf bat!

Largest data point out of two data points isn't exactly damning evidence on any level.

And Reece and balance claims don't mix. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it's based on something, but he's known for being off he mark on what is strong or weak *coughSTOMPAcough*.

I don't understand what you think your first sentence means. Everybody has said the points increase overall is about 20%, not 50%. Why would the fact that cultists are going up by 50% not be "damning evidence" that cultists are going up by 50%? I mean that's literally what the "data point" says: cultists are going up by 50%.

Are you trying to say that you don't believe that the average increase is about 20%?

yukishiro1 wrote:
I don't understand what you think your first sentence means. Everybody has said the points increase overall is about 20%, not 50%. Why would the fact that cultists are going up by 50% not be "damning evidence" that cultists are going up by 50%? I mean that's literally what the "data point" says: cultists are going up by 50%.

Are you trying to say that you don't believe that the average increase is about 20%?

The only thing I've seen is that on average armies will lose the equivilant in points of about a squad of Marines, but we don't even know if they mean Tactical or Primaris. We also don't know if there are outliers that have it worse.

Two datapoints is crap for statistical analysis anyways.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And before I forget, we still don't know if GW is adjusting wargear costs on top of everything else too. Especially if they're separating Chainswords and Astartes Chainswords. That only makes me think we're going to see a wargear points hike too.

BrianDavion wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Hard to believe they'd hike cultists' price by 50% without giving them something significant to boost their value. All the indications are that not a 50% price hike is far more than most units are seeing.

Of course, this is GW, so you never know. They might have just woke up, rolled out of bed, and decided "cultists should be terrible and nobody should use them, let's hike their points to the point where nobody will."

it's possiable that GW concluded overly cheap hoard units like cultists, grots, guards etc where a bit too too and over all the costs of those cheap units went up to a greater proportion then elites.

Yeah except hordes haven't been meta for a long time ago. It's been elite gunlines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:

That was in fact one of the starting problems for 8th edition. I've never actually seen someone question that before, as it was the focus of the Needful Conscript Nerfing and the Unnecessary Commissar Annihilation.
Cheap guns and wounds and loads and loads of attack dice (and rerolls) were one of most mathematically effective approaches to the game before it was buried under the Marine Doctrine Problem. A conscript unit was able to turn up and roll a couple hundred dice to solve problems. (30 models, 60 attacks, doubled to 120 because First Rank, Second Rank, rerolls for various characters means 200+ dice just for hit rolls for a single unit, and then you move on to wounds). Various morale rules meant they stood there and soaked whatever was thrown at them.

Cultist had to be hit with point increases and specifically excluded from special rules and strats AND marines had to get free innate buffs (to shooting and melee attacks) before people even started considering that taking space marines instead might be a good idea.

So, yes. The cheap horde units were absolutely a problem child of 8th.

So let's nerf them because they USED to be problem? That would be stupid logic. Typical of GW thus then.

Cheap horde was solved long time ago. When 60+ model is easy peasy to remove and 100+ possible they aren't anymore of issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:

Why on earth would GW nerf cultists by not having them generate CP, and then also kick up their cost by 50%? Makes no sense from a balance perspective, unless there is something very good about big units they haven't revealed yet.

They sold enough horde models in start of 8th it's hard to sell more of them so time to sell something else that isn't as saturated and GW being GW isn't even particularly subtle so that everybody get's the memo. "buy elites. Buy tanks. Buy monsters"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I don't understand what you think your first sentence means. Everybody has said the points increase overall is about 20%, not 50%. Why would the fact that cultists are going up by 50% not be "damning evidence" that cultists are going up by 50%? I mean that's literally what the "data point" says: cultists are going up by 50%.

Are you trying to say that you don't believe that the average increase is about 20%?

The only thing I've seen is that on average armies will lose the equivilant in points of about a squad of Marines, but we don't even know if they mean Tactical or Primaris. We also don't know if there are outliers that have it worse.

Two datapoints is crap for statistical analysis anyways.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And before I forget, we still don't know if GW is adjusting wargear costs on top of everything else too. Especially if they're separating Chainswords and Astartes Chainswords. That only makes me think we're going to see a wargear points hike too.

And funny thing that, squad of marines is closer to 20% than 50% increase...Unless marine squads have habit of being 1000 pts.

And unless weapon is used in option style it has point cost 0 regardless of weapon stats as it's baked into model's cost. Or do you REALLY think value of volcano cannon is 0? Doomsday cannon?

"marine standard wargear will go up and somehow also be counted separately when every other equal case has point cost baked into model cost!" Typical deniar's strawman arguments which are inevitably proven false. Why people just can't look at what GW does. It's not like GW is super complex or unpredictable and what they give separate points and what they bake into model cost is pretty easy to figure out.

tneva82 wrote:
And funny thing that, squad of marines is closer to 20% than 50% increase...Unless marine squads have habit of being 1000 pts.

Do people not understand how averages work? Or how to crunch numbers for data? You can't look at 2 points out of hundreds and go "yup, this is the trend, everything will be X".

Cry me a river about cultists all you want, but at 4 ppm they were too cheap. We don't need the game drifting down to 1ppm or 1/2ppm units, so a points hike was needed. A points hike that will always feel greater for units who pay less points than ones who cost more ppm.

As I've pointed out, we don't know what wargear looks like. We don't know what terrain looks like. We don't even know if horde units are going to have benefits we haven't been shown yet.

It's too early to break out the Chicken Little impressions and cry about how Hordes are Dead.

Chaos on a cracker people need to chill the hell out already on this gnashing of teeth over Cultists. I have said I don't like where Cultists are at ruleswise, but I also don't like were they're at points wise. As far as I'm concerned 5ppm or less is too cheap and shouldn't be in the game. I also think free wargear needs to go too.

And while we're at it, if things aren't expensive enough to balance the game after the 9th ed points hike, then hit them again and take their points even higher!

A squad of marines is not 500 points, which is what they'd have to be for the 50% increase to be accurate. "A squad of marines" points to the same 20% multiple people have said. Every indication we have is that average costs are going up by 20%, not 50%. There is absolutely no reason to think otherwise. You are free to do so if you want to anyway, but it's backed up by nothing, and contradicted by every single person who knows the rules who has spoken up about it.

yukishiro1 wrote:
A squad of marines is not 500 points, which is what they'd have to be for the 50% increase to be accurate. "A squad of marines" points to the same 20% multiple people have said. Every indication we have is that average costs are going up by 20%, not 50%. There is absolutely no reason to think otherwise. You are free to do so if you want to anyway, but it's backed up by nothing.

If you're going to try and claim and average with only two data points, the least you could do is actually average the numbers. So you know, 35%?

Otherwise you're just making up data points to fit whatever claims you want to make.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I'm not claiming that Intercessors are getting a 50% increase. I am saying that Cultists may not have had it the worst out of the points hikes and we don't know of there aren't other factors at play that justify the numbers we do know.

All I do know is people are making bold claims like they have the rulebook in front of them.and know how every change is impacting the game.

Quit using 8th edition as a basis for your claims on how 9th will or won't work. Too many variables are chamging to even make clear predictions on that front.

Agree with ClockworkZion ^. You can't infer the things you are inferring from such a limited amount of information.

There's also the issue of comparing percentage rises, when clearly, a 50% rise from 4 to 6pts has a different impact on the overall game than a 20% rise on a significantly more expensive unit. The devil is in the detail, and the way the new rules are reflected in the amended points costs and the granularity they bring.

 MJRyder wrote:
Agree with ClockworkZion ^. You can't infer the things you are inferring from such a limited amount of information.

There's also the issue of comparing percentage rises, when clearly, a 50% rise from 4 to 6pts has a different impact on the overall game than a 20% rise on a significantly more expensive unit. The devil is in the detail, and the way the new rules are reflected in the amended points costs and the granularity they bring.

But if marines are said to lose squad we can tell pretty safely they aren't getting 50% price hike in average. Unless the Stu means having to lose some FW super heavy from his army to fit every point increase...but that would be seriously misleading way to say it. From main codex no unit is so expensive that losing it would indicate average point increase of 50%. 20% however is pretty much spot on.

And 20% is 20%. 50% is 50%. It's % that's safe to compare. Absolute points is the one where impact is different based on unit.