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.
Agreed, but the Traitor Guardsmen from Blackstone Fortress would also make great infantry for R&H if they were expanded into a multi part kit.
GW won't fail to capitalize on that.
What? Sorry. Just got distracted thinking of the number of times GW failed to capitalize on things.
Cultists, ork deffkoptas (and warbuggies/trakks/skorchas), RTS spinoff videogames of popular IPs (fantasy or space battles), eldar revamps, chaos legions, etc...
You're thinking Kirby days.
Battlefleet Gothic and Total War are phenomenal. Mordheim was great as is Vermintide.
CSM just got a revamp...all four GDs are out. A bunch of new nurgle and Slaanesh. Some nurgle, too.
Orks got excellent buggies. Necrons are getting a massive sweep right now.
MPJ wrote: Just watched the first 9th edition bat rep rep TTT and I couldn’t get brought it. That was mostly down to such disparity between turns of Chef and Beard, so it was obvious which way he battle would go. However, I made some observations from what I saw
Each army went up by 250/300 pts from 8th
Definitely need to put down plenty of terrain (GW recommends up to twenty pieces for a 2000pt game), especially anything that can be deemed dense as the -1 to hit helps. Was quite easy to ignore obscuring however, but that depends on unit and terrain choices
Secondaries can be quite lopsided depending on what you choose and depending on dice rolls etc as at the end of turn one *SPOLIERS* Chef had 3VP to Beard’s 20. That’s also in part to the very different turns, so it shouldn’t have been such a large gap
Blast weapons can be brutal and quite obnoxious and definitely encourages MSU. Still comes come down to dice rolls of course, but an exorcist with conflagration missiles shooting at 11+ model units get EIGHTEEN shots! Someone mentioned in the comments that Stu Black and other playtesters said it’s minimum 3 shots PER DICE, which TTT replied as unknown to them. I’m sure it’s minimum per total though
Fall back should have been a strat as like in 8th, Berd pulled two immolators out of combat, with the penalty they couldn’t shoot, but it allowed the units they were in combat with to be shot as normal. Beard lost one sister due coherency, but then brought it back with a hospitaller. They were unsure if that was allowed, as there’s a difference between models killed and models fled
Never watched till the end, so perhaps it wasn’t so one sided, but the comments suggested that wasn’t the case and thus my observations make me completely wrong. There should be another bat rep tomorrow, but on YouTube. I’d be interested to hear the thoughts of anyone else that’s watched it
TTT tend to struggle with GSC because it's such a thinking army, but its none of their main factions. I'd also say Chef's list looked weaker than Beards on paper. Also also, Beard was rolling like a madman. He had like 5/10 of his 6++ in one turn on his tanks.
It was cool to see the new rules in action, but yeah, no a great example of game/army balance
This is very very very bad.
If those marine leaks are true, marines are going up by barely 10% across the board. Meanwhile here we have an incredibly mediocre SoB list kicked up by almost 20%. If every other army follows suit, we're looking at another emergency FAQ bumping marines up BEST CASE.
I got bored and put in all the leaked Space Marine point values into excel and calculated their cost change as a percent of their original value. For units with different load-out options like tanks, I included different load-out options and did the price comparison for those options instead of just the model so we could see how weapon point cost changes impacted the units overall costs. For Units where all models are the same (aggressors, hellblasters, etc.) I just calculated the difference for 1 model. For the devastator squad, the values are for the sum of four marines, the sergeant, and four of the listed heavy weapons to give the total cost of the squad.
...
All of these costs for HQ are just for the base models as we don't have the prices of melee weapons. For all other force organization sections, melee weapons prices are assumed to be the same as before.
yukishiro1 wrote: I think it's a given that balance is going to be a disaster for the first couple months. Hopefully the playtesting feedback was actually integrated and the worst stuff is caught, but there's just so many moving parts when you make changes this significant to the rules while retaining all the prior model rules. It's inevitable that something is going to be badly broken.
That's not really comforting.
Welcome to every edition change ever, only GW is actively trying to fix the cracks.
I did that exact same thing; it averages out to about 10% bump. Really look at that list, it's kinda scary. Sure, Assault Centurions, TFCs, Sniper Elims, Invictors, the Impulsor, scouts, and Whirlwinds got hit by 10% or more (a lot more for TFCs and WWs)but the VAST majority of units saw less than a 20% increase.
Compare that to a mediocre sister list that saw a 20% average bump even including multiples of the worst units in the codex (Immolators, Geminae superia) and it becomes a little nerve-wracking. Assuming no one at GW has a particular hate-boner for sisters, the average unit per unit increase is around 20%.
Basically it looks like most marine characters got a functional 10%+ buff, intercessors got a 10% buff, hellblasters got a 20% buff, inceptors got a 45% buff, Grav Centurions went up barely 1%, Repulsor Executioner 8% buff, Stormtalon 15%, Storm raven 15%, Suppresors 15%. All units that were either competitive (intercessors, grav centurions) or were still considered good units (Suppressors, Repulsor Executioner) saw boosts as part of an army that was already pretty far ahead of the curve.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/04 01:37:36
The points adjustment for space marines seems to have been "let's nerf the most popular choices hard (except intercessors, can't nerf those) and for everything else, let's give them a comparative points cut and see how it goes, worst comes to worst we'll shift what's overpowered and sell a bunch of stuff that wasn't selling before and have to nerf it a couple months later."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/04 01:44:01
Agreed, but the Traitor Guardsmen from Blackstone Fortress would also make great infantry for R&H if they were expanded into a multi part kit.
GW won't fail to capitalize on that.
What? Sorry. Just got distracted thinking of the number of times GW failed to capitalize on things.
Cultists, ork deffkoptas (and warbuggies/trakks/skorchas), RTS spinoff videogames of popular IPs (fantasy or space battles), eldar revamps, chaos legions, etc...
You're thinking Kirby days.
Battlefleet Gothic and Total War are phenomenal. Mordheim was great as is Vermintide.
CSM just got a revamp...all four GDs are out. A bunch of new nurgle and Slaanesh. Some nurgle, too.
Orks got excellent buggies. Necrons are getting a massive sweep right now.
I'm not thinking of the Kirby days at all. I'm mostly thinking of right now. Those BSF renegades? They were being sold by the sprue on the webstore, with gibbery rules about throwing them into a general chaos soup detachment without any plan They're gone now. Instead they put out an expansion with pushfit nurgle stuff leftover from the 8th edition boxsets.
Those computer games you just named? GW has done nothing to capitalize on any of them. Not even one of those games is even being sold anymore as a tabletop game.
They _might_ cross promote total warhammer 3 with the Old World, but it depends wildly on when both come out- and it doesn't even look like GW has nailed down their side of things, and they might well be setting it in a different period.
CSM got a few random models. Legions got nothing. The handful of daemons involved playing catch-up for more than a decade.
Orks got a few hotwheels racers. I'm talking about warbuggies and deffkoptas.
Necrons will finally get some stuff, yes. What is that capitalizing on? Don't get me wrong, its great to see it, but it doesn't build on cross-promotion or clever marketing. Its just finally a decent release after a year plus of drips and dregs.
Just going off what Tabletop Tactics said in one of their battle reports (behind a paywall) where they were apparently allowed to use the new points values. 20% is a little exaggerated, it seems to have been more like 17%.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/04 02:23:51
I believe TTT, they're pretty straight shooters. It's not like they have any reason to lie either, that definitely doesn't make gw look good, so no ulterior motive. Doesn't look good for Sisters. And going by what we already know about cultists and tacs, doesn't look good for csm either.
yukishiro1 wrote: Just going off what Tabletop Tactics said in one of their battle reports (behind a paywall) where they were apparently allowed to use the new points values. 20% is a little exaggerated, it seems to have been more like 17%.
Huh. Well smaller points values see bigger percentages over small shifts. I mean Battle Sisters are 9ppm IIRC right now going to 10-11 points is around 17% alone (a 17% shift is 10.53 points, so they probably went to 11).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gadzilla666 wrote: I believe TTT, they're pretty straight shooters. It's not like they have any reason to lie either, that definitely doesn't make gw look good, so no ulterior motive. Doesn't look good for Sisters. And going by what we already know about cultists and tacs, doesn't look good for csm either.
The points shift was likely to keep them relative to armies like Guard, but that's just a guess.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/04 02:29:34
All the really cheap choices seem to have got big points increases. I think the logic behind it is that bodies - particularly ob-sec bodies - are worth more in 9th because scoring is about controlling objectives. So it doesn't really matter that cultists, say, can't actually do anything but stand around - it's the standing around that wins you the game now.
I assume what happened in testing was some people figured out if you just took like 400 fearless cultists you could win by just standing on objectives for 5 turns and unless the person you were fighting had tons of volume of fire they'd just lose. So they nerfed their points values so that strategy wasn't efficient any more.
The upshot is that the strongest army in the game got the least points increases because it's also the army with the most elite troops. And they had to keep intercessors better than old marines, because otherwise it would undo the Primaris Replacement Project they've spent years on. So that's why, e.x., scouts and tacticals went up so much.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/04 02:39:12
O mani would love it if there was a Basken Robins marine book for all the flavors. I doubt GW would do it though. It would probably cost like 200 bucks anyway.
yukishiro1 wrote: All the really cheap choices seem to have got big points increases. I think the logic behind it is that bodies - particularly ob-sec bodies - are worth more in 9th because scoring is about controlling objectives. So it doesn't really matter that cultists, say, can't actually do anything but stand around - it's the standing around that wins you the game now.
I assume what happened in testing was some people figured out if you just took like 400 fearless cultists you could win by just standing on objectives for 5 turns and unless the person you were fighting had tons of volume of fire they'd just lose. So they nerfed their points values so that strategy wasn't efficient any more.
The upshot is that the strongest army in the game got the least points increases because it's also the army with the most elite troops. And they had to keep intercessors better than old marines, because otherwise it would undo the Primaris Replacement Project they've spent years on. So that's why, e.x., scouts and tacticals went up so much.
Lovely. The problem is that csm have always been tied to tacs as far as points are concerned. If the current paradigm holds, that would make csm 14 ppm: a 27% increase. If that happens then the salt mines will be blown wide open. You think csm players are salty now? Imagine if both our troops options get a bigger nerf than intercessors.
AngryAngel80 wrote: I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "
Makes sense really. The dam broke yesterday, so they can't exactly drip feed parts of rules to us anymore.
They could spend a week talking to the rules team and discussing changes and why each change was made, but that would make sense.
They're not that transparent with their rules writing. Apparently too thin skinned for criticism.
On the plus side, if this is the last bit of pr for 9th, maybe they'll finally start hyping up the new fw books. I'm been dying for those since they were announced at LVO (actually more like since the Indexes were released).
I've been waiting 2 years for them since FW let it slip that main studio had taken on new rules for 40k, I just hope they aren't hiding them because they are terribly underpowered and they know the reaction will be bad.
That's my fear as well. That and the negative reaction if they squat any fw armies (please don't squat my R&H).
I guess I don't understand, what is the difference between renegades and heretics and traitor guard?
Renegades and heretics are closer to being malformed pdf/underground resistances, with more mutants and various heretical additions. Like a Heretek backing an uprising with their machines-monstrosities. Or using xenos tech in conjunction with chaos magics?
Traitor Guard are generally just that, guard regiments that have turned traitor, taking all their standard equipment with them, though they may be aesthetically more chaos. They're still justy guard with a different coat of paint.
Eh, I dunno. I went and looked them up. Seems like they could roll them into traitor guard and be done with it. Do we really need more factions at this point? There is what, 30 factions in the game already? That's part of the reason it's so dang hard to balance this game out for matched play.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Argive wrote: What I got from the TTT vid that there is a plethora of secondaries. So you could not run that many ob-sec bodies and still kick ass.
I thin there will be a lot of quirky(thank god) builds thanks to the different scoring parameters.
TTT Video? What is this? Did they do a live-stream of some kind?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/04 03:13:56
yukishiro1 wrote: Just going off what Tabletop Tactics said in one of their battle reports (behind a paywall) where they were apparently allowed to use the new points values. 20% is a little exaggerated, it seems to have been more like 17%.
18.1%. And that's not an exaggeration, that's just rounding.
Argive wrote: What I got from the TTT vid that there is a plethora of secondaries. So you could not run that many ob-sec bodies and still kick ass.
I thin there will be a lot of quirky(thank god) builds thanks to the different scoring parameters.
You can't run that many cultists any more because it now costs more than 2000 just for the cultists. That's what a 50% price hike will do. I suspect they got nerfed so hard because back when you could, it was easy for them to max primaries and secondaries, and then it doesn't mater what secondaries the opponent takes, they lose by default because they're losing hold more on the primary each turn and that's that, you can't win if your opponent is maxing. Which would have been pretty easy for that 400 cultist list to do with the secondary choices available - there are at least 3 that are realistic to max for a bodies list depending on the enemy list's clearing capabilities: recon, hold more, behind enemy lines, psychic ritual, the normal action in the middle of the board, raise the banners, and that's just off the top of my head.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/04 03:16:25
yukishiro1 wrote: All the really cheap choices seem to have got big points increases. I think the logic behind it is that bodies - particularly ob-sec bodies - are worth more in 9th because scoring is about controlling objectives. So it doesn't really matter that cultists, say, can't actually do anything but stand around - it's the standing around that wins you the game now.
I assume what happened in testing was some people figured out if you just took like 400 fearless cultists you could win by just standing on objectives for 5 turns and unless the person you were fighting had tons of volume of fire they'd just lose. So they nerfed their points values so that strategy wasn't efficient any more.
The upshot is that the strongest army in the game got the least points increases because it's also the army with the most elite troops. And they had to keep intercessors better than old marines, because otherwise it would undo the Primaris Replacement Project they've spent years on. So that's why, e.x., scouts and tacticals went up so much.
Doesn't explain why a hand flamer is 5 points now though.
And why did tacs go up so much more compared to intercessors as a %?
Because GW wants you to buy intercessors. Enough time has gone by since Primaris was introduced that GW can start taking off the kids gloves in regards to shifting the players from marinelets to primaris.
But on the bright side, CSM have no Primaris, so they very well might escape getting nerfed too hard.
MPJ wrote: The condemnor boltgun went up to 5pts too for some inexplicable reason
Yeah some of it reads like typos, or stuff that was filled in with placeholders and then just forgotten about .
It also calls into question their response to playtesting again, because obviously playtesters are smart cookies, they would have flagged this stuff as obviously absurd.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/04 03:29:14
I assume what happened in testing was some people figured out if you just took like 400 fearless cultists you could win by just standing on objectives for 5 turns and unless the person you were fighting had tons of volume of fire they'd just lose. So they nerfed their points values so that strategy wasn't efficient any more.
This has been my theory as well regarding the very targeted nerfs to hordes. With progressive scoring (officially) becoming the new standard, units being able to just sit around on an objective all game can no longer be allowed. Now that 5-man chaff unit sitting on an objective in the backline is actually a serious threat that has to be dealt with. So someone parked 40 cultists or a load of PBs on an objective in the beta testing and cleaned house.
Yeah, it's one of the things that has me reconsidering long-held opinions about the game. I've always been a "the game should be about playing the mission more than killing your opponent" guy. But I'm starting to think that maybe ITC was right to have both a hold and a kill primary. It rewarded you for putting at least some interactive elements in your list. Kill might not have been the only or best way to have an interactive primary, but I'm starting to think it's a mistake not to have any interactive element to the primary.
Looking at 9th, and committed to playing combat-based lists because that's just what I've always liked...all the strongest theory-crafted lists I'm coming up with are a variation on "just sit on objectives with massed ob-sec and 3 non-interactive secondaries and don't interact with the opponent unless they come onto you, and hope the game ends while you still have enough bodies to win the primary each turn." And that doesn't feel satisfying.
That said, it does appear that what we've seen are non-competitive missions and non-competitive secondaries. So the fact that these may (may - I could be totally wrong, it wouldn't be the first time) lead to a bad game when played competitively may just be because they aren't set up for that. Who knows, maybe the tournament mission pack and tournament secondaries will be amazing. Here's hoping.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2020/07/04 03:46:29
Well, GW seems to have caught it, hence the horde nerfs, so hopefully the extra lethality against them will prevent turtling styles from becoming meta.
It's hard to say though. Even with horde nerfs, MSU is mostly untouched, and it's just as easy to slap three ten-man cultist squads on an objective as it is to put down a 30-man.
Well, sort of. But what if it's just that it's a bad idea to have a game with fully non-interactive objectives (you can even take 3 non-interactive secondaries if you want, so you can have 5 objectives that are all non-interactive if you want)? Then it isn't really a question of how you price stuff - I mean, you can hammer into the ground to make it not work, but that's just brute forcing what is actually a design problem.
We'll see I guess. It's obviously early to be crying doom before the edition is even out. It's just got me a bit worried in my list-building stages that I can't find what I think is a good combat list that is interactive. I keep looking at stuff like what Siegler ran today and thinking "there is no way I can realistically go after that list with a combat list, it just isn't going to work, so the only alternative is to stop going after that list."
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/07/04 03:59:34
Makes sense really. The dam broke yesterday, so they can't exactly drip feed parts of rules to us anymore.
They could spend a week talking to the rules team and discussing changes and why each change was made, but that would make sense.
They're not that transparent with their rules writing. Apparently too thin skinned for criticism.
On the plus side, if this is the last bit of pr for 9th, maybe they'll finally start hyping up the new fw books. I'm been dying for those since they were announced at LVO (actually more like since the Indexes were released).
I've been waiting 2 years for them since FW let it slip that main studio had taken on new rules for 40k, I just hope they aren't hiding them because they are terribly underpowered and they know the reaction will be bad.
That's my fear as well. That and the negative reaction if they squat any fw armies (please don't squat my R&H).
I guess I don't understand, what is the difference between renegades and heretics and traitor guard?
Renegades and heretics are closer to being malformed pdf/underground resistances, with more mutants and various heretical additions. Like a Heretek backing an uprising with their machines-monstrosities. Or using xenos tech in conjunction with chaos magics?
Traitor Guard are generally just that, guard regiments that have turned traitor, taking all their standard equipment with them, though they may be aesthetically more chaos. They're still justy guard with a different coat of paint.
The R&H rules from IA 13 in 7th allowed you to build an army that would fit either of those descriptions. You could have traitor pdf, mutant rabble, veterans, even better veterans (grenadiers), hereteks, and more. The rule set allowed for loads of customization. Probably the most since csm 3.5. It was great. And they replaced it with the mess that we got in the fw Indexes.
I always wanted to do traitor guard who were dedicated to Khorne, can't remember what they were called but they were in the Ghaunt's Ghost's novels.
Makes sense really. The dam broke yesterday, so they can't exactly drip feed parts of rules to us anymore.
They could spend a week talking to the rules team and discussing changes and why each change was made, but that would make sense.
They're not that transparent with their rules writing. Apparently too thin skinned for criticism.
On the plus side, if this is the last bit of pr for 9th, maybe they'll finally start hyping up the new fw books. I'm been dying for those since they were announced at LVO (actually more like since the Indexes were released).
I've been waiting 2 years for them since FW let it slip that main studio had taken on new rules for 40k, I just hope they aren't hiding them because they are terribly underpowered and they know the reaction will be bad.
That's my fear as well. That and the negative reaction if they squat any fw armies (please don't squat my R&H).
I guess I don't understand, what is the difference between renegades and heretics and traitor guard?
Renegades and heretics are closer to being malformed pdf/underground resistances, with more mutants and various heretical additions. Like a Heretek backing an uprising with their machines-monstrosities. Or using xenos tech in conjunction with chaos magics?
Traitor Guard are generally just that, guard regiments that have turned traitor, taking all their standard equipment with them, though they may be aesthetically more chaos. They're still justy guard with a different coat of paint.
The R&H rules from IA 13 in 7th allowed you to build an army that would fit either of those descriptions. You could have traitor pdf, mutant rabble, veterans, even better veterans (grenadiers), hereteks, and more. The rule set allowed for loads of customization. Probably the most since csm 3.5. It was great. And they replaced it with the mess that we got in the fw Indexes.
I always wanted to do traitor guard who were dedicated to Khorne, can't remember what they were called but they were in the Ghaunt's Ghost's novels.
Eldar- 4436 pts
2000 Khorne Bloodbound (Skullfiend Tribe- Aqshy)
1000 Tzeentch Arcanites (Pyrofane Cult - Hysh) in progress
2000 Slaves to Darkness (Ravagers)
