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.

 sharkticon wrote:
I will say that I am a huge fan of the amount of wargear that dropped to zero point, and instead had their cost baked into the unit that uses it. It's going to make list building so much easier.

There's just enough that isn't dropped to 0 to make that not quite simple.
And some of it just outright _weird_.

A gauss blaster or tesla carbine is 0
Two gauss blasters or tesla carbines (on Tomb blades) are... also 0
But twin guass blasters or twin tesla carbines... those are 15. Despite being functionally identical to two.

And noise marines and warp talons are just sad, since they got a base price increase and still have to pay for their weapons, and sonic blasters also went up.

RedNoak wrote:
soooooo do we gits get the crown for the most nerfed unit yet?

grots went up 70% thats gotta win us an award, yes?

those naughty naughty gretchin... always breakin stuff...

Brimstone horrors are on the same boat.

RedNoak wrote:
soooooo do we gits get the crown for the most nerfed unit yet?

grots went up 70% thats gotta win us an award, yes?

those naughty naughty gretchin... always breakin stuff...

Nah. Necron Obelisk also went up, despite being voted 'Worst Unit' in various polls.
Also Stompa got a price hike.

Did Blackstone Fortress units get points updates? If not, I wonder how well the Ambull and Zoat now look as a possible Unaligned detachment.

Well looks like GW did the right thing and made the set available for everyone. Cudos on doing something right for once.

Voss wrote:

 sharkticon wrote:
I will say that I am a huge fan of the amount of wargear that dropped to zero point, and instead had their cost baked into the unit that uses it. It's going to make list building so much easier.

There's just enough that isn't dropped to 0 to make that not quite simple.
And some of it just outright _weird_.

A gauss blaster or tesla carbine is 0
Two gauss blasters or tesla carbines (on Tomb blades) are... also 0
But twin guass blasters or twin tesla carbines... those are 15. Despite being functionally identical to two.

This isn't correct, but it's due to a mistake in GWs wording. There is no such thing as twin gauss blasters or twin tesla carbines - no unit has them, nor do they appear in the codex. So the points cost for Immortals guns is 0, and the points for the Tomb Blades having two of them is 15.

RAW, assuming it actually says twin and not two in chapter approved, Tomb Blades don't pay for their guns and are now one of the most overpowered units in the game. But that is so supremely clearly not the intention that no one would let you play it that way.

It wouldn't be a Gee-dubs release without tons of oversights and errors that lead to playing RAW being broken.

To give another example, Harlequins' flip belts are broken RAW - it says you can move "through" models with them, but doesn't say you can move within 1" of enemy models with them, so you actually can't move through enemy models even though it says you can. The FLY keyword specifically addresses this, but the flip-belt rule (shared with some other stuff too, Necron Wraiths I think) doesn't.

How much did the 900 point Stompa go up again? It was absolutely hilarious before, but how about now?

IanVanCheese wrote:

Voss wrote:

 sharkticon wrote:
I will say that I am a huge fan of the amount of wargear that dropped to zero point, and instead had their cost baked into the unit that uses it. It's going to make list building so much easier.

There's just enough that isn't dropped to 0 to make that not quite simple.
And some of it just outright _weird_.

A gauss blaster or tesla carbine is 0
Two gauss blasters or tesla carbines (on Tomb blades) are... also 0
But twin guass blasters or twin tesla carbines... those are 15. Despite being functionally identical to two.

This isn't correct, but it's due to a mistake in GWs wording. There is no such thing as twin gauss blasters or twin tesla carbines - no unit has them, nor do they appear in the codex. So the points cost for Immortals guns is 0, and the points for the Tomb Blades having two of them is 15.

RAW, assuming it actually says twin and not two in chapter approved, Tomb Blades don't pay for their guns and are now one of the most overpowered units in the game. But that is so supremely clearly not the intention that no one would let you play it that way.

I mean, the Taunar dropped 300pts for this exact reason. If GW don'r faq this stuff out of CA, there's quite a few instances of them forgetting to bake things in, or forgetting that they already baked stuff in.

Example, chaos knight castellan: 730pts. Imperial knight castellan: 620

I just can’t wait to see the price on the mastodon. I never expected it to be competitive but I would enjoy building it,

Relatively minor complaint, but:

Why does a heavy stubber carried by a Chaos Cultist cost the same as an Ironhail heavy stubber on a SM vehicle?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:

Example, chaos knight castellan: 730pts. Imperial knight castellan: 620

Something, something, spike tax, right?

Edit : not the right place.

WhiteDog wrote:
What do you guys think about impulsor with the price hike ? I was thinking about buying one to carry and drop my hellblaster into the fray but I'm not so sure it's worth it anymore.

Whoa, it went up 25 points and the shield dome went up seven points! I know that as a Primaris player I shouldn't complain, but this particular price increase seems a tad excessive. Eh, I have one one my workbench, so I'll use it once it is completed, but I'm not in hurry to get more of them.

Still, on the scale of crazy things with these points this one barely registers.

Impulsors are one of the best units in the game in 9th for playing the mission. The points increase was totally justified, and they're still probably honestly too cheap for what they give you, unless the tournament mission pack is really different from the normal matched play missions.

The Dunecrawler can advance a full D6" now!

Yay!

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
Relatively minor complaint, but:

Why does a heavy stubber carried by a Chaos Cultist cost the same as an Ironhail heavy stubber on a SM vehicle?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:

Example, chaos knight castellan: 730pts. Imperial knight castellan: 620

Something, something, spike tax, right?

More like someone at GW decieded that adding up in not multiples of 5 was too hard, same reason a multilaser and stubber are both 5 points. And stubber and iron hail stubbers are both 5 points.

At least the multilaser isn't completely overshadowed by the bolter now. It's still bad, but at least it is cheap and bad.

Wait, so if I’m looking at warp talons correctly, there point cost went up 89% from 9 to 17, then have to buy their lighting claws on top of that, making them 27 points per model? JC, that makes them more expensive than a terminator with combi-bolter. Don’ want to panic, but looks like my Night Lords are dead another edition, Host Raptorial was good while it lasted I suppose.

The Warp Talon thing is another obvious proofreading error. I am 100% sure this one was spotted and flagged by playtesters too, and again GW just didn't bother to fix it.

Playtesting was supposed to be different this time around. They were supposed to listen to their testers and actually fix stuff.

So much for all that, apparently.

IanVanCheese wrote:

Voss wrote:

 sharkticon wrote:
I will say that I am a huge fan of the amount of wargear that dropped to zero point, and instead had their cost baked into the unit that uses it. It's going to make list building so much easier.

There's just enough that isn't dropped to 0 to make that not quite simple.
And some of it just outright _weird_.

A gauss blaster or tesla carbine is 0
Two gauss blasters or tesla carbines (on Tomb blades) are... also 0
But twin guass blasters or twin tesla carbines... those are 15. Despite being functionally identical to two.

This isn't correct, but it's due to a mistake in GWs wording. There is no such thing as twin gauss blasters or twin tesla carbines - no unit has them, nor do they appear in the codex. So the points cost for Immortals guns is 0, and the points for the Tomb Blades having two of them is 15.

RAW, assuming it actually says twin and not two in chapter approved, Tomb Blades don't pay for their guns and are now one of the most overpowered units in the game. But that is so supremely clearly not the intention that no one would let you play it that way.

Hmm. The wording may just be the summary. And you're right, it would make tomb blades cheaper than immortals.
But there's something really wrong with pricing one at 0 and two at <arbitrary value>, especially for something that's carried by a troop choice, as you can have 0 to 60 of them in a list with no problem.

Previously weapons were at zero when they were functionally unique (or nearly so) to a specific model, and the model bore the cost. Everything else had weapons priced as appropriate (or best approximation to appropriate). Now its even more a weird, awkward hybrid of both.

It was still so much easier when points were in the unit entry rather than flipping around in the book.

Bare in mind these books probably went to print a while ago. We got our army FAQs today, there will be a Chapter Approved FAQ on launch that fixes some/all of these things we're spotting now.

Hopefully.

 Vanican wrote:
Wait, so if I’m looking at warp talons correctly, there point cost went up 89% from 9 to 17, then have to buy their lighting claws on top of that, making them 27 points per model? JC, that makes them more expensive than a terminator with combi-bolter. Don’ want to panic, but looks like my Night Lords are dead another edition, Host Raptorial was good while it lasted I suppose.

Yeah, warp talons and noise marines got smacked twice. They're both way outside the bounds, so presumably it is a mistake.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
You've been almost bluntly told by GW that you shouldn't use skew lists and the game is designed for more balanced lists across the board for years, decades even.

Don't get salty now they have actually pushed to ensure that.

If grots were designed to be a full army, they'd have their own codex.

Time to suck it up and stop whinging and start playing the game in the way its intended, the time of unfluffy spam and skew is over.

You want ultra competitive specificity? Go play sports guys, this isn't that.

Except for the fact that Orc horde of bodies is fluffy but the only way to win with them is to park them on objectives, and never ever move forward to engage the enemy. "much fluff. much fun", do you ever get tired of being a white knight or does it actually energize you?
Edit: in an effort to be at least somewhat constructive: points should be used for balancing units and nothing else. If you want people to build fluffy armies write rules that encourage that, not just put a stupid price point on units you don't want them to take. At that point you might as well remove the option to take them completely.

IanVanCheese wrote:
Bare in mind these books probably went to print a while ago. We got our army FAQs today, there will be a Chapter Approved FAQ on launch that fixes some/all of these things we're spotting now.

Hopefully.

It's a nice theory. I hope you're right. Though very much at odds with the fact that the later PA books still don't have FAQs, in many cases months and months after the fact.

Last I checked fluff doesn’t win games, tactics and game play does.

If I want to be competitive, I deal with the competitive options,you won’t see me complaining that my librarian can’t dea, with 60 orks by himself

 Castozor wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
You've been almost bluntly told by GW that you shouldn't use skew lists and the game is designed for more balanced lists across the board for years, decades even.

Don't get salty now they have actually pushed to ensure that.

If grots were designed to be a full army, they'd have their own codex.

Time to suck it up and stop whinging and start playing the game in the way its intended, the time of unfluffy spam and skew is over.

You want ultra competitive specificity? Go play sports guys, this isn't that.

Except for the fact that Orc horde of bodies is fluffy but the only way to win with them is to park them on objectives, and never ever move forward to engage the enemy. "much fluff. much fun", do you ever get tired of being a white knight or does it actually energize you?
Edit: in an effort to be at least somewhat constructive: points should be used for balancing units and nothing else. If you want people to build fluffy armies write rules that encourage that, not just put a stupid price point on units you don't want them to take. At that point you might as well remove the option to take them completely.

And what about players who did want to use those options in a fluffy way, are they to just eat it and pay points for a strictly sub-par unit? It is an overt penalization to fluffy players, not supporting them.

yukishiro1 wrote:
It's a nice theory. I hope you're right. Though very much at odds with the fact that the later PA books still don't have FAQs, in many cases months and months after the fact.

But they were written with 9th in mind!!!!!!!!!!1

Even though they very clearly weren't.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Castozor wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
You've been almost bluntly told by GW that you shouldn't use skew lists and the game is designed for more balanced lists across the board for years, decades even.

Don't get salty now they have actually pushed to ensure that.

If grots were designed to be a full army, they'd have their own codex.

Time to suck it up and stop whinging and start playing the game in the way its intended, the time of unfluffy spam and skew is over.

You want ultra competitive specificity? Go play sports guys, this isn't that.

Except for the fact that Orc horde of bodies is fluffy but the only way to win with them is to park them on objectives, and never ever move forward to engage the enemy. "much fluff. much fun", do you ever get tired of being a white knight or does it actually energize you?
Edit: in an effort to be at least somewhat constructive: points should be used for balancing units and nothing else. If you want people to build fluffy armies write rules that encourage that, not just put a stupid price point on units you don't want them to take. At that point you might as well remove the option to take them completely.

And what about players who did want to use those options in a fluffy way, are they to just eat it and pay points for a strictly sub-par unit? It is an overt penalization to fluffy players, not supporting them.

You seem to misunderstand me, I have nothing against fluffy being a viable way to play the game, I'm against enforcing "fluffy" lists not by making them good to play but just by nerfing the unfluffy units into being unusable, see grots and CSM vs Cultist. Playing a "fluffy" greentide will still not play anything like it should but all we accomplished is kneecapping non-fluffy players too for no reason.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
It's a nice theory. I hope you're right. Though very much at odds with the fact that the later PA books still don't have FAQs, in many cases months and months after the fact.

But they were written with 9th in mind!!!!!!!!!!1

Even though they very clearly weren't.

Some obviously were, or else why do the Archaeopter datasheets have the AIRCRAFT keyword that didn't exist in 8th but does in 9th . They were just written with backwards compatibility for use in 8th and now need that removed via the FAQs.

 Castozor wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Castozor wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
You've been almost bluntly told by GW that you shouldn't use skew lists and the game is designed for more balanced lists across the board for years, decades even.

Don't get salty now they have actually pushed to ensure that.

If grots were designed to be a full army, they'd have their own codex.

Time to suck it up and stop whinging and start playing the game in the way its intended, the time of unfluffy spam and skew is over.

You want ultra competitive specificity? Go play sports guys, this isn't that.

Except for the fact that Orc horde of bodies is fluffy but the only way to win with them is to park them on objectives, and never ever move forward to engage the enemy. "much fluff. much fun", do you ever get tired of being a white knight or does it actually energize you?
Edit: in an effort to be at least somewhat constructive: points should be used for balancing units and nothing else. If you want people to build fluffy armies write rules that encourage that, not just put a stupid price point on units you don't want them to take. At that point you might as well remove the option to take them completely.

And what about players who did want to use those options in a fluffy way, are they to just eat it and pay points for a strictly sub-par unit? It is an overt penalization to fluffy players, not supporting them.

You seem to misunderstand me, I have nothing against fluffy being a viable way to play the game, I'm against enforcing "fluffy" lists not by making them good to play but just by nerfing the unfluffy units into being unusable, see grots and CSM vs Cultist. Playing a "fluffy" greentide will still not play anything like it should but all we accomplished is kneecapping non-fluffy players too for no reason.

I am agreeing with you. Should have been more clear, apologies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
It's a nice theory. I hope you're right. Though very much at odds with the fact that the later PA books still don't have FAQs, in many cases months and months after the fact.

But they were written with 9th in mind!!!!!!!!!!1

Even though they very clearly weren't.

I am surprised you of all people would overestimate GW's capabilities so much. When they write rules for a current edition it usually needs a bunch of FAQs, we have no reason to expect rules written for a future edition would not be the same.