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.

@Zion
You understand that MSU was already a thing, riiiiiiiiiiiiight? Some armies(looking at you Guard that aren't running Scions...there's probably more but I don't have the familiarity with all of the books that I used to) can't do it, but the armies that can't are few and far between.

This whole "Blast" stuff was unnecessary as introduced. End of story. Your continued insistence that it's healthy for the game and that "the numbers show it's fine!" is just mindblowingly absurd.
Numbers don't show everything and they never will...especially when you choose to just focus on one aspect that you like.

Go run the numbers on a 12 model unit of Kataphron Breachers or Destroyers. A 20 model unit of either Electro-Priests.
And then come back and tell me that this whole nonsense is "okay because the numbers show it's fine!".

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
I mean most Tyranid lists are not running 180 gants lol that’s an extremely unpopular way of playing the game. But in one of my opening posts I specified that I would have enough slots to run them all as 10 man units, so convince me why running them as 30 man units is anything but stupid. So if your argument is just that it’s only smart to run them in 30 man units if I don’t have the slots to run them as 10 man units, well yeah, that’s the argument being made really.

If you're not buffing them at all, and you're not supporting them and just throwing 30 bodies on the board I'm not sure what you're trying to do with them you couldn't do with some Ripper swarms instead to be honest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
@Zion
You understand that MSU was already a thing, riiiiiiiiiiiiight? Some armies(looking at you Guard that aren't running Scions...there's probably more but I don't have the familiarity with all of the books that I used to) can't do it, but the armies that can't are few and far between.

This whole "Blast" stuff was unnecessary as introduced. End of story. Your continued insistence that it's healthy for the game and that "the numbers show it's fine!" is just mindblowingly absurd.
Numbers don't show everything and they never will.

Oh I know it's a thing, but some armies do MSU well, some don't. T3 bodies running MSU has been reliant on running lots of squads to get around the squish factor, something that costs CP now. CP you probably want to spend on other things since the game caps you at 17 normally, and 22 if you can regen 1 CP each turn. So most armies are going to need to be running 1 detachment to really benefit from their limited CP pool. which means not running MSU unless they're trying to give up the objectives they're trying to hold.

And your instance of trying to debunk statistics with opinion is hardly the silver bullet of an argument you think it is.

Oh now we're at the "but it costs CP now!" stage of the argument?

Remember that the different types of Detachments didn't go away. Just the number of Detachments you can take in various point scales.

Oh, and while we're at it?

The Command Points are locked at points values too.


And you get refunded the CP if your Warlord is from the Detachment in question.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
I mean most Tyranid lists are not running 180 gants lol that’s an extremely unpopular way of playing the game. But in one of my opening posts I specified that I would have enough slots to run them all as 10 man units, so convince me why running them as 30 man units is anything but stupid. So if your argument is just that it’s only smart to run them in 30 man units if I don’t have the slots to run them as 10 man units, well yeah, that’s the argument being made really.

If you're not buffing them at all, and you're not supporting them and just throwing 30 bodies on the board I'm not sure what you're trying to do with them you couldn't do with some Ripper swarms instead to be honest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
@Zion
You understand that MSU was already a thing, riiiiiiiiiiiiight? Some armies(looking at you Guard that aren't running Scions...there's probably more but I don't have the familiarity with all of the books that I used to) can't do it, but the armies that can't are few and far between.

This whole "Blast" stuff was unnecessary as introduced. End of story. Your continued insistence that it's healthy for the game and that "the numbers show it's fine!" is just mindblowingly absurd.
Numbers don't show everything and they never will.

Oh I know it's a thing, but some armies do MSU well, some don't. T3 bodies running MSU has been reliant on running lots of squads to get around the squish factor, something that costs CP now. CP you probably want to spend on other things since the game caps you at 17 normally, and 22 if you can regen 1 CP each turn. So most armies are going to need to be running 1 detachment to really benefit from their limited CP pool. which means not running MSU unless they're trying to give up the objectives they're trying to hold.

And your instance of trying to debunk statistics with opinion is hardly the silver bullet of an argument you think it is.

I'll be honest, with 12 troops, 6 elites, 6 fast, and 6 heavy support I am not struggling to build MSU lists for 9th with still having 12 cp.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
I mean most Tyranid lists are not running 180 gants lol that’s an extremely unpopular way of playing the game. But in one of my opening posts I specified that I would have enough slots to run them all as 10 man units, so convince me why running them as 30 man units is anything but stupid. So if your argument is just that it’s only smart to run them in 30 man units if I don’t have the slots to run them as 10 man units, well yeah, that’s the argument being made really.

If you're not buffing them at all, and you're not supporting them and just throwing 30 bodies on the board I'm not sure what you're trying to do with them you couldn't do with some Ripper swarms instead to be honest.

When did I say anything about 30 bodies? I’m running 90 bodies in a brigade. And where did you get the idea that I’m not supporting them? What do you think the role of Termagants is mate? And Even if I was running 30, no Rippers do not cover the same amount of space, soak as much fire, contest objectives from other GEQ as well, tarpit as well, and in the event of a horde list they would get shredded by any multi damage weapons that would be otherwise wasted. But this is just basic Tyranid stuff at this point, I think it’s safe to say you’re not really familiar with this army, which is fine, but it’s time to admit you were wrong.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Oh now we're at the "but it costs CP now!" stage of the argument?

Remember that the different types of Detachments didn't go away. Just the number of Detachments you can take.

Funny how you move the goal posts and go "what about the morale!" but when I point out that your MSU argument circles leads to a CP cost you try and act like I'm moving goalposts when I'm pointing out a serious flaw in your position.

And yes, those detachments do exist, but they cost CP. You're likely to run out of slots in a single detachment to run MSU hordes. MSU Elites like Custodes get to bank on being expensive to allow them to fill up an army without even breaking a Patrol detachment if they like, but hordes need all the slots they can get, which means the more units they run the more slots you need, which means more CP spent on at least one extra detachment. That or you're going to need to try and cram a Brigade into the game at 2k or less points to have enough troops slots since a majority of horde units are troops.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
I mean most Tyranid lists are not running 180 gants lol that’s an extremely unpopular way of playing the game. But in one of my opening posts I specified that I would have enough slots to run them all as 10 man units, so convince me why running them as 30 man units is anything but stupid. So if your argument is just that it’s only smart to run them in 30 man units if I don’t have the slots to run them as 10 man units, well yeah, that’s the argument being made really.

If you're not buffing them at all, and you're not supporting them and just throwing 30 bodies on the board I'm not sure what you're trying to do with them you couldn't do with some Ripper swarms instead to be honest.

When did I say anything about 30 bodies? I’m running 90 bodies in a brigade. And where did you get the idea that I’m not supporting them? What do you think the role of Termagants is mate? And Even if I was running 30, no Rippers do not cover the same amount of space, soak as much fire, contest objectives from other GEQ, tarpit as well, and in the event of a horde list they would get shredded by any multi damage weapons that would be otherwise wasted. But this is just basic Tyranid stuff at this point, I think it’s safe to say you’re not really familiar with this army, which is fine, but it’s time to admit you were wrong.

See, I asked how many we were talking about earlier. Because just 30 bodies? Yeah, that doesn't work on any level. 90 bodies. You can run 3x30, or 9x10. Problem is 9x10 costs CP. And extra HQs.

I was talking about running Rippers instead of 3x10 because the only thing I could think you'd want to do with those MSUs was cap objectives on your side of the board.

And last I played Nids was 4th, before they took all the fun out of the book, so maybe I don't know the optimal way to play them now, but that wasn't the question. Your question, with no other context, was why would you play a unit of 30 Termagaunts. Then it was why would you use them if you're not buffing them in any way. I only answered based on what little I knew.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
I mean most Tyranid lists are not running 180 gants lol that’s an extremely unpopular way of playing the game. But in one of my opening posts I specified that I would have enough slots to run them all as 10 man units, so convince me why running them as 30 man units is anything but stupid. So if your argument is just that it’s only smart to run them in 30 man units if I don’t have the slots to run them as 10 man units, well yeah, that’s the argument being made really.

If you're not buffing them at all, and you're not supporting them and just throwing 30 bodies on the board I'm not sure what you're trying to do with them you couldn't do with some Ripper swarms instead to be honest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
@Zion
You understand that MSU was already a thing, riiiiiiiiiiiiight? Some armies(looking at you Guard that aren't running Scions...there's probably more but I don't have the familiarity with all of the books that I used to) can't do it, but the armies that can't are few and far between.

This whole "Blast" stuff was unnecessary as introduced. End of story. Your continued insistence that it's healthy for the game and that "the numbers show it's fine!" is just mindblowingly absurd.
Numbers don't show everything and they never will.

Oh I know it's a thing, but some armies do MSU well, some don't. T3 bodies running MSU has been reliant on running lots of squads to get around the squish factor, something that costs CP now. CP you probably want to spend on other things since the game caps you at 17 normally, and 22 if you can regen 1 CP each turn. So most armies are going to need to be running 1 detachment to really benefit from their limited CP pool. which means not running MSU unless they're trying to give up the objectives they're trying to hold.

And your instance of trying to debunk statistics with opinion is hardly the silver bullet of an argument you think it is.

I'll be honest, with 12 troops, 6 elites, 6 fast, and 6 heavy support I am not struggling to build MSU lists for 9th with still having 12 cp.

For which army? Because some armies can't go the brigade route, which means they do have to spend CP to MSU their hordes, so I'm curious which one you're talking about.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Oh now we're at the "but it costs CP now!" stage of the argument?

Remember that the different types of Detachments didn't go away. Just the number of Detachments you can take.

Funny how you move the goal posts and go "what about the morale!" but when I point out that your MSU argument circles leads to a CP cost you try and act like I'm moving goalposts when I'm pointing out a serious flaw in your position.

You're the one who threw the numbers out there and ignored that your numbers were just looking at the straight shooting. You literally cannot take multiple Detachments at low point values, but you can take MSU and Blast at all point values.

Sure, you can argue that I'm moving goalposts if you want--but it doesn't change the fact that Blast weapons vs large sized units are going to rely upon Morale and Attrition as a part of how they function.

And yes, those detachments do exist, but they cost CP. You're likely to run out of slots in a single detachment to run MSU hordes. MSU Elites like Custodes get to bank on being expensive to allow them to fill up an army without even breaking a Patrol detachment if they like, but hordes need all the slots they can get, which means the more units they run the more slots you need, which means more CP spent on at least one extra detachment. That or you're going to need to try and cram a Brigade into the game at 2k or less points to have enough troops slots since a majority of horde units are troops.

Electro-Priests are 'Horde units'(can be taken in units of up to 20) and are Elites.

Custodes are an elite army, not necessarily Elites.
Fun fact: did you know their Troops choice starts at 3 models, according to GW's Combat Roster?
A single Custodes Guardian box has this to say:

This multi-part plastic kit contains the components necessary to assemble a set of 5 Adeptus Custodes Custodian Guard, armed with either guardian spears or sentinel blades and storm shields. 1 model can be assembled as a Shield-Captain, featuring a cloak and choice of 2 heads, and 1 can be assembled as a Vexilus Praetors, carrying Custodes Vexilla.

That translates, gamewise, to this:


Mind you, that is one box of Custodes meeting(heck, exceeding with the Vexilus Praetor!) your Patrol requirement for 9E.

Kan, I honestly don't even get the argument you're trying to make at this point.

Keep beating your drum I guess.

It doesn’t cost CP or HQs. Why would a Nid list ever run less than 3 HQ?

The other real question is why WOULD I be buffing Termagants? If this niche ass idea of buffing a 30man squad of Termagants, that hasn’t come up for me in a decade of playing Nids is the only thing to offset taking significant extra casualties from blast, then yeah that argument is as poor as it sounds. In general, this rule just pushes the faction into running 10 man MSU which is pretty lame. But whatever you’re clearly NEVER going to admit that so maybe we’ll take a look at this once the meta develops. I’m sure even then it will be that everyone else is doing it wrong, but we’ll get there when we get there

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Kan, I honestly don't even get the argument you're trying to make at this point.

Keep beating your drum I guess.

Nope. You chose to bring up Command Points being a limiting factor for running MSUs.

Prove it.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Kan, I honestly don't even get the argument you're trying to make at this point.

Keep beating your drum I guess.

Nope. You chose to bring up Command Points being a limiting factor for running MSUs.

Prove it.

Nah. I've wasted hours on this already and you've shown you won't budge, you just move goalposts and fail to bring up any evidence of anything you've claimed.

So have a good one. I've got better things to worry about than trying to change your mind at this point.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Kan, I honestly don't even get the argument you're trying to make at this point.

Keep beating your drum I guess.

Nope. You chose to bring up Command Points being a limiting factor for running MSUs.

Prove it.

Nah. I've wasted hours on this already and you've shown you won't budge, you just move goalposts and fail to bring up any evidence of anything you've claimed.

So have a good one. I've got better things to worry about than trying to change your mind at this point.

You and Kanluwen are what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Kan, I honestly don't even get the argument you're trying to make at this point.

Keep beating your drum I guess.

Nope. You chose to bring up Command Points being a limiting factor for running MSUs.

Prove it.

Nah. I've wasted hours on this already and you've shown you won't budge, you just move goalposts and fail to bring up any evidence of anything you've claimed.

So have a good one. I've got better things to worry about than trying to change your mind at this point.

You and Kanluwen are what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object

Nah, I'm not stubborn enough to claim to be either. And maybe I'm wrong, but I took the time to try and work out what I'm actually looking at in the game instead of just saying "well, we're all playing MSU now!" I look forward to 9th as it shakes out and will likely be running maxed squads of Guardians and Aspects unless I find it somehow pays out to not do so.

I mean this in the nicest way possible, but you're the one who keeps throwing nothing but numbers out.

You're refusing to acknowledge that statistics alone aren't the end-all, be-all. This is the reason I continually will harp upon ANYONE who does nothing but post spreadsheets.

You couldn't even acknowledge that you need to factor Morale and Attrition in when talking about Shooting Attacks without claiming that it was "moving goalposts". It's not like I was asking you to bring in leadership modifiers or attrition modifiers.
A basic thing like the test a unit has to take after losing models should be factored in if you're going to claim the numbers matter. Or at least a basic acknowledgement made.

And then you went and gave some silly examples of a Wyvern firing at Guardians and a LRBT firing at Grots...who's taking LRBTs against Grots but no Wyverns?
The thing was custom-made for screwing with Orks.

Keep saying that my argument has been "well, we're all playing MSU now!". That alone has been funny. My argument is and always has been that this has done nothing to actually encourage some of these previously underperforming weapons.

And to further add to it?
It's done nothing but add another silly 'gatekeeping check' to any kind of organized event play.

The only reason I used mathhammer was because it helps create realistic expectations of what we can see on the table.

And I used those numbers for morale because they were nice and round and in both cases the unit was auto-failing morale checks. I was doing quick math in my head, not trying to spend more hours crunching numbers on morale.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
The only reason I used mathhammer was because it helps create realistic expectations of what we can see on the table.

And I used those numbers for morale because they were nice and round and in both cases the unit was auto-failing morale checks. I was doing quick math in my head, not trying to spend more hours crunching numbers on morale.

And that's the whole issue for me.

You didn't factor those numbers in to start with. You had to use "quick math in your head", rather than having incorporated those numbers in the first place while espousing how great the numbers are...and even then you chose two wildly different platforms to compare rather than using the same for both!

A Wyvern and its 4(minimum of all 1s vs sub-6 models or assuming you roll a 1 plus you get the 3 'free' shots for targeting a 6+ model unit) 3+D6(assuming you're targeting a 6+ model unit) to 24 shots(rolling all 6s or targeting an 11+ model unit) vs a Leman Russ and its 1-3-6 shots is a huge difference to be seeing when comparing a sub-6 model unit, a 6-10 model unit, and an 11+ model unit.

I understand that you can't necessarily math out every single exchange and that obviously you use averages, but that your averages didn't work out the morale bit to start with? It's silly when presenting it as the "end all, be all".

Not if the piece of work you're doing is "how many models will I kill by firing this weapon/unit at this target" - after all, odds are you're not firing a each unit at different targets, but you need a rough idea of how much damage will be done to determine which combination of units are likely to do sufficient damage to a target on average.

In the general case, once you've killed n models from a unit (where n is the unit's Leadership), the only other relevant factor is whether you did enough damage to get the unit below less than half the size it started the game at. 1/6 times nothing happens (as 1's pass Morale automatically), 5/6 times 1 model is removed. Of that 5/6, either 1/6 or 1/3 of the remaining models are removed, depending on if the damage done that turn (not just from one unit).

You could model that, but it'd be messy.

I do find it amusing that the Wyvern gets no benefit from Blast for shooting at a unit of 6-10 models, despite dropping, what, 4 small Blast templates in 7th edition. Big benefit at 11+, though, for sure.

Lovely discussion going on, but I would like to point out 2 wrong statements that have been said in this thread:

1) 10 men marine units are not affected by blasts because they can split in 5x2.

If you split in 5x2 due to blasts, you have already been affected. Your intercessors stratagems just became half as effective. That hurts more than a lot of people think.

2) The values are arbitrary and dont' make sense.

False. The way it has been implemented is actually quite nice and well represents how blasts used to works with templates. Between one and five models you don't present any kind of easier target. 6 models are slightly more affected than, and 6 is slightly less affected than 7, and so on until 10. 11 is a bit more affected than 10, and 12 models suffer blasts more than 11...
Seems quite fine, it scales decently well with the amount of models in the unit.

You shoot with 5 plasma cannons at 5 intercessors? You score ten shots.
You fire 5 plasma cannons at 6 intercessors? You score around twelve shots.
You fire 5 plasma cannons at 7 intercessors? You score around fourteen shots.

Don't see a problem with tresholds.

This blast system shows some flaws only when you shoot with weapons with high numbers of dices at units which are just above 5 of 10 models, but we are talking about edge cases. The system is fine 99% of the time.

Spoletta wrote:
Lovely discussion going on, but I would like to point out 2 wrong statements that have been said in this thread:

1) 10 men marine units are not affected by blasts because they can split in 5x2.

If you split in 5x2 due to blasts, you have already been affected. Your intercessors stratagems just became half as effective. That hurts more than a lot of people think.

2) The values are arbitrary and dont' make sense.

False. The way it has been implemented is actually quite nice and well represents how blasts used to works with templates. Between one and five models you don't present any kind of easier target. 6 models are slightly more affected than, and 6 is slightly less affected than 7, and so on until 10. 11 is a bit more affected than 10, and 12 models suffer blasts more than 11...
Seems quite fine, it scales decently well with the amount of models in the unit.

You shoot with 5 plasma cannons at 5 intercessors? You score ten shots.
You fire 5 plasma cannons at 6 intercessors? You score around twelve shots.
You fire 5 plasma cannons at 7 intercessors? You score around fourteen shots.

Don't see a problem with tresholds.

Not really. You could spread out just fine whether your squad had three members or thirty. If you had thirty, a blast template was basically guaranteed to hit SOME of your squad, but not necessarily any more than a five-man squad on a direct hit-scatter was less punishing, but the overall hits were not.

But it COULD delete multiple squads, or at least hit multiple squads. I see nothing allowing that now.

A wyvern was barrage if my memory serves right, so it could easily get 20 [u[hits[/u] even against a properly spaced out unit of boyz and was almost guaranteed to vaporize them if they were clumped up after combat or from a chokepoint.

Now we are talking about 24 shots, not hits, so sorry for not being terrified of something like that. If wyverns are the worst the blast unit has to offer, it will not have an impact on how many boyz or pox walkers I will bring in a unit.

I'd also like to point out that the thread went from "blasts are the end of horde units" to "wyverns are the end of termagants". I hope you made sure you have raised your banners high on all those goalposts.

Wyverns are probably the most extreme example of Blast, and probably the one most-optimized towards killing hordes.

Blast takes them from an average of 5.19 Cultists killed to 8.9 Cultists killed. A whole three-and-a-half extra Cultists.

1D6 weapons getting a minimum of 3 against 6-10 model units sounds powerful. But in practice your average goes from 3.5 to 4, so it's less impactful than re-rolling 1s. D3 shots weapons are obviously much better against units of 6-10, but they get nothing against hordes, and all the ones I've seen have shot up in cost considerably.

Plus, people seem to be fixating solely on the increase in shots. This ignores that Blast weapons have gone up in cost, they don't get to shoot in melee on vehicles (so, shutting down vehicles by charging them is still a thing), and the ones that are great against 6-10 model units get nothing extra against hordes, while the ones great against hordes get nothing against 6-10 model units. Blast weapons seem pretty specialized against very particular unit types, and pay for it. Overhauling armies to try to avoid Blast altogether seems extreme.

But I mean if people want to go full MSU- gut their stratagem efficiency, reduce the number of models I need to kill to target their characters, and make it harder to keep their units in buff range- all to avoid me getting a miniscule buff on the Plasma Cannons, Missile Launchers, and Grenade Launchers that I'm not taking because they now cost too much for what they do, well, more power to them. It'll help against my Battle Cannons, I guess.

The whole thing seems really overblown to me. Especially when the nature of the game means that TAC lists lean towards killing Marines, not hordes.

When I briefly compared the more significant blast weapons and the cost increases they seemed to roughly correlate damage increase to cost increase. Roughly. So for example instead of 3 TFCs I can expect to see 1-2 with better output against medium to larger units.
Personally I'm not really concerned and I will still run large units including returning to max size cultists and tzaangors again. I feel the weight of obsec is worth it alone besides other reasons. Also consider many blast weapon carriers do not control board space which is something 9th edition punishes so I feel there will be a reduction in the more static units anyway.

Early to tell but that's my impression so far.

 Jidmah wrote:
A wyvern was barrage if my memory serves right, so it could easily get 20 [u[hits[/u] even against a properly spaced out unit of boyz and was almost guaranteed to vaporize them if they were clumped up after combat or from a chokepoint.

Now we are talking about 24 shots, not hits, so sorry for not being terrified of something like that. If wyverns are the worst the blast unit has to offer, it will not have an impact on how many boyz or pox walkers I will bring in a unit.

I'd also like to point out that the thread went from "blasts are the end of horde units" to "wyverns are the end of termagants". I hope you made sure you have raised your banners high on all those goalposts.

Who are you talking to? I’m the only person making it about Termagants, because I asked a personal question relevant to my army, and I only joined the thread a few pages ago. Perhaps you should take a look at what goalposts you have chosen to hang YOUR banner on here.

 Jidmah wrote:
Now we are talking about 24 shots, not hits, so sorry for not being terrified of something like that. If wyverns are the worst the blast unit has to offer, it will not have an impact on how many boyz or pox walkers I will bring in a unit.

I'd also like to point out that the thread went from "blasts are the end of horde units" to "wyverns are the end of termagants". I hope you made sure you have raised your banners high on all those goalposts.

Good for you, I hope to see some big mobs around as well and that things don't devolve into all Mek Gunz all the time. I wish you good luck getting it to work because the game seems to have made a lot of changes to hurt you, blast is just one of those. With nerfed SAGs and tagging no longer working on vehicles I think you'll be in hell against Dakkabots and Punisher Tanks with Orks especially, but maybe you guys can brew up a counter for that. The first few posts in the thread were all about how it was all pts and mission dependent and we couldn't draw hasty conclusions about blasts wiping or not wiping hordes from the meta. For me I have been wishing for blasts for quite some time, I think it's a great idea and the rule seems to have just the right amount of impact, I just don't like the time it has come, with morale being the only windfall for big units and fighting units on top of fences and ruins being the only buff for melee considering many competitive events engineered their terrain around 8th having poor terrain rules, better terrain rules will mostly help what was bad terrain in 8th be effective terrain in 9th.

How did SAGs get nerfed? Or are we talking about the restriction of the relic SAG from competetive play?

 ClockworkZion wrote:
How did SAGs get nerfed? Or are we talking about the restriction of the relic SAG from competetive play?

massive pricehike on the regular aswell..

Not Online!!! wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
How did SAGs get nerfed? Or are we talking about the restriction of the relic SAG from competetive play?

massive pricehike on the regular aswell..

Ah, gotcha. I haven't kept up 100% on all the points changes.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
How did SAGs get nerfed? Or are we talking about the restriction of the relic SAG from competetive play?

massive pricehike on the regular aswell..

Ah, gotcha. I haven't kept up 100% on all the points changes.

Atm it ain't funny beeing an Ork and i still have some heart for them left beeing my starting army.

 Dysartes wrote:
Not if the piece of work you're doing is "how many models will I kill by firing this weapon/unit at this target" - after all, odds are you're not firing a each unit at different targets, but you need a rough idea of how much damage will be done to determine which combination of units are likely to do sufficient damage to a target on average.

In the general case, once you've killed n models from a unit (where n is the unit's Leadership), the only other relevant factor is whether you did enough damage to get the unit below less than half the size it started the game at. 1/6 times nothing happens (as 1's pass Morale automatically), 5/6 times 1 model is removed. Of that 5/6, either 1/6 or 1/3 of the remaining models are removed, depending on if the damage done that turn (not just from one unit).

You could model that, but it'd be messy.

I do find it amusing that the Wyvern gets no benefit from Blast for shooting at a unit of 6-10 models, despite dropping, what, 4 small Blast templates in 7th edition. Big benefit at 11+, though, for sure.

I guess in a mathematical sense, morale is just a further boost to the most efficient weapons - because the most efficient weapons should kill more than less efficient weapons, which means your opponent should fail more morale tests.
But this is offset by the fact dead units can't run away.

But I'm not really sure what adding morale proves really, since as you say, finding what kills stuff efficiently is the aim of the exercise, and since you would tend to shoot with more than one unit, you have to come up with nearly infinite examples to work out the odds.

I stand by my view that Wyverns (certainly 3 of them) are going to be too bad against MSU power armour to be meta viable. Having a big disadvantage in probably 50%+ of games, just to have a big advantage in a few game if someone brings mass boyz, stealers or pre-kill fulgurites, isn't sensible.

But then maybe GW have managed to create a balanced game where you want to be running a soft highlander style list. (Press X for doubt.)
Could be wrong though.

Well. i dont know about the rest of the horde armies, but Orks at least, are going to suck.

The faction in 8th was mediocre but now with all the changes and point changes they're being hit real hard with the nerf hammer for no apparent reason.


Ive heard that the Tyranids were nerfed. pretty hard with the point changes too.