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.

Obscuring terrain is going to help them a lot. You could just sit them behind a feature towards the middle of the board and wait for a good target to enter their 30" threat range.

Specialy as objectives have to be outside of area terrain.

Ok, so the more that I look at these points the angrier I seem to get. Well, sometimes anger and sometimes disappointment.

I tend to be one of the calmer, less reactionary, types around here. But looking at these points they seem extremely low effort and pretty much a draft copy. As if they are the first pass at inflating the points, without the refinement that you should add later.

I'm not annoyed too much at particular increases or decreases, I'm used to meta changes and such. However, the way that certain pieces of equipment have all been set to the same points seems really telling. To cite an example that I am familiar with: Guard infantry weapons. The flamer, grenade launcher, metla and plasma have all become 5 points. There is no way that all those options are the same. The entire point of the grenade launcher is that it is a cheap alternative. This suggests to me either a lack of care, effort, ability, or time.

Ugh, I could rant about this but I think most of my points will have been made by others. I thought I would just put it here to express my disappointment.

 Trickstick wrote:
Ok, so the more that I look at these points the angrier I seem to get. Well, sometimes anger and sometimes disappointment.

I tend to be one of the calmer, less reactionary, types around here. But looking at these points they seem extremely low effort and pretty much a draft copy. As if they are the first pass at inflating the points, without the refinement that you should add later.

I'm not annoyed too much at particular increases or decreases, I'm used to meta changes and such. However, the way that certain pieces of equipment have all been set to the same points seems really telling. To cite an example that I am familiar with: Guard infantry weapons. The flamer, grenade launcher, metla and plasma have all become 5 points. There is no way that all those options are the same. The entire point of the grenade launcher is that it is a cheap alternative. This suggests to me either a lack of care, effort, ability, or time.

Ugh, I could rant about this but I think most of my points will have been made by others. I thought I would just put it here to express my disappointment.

Yeah, the Goonhammer review was pretty spot-on, I think - some specific and needed changes, but mostly formulaic adjustments that removed years of internal balancing and fine-tuning in the name of... what? Round numbers?

There are other similar examples....a Venom Blade used to be a cheap (2pts) Drukhari option, as opposed to the the more impressive/expensive Huskblade (6pts).

Now they are both 5pts, but the stats are unchanged.

 Trickstick wrote:
Ok, so the more that I look at these points the angrier I seem to get. Well, sometimes anger and sometimes disappointment.

I tend to be one of the calmer, less reactionary, types around here. But looking at these points they seem extremely low effort and pretty much a draft copy. As if they are the first pass at inflating the points, without the refinement that you should add later.

I'm not annoyed too much at particular increases or decreases, I'm used to meta changes and such. However, the way that certain pieces of equipment have all been set to the same points seems really telling. To cite an example that I am familiar with: Guard infantry weapons. The flamer, grenade launcher, metla and plasma have all become 5 points. There is no way that all those options are the same. The entire point of the grenade launcher is that it is a cheap alternative. This suggests to me either a lack of care, effort, ability, or time.

Ugh, I could rant about this but I think most of my points will have been made by others. I thought I would just put it here to express my disappointment.

Yeah. I can understand getting balance of new units like Eradicators wrong, as annoying as it might be. But this flattening of the weapon costs just seems like intentional sabotage. I really can't understand why it was done.

 catbarf wrote:

Seabass wrote:
Well, a 120 point unit should probably have a decent chance of killing a 115 point model, shouldn't it?

Absolutely not- unless you think an army should have a decent chance of tabling an equivalent points army in one Shooting Phase, which is what that boils down to.

Can you name some other anti-tank infantry that reliably kill their own points' worth of vehicles in one attack? Or just infantry in general that get a 100% return against their preferred target? Bonus points if they're not Marines.

Seabass wrote:
They killed a Carnifex. They then got overran and eaten.

A Carnifex costs as much as they do in 9th. A Carnifex has fewer wounds, albeit at slightly higher T, and is more vulnerable to multi-damage weapons. There is no Carnifex build that reliably makes back its points in one round of melee, let alone one round of shooting at 24".

The Eradicators shoot once and then it's all gravy. They absolutely have to be killed before they have a chance to shoot, they have the range to hit anything that leaves its deployment zone, they can move and fire without penalty (so can hide out of LOS to start), and they're not that squishy either. There is not a single infantry model in the game that compares favorably- put them side-by-side with Kataphron Breachers or Wraithguard and it's like a bad joke. Then put them in the context of being in an army with easy access to re-rolls to hit and to-wound, and it gets even worse.

I am continually amazed that there are people defending this, and especially the glib statements like 'it's just that melta has always sucked' or 'well they're not that hard to kill' or 'but it costs me CP to make them even better by outflanking' or 'they're not guaranteed to make back their points' or- and this is my personal favorite- 'my army is already so overpowered that I'd still rather just take Eliminators'.

I guess People like to play cheesy broken units in their own army.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Seabass wrote:
Well, a 120 point unit should probably have a decent chance of killing a 115 point model, shouldn't it?

Absolutely not- unless you think an army should have a decent chance of tabling an equivalent points army in one Shooting Phase, which is what that boils down to.

Can you name some other anti-tank infantry that reliably kill their own points' worth of vehicles in one attack? Or just infantry in general that get a 100% return against their preferred target? Bonus points if they're not Marines.

Seabass wrote:
They killed a Carnifex. They then got overran and eaten.

A Carnifex costs as much as they do in 9th. A Carnifex has fewer wounds, albeit at slightly higher T, and is more vulnerable to multi-damage weapons. There is no Carnifex build that reliably makes back its points in one round of melee, let alone one round of shooting at 24".

The Eradicators shoot once and then it's all gravy. They absolutely have to be killed before they have a chance to shoot, they have the range to hit anything that leaves its deployment zone, they can move and fire without penalty (so can hide out of LOS to start), and they're not that squishy either. There is not a single infantry model in the game that compares favorably- put them side-by-side with Kataphron Breachers or Wraithguard and it's like a bad joke. Then put them in the context of being in an army with easy access to re-rolls to hit and to-wound, and it gets even worse.

I am continually amazed that there are people defending this, and especially the glib statements like 'it's just that melta has always sucked' or 'well they're not that hard to kill' or 'but it costs me CP to make them even better by outflanking' or 'they're not guaranteed to make back their points' or- and this is my personal favorite- 'my army is already so overpowered that I'd still rather just take Eliminators'.

I guess People like to play cheesy broken units in their own army.

As your signature says, you're a marine player.

Archebius wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
Ok, so the more that I look at these points the angrier I seem to get. Well, sometimes anger and sometimes disappointment.

I tend to be one of the calmer, less reactionary, types around here. But looking at these points they seem extremely low effort and pretty much a draft copy. As if they are the first pass at inflating the points, without the refinement that you should add later.

I'm not annoyed too much at particular increases or decreases, I'm used to meta changes and such. However, the way that certain pieces of equipment have all been set to the same points seems really telling. To cite an example that I am familiar with: Guard infantry weapons. The flamer, grenade launcher, metla and plasma have all become 5 points. There is no way that all those options are the same. The entire point of the grenade launcher is that it is a cheap alternative. This suggests to me either a lack of care, effort, ability, or time.

Ugh, I could rant about this but I think most of my points will have been made by others. I thought I would just put it here to express my disappointment.

Yeah, the Goonhammer review was pretty spot-on, I think - some specific and needed changes, but mostly formulaic adjustments that removed years of internal balancing and fine-tuning in the name of... what? Round numbers?

Nobody seems to have any clue. I've yet to see a single person venture a convincing explanation for why this normalization and rounding to 5 points was a good change.

I guarantee you competitive playtesters wouldn't have been in favor of it.

 Trickstick wrote:
The flamer, grenade launcher, metla and plasma have all become 5 points. There is no way that all those options are the same. The entire point of the grenade launcher is that it is a cheap alternative.

Let's pause for a moment and think through this.

The Grenade Launcher has blast now with a little extra flexibility.
Plasma can kill the owner, but is otherwise strong.
Melta is the strongest, but carries a limited range.
Flamers can auto-hit.

All of these weapons on a T3 5+ model. Do we absolutely need a point or two of variance? You have roles for each weapon. Your choice will be the role and not the points.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
The flamer, grenade launcher, metla and plasma have all become 5 points. There is no way that all those options are the same. The entire point of the grenade launcher is that it is a cheap alternative.

Let's pause for a moment and think through this.

The Grenade Launcher has blast now with a little extra flexibility.
Plasma can kill the owner, but is otherwise strong.
Melta is the strongest, but carries a limited range.
Flamers can auto-hit.

All of these weapons on a T3 5+ model. Do we absolutely need a point or two of variance? You have roles for each weapon. Your choice will be the role and not the points.

Plasma needs to the most expensive by a signficant amount due to its destructive potential and flexibility.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
All of these weapons on a T3 5+ model. Do we absolutely need a point or two of variance? You have roles for each weapon. Your choice will be the role and not the points.

I understand your argument, but I still fail to see why I would take a grenade launcher, other than fluff/model reasons.

In that specific case the points were not really going to do much. If the nade launcher was 2 points, you would still not take it, since the biggest part of the cost is the opportunity cost offered by that squad.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Seabass wrote:

Well, a 120 point unit should probably have a decent chance of killing a 115 point model, shouldn't it?

Yes and no. It should usually take more points to kill a unit. A quad las pred does 5.2 to a dread at a fair bit more points. Eradicators do 9.3. Obviously the predator is more durable, longer range, and doesn't worry about move and shoot any longer. There's a gap there with some pros and cons to consider.

I guess I'm a bit confused then (and I freely admit to it) but there are a lot of units that will one round that model for around the same points values. devastators, dark reapers, etc. So in my mind, it feels like it's pretty ok. I understand that you don't necessarily want a 1:1, and I also freely admit that they are probably too efficient, but I don't see where it's necessarily a terrible thing that if they get to pick on their preferred prey (multi-wound models with limited to no invulns) that they could trash one.

But, this is why I'm not a game designer. I freely admit that I do not understand how balance and game construction should look like.

 Trickstick wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
All of these weapons on a T3 5+ model. Do we absolutely need a point or two of variance? You have roles for each weapon. Your choice will be the role and not the points.

I understand your argument, but I still fail to see why I would take a grenade launcher, other than fluff/model reasons.

You may not want the GL, because you don't care about or need its role, but there seems to be something there. Plasma values get doubled at 12", but if your goal is to stand off and shoot the GL is going to want to be at 24".

 Daedalus81 wrote:
You may not want the GL, because you don't care about or need its role, but there seems to be something there. Plasma values get doubled at 12", but if your goal is to stand off and shoot the GL is going to want to be at 24".

Are those single shots of plasma?

Martel732 wrote:

Plasma needs to the most expensive by a signficant amount due to its destructive potential and flexibility.

But you also have the chance to off yourself - especially as a guardsman.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Trickstick wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
You may not want the GL, because you don't care about or need its role, but there seems to be something there. Plasma values get doubled at 12", but if your goal is to stand off and shoot the GL is going to want to be at 24".

Is that single shot of plasma?

Yes - I noted to double the values if you were aiming to be w/i 12". If you want the risk of OC and care to be w/i 12" of stuff then plasma is the right gun. If you're worried about hordes for whatever reason, but want to stand off - GL. If you want to be up close and personal against soft infantry - flamer.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
The flamer, grenade launcher, metla and plasma have all become 5 points. There is no way that all those options are the same. The entire point of the grenade launcher is that it is a cheap alternative.

Let's pause for a moment and think through this.

The Grenade Launcher has blast now with a little extra flexibility.
Plasma can kill the owner, but is otherwise strong.
Melta is the strongest, but carries a limited range.
Flamers can auto-hit.

All of these weapons on a T3 5+ model. Do we absolutely need a point or two of variance? You have roles for each weapon. Your choice will be the role and not the points.

The issue is at 5pts, if we're talking Infantry Squad functionality and the role of these weapons, the Plasma gun is clear no-brainer option for 99% of things you'd want your Infantry Squads to be doing. Even with the Blast enhancement, there's no point to taking the GL over just another Guardsman for the same general damage output in conjunction with FRFSRF and an extra body to boot and even with 6 shots isn't much better at killing Orks or Guardsmen than a PG is. The flamer auto-hits...but only at an extremely short range and with a variable number of shots, and the firepower output over just investing in additional guardsmen is negligible. The Meltagun has the highest S, but the Plasma gun gets double the range, double the shots at the same range, and is only meaningfully outperformed at under 6" against certain specific T7 and T8 targets and generally only if they have no invul save while the PG is significantly better against most other targets and is roughly as capable against vehicles and monsters at anything over 6" (and definitely so from 12-24").

Now, this has been true in lots of editions, there's a reason the PG is generally the perennial favorite, but at least in previous editions this was acknowledged in the weapons costs, and that was enough to encourage at least some variance. Going back to 5E there could be valid arguments made for every one of the options as a result of the cost and their roles being a bit more differentiated (flamers ignored cover giving them a unique role and were dirt cheap, rapid fire Lasguns and Orders couldn't deliver the same volume of mobile firepower they can now at up to 24" giving the cheap GL at least some minimal mobility value and able to smack tightly clumped units if used en-masse, 5E vehicle rules really promoted melta use and had some ID use against multiwound T4 models but they cost twice what flamers or GL's did, and while the PG was the most versatile it was also by far the most expensive option), but with less unique functionality and all being the same cost, you just stick a Plasma Gun on everything.

At this point honestly I'd have to wonder if paying anything for a flamer or grenade launcher is worth it on most IG units

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Plasma needs to the most expensive by a signficant amount due to its destructive potential and flexibility.

But you also have the chance to off yourself - especially as a guardsman.

On the other hand, that matters least... of literally anything in the game now.
Other armies can zap their own 30+ point multi-wound models out of existence.

 Vaktathi wrote:
At this point honestly I'd have to wonder if paying anything for a flamer or grenade launcher is worth it on most IG units

I really want to bring back the 4x flamer/grenade platoon command squad, those were so much fun. If the rumour I started about officers going back into command squads comes to pass (the look out sir wording does mention units containing characters), I can see them being really fun little roving firepower squads. Jumping on someone with 4 flamers, or kiting around with 4 GL, should be fun. Of course, at 5 points the question would still be "why are they not plasma?".

Here's a few fun points:

Eradicators + Hammer of Sunderance = 0 Eradicators

'Why are they not Plasma?'
Plasmaguns on Guard might kill 1 model per turn due to the 4+ to hit, but against larger (10+) units, the GL would still be preferential due to the new blast rules. Flamers make for fantastic anti aircraft weapons, if you get close enough (like Iotan Gorgonnes Scion Command Squads, using the Daring Descent Stratagem).

Perhaps Valhallans will see some additional use with the Blast Rules?

Voss wrote:


On the other hand, that matters least... of literally anything in the game now.
Other armies can zap their own 30+ point multi-wound models out of existence.

Yea, but those models will usually have easy access reroll 1s.

Have we seen new rules for plasma, by the way?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
All of these weapons on a T3 5+ model. Do we absolutely need a point or two of variance? You have roles for each weapon. Your choice will be the role and not the points.

Of course there is a need for variance. The role will always be "which one is the most generally useful in most situations". If they're all the same cost, then the most powerful one in most situations (the high strength plasma) is always the obvious choice.

Another big box of math from you isn't going to change that. Guard players have been taking plasma as the general special weapon for years. Melta needs numbers to work, flamers are in a similar situation and really who ever brought grenade launchers?

I'm reminded of something that happened years ago when Guard plasma switched from 6 points to 10 points. Janthkin, a longtime member and mod of Dakka, quite plainly stated that this wouldn't change the amount of plasma guns in our armies. It would just mean we take less of something else to adjust for the points increase.

You have 5 turns to make an impact. Plasma makes the biggest impact. It will be taken over all the others, especially if the other weapons cost the same amount of points.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Seabass wrote:
Well, a 120 point unit should probably have a decent chance of killing a 115 point model, shouldn't it?

Absolutely not- unless you think an army should have a decent chance of tabling an equivalent points army in one Shooting Phase, which is what that boils down to.

Can you name some other anti-tank infantry that reliably kill their own points' worth of vehicles in one attack? Or just infantry in general that get a 100% return against their preferred target? Bonus points if they're not Marines.

Seabass wrote:
They killed a Carnifex. They then got overran and eaten.

A Carnifex costs as much as they do in 9th. A Carnifex has fewer wounds, albeit at slightly higher T, and is more vulnerable to multi-damage weapons. There is no Carnifex build that reliably makes back its points in one round of melee, let alone one round of shooting at 24".

The Eradicators shoot once and then it's all gravy. They absolutely have to be killed before they have a chance to shoot, they have the range to hit anything that leaves its deployment zone, they can move and fire without penalty (so can hide out of LOS to start), and they're not that squishy either. There is not a single infantry model in the game that compares favorably- put them side-by-side with Kataphron Breachers or Wraithguard and it's like a bad joke. Then put them in the context of being in an army with easy access to re-rolls to hit and to-wound, and it gets even worse.

I am continually amazed that there are people defending this, and especially the glib statements like 'it's just that melta has always sucked' or 'well they're not that hard to kill' or 'but it costs me CP to make them even better by outflanking' or 'they're not guaranteed to make back their points' or- and this is my personal favorite- 'my army is already so overpowered that I'd still rather just take Eliminators'.

I guess People like to play cheesy broken units in their own army.

I've been attacking GW regarding their balance for a VERY long time, so to really make that statement just because I'm defending the damn unit seems off. Now, do I think the rules to get the extra shot are lazy? Yeah absolutely. Should they be consistent with Aggressors in terms of double shots? Yeah sure. However people going around saying they're broken with support is really no different than claiming Aggressors or Centurions are broken because Raven Guard strats, or that Repulsors are broken because Iron Hands strats.

Look at the source of the buffer. If the unit is good without the buffer, the buffers need to be priced as though they'll be supporting the good unit, not the other way around.

Ok, I've did a little more studying on the new fw points. The new books better be really good for csm or this is just straight up bias. My apologies if this has already been covered:

Relic contemptor now same base cost as hellforged contemptor, despite having 2 additional wounds (12 for the relic vs 10 for the hellforged) and a 6+++.

Relic leviathan with double storm cannons: 350 vs hellforged leviathan with double butcher cannons: 410, despite the relic having a 4++ against everything compared to the hellforged only having a 5++ against shooting and a 4++ against melee.

Astreus: 718 with full wargear vs hellforged fellblade: 880 with full wargear, despite the astreus having the fly keyword and void shields that provide a 5++ at top bracket and a 6++ at the middle bracket that can stop mortal wounds.

And need I remind everyone that the hellforged unit's Machine Malifica rule means they can only regain wounds by killing things in close combat, while the loyalist units can be repaired by techmarines and other methods.

The Karybdis is also now just gone, despite still having a model in production.

And I've just started. Danged job has gotten me behind.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
And I've just started.

I'd suggest stopping. Nothing you find is going to make you happy. The FW points were an afterthought. I mean can we even be sure that the person writing them even understood the difference between a 'Relic' unit and a non-relic unit? We'll need to wait for the new books.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
All of these weapons on a T3 5+ model. Do we absolutely need a point or two of variance? You have roles for each weapon. Your choice will be the role and not the points.

Of course there is a need for variance. The role will always be "which one is the most generally useful in most situations". If they're all the same cost, then the most powerful one in most situations (the high strength plasma) is always the obvious choice.

Another big box of math from you isn't going to change that. Guard players have been taking plasma as the general special weapon for years. Melta needs numbers to work, flamers are in a similar situation and really who ever brought grenade launchers?

I'm reminded of something that happened years ago when Guard plasma switched from 6 points to 10 points. Janthkin, a longtime member and mod of Dakka, quite plainly stated that this wouldn't change the amount of plasma guns in our armies. It would just mean we take less of something else to adjust for the points increase.

You have 5 turns to make an impact. Plasma makes the biggest impact. It will be taken over all the others, especially if the other weapons cost the same amount of points.

Bringing specialized tools requires your opponent to bring the thing they're specialized against. Any strategy that depends on your opponent doing something probably won't work out well.

Plasma is good whether your opponent bring grots or greater daemons

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
And I've just started.

I'd suggest stopping. Nothing you find is going to make you happy. The FW points were an afterthought. I mean can we even be sure that the person writing them even understood the difference between a 'Relic' unit and a non-relic unit? We'll need to wait for the new books.

If into the FW points you go, only pain will you find.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
All of these weapons on a T3 5+ model. Do we absolutely need a point or two of variance? You have roles for each weapon. Your choice will be the role and not the points.

Of course there is a need for variance. The role will always be "which one is the most generally useful in most situations". If they're all the same cost, then the most powerful one in most situations (the high strength plasma) is always the obvious choice.

Another big box of math from you isn't going to change that. Guard players have been taking plasma as the general special weapon for years. Melta needs numbers to work, flamers are in a similar situation and really who ever brought grenade launchers?

I'm reminded of something that happened years ago when Guard plasma switched from 6 points to 10 points. Janthkin, a longtime member and mod of Dakka, quite plainly stated that this wouldn't change the amount of plasma guns in our armies. It would just mean we take less of something else to adjust for the points increase.

You have 5 turns to make an impact. Plasma makes the biggest impact. It will be taken over all the others, especially if the other weapons cost the same amount of points.

Right, but a plasma dropped 2 when a melta dropped by 5. The GL goes up, because it finds a little bit of new life. The changes are not favoring plasma, but your post indicates that they'll take it anyway (even though I've not seen plasma on guard all edition). So at that point why even worry about points for anything else?

But if you instead find yourself facing down a lot of infantry at the end of the game and most of your plasma killed itself would it still have been the best choice? It's one of those un-falsifiable choices, because no one will try differently. And that's fine. I don't have a problem with that.

Did GW create some grand hidden scheme here? gak no. A basic and soft target like an IS typically dies so fast that special weapons can easily be a waste. The impact is so limited that having intricately pointed weapon options doesn't seem like it changes the calculus for them much at all.