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.

Eldenfirefly wrote:
So, the overall message I am getting from 9th ed rules and the points changes is that ...

... if you play horde, GW wants you to go and play another army....

The more I look at 9th, the more I'm convinced that this the hordes edition. Playtesters catched this and reacted with the coherency rules and blast rules, but hordes are still going really strong.

I have seen many battle reports of 9th. An horde list would have done well in all those games.

Only the deathguard lists could be a problem.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

Nice historical revisionism. Because I recall some headless doom heralding chickens ""predicting"" they will be 20 points,

Source?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Melta is still awful, though. It could be free and still be pretty bad because its taking a plasma slot.

If they're equal points I'm not so sure. Melta can hit tougher units really hard and that's definitely worth something, and it doesn't risk killing my own model to do so. I will definitely bring some Melta to the party in my lists, at the very least giving characters combi-Meltas since it's less risky than combi-Plas and will have a nice 2+ to hit on Captains.

Given how much mouth frothing there is over the eradicators and then we get "melta could be free and is still bad because it's not plasma" appreciate the context is slightly different, but it's a massive double standard.

Agree that melta has a place though, it's a little harder to get the mileage from compared to plasma however.

with plasma beeing equal to melta i fail to see the place of normal melta though.

Spoletta wrote:

Eldenfirefly wrote:
So, the overall message I am getting from 9th ed rules and the points changes is that ...

... if you play horde, GW wants you to go and play another army....

The more I look at 9th, the more I'm convinced that this the hordes edition. Playtesters catched this and reacted with the coherency rules and blast rules, but hordes are still going really strong.

I have seen many battle reports of 9th. An horde list would have done well in all those games.

Only the deathguard lists could be a problem.

What hordes are you considering though? Ork players seem to all agree to switch to elite oriented lists.

 Blackie wrote:
What hordes are you considering though? Ork players seem to all agree to switch to elite oriented lists.

Guardsmen, well not conscripts but infantry squad spam?

Dudeface wrote:
Given how much mouth frothing there is over the eradicators and then we get "melta could be free and is still bad because it's not plasma" appreciate the context is slightly different, but it's a massive double standard.

Melta rifles have double the range though, which is a huge advantage. There is generally a 9" limit on how close you can deploy from away from an enemy from reserves. This really hurts things like melta scions, as they don't get the full advantage that melta provides. A 12" melta range fixes this.

Bugs actually. That's what I know best.

Termagants are 5 points and Hormagaunts are 6. Hormagaunts in particular are nice, with speed 8" obsec and 6" pile in they are incredibily good to negate the opponent primaries.

As long as Eradicators are around, we cannot play nidzilla in any serious way, so we are short on alternatives.

 Trickstick wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Given how much mouth frothing there is over the eradicators and then we get "melta could be free and is still bad because it's not plasma" appreciate the context is slightly different, but it's a massive double standard.

Melta rifles have double the range though, which is a huge advantage. There is generally a 9" limit on how close you can deploy from away from an enemy from reserves. This really hurts things like melta scions, as they don't get the full advantage that melta provides. A 12" melta range fixes this.

18 > 24 isn't double? Appreciate it helps, but if people are claiming melta is objectively worse than plasma, why the fuss?

Dudeface wrote:
18 > 24 isn't double? Appreciate it helps, but if people are claiming melta is objectively worse than plasma, why the fuss?

I guess I could have worded my point more clearly. I meant that melta rifles have double the range of meltaguns.

 Trickstick wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Given how much mouth frothing there is over the eradicators and then we get "melta could be free and is still bad because it's not plasma" appreciate the context is slightly different, but it's a massive double standard.

Melta rifles have double the range though, which is a huge advantage. There is generally a 9" limit on how close you can deploy from away from an enemy from reserves. This really hurts things like melta scions, as they don't get the full advantage that melta provides. A 12" melta range fixes this.

I have a dream. One day I wake up to find that datasheet FAQed to have range 14". Would make it so much better on a gameplay and balance aspects...

 Trickstick wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
18 > 24 isn't double? Appreciate it helps, but if people are claiming melta is objectively worse than plasma, why the fuss?

I guess I could have worded my point more clearly. I meant that melta rifles have double the range of meltaguns.

You're right, for some reason in the back of my head, I thought a normal melta was 18". Is there an 18" melta somewhere? Fusion weapons maybe. I need a warm beverage.

Dudeface wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
18 > 24 isn't double? Appreciate it helps, but if people are claiming melta is objectively worse than plasma, why the fuss?

I guess I could have worded my point more clearly. I meant that melta rifles have double the range of meltaguns.

You're right, for some reason in the back of my head, I thought a normal melta was 18". Is there an 18" melta somewhere? Fusion weapons maybe. I need a warm beverage.

18 " melta, isn't the firedragon one 18"?

Not Online!!! wrote:
18 " melta, isn't the firedragon one 18"?

Only the exarch's firepike, the fusion gun is 12".

Tau fusion blasters are 18" though.

GW releases some simplistic rules so that people can go "pew-pew" with their toy soldiers in a narrative experience.

Community is nitpicking on those rules (every time with surprise that they are simplistic and full of holes) as if this was a new Lacerda or Splotter.

You've chosen a wrong game to look for balance, sense and cohesion

I'm still in the process of catching up in this threat but as the question was stated towards the general audience how much our armies went up:

I'm surprised but my own was really barely hit. I have an IG/Deathkorps collection (the latter counts as) that is pretty infantry heavy, with lots of Deathriders and some Forgeworld stuff. With a bit of wrigling around (Tauris now count as Sentinels as they seem to have disappeared, Salamander Scout tanks are Gryphonne Pattern Chimeras for now), my ~ 2900 points went to ~ 3000. So +3.5%.
A lot of things went up, but my 25 Deathriders got cheaper, my Meltaguns too and I only had one Leman Russ. Even if the Tauris come back (fingers crossed) at roughly their old price it should be enough to drop the Leman Russ to be were I was in 8th.

Funny thing though: as Twin Multilasers came down the Carnodon can now be taken at 80 points with 4x Multilaser. that's 8points per T7 3+ wound.

My currently played 1000 points Blood Angel list went up to 1143, if I got all the changes right.

I have to reduce it by one smashy character model and I'm good to hit the table again. Wasn't that much of a deal for me.

Here's a bit of rules comedy for you all today:

Here are the eldar units that received the smallest % point increases overall.

CHARACTERS: Farseer Skyrunner, Farseer, Asurmen

VEHICLES: Wave Serpent, Crimson Hunter, Hemlock Wraithfighter

INFANTRTY/BIKES: Shining Spears, Dark Reapers, Wraithguard w/wraithcannons

Ok, so what were the units GW thought were the MOST IMPORTANT TO NERF (again, I'm including wargear in here, don't hit me with this 'they just made the weapons cost less')

CHARACTERS: Prince Yriel, Autarch on foot, Warlock conclave on foot

VEHICLES: Wraithlord, Fire Prism, Nightspinner

INFANTRY: Guardians and Guardian Heavy Weapon Platform, Striking Scorpions, Swooping Hawks

Good fething gak, GW! Everything that anybody used in a fething tournament you decided to increase WAY WAY LESS than units nobody fething uses! Literally the only thing that ever saw tournament play in eldar lists that you managed to nerf is the Nightspinner, and the only units that got relatively buffed that WEREN'T competitive standbys is wraithguard and arguably vypers. What are you doing? Dark eldar is like this too, to an arguably lesser extent but still. What's up at the top of the list for lightest nerfs? Why it's the Razorwing Jetfighter and the Ravager, the units every drukhkari list spammed the hell out of last edition! What do we see down near the worst nerfed category? Oh look, it's the Cronos, Wyches, Hellions and Reavers, the worst units in Codex Drukhari!

the_scotsman 789943 10866900 wrote:
Good fething gak, GW! Everything that anybody used in a fething tournament you decided to increase WAY WAY LESS than units nobody fething uses! Literally the only thing that ever saw tournament play in eldar lists that you managed to nerf is the Nightspinner, and the only units that got relatively buffed that WEREN'T competitive standbys is wraithguard and arguably vypers. What are you doing? Dark eldar is like this too, to an arguably lesser extent but still. What's up at the top of the list for lightest nerfs? Why it's the Razorwing Jetfighter and the Ravager, the units every drukhkari list spammed the hell out of last edition! What do we see down near the worst nerfed category? Oh look, it's the Cronos, Wyches, Hellions and Reavers, the worst units in Codex Drukhari!

Well you now know how GK players felt, when GW decided that the prime objecte of their scrutiny has to be the brother hood champion, who requires multi level nerfs. At a time when no one sane was using him .

I have a feeling that a lot of changes for some armies are linked to what models GW sells and wants to sell for those armies in the future. So maybe the changes are good in a way. Maybe eldar will get a lot of new models , just like necron did. Could be in 9th or in the starter set for 10th ed.

Karol wrote:

the_scotsman 789943 10866900 wrote:
Good fething gak, GW! Everything that anybody used in a fething tournament you decided to increase WAY WAY LESS than units nobody fething uses! Literally the only thing that ever saw tournament play in eldar lists that you managed to nerf is the Nightspinner, and the only units that got relatively buffed that WEREN'T competitive standbys is wraithguard and arguably vypers. What are you doing? Dark eldar is like this too, to an arguably lesser extent but still. What's up at the top of the list for lightest nerfs? Why it's the Razorwing Jetfighter and the Ravager, the units every drukhkari list spammed the hell out of last edition! What do we see down near the worst nerfed category? Oh look, it's the Cronos, Wyches, Hellions and Reavers, the worst units in Codex Drukhari!

Well you now know how GK players felt, when GW decided that the prime objecte of their scrutiny has to be the brother hood champion, who requires multi level nerfs. At a time when no one sane was using him .

I have a feeling that a lot of changes for some armies are linked to what models GW sells and wants to sell for those armies in the future. So maybe the changes are good in a way. Maybe eldar will get a lot of new models , just like necron did. Could be in 9th or in the starter set for 10th ed.

I mean, it is weird that they just released 4 new kits for eldar and dark eldar and decided they needed hefty nerfs in the new rules to make sure nobody buys 'em. Sure am glad I never picked up Banshees or Incubi!

Not sure if it contributes, but Razorwings and Ravagers were nerfed in CA19. So maybe they didn't think they needed to be "nerfed" as much again.

Obviously things have gone up - but I wasn't convinced Ravagers were especially dominant at 120 before they were nerfed. 120->160 (with dissies) would be seen as quite the hike. (Admittedly you might say this is special pleading.)

Edit - Sorry, it was 125 before, not 120.
Still, a reasonable step up.

the_scotsman 789943 10866911 wrote:

I mean, it is weird that they just released 4 new kits for eldar and dark eldar and decided they needed hefty nerfs in the new rules to make sure nobody buys 'em. Sure am glad I never picked up Banshees or Incubi!

well maybe GW wants people to buy their marine armies first, and maybe necron. And plans something for eldar in 10th ed or mid 9th. knights weren't a thing at the start of 8th, yet in mid edition they were fun to play as soup.

 Trickstick wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
18 " melta, isn't the firedragon one 18"?

Only the exarch's firepike, the fusion gun is 12".

Tau fusion blasters are 18" though.

T'au Fusion is 18", for which we now pay 1.5 times as much as most other armies pay for Melta (and triple what BS4+ guard pay for it).

Fusion Blaster seems to be the only (non-vehicle) Melta weapon to have *INCREASED* in points...

sanguine40k wrote:
T'au Fusion is 18", for which we now pay 1.5 times as much as most other armies pay for Melta (and triple what BS4+ guard pay for it).

Fusion Blaster seems to be the only (non-vehicle) Melta weapon to have *INCREASED* in points...

And you are still outside of the magic 9" range, when you come in from reserves.

Karol wrote:

the_scotsman 789943 10866911 wrote:

I mean, it is weird that they just released 4 new kits for eldar and dark eldar and decided they needed hefty nerfs in the new rules to make sure nobody buys 'em. Sure am glad I never picked up Banshees or Incubi!

well maybe GW wants people to buy their marine armies first, and maybe necron. And plans something for eldar in 10th ed or mid 9th. knights weren't a thing at the start of 8th, yet in mid edition they were fun to play as soup.

could be, though I am at this point used to my dark eldar being the worst army in the game. They have been for three out of the four editions I've played them now going into 9th.

 Trickstick wrote:

sanguine40k wrote:
T'au Fusion is 18", for which we now pay 1.5 times as much as most other armies pay for Melta (and triple what BS4+ guard pay for it).

Fusion Blaster seems to be the only (non-vehicle) Melta weapon to have *INCREASED* in points...

And you are still outside of the magic 9" range, when you come in from reserves.

Special weapon balance is completely borked.

A PG i get for 10 pts, why should i bother with a melta?
Heck i get an AC for 10 pts aswell?

Dudeface wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

Nice historical revisionism. Because I recall some headless doom heralding chickens ""predicting"" they will be 20 points,

Source?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Melta is still awful, though. It could be free and still be pretty bad because its taking a plasma slot.

If they're equal points I'm not so sure. Melta can hit tougher units really hard and that's definitely worth something, and it doesn't risk killing my own model to do so. I will definitely bring some Melta to the party in my lists, at the very least giving characters combi-Meltas since it's less risky than combi-Plas and will have a nice 2+ to hit on Captains.

Given how much mouth frothing there is over the eradicators and then we get "melta could be free and is still bad because it's not plasma" appreciate the context is slightly different, but it's a massive double standard.

Agree that melta has a place though, it's a little harder to get the mileage from compared to plasma however.

This is mostly related to Martel continuing to misunderstand Plasma's place in the game.

The thing is, no one takes plasma outside of scion lists and some admech setups as it is.

Yes, plasma is the better generalist weapon; the problem is that that means it's competing against actually good generalist options, particularly the unique weapons or units that buff a certain type of weapon to generalist standard.

Now the majority of the time a good generalist weapon will be more powerful than a good specialist weapon, but plasma is a mediocre specialist weapon. So melta still has it's place. Especially in situations where your reroll 1s aren't around which will happen more often now.

the_scotsman wrote:

Karol wrote:

the_scotsman 789943 10866911 wrote:

I mean, it is weird that they just released 4 new kits for eldar and dark eldar and decided they needed hefty nerfs in the new rules to make sure nobody buys 'em. Sure am glad I never picked up Banshees or Incubi!

well maybe GW wants people to buy their marine armies first, and maybe necron. And plans something for eldar in 10th ed or mid 9th. knights weren't a thing at the start of 8th, yet in mid edition they were fun to play as soup.

could be, though I am at this point used to my dark eldar being the worst army in the game. They have been for three out of the four editions I've played them now going into 9th.

I thought they were one of the strongest armies in 8th for a long time? So much that many people actually found their lazy PA update okay - they were already topdogs at that time and didn't need much improvement.
The model side is something else though. Their HQ roster especially is... lacking.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

sanguine40k wrote:
T'au Fusion is 18", for which we now pay 1.5 times as much as most other armies pay for Melta (and triple what BS4+ guard pay for it).

Fusion Blaster seems to be the only (non-vehicle) Melta weapon to have *INCREASED* in points...

And you are still outside of the magic 9" range, when you come in from reserves.

Special weapon balance is completely borked.

A PG i get for 10 pts, why should i bother with a melta?
Heck i get an AC for 10 pts aswell?

Realistically you're not taking either of those because they both suck compared to the actually good guns on actually good units.

ERJAK wrote:
The thing is, no one takes plasma outside of scion lists and some admech setups as it is.

That is not my experience at all. Plasma is the go-to Guardsman infantry squad weapon.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Just taking a quick look Guard point changes, I'm somewhat shocked at how much they increased pricing on the Exterminator Autocannon, Heavy Bolters & Twin Heavy Bolters, Missile Launcher, Grenade Launcher, Heavy Stubber, etc all went wayyyyyyyy up, most of which were not very good. Those took the biggest hits of just about anything in the army, and I'm not sure...why?

Meanwhile the Battlecannon got even...cheaper?

I'm hoping this means that some changes went into the Exterminator Battlecannon and Missile Launcher and the like to make them more attractive, but I'm more guessing this is GW being bad at things again.

Looking for logic in 40k points is like looking for robust structure in a Salvador Dali painting.

I mean there is a logic.

GW obviously algorithmicly derived points adjustments overall and then touched up certain units they felt under or overperformed. The issue is that the rules writers lacked the time or skill to understand all the units that needed this treatment and just let the unit live with what the algorithm decided,