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.

For custodes:
In a good place still with statlines, could maybe do with some extra wounds/weapon improvements to be a clear jump up from marines. Terminators at 3W compared to a custode is... Interesting if it stays.

For drukhari:
God how much help do they need. The troops need to actually be worth it- poison needs a complete rework, they and their transports need to be not so aggressively costed, Vehicles could do with an extra couple wounds each like triach stalkers, all our sideline units need to get changed (hellions, incubi, scourges at 2W maybe). They are really really far from being in a good place right now

For TS: obviously we know the changes, will make them very very nice.

And my new WS don't really needd anything that hasn't yet been announced.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Make Fellblades base cost 455 PPM to match the original points spread between them and Baneblades from the original 8th Indexes. That would make them 645 PPM with standard war gear. Tell me that would be broken. Adjust the other Hellforged super heavys similarly.

It would be broken.

A fully equipped BB is ~650 and 530ish otherwise. Fellblade is T9 2+. That's a significant difference. A half range MM does 3.7 to a BB and 2 to a Fellblade - practically half damage for what is likely set to be a very common weapon.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Make Fellblades base cost 455 PPM to match the original points spread between them and Baneblades from the original 8th Indexes. That would make them 645 PPM with standard war gear. Tell me that would be broken. Adjust the other Hellforged super heavys similarly.

It would be broken.

A fully equipped BB is ~650 and 530ish otherwise. Fellblade is T9 2+. That's a significant difference. A half range MM does 3.7 to a BB and 2 to a Fellblade - practically half damage for what is likely set to be a very common weapon.

Fair point. I'd argue that the Baneblade is overpriced, due to gw no longer giving guard a discount on their weapons compared to marines. But what's your counter offer? Or do you think 880 PPM is fair for a Fellblade?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Fair point. I'd argue that the Baneblade is overpriced, due to gw no longer giving guard a discount on their weapons compared to marines. But what's your counter offer? Or do you think 880 PPM is fair for a Fellblade?

I dunno. Maybe like 800 and make the HE shells D2 and the other mode 4 shots. The main cannon just seems really weak for such a monster chassis.

Would you give it any kind of discount to account for the fact that it can't see through area terrain but can be seen through area terrain?

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Fair point. I'd argue that the Baneblade is overpriced, due to gw no longer giving guard a discount on their weapons compared to marines. But what's your counter offer? Or do you think 880 PPM is fair for a Fellblade?

I dunno. Maybe like 800 and make the HE shells D2 and the other mode 4 shots. The main cannon just seems really weak for such a monster chassis.

165 PPM more than a Castellan? Are you kidding? And HE shells are already D2. Apply the old discount for twin heavy bolters and lascannons to the Baneblade so they're 5 points cheaper for guard compared to marines would bring the Baneblade to 605 PPM. I think that's fair. Don't get me started on the comparison to the godawful and lore breaking for many legions klos.

AnomanderRake wrote:Would you give it any kind of discount to account for the fact that it can't see through area terrain but can be seen through area terrain?

That should be considered for all things 18W+.

Not a need, but I would like that my Bladed Cog GSC could have AdMech allies instead of IG.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Would you give it any kind of discount to account for the fact that it can't see through area terrain but can be seen through area terrain?

Given the recent update to obscuring I dont think that's entirely necessary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

165 PPM more than a Castellan? Are you kidding? And HE shells are already D2. Apply the old discount for twin heavy bolters and lascannons to the Baneblade so they're 5 points cheaper for guard compared to marines would bring the Baneblade to 605 PPM. I think that's fair. Don't get me started on the comparison to the godawful and lore breaking for many legions klos.

It still takes hits better than a castellan (especially melee), but there's a big gap for super heavies without a lot of strats (or any at all) to use making them appear weaker on paper. I couldn't say for sure, because I think it needs other kinds of tweaks.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Would you give it any kind of discount to account for the fact that it can't see through area terrain but can be seen through area terrain?

Given the recent update to obscuring I dont think that's entirely necessary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

165 PPM more than a Castellan? Are you kidding? And HE shells are already D2. Apply the old discount for twin heavy bolters and lascannons to the Baneblade so they're 5 points cheaper for guard compared to marines would bring the Baneblade to 605 PPM. I think that's fair. Don't get me started on the comparison to the godawful and lore breaking for many legions klos.

It still takes hits better than a castellan (especially melee), but there's a big gap for super heavies without a lot of strats (or any at all) to use making them appear weaker on paper. I couldn't say for sure, because I think it needs other kinds of tweaks.

Not against anything actually designed to destroy super heavys. Compare the Fellblade and Castellan against things like volcano lances, laser destroyers, D-lances, etc. That 5++ that can be boosted to a 4++ is a big deal. Sorry I'm at work and can't do that right now. Also, your proposal for the AE profile would change the Fellblade from a generalist tank into a titan killer, which is what the Falchion and Cerberus are for, that's why I compared it to the Baneblade instead of the Shadowsword.

I'd just like to HAVE an actual dex.
for one army, of mine, the other CSM bunch, well, the next dex should shift away from Combo-wombo nonsense cardhouse BS and HQ spam.

I play custodes, sisters of battle, space marines, and chaos space marines. the buffs we know about are gonna be big for most of my factions. custodes might suffer a bit because of some of the changes, we'll see how that works out.

With my Eldar, I even don't know it.
We'll see how Marines fare in the 9th - I guess they will be stronger than ever.
Eldar have speed and firepower, but less staying power (bar some units like Wraithblades).
The direction GW moves is not a good prospect for Xenos armies.

With my guard, I'd just love to have platoons again so I don't have to take stupid amounts of detachments and characters just to field a decent amount of guardsmen.

And perhaps more importantly, some way to not automatically give up a whole lot of secondaries.

 Dolnikan wrote:
With my guard, I'd just love to have platoons again so I don't have to take stupid amounts of detachments and characters just to field a decent amount of guardsmen.

And perhaps more importantly, some way to not automatically give up a whole lot of secondaries.

Before all of the shutdowns, I had a game planed with someone to play a game of 3rd edition. I was hoping to try out platoons and see how they did. Platoons were very thematic and, as I understand, were one of the most fun things about playing Guard in 2nd (?) through 6th editions.

Had more time to think of a more solid idea on a buff, and it's moving back slightly towards that direction with two changes: 1) Attach Command Squads to Platoon and Company Commanders again as HQ choices. 2) Move Veterans back to Troops choices.

Mostly just trying to clear the Elites slots. The first would give us slightly better survivability for our commanders. The second gives us something for troops that, while not more durable, allows them to hit a bit harder before they die. I know we have Scions, but we have to take whole new detachments, separate from much of our vehicles, to bring them. We're a command point hungry faction, so the ability to shove as much as possible into a single Brigade would be beneficial.

And, before anyone else goes on an uninvited vitriolic tear, please have a look at the 9th Ed Guard tactics thread in the Tactics section. People are saying that Leman Russ spam and/or DKoK are the only ways for us to go. I would love a counter to this argument as, while I love DKoK, that's a rather large investment for a meta.

 The Phazer wrote:
I would say Genestealer Cults primarily need points cuts rather than buffs, especially to some units nerfed to the point of irrelevance recently.

Genestealers themselves probably need more damage output in CC though.

Well, GSC vehicles (and even Genestealers really, Bladed Cog Stealers don't seem so broken really, since Marines 2.0) getting cult traits would be a start.

Most GSC traits aren't that useful for vehicles to begin with for vehicles.

It just wouldn't hurt if the cult traits become somewhat more comparable to Marines and such.

I.e.

Blood Angels = +1 to advance & charge (never mind +1 to wound) for the entire game, including on vehicles.
Cot4AE = +1 to advance & charge, but only first turn or for deepstriking units, but certainly not for vehicles (?)

Would CoT4AE really be that broken (not to mention easier to bookkeep) with just flat +1 advance & charge?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

165 PPM more than a Castellan? Are you kidding? And HE shells are already D2. Apply the old discount for twin heavy bolters and lascannons to the Baneblade so they're 5 points cheaper for guard compared to marines would bring the Baneblade to 605 PPM. I think that's fair. Don't get me started on the comparison to the godawful and lore breaking for many legions klos.

It still takes hits better than a castellan (especially melee), but there's a big gap for super heavies without a lot of strats (or any at all) to use making them appear weaker on paper. I couldn't say for sure, because I think it needs other kinds of tweaks.

Ok Daed, Mathhammer isn't my thing, so feel free to yell at me if I get any of this wrong. All numbers from the Mathhammer app everything hitting on 3s to keep it simple (just pretend the Cobra is on its middle bracket):

Repulsor Executioner doing its "not really Grinding Advance" thing with its heavy laser destructer, 4 shots, S10, AP-4, Dd6:
Vs Castellan: 2.667 hits, 1.778 wounds, 1.185 unsaved, 4.148 total damage.
Vs Fellblade: 2.66 hits, 1.778 wounds, 1.481 unsaved, 5.185 total damage.
20% less damage to Castellan.

Eldar Cobra's D-Impaler, D6 shots, S16, AP-5, D2d6:
Vs Castellan: 3.5 shots, 2.333 hits, 1.994 wounds, 1.296 unsaved, 9.074 total damage.
Vs Fellblade: 3.5 shots, 2.333 hits, 1.556 wounds, 1.556 unsaved, 10.889 total damage.
16% less damage to Castellan.

Finally the Castellan's own volcano lance, D6 shots, S14, AP-5, D3d3, reroll all failed wounds against TITANIC vehicles:
Vs Castellan: 3.5 shots, 2.074 wounds, 1.383 unsaved, 8.296 total damage.
Vs Fellblade: 3.5 shots, 2.333 hits, 2.074 wounds, 2.074 unsaved, 12.444 total damage.
33% less damage to Castellan.

So does a Fellblade "take hits" better than a Castellan? Yes, against things like lascannons and meltas, but not against true anti-super heavy weapons, that 5++ means a lot. I didn't compare the Castellan with the "Rotate Ion Shields" strategem because it's obviously better and requires CP, I wanted to compare base defensive stats. Also, please remember that the Castellan has 2 more wounds than a Fellblade, and all the big knights have these defensive stats (with less wounds of course), as does the klos which is far less expensive and regenerates a wound a turn. I find it hard for anyone to defend the Fellblade's and the other hellforged/relic super heavys costs compared to other super heavys. There is no reason a Fellblade should be 245 PPM more than a Castellan.

Arcanis161 wrote:

 Dolnikan wrote:
With my guard, I'd just love to have platoons again so I don't have to take stupid amounts of detachments and characters just to field a decent amount of guardsmen.

And perhaps more importantly, some way to not automatically give up a whole lot of secondaries.

Before all of the shutdowns, I had a game planed with someone to play a game of 3rd edition. I was hoping to try out platoons and see how they did. Platoons were very thematic and, as I understand, were one of the most fun things about playing Guard in 2nd (?) through 6th editions.

Had more time to think of a more solid idea on a buff, and it's moving back slightly towards that direction with two changes: 1) Attach Command Squads to Platoon and Company Commanders again as HQ choices. 2) Move Veterans back to Troops choices.

Mostly just trying to clear the Elites slots. The first would give us slightly better survivability for our commanders. The second gives us something for troops that, while not more durable, allows them to hit a bit harder before they die. I know we have Scions, but we have to take whole new detachments, separate from much of our vehicles, to bring them. We're a command point hungry faction, so the ability to shove as much as possible into a single Brigade would be beneficial.

And, before anyone else goes on an uninvited vitriolic tear, please have a look at the 9th Ed Guard tactics thread in the Tactics section. People are saying that Leman Russ spam and/or DKoK are the only ways for us to go. I would love a counter to this argument as, while I love DKoK, that's a rather large investment for a meta.

Platoons really were something I missed when I returned to the game. This current structure just doesn't feel right.

And I know some people are upset by guardsmen being five points compared to certain units that got nerfed way harder, that however doesn't take away that the Guard currently is in a bad place because there aren't really many alternatives and whatever you do, you end up giving up a ton of points.

Comman squads would be nice, but they would need something to make them a little more survivable. The few times that I took them in 8th, they got blasted off the table as soon as they went anywhere (and no, these weren't even heavily equipped ones). It's the same problem as we have with heavy and special weapon squads (not counting when they have either indirect fire or special kinds of deployment. They just get shot first and guardsmen are very easy to kill.

 wuestenfux wrote:
The direction GW moves is not a good prospect for Xenos armies.

Only if you assume that Xenos armies aren't changing at all.

Yeah. We're obviously going to have to go on a case-by-case basis and not generalize too much, but necrons are getting a lot right out the gate. That doesn't solve anything for anyone else, obviously, but this isn't a 'token Xenos update,' even if it isn't perfect.

- Very large pile of new units, which provide alternatives and fill in gaps in their toolbox (CC and anti-tank particularly, with some MW floating around and other bits and bobs)
- Upgrades to old units, including statline and weapon upgrades
- Two-part dynasty codes (more in line with chapter tactics), with additional benefits for 'doctrine' style abilities.

That's a pretty dazzlingly good prospect for a xenos army by the standard of any edition.

Whether they can maintain that for other xenos armies and provide it in a reasonable time frame is an open question, but its a strong start and reason for at least some level of optimism.