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.
Abaddon303 wrote: Seems to me like GW are actually basing points for units and weapons on the individual codex.
If GW believe cultists are stronger in CSM armies than they are in DG (I'd probably agree) then they should be different points.
The DG helbrute is 5pts more than the CSM one. I imagine that is taking into account the contagions etc it will be benefiting from.
A lot of people complained when Tacs weren't cheaper than CSM despite access to doctrines etc...
This guy gets it!
Then please explain why Land Raiders, Predators, Vindicators, Sicarans, Leviathans, Fellblades, Fire Raptors, etc, etc, etc still cost exactly the same for loyalists and CSM?
Because the powers that be have determined the synergy/stratagems surrounding those units don't require variant point levels
Then the "powers that be" don't know their own rules. Both fw Land Raiders, all of the big flyers, and all of the super heavies for loyalists have the "Machine Spirit" keyword, which gives them access to the "Power of the Machine Spirit" strategem, which from 2CP allows them to function as if they are at full wounds no matter how much they've been damaged, the CSM variants have no equivalent. That's good for the Land Raiders and flyers, but huge for a 600 PPM pile of guns like a Fellblade. Based on that alone they shouldn't be the same price. Add on doctrines, super doctrines, and chapter tactics and it starts getting ridiculous.
GW proper has shown they generally don't really care about FW when it comes to balance. If they did, those units would be in the Codex, not in a FW book. As for the rest, I guess wait for a CSM codex. Maybe the DG codex will shed some light on the future for some of those units on the Chaos side of the house.
All of those rules apply to codex units now, and these points apply now, not for some future CSM codex. If gw was really pricing units based on their current rules in their current codexes then none of the shared vehicles between loyalists and CSM would be priced the same.
None of these units are good. The loyalist version being better isn't even close to enough to make them anything but a handicap to your list.
Some of those units actually are good. You wouldn't know this though because you haven't actually played since 5th ...
If they're good I'm sure you'll be able to show me the tournament results they're putting up. Good in the context of casual just means a bad unit that you win with against other bad units.
Karol wrote: Hmm not a single change, not even basic update to incinerator range. Well at least there are no nerfs either which is a plus.
Sad that abhore is still a thing.
read the whole thing and stop crying, abhor was nerfed.
I'd rather be able to run my named Witch Hunter Inquisitor with the Abhor the Witch secondary than seeing it nerfed, to be honest. Still weird that AtW requires you to not have any psykers.
JNAProductions wrote: So, if a unit isn't competitive, who cares if it's just mediocre or so actively bad you're shooting yourself in the foot for bringing it?
You know, some people like the models, and might want to bring them in a non-tourney game.
If you're going to bring bad units because you like them why does it matter if they're slightly less bad due to a niche rule that costs 2 CP? The balance difference between the two is small enough that it won't likely cost you more than one in a hundred games.
If they're good I'm sure you'll be able to show me the tournament results they're putting up. Good in the context of casual just means a bad unit that you win with against other bad units.
The fact that marines are good enough that they don't take some of these does not mean the units suck. It's a completely different discussion. Play the game.
So, if a unit isn't competitive, who cares if it's just mediocre or so actively bad you're shooting yourself in the foot for bringing it?
You know, some people like the models, and might want to bring them in a non-tourney game.
Cadian's stance over several threads now appears to be one of not actually caring if the game is fun or not. IDK what to make if it. They haven't actually played since 5th so make of that what you will.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/01/07 18:24:48
Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug
Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..."
Karol wrote: Hmm not a single change, not even basic update to incinerator range. Well at least there are no nerfs either which is a plus.
Sad that abhore is still a thing.
read the whole thing and stop crying, abhor was nerfed.
I'd rather be able to run my named Witch Hunter Inquisitor with the Abhor the Witch secondary than seeing it nerfed, to be honest. Still weird that AtW requires you to not have any psykers.
Ordo Hereticus Inquisitors should allow you still pick Abhor the witch IMO, i'd totally let my opponent do it if it ever came up.
A guardsmen is 5.5 pts or something, I guess that makes conscripts a partial choice now.
Hate it
I wonder what's behind that? Doesn't make sense to me.
Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug
Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..."
JNAProductions wrote: So, if a unit isn't competitive, who cares if it's just mediocre or so actively bad you're shooting yourself in the foot for bringing it?
You know, some people like the models, and might want to bring them in a non-tourney game.
If you're going to bring bad units because you like them why does it matter if they're slightly less bad due to a niche rule that costs 2 CP? The balance difference between the two is small enough that it won't likely cost you more than one in a hundred games.
Because you still want a chance to win, and have a fun game.
If I take a squad of, say, Reivers in a SM army, my list is weaker than if I had taken a better unit. But that one unit is not going to stop me from having a chance of winning the game. So if I like Reivers, I can take them and still have a good game.
If I take something like two Stompas in a 2k game, I'm going to get absolutely stomped. It will, in all probability, not be any fun, because I never stood a chance. Even just one Stompa is likely to cripple my forces, since it's close to half my army, 3 CP, and not worth even close to that.
Do you understand that it's not a binary? That there's a spectrum?
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
Abaddon303 wrote: Seems to me like GW are actually basing points for units and weapons on the individual codex.
If GW believe cultists are stronger in CSM armies than they are in DG (I'd probably agree) then they should be different points.
The DG helbrute is 5pts more than the CSM one. I imagine that is taking into account the contagions etc it will be benefiting from.
A lot of people complained when Tacs weren't cheaper than CSM despite access to doctrines etc...
This guy gets it!
Then please explain why Land Raiders, Predators, Vindicators, Sicarans, Leviathans, Fellblades, Fire Raptors, etc, etc, etc still cost exactly the same for loyalists and CSM?
Because the powers that be have determined the synergy/stratagems surrounding those units don't require variant point levels
Then the "powers that be" don't know their own rules. Both fw Land Raiders, all of the big flyers, and all of the super heavies for loyalists have the "Machine Spirit" keyword, which gives them access to the "Power of the Machine Spirit" strategem, which from 2CP allows them to function as if they are at full wounds no matter how much they've been damaged, the CSM variants have no equivalent. That's good for the Land Raiders and flyers, but huge for a 600 PPM pile of guns like a Fellblade. Based on that alone they shouldn't be the same price. Add on doctrines, super doctrines, and chapter tactics and it starts getting ridiculous.
GW proper has shown they generally don't really care about FW when it comes to balance. If they did, those units would be in the Codex, not in a FW book. As for the rest, I guess wait for a CSM codex. Maybe the DG codex will shed some light on the future for some of those units on the Chaos side of the house.
All of those rules apply to codex units now, and these points apply now, not for some future CSM codex. If gw was really pricing units based on their current rules in their current codexes then none of the shared vehicles between loyalists and CSM would be priced the same.
Actually they are priced based on whats to come. GW knows what's coming down the pike over the next few months, and they are leaning forward. You just can't see it because you don't know what is coming. It's fine though, we'll just agree to disagree.
We mortals are but shadows and dust...
6k
:harlequin: 2k
2k
2k
Genestealer Cult seems to have gotten some pretty substatial buffs....but to Vehicles, weirdly, the things that the only useful competitive lists were already spamming. Trucks, Chimeras, Rockgrinders, and Russes all dropped a bunch.
2pt drop on Aberrants is literally the only point drop on units...still nearly more expensive than a W3 terminator XD
Hand Flamers 1pt more expensive, and Brood Bros are now Guardsmen who don't get a regimental doctrine AND are 0.5pts more expensive, yippee!
Drukhari got pretty expensive points changes, I'm guessing that's just gonna be the point changes from the new codex.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/07 18:30:46
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
Also, and I realize some people will consider this griping...it really annoys me when GW does something like raise the points on eradicators - a unit that was transparently overpowered - without acknowledging what a mistake they made in the first place, and that everyone telling them it was a mistake was right and they were wrong. It just feels dishonest. Is it too much to ask for a little bit of a mea culpa and admission that they pointed them too aggressively and some sort of commitment to being more careful in future?
Also, and I realize some people will consider this griping...it really annoys me when GW does something like raise the points on eradicators - a unit that was transparently overpowered - without acknowledging what a mistake they made in the first place, and that everyone telling them it was a mistake was right and they were wrong. It just feels dishonest. Is it too much to ask for a little bit of a mea culpa and admission that they pointed them too aggressively and some sort of commitment to being more careful in future?
IIRC - I think I've only ever seen them do something like this twice. Once, it started out like an admission of a mistake and ended as a backhanded scolding of players who were using the rules in a perfectly legal way that was just not what the writers had intended (I.e. - it was the player's fault), and the other time was the Iron Hands nerf which came with a kind of "Well, we were told there were problems but wanted to test WHERE the problems were ..." kind of thing.
Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug
Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..."
yukishiro1 wrote: Sigh. They recognized the problems, but the solutions are all over the place, and some of them are straight-up terrible. Forcing the player who "wins" the roll-off to go first is silly, and does very little to address first-turn advantage.
Similarly, they recognized there's a problem with Abhor...but the "solution" is mind-bogglingly bad, and falls flat on its face at doing what they are saying prompted the change - namely, that the secondary punishes GK and TSons too much. But all they did is lower the points for killing characters from 5 to 3! You still get 2 points for each psychic unit killed. You'll still easily max it against GK and Tsons. It makes the secondary less punishing against lists with only psychic characters...but it's still a kick in the teeth to GK and Tsons.
The while we stand rule change - and specifically the bit that lets you split a unit after nominating it, and then the opponent has to destroy *both* halves - is another stupid change that is just a stealth buff to space marines, as you can now take a big unit, combat squad it, and still use half while hiding the other half to get the points. Even worse for custodes, who can split up a 10-man terminator unit and then just hold back 1 or 2 to get the points while using the rest of the unit with no worries about it being destroyed.
You really have to wonder about GW sometimes. Even when they recognize an issue, the "solution" if as often as not a real head-scratcher.
You may want to read that objective again. WWSWF is based on MODELS, not UNITS. No one cares if you split the unit, the FAQ regards the case where the MODEL splits.
Also, the solution to first turn advantage isn't in the roll decision, but in the fact that finally the second player gets to play a turn 5!
yukishiro1 wrote: Also, and I realize some people will consider this griping...it really annoys me when GW does something like raise the points on eradicators - a unit that was transparently overpowered - without acknowledging what a mistake they made in the first place, and that everyone telling them it was a mistake was right and they were wrong. It just feels dishonest. Is it too much to ask for a little bit of a mea culpa and admission that they pointed them too aggressively and some sort of commitment to being more careful in future?
yeah but what else can they even do? not like they can straight-out delete the unit. And them nerfing them IS them telling us they realised it was a mistake. As much as people were crying about them, they didnt (literally) break the game.
yeah but what else can they even do? not like they can straight-out delete the unit. And them nerfing them IS them telling us they realised it was a mistake. As much as people were crying about them, they didnt (literally) break the game.
Yeah, I mean if they had to publicly apologize every time they grossly miss-pointed a unit, the Field Manual would be a thousand pages long.
Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug
Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..."
yukishiro1 wrote: Sigh. They recognized the problems, but the solutions are all over the place, and some of them are straight-up terrible. Forcing the player who "wins" the roll-off to go first is silly, and does very little to address first-turn advantage.
Similarly, they recognized there's a problem with Abhor...but the "solution" is mind-bogglingly bad, and falls flat on its face at doing what they are saying prompted the change - namely, that the secondary punishes GK and TSons too much. But all they did is lower the points for killing characters from 5 to 3! You still get 2 points for each psychic unit killed. You'll still easily max it against GK and Tsons. It makes the secondary less punishing against lists with only psychic characters...but it's still a kick in the teeth to GK and Tsons.
The while we stand rule change - and specifically the bit that lets you split a unit after nominating it, and then the opponent has to destroy *both* halves - is another stupid change that is just a stealth buff to space marines, as you can now take a big unit, combat squad it, and still use half while hiding the other half to get the points. Even worse for custodes, who can split up a 10-man terminator unit and then just hold back 1 or 2 to get the points while using the rest of the unit with no worries about it being destroyed.
You really have to wonder about GW sometimes. Even when they recognize an issue, the "solution" if as often as not a real head-scratcher.
You may want to read that objective again. WWSWF is based on MODELS, not UNITS. No one cares if you split the unit, the FAQ regards the case where the MODEL splits.
Also, the solution to first turn advantage isn't in the roll decision, but in the fact that finally the second player gets to play a turn 5!
You may want to read the objective again. They changed it in the FAQ. It's now units, not models.
Abaddon303 wrote: Seems to me like GW are actually basing points for units and weapons on the individual codex.
If GW believe cultists are stronger in CSM armies than they are in DG (I'd probably agree) then they should be different points.
The DG helbrute is 5pts more than the CSM one. I imagine that is taking into account the contagions etc it will be benefiting from.
A lot of people complained when Tacs weren't cheaper than CSM despite access to doctrines etc...
This guy gets it!
Then please explain why Land Raiders, Predators, Vindicators, Sicarans, Leviathans, Fellblades, Fire Raptors, etc, etc, etc still cost exactly the same for loyalists and CSM?
Because the powers that be have determined the synergy/stratagems surrounding those units don't require variant point levels
Then the "powers that be" don't know their own rules. Both fw Land Raiders, all of the big flyers, and all of the super heavies for loyalists have the "Machine Spirit" keyword, which gives them access to the "Power of the Machine Spirit" strategem, which from 2CP allows them to function as if they are at full wounds no matter how much they've been damaged, the CSM variants have no equivalent. That's good for the Land Raiders and flyers, but huge for a 600 PPM pile of guns like a Fellblade. Based on that alone they shouldn't be the same price. Add on doctrines, super doctrines, and chapter tactics and it starts getting ridiculous.
GW proper has shown they generally don't really care about FW when it comes to balance. If they did, those units would be in the Codex, not in a FW book. As for the rest, I guess wait for a CSM codex. Maybe the DG codex will shed some light on the future for some of those units on the Chaos side of the house.
All of those rules apply to codex units now, and these points apply now, not for some future CSM codex. If gw was really pricing units based on their current rules in their current codexes then none of the shared vehicles between loyalists and CSM would be priced the same.
Actually they are priced based on whats to come. GW knows what's coming down the pike over the next few months, and they are leaning forward. You just can't see it because you don't know what is coming. It's fine though, we'll just agree to disagree.
Ok, we'll agree to disagree, but I'll bet we'll be seeing a lot of points changes for CSM units from this document once their new codex is released. They're not priced on whats to come, they're priced for right now.
Tycho wrote: Cadian's stance over several threads now appears to be one of not actually caring if the game is fun or not. IDK what to make if it. They haven't actually played since 5th so make of that what you will.
Observe Tycho being so blind he repeated calls me Cadian when my user name is clearly Canadian 5th. Can we trust a user who literally can't even read correctly?
Why would they apologise for trying to improve the game? I'm confused.. Wait, do you actually think GW owes the playerbase anything? They've always done what they want, its not going to change, unless you become one of their playtesters and make a compelling enough case regarding your argument.
Anyways, thanks for the free PDF! Feels good to get something for free which used to cost money.
Cheers
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/07 19:01:51
Observe Tycho being so blind he repeated calls me Cadian when my user name is clearly Canadian 5th. Can we trust a user who literally can't even read correctly?
Apologies for the disability ...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/07 19:00:08
Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug
Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..."
tauist wrote: Why would they apologise for trying to improve the game? I'm confused..
Because they spent the last 6 months telling everyone it was fine (first turn advantage) and that they just need to learn2play (see Brandt on these very forums for an example). Or because they came out with new kits with units priced in transparently ridiculous ways (eradicators) and then ignored everyone for 6 months telling them the units were hugely mispointed.
It just feels so corporate-PR-speak to be like "hey guys! great news! we adjusted points on some units that were overperforming! be happy!" when it never should have happened in the first place because a trained gerbil could have told them the original points were bonkers.
I wouldn't care if it didn't happen over and over again and if GW seemed to actually learn from these things. But they don't. They do the same thing over and over and then act like they're doing everybody a favor by fixing it. It feels like treating the player base like idiots when you make changes they've been crying for since the original release without acknowledging that yes, the players were right and yes, you were wrong and yes, going forward, maybe we'll learn from this and try to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Then you have a few options. You can always talk to your opponent and find some way that you can mitigate the issues with your units. You can accept that units that you like the models for are bad and leave them on the shelf in favor of playing better units. You can play with them at a handicap and define a margin of defeat that you feel comfortable counting as a victory due to unit imbalances.
If I take a squad of, say, Reivers in a SM army, my list is weaker than if I had taken a better unit. But that one unit is not going to stop me from having a chance of winning the game. So if I like Reivers, I can take them and still have a good game.
If the rest of your list is good you can always carry a weak unit or two.
If I take something like two Stompas in a 2k game, I'm going to get absolutely stomped. It will, in all probability, not be any fun, because I never stood a chance. Even just one Stompa is likely to cripple my forces, since it's close to half my army, 3 CP, and not worth even close to that.
Removed - BrookM Use your skills as an adult to solve this issue in the non-tournament games you play. As for tournament play, leave the bad units at home.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/01/07 19:53:16
Then you have a few options. You can always talk to your opponent and find some way that you can mitigate the issues with your units. You can accept that units that you like the models for are bad and leave them on the shelf in favor of playing better units. You can play with them at a handicap and define a margin of defeat that you feel comfortable counting as a victory due to unit imbalances.
If I take a squad of, say, Reivers in a SM army, my list is weaker than if I had taken a better unit. But that one unit is not going to stop me from having a chance of winning the game. So if I like Reivers, I can take them and still have a good game.
If the rest of your list is good you can always carry a weak unit or two.
If I take something like two Stompas in a 2k game, I'm going to get absolutely stomped. It will, in all probability, not be any fun, because I never stood a chance. Even just one Stompa is likely to cripple my forces, since it's close to half my army, 3 CP, and not worth even close to that.
You're presumably an adult who understands that GW does a poor job at balancing their game. Use your skills as an adult to solve this issue in the non-tournament games you play. As for tournament play, leave the bad units at home.
Use a modicum of decorum. Trying talking to others like an adult instead of attacking them like a jerk. Don't be a troll.
We mortals are but shadows and dust...
6k
:harlequin: 2k
2k
2k
I think people would prefer you obeyed the forum rules, to avoid getting more threads locked or creating more work for the mods who have to clean up the pointless bickering.
This is place where we discuss the game, not how much we don't like other posters.
Karol wrote: Hmm not a single change, not even basic update to incinerator range. Well at least there are no nerfs either which is a plus.
Sad that abhore is still a thing.
read the whole thing and stop crying, abhor was nerfed.
With 3 HQs, 1 Ancient and 2 apothecaries it is still an auto take.
You're presumably an adult who understands that GW does a poor job at balancing their game. Use your skills as an adult to solve this issue in the non-tournament games you play. As for tournament play, leave the bad units at home.
Wait, is that an actual rule that people who are adults can change rules and those that aren't can not. Because if yes, it is a bit messed up for anyone under 18.
At least in terms of this update, I'm prepared to cut some slack for Covid related complications. I mean yeah, we felt pretty early on that Eradicators were an issue, but I wouldn't want GW jumping on a nerf to anything too fast based just off of internet forums. They were probably trying to gather what data they could given the lockdowns and tournament cancellations etc.
I wonder why they nerfed outridders. If it was someone mixing them up with blade guard, or maybe the outridder kids reached they assumed number of sales and could be purned on the pyre of balance.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/07 19:17:15
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
6k
2k
2k 
15k+
Emperor's Spears 2500
Beastmen 10k
