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.

Canadian, that's a great idea for Eldar design. I often lurk these threads and read people's thoughts about the tricky nature of balancing Eldar for the modern ultra-lethal game, and I think that is one of the best solutions I have seen.

The only (minor) downside I can see is that it would "feel bad", but then so does getting tabled. I thematically it works brilliantly, because Eldar are always UP TO SOMETHING in the background, usually something beyond the comprehension of the dull witted human brutes.

tneva82 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

So how on the remotely balanced concept do you justify
M7 WS3+, BS3+, S3 T3, 1W 2A 4+Sv at 8 points (probably fair against SoB and Marines)
While M6 WS5+ BS4+ S3 T3 1W 1A 4+Sv at 9 points?

Good to know you　already know tau codex　changes.

Old codexes are fairly irrelevant for balance comparisons. They are screwed by power creep anyway. You　need to compare to 9e codexes. If you　balance things now vs 8e codexes you　end up with　underpowered codex in the end. You　hate de so much you want them to be rock bottom?

Notice I said they needed the statline changes to balance against the upper factions now.

Given we just got the MFM updates and the Dark eldar points barely changed for their codex.

So essentially the MFM has been bs from the start we are apparently all paying 9th edition points for 8th edition rules untill we get a codex.
That or GW is unable or unwilling to actually discount armies stuck on 8th edition rules to give them a frightening chance at playing an edition that's almost 9 months old and on its second points update.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Iracundus wrote:
As an example, BFG Necron rules had their opponents able to score many VPs for doing damage and destroying their ships. This was a band-aid solution to the problem of the Necron rules being overpowered. While the intent was to force cautious Necron play or disengagement at the threat of losing VPs, it was not unknown for a Necron player to ignore VPs entirely and wipe out the enemy entirely. Sure they would "lose" on VPs due to the damage taken, but it wasn't a satisfying feeling for the "winning" opponent who was effectively tabled. The gimmick of the VPs was therefore not an effective balancing solution.

I feel like that's a bad example because the issue with Necrons in BFG wasn't that special victory condition but the fact that they were OP as hell.

The goal of my ideas would be to take armies that, by the numbers, aren't strong enough to compete by simply killing the enemy and holding ground a gimmick to play around. They need to have enough power to grab a win from 'behind' but have obvious enough play patterns that their opponent doesn't feel like a win came out of nowhere or that them killing enemy units didn't matter. It's a balancing act and a damned tough one but I think it'd be cool if every codex had its own thing and thus every game you had two armies fighting and aiming for goals that weren't just stand on as many of 4 to 6 objective markers as you can, kill specific unit types, and maybe stand in a table quarter.

The BFG Necrons being overpowered is a separate issue. My point was that "winning by gimmick" was not very satisfying if it became the most realistic way to actually win.

Just as the non-Necron player did not find it satisfying to win on VPs while having their fleet nearly wiped out, I don't think having for example Eldar armies "winning" by gimmick (while being shattered) would be very satisfying for the Eldar player or their opponent either. It can feel like a hollow victory for the former, and a win snatched away for the latter.

Sure have some gimmicks but these factions still ultimately need to be able to stand on their own and be reasonably competitive.

Yes and I think people look back on those old Necrons with heavily rose tinted glasses. Things like phase out were not enjoyable. The idea is cool, but was frustrating in practice at the time.

Necrons feel like implacable warriors who just keep coming, armed with high quality weaponry that can flay the skin. Tesla bounces between enemies like energy current. They feel good without just playing a different game. Arguably 8.5 SM played like narrative marines, but that doesn't make for a good game.

tneva82 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

So how on the remotely balanced concept do you justify
M7 WS3+, BS3+, S3 T3, 1W 2A 4+Sv at 8 points (probably fair against SoB and Marines)
While M6 WS5+ BS4+ S3 T3 1W 1A 4+Sv at 9 points?

Good to know you　already know tau codex　changes.

Old codexes are fairly irrelevant for balance comparisons. They are screwed by power creep anyway. You　need to compare to 9e codexes. If you　balance things now vs 8e codexes you　end up with　underpowered codex in the end. You　hate de so much you want them to be rock bottom?

It is 100% relevant.

The 9th codici don't bring power creep, they bring a rebalance.
They have been quite consistent in what they do:

- Jack up the thoughness of melee footslogging models
- Nerf vehicle lists
- Power up single/double shot AT weapons
- Nerf efficient shooting options and stratagems
- Rebalance AP
- Convert Dd3 to D2
- Remove silly and gamey interactions

As such, firewarriors are not looking at a bright future if GW doesn't go out of their way with the T'au faction.

Spoletta wrote:
As such, firewarriors are not looking at a bright future if GW doesn't go out of their way with the T'au faction.

Undoubtedly boring - but give them BS3+ and you'd probably be fine.
Would actually work across the whole range of the codex, which seems to be balanced on the assumption you can throw down about 10~ marker lights every turn with no chance of failure and for free.

There's probably a more fun/interactive way of doing things though. But so long as Tau are the "we don't assault" faction in an edition all about assaulting, they are going to be in trouble.

So clearly the answer is for Fire Warriors to get WS 4+ and 2 attacks.

What they need isn't assault. They need a way to move after firing, so that they can clear and capture a point.

A redesign of Mont'ka would probably be a good way to do that.

Spoletta wrote:
What they need isn't assault. They need a way to move after firing, so that they can clear and capture a point.

A redesign of Mont'ka would probably be a good way to do that.

Two attacks is a joke as you don't want them to be in cc.
They should better keep the enemy at arm's length.
Trueborn would be a different thing.

 harlokin wrote:

 Gregor Samsa wrote:
IMO eldar and dark eldar don’t really work well/make sense in a game rule set without an initiative statline. Their speed and agility were best represented in that way, and they played more thematically within that rules framework

Harlequins turned out very well from them their WD update.

Yeah, but harlequins are crazy RN because I can just deploy a huge pile of them fairly easily in a gigantic clump of 14ppm dudes with 4++, 6+FNP, -1 to hit, -1 to wound, and you count as 6" further away from me.

I played my Harlies as Orklequins recently and both me and my opponent were just like "So....what the feth are you supposed to do about THAT?"

str 5 rapid fire 30 is a huge upgrade from poison. Firewarriors and warriors should probably cost about the same. Currently with the buff warriors are better than firewarriors even if firewarriors were currently 8 points. I'd say strap on some kind of on 6 proc for the fire warriors (6's to hit are damage 2) or something.

I feel Harlequins are an example of "everything's fluffy when its overpowered".

DE enjoyed a similar honeymoon when their 8th edition codex came out. Unfortunately you then saw the usual devolution - which meant the weaker stuff became really weak, and the good stuff became "you need to play this to have much of a chance".

I'm certainly cynical about "initiative" of all things defining a faction - because it just brings back flashbacks of your initiative being 1 if you charged into cover.

And someone from GW observing Eldar and Tyranid assault units shouldn't just get assault grenades to bypass this rule, because if everyone had such grenades why bother with the rule?
Why indeed.

the_scotsman wrote:

 harlokin wrote:

 Gregor Samsa wrote:
IMO eldar and dark eldar don’t really work well/make sense in a game rule set without an initiative statline. Their speed and agility were best represented in that way, and they played more thematically within that rules framework

Harlequins turned out very well from them their WD update.

Yeah, but harlequins are crazy RN because I can just deploy a huge pile of them fairly easily in a gigantic clump of 14ppm dudes with 4++, 6+FNP, -1 to hit, -1 to wound, and you count as 6" further away from me.

I played my Harlies as Orklequins recently and both me and my opponent were just like "So....what the feth are you supposed to do about THAT?"

My harlequin opponent wont listen to me. A few 10 man units just barebones with aldarie blades next to a troop master is doing just about as much damage while being super durable due to being cheap. Heck - you could take 60-80 of them like that and you'd probably turn 3-4 table any army you run into.

 wuestenfux wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
What they need isn't assault. They need a way to move after firing, so that they can clear and capture a point.

A redesign of Mont'ka would probably be a good way to do that.

Two attacks is a joke as you don't want them to be in cc.
They should better keep the enemy at arm's length.
Trueborn would be a different thing.

I guess, that you quoted the wrong person

 Xenomancers wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 harlokin wrote:

 Gregor Samsa wrote:
IMO eldar and dark eldar don’t really work well/make sense in a game rule set without an initiative statline. Their speed and agility were best represented in that way, and they played more thematically within that rules framework

Harlequins turned out very well from them their WD update.

Yeah, but harlequins are crazy RN because I can just deploy a huge pile of them fairly easily in a gigantic clump of 14ppm dudes with 4++, 6+FNP, -1 to hit, -1 to wound, and you count as 6" further away from me.

I played my Harlies as Orklequins recently and both me and my opponent were just like "So....what the feth are you supposed to do about THAT?"

My harlequin opponent wont listen to me. A few 10 man units just barebones with aldarie blades next to a troop master is doing just about as much damage while being super durable due to being cheap. Heck - you could take 60-80 of them like that and you'd probably turn 3-4 table any army you run into.

I don't know about that, but for fun I tried playing footslogging ork-clowns with my new pile of ancient rogue trader metal harlequins and my philosphy was "If I'm going to run these dudes on foot with zany nonsense wargear dictated by what the metal models are holding, I'm going to need to powergame the auras and traits and such" and no.

No I did not have to do that, apparently. Apparently, the ability to have a model rocking two stacking very similarly powerful auras right on top of one another for 1cp was a very dumb and stupid idea on GW's part, whodathunkit?

Tyel wrote:
I feel Harlequins are an example of "everything's fluffy when its overpowered".

Is the perception really that Quins are overpowered, rather than a '9th edition-style codex' released early?

 harlokin wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I feel Harlequins are an example of "everything's fluffy when its overpowered".

Is the perception really that Quins are overpowered, rather than a '9th edition-style codex' released early?

It was released in 2018 between T'au and Knights. Not sure but it I think it's the white dwarf Psychic Awakening that is helping.

dhallnet wrote:

 harlokin wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I feel Harlequins are an example of "everything's fluffy when its overpowered".

Is the perception really that Quins are overpowered, rather than a '9th edition-style codex' released early?

It was released in 2018 between T'au and Knights. Not sure but it I think it's the white dwarf Psychic Awakening that is helping.

Yes, I was referring to the WD update, which seems to have been a massive game changer for the army.

Tyel wrote:

I'm certainly cynical about "initiative" of all things defining a faction - because it just brings back flashbacks of your initiative being 1 if you charged into cover.

And someone from GW observing Eldar and Tyranid assault units shouldn't just get assault grenades to bypass this rule, because if everyone had such grenades why bother with the rule?
Why indeed.

To be honest, this seems like a problem specific to the cover rules.

Indeed, I argued repeatedly at the time that it would have been far more sensible for cover to negate the +1 attack units received from charging (as that would have penalised all chargers - not just ones that relied on good initiative).

Spoletta wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
What they need isn't assault. They need a way to move after firing, so that they can clear and capture a point.

A redesign of Mont'ka would probably be a good way to do that.

Two attacks is a joke as you don't want them to be in cc.
They should better keep the enemy at arm's length.
Trueborn would be a different thing.

I guess, that you quoted the wrong person

Sorry, right.

The "middle class" stuff has all seemed overcosted with the 9E points. The extra attack and armor here seem like a good step in the right direction. They can decisively beat the lower end troops, the squad leader's weapon is that much better, and they can soak up a little more fire in cover.

The cannon still seems overcosted considering the "usually undergunned, sometimes way overgunned" aspect of the poison weapons. Maybe 4 shots would have been more fair.

Regarding Tau, don't D2 Pulse Rifles (not carbines) make the most sense? I think they might go that way.

Hopefully GW will tease the Scourge datasheet next!

 harlokin wrote:
Yes, I was referring to the WD update, which seems to have been a massive game changer for the army.

If your competitive win rate is way out ahead of other factions its usually a sign of being overpowered. I feel the only thing keeping them in check is the limited uptake of Harlequin armies.

I guess you can debate though whether they are just first amongst equals with 9th edition codexes. Quite a lot of factions still outside that pot though.

 Slowroll wrote:
Hopefully GW will tease the Scourge datasheet next!

Yup, and hopefully they'll take a leaf out of the Pteraxii book.

 harlokin wrote:

dhallnet wrote:

 harlokin wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I feel Harlequins are an example of "everything's fluffy when its overpowered".

Is the perception really that Quins are overpowered, rather than a '9th edition-style codex' released early?

It was released in 2018 between T'au and Knights. Not sure but it I think it's the white dwarf Psychic Awakening that is helping.

Yes, I was referring to the WD update, which seems to have been a massive game changer for the army.

It is basically a 50% reduction in damage from low quality attacks compared to previously before the WD. Yes is massive. Clearly broken. What the heck do you shoot at a Starweaver to kill it?
-1 to hit and wound makes single shot weapons wound 1/4 if you hit on 3's. High ROF weapons typically are str 5/4 which now wound on 5's and 6's. Twin assault cannons are probably the ideal weapon to hit them with but their range is cut to 18" which means you are auto charged the next turn and its essentially GG once this army collapses on you.

I played against quinns a lot in 8th eddition. They were strong then too. The were tittering at the almost OP level. Because it was totally possible to deal a death blow to them turn 1. Now you can't. There is no army in the game that can avoid being charged by every unit in a quin army on turn 2. Then their natural OP traits come into play. Everything you are fighting ignores your AP/ignores your strength/ and also ignores your tougness as they reroll all wounds with an auto include cheapo HQ. Don't even get my started about the solitare...or hawywire bikes...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 harlokin wrote:

 Slowroll wrote:
Hopefully GW will tease the Scourge datasheet next!

Yup, and hopefully they'll take a leaf out of the Pteraxii book.

I'd be pretty happy if sqourges got the exact same changes as warriors. +1 save +1 attack would be really nice for them .

Are the reboxed units already on the shelves? Of course not here in Spain, but maybe in the UK...

 Slowroll wrote:
Regarding Tau, don't D2 Pulse Rifles (not carbines) make the most sense? I think they might go that way.

I just can't see that happening. My money's on pulse in general getting an AP boost, so rifles and similar go to AP-1.

 Slowroll wrote:

Regarding Tau, don't D2 Pulse Rifles (not carbines) make the most sense? I think they might go that way.

That'd be terrible. Straight-up bad-for-the-game terrible, as that would be a major jump in ranks of anti-vehicle effectiveness. Except against dreads, of course.

As a tau player with hordes of firewarriors, pulse rifles are fine. S5 is great for a basic weapon that you can spam in 8-9 point models. I would not change anything about Strike Squads, TBH.

I prefer to run breachers for my Farsight enclaves, so those would be probably where more help is needed. Maybe +3" of range for each profile of the blaster.

The problems of Tau lie elsewhere than in the humble fire warrior.

Voss wrote:

 Slowroll wrote:

Regarding Tau, don't D2 Pulse Rifles (not carbines) make the most sense? I think they might go that way.

That'd be terrible. Straight-up bad-for-the-game terrible, as that would be a major jump in ranks of anti-vehicle effectiveness. Except against dreads, of course.

True. but going from 180 shots to kill a Rhino to "only" 90 for this hypothetical 2 damage Pulse Rifle doesn't seem too scary really. My thought is that the gun is already pretty good against other infantry, but 20 shots to kill one marine is just too weak to matter. It seems likely they'll lose at least some of their shooting buffs in a new codex also. Anyway, just a thought. What would you suggest?

 Canadian 5th wrote:
From a thematic standpoint, I could easily see DE having some ability that shuts down a unit's ability to hold points for a turn. Make it so they can win the game by holding whatever objectives they happen to be near that turn while using relics and special abilities to disrupt the enemy's plans. It would be thematic and fun as long as it had some form of counter play.

This ability should really not be spammed that much in various factions tho.

IMO , it only makes sense for DA, Night lords and Drukhari, i really hope GW doesnt give it to every army.

But yes, with initiative gone, elfs should be the rules bender faction. Stuff like the "reduce range" aura that harlequins got is a perfect example of what trickery they should have.

No drukhari article is literally orwell's nightmare. GW I need large doses of seratonin from a gradual revelation of the rules changes so that I can imagine they're more sweeping that they are and so that I spend large sums of money on the new thing!

...or maybe it'll just get me so hyped and excited that I painstakingly spend an hour and a half screencapping the entire book from blurry youtube jpgs the second the embargo lifts and I end up not bothering to buy the thing after putting in all that effort.

Hey, cheggars can't be boozers, right GW?