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.

Most boxes of a model are sold around release, if they were trying to overpower stuff to sell it it wouldn't make sense to do it down the road as opposed to when they're released.

What GW definitely does in terms of balance is stir the pot, but it seems to be more random stirring than purposeful choices to buff or nerf particular things. The total hit and miss nature of the recent Space Marines release illustrates this pretty well.

We're arguing semantics then as stirring the pot I still consider placing rules to sell models. I am sure they sold a good amount of baneblades, knights, all those things on release to people who just wanted the models when available.

I mean how many people said they thought the firestorm turret thing was dumb, yet would buy 3 ? However for everyone else, they would wait until they had a use for them. Hence the mecha horses, using them for instance. They were priced point wise to move, with rules to make them attractive and even a primo strat to give them bite in their role.

The hit or miss with marines is not really, in my mind, a miss at all as the primaris stuff still usually ends up better than its first born contemporary. The fact that vehicles are kind of meh right now not withstanding.

There are just too many times that you see, trends like, these kinds of models are great, now they suck, transports are terrible, now they are mandatory, flyers, LoW, etc, etc. They may be often bad at it but that doesn't mean they don't push people in certain directions and if they don't at first do so, they'll keep buffing until they get there, like with Marines which went up and up and then had to dial back down. How many special rules did they have to slap on them to make them feel like a strong choice ? For awhile it was just buffs on buffs culminating with the likes of iron hands, before the mild nerfening.

Which thankfully left the DA alone, so all may still enjoy their transhuman terminators. Which I appreciate.

 waefre_1 wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
2: Keep updating rules for them, but not make them... So then someone who likes the rules either has to convert or proxy.

This one. GW used to be a lot more friendly to conversions/proxying. That's an attitude that they should go back to, Chapterhouse be damned (I understand that they need to worry about their IP, but if they aren't going to be making a mini, the least GW can do is not be gakheads to their customers about it).

Yeah, this is the way I'd think they should go about it - and they could even do the odd article on WHC or video on YouTube showing how to convert some of these models.

In terms of updating, I'd say a sweep through Legends at the start of an edition should be the minimum expectation. Ideally, I'd want to see them reviewed when a 'dex is redone, so keywording and weapon profiles are kept consistent, and so that if anything is removed from the book, it shows up in Legends pretty much straightaway. Having just checked, OG Ragnar isn't in Legends, for example, and I'm pretty sure he was pulled from the SW Supplement.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
GW would never use rules to sell models, they are the pinnacles of balance and straight shooting honesty.

You're a bit late, April Fools was 12 days ago.

Boy it's fun to watch him bust into threads like the Cool Aid Man only to fall over and spill the drink everywhere.

 alextroy wrote:
If GW has actively overpowered a kit to sell it in recent years, I wouldn’t say “they aren’t very good at it”. They would be abysmally bad at it.

There we agree.

Just because GW try to do it doesn't mean they're any good at it.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
GW actually trademarked my skull, it'll be a sad day when I die and they take possession of it.

You will live on as a Citadel™ Servo™ Skull™.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
We're arguing semantics then as stirring the pot I still consider placing rules to sell models. I am sure they sold a good amount of baneblades, knights, all those things on release to people who just wanted the models when available.

I think things have always been too scattershot for this to really be a motivation. There's also no obvious reason for why GW want to sell this bit of plastic but not that bit of plastic.

I think the evidence is just that GW internally have a relatively limited understanding of how their game is played at a competitive/obsessive/min-maxer level - and historically seemingly not much interest. So their rules did not take this into account.

Consequently when cries of "this is too powerful" and "this is rubbish" eventually reached them, some guy grabbed a power slider up and down - but having no idea where "balance" is, you just got a new random outcome. Do you think GW secretly had a conspiracy to sell Thunderfire Cannons? And if they had that conspiracy, why has it seemingly dramatically ended now? I think its more likely someone in the rules team just went "this seems like a cool rule?" GW has no obvious motive in making IH the best chapter any more than UM or IF or whatever - its just that "cool rule" on "cool rule" made them so.

The iterative approach of the CA points adjustments usually worked quite well because if a unit is "bad" at say 20 points - its going to be "better" at 16-18, even if its not perfect. Where it went wrong is when you had this process running alongside major metashifts brought on by new books - see for instance GSC.

The fact the 9th codexes seem to have had a wider playtest is also probably why there are less explicit issues than before - at least for now.

If GW does try to overpower new kits to push sales of them, then they do it so incompetently that you can effectively just ignore it as a consequence.

"You do realize primaris tanks are bad but they're better than firstborn tanks" like, no, dude. They're actually generally not, because they load so many weapons onto primaris tanks that they're just giant points piniatas for your opponent to demolish. ABSOLUTELY give me a las predator over a fething lancer, a land speeder with a multi-melta over a storm speeder that costs 2.5 times as much, degrades, and gets one single additional mm shot, and a Vindicator over...most marine vehicles honestly, 140 points for something that's probably just about as durable as a 360 point repulsor.

They're all not great, but if I had to take either firstborn tanks or primaris tanks, firstborn all day every day in basically every category.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
You do realize the primaris were made a good deal better than first born marines for a awhile before first borns were buffed yes ? You do realize that while primaris tanks may not be amazing they still end up better, mostly, than first born tanks yes ?

Would you care to quantify this statement?

Please use a Gladiator Reaper at 230 points against a TAC Razorback at 125.

You do realize that GW may be aware people all have monoliths who play necrons as they weren't a LoW before yes ?

I fail to see how this is relevant.

You do realize that Baneblades and Knights more so did have a large amount of time they were very good as choices run and Baneblades have been sold for a long time so far yes ?

CK are doing quite well. Baneblades would probably do fine as well right now if people just stopped worrying about the 3CP.

Are they always very good at it ? No but if they don't get the sales they want right off, best bet your bottom dollar they will make them tasty as soon as the next update for that models rules come out, typically. Some units oddly they seem content to not really entice people on with rules, like unless I missed it people weren't too thrilled with the ork buggies.

See...you're just arguing both sides of the coin so that you can't ever "be wrong".

Ork Buggies were decent. It's the community that decided they weren't good ( Squig Buggies mostly excluded ). Ork Buggies got a point drop and people still decided they weren't worth it. Now we see people using tons of buggies. Why? Because people decided to actually try them instead of listening to misguided community opinion.

What is or is not "good" is largely determined by how people view things not by how GW has balanced it. There have been the warping events from marines, Castellans, and Ynnari. You will claim these are as intended. I will claim that the issues surrounding are mistakes rooted in far more complex issues.

Fairly substantial weapon updates shown off here.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/04/13/praise-the-omnissiah-adeptus-mechanicus-guns-are-deadlier-than-ever/

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Fairly substantial weapon updates shown off here.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/04/13/praise-the-omnissiah-adeptus-mechanicus-guns-are-deadlier-than-ever/

Yeah, i think this is the final nail for me, i'll probably shelve my 40k for a while now. The damage creep has gotten to a ridiculous point now.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Fairly substantial weapon updates shown off here.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/04/13/praise-the-omnissiah-adeptus-mechanicus-guns-are-deadlier-than-ever/

Holy smokes, looks almost too good to be true. Wonder how much Rangers will cost in the new book?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Fairly substantial weapon updates shown off here.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/04/13/praise-the-omnissiah-adeptus-mechanicus-guns-are-deadlier-than-ever/

Yeah, i think this is the final nail for me, i'll probably shelve my 40k for a while now. The damage creep has gotten to a ridiculous point now.

lol at least wait and see the codex before judging!

Umbros wrote:
lol at least wait and see the codex before judging!

ANGRY NOISES!

I don't see how seeing the full codex would somehow lower the damage output of these new profiles tho? I've already been down on 40k these days, this just makes me nega-hyped for the admech codex

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
I don't see how seeing the full codex would somehow lower the damage output of these new profiles tho? I've already been down on 40k these days, this just makes me nega-hyped for the admech codex

Are these weapons actually...that crazy?

I mean, sure, OK, its got damage flat 3 and that's pretty good, but it wounds on a 4 and has AP-2, where most anti-tank weapons generally wound on a 3 since theyre usually s8 and usually have AP at least -3.

IIRC the weapon they're competing with is an assault 2 18" range plasma gun, correct? which overcharged against a tank profile would deal 1.48 damage, and the new arc rifle in rapid would deal 1.33.

The plasma caliver is going to be more effective against MEQ, obviously, because damage flat 2 and owund on 2s and AP-3, and against tanks, with the downside of it being obviously exploding the wielder on a 1 if you overcharge it.

The change to cognis auto and lascannons makes perfect sense as well, because (again IIRC) they're mounted on the big ironstrider balistarii things, and they're in direct competition with Onager Dunecrawlers. Rather than making those just...less good versions of Onagers, now they're the 'high damage for the points, low durability' option.

These all seem like pretty reasonable buffs to make.

Admech in general ( not everything ofc) was underperforming in relation to model and lore. They have the best imperial tech, which you never felt in 8th edition, which was a huge nerf from 7th edition.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
I don't see how seeing the full codex would somehow lower the damage output of these new profiles tho? I've already been down on 40k these days, this just makes me nega-hyped for the admech codex

In all seriousness I can see how it could be stressful.

It could wind up being a huge stinker, but there's a lot to consider. AdMech had a really early book and it's rules require a loooot of revision. How will Canticles be handled? How will CORE be applied? We've seen drops in durability on new units ( also see DE ). What about with Kataphrons?

 0XFallen wrote:
Admech in general ( not everything ofc) was underperforming in relation to model and lore. They have the best imperial tech, which you never felt in 8th edition, which was a huge nerf from 7th edition.

And of course baseline mass-produced imperial tech used by the imperial guard is better than....every 'hyper-advanced' technological xenos race in the game, but that's neither here nor there

I am in agreement that admech weaponry needed to be greatly improved. I'm guessing they'll just give simple statbuffs and get rid of the fiddly "thing on a 6" rules like what currently exist on arc, galvanic, cognis, transonic etc etc, which is good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
I don't see how seeing the full codex would somehow lower the damage output of these new profiles tho? I've already been down on 40k these days, this just makes me nega-hyped for the admech codex

In all seriousness I can see how it could be stressful.

It could wind up being a huge stinker, but there's a lot to consider. AdMech had a really early book and it's rules require a loooot of revision. How will Canticles be handled? How will CORE be applied? We've seen drops in durability on new units. What about with Kataphrons?

idk, but if you asked me to guess:

-the Bionics rule will be their 'they always get this' USR, and Canticles will be their 'only if no allies, maybe we let you grandfather in one Knight and still get them' doctrine-equivalent

-forgeworld choice will let you swap out a vanilla canticle or maybe improve a particular canticle

The Codex may remove certain... exciting combinations from Engine War.

But yes - possibly the most shooty faction in the game right now getting 40% more shooting doesn't fill me with joy.

Tyel wrote:
The Codex may remove certain... exciting combinations from Engine War.

But yes - possibly the most shooty faction in the game right now getting 40% more shooting doesn't fill me with joy.

Meh, let’s see what gets Core before we assume the most shooty faction gets significantly more shooty. If robots keep BS4 and lose re-rolls, and Wrath of Mars goes away or gets capped, the biggest boogeyman in the army is gone.

I haven’t seen anything yet that’s Eradicaters level of broken, have you?

Most of the shooting power in 8th came not from pure stats but by reroll bubles and stratagem stacking.

What most people that complaints about profile changes with 9th dont see (because most people don't play that much) is that the offensive output of most shooting lists in 9th is actually lowering in relation with 8th with the exception of armies that were just too weak.

9th codex are removing most of the absurd buff stacking of 8th and the reroll absurdities of those codex, and making the base stats of the weapons better to compensate. Those are great changes: Units and weapons stand on their own merits, not by how ubermonger they become with 1-2 auras, psychic powers and 2-3 stratagems on top of them.

Well, one of the best ways to counter Wound creep is Damage creep... Too bad it's so variable.

Stat inflation is one of the defining features of 9th edition. People should get used to it, it isn't going away. I personally think it's a big mistake, but GW clearly doesn't make decisions based on what I think, so that's neither here nor there.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Stat inflation is one of the defining features of 9th edition. People should get used to it, it isn't going away. I personally think it's a big mistake, but GW clearly doesn't make decisions based on what I think, so that's neither here nor there.

Thats what i feel, the game was already too lethal for my taste instead being based on strategy. And i think expressing that opinion is fine, me chosing to shelf my 40k because i don't like how it currently is is fine.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Stat inflation is one of the defining features of 9th edition. People should get used to it, it isn't going away. I personally think it's a big mistake, but GW clearly doesn't make decisions based on what I think, so that's neither here nor there.

I have to ask: Why would it be a mistake?

To me, one of the greatest crimes of gw's systems over the years has been that they DONT FREAKING USE THEM. they pick one combination of, for example, wounds, toughness, and save, and they make a JILLION different units that exact combination of stats with very little to differentiate them, and then they make a surprised pikachu face when every single edtiion there ends up being a 'best weapon type' to take vs everything.

The fact that necrons and death guard got wildly vastly different stat increases to make them resilient in very different ways is one of the best features of 9th as opposed to 8th. Moving marines to a w2 framework opens a huge amount of design freedom and opens the door to, for example -

-Letting Eldar have good save values, making them into a low-T high-sv faction
-Letting Orks have T5 (because it no longer makes the W2 marines feel weak) and maybe adding additional toughness/wounds to nids as well, making them the 'durable by being difficult to wound' faction

If the defensive profiles of the various different factions are finally finally being made distinct, suddenly it's a whole lot less easy to 'solve' the equation of which weapon you want, and spam it to the exclusion of all others.

Also, increasing the consistency of heavy weaponry is massively needed. Damage including a lot more flat values than straight d3s and d6s is something that was immediately clear in the opening days of 8th to me.

I'm glad all this is happening, my only complaint is that it's one army at a time, but designers can only work so fast. Slow is better than not at all or sloppy.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

You do realize that Baneblades and Knights more so did have a large amount of time they were very good as choices run and Baneblades have been sold for a long time so far yes ?

CK are doing quite well. Baneblades would probably do fine as well right now if people just stopped worrying about the 3CP.

Not a guard player then... The SHTs have a problem where their survivability doesn't increase in the same way as their damage and points over basic tanks. If you can kill Leman Russ you can kill Baneblades and the guard player loses more points and firepower for not much more effort on your part. Throw in the CP loss and you may as well get a Knight.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Stat inflation is one of the defining features of 9th edition. People should get used to it, it isn't going away. I personally think it's a big mistake, but GW clearly doesn't make decisions based on what I think, so that's neither here nor there.

Thats what i feel, the game was already too lethal for my taste instead being based on strategy. And i think expressing that opinion is fine, me chosing to shelf my 40k because i don't like how it currently is is fine.

While I generally would agree, I would still hold my final verdict unitl the codex is released and we have all the rules. And the final, final verdict until we have all 9th ed codices. GW seems to be putting at least some effort into balancing the lethality with special abilities like "fight last" or "can't be hit/wounded better than....".
Now if that works in the long run and provides for a somewhat healthy meta for 9th remains to be seen, but like I said in another thread: if a 10th edition comes around in a couple of years, and we get another cycle of codex releases with the same level of power creep as this one, I don't think the game can handle it unless they make a hard reset regarding weapon profiles and unit stats.

More dangerous weapons for 9th. Just what the Tech-Priest ordered.

Having said that, I think some of the increased power will be tempered by the fact that things like Arc-Rifles will be 0-1 per squad of 10 Skitarii. It's ok though, I'm sure 10-man squads with 1 Transuranic Arquebus, 1 Arc-Rifle and 1 Plasma Caliver will work really well.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
More dangerous weapons for 9th. Just what the Tech-Priest ordered.

Having said that, I think some of the increased power will be tempered by the fact that things like Arc-Rifles will be 0-1 per squad of 10 Skitarii. It's ok though, I'm sure 10-man squads with 1 Transuranic Arquebus, 1 Arc-Rifle and 1 Plasma Caliver will work really well.

I could see them losing their 2 per 5 for a more archaic wording scheme.

I do like that the standard galvanic rifle is at cross purposes with the arc rifle. One doesn't want to move and the other does, which can offset the pretty solid buff to the rifles or cause people to limit use of arc rifles.

Safe to say I can go back to complaining about marine being terrible again.