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.

I think CSM should be able to surf on Fellblades, it'd make both less garbage tier. I also want fly back on my Heirophant.

*edit* wait... they never removed fly from the Heirophant. Hehehe... another stealth buff to Membranous Mobility!!! Another unit available to my skyblight meme army!!!

This is a competitive game (even a casual game you expect two people to enter and one victor to leave), using the rules to win the game is literally the point.

I'm sure no one considers shooting a multi-melta at a tank to be a TFG move exploiting GW's errors.
Because that's clearly what a multi-melta is for.

There's clearly a grey area between shooting a multi-melta at a tank and Bragg auto-killing a Warlord titan with frag grenades, but Pteraxi repositioning was definitely just using a strat by it's very clear wording.

Karol wrote:
I am not sure what a tfg is, assuming it is an insult though, but it would be rather strange if following the rules somehow made you insult worthy. If it is legal, it is legal. If it is not, it is not.

Do you actually seriously believe that there is no quality of a person that makes them insult-worthy so long as they follow all laws?

Because I don't think you do. I think you've considered someone to be insult-worthy for doing something that is not technically illegal at some point in your life.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 bullyboy wrote:
So not being widely versed in Admech, what did the changes do to reduce overall strength of army?

Probably not. The only thing this FAQ in particular will change will be taking competitive admech lists from

-blobs of skitarii
-couple buff characters
-one unit of pteraxii

to

blobs of skitarii
couple buff characters.

Skitarii are still so bonkers strong on their own that people will still just be able to ride their crazy buff combos to a 60+% winrate.

What's this business about infinite frag grenades?

 vipoid wrote:
What's this business about infinite frag grenades?

"try agian" bragg form the guants ghosts has a "can shoot again if: he shoots, and doesn't hit with his autocannon" rule, but thiers no requirement for him to shoot the autocannon, and he also carries a grenade.

So, if he throws a grenade, he has "shot, and hasn't hit with the autocannon" (becuase the A/C was never fired), he can "try again"...and again, and again, etc.

xerxeskingofking wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
What's this business about infinite frag grenades?

"try agian" bragg form the guants ghosts has a "can shoot again if: he shoots, and doesn't hit with his autocannon" rule, but thiers no requirement for him to shoot the autocannon, and he also carries a grenade.

So, if he throws a grenade, he has "shot, and hasn't hit with the autocannon" (becuase the A/C was never fired), he can "try again"...and again, and again, etc.

Oh that's just priceless.

 vipoid wrote:




Oh that's just priceless.

oh, indeed, and its clearly a case of the RAW and the RAI diverging, in that this clearly wasn't what they wanted to do with the ability as it relies on some loophole abuse/rules lawyering to work. they haven't FAQ'd this yet, but given its reliant on getting a not very durable toughness 3 guardsman into 6" of a target on his own shooting phase, its not easy to get too much abuse out of it.

the argument about the Booster Thrust strat is that the divergence of the RAW and RAI wasnt quite as clear, as the exploit didnt rely on anything but a plain language reading of the strat as written with no twisting of the wording or anything, and its also tied to a relatively easy to get unit, and the conditions for its exploitation were very easy to engineer.

If you were willing to spend the CP you could basically have a unit that deep stikes, has a full turn to act on the board (shoot, preform an action, etc), and then could boost back off the table at the end of your turn, so the opponent could not attack it all, except by using his own CP to get use a "fire on deep striking" strat (if he had one). Thus, the overall effect on the game balance is thus much greater.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
This is a competitive game (even a casual game you expect two people to enter and one victor to leave), using the rules to win the game is literally the point.

I'm sure no one considers shooting a multi-melta at a tank to be a TFG move exploiting GW's errors.
Because that's clearly what a multi-melta is for.

There's clearly a grey area between shooting a multi-melta at a tank and Bragg auto-killing a Warlord titan with frag grenades, but Pteraxi repositioning was definitely just using a strat by it's very clear wording.

To be competive game you need rules that work for it.gw isn't.

You　have　better luck having competive game out of sleeping or lottery than gw games.

And admech players who felt they need to abuse that just showed they suck and need broken rules and in even game would lose　horribly.

yukishiro1 wrote:
GW literally tells you to play it RAW, even if it seems obviously unintentional. If you aren't playing RAW, you're playing wrong, straight from the horse's mouth.

I still wouldn't because I don't particularly care if GW thinks I'm playing wrong, but the the infinite grenade loophole is a very different situation from this one. That's a case of a weird interaction that people didn't spot, which everyone knows was unintentional. Nobody knew if the Pteraxii thing was unintentional, because there had never been a strat like that before in the game - referencing other redeploy strats, all of which happened in the same phase, is fundamentally different. We'd never had a strat before that let you pull a unit up at the end of the turn instead of in the movement phase. The only reason to think it was unintentional is that it was so powerful that nobody could believe any developer would really have thought it was ok.

In other words, it wasn't a typo, it was a balance mistake. I cannot believe that even GW is so clueless about their own game that they didn't understand that by writing those words they were allowing people to bring them up and down on the same turn.

I personally love the grenade loop hole, see that dude in your opponents army, immediately get a chess clock, and then when the grenades start, joyfully watch the time tick down, as each individual grenade throw is slowly resolved.

Slipspace wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
So, to try and get things remotely back tot he FAQ - the Pteraxii change is the only one that could really be described as a balance change for the army, and even that is quite possibly a "how the heck did that make it into print?" fix to make them in line with other equivalent strats?

What're the transport changes all about?

Originally it was just INFANTRY, instead of <FORGEWORLD> INFANTRY, so you could fill it with any infantry. The most silly example being Centurions, but I doubt any TO with half a brain would ever allow that. It was the Admech equivalent of CSM tanksurfing on Fellblades before that got FAQed out of the Compendium: obvious, hilarious typo.

but but IT'S CLEARLY GW'S FAULT IN THAT CASE! I HAVE A GOD GIVEN RESPONSABILITY TO MISUSE THAT OBVIOUS TYPO TO PROVE HOW SUCKY GW IS!

Yeah, how can we expect any quality control from such a small company as GW /s

I think the biggest problem with these sorts of things is there's some genuine ambiguity in a lot of these mistakes that reasonable people can disagree on. Infinite grenades from Bragg is pretty much universally agreed to be both RAW and a mistake. Can you say the same for the transport typo, or the Pteraxii strat befroe the FAQ? Maybe, maybe not. I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that they could have been intentional, if slightly overpowered. Blaming the players for GW's incompetence is directing your attention at the wrong end of the problem.

In the case of transports, we knew it was a mistake since all the other languages had the keywords set correctly. In fact at no point you were allowed to put a Centurion in a dunerider by RAW.

Spoletta wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
So, to try and get things remotely back tot he FAQ - the Pteraxii change is the only one that could really be described as a balance change for the army, and even that is quite possibly a "how the heck did that make it into print?" fix to make them in line with other equivalent strats?

What're the transport changes all about?

Originally it was just INFANTRY, instead of <FORGEWORLD> INFANTRY, so you could fill it with any infantry. The most silly example being Centurions, but I doubt any TO with half a brain would ever allow that. It was the Admech equivalent of CSM tanksurfing on Fellblades before that got FAQed out of the Compendium: obvious, hilarious typo.

but but IT'S CLEARLY GW'S FAULT IN THAT CASE! I HAVE A GOD GIVEN RESPONSABILITY TO MISUSE THAT OBVIOUS TYPO TO PROVE HOW SUCKY GW IS!

Yeah, how can we expect any quality control from such a small company as GW /s

I think the biggest problem with these sorts of things is there's some genuine ambiguity in a lot of these mistakes that reasonable people can disagree on. Infinite grenades from Bragg is pretty much universally agreed to be both RAW and a mistake. Can you say the same for the transport typo, or the Pteraxii strat befroe the FAQ? Maybe, maybe not. I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that they could have been intentional, if slightly overpowered. Blaming the players for GW's incompetence is directing your attention at the wrong end of the problem.

In the case of transports, we knew it was a mistake since all the other languages had the keywords set correctly. In fact at no point you were allowed to put a Centurion in a dunerider by RAW.

The players aren't Biblical scholars, diving through and debating the relative merits of various translations, its even more ridiculous for people to be expected to compare translations, RAW is whatever it is for the version available where you live, or that's in your language, its GWs responsibility to deal with that. Heck if anything this just means that the translations are further incorrect, because their RAW (while more sensible) isn't accurate to the source. Its laughable that the translators have a clearer grasp of correct rules than the people writing the thing.

Yeah whatever, I know people despise AdMech at the moment but I don't think anyone needs to be wiped out for a board game.

Sooo back on topic, we can still expect a balance patch in a month or two, I think enough people are complaining about Enriched Rounds as it is. I'll wait a while before creating my definitive tournament list for September though.

The FAQ doesn't make Pteraxii useless at all, they're still very good by virtue of flying, having 12"-15" flamers that ignore cover, and a nasty charge in melee. Give the sergeant the Programmed Retreat trait and they can charge a unit, prevent it from Fall Back on a 2+ on their turn, then Fall Back on their own, fly over them, roast them with Flamers, and charge another unit again (with the +1A on the charge). A unit of 10 is a great damage dealer. Oh and at the end of your turn you can still use the strat to get them out of the table.

Okay, wow, just.. okay. I've cleared out all off-topic bs and whatnot, from now on kindly stay on topic, or more warnings and suspensions will be handed out.

I would also GREATLY appreciate it if in future you guys could just report and ignore / move on, instead of quoting that horrendous gak and dragging things even further off topic. Means less of a mess to clean up on this end and the topic itself stays on target.

Cheers!

yukishiro1 wrote:
TFG is using 10 point reavers even though everyone knows they're actually 20 points. TFG is saying your paragons can't be hurt by damage 1 weapons.

The Pteraxii strat was not a TFG problem. It was a GW can't write balanced rules problem. There was no reason to think looking at that strat that you weren't intended to be allowed to bring them up and down on the same turn, except that it was super powerful. I don't think we want to start going down the road of "using the powerful rules you are given is TFG behavior because we should assume GW didn't intend to make them as powerful as it did," because that logic has no end. It's one thing to say "this isn't intended because it's an obvious typo" or "this isn't intended because it's an obvious loophole," it's something else to say "this wasn't intended simply because it's really strong even though it's plain from reading the rules text that it's completely allowed and the obvious way to use the strat."

On that logic, using enriched rounds is also TFG behavior because 1CP to wound anything that isn't a vehicle on a 4+ to hit is obviously too strong too.

I'm 100% with Yukishiro1 here. I wouldn't think twice about a strat that allowed a unit to jump out in the same turn it does stuff- I'd assume the CP cost is GW's intended balancing mechanism. You can do damage and score objectives with impunity until the CP runs out. If it were an innate part of the unit's profile, that'd be a different story.

If you've noticed GW's rules consistency- or lack thereof- deciding that a stratagem must be a mistake because it works differently to prior examples of similar mechanics is a fast-track to madness and arguments.

Definitely feels to me like something that didn't get playtested. Or at least, didn't get playtested by people playing to win. It wasn't particularly hidden so it's a bit concerning that it managed to get to print.

 catbarf wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
TFG is using 10 point reavers even though everyone knows they're actually 20 points. TFG is saying your paragons can't be hurt by damage 1 weapons.

The Pteraxii strat was not a TFG problem. It was a GW can't write balanced rules problem. There was no reason to think looking at that strat that you weren't intended to be allowed to bring them up and down on the same turn, except that it was super powerful. I don't think we want to start going down the road of "using the powerful rules you are given is TFG behavior because we should assume GW didn't intend to make them as powerful as it did," because that logic has no end. It's one thing to say "this isn't intended because it's an obvious typo" or "this isn't intended because it's an obvious loophole," it's something else to say "this wasn't intended simply because it's really strong even though it's plain from reading the rules text that it's completely allowed and the obvious way to use the strat."

On that logic, using enriched rounds is also TFG behavior because 1CP to wound anything that isn't a vehicle on a 4+ to hit is obviously too strong too.

I'm 100% with Yukishiro1 here. I wouldn't think twice about a strat that allowed a unit to jump out in the same turn it does stuff- I'd assume the CP cost is GW's intended balancing mechanism. You can do damage and score objectives with impunity until the CP runs out. If it were an innate part of the unit's profile, that'd be a different story.

If you've noticed GW's rules consistency- or lack thereof- deciding that a stratagem must be a mistake because it works differently to prior examples of similar mechanics is a fast-track to madness and arguments.

Definitely feels to me like something that didn't get playtested. Or at least, didn't get playtested by people playing to win. It wasn't particularly hidden so it's a bit concerning that it managed to get to print.

"GW can't write rules and it is a problem." Should be title for this thread.

Is that really such an improbable thing for 40k though?

I remember that Swooping Hawks were able to do the very same in old editions.

In any case, in Matched Play you can only do the trick once, as you can't place the unit from Reserves after Round 3, is that right ? So deep strike turn 2, do stuff, use CP to come back in Reserves, deep strike turn 3... and that's it.

 Aaranis wrote:
In any case, in Matched Play you can only do the trick once, as you can't place the unit from Reserves after Round 3, is that right ? So deep strike turn 2, do stuff, use CP to come back in Reserves, deep strike turn 3... and that's it.

Nope, it's been on the board, it can go back into reserves without issue. If the game ends and it's in reserves, it counts as destroyed at that point.

 Aaranis wrote:
In any case, in Matched Play you can only do the trick once, as you can't place the unit from Reserves after Round 3, is that right ? So deep strike turn 2, do stuff, use CP to come back in Reserves, deep strike turn 3... and that's it.

I think the real issue with those boys is they cost less than an intercessor...

Come stock with a 5++ 2 Wounds good move speed and a str 4 ap -2 flamer - not to mention ap-1 melee attacks because reasons. With ap-2 flamers these boys should easily be 24+ points. The fact you can remove them for a cp and bring them back to alpha again...is just even dumber.

The more I learn about admech units and what they pay for them I have to laugh. Just about every competitive unit they are using atm should be 20-30% more points.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Aaranis wrote:
In any case, in Matched Play you can only do the trick once, as you can't place the unit from Reserves after Round 3, is that right ? So deep strike turn 2, do stuff, use CP to come back in Reserves, deep strike turn 3... and that's it.

I think the real issue with those boys is they cost less than an intercessor...

Come stock with a 5++ 2 Wounds good move speed and a str 4 ap -2 flamer - not to mention ap-1 melee attacks because reasons. With ap-2 flamers these boys should easily be 24+ points. The fact you can remove them for a cp and bring them back to alpha again...is just even dumber.

The more I learn about admech units and what they pay for them I have to laugh. Just about every competitive unit they are using atm should be 20-30% more points.

no doubt they will have a major points hike in the due course of time.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Aaranis wrote:
In any case, in Matched Play you can only do the trick once, as you can't place the unit from Reserves after Round 3, is that right ? So deep strike turn 2, do stuff, use CP to come back in Reserves, deep strike turn 3... and that's it.

I think the real issue with those boys is they cost less than an intercessor...

Come stock with a 5++ 2 Wounds good move speed and a str 4 ap -2 flamer - not to mention ap-1 melee attacks because reasons. With ap-2 flamers these boys should easily be 24+ points. The fact you can remove them for a cp and bring them back to alpha again...is just even dumber.

The more I learn about admech units and what they pay for them I have to laugh. Just about every competitive unit they are using atm should be 20-30% more points.

And an Intercessor has a 3+, T4, better Ld, a S4 AP-1(-2 for a good part of the game if Doctrinas still exist) 30" Rapid Fire weapon and a MYRIAD of possible stratagems to be used with.

Have you played a game against them yet or are you still basing you opinion on what you read online ? The internet meta and IRL meta with real people is often quite different, not every game is a cutthroat tournament finale with sweat over your brows on each tactical decision.

xerxeskingofking wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Aaranis wrote:
In any case, in Matched Play you can only do the trick once, as you can't place the unit from Reserves after Round 3, is that right ? So deep strike turn 2, do stuff, use CP to come back in Reserves, deep strike turn 3... and that's it.

I think the real issue with those boys is they cost less than an intercessor...

Come stock with a 5++ 2 Wounds good move speed and a str 4 ap -2 flamer - not to mention ap-1 melee attacks because reasons. With ap-2 flamers these boys should easily be 24+ points. The fact you can remove them for a cp and bring them back to alpha again...is just even dumber.

The more I learn about admech units and what they pay for them I have to laugh. Just about every competitive unit they are using atm should be 20-30% more points.

no doubt they will have a major points hike in the due course of time.

Then the game is a joke.

The bird men strat is still the most powerful version of that kind of strat that exists in 9th.

This is because most of these strats are only usable in the movement phase, which then makes them similar to Aircraft. You can "give up" your turn (no shooting, charging, fighting) to be able to appear in a new location next turn.

Aircraft can use bombs before dissapearing, but Aircraft also have a bunch of negative rules interactions in 9th so it sort of evens out and is why you don't see many.

The bird men version happens at the end of the turn not the end of the movement phase.

 Aaranis wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Aaranis wrote:
In any case, in Matched Play you can only do the trick once, as you can't place the unit from Reserves after Round 3, is that right ? So deep strike turn 2, do stuff, use CP to come back in Reserves, deep strike turn 3... and that's it.

I think the real issue with those boys is they cost less than an intercessor...

Come stock with a 5++ 2 Wounds good move speed and a str 4 ap -2 flamer - not to mention ap-1 melee attacks because reasons. With ap-2 flamers these boys should easily be 24+ points. The fact you can remove them for a cp and bring them back to alpha again...is just even dumber.

The more I learn about admech units and what they pay for them I have to laugh. Just about every competitive unit they are using atm should be 20-30% more points.

And an Intercessor has a 3+, T4, better Ld, a S4 AP-1(-2 for a good part of the game if Doctrinas still exist) 30" Rapid Fire weapon and a MYRIAD of possible stratagems to be used with.

Have you played a game against them yet or are you still basing you opinion on what you read online ? The internet meta and IRL meta with real people is often quite different, not every game is a cutthroat tournament finale with sweat over your brows on each tactical decision.

2 shots str 4 ap-1 or 2 is about half (in most cases it is a lot less too) as effective as d6 shots str 4 ap-2 auto hitting weapons. Offense is better. Defense is better on a 2 wound model a 5++ save is superior to a 3+ save - LD is an irrelevant statistic - it gets free deep strike - has better movement about equal melee profile.

It is absolutely not necessary to play against a unit to know what it's cost should be. We don't even need to get into buffs and stratagems. Ad mech takes the cake on buffs and stratagems.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Aaranis wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Aaranis wrote:
In any case, in Matched Play you can only do the trick once, as you can't place the unit from Reserves after Round 3, is that right ? So deep strike turn 2, do stuff, use CP to come back in Reserves, deep strike turn 3... and that's it.

I think the real issue with those boys is they cost less than an intercessor...

Come stock with a 5++ 2 Wounds good move speed and a str 4 ap -2 flamer - not to mention ap-1 melee attacks because reasons. With ap-2 flamers these boys should easily be 24+ points. The fact you can remove them for a cp and bring them back to alpha again...is just even dumber.

The more I learn about admech units and what they pay for them I have to laugh. Just about every competitive unit they are using atm should be 20-30% more points.

And an Intercessor has a 3+, T4, better Ld, a S4 AP-1(-2 for a good part of the game if Doctrinas still exist) 30" Rapid Fire weapon and a MYRIAD of possible stratagems to be used with.

Have you played a game against them yet or are you still basing you opinion on what you read online ? The internet meta and IRL meta with real people is often quite different, not every game is a cutthroat tournament finale with sweat over your brows on each tactical decision.

2 shots str 4 ap-1 or 2 is about half (in most cases it is a lot less too) as effective as d6 shots str 4 ap-2 auto hitting weapons. Offense is better. Defense is better on a 2 wound model a 5++ save is superior to a 3+ save - LD is an irrelevant statistic - it gets free deep strike - has better movement about equal melee profile.

It is absolutely not necessary to play against a unit to know what it's cost should be. We don't even need to get into buffs and stratagems. Ad mech takes the cake on buffs and stratagems.

i havnt played in a while but how often are intercessors eating ap-3 weapons to the face and out of cover?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Aaranis wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Aaranis wrote:
In any case, in Matched Play you can only do the trick once, as you can't place the unit from Reserves after Round 3, is that right ? So deep strike turn 2, do stuff, use CP to come back in Reserves, deep strike turn 3... and that's it.

I think the real issue with those boys is they cost less than an intercessor...

Come stock with a 5++ 2 Wounds good move speed and a str 4 ap -2 flamer - not to mention ap-1 melee attacks because reasons. With ap-2 flamers these boys should easily be 24+ points. The fact you can remove them for a cp and bring them back to alpha again...is just even dumber.

The more I learn about admech units and what they pay for them I have to laugh. Just about every competitive unit they are using atm should be 20-30% more points.

And an Intercessor has a 3+, T4, better Ld, a S4 AP-1(-2 for a good part of the game if Doctrinas still exist) 30" Rapid Fire weapon and a MYRIAD of possible stratagems to be used with.

Have you played a game against them yet or are you still basing you opinion on what you read online ? The internet meta and IRL meta with real people is often quite different, not every game is a cutthroat tournament finale with sweat over your brows on each tactical decision.

2 shots str 4 ap-1 or 2 is about half (in most cases it is a lot less too) as effective as d6 shots str 4 ap-2 auto hitting weapons. Offense is better. Defense is better on a 2 wound model a 5++ save is superior to a 3+ save - LD is an irrelevant statistic - it gets free deep strike - has better movement about equal melee profile.

It is absolutely not necessary to play against a unit to know what it's cost should be. We don't even need to get into buffs and stratagems. Ad mech takes the cake on buffs and stratagems.

i havnt played in a while but how often are intercessors eating ap-3 weapons to the face and out of cover?

Out of cover? I would imagine most of the time.

Ap-3 weapons? Depends on opponent I suppose. The key is AP -2 is everywhere though. Cause that gives an equal save and it is clear that the cheaper unit is already better offensively and from a mobility prospective...guess an equal defensive profile isn't really making up for the being better at everything else.

How many flat 2 damage weapons have ap-3? LOTS.

Pteraxi weapon is AP -1, and the sergeant has only a pistol.

Also, range 12" matters.

"5++ save is better than a 3+ save on a 2-wound model" is my favorite xenomeme quote of the day.

*laughs in absolutely everything currently in existence in the competitive meta that proves otherwise*

nobody's spamming high-AP antielite firepower. everybody brings a few hyper-efficient melta/D3+3 platforms to instakill any vehicle dumb enough to get included in a list, and then they spam the ever-loving crap out of AP- to AP-2 attacks to shred anything that can't be blown away by the super insane antitank weapons.

Spamming plasma/dissies/etc has gone completely out of favor with the end of the 100% marine dominance all the time Codex 2.0 era. now that light infantry and medium vehicles exist again in significant enough numbers to tailor against, by weight of points people are skewing their lists into anti-infantry because medium vehicles are near-extinct and the dominant antitank choices are so massively efficient that you just dont need to dedicate much of your list to them. You can hose marines down with enough AP-1 D1 firepower or melee power to get through them, but you can't use D2 weaponry to fight drukhari, admech, or death guard, and if you can't fight those three armies you are gak out of luck.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Out of cover? I would imagine most of the time.

Ap-3 weapons? Depends on opponent I suppose. The key is AP -2 is everywhere though. Cause that gives an equal save and it is clear that the cheaper unit is already better offensively and from a mobility prospective...guess an equal defensive profile isn't really making up for the being better at everything else.

How many flat 2 damage weapons have ap-3? LOTS.

Just to be clear : im not saying he pteraxii are balanced or unbalanced, i've been out of the game for a while and just got back into it.

I think Intercessors being more resilient and pteraxii more mobily/damaging is a fine concept. Theyre glass cannons and now that the "go back into reserve strat" got fixed, they lost their real "tankyness".

 the_scotsman wrote:
"5++ save is better than a 3+ save on a 2-wound model" is my favorite xenomeme quote of the day.

*laughs in absolutely everything currently in existence in the competitive meta that proves otherwise*

nobody's spamming high-AP antielite firepower. everybody brings a few hyper-efficient melta/D3+3 platforms to instakill any vehicle dumb enough to get included in a list, and then they spam the ever-loving crap out of AP- to AP-2 attacks to shred anything that can't be blown away by the super insane antitank weapons.

Spamming plasma/dissies/etc has gone completely out of favor with the end of the 100% marine dominance all the time Codex 2.0 era. now that light infantry and medium vehicles exist again in significant enough numbers to tailor against, by weight of points people are skewing their lists into anti-infantry because medium vehicles are near-extinct and the dominant antitank choices are so massively efficient that you just dont need to dedicate much of your list to them. You can hose marines down with enough AP-1 D1 firepower or melee power to get through them, but you can't use D2 weaponry to fight drukhari, admech, or death guard, and if you can't fight those three armies you are gak out of luck.

You must not play against many marines...or necrons...or DE or quins or admech for that matter.

MM
Plasma

Are ap -5-/ ap-3

DL are ap-4
Blasters are ap-4
Blast pistols (quinns as well)

DDA are ap-4 blast
Gauss cannons (annihilations barges and CCB) ap -3
SK and Mephrite guass is ap -3 at half range.

Skitari have plasma too
not to mention super lascannons or neutron lazers

You live in an imagined world where low AP multi damage weapons aren't literally everywhere and while AP-2 is much more common than Ap-3...They both treat a 3+ and a 5++ save the same.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Out of cover? I would imagine most of the time.

Ap-3 weapons? Depends on opponent I suppose. The key is AP -2 is everywhere though. Cause that gives an equal save and it is clear that the cheaper unit is already better offensively and from a mobility prospective...guess an equal defensive profile isn't really making up for the being better at everything else.

How many flat 2 damage weapons have ap-3? LOTS.

Just to be clear : im not saying he pteraxii are balanced or unbalanced, i've been out of the game for a while and just got back into it.

I think Intercessors being more resilient and pteraxii more mobily/damaging is a fine concept. Theyre glass cannons and now that the "go back into reserve strat" got fixed, they lost their real "tankyness".

Nah - they need to go up to 24 points. Problem solved.