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.

 stonehorse wrote:
One of the big issues I think is the sheer scale of things in the game now (Units, Options, wargear, etc) that playtesting and balance are impossible in 40k as it stands. There are just far too many interactions between various things that GW can not accommodate a rule set that has all the stuff tested.

It isn't just rules bloat, but bloat in general that creates the mess.

Best option would be to scale back to more simple things like 3rd edition did to 2nd edition.

So infantry would have a generic stat line which is modified here and there to help reflect unit differences. Same for vehicles and other stuff.

I understand the desire for 'flavour', but adding all the flavours just makes any meal into an unpalatable mess.

Unfortunately that's not possible, the boat has already sailed. In 3rd we had a fraction of the units we now had and to return to that scale GW would have to axe more than half the existing units, which would cause uproar. One interesting option to limit imbalance cause by spamming the most effective units could be enforcing "highlander style" of listbuilding with just 1 of each unit, or sometimes 2, wherever possible. Which is basically what I currently do anyway.

It's not a matter of flavour, it's a matter of having tons of existing models that would be phased out crippling lots of players' collections, if not making them flat out illegal. Current state of 40k is far from being an unpalatable mess, despite its massive bloat, as the game is quite popular at the moment, probably even at one it its peaks.

 kodos wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
If book+errata disagrees with app the app loses.

that is a community decision, as by GW the App has priority

the same app that still has multiple errors to unit entries, regardless how many damn times I email

 bullyboy wrote:

 kodos wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
If book+errata disagrees with app the app loses.

that is a community decision, as by GW the App has priority

the same app that still has multiple errors to unit entries, regardless how many damn times I email

Yeah I gave up on pointing out errors after about 6 months. They either don't have enough staff, or don't have competent staff to fix it. I'm leaning towards both.

Eldenfirefly wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Eldenfirefly wrote:
I think out of line of sight guns should be similarly restricted like what they did with flyers because if they can be spammed, they also "break" the game since they bypass terrain which is so important in 9th ed.

If the FoC meant something, and having more than 3HS slots in a standard sized game required significant expenditure of strategic resources, this wouldn't be a problem.

Well ... 3 squads of max Hive Guard are pretty oppressive. And again, its oppressive because they are out of line of sight guns. And one unit can shoot twice. So effectively that's 4 units. That's the equivalent of 24 hive guard shooting each turn, which is 48 shots of Str 8 that ignore cover and do D3 damage each. So, we are looking at a potential of 48 to 144 damage per turn. And all unmitigated by terrain. See how spamming out of line of sight artillery causes problems ? Like I wouldn't care if all these potential damage wasn't out of line of sight shooting. But once it is, it just changes the entire equation.

One thing I would say though, is if I was a Tyranid player I would not be buying 18 Hive Guard any time soon. Either the 9th edition codex drops the max unit size to 3, they get costed appropriately in the codex (least likely given GW's history) or they run rampant for 3 months and then a "balance dataslate" will be released saying you can only take one unit of Hive Guard.

I would definitely buy 6 but I am torn as to whether I would hypothetically get 9 or 12 if they are very strong.

I've had a similar dilemma with CSM/DG/TS where VolCons look really good, but I don't want to buy more than one to have them nerfed out of existence, also with Daemons where the Greater Daemons look great but I'm convinced they'll get a one per detachment rule in their 9th edition codex (and could easily swing back to being the weak part of the codex to be replaced by big units of something).

Well BattleScribe is reportedly in life support and isn’t going to get anymore major updates to the system… so you better get use to that GW app :p

gungo wrote:
Well BattleScribe is reportedly in life support and isn’t going to get anymore major updates to the system… so you better get use to that GW app :p

Wait… what?!

gungo wrote:
Well BattleScribe is reportedly in life support and isn’t going to get anymore major updates to the system… so you better get use to that GW app :p

Really? I know there was a hoax DMCA on Spikeybitz a while back, but I've not seen anything recently.

I don’t like the idea that they can invalidate the money people spent on something 3 months after a book releases and the price gougers have sold at greater than MSRP.

gungo wrote:
Well BattleScribe is reportedly in life support and isn’t going to get anymore major updates to the system… so you better get use to that GW app :p

What are you talking about?

 the_scotsman wrote:

Quasistellar wrote:
I find it odd that Kabalite Warriors are now cheaper than Skitarii. I thought for sure they’d both go up. I suppose the nerf to Raiders and HQs is supposed to cover that?

IMO there was almost nothing in the drukhari army that was OVERpriced—just some units that were overshadowed by other units’ extreme efficiency. Yet, it looks like some things did get points decreases. We shall see, I suppose.

I definitely disagree with you. Kabalite warriors should be cheaper than skitarii...because theyre not as good. The only edge kabalites have over skitarii is a better transport. So you nerf the transports instead of nerfing them, just makes sense.

in comparison between skitarii and kabalites, skitarii have:

-3 shots assault 18" S3 autowounds on a 6 to hit or 2 shots 30" S4 AP-1 instead of poison 4+ RF 1 24" range
-doctrina imperatives (kabalites get PFP but only really benefit from the 6++...which skitarii also get by default)
-pregame move on rangers and -1S -1T in engagement range on vanguard
-better, and more, special weapons
-better, and cheaper, or just way way way better in the case of the Manipulus, supporting HQs
-a stratagem for each unit that's still borderline OP even post-nerf

and in exchange, kabalites get..a melee attack and a point of WS. Cool, this light shooting infantry unit with strength 3 Ap- gets 1 extra attack and WS3+...plus rerolling charges.

Skitarii are an amazing, possibly the ONLY functional light infantry unit in the game that can deploy on foot and actually try to compete in combat against elite infantry. Kabs you'd never take outside a transport, and their transport just got a 20% nerf.

I just looked again -- there was an increase in Trueborn upgrade. Now it makes more sense.

I just now think Drukhari will still be top dogs due to price cuts on less taken units (that were already good). The fact that very few were taking Ravagers at 140 points competitively, when almost every other army in the game would kill for that unit, and they are now only 130 points is pretty crazy to me. The nerfs to AdMech were way tougher with much less balancing done to the stuff that wasn't good. There's just so many weird rules and interactions with AdMech though that they could prove me wrong.

In the end it doesn't bother me all that much as I'm not a tourney player anyway, and it's not like the actual nerfs themselves weren't reasonable, I just wasn't expecting any cuts at all to Drukhari units (except maybe the haemunculus).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

gungo wrote:
Well BattleScribe is reportedly in life support and isn’t going to get anymore major updates to the system… so you better get use to that GW app :p

What are you talking about?

Presumably the developer hasn't worked on it in 18 or so months. The people who work on data are still active.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

gungo wrote:
Well BattleScribe is reportedly in life support and isn’t going to get anymore major updates to the system… so you better get use to that GW app :p

What are you talking about?

https://www.reddit.com/r/BattleScribe/comments/qpzt3s/battlescribe_doesnt_work_on_mac_os_montery/

The main dev is MIA and hasn’t made any major system changes in over a year…

gungo wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

gungo wrote:
Well BattleScribe is reportedly in life support and isn’t going to get anymore major updates to the system… so you better get use to that GW app :p

What are you talking about?

https://www.reddit.com/r/BattleScribe/comments/qpzt3s/battlescribe_doesnt_work_on_mac_os_montery/

The main dev is MIA and hasn’t made any major system changes in over a year…

It is indeed a bad situation. The people who run the subreddit and/or write the data are now actively telling users to NOT give money unless they absolutely need or want the benefits you get for sponsoring it. It kind of speaks volumes when the hard working data curators are literally telling users to not give money, as 18 months of MiA is quite serious from a developer standpoint.

From what I can gather, a crew of them are creating another 'BattleScribe' (with a different name/UI etc.) that when released, they will stop doing data updates for the original battlescribe.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Mediocrity would be an improvement.

I'm of the opinion that flyers, as in full-on airplane style, just won't work. There is no way to have that be functional within the game's mechanics. IMO treat them all as if they are flying like helicopters. Even if they canonically can go faster it is assumed they have adopted a hover mode to take part in the context of the battle. Actual aircraft flying could be represented by stratagems to do bombing runs & the like, but only if they are in reserve.

Also let units move under them, because duh.

Fliers absolutely can work but need to be heavily abstracted.

Back in 3rd with the vehicle design rules, you could make fliers however they entered the table from your board edge every turn to make a strafing run and then immediately left. How they worked it was that the units on the ground could trade their next turns shooting attack to intercept the incoming aircraft.

I actually think this could still work as an option.

Another would be to have fliers make attack runs along the table edge. Pick an edge in your deployment zone and fly it down in one direction to represent it's direction from high above, and how far down field it is. Again, you would abstract its attacks and just let it attack indirectly in the direction of it's vector, so draw a line across the table from where the plane is on the edge and it can attack anywhere within (x) inches measured either way from that line.

You could also only allow weapon with a minimum (x) range to shoot them but you don't measure to the model since it;s supposed to be so high.

Whats silly is having super sonic fliers circle the airspace over a football pitch all game.

Certain fliers also could also have the option to enter the airspace in hover mode and just be treated like a skimmer until they leave airspace as a flier again in another turn.

In the end, this all adds a bit of complexity to the game though, which I think GW is pretty clearly adverse to. Heck, it's the reason tank no longer have facings or firing archs and also can be blocked by a few well spaced grots. Which is also very stupid.

Personally I am all for adding back additional layered rules for vehicles and fliers. Those enrich the game much more adding endless stratagems, warzone armies of renown and supplements IMHO.

Doing it that way makes it too attractive to not use a miniature for the aircraft and just have a marker instead, GW wouldn't go for it. So while I agree it is an option in a vacuum, it isn't really a realistic path they would ever take.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Doing it that way makes it too attractive to not use a miniature for the aircraft and just have a marker instead, GW wouldn't go for it. So while I agree it is an option in a vacuum, it isn't really a realistic path they would ever take.

People who like the miniatures wouldn't go for it. It also kills the idea of transport fliers and the heldrake.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Doing it that way makes it too attractive to not use a miniature for the aircraft and just have a marker instead, GW wouldn't go for it. So while I agree it is an option in a vacuum, it isn't really a realistic path they would ever take.

People who like the miniatures wouldn't go for it. It also kills the idea of transport fliers and the heldrake.

Neither of those things are true.

Nothing stops you from using a pop can now as your drop pod, and I made a point about choosing a vector to enter as a skimmer.

On wh40k’s Facebook someone complained about how tyranids are still unplayable and their response was “buy the tyranid supplement.” They actually believe these supplements are valid get-you-by patches and substitutes for functioning codices. These things are terrible for the state of the game but they think they are a fix...

macluvin wrote:
On wh40k’s Facebook someone complained about how tyranids are still unplayable and their response was “buy the tyranid supplement.” They actually believe these supplements are valid get-you-by patches and substitutes for functioning codices. These things are terrible for the state of the game but they think they are a fix...

Supplements are terrible and they shouldn't be charging for it, but yes those rules are a stop gap codex update. Who knows what the Chapter Approved will do for nids though and whether or not it considers that supplement.

Quarterly updates are great, but there's still a big mess to dig out of.

Tyranids are playable, they're just boring and one-dimensional, and you have to be a masochist to enjoy it.

In my very biased opinion, Feth Flyers.

One of the times I played most was during 5th-6th edition, where they came out with:

-Valkyrie: nice, very cool, but fething gigantic. Putting two on the battlefield near each other? Good luck. Transporting 9 of them? Hah.

-Ugly as feth space marine flyers: does anyone actually like these?

-token flyers for every faction: hit or miss


Playing in 8th and 9th and seeing 3-6 flyers on the other side of the board is like.... why am I even playing this game? The opponent can at a whim basically block movement to 80% of my army by creating a traffic jam. It's hard to hit the flyers and if they're eldar I hope you like stacking -1 to hit debuffs (thankfully gone now, rest in poo stacking -1 to hit modifiers)

I'll defend the look of the Stormhawk Interceptor all day, but I'm less keen on the Stormtalon or an un-Chapterhouse'd Stormraven.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Doing it that way makes it too attractive to not use a miniature for the aircraft and just have a marker instead, GW wouldn't go for it. So while I agree it is an option in a vacuum, it isn't really a realistic path they would ever take.

People who like the miniatures wouldn't go for it. It also kills the idea of transport fliers and the heldrake.

Neither of those things are true.

Nothing stops you from using a pop can now as your drop pod, and I made a point about choosing a vector to enter as a skimmer.

May have misunderstood; it isn't that the models have no place with such rules, rather that using tokens becomes a much more attractive option. There is a big difference between something that never needs to come onto the board and something that must be on the board, interacting with other models. Using a proxy does not carry the same break of immersion.

I love my stormtalon and use it all the time, it looks good for what it is, a predator that flies.
In game I use it like an Apache.

One thing about aircraft is that they always hit on their BS irrespective of if they are super/sub sonic.
Like if you're flying supersonic and you are shooting something stationary on the ground it should be harder to hit than if you're hovering unless you have a specific ground attack rule. Same thing goes for shooting something supersonic with a bolter/shoota, etc it should be harder to hit them unless you have AAA.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They gave Flayed Ones the 'Core' keyword. I mean... *SMH*

And did they increase the cost of AdMech chicken walkers again?

No need to crab bucket here. Flayed Ones were really, really bad and completely without a purpose without CORE. It's not like this is the first instance of CORE going out the window from a fluff perspective; it's been a rules-based mechanism for several codices now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nurglitch wrote:
Tyranids are playable, they're just boring and one-dimensional, and you have to be a masochist to enjoy it.

Yep, and if Hive Guard are as OP as people claim (I dunno... 1 unit will punch way, way above what it should, I think 2/3 is just going to be diminishing returns and not worth the points), then Nids will probably get bonked by the nerfhammer. And maybe we'll deserve it but there are just so few parts of that book that are usable now, it's like the halcyon days of 7e and the Hive Fleet Detachment.

 Nurglitch wrote:
Tyranids are playable, they're just boring and one-dimensional, and you have to be a masochist to enjoy it.

My personal favorite part of that codex is where the apex predator, the Carnifex only hits in melee on a 4+ and it's usually a 5+ due to all of the silly +1/-1 running around in the game. I've had so many gunline players tell me this is fair because 'If a carnifex that hit on a 2 or 3 made it to combat, it would wreck their gunline." Well, if you make it to combat, you should wreck the gunline. That's the whole point!

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They gave Flayed Ones the 'Core' keyword. I mean... *SMH*

And did they increase the cost of AdMech chicken walkers again?

No need to crab bucket here. Flayed Ones were really, really bad and completely without a purpose without CORE. It's not like this is the first instance of CORE going out the window from a fluff perspective; it's been a rules-based mechanism for several codices now.

Agreed. Revered Space Marine heroes who are interred in dreadnoughts are CORE, but the Joe Shmoe Battle Bro driving an Invictor isn't. CORE hasn't really been about fluff since day one.

 Togusa wrote:
My personal favorite part of that codex is where the apex predator, the Carnifex only hits in melee on a 4+ and it's usually a 5+ due to all of the silly +1/-1 running around in the game. I've had so many gunline players tell me this is fair because 'If a carnifex that hit on a 2 or 3 made it to combat, it would wreck their gunline." Well, if you make it to combat, you should wreck the gunline. That's the whole point!

That and Rhinos are more durable than Carnifexes.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They gave Flayed Ones the 'Core' keyword. I mean... *SMH*

And did they increase the cost of AdMech chicken walkers again?

No need to crab bucket here. Flayed Ones were really, really bad and completely without a purpose without CORE. It's not like this is the first instance of CORE going out the window from a fluff perspective; it's been a rules-based mechanism for several codices now.

Agreed. Revered Space Marine heroes who are interred in dreadnoughts are CORE, but the Joe Shmoe Battle Bro driving an Invictor isn't. CORE hasn't really been about fluff since day one.

Agree. CORE and the giving of the -1 to damage to Dreadnaughts made them so much better than vehicles (general) that only the best vehicles like PBC are ever used. Most of the time, people just use Dreadnaughts nowadays.

To be fair Dreadnaughts are a very iconic look for Space Marines. If I had to choose one or the other I'd rather see more walking murder coffins than super soldiers driving tanks personally.