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.

Let's review some of the increases in damage from the craftworld eldar rumors:

Dire Avengers: going to 3 shots S4 AP-1 24" range (50% increase +6" range increase)
wraithcannon: D3+3 damage 18" range (30% damage increase +6" range increase)
D-Scythe: D6 shots 12" range wound rolls of a 6 deal a MW (30% damage increase 4" range increase)
Shuriken Cannon: now 2 damage (100% damage increase vs W2+)
Howling Banshee: now 3A, D2 on the charge (150% damage increase vs W2+ on the charge)
Scatter laser: now 6 shots (50% damage increase)
Pulsar+Bright Lance: Now D3+3 (30% damage increase)
Fusion Gun: now D6+2 in melta range (30% damage increase)
Swooping Hawk: now 5 shots S4 autowound on a 6 to hit (60% damage increase vs preferred GEQ target)

So, they been doing this every faction, one at a time, but I know yall hate eldar, so maybe this will finally convince you there's a lethality problem in 40k. What are the best ways to salvage it? Old editions exist, obviously, and can easily be played, but is there a way to fix 9e and make the game not over in 2.5-3 turns?

In my eyes, ditching the stupid extra doctrine layer of army-wide rules and ditching or HEAVILY trimming down stratagems - ideally just to a few primarily defensive stratagems per faction - would be step 1. Step 2 would be a heavy rework of the cover system to bring back the option to have old, invuln-save style cover saves to combat the ABSURD creep in the armor piercing stat we've seen since index 8e. If we're not going to change the traits on any cover types, giving Defensible a trait where if you're targeted by a shooting attack you can Go to Ground for a 4++ invulnerable save, but a unit that used Go to Ground fights last in the fight phase. That, and opening up/universalizing Light Cover to all unit types and making claiming light cover the same as claiming Dense Cover might also help quite a bit.

I agree there is a lethality problem, but I wouldn't use the crappy rumors to prove it. That just leaves you vulnerable to people saying, 'Aha, it didn't actually happen, so it isn't too lethal' later on.

This trajectory will not stop until the game is completely reset again.

I don't see it as a problem for a few reasons.
Firstly, I don't actually find this to be an issue in my games. We regularly get to turn 4 with about 40-50% of our armies left (my opponent usually moreso due to Necron shenanigans) and this is the first edition where conceding games early has been a genuine rarity. There were times in 5-7th (not so much 8th because Covid kind of screwed my play time) where I'd play for an hour then just pack up because I'd lost the game by turn 2, sometimes even turn 1. Thus far with 9th playing even with my CSM I've still managed 4 turn games on average with only losses but nothing like 70-10 or having lost half my army in the first turn.
Secondly, I try to get in at least one game a week but since everyone I game with is either working or studying, we don't have loads of time to go somewhere and play. Having a game take 2 hours rather than 4 but keeping the same points/power and maintaining the same feeling of 4 hours of gaming is a lot better for us.
I play 40k, 30k and AoS, and all these games take about roughly the same army size and all end at roughly the same time, with similar losses and often decided in the last few turns.
I dunno maybe it's just an issue for mathhammer and competitive gaming.

 Gert wrote:
I don't see it as a problem for a few reasons.
Firstly, I don't actually find this to be an issue in my games. We regularly get to turn 4 with about 40-50% of our armies left (my opponent usually moreso due to Necron shenanigans) and this is the first edition where conceding games early has been a genuine rarity. There were times in 5-7th (not so much 8th because Covid kind of screwed my play time) where I'd play for an hour then just pack up because I'd lost the game by turn 2, sometimes even turn 1. Thus far with 9th playing even with my CSM I've still managed 4 turn games on average with only losses but nothing like 70-10 or having lost half my army in the first turn.
Secondly, I try to get in at least one game a week but since everyone I game with is either working or studying, we don't have loads of time to go somewhere and play. Having a game take 2 hours rather than 4 but keeping the same points/power and maintaining the same feeling of 4 hours of gaming is a lot better for us.
I play 40k, 30k and AoS, and all these games take about roughly the same army size and all end at roughly the same time, with similar losses and often decided in the last few turns.
I dunno maybe it's just an issue for mathhammer and competitive gaming.

My last game I played against DG, purposefully took a casual ork list (with a mix of shooting+melee, an off-meta clan pick, and suboptimal units like Gunwagons, tankbustas and deff dreads) because I had not played vs DG before and did not know where this player landed in terms of competitiveness.

I had him essentially tabled top of 3. He brought some kind of list with like 60 of the little zombie schmuckerinos and I legitimately thought I was doing a goofy fun ork move by driving straight at them and opening fire on all of them, and then I'd cleared out a whole chunk of them with my anti-infantry shooting and got to blow up all their supporting characters with rokkits. Ended up killing like 500pts turn 1, 800pts turn 2 because he made that dumb newbie mistake of fielding 10-man squads of anything so all the rokkits I had were tripled in firepower, and then by his turn 3 he was down to about 4 terminator bodies on the table and one character hiding behind a building.

Probably because of invisibility and rerollable 2++ of 7th, 8th was marketed as "everything is more powerful" from the very launch. So I doubt the lethality problem will ever go away. Especially when it would have to be trimmed to below 30% single turn output in ideal conditions for games to actually last 6 turns. Compare this with discussion in "1800 pts removed in a single turn" thread, where some people expect armies to have closer to 60% output in ideal conditions - with 60% output there is no point playing IGOUGO game.

Codex creep is bad, but the Eldar codex is a bit dated and could use a boost.

I’m taking those rumors/leaks with a LOT of salt. I’ll wait to get bent out of shape about them being busted until we get something more concrete.

 the_scotsman wrote:
Let's review some of the increases in damage from the craftworld eldar rumors:

Dire Avengers: going to 3 shots S4 AP-1 24" range (50% increase +6" range increase)
wraithcannon: D3+3 damage 18" range (30% damage increase +6" range increase)
D-Scythe: D6 shots 12" range wound rolls of a 6 deal a MW (30% damage increase 4" range increase)
Shuriken Cannon: now 2 damage (100% damage increase vs W2+)
Howling Banshee: now 3A, D2 on the charge (150% damage increase vs W2+ on the charge)
Scatter laser: now 6 shots (50% damage increase)
Pulsar+Bright Lance: Now D3+3 (30% damage increase)
Fusion Gun: now D6+2 in melta range (30% damage increase)
Swooping Hawk: now 5 shots S4 autowound on a 6 to hit (60% damage increase vs preferred GEQ target)

So, they been doing this every faction, one at a time, but I know yall hate eldar, so maybe this will finally convince you there's a lethality problem in 40k. What are the best ways to salvage it? Old editions exist, obviously, and can easily be played, but is there a way to fix 9e and make the game not over in 2.5-3 turns?

In my eyes, ditching the stupid extra doctrine layer of army-wide rules and ditching or HEAVILY trimming down stratagems - ideally just to a few primarily defensive stratagems per faction - would be step 1. Step 2 would be a heavy rework of the cover system to bring back the option to have old, invuln-save style cover saves to combat the ABSURD creep in the armor piercing stat we've seen since index 8e. If we're not going to change the traits on any cover types, giving Defensible a trait where if you're targeted by a shooting attack you can Go to Ground for a 4++ invulnerable save, but a unit that used Go to Ground fights last in the fight phase. That, and opening up/universalizing Light Cover to all unit types and making claiming light cover the same as claiming Dense Cover might also help quite a bit.

Well first, these are rumors, so ignore them.

Second, CWE are in a terrible spot, most of their units are literally unplayable if you want to win any games, so while it might look strong its more just getting equal to Marines. Remember a Falcon is suppose to be a large Heavy Anti-tank transport, it is their Razorback with a better Twin Las Cannons (Admech versions, GASP that is what Admech has....), so why wouldn't it be str 9 high D? Also the Dark lance and Bright lance has always been about the same, yes it is going to get the DL treatment as well.

Also Banshee's... WHO THE feth CARES THEY ARE 150% more damage, they deal zero damage now and are one of the worst units in CWE.

Fusion Guns are melta, why would they not get the Melta treatment? All imperium and some xenos already got the updated rules, why would you deny it to CWE and not everyone else?

This is not really power creep, this is equalizing the stats to eldar. Now.... could there also be power creep? yes there can be, but so far I don't see it, if anything i still think they are a bit weaker.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
Let's review some of the increases in damage from the craftworld eldar rumors:

Dire Avengers: going to 3 shots S4 AP-1 24" range (50% increase +6" range increase)
wraithcannon: D3+3 damage 18" range (30% damage increase +6" range increase)
D-Scythe: D6 shots 12" range wound rolls of a 6 deal a MW (30% damage increase 4" range increase)
Shuriken Cannon: now 2 damage (100% damage increase vs W2+)
Howling Banshee: now 3A, D2 on the charge (150% damage increase vs W2+ on the charge)
Scatter laser: now 6 shots (50% damage increase)
Pulsar+Bright Lance: Now D3+3 (30% damage increase)
Fusion Gun: now D6+2 in melta range (30% damage increase)
Swooping Hawk: now 5 shots S4 autowound on a 6 to hit (60% damage increase vs preferred GEQ target)

So, they been doing this every faction, one at a time, but I know yall hate eldar, so maybe this will finally convince you there's a lethality problem in 40k. What are the best ways to salvage it? Old editions exist, obviously, and can easily be played, but is there a way to fix 9e and make the game not over in 2.5-3 turns?

In my eyes, ditching the stupid extra doctrine layer of army-wide rules and ditching or HEAVILY trimming down stratagems - ideally just to a few primarily defensive stratagems per faction - would be step 1. Step 2 would be a heavy rework of the cover system to bring back the option to have old, invuln-save style cover saves to combat the ABSURD creep in the armor piercing stat we've seen since index 8e. If we're not going to change the traits on any cover types, giving Defensible a trait where if you're targeted by a shooting attack you can Go to Ground for a 4++ invulnerable save, but a unit that used Go to Ground fights last in the fight phase. That, and opening up/universalizing Light Cover to all unit types and making claiming light cover the same as claiming Dense Cover might also help quite a bit.

Well first, these are rumors, so ignore them.

Second, CWE are in a terrible spot, most of their units are literally unplayable if you want to win any games, so while it might look strong its more just getting equal to Marines. Remember a Falcon is suppose to be a large Heavy Anti-tank transport, it is their Razorback with a better Twin Las Cannons (Admech versions, GASP that is what Admech has....), so why wouldn't it be str 9 high D? Also the Dark lance and Bright lance has always been about the same, yes it is going to get the DL treatment as well.

Also Banshee's... WHO THE feth CARES THEY ARE 150% more damage, they deal zero damage now and are one of the worst units in CWE.

Fusion Guns are melta, why would they not get the Melta treatment? All imperium and some xenos already got the updated rules, why would you deny it to CWE and not everyone else?

This is not really power creep, this is equalizing the stats to eldar. Now.... could there also be power creep? yes there can be, but so far I don't see it, if anything i still think they are a bit weaker.

....Yes, I get it. The point of the thread is because I think people are more likely to hate CWE, so I'm pointing out that theyre getting the same thing literally every other codex has gotten because when every other codex has gotten it and i've gone "wtf this is so much fething damage" everyone has gone "YAAASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS QUEEN SLAY NOW THEY FINALLY FEEL LIKE SPAEEEECE MAREIIIIINESSSSSS"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
About how many windrider bikes do people feel like you should need to instantly evaporate a guardsmen squad from 36"?

4?

Does 4 feel good?

Splinter Cannon went to D2, but changed in other ways as well and no one uses it.

People have complained and complained and complained about how Banshees can't even kill marines when they're supposed to kill elites and not hordes. And now that they'll get to kill marines -- it's a problem.

And absolutely none of this matters if the points are appropriate.

 the_scotsman wrote:


....Yes, I get it. The point of the thread is because I think people are more likely to hate CWE, so I'm pointing out that theyre getting the same thing literally every other codex has gotten because when every other codex has gotten it and i've gone "wtf this is so much fething damage" everyone has gone "YAAASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS QUEEN SLAY NOW THEY FINALLY FEEL LIKE SPAEEEECE MAREIIIIINESSSSSS"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
About how many windrider bikes do people feel like you should need to instantly evaporate a guardsmen squad from 36"?

4?

Does 4 feel good?

This entire problem stems (and always has) from the GW's idea that a wargame should be about killing things instead of being about achieving tactical/strategic goals where killing things comes only as a byproduct of trying to achieve said goals. If your wargame is focused solely on killing, then the only sales pitch you have to make an army feel better is "it now kills more stuff than ever".

 the_scotsman wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
Let's review some of the increases in damage from the craftworld eldar rumors:

Dire Avengers: going to 3 shots S4 AP-1 24" range (50% increase +6" range increase)
wraithcannon: D3+3 damage 18" range (30% damage increase +6" range increase)
D-Scythe: D6 shots 12" range wound rolls of a 6 deal a MW (30% damage increase 4" range increase)
Shuriken Cannon: now 2 damage (100% damage increase vs W2+)
Howling Banshee: now 3A, D2 on the charge (150% damage increase vs W2+ on the charge)
Scatter laser: now 6 shots (50% damage increase)
Pulsar+Bright Lance: Now D3+3 (30% damage increase)
Fusion Gun: now D6+2 in melta range (30% damage increase)
Swooping Hawk: now 5 shots S4 autowound on a 6 to hit (60% damage increase vs preferred GEQ target)

So, they been doing this every faction, one at a time, but I know yall hate eldar, so maybe this will finally convince you there's a lethality problem in 40k. What are the best ways to salvage it? Old editions exist, obviously, and can easily be played, but is there a way to fix 9e and make the game not over in 2.5-3 turns?

In my eyes, ditching the stupid extra doctrine layer of army-wide rules and ditching or HEAVILY trimming down stratagems - ideally just to a few primarily defensive stratagems per faction - would be step 1. Step 2 would be a heavy rework of the cover system to bring back the option to have old, invuln-save style cover saves to combat the ABSURD creep in the armor piercing stat we've seen since index 8e. If we're not going to change the traits on any cover types, giving Defensible a trait where if you're targeted by a shooting attack you can Go to Ground for a 4++ invulnerable save, but a unit that used Go to Ground fights last in the fight phase. That, and opening up/universalizing Light Cover to all unit types and making claiming light cover the same as claiming Dense Cover might also help quite a bit.

Well first, these are rumors, so ignore them.

Second, CWE are in a terrible spot, most of their units are literally unplayable if you want to win any games, so while it might look strong its more just getting equal to Marines. Remember a Falcon is suppose to be a large Heavy Anti-tank transport, it is their Razorback with a better Twin Las Cannons (Admech versions, GASP that is what Admech has....), so why wouldn't it be str 9 high D? Also the Dark lance and Bright lance has always been about the same, yes it is going to get the DL treatment as well.

Also Banshee's... WHO THE feth CARES THEY ARE 150% more damage, they deal zero damage now and are one of the worst units in CWE.

Fusion Guns are melta, why would they not get the Melta treatment? All imperium and some xenos already got the updated rules, why would you deny it to CWE and not everyone else?

This is not really power creep, this is equalizing the stats to eldar. Now.... could there also be power creep? yes there can be, but so far I don't see it, if anything i still think they are a bit weaker.

....Yes, I get it. The point of the thread is because I think people are more likely to hate CWE, so I'm pointing out that theyre getting the same thing literally every other codex has gotten because when every other codex has gotten it and i've gone "wtf this is so much fething damage" everyone has gone "YAAASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS QUEEN SLAY NOW THEY FINALLY FEEL LIKE SPAEEEECE MAREIIIIINESSSSSS"

But you are saying it in a misleading way, they are not multiplying damage, they are equalizing it.

If anyone thinks them getting new melta rule is power creep from marines then they are delusional and biased towards CWE, meaning this topic makes them more mad.


Now onto your part 2, its too late for that. 9th books are out and we see how it will go. maybe in 10th edition. There however could be a stratagem rebalancing in a Chapter Approve which I am hoping for.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Splinter Cannon went to D2, but changed in other ways as well and no one uses it.

People have complained and complained and complained about how Banshees can't even kill marines when they're supposed to kill elites and not hordes. And now that they'll get to kill marines -- it's a problem.

And absolutely none of this matters if the points are appropriate.

It actually does matter if the points are appropriate. Because what happens if you take

say

a falcon, as it is right now. And you boost its damage by the ~30% that theyre going to, and then you bump the points a little bit like say 10%...and then eldar sit at around 60% for a month or two spamming whatever strong thing got the biggest damage boosts...so then it goes up another 10% points...

and the defenses stay exactly the same.

What happens is that everything continues to feel more and more and more and more like glass. My damage went up, your damage went up, our defenses both stayed the same, and both our points values got bumped. Oh look! Now we one-shot each other! How fun!

 the_scotsman wrote:

My last game I played against DG, purposefully took a casual ork list (with a mix of shooting+melee, an off-meta clan pick, and suboptimal units like Gunwagons, tankbustas and deff dreads) because I had not played vs DG before and did not know where this player landed in terms of competitiveness.

I had him essentially tabled top of 3. He brought some kind of list with like 60 of the little zombie schmuckerinos and I legitimately thought I was doing a goofy fun ork move by driving straight at them and opening fire on all of them, and then I'd cleared out a whole chunk of them with my anti-infantry shooting and got to blow up all their supporting characters with rokkits. Ended up killing like 500pts turn 1, 800pts turn 2 because he made that dumb newbie mistake of fielding 10-man squads of anything so all the rokkits I had were tripled in firepower, and then by his turn 3 he was down to about 4 terminator bodies on the table and one character hiding behind a building.

And I've had 20 games where nothing like that has happened ever. I don't see us agreeing at all so let's just leave it here.

Premise: I believe that those Eldar leaks are accurate, or at least that they are indicative of the playtested Eldar rules (who knows if the playtest results end up changing some of them).

I am just curious to see the reaction of the community, not only if those leaks are true but also in the case the upcoming Tau codex ends up showing similar levels of power creep. Tau have been struggling even more than Eldar during 9th, so one can only expect a huge buff with the upcoming codex. And while we have some Eldar leaks, we have literally none of Tau (apart from two warcom articles).

I know a lot of players hate Eldar but I also know that a lot more hate Tau.
I also know that I like drinking tears, the more salty the better

The power creep already happened since Marine 8th ed 2.0.

Craftworlds will just be catching up.

It's the nature of the beast (GW selling figurines) to create a reason for people to buy overpowered codexes and the miniatures that go with them.

Eldar are one of the factions where being paper thin but punch like a nuke is appropriate. I don't think anyone reasonably expects eldar not to have a jump in damage, as other say it's just this edition and how things are now.

I enjoy that by the time we get to the end of this cycle, marines defensive stats will actually be too low to justify their point costs.

Power creep won't stop until 10th ed and maybe it won't even stop there if GW refuses to learn.

Until then power creep should continue, otherwise the factions who haven't received their codex yet would be at a disadvantage.

Craftworlds, especially aspect warriors, deserve a significant bump in power, so I don't see the issue here.

That's just one side of the coin.

Lethality has indeed increased, but durability did too.

We have had a wide spread of -1 hit, -1 damage, can't reroll, fail on 3-, increase in armor values...

Invul saves on 3+ and 4+ have been cut for the most part, but instead the ones on 5+ have increased.

Even with all the buffs to Melta for example, the amount of them required to take down a Dreadnaught hasn't really changed compared to 5th.

Proof of that is that the current competitive builds are durability based. If the game had followed a pure lethality increase without equivalent increases to durability, current lists would all firepower and mobility (i.e. pre-dataslate meta).

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Splinter Cannon went to D2, but changed in other ways as well and no one uses it.

People have complained and complained and complained about how Banshees can't even kill marines when they're supposed to kill elites and not hordes. And now that they'll get to kill marines -- it's a problem.

And absolutely none of this matters if the points are appropriate.

And as a final postscript (and I know I'm not the first to say it in this thread), but none of this matters period because these rumors are le jank. I usually like the rabblerousing Scotsman threads but this one is pretty suspect (and to be clear, you're exactly right about Banshees.)

Spoletta wrote:
That's just one side of the coin.

Lethality has indeed increased, but durability did too.

We have had a wide spread of -1 hit, -1 damage, can't reroll, fail on 3-, increase in armor values...

Invul saves on 3+ and 4+ have been cut for the most part, but instead the ones on 5+ have increased.

Even with all the buffs to Melta for example, the amount of them required to take down a Dreadnaught hasn't really changed compared to 5th.

Proof of that is that the current competitive builds are durability based. If the game had followed a pure lethality increase without equivalent increases to durability, current lists would all firepower and mobility (i.e. pre-dataslate meta).

Bar some notable exemptions, they do? The issue with dark eldar pumping out all that damage was compounded by fast, cheap, durable raiders to put them in. Admech pouring buckets of lascannons and radium shots is a problem, compounded by the ridiculous durability piled ontop of the infantry and the biggest offenders with Admech were the chickens & planes, which was more about their speed and output. Orks brief time in the sun? Fast moving buggies, planes and out of los fire.

I'm not going to say the sky is falling until the book has been out for a few weeks and folks have had a chance to play games with and against it. Rumours are just that, and all taken without context.

Admech issue was actually 50/50 durability/lethality. Those infantry blobs were almost impossible to kill. Their planes too were considered an issue for the -1 damage, not only for their firepower.

Current Drukhari builds are coven based, which are much more durable than killy.

Necron competitive builds are durability based.

Ork buggy lists were considered OP due to Ramshackle coupled with the firepower of the freebooterz.

Grey Knights spam DK, which are definitely a durable unit and use durability based tactics.

IK Dnaught spam lists are durability based.

Custodes Dnaught spam lists are durability based.

Probably the only competitive lists right now that don't care about surviving are sisters and Tyranids, which live by trading.

Sure, all those previous lists also pack quite a punch, but all of them clearly invest in durability.

Tiberias wrote:
Power creep won't stop until 10th ed and maybe it won't even stop there if GW refuses to learn.

Until then power creep should continue, otherwise the factions who haven't received their codex yet would be at a disadvantage.

Craftworlds, especially aspect warriors, deserve a significant bump in power, so I don't see the issue here.

Establishing a set of weapons and unit profiles isn't power creep.

Something getting D2 isn't relevant to W1 or to a lesser extent W3 models.

Again we had people absolutely trashing on D6 damage weapons and we get D3+3 as the quintessential anti-tank profile. This is what people wanted! People can split hairs and say it should have been 2D3, but we're talking about one damage on average, which still has to pass hit, wound, and save ( if any ) before it is applied.

The perception of D3+3 is skewed, because people on the receiving see numbers they don't like more often, but consider the impact of break points -- like a D2 weapon hitting a W3 model the D3+3 profile has vulnerabilities -- namely the Redemptor.

Three DL will kill a Predator 20% of the time. Redemptor? 3.1% Contemptor? 8.8% Iron Hands Redemptor? 0.7%

Best outcome for DL to kill a Redemptor : 5 + 5 + 3
Worst outcome : 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3

Best outcome for a DL to kill a Predator : 6 + 5/6
Worst outcome : 4 + 4 + 4

Adding a single wound to Predators takes from them a 1 in 3 chance of death to 1 in 6 ( which Gladiators got on top of T8 ).

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Tiberias wrote:
Power creep won't stop until 10th ed and maybe it won't even stop there if GW refuses to learn.

Until then power creep should continue, otherwise the factions who haven't received their codex yet would be at a disadvantage.

Craftworlds, especially aspect warriors, deserve a significant bump in power, so I don't see the issue here.

Establishing a set of weapons and unit profiles isn't power creep.

Something getting D2 isn't relevant to W1 or to a lesser extent W3 models.

Again we had people absolutely trashing on D6 damage weapons and we get D3+3 as the quintessential anti-tank profile. This is what people wanted! People can split hairs and say it should have been 2D3, but we're talking about one damage on average, which still has to pass hit, wound, and save ( if any ) before it is applied.

The perception of D3+3 is skewed, because people on the receiving see numbers they don't like more often, but consider the impact of break points -- like a D2 weapon hitting a W3 model the D3+3 profile has vulnerabilities -- namely the Redemptor.

Three DL will kill a Predator 20% of the time. Redemptor? 3.1% Contemptor? 8.8% Iron Hands Redemptor? 0.7%

Best outcome for DL to kill a Redemptor : 5 + 5 + 3
Worst outcome : 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3

Best outcome for a DL to kill a Predator : 6 + 5/6
Worst outcome : 4 + 4 + 4

Adding a single wound to Predators takes from them a 1 in 3 chance of death to 1 in 6 ( which Gladiators got on top of T8 ).

Maybe I should have been more specific. I don't consider Craftworlds getting up to speed to other 9th Ed codices power creep, but rather a necessary update. Otherwise eldar would be treated unfairly compared to admech. It does not make sense to stop that train midway through an edition.

9th Ed codices in general received some massive power creep compared to 8th. The massive proliferation of high AP across all factions and even most units within those factions lead to the extreme proliferation of invuln saves and - 1 dmg rules, which is bad game design. It's an arms race that inevtiably leads to a hard reset.

With how GWs unit and weapon stats work, they need to be careful how they distribute those across all factions. "if everyone is super special, no one is" look at necrons for example. Their troops having better AP made sense within their lore and made them somewhat unique in previous editions. Now everybody has it.

The stats alone don't look outrageous. Problems usually arise from stratagems, traits and powers on top. CC is more killy imo, since it happens in both turns and ignores cover.
In round 1 in our games there's usually not much going in aside movement because you hardly see enemy units and the ones' you see are in cover and/ or can only be seen by few units.

It's confirmed from leaked boardroom conversations and validated through action that GW intentionally sabotages the game via codex creep. They intentionally blow it up to sell us a new edition. This is baked into their sales model and it will not change until it's required to change. No edition will ever truly be 'good'. GW means it to be this way to perpetuate sales. If they actually released a 'good' edition then there wouldn't ever be a need to update it and if they were to update it they risk losing huge swaths of players.

As gakky as this all may sound, it's necessary. It keeps the game from becoming stale and keeps the long term players engaged. Like imperial citizens we cling to hope. Hope that the next edition will be truly good, but it's a fools hope.

Tiberias wrote:
9th Ed codices in general received some massive power creep compared to 8th. The massive proliferation of high AP across all factions and even most units within those factions lead to the extreme proliferation of invuln saves and - 1 dmg rules, which is bad game design. It's an arms race that inevtiably leads to a hard reset.

There isn't a proliferation of AP. Most everything is the same AP with a very few minor exceptions. Did you mean to say damage?

I don't think one begot the other. This was the roadmap to begin with. Having armies with across the board -1D / perm transhuman / invulnerables and so on makes it so no one weapon is the answer, which should breed lists with a lot more variety.

You still see Wazboms poking out, because they get more "super lascannon" shots ( on average ) than nearly 4 las chickens and hit on the same BS most of the time. Pre-nerf you didn't see a lot of las chickens. The Admech flyers were scary, but the density of lascannons was way lower. It was the other supporting rules on top of maneuverability.

I don't mind most of this but it is kinda depressing that Shuriken weapons are just outright better than Splinter weapons.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Tiberias wrote:
9th Ed codices in general received some massive power creep compared to 8th. The massive proliferation of high AP across all factions and even most units within those factions lead to the extreme proliferation of invuln saves and - 1 dmg rules, which is bad game design. It's an arms race that inevtiably leads to a hard reset.

There isn't a proliferation of AP. Most everything is the same AP with a very few minor exceptions. Did you mean to say damage?

I don't think one begot the other. This was the roadmap to begin with. Having armies with across the board -1D / perm transhuman / invulnerables and so on makes it so no one weapon is the answer, which should breed lists with a lot more variety.

You still see Wazboms poking out, because they get more "super lascannon" shots ( on average ) than nearly 4 las chickens and hit on the same BS most of the time. Pre-nerf you didn't see a lot of las chickens. The Admech flyers were scary, but the density of lascannons was way lower. It was the other supporting rules on top of maneuverability.

I meant AP. But I did not mean that one faction nowadays has necessarily better or worse AP. My point is rather that with how GWs armor save system works, you can't hand out high ap weapons with a bazillion shots across all factions and expect armor saves to matter in any meaningful way without also having to hand out invulns like candy.