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.
Daedalus81 wrote: There's two major groups of talons. Those that offer a benefit and those that do not. Within those groups there's big and little versions, basically.
Ok, stop. Don't try to minimise this nonsense, or act like it's not right there in front of you. There are no "major groups" or whatever else you've invented in your attempt to make it out like this isn't a bloated mess.
There are seven different types of Scything Talons in the book:
And then you work out how many total attacks you want your big monster to have, and equip them correctly. So if they wanted the Screamer Killer to have 10 attacks, then they should have given it 4 Monstrous Scything Talons and A6. Then it gets +1A for each of the four, bringing it to 10. It didn't need to be a separate profile.
Having the option (or not) to trade off the talons is irrelevant. We didn't need 7 Scything Talon profiles that all do slightly different things. This isn't rocket science.
*And then three types of Rending Claws (Rending, Monstrous and Massive) and Crushing Claws (ditto for all three). Standardisation and codification would have made this SO much easier and not lead to inane nonsense like two types of Scything Talons for 3 types of Carnifex/Trygon, an units with Scything Talons and not-Scything Talons-that-are-still-obviously-talons (Raveners).
But customizability bad, you know.
God i miss the times where we could buy upgrades for squads.
This also makes me miss the good old nid dex in which we players could customize everything. Those were the times.
Absolutely on point. Rather than allowing hobbyists to craft their own dudes, GW needs us to buy and play with their monopose meh dudes, … No model no rules => rigid rules for every permutation of model Another reason earliest editions with some house rules were so much better.
Yeah, because I love needing to buy a bunch of other random crap and spend hours playing arts and crafts on top of the cleaning and assembly we're ALREADY stuck with, just to be able to actually USE the obscenely expensive kit I already bought.
Just get rid of the options. Get rid of every weapon but the generic CQC profile. Then you can model whatever the hell you want without impacting gameplay at all.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/03/16 19:25:52
The rest is so if they need to change the carnifex melee profile they can do it without changing a screamer killer, trygon or tyrant.
If they need to change the profile for a particular creature. . . Why not change the actual profile of the creature, using any one of three melee related options available, WS S or A?
What they've done is absolutely unnecessary.
Because if the Scything Talons grant extra attacks, that's the trade off against the higher strength of the crushing claws for a carnifex. If they baked the attacks into the profile, when would you ever take the talons?
If you increased the base strength it interacts differently with the multiplication (Edit: I've just seen they don't multiply anymore, so fair point) on the crushing claws.
If you alter base WS the they're either hitting on a 4+ or 2+ for a carnifex, which is a much bigger swing.
Come on, I'm an idiot and can see why they are as they are.
Huh? I'm not saying that the Talons can't grant extra attacks. I'm saying that if a generic Talons isn't cutting it, then you modify the base model instead. If that makes Claws more nasty, then you can also modify the points for the Claws to make sense, or modify the models base cost. There are enough places to make modifications while still using generic/universally designed weapons.
The weirdest part of this is they also do that, especially for carnifexes, which can take adrenal glands (+1 S and M), enhanced senses (BS) and/or chitin thorns (better AP for all melee attacks).
But of those three, Screamer Killers can only take adrenals, and Thornbacks just get chitin thorns innately but can also pick the other two, but lose a slew of weapon options, including 4 devourers or deathspitters.
Some of these units (warriors and base carnifex) are designed for maximum player choice, others (venomthropes, exocrines, toxicrene) are design for a singular role with no choices whatsoever, and other things (like the raveners, mawloc and a couple other things) look like the singular role designer had something really specific in mind but had to back down for the options in the kit. And the termagant/gargoyle designer was just drunk. The Hormagaunt writer decided that 2 scything talons and the additional attacks ability was too much to be bothered to write so he just scribbled a 3 under the attacks characteristic and called it a day.
Sim-Life wrote: I love that there are people in this thread arguing that we either only get options the terrible way GW does them or none at all. There's no inbetween that could possibly exist.
So much this. Especially when we have cases in the past where GW did better.
I fact we have cases right now that are better, you only have to look at firstborn units. Normal, every day, run-of-the-mill, holy, Bolters, and then a menu of Special/Heavies shared by every unit.
That nobody uses any more
Even when they did use them, only 1 or 2 saw play.
All options should be removed, we should only have 1 W models with no save, bolters, and basic CQC weapons. Only then will the game reach it's pinnacle.
Dudeface wrote: Isn't this the perpetual catch 22 of this community "I want my unit to feel unique and powerful, has options and a defined purpose" immediately followed by "god why do intercessors have 3 different bolt weapons for 3 different roles?" or "why don't all my units share the same CCW making it crap on some of them and a default pick on others but easy to remember?"
*Storm bolters instead of primadonna bolters.
*Flamers instead of runny bolters.
*Heavy bolters instead of heavy but not that heavy bolters.
There is no such thing as a CCW that is crap on some and a default pick on others for any reason except the pts on options being off. If devourers aren't fun to use on Tyranid Warriors because they don't deal enough damage relative to how durable Warriors are or the damage output being wimpy for the size of the model then there might be a problem, you could just have it be A+2 and have Warriors and Raveners both have 3A base. Effectively you get a 5 shot devourer on Warriors and a 3 shot devourer on Termagants, but you only have 1 weapon profile.
Changing weapons around between codexes is a really bad idea, outside of times when it is necessary like in the case of Imperium weapons needing an update, releasing new codexes for every Imperium faction and every faction that uses Imperium weapon profiles is too big an ask, but for a stand-alone faction like Tyranids, Necrons or Tau Empire? Weapon profiles should not be changed, it's too much hassle, just fix it as much as possible with points.
EviscerationPlague wrote: The unit can exist, it just doesn't need S5 guns because. They're not "anemic", and paying for the durability alone is fine.
It isn't though. Either the durability it worth it or it is not. There isn't going to be an in-between.
It could depend on the list, you could have 3-bug devourer Warriors be good for holding objectives and 30 bug Termagants with 15 devourers be an efficient and relatively tanky damage dealer when supported by a Tervigon and 30 devourer Termagants be the ultimate in terms of damage output with the downside of lack of survivability and needing a Trygon for transport. Even if the points are off and in whatever meta is played in tournaments only the devourer Warriors are viable, the mixed Termagants and the full devourer Termagants could still have upsides in some cases that might make them viable in certain uncommon basement metas or even just under non-standard mission and terrain conditions. Whether Warriors have extra durability or extra durability and extra damage output you're still likely to see one option being inferior in most contexts.
There is no such thing as a CCW that is crap on some and a default pick on others for any reason except the pts on options being off. If devourers aren't fun to use on Tyranid Warriors because they don't deal enough damage relative to how durable Warriors are or the damage output being wimpy for the size of the model then there might be a problem, you could just have it be A+2 and have Warriors and Raveners both have 3A base. Effectively you get a 5 shot devourer on Warriors and a 3 shot devourer on Termagants, but you only have 1 weapon profile.
Of course there are occasions when a weapon is bad on one platform and not another. I seem to recall all guard officers used to never have power swords because even if they were free the strength boost of the other weapons made them better by default.
With regards the devourers, what if they want or need raveners to have higher attack stat (again there are rules that interact with the stat that are relevant)? What if assault x+2 is too strong on a gaunt but you can't reduce the shots without giving warrior an attack which throws their balance off. I understand why they have fixed profiles now even if it's less fun.
Sim-Life wrote: I love that there are people in this thread arguing that we either only get options the terrible way GW does them or none at all. There's no inbetween that could possibly exist.
So much this. Especially when we have cases in the past where GW did better.
I fact we have cases right now that are better, you only have to look at firstborn units. Normal, every day, run-of-the-mill, holy, Bolters, and then a menu of Special/Heavies shared by every unit.
That nobody uses any more
Even when they did use them, only 1 or 2 saw play.
All options should be removed, we should only have 1 W models with no save, bolters, and basic CQC weapons. Only then will the game reach it's pinnacle.
Seems that way, peak of competitive balance. That way there won't be options people ask to have access to then complain because they're not good enough or balanced correctly or simply never see play.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/03/16 19:53:29
vict0988 wrote: It could depend on the list, you could have 3-bug devourer Warriors be good for holding objectives and 30 bug Termagants with 15 devourers be an efficient and relatively tanky damage dealer when supported by a Tervigon and 30 devourer Termagants be the ultimate in terms of damage output with the downside of lack of survivability and needing a Trygon for transport. Even if the points are off and in whatever meta is played in tournaments only the devourer Warriors are viable, the mixed Termagants and the full devourer Termagants could still have upsides in some cases that might make them viable in certain uncommon basement metas or even just under non-standard mission and terrain conditions. Whether Warriors have extra durability or extra durability and extra damage output you're still likely to see one option being inferior in most contexts.
You're talking something altogether different than Intercessors and Heavy Intercessors.
On a semi-related note. Something that really gets me about GW's process...they had the idea to make Nids need spotters for artillery, but not for Tau who must have been written close to each other. Couldn't they have written something to the effect of needing a markerlight to shoot a unit ooLOS?
They're so frustratingly close to getting it and just keep fumbling the ball. *sigh* maybe in 2 to 5 months...
Dudeface wrote: Of course there are occasions when a weapon is bad on one platform and not another. I seem to recall all guard officers used to never have power swords because even if they were free the strength boost of the other weapons made them better by default.
Power swords are 1 pt, power axe 99 pts, power maul 99 pts. "power axes need more AP OMG everyone always just takes power swords because of the amazing AP." Bleh.
With regards the devourers, what if they want or need raveners to have higher attack stat (again there are rules that interact with the stat that are relevant)? What if assault x+2 is too strong on a gaunt but you can't reduce the shots without giving warrior an attack which throws their balance off. I understand why they have fixed profiles now even if it's less fun.
What rules are relevant when it comes to the attack stat and Raveners that requires they have a higher Attacks stat than Warriors? Something that hasn't been necessary ever as far as I'm aware, the units started out as the same unit entry unless I am mistaken.
If Assault x+2 turns out to be stronger than anticipated on Termagants then the points cost can be increased.
Seems that way, peak of competitive balance. That way there won't be options people ask to have access to then complain because they're not good enough or balanced correctly or simply never see play.
Peak GW apologia /sarcasm. It would have taken the designers a minute to figure out the grav cannon with grav amp was going to be way too insane for its cost in 7th. They just need to not be lazy inept gits charging heaven and earth for a hellishly unbalanced and badly designed product.
Dudeface wrote: Of course there are occasions when a weapon is bad on one platform and not another. I seem to recall all guard officers used to never have power swords because even if they were free the strength boost of the other weapons made them better by default.
Power swords are 1 pt, power axe 99 pts, power maul 99 pts. "power axes need more AP OMG everyone always just takes power swords because of the amazing AP." Bleh.
With regards the devourers, what if they want or need raveners to have higher attack stat (again there are rules that interact with the stat that are relevant)? What if assault x+2 is too strong on a gaunt but you can't reduce the shots without giving warrior an attack which throws their balance off. I understand why they have fixed profiles now even if it's less fun.
What rules are relevant when it comes to the attack stat and Raveners that requires they have a higher Attacks stat than Warriors? Something that hasn't been necessary ever as far as I'm aware, the units started out as the same unit entry unless I am mistaken.
If Assault x+2 turns out to be stronger than anticipated on Termagants then the points cost can be increased.
Seems that way, peak of competitive balance. That way there won't be options people ask to have access to then complain because they're not good enough or balanced correctly or simply never see play.
Peak GW apologia /sarcasm. It would have taken the designers a minute to figure out the grav cannon with grav amp was going to be way too insane for its cost in 7th. They just need to not be lazy inept gits charging heaven and earth for a hellishly unbalanced and badly designed product.
There isn't a certain reason for them needing higher base attacks on raveners that I know of, but as mentioned elsewhere, there are some abilities that trigger off a units attack stat likewise (no idea if they still exist) disarm abilities or mind control that limit you to 1 weapon etc. Will interact differently.
Again I'm not saying it's some well thought out master plan but 5 attacks isn't the same as 3+2 in some places in this game.
Regards the guard weapons it's taken an extreme example to get the point across, but I'm curious when you'd take a power sword over a free chainsword of you don't aim to have much melee impact. They'd have to be free or a filler choice.
Fair play on that last point, all these sorts of thread and debates vanish with some better quality out the gate.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/03/16 20:09:22
Why should power swords be a viable option for units that do not engage in melee? It should be an option that is viable if your strategy involves Guardsmen getting locked in melee with heavily armoured foes. Maybe you use support characters to buff the damage output of your Guardsmen and charge in or you play against Space Marines a lot and your Blast-y Vehicles need a Guardsmen screen so you might as well pick up a cheap power sword.
I think the +1 S to power weapons was a good idea, but I think Astartes Veteran power swords, Astartes Veteran power axes and Astartes Veteran power mauls available to ULTRAMARINE VETERANS would have been a bad idea.
Sim-Life wrote: I love that there are people in this thread arguing that we either only get options the terrible way GW does them or none at all. There's no inbetween that could possibly exist.
So much this. Especially when we have cases in the past where GW did better.
I fact we have cases right now that are better, you only have to look at firstborn units. Normal, every day, run-of-the-mill, holy, Bolters, and then a menu of Special/Heavies shared by every unit.
That nobody uses any more
IircDevs and Vanguard remained common competetive options. And I'll fight anyone who thinks Intercessors are better than Tacs.
Sim-Life wrote: I love that there are people in this thread arguing that we either only get options the terrible way GW does them or none at all. There's no inbetween that could possibly exist.
So much this. Especially when we have cases in the past where GW did better.
I fact we have cases right now that are better, you only have to look at firstborn units. Normal, every day, run-of-the-mill, holy, Bolters, and then a menu of Special/Heavies shared by every unit.
That nobody uses any more
I happen to like my FB Salamander list and it does what I want it to.
Arbiter_Shade wrote: You know I am glad that my gaunts will be more than glorified wound counters for objective control but even I am searching for a reason for them to be S5 Ap-1...
It is cool, I am gonna enjoy it, but this power creep is getting ludicrous. I mean, it always was but I feel like my tipping point is now the fact that my favorite factions "las gun" is now S5 Ap-1.
I mean before the inevitable list of possible buffs, you were doing 19.4% damage for your points into Intercessors with Fleshborers (given enough to maintain the reroll 1 to wound)... and now thats 23.8%. Not great. Equally you've gone up 40% in points to gain 1 extra armour save. Which is a bad exchange.
It fits GW's "we need everything to be more glass cannon" - but as said, not convinced it will be great. But they clearly decided they didn't want them sitting at 5 points being wound counters so needed to move fleshborers up in the world.
Its a bit like people looking at buffed up Hormagaunts. Yes its nice they can be choppy now (as opposed to being near completely pointless). But you are paying 8-11 points for something with a Guardsman's defensive profile. I feel they are going to die when things look in their direction - and at that points level you are going to notice.
I feel like you are overstating things a bit when you put numbers out like "40% point increase" when that equals 20 points for an entire 30 gant squad.
It's a 60 point increase for a 30 gant squad. Not 20 points.
Which really isn't a lot
20 gants used to cost 100pts, They now cost 140. That is a 40pt increase or 40%. That is a LOT, and if you don't think 40% isn't a lot than you don't understand statistics. In a 2k point game, 40pts is 2% of your list. So if you were taking 3 mobz of 20, your list just got 6% smaller just by this 1 nerf. Whether or not Gants got better to the point where the price increase is warranted has yet to be discovered. But to argue that a 40% increase in price isn't massive is disingenuous at best.
Rihgu wrote: Granularity is great, except for when it's bad. Hrmm.
ccs wrote: Upcoming codex must be relatively fine if all you've got to complain about for several pages is how many names they've given talons/scathing talons.
Tell me you don't understand the conversation without telling me you don't understand the conversation.
vict0988 wrote: It could depend on the list, you could have 3-bug devourer Warriors be good for holding objectives and 30 bug Termagants with 15 devourers be an efficient and relatively tanky damage dealer when supported by a Tervigon and 30 devourer Termagants be the ultimate in terms of damage output with the downside of lack of survivability and needing a Trygon for transport. Even if the points are off and in whatever meta is played in tournaments only the devourer Warriors are viable, the mixed Termagants and the full devourer Termagants could still have upsides in some cases that might make them viable in certain uncommon basement metas or even just under non-standard mission and terrain conditions. Whether Warriors have extra durability or extra durability and extra damage output you're still likely to see one option being inferior in most contexts.
You're talking something altogether different than Intercessors and Heavy Intercessors.
On a semi-related note. Something that really gets me about GW's process...they had the idea to make Nids need spotters for artillery, but not for Tau who must have been written close to each other. Couldn't they have written something to the effect of needing a markerlight to shoot a unit ooLOS?
They're so frustratingly close to getting it and just keep fumbling the ball. *sigh* maybe in 2 to 5 months...
Because your attributing to much competence to the designers. Hive Guard were to good, the designers know this from data therefor they had to be made worse. Ergo all the changes.
Airbursts were not considered 'to good'. They were not getting spammed so they didn't need to get nerfed and actually got buffed.
The notion that non-LoS shooting is actually a problem never entered into the mind of whoever wrote the Tau codex. Despite all the other non-LoS shooting weapons that have previously causes problems.
Arbiter_Shade wrote: You know I am glad that my gaunts will be more than glorified wound counters for objective control but even I am searching for a reason for them to be S5 Ap-1...
It is cool, I am gonna enjoy it, but this power creep is getting ludicrous. I mean, it always was but I feel like my tipping point is now the fact that my favorite factions "las gun" is now S5 Ap-1.
I mean before the inevitable list of possible buffs, you were doing 19.4% damage for your points into Intercessors with Fleshborers (given enough to maintain the reroll 1 to wound)... and now thats 23.8%. Not great. Equally you've gone up 40% in points to gain 1 extra armour save. Which is a bad exchange.
It fits GW's "we need everything to be more glass cannon" - but as said, not convinced it will be great. But they clearly decided they didn't want them sitting at 5 points being wound counters so needed to move fleshborers up in the world.
Its a bit like people looking at buffed up Hormagaunts. Yes its nice they can be choppy now (as opposed to being near completely pointless). But you are paying 8-11 points for something with a Guardsman's defensive profile. I feel they are going to die when things look in their direction - and at that points level you are going to notice.
I feel like you are overstating things a bit when you put numbers out like "40% point increase" when that equals 20 points for an entire 30 gant squad.
It's a 60 point increase for a 30 gant squad. Not 20 points.
Which really isn't a lot
20 gants used to cost 100pts, They now cost 140. That is a 40pt increase or 40%. That is a LOT, and if you don't think 40% isn't a lot than you don't understand statistics. In a 2k point game, 40pts is 2% of your list. So if you were taking 3 mobz of 20, your list just got 6% smaller just by this 1 nerf. Whether or not Gants got better to the point where the price increase is warranted has yet to be discovered. But to argue that a 40% increase in price isn't massive is disingenuous at best.
You're lying with said statistics. A unit that cost 2 points but went up 50% would be 3 points after all. 6% of a list is NOT a lot, especially for a swarm like that, so trying to spin it as such is just silly on your end.
EviscerationPlague wrote: You're lying with said statistics. A unit that cost 2 points but went up 50% would be 3 points after all. 6% of a list is NOT a lot, especially for a swarm like that, so trying to spin it as such is just silly on your end.
AdMech took a massive win rate dive with a modest increase in points cost. A unit going from 2 pts to 3 pts is a big deal, do you have any idea how OP 2pt Brims were?
Rihgu wrote: Granularity is great, except for when it's bad. Hrmm.
ccs wrote: Upcoming codex must be relatively fine if all you've got to complain about for several pages is how many names they've given talons/scathing talons.
Tell me you don't understand the conversation without telling me you don't understand the conversation.
Oh I hear your complaint. I've been playing Age of Sigmar since it launched. EVERY. SINGLE. UNIT. has it's own name & profile for the weapons/attack/armor/shield it has.
Meanwhile every Primaris SM has its own type of bolt gun & bolt pistol.
Sure, it's an annoyance to read.
But it ultimately doesn't really affect anything so it's not worth more than an eye-roll & a sigh. And certainly not worth the pages & pages of bitching some of you are dedicating to it.
Like I said, Codex must be pretty good if the biggest thing you can hold against it is the # of different types of talons....
But it ultimately doesn't really affect anything so it's not worth more than an eye-roll & a sigh. And certainly not worth the pages & pages of bitching some of you are dedicating to it.
Always love 'shut up and don't complain'
Like I said, Codex must be pretty good if the biggest thing you can hold against it is the # of different types of talons....
Well, that and the active trap weapon options (for example, you can take 4 carnifex crushing claws. It doesn't give you any benefit, but you have to pay points for each one! Reasonably for 2, but it isn't actually worded that way).
And the autotake options.
And the units that probably just aren't worth taking because other units can be stacked up to do everything. In particular the big melee monsters, which come across as really pillowfisted compared to other options.
A full three relics are hive tyrant only. This seems extraordinarily petty since tyrants are now 0-1 (and it doesn't actually say that, but they're the only Characters with the right weapons to swap). And yes, one is a talon, so the trygon prime specifically can't use it, because special trygon talons. And neither can the tervigon because monstrous is different than massive. Because feth you, that's why. Old One Eye actually has the right type of talon, but its a 'named character,' so can't. [This isn't unusual, but the term 'named character' just seems weird, and the only way to know they're named characters is if you look under warlord traits for the callout box about which WT they have to have. Its what actually identifies the term as game information. Their datasheets just say you can't have more than one of the model]
Also some things don't work as written. The Spore Nodes secondary objective is a good example. You CAN use it while within 6" of the enemy deployment zone. But you have to place the marker wholly within the deployment zone AND within 1" of the unit that completed the action. There's a very strange dead space there where you can take the action but aren't actually close enough to place the marker.
----
The balance between hive fleets is very much not good:
Behemoth and Leviathan win. Full stop, they're just... great.
Kraken seems workable, but not as strong as the other two. But your army can and will get into melee fast, and this book largely wants to do that, so its pretty much fine. But the fast advance bit is the adaptive trait which...hard choice. Not sure -1AP on the charge is enough.
Gorgon... if you build around hormagaunts and specifically not taking fleshborers on gants, and still want to use rippers for some reason, you can make something of it. But nothing else in the army cares about wounding on 4+ against non-vehicles, because almost everything else is S5 or more, even stuff like Zoanthropes and Venomthropes. This codex punches down hard on T4 or less and is generally 4+ or better against T5, so wounding on a 4+ against infantry is kind of a joke. If you've got 180 hormagaunts and spinefist gants (or are willing to pay and pay more for devilgaunts), go nuts, I guess.
People that really want to can probably build something on Jormungandr and Kronos, but good luck staying far away? The best bits of this army really don't want to do that, even if your opponent will let you.
Hydra is built on outnumbering enemies in melee for +1 to hit. But the stuff that carries melee won't be outnumbering much of anything, except by accident or already winning. So... just... what the hell? The relic, trait and psychic power is a random gift bag of... stuff. Barring some kind of Eureka moment, this fleet is made of garbage and failure.
Pure custom fleets are kind of a loss. You give up a lot (traits, relics, powers, etc) plus you can only adapt from one list rather than two.
Splinter fleets get everything except the horrible studio color schemes, and I think the relic? I've never quite figured out this particular quirk of the custom rules, other than 'expect people to be jerks who will argue about your color scheme and this officially tells them not to.'
This message was edited 12 times. Last update was at 2022/03/17 06:29:16
A full three relics are hive tyrant only. This seems extraordinarily petty since tyrants are now 0-1 (and it doesn't actually say that, but they're the only Characters with the right weapons to swap). And yes, one is a talon, so the trygon prime specifically can't use it, because special trygon talons. And neither can the tervigon because monstrous is different than massive. Because feth you, that's why.
Just picking this part out, "massive" and "monstrous" talons are separated due to one having a totally different profile than the other, so the user can have a sweep or smash attack option. So not for no reason, unless you're suggesting every tyranid MC has those options ofc.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/03/17 06:43:19
A full three relics are hive tyrant only. This seems extraordinarily petty since tyrants are now 0-1 (and it doesn't actually say that, but they're the only Characters with the right weapons to swap). And yes, one is a talon, so the trygon prime specifically can't use it, because special trygon talons. And neither can the tervigon because monstrous is different than massive. Because feth you, that's why.
Just picking this part out, "massive" and "monstrous" talons are separated due to one having a totally different profile than the other, so the user can have a sweep or smash attack option. So not for no reason, unless you're suggesting every tyranid MC has those options ofc.
That would be fine.
Powerfists are available for squad members, sergeants, all the way up to super-duper captain marines. The Powerfist still does the same thing though. Just pick a weapon behavior and give it to everybody capable of taking it. Standardize.
vict0988 wrote: It could depend on the list, you could have 3-bug devourer Warriors be good for holding objectives and 30 bug Termagants with 15 devourers be an efficient and relatively tanky damage dealer when supported by a Tervigon and 30 devourer Termagants be the ultimate in terms of damage output with the downside of lack of survivability and needing a Trygon for transport. Even if the points are off and in whatever meta is played in tournaments only the devourer Warriors are viable, the mixed Termagants and the full devourer Termagants could still have upsides in some cases that might make them viable in certain uncommon basement metas or even just under non-standard mission and terrain conditions. Whether Warriors have extra durability or extra durability and extra damage output you're still likely to see one option being inferior in most contexts.
You're talking something altogether different than Intercessors and Heavy Intercessors.
On a semi-related note. Something that really gets me about GW's process...they had the idea to make Nids need spotters for artillery, but not for Tau who must have been written close to each other. Couldn't they have written something to the effect of needing a markerlight to shoot a unit ooLOS?
They're so frustratingly close to getting it and just keep fumbling the ball. *sigh* maybe in 2 to 5 months...
Because your attributing to much competence to the designers. Hive Guard were to good, the designers know this from data therefor they had to be made worse. Ergo all the changes.
Airbursts were not considered 'to good'. They were not getting spammed so they didn't need to get nerfed and actually got buffed.
The notion that non-LoS shooting is actually a problem never entered into the mind of whoever wrote the Tau codex. Despite all the other non-LoS shooting weapons that have previously causes problems.
LOS is not real problem. Spamable cheap LOS with good AP and rerolls is a problem.
Marin wrote: LOS is not real problem. Spamable cheap LOS with good AP and rerolls is a problem.
I agree and disagree.
GW does have blinders as does the community. We tend to focus only on the things in front of us and when you clear that problem new ones arise - look at DE.
The ooLOS in Tau is crazy, because of the rerolls and AP. ooLOS overall is a problem, because it ignores crucial terrain rules for absolutely no downside and no appreciable cost for doing so. The only such unit to take a hit in that regard so far has been the Squigbuggy.
No I'm saying in the picture links for the Aeldari Codex the Avatar was shown as a LOW, and he's.... not. So leaks should have be taken with a grain of salt.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: Termagants and Hormagaunts can still come in units of 30. It's Gargoyles that are capped at 20, which means I suddenly have 4 full units. Or 3 and a half. Not sure.
I didn't realise the Prime can have heavy weapons. That's... interesting.
The Genestealer rules are baffling. Why'd we lose Advance/Charge?
It feels like that's been a trend with the board shrinking. Infiltrate/Scout/Deepstrike aren't going away, but its getting less common. Daisychaining multiple Moves too. I'd expect to see an Advance/fallback and Charge strat though.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/03/17 14:17:50
Powerfists are available for squad members, sergeants, all the way up to super-duper captain marines. The Powerfist still does the same thing though. Just pick a weapon behavior and give it to everybody capable of taking it. Standardize.
That works fine when you're paying 80 to 100 points for a model. Marine HQs have as many attacks as a Hive Tyrant. It wouldn't be quite right to pay twice as much or more to be still swinging with a powerfist and have no character protection to boot.
I'm convinced that different people wrote different entries in this book and at no point talked to one another.
Oh, sounds like I'm playing AoS - everyones sword/spear/lance/axe/hammer/bow/xbow/claw/fang/shield/etc is a specific thing - each of wich might function the same or completely differently. Long gone are units armed with the good old "hand weapon".
It reminds me of the Heavy Intercessors and the copy-pasta screwup on their Auto/Stalker/etc upgrade failures.
No I'm saying in the picture links for the Aeldari Codex the Avatar was shown as a LOW, and he's.... not. So leaks should have be taken with a grain of salt.
Spoiler:
is that legit what people were considering a leak? It looks like an older edition's codex lol. This is obviously NOT a 9th edition codex picture
20 gants used to cost 100pts, They now cost 140. That is a 40pt increase or 40%. That is a LOT, and if you don't think 40% isn't a lot than you don't understand statistics. In a 2k point game, 40pts is 2% of your list. So if you were taking 3 mobz of 20, your list just got 6% smaller just by this 1 nerf. Whether or not Gants got better to the point where the price increase is warranted has yet to be discovered. But to argue that a 40% increase in price isn't massive is disingenuous at best.
You're lying with said statistics. A unit that cost 2 points but went up 50% would be 3 points after all. 6% of a list is NOT a lot, especially for a swarm like that, so trying to spin it as such is just silly on your end.
A unit going up from 5pts to 7pts is a big hit. And yes 40pts is a lot and yes your list randomly going up 6% is a big deal. My Alphork strike list just went up and down in a few places thanks to GW not understanding how they do orkz. My Kommandos just went up 20% 10 of them went from 100pts to 120pts. I used to run them with Distraction Grots and Bomb squigs, thanks to this 20% nerf I had to cut their costs by not taking those upgrades. But even without taking those upgrades they now cost 5pts more per mob and have lost a lot of versatility and the ability to dish out mortal wounds. That nerf has drastically changed my entire list, going from 3 detachments to 2 and losing an entire unit of Trukk Boyz to compensate for the difference in costs. So if you think that points cost is minor and i'm lying with statistics you haven't built competitive lists before.
Isn't this the perpetual catch 22 of this community "I want my unit to feel unique and powerful, has options and a defined purpose" immediately followed by "god why do intercessors have 3 different bolt weapons for 3 different roles?" or "why don't all my units share the same CCW making it crap on some of them and a default pick on others but easy to remember?"
The Primaris range is big enough now.
Nah, there's still holes in the range. No Aircraft, No Anti-Aircraft, No Rhino (i.e. small 10+ Transport), No Drop Pod- No Vanguard Vet. No Melee Jump Pack at all.
Throw in some fluff about chapters that haven't been able to upgrade, and Rob saying tactical operations should be one or the other, and you can balance things and and have two sanely sized Codex.
They also need to figure out what to do with the special characters. I'm pretty sure the original plan was to squat the firstborn. I'm pretty sure not all the Special Characters were going to survive. I'm also pretty sure they chickened out and are coasting through limbo while they reevaluate.
Isn't this the perpetual catch 22 of this community "I want my unit to feel unique and powerful, has options and a defined purpose" immediately followed by "god why do intercessors have 3 different bolt weapons for 3 different roles?" or "why don't all my units share the same CCW making it crap on some of them and a default pick on others but easy to remember?"
The Primaris range is big enough now.
Nah, there's still holes in the range. No Aircraft, No Anti-Aircraft, No Rhino (i.e. small 10+ Transport), No Drop Pod- No Vanguard Vet. No Melee Jump Pack at all.
Throw in some fluff about chapters that haven't been able to upgrade, and Rob saying tactical operations should be one or the other, and you can balance things and and have two sanely sized Codex.
They also need to figure out what to do with the special characters. I'm pretty sure the original plan was to squat the firstborn. I'm pretty sure not all the Special Characters were going to survive. I'm also pretty sure they chickened out and are coasting through limbo while they reevaluate.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/03/17 14:43:02
