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.

Jarms48 wrote:

 oni wrote:
Vehicle squadrons continue to be an issue. There's no need to haver them anymore.

Sorry Guard. I guess there’s no need to take basilisks, hydras, wyverns, leman russes, hellhounds, etc anymore. First flyers now squadrons.

I like the implication that the problem is in people being able to take 9 of the thing, not that the thing should never have been worth taking 9 of in the first place.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
GW have deemed that the new shuricannon is worth +5pts on its existing platforms (look at all aeldari vehicles with it). No reason starweaver should be penalized more than others.

Despite my arguments that the comparison between Venoms and Starweavers is improper and baseless, I would argue that at 90 points its probably still too cheap and that the built in 4++, 6" auto-advance, and Mirage Launchers justify a 5-10 pt hike on their own.

But if 90pts is still too cheap then why were there not so many complaints about the pre codex starweaver that was 80pts, 4++, auto advance 6", -1 to hit (ranged only), and often loaded with 5-6 fusion pistols that can shoot after boat had advanced 22"?
granted, it's now -1 to hit in assault too, but I haven't heard anyone really complaining that this is the issue.

+5pts per shuricannon is the standard currently and is fine on the starweaver.
remove no rerolls to hit, there was no need for that rule (codex creep as GW does best).
-1 to hit is fine in assault too, definitely not game breaking.

Before the codex, you could also make them be 6" further away with a shadowseer, so that's not really new either.

Is the starweaver good? Yes. Is it broken? I don't think so. Are other transports poor in comparison..yes, and many of us have called for points drops on them because they don't get used (Immolators, rhinos, trukks, etc)

I'm curious to see what GW do next week, but if you nerf the starweaver into the ground, then kiss goodbye to the faction.
Skyweavers were nerfed a little (still a decent unit IMHO) and Voidweaver was buffed way too much (but it needed something as no one ever took them before)

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I like the implication that the problem is in people being able to take 9 of the thing, not that the thing should never have been worth taking 9 of in the first place.

That’s not the issue, it’s about saving detachment slots. I could take up to 3 of something and be able to take other things.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I like the implication that the problem is in people being able to take 9 of the thing, not that the thing should never have been worth taking 9 of in the first place.

Then it's a problem that should be solved on a unit-by-unit basis, not in an across-the-board-for-all-factions basis.

Jarms48 wrote:

 oni wrote:
Vehicle squadrons continue to be an issue. There's no need to haver them anymore.

Sorry Guard. I guess there’s no need to take basilisks, hydras, wyverns, leman russes, hellhounds, etc anymore. First flyers now squadrons.

There's no need to take 9 leman russes + 3 HQ leman russes for a themed army. Even without the squadron option, under the current detachment system, a guard player can bring: 3 HQ tanks, 3 hellhounds, 3 basilisks, 3 wyverns, 3 hydras, 3 manticores, 3 deathstrikes and 3 leman russes. Plus chimeras and eventual LoW tanks. That's a massive amount of tanks (24 or more!!!!) a guard player could still bring. He simply just couldn't spam the same kind of tank anymore, which conveniently is always the best one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 bullyboy wrote:


I'm curious to see what GW do next week, but if you nerf the starweaver into the ground, then kiss goodbye to the faction.
Skyweavers were nerfed a little (still a decent unit IMHO) and Voidweaver was buffed way too much (but it needed something as no one ever took them before)

They'd just be on par with the vast majority of the other factions then. Skyweavers are good.

I agree that voidweaver needed a buff, but making them this cheap and allowing to bring 9 is insane. They need to get back to max 3 and get a significant point hike. 3 voidweavers for 120-130 points each would still be a very good deal.

Sorry but limiting to max 3 isn't balancing things. It's just pathetically trying to mask imbalance.

Fix the balance and there's no issue with 9 leman russ, 9 voidreavers etc.

But that would require rule makers to actually want balance and for that you need to separate rule makers from model maker so there isn't incentive to use rules to sell models.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Open question from someone with no stake or to be honest particular knowledge of the Modern Game?

How effective are these regular patches? I know many folk for a long while wanted more regular balance patches. But I’m also aware that getting what you want isn’t necessarily getting what you wanted. After all, they could be done monthly, but if they only jump up and down on broken bits whilst calling your Mum a slag, what’s the point?

They're pretty useless, IMO. I think this is mainly because GW are constantly having to do emergency surgery to fix the latest utterly busted gakshow they've created. If the game was more balanced in general they'd have more time to do the subtle nudging of units and abilities required to make the game more balanced. As it is, they spend too much time trying to undo their obvious mistakes, then throw out weird buffs like 2+ save on the LRBT, which is nice and all, but hardly fixing the problem.

There's also the issue that GW balances using both the printed CA points updates and the digital dataslate. The points updates are instantly out of date, but even then they don't seem to be addressing things that were an issue months ago. They seem fairly random. For example, we just don't see SM vehicles at all, beyond Dreads (and even then, only 2 different types of Dreads) but the last points update did nothing to fix that. Necron Triarch Praetorians are bad, especailly compared to Lychguard. Again, no real help there. Part of the problem is likely the sheer number of datasheets they need to consider, but that's a problem of GW's making so I'm not too sympathetic to that.

Then we have the digital balance dataslates, that just don't seem to really understand the game and often feel quite random in their focus. Many solutions are poorly thought out, like the blanket 0-2 on Flyers. With the way they write about the game I have no confidence GW even understands the problems so they have basically no chance of fixing them. Compare that to how FFG used to talk about balance fixes in X-Wing and it's night and day. Hell, even reading the new release articles for the two systems you notice that FFG would actually highlight meaningful weaknesses and restrictions alongside the positives, while GW articles are basically all "look how big these numbers are!"

Being able to skew something in the first place can be an issue, or part of the issue.

 Blackie wrote:
There's no need to take 9 leman russes + 3 HQ leman russes for a themed army.

Says who? Putting aside the fact that Tank Commanders will be 0-1 per detachment like every other main commander come the new Guard Codex, 1 Commander + 9 Russes is a Russ Company. That seems perfectly fine to me.

0-1 per detachment still means up to 3 in a common 2000 points game. Does a tank based AM army have to be a "russ" company though? Or can it just be a "tank" company instead? I mean does an army of leman russes HAVE to be a thing?

Speed freaks armies didn't need to bring 9 squigbuggies and 9 scrapjets to be "themed". All the buggies were good and sticked to the lore. Plus koptas, warbikes, flyers, wagons and even infantries in trukks/wagons. All 100% themed. Stormboyz even.

Not sure if GW takes back the option of taking 3x3 Voidweavers.
Taking a bit the sting out of this unit would suffice.
Have a look at the Talos, where 3x3 are still possible.

 Blackie wrote:

There's no need to take 9 leman russes + 3 HQ leman russes for a themed army. Even without the squadron option, under the current detachment system, a guard player can bring: 3 HQ tanks, 3 hellhounds, 3 basilisks, 3 wyverns, 3 hydras, 3 manticores, 3 deathstrikes and 3 leman russes. Plus chimeras and eventual LoW tanks. That's a massive amount of tanks (24 or more!!!!) a guard player could still bring. He simply just couldn't spam the same kind of tank anymore, which conveniently is always the best one.

Here's the issue with that. Limited detachment slots and CP cost. You only get 3 FA slots and 3 HS slots in a Battalion. So if I want 3 Hydras, 3 Basilisks, and 3 Leman Russes then I need to now take 3 Battalions, at a cost of 6 CP. Great... Another nerf for Guard.

To even take all of the units in your example I have to take 3 Spearheads to get 18 HS slots. Even better, now I've just spent 9 CP...

Also, entire armies of Leman Russ tanks have been a thing since 3rd edition. Starting with GW's Armoured Company list. Then continued in the FW IA books all the way up to 7th edition.

I really don't think at this point it matters much. The game is no doubt getting new players but I see lots turn up, work up to their first big game, see it go horribly and drift away.

Yes, 10 Russes are actually a thing. In fact, they are outright the only way to run a fluffy Armored Company - the Imperial Guard organizes it's troops into mono-type regiments without Combined Arms (including tank types). The only exception afaik are Siege Regiments.

Hellhounds and Russes can MAYBE be mixed in a regiment - there is precious little fluff on how Hellhounds exist except that they are fielded in reconnaissance companies along Salamanders. But there is no evidence to suggest such mixing (between Russes and Hellhounds) afaik; but also no evidence against it. However, they will NEVER be fielded in a mixed Company with Leman Russes, though they may be attached as a Battlegroup (see below).

There is also evidence of mixing Baneblades and Russes within the same regiment, but NEVER within the same company (given that 1-5 Baneblades is an entire Company in a regiment's TO&E).

Every other unit type would be in a different regiment - though they can sometimes be attached to other regiment types in a Battlegroup. However, not everyone should be forced to play a Battlegroup if they don't want to.

Sorry to the Sisters of Battle players out there that wanted to use their new but trash units of Paragon Warsuits. Just being a vehicle means that can't squad up anymore.

Broadsides are completely fine though even though they're almost twice as tough with better guns for less points just because they happen to be Infantry rather than a Vehicles.

Makes perfect sense to me.

Honestly it's weird to see 40k balance debates or balance debates from primarily 40k players and see things like "limiting availability is not a form of balancing".

It's a take that I really only see from the 40k crowd or when talking about 40k, because it's definitely a balancing lever that a number of other games use to good effect.

If something is OP it's OP whether you have 1 or 9. It's still too good for points.

If OP stuff is 0-1(it can be OP because you can have only 1! Common stupid noob game designer defence) then it's just auto take.

Meanwhile get the rules and points right and it's irrelevant whether you have 1 or 9. It's balanced either way.

Limit is just used to hide the problems by lazy game designer who can't be arsed to do his job and balance things properly.

 Blackie wrote:
Does a tank based AM army have to be a "russ" company though? Or can it just be a "tank" company instead? I mean does an army of leman russes HAVE to be a thing?

Yes. Because that's what an armoured company is.

 Blackie wrote:
Even without the squadron option, under the current detachment system, a guard player can bring: 3 HQ tanks, 3 hellhounds, 3 basilisks, 3 wyverns, 3 hydras, 3 manticores, 3 deathstrikes and 3 leman russes. Plus chimeras and eventual LoW tanks. That's a massive amount of tanks (24 or more!!!!) a guard player could still bring. He simply just couldn't spam the same kind of tank anymore, which conveniently is always the best one.

3 heavy slots in a battalion, 5 heavy slots in a brigade, 6 in a spearhead.

More than one detachment will cost CP regardless of detachment type. So you can get 11 heavies IF you're willing to burn 1HQ and 3 Troops tax to take the Brigade over the Battalion and 3 CP for the extra Spearhead.

Still not a bad deal if you want to field a tank company, but lets not pretend there's no cost to squeezing so many tanks into a list without squadron rules.

tneva82 wrote:
Sorry but limiting to max 3 isn't balancing things. It's just pathetically trying to mask imbalance.

Fix the balance and there's no issue with 9 leman russ, 9 voidreavers etc.

But that would require rule makers to actually want balance and for that you need to separate rule makers from model maker so there isn't incentive to use rules to sell models.

Nonsense. Even balanced things can be broken while spammed. Three tanks might not be a problem, but when entire enemy army is 12 tanks presenting wall of T9 2+ save rendering 95% enemy weapons virtually useless save for AT guns the tanks will blow off board the first turn no amount of point shifting will manage to correct that. Unless you postulate AI dynamically balancing points on both sides on the fly depending on army and terrain configuration.

And I like the stupid conspiracy theory is still alive. That's why say Reivers and primaris grav tanks, new, expensive minis, always had garbage rules because GW wanted to sell them. Or why primaris still have no melee weapon access reducing their effectiveness and sales appeal. Oh wait Gee, it must be sales tactic, and not just Phil Kelly being incompetent rules writer who always buffs his pet army into the stratosphere, after all it's not like he did the exact same thing in 8th, 7th, 6th, etc, etc, edition befor-- oh wait

 Blackie wrote:
0-1 per detachment still means up to 3 in a common 2000 points game. Does a tank based AM army have to be a "russ" company though? Or can it just be a "tank" company instead? I mean does an army of leman russes HAVE to be a thing?

Speed freaks armies didn't need to bring 9 squigbuggies and 9 scrapjets to be "themed". All the buggies were good and sticked to the lore. Plus koptas, warbikes, flyers, wagons and even infantries in trukks/wagons. All 100% themed. Stormboyz even.

Considering that Leman Russes are the only actual *tank* in the Guard army list that isn't a superheavy/forgeworld option? The argument can be made about Hellhounds/Devil Dogs/Bane Wolves, but those would really be classified as fire support vehicles more than tanks. Everything else is a self propelled artillery piece/gun, etc. Lets not forget that there are also 7 different Leman Russ variants (more if you include Forgeworld) and that by capping at 1/HS slot you've guaranteed that nobody will ever field anything other than 1 type of them because you've turned the HS slot into the most limited resource in that entire codex.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Sorry to the Sisters of Battle players out there that wanted to use their new but trash units of Paragon Warsuits. Just being a vehicle means that can't squad up anymore.
Broadsides are completely fine though even though they're almost twice as tough with better guns for less points just because they happen to be Infantry rather than a Vehicles.
Makes perfect sense to me.

Lets not forget Carnifexes, living battle tanks, but not actually tanks, so totally not a problem to be able to bring 9 of them using 3 heavy support slots. Even better, theres 3 different carnifex datasheets, so 27 carnifexes are on the table - 30 if you include the stone crushers from forgeworld which are a fourth datasheet, 31 if you include Old One Eye. But they aren't a vehicle so they won't get punished.

tneva82 wrote:
If something is OP it's OP whether you have 1 or 9. It's still too good for points.
If OP stuff is 0-1(it can be OP because you can have only 1! Common stupid noob game designer defence) then it's just auto take.
Meanwhile get the rules and points right and it's irrelevant whether you have 1 or 9. It's balanced either way.
Limit is just used to hide the problems by lazy game designer who can't be arsed to do his job and balance things properly.

Yes and no, there are balanced playstyles that can be built around the concept of having a limited core of high-efficiency unit types that are supported by underperforming gak-tier chaff, but when you do something like that you need to commit to the idea that the limited core is going to be a mandatory requirement that you build the army around rather than something that will be competing against other choices. Its not a concept that would necessarily work in most 40k armies/the game in general, though it is a design concept used in certain other games.

Don't I keep hearing from some of you that vehicles are trash this edition & don't last long enough?

ccs wrote:
Don't I keep hearing from some of you that vehicles are trash this edition & don't last long enough?

Maybe the vehicles that are exceptions that prove the point have something to do with it? Venoms, raiders, starweavers and voidweavers are all vehicles, which are generally bad yes, but also have several combinations of very powerful rules that make them good despite being vehicles.

 Blackie wrote:
Being able to skew something in the first place can be an issue, or part of the issue.

you litterally just said that even with a limit of 3 of each model, you could still bring 24 tanks lol. And now youre blaming squadrons for skew?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
so any level of dissatisfaction turns into the thing being 1-star totally awful garbage that does nothing.

That's like...the whole forum, man!

 Irbis wrote:
Nonsense. Even balanced things can be broken while spammed. Three tanks might not be a problem, but when entire enemy army is 12 tanks presenting wall of T9 2+ save rendering 95% enemy weapons virtually useless save for AT guns the tanks will blow off board the first turn no amount of point shifting will manage to correct that. Unless you postulate AI dynamically balancing points on both sides on the fly depending on army and terrain configuration.

I don't think that 12 tanks is all that good from a practical stand point. They are approx. 4" across meaning you take up 48"+ of your deployment zone which is usually OK until you hit the diagonal deployment scenerios. Then, unless you're fighting on planet bowling ball there are all these pesky terrain things that block movement and/or LoS. So chances are not all of your tanks are going to be doing much on your turn. Then there's the minor fact that your opponent also has terrain to hide in/behind. Oh, and you have not Ob Sec so it's kind of hard to hold objectives. And lastly your opponent is only bringing light arms and melee weapons to the table (because nobody brings heavy weapons or vehicles of their own to a game).

Also you have a small typo- Leman Russ are T8 not T9.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Never said I piloted anything to success, but, well, I have people with names like "TJ Lannigan" and "Sean Nayden" in my local meta, so Ive certainly seen what an actual competitive meta looks like and what actual competitive players do, so... theres that.

You in the Northeast, too?

I think GW should probably be very cautious about "squadroning" anything worth more than about 80 points. (And real 80 points, not "90 but should be 120+).

Right now it doesn't much matter that people can spam Guard Tanks, or Carnifex, because they are both kind of bad. But in a world where this isn't the case, the fact people can go "fine, I'm sinking 75-80% of my points into those" has obvious issues.

By contrast sinking 750~ points into one datasheet is certainly a chunk - but you are having to take other stuff.

 Rihgu wrote:
Honestly it's weird to see 40k balance debates or balance debates from primarily 40k players and see things like "limiting availability is not a form of balancing".

It's a take that I really only see from the 40k crowd or when talking about 40k, because it's definitely a balancing lever that a number of other games use to good effect.

Warmahordes - always max units / if you don't pick the right caster some units can be total pants
Infinity - Availability "stat" that governs how many you can take
Chain of Command - you pick historically accurate platoon for the period

40K is likely the only game that offers such a wide variety of list building choices and they suffer for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:
I think GW should probably be very cautious about "squadroning" anything worth more than about 80 points. (And real 80 points, not "90 but should be 120+).

Right now it doesn't much matter that people can spam Guard Tanks, or Carnifex, because they are both kind of bad. But in a world where this isn't the case, the fact people can go "fine, I'm sinking 75-80% of my points into those" has obvious issues.

By contrast sinking 750~ points into one datasheet is certainly a chunk - but you are having to take other stuff.

The size and mobility of the model matters. LRBTs might be potentially brutal ( with updates ), but are unable to move through terrain or fly so many would be visible. Voidweavers can jump a whole bunch of terrain and "alpha" strike as it were. So the ceiling for LRBTs will bit a bit lower than Voids. ooLOS stuff like Manticores have the chance to get way out of hand since they can ignore terrain in a similar way to Voids, but will not hold the board in the same fashion.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
40K is likely the only game that offers such a wide variety of list building choices and they suffer for it.

Yeah. If only the Force Org Chart meant something and you couldn't just add more slots of whatever you want for virtually no actual cost...