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.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Is "rushed, overworked, and underpaid" a viable explanation? Or are we stuck arguing over malice or stupidity?
Stuck with malice and stupidity according to the internet even though it would be pretty hard to both be too stupid to balance the Voidweaver and ALSO make it busted maliciously.
I don't think that tneva82 (making the stupidity argument) and ccs (making the malice argument) constitute "the internet".
The Eldar codex is a BIG book. I think it's entirely possible that changes to the Voidweaver were made after playtesting, and then never playtested, due to time constraints, similar to the change to the Dark Lance damage profile. Or that it was never sufficiently playtested at all. But that doesn't let gw off of the hook. It just means that the corporate leadership of the company needs to invest more into their rules writing and playtesting staff.
I'm in several FB groups and reddit frequently. The amount of people claiming the new ( and terrible ) Tzaangor AOR was a ploy to sell Tzaangors was off the hook.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Is "rushed, overworked, and underpaid" a viable explanation? Or are we stuck arguing over malice or stupidity?
Its certainly a factor in the grand scheme of things, But I wonder how rushed overworked and underpayed you have to be to miss the Voidweaver being stupid for 90 points.
I mentioned it earlier, but no one seemed to take it up. How stupid was the Raider at 85? Does a VW, which has fewer wounds at 5 points more seem absurd at that point? People used to have 6 or 7 Raiders running around.
If the Voidweaver had a single shot you might have a point, but it has double the shots of a Raider, and an extremely powerful alternate fire mode, 2 extra anti infantry guns, a better invul safe aswell as -1 hit and no re-roll hits
There is no way that list compares to -5 points and a transport capacity.
Aye, it's a bad comparison. A Raider is a transport, which pays for its transport capacity and for being Open Topped, and it only has one (albeit a very good one) gun. Voidweavers are pure gunboats, with more firepower and no transport capacity.
Aside, I can't help but think that people put far too much value on Open Topped.
It's useful for all of one unit in the DE book... which happens to also be one of the worst units in the codex.
Are people perhaps thinking of the old rules, which used to provide bonuses to melee units as well as shooting ones?
It isn't so much how much value we put on it, but how much gw puts on it. It's an ability that they obviously put some value onto, and contributes to the Raider's price, but not the Voidweaver's or Ravager's, which is one of the reasons the Raider is a bad comparison to the Voidweaver. And gw does tend to overvalue transport capacity and abilities associated with it, even if those abilities are no longer existent. See: Land Raiders.
Insectum7 wrote: Potentially to very little degree. If they can't playtest enough, for example. Or if their time is spent wasted in droll meetings instead of at their desk working. At the end of the day it's the responsibility of management to ensure a quality product (if they care). The individual designers matter, sure, but it's management who decides what to prioritize from a product perspective. If a designer is downright bad, it's also on management to replace them with a better designer.
How many playtest games with 9 void weavers, old liquifires etc does one need to know that this things are or were bad for the game? A large chunk of the community knows if, even before playing any games with or against them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ccs 804430 11344113 wrote:
I'm sure they intended for those players to buy more of something.
This has to be a policy for only some books. For example if anyone played GK under 8th ed, then his amy consisted of 4 NDKs, draigo and strikes and interceptors. Termintors, tanks etc were bad. Special characters aside for Voldus and Draigo were not run. 9th ed codex made the GK lists consists of 5, later 4 NDKs, so no buying happens. Loads of strikes and 20-30 interceptors. So the same models. On top of that Voldus were made bad. Crow was locked behind big box for a long time, but not many GK players cared, because his rules were bad.
I don't think grey knight army construction has changed meaningfully since at least 7th.
When someone really wants a good perspective on how good the voidy is, they should compare it to a space marine tank. Star weaver or any of the good transports in 9th vs Impulsor always makes me chuckle.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Thats a problem with space marine tanks more than it is a problem with the Star/Voidweavers though. Space Marine tanks are widely regarded as being trash tier, underpowered, and overpriced.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
IIRC the play testers in Nottingham just use the studio models to play. I don't have a citation, it's just something I think I remember reading in a WD. If that's the case then I doubt that the studio has 9 void weavers sitting in a display case (probably only have 3 or so). That would explain why nobody at HQ caught the problem. I have no idea why outside playtest groups wouldn't see the problem unless GW limits them to testing with the same models HQ has available.
They use staff armies to playtest (as well as sometimes studio armies? From what I understand the studio rarely actually builds/paints a single entirely cohesive army so I doubt thats what they are using to playtest unless they are using armies painted in a mixture of different colors, etc.). IIRC theres a requirement for each member of the design team (and certain other departments/roles) to collect and paint an army of a certain points value more or less for this purpose.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
Daedalus81 wrote: So that's why Snaggas were so amazing? There's been literal dozens of them. Dozens, I say!
Pre-points hike Kill Rig was pretty sweet. Could see it being one of those "dictated from on high" balancing issues.
Daedalus81 wrote: So you infer that nerfing buggies was punishment for not buying snaggas?
More the state of Boyz. Gotta get people to buy those Beast Snaggas models.
Doesn't seem to be working for the Snaggas. Surely they could have dropped the points on them, but they didn't. Why?
Kill Rig was a red herring for the community. Just like the Nobs on Smashas. Everyone got their underwear in a twist over the math, but in the end they were no big deal.
Half the problem is the community creates this idea that models are pushed without contextualizing them into actual games and data. Everyone is going to run triple kill rigs! They're so amazing! crickets
And you'll still ignore the units that aren't beast snaggas that got really great. Your logic is entirely inconsistent.
I don't think grey knight army construction has changed meaningfully since at least 7th.
The end of sub-faction soup in CA: Nachmund 2022 was a big deal. People used to dual-brotherhood MOSTLY to get the 2nd GMNDK, but it meant that they had two detachments, each with their own Brotherhood trait.
Now that you can't do that (In Nachmund Matched Play Games), people are going single detachment again, meaning a) the army has more CP b) there is only one Brotherhood Trait in the Army and c) of course, only one GMNDK.
I don't know that that hits YOUR bar for meaningful change, but it certainly hits a lot of people's bar.
Gadzilla666 wrote: It isn't so much how much value we put on it, but how much gw puts on it. It's an ability that they obviously put some value onto, and contributes to the Raider's price, but not the Voidweaver's or Ravager's, which is one of the reasons the Raider is a bad comparison to the Voidweaver. And gw does tend to overvalue transport capacity and abilities associated with it, even if those abilities are no longer existent. See: Land Raiders.
People are underselling Trueborn a bit. Does "ignore hit roll modifiers" get past Light?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Leo_the_Rat wrote: IIRC the play testers in Nottingham just use the studio models to play. I don't have a citation, it's just something I think I remember reading in a WD. If that's the case then I doubt that the studio has 9 void weavers sitting in a display case (probably only have 3 or so). That would explain why nobody at HQ caught the problem. I have no idea why outside playtest groups wouldn't see the problem unless GW limits them to testing with the same models HQ has available.
Yes, but there are supposed to be all these external playtesters as well. What the heck are they doing and where is their feedback going? It feels mostly like lip service as GW rushes books out the door.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/04/12 14:50:38
Daedalus81 wrote: People are underselling Trueborn a bit. Does "ignore hit roll modifiers" get past Light?
I don't think so, because "Light" isn't a modifier. It's just a rule. Sort of an invulnerable for hit rolls. You'd need a rule that specifically ignores "Light" and similar rules.
Yes, but there are supposed to be all these external playtesters as well. What the heck are they doing and where is their feedback going? It feels mostly like lip service as GW rushes books out the door.
I think it's hit and miss, just based on what I can glean from Tabletop Tactics various commentaries. They complained about Dd6 for Necrons, but were told "that's what Command Rerolls are for", and it made it into the codex. The same complaints were listened to for Dark Lances, but TT never got to playtest the actual change to Dd3+3. Then, recently, Chef seemed to imply that changes had been made to Battle Focus based on their feedback. So, sometimes they listen, sometimes they don't, and sometimes when they do they don't playtest the changes, probably because of time constraints and printing schedules.
Insectum7 wrote: Potentially to very little degree. If they can't playtest enough, for example. Or if their time is spent wasted in droll meetings instead of at their desk working. At the end of the day it's the responsibility of management to ensure a quality product (if they care). The individual designers matter, sure, but it's management who decides what to prioritize from a product perspective. If a designer is downright bad, it's also on management to replace them with a better designer.
How many playtest games with 9 void weavers, old liquifires etc does one need to know that this things are or were bad for the game? A large chunk of the community knows if, even before playing any games with or against them.
Nick Nannavati couldn't tell and neither could any of the other people Goonhammer brought on to discuss the new codex before release. You should be able to tell after 1 playtest with 9 Voidweavers, at the very least you should be able to tell that it's something to continue testing and taking notes about their performance in lists where you bring 1-3.
Dai wrote: Ive explained to my boss that my work is suffering due to my own mental health problems on a few occasions and they have empathised and done all they can to help, this is a key way of keeping a happy and more productive work force.
Lets look at it another way, video games. Horrible company treats staff horrendously as often is the case, long hours, poor management, rushed release. Who is at fault for a game being a buggy mess on release?
Workers also have to quit working for companies that don't treat them right or allow them to do their craft right. Even if you put balance 100% on management there are a tonne of issues with how the designers design the game. Faction-secondaries in the "tournament" mission pack, decreased impact of primary objectives making faction secondaries even more impactful, free Chapter Tactics, faction Stratagems, free Relics, no Chapter Tactics for LOW Auxiliaries, CORE, Command Phase, Abhor the Witch, unique ability names instead of USR, re-roll auras, removing VEHICLE counter-play and incentives for melee weapons on Dreadnoughts by enabling them to shoot in melee, slow rolling being the default, Tesseract Vault unable to fall back and use its powers, Deceiver and Obyron no fun in 9th, Reanimator easier to kill than Spyder, 16 abilities on Silent King, Monolith melee>Seraptek melee, Daemons and Thousand Sons Stratagems being usable on units outside the codex (NEVERBORN would have been a unique faction keyword and there is no distinction between the DAEMON keyword and the DAEMON faction keyword)).
There is pretty much no way any of the above issues are due to anything but designers being bad at their jobs. You can say they were pressed for time but GW has had issues with badly designed rules forever and they used to produce way less content.
NinthMusketeer wrote: OK, so the 'it's all a GW scheme' people still have no basis for their argument beyond speculation, got it. Figured that hadn't changed, but good to confirm once in a while.
Just 30 years of watching GW do this. Though the Bait & Switch "For Balance!" changes shortly after release are a new twist.
It isn't so much how much value we put on it, but how much gw puts on it. It's an ability that they obviously put some value onto, and contributes to the Raider's price, but not the Voidweaver's or Ravager's, which is one of the reasons the Raider is a bad comparison to the Voidweaver. And gw does tend to overvalue transport capacity and abilities associated with it, even if those abilities are no longer existent. See: Land Raiders.
How about Stompa, Nautz, Battlewagonz and Trukk as well
Some genius decided the Stompa and the Nautz needed to be transports and priced them based upon how useful those transports would be! which is to say...not useful in the slightest, you could literally remove the entire transportation ability from them and the unit wouldn't get any worse.
As far as battlewagonz and trukkz, those are the open topped variants and good lord almighty are they paying a premium for those abilities. The irony being that GW prices them aggressively because open topped transport, but then on the specialist variants (Gunwagon/Bonebreaka) which lose most of that transportation capacity and open topped, they still somehow cost significantly more.
Battlewagon = 105pts, no guns, T7, 20 transportation capacity. In CC its 6 attacks base at WS5 S8 no AP. If you pay 15pts, bringing it to a whopping 120pts, it gets S9 AP-2 2dmg and WS2+ And if you pay 15pts more it can have "Ard Case" which is T8 but you lose open topped.
So 135pts gets you a 20 person transport at T8 with 6 S9 AP-2 2dmg attacks. Not bad, not great, but not bad. 20pts less and it might be competitive
Bonebreaker = 160pts This is a battlewagon with a DeffRolla and "Ard Case" already on it (135pts) however, it loses 40% of its transport capacity but gains D6 attacks....on the charge only. So you get to pay 25pts to lose 40% of your transport capacity and gain a conditional D6 attacks.
I would love for someone to justify how that makes any damn sense in the slightest. You pay 25pts on an already over priced model to LOSE transport capacity but gain a situational D6 attacks. So on average, you gain 3-4 attacks every other turn. So 25pts for 1.5-2 attacks a turn on average. Not exactly what I would call a good investment.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: IIRC the play testers in Nottingham just use the studio models to play. I don't have a citation, it's just something I think I remember reading in a WD. If that's the case then I doubt that the studio has 9 void weavers sitting in a display case (probably only have 3 or so). That would explain why nobody at HQ caught the problem. I have no idea why outside playtest groups wouldn't see the problem unless GW limits them to testing with the same models HQ has available.
if that is true that is likely one of the problems right there. This is a tabletop miniatures company and has been for 40 years. If by this point they don't have max sized units for everything barring maybe new stuff, they are wrong. Its not exactly a new concept that "OP" comes along with "spam". Voidweaver is OP, so do players take 1 or 2? No they take 9 the most allowed. Custodes bikes are broken...so they take maybe 1 squad of 3? No, they take 3 squads of 3. etc etc. So with that in mind you have to have max sized units to playtest the game. If a unit mathematically looks broken, run max size, and test it.
And the supreme Irony behind the whole nonsense is that GW has the easiest access to massive amounts of player feedback. They could just scroll through youtube, facebook or even on here and learn more about balance issues than their playtesters could have hoped to learn.
Hecaton wrote: Again, goalpost moving. We know it happened. Like what probably happened with the Ork codex - the goal was not to provide Ork players with a fun experience, the goal was to sell Beast Snagga models, and punish them if they didn't buy them.
Pre-points hike Kill Rig was pretty sweet. Could see it being one of those "dictated from on high" balancing issues.
More the state of Boyz. Gotta get people to buy those Beast Snaggas models.
if you are going to push a model you need to give it good rules, beastsnaggas didn't get good rules. They got mediocre rules which was demonstrated by the fact that they were massively out performed by almost every other 9th edition army in the game at the time of their release, and since then its only gotten worse (tau, custards, Harlies, Eldar, etc). So they managed to yet again take NEW ork units, give them mediocre to bad rules and then get surprised when they don't sell as much as they thought they would.
Pre-points hike the kill rig saw SOME but not much, competitive play. It was for the most part a beautifully distracting model with mediocre ranged output for its price, some ok psychic powers and was pretty good in CC. Post Price hike, its the exact same just worse. Pre points hike it was borderline competitive, not all the way into that meta but close, post, its just a for fun unit.
As far as Beastsnaggas....they are the exact same as boyz just with base S5 and a 6+ invuln as opposed to 6+ armor. They also have their beast snagga rule which gives them +1 to hit against vehicles and monsters but that isn't exactly a big deal since almost all of our buffing characters give +1 to hit already.
So, if they really wanted to push Beastsnaggas over regular boyz they should have given them a lot more meaningful rules/buffs that make them competitive in a meta where infantry dies in droves unless they are custodes/harlies with 4+ invulns and -1 to hit. Personally i think this was GW's fault for massively overvaluing the durability buff of T5.
People are underselling Trueborn a bit. Does "ignore hit roll modifiers" get past Light?
Not really. Ignore all hit roll modifiers would be fantastic . . . on a different unit. (And no, they don't get past Light.)
Indeed, even the Trueborn of the past would have adored such a rule. The current Trueborn? Not so much.
To understand why, you first need to understand the problems with Kabalites. Their basic weapons are, to put it frankly, dismal. Poison 4+ on a AP0 D1 weapon is simply not useful. Bear in mind, this was the profile they had back when Carnifexes had just 4 wounds. Now a Carnifex has more than twice that number of wounds, yet the gun remains unchanged. Not only that, but toughness matters far less than it once did - so always wounding on a 4+ provides minimal advantage even over the ordinary Bolter (and Kabalites have neither Bolter Discipline nor Doctrines to improve it). Plus, with so many Monsters having 2+ armour saves (and most other T5+ units having multiple wounds apiece), there are very few targets against which they can inflict meaningful damage. Not only that but they get no bonuses against Infantry (and are actually worse than Bolters against T3 targets), so even as a basic, anti-infantry weapon they suck.
And bear in mind that, despite supposedly being the richest and best-equipped Kabalites shy of the Archons themselves, Trueborn can't replace these weapons willy-nilly. So at least 6/10 members of the unit will be wielding these pieces of crap. Though more likely 7/10 as the sergeant has nothing useful to replace his gun with.
So what about special weapons? Well, a 10-man unit can take two Blasters. Only problem is that Blasters are still stuck at the D1d6 profile, despite just being more portable Dark Lances. So they're mediocre at best. Same goes for the Shredder, which seems to be a gun in search of a target.
Lastly, the squad can take a single Heavy weapon. Sorry, I meant a single Dark Lance because no one with more than a single brain cell is going to take the sack of crap that is the Splinter Cannon. And the Dark Lance is a perfectly fine weapon . . . so long as the unit wielding it never moves an inch. If, on the other hand, they happen to belong to a mobile army then it becomes decidedly less good (at least on Infantry). Reminder: I'm talking exclusively about Kabalites here - I'll get to Trueborn shortly.
Oh, but that's not actually the last thing, is it? Because if this squad wants any hope of living past the enemy's first turn then they'll also need a transport, so that's another 100pts added to their cost. It does at least get them another Dark Lance, though.
Anyway, the final cost is 115pts for the Kabalites and another 105pts for the Raider. That's 220pts for 2 good guns (one of which get -1 to hit if the Raider has the temerity to use any of its 14" movement), 2 mediocre guns and 7 guns that aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
But we were actually talking about Trueborn, weren't we? So let's consider what Trueborns get us. Well, they have BS2+ and don't suffer modifiers to hit. The former is great, naturally. The latter is a little more dependant on what army they happen to be facing, though still nice to have. For them, it only helps one of their weapons (albeit the best one). The problem, however, is that they are still stuck with the exact same loadout as Kabalites. That is, they can only get one Dark Lance (though they can at least move and fire it without penalty) and 2 crummy Blasters. The rest are just going to be basic Splinter Rifles. So they have awesome aiming skills . . . yet barely any decent weapons with which to use them.
Furthermore, Trueborn pay a not-insignificant price for these bonuses. First you need a 70pt Archon, who is already a tax unit and also has no synergy with the Trueborn because some blistering fethwit on the design team gave him an aura that doesn't work inside transports. Then the Archon-tax needs to take an additional 15pt tax to facilitate the Trueborn. Then the Trueborn themselves need to pay an additional 3 points per model (30pts for the unit) as a third tax. Including the Archon, that brings the final cost of the unit to 335pts. That's an awful lot to pay for 2 Dark Lance and 2 Blaster shots, even if some of them are at BS2+.
Even if you remove the cost of the Archon, that's still 250pts. Meanwhile, 2 Ravagers cost just 10pts more and those will get you 6 Dark Lance shots.
Put simply, Trueborn are simply too expensive and inefficient for what they actually bring.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/12 15:48:47
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
145 points for 10 bodies, 2 blasters and a dark lance. Hitting on 2s. Ignore modifiers. Buy a raider for them to move around in and you are laughing. If the raider dies they can spill out as a bunch of obsec bodies etc. Whether its better than 2 ravagers can be debated - but arguably it shouldn't explicitly be, that's what internal balance is about.
I also think calling an archon a tax is pushing it. I know you hate the cookie cutter builds Vipoid - but you can easily make a choppy Archon who again, is definitely "fine".
The issue is just that fine - "the band formerly known as good" isn't cutting it in the 2022 era.
NinthMusketeer wrote: OK, so the 'it's all a GW scheme' people still have no basis for their argument beyond speculation, got it. Figured that hadn't changed, but good to confirm once in a while.
because it is easier to believe the company you give 1000s of dollars has a hidden scheme to mess things up, rather than the company you gave 1000s of dollars is an incompetent and don't know what they are doing
I work in a corporation a thousand times the size of GW, and the degree of incompetent management I have seen would be hilarious if one can forget we are talking about one of the most complex, expensive, dangerous yet ubiquitous commercial machines pretty much anyone can (and arguably needs to) buy.
To be honest with that context, it is even hard to be mad at GW, at least their incompetence is unlikely to kill someone.
I don't think grey knight army construction has changed meaningfully since at least 7th.
The end of sub-faction soup in CA: Nachmund 2022 was a big deal. People used to dual-brotherhood MOSTLY to get the 2nd GMNDK, but it meant that they had two detachments, each with their own Brotherhood trait.
Now that you can't do that (In Nachmund Matched Play Games), people are going single detachment again, meaning a) the army has more CP b) there is only one Brotherhood Trait in the Army and c) of course, only one GMNDK.
I don't know that that hits YOUR bar for meaningful change, but it certainly hits a lot of people's bar.
That's a lot of words for "instead of 5 NDKs, we bring 4NDKs". Which, interestingly, definitely doesn't hit my bar. Especially when we're talking in the context of 'GW pushing new unit sales'.
NinthMusketeer wrote: OK, so the 'it's all a GW scheme' people still have no basis for their argument beyond speculation, got it. Figured that hadn't changed, but good to confirm once in a while.
because it is easier to believe the company you give 1000s of dollars has a hidden scheme to mess things up, rather than the company you gave 1000s of dollars is an incompetent and don't know what they are doing
I work in a corporation a thousand times the size of GW, and the degree of incompetent management I have seen would be hilarious if one can forget we are talking about one of the most complex, expensive, dangerous yet ubiquitous commercial machines pretty much anyone can (and arguably needs to) buy.
To be honest with that context, it is even hard to be mad at GW, at least their incompetence is unlikely to kill someone.
I do contract work with a well known river company, supposedly the biggest, most efficient retail juggernaut in existence currently. The idiocy I've seen...The fact that they manages to deliver ANY packages, let alone millions, is an absolute miracle.
NinthMusketeer wrote: OK, so the 'it's all a GW scheme' people still have no basis for their argument beyond speculation, got it. Figured that hadn't changed, but good to confirm once in a while.
Just 30 years of watching GW do this. Though the Bait & Switch "For Balance!" changes shortly after release are a new twist.
There's also 30 years of GW releasing garbage models and leaving them garbage for their entire lifespan. The Repulsor, for example, has been absolute doggak since day 1. The only time it was good was an accident. They let the intern put out the Ironhands supplement without looking at it first. Even then, that still only lasted like a month and a half.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/04/12 16:33:13
People are underselling Trueborn a bit. Does "ignore hit roll modifiers" get past Light?
Not really. Ignore all hit roll modifiers would be fantastic . . . on a different unit. (And no, they don't get past Light.)
Indeed, even the Trueborn of the past would have adored such a rule. The current Trueborn? Not so much.
To understand why, you first need to understand the problems with Kabalites. Their basic weapons are, to put it frankly, dismal. Poison 4+ on a AP0 D1 weapon is simply not useful. Bear in mind, this was the profile they had back when Carnifexes had just 4 wounds. Now a Carnifex has more than twice that number of wounds, yet the gun remains unchanged. Not only that, but toughness matters far less than it once did - so always wounding on a 4+ provides minimal advantage even over the ordinary Bolter (and Kabalites have neither Bolter Discipline nor Doctrines to improve it). Plus, with so many Monsters having 2+ armour saves (and most other T5+ units having multiple wounds apiece), there are very few targets against which they can inflict meaningful damage. Not only that but they get no bonuses against Infantry (and are actually worse than Bolters against T3 targets), so even as a basic, anti-infantry weapon they suck.
And bear in mind that, despite supposedly being the richest and best-equipped Kabalites shy of the Archons themselves, Trueborn can't replace these weapons willy-nilly. So at least 6/10 members of the unit will be wielding these pieces of crap. Though more likely 7/10 as the sergeant has nothing useful to replace his gun with.
So what about special weapons? Well, a 10-man unit can take two Blasters. Only problem is that Blasters are still stuck at the D1d6 profile, despite just being more portable Dark Lances. So they're mediocre at best. Same goes for the Shredder, which seems to be a gun in search of a target.
Lastly, the squad can take a single Heavy weapon. Sorry, I meant a single Dark Lance because no one with more than a single brain cell is going to take the sack of crap that is the Splinter Cannon. And the Dark Lance is a perfectly fine weapon . . . so long as the unit wielding it never moves an inch. If, on the other hand, they happen to belong to a mobile army then it becomes decidedly less good (at least on Infantry). Reminder: I'm talking exclusively about Kabalites here - I'll get to Trueborn shortly.
Oh, but that's not actually the last thing, is it? Because if this squad wants any hope of living past the enemy's first turn then they'll also need a transport, so that's another 100pts added to their cost. It does at least get them another Dark Lance, though.
Anyway, the final cost is 115pts for the Kabalites and another 105pts for the Raider. That's 220pts for 2 good guns (one of which get -1 to hit if the Raider has the temerity to use any of its 14" movement), 2 mediocre guns and 7 guns that aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
But we were actually talking about Trueborn, weren't we? So let's consider what Trueborns get us. Well, they have BS2+ and don't suffer modifiers to hit. The former is great, naturally. The latter is a little more dependant on what army they happen to be facing, though still nice to have. For them, it only helps one of their weapons (albeit the best one). The problem, however, is that they are still stuck with the exact same loadout as Kabalites. That is, they can only get one Dark Lance (though they can at least move and fire it without penalty) and 2 crummy Blasters. The rest are just going to be basic Splinter Rifles. So they have awesome aiming skills . . . yet barely any decent weapons with which to use them.
Furthermore, Trueborn pay a not-insignificant price for these bonuses. First you need a 70pt Archon, who is already a tax unit and also has no synergy with the Trueborn because some blistering fethwit on the design team gave him an aura that doesn't work inside transports. Then the Archon-tax needs to take an additional 15pt tax to facilitate the Trueborn. Then the Trueborn themselves need to pay an additional 3 points per model (30pts for the unit) as a third tax. Including the Archon, that brings the final cost of the unit to 335pts. That's an awful lot to pay for 2 Dark Lance and 2 Blaster shots, even if some of them are at BS2+.
Even if you remove the cost of the Archon, that's still 250pts. Meanwhile, 2 Ravagers cost just 10pts more and those will get you 6 Dark Lance shots.
Put simply, Trueborn are simply too expensive and inefficient for what they actually bring.
250pts for 2 upgraded lascanons and a fast moving transpor are considered bad? I guess it right. Gives one a unit comperation perspective too.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
vict0988 wrote: Nick Nannavati couldn't tell and neither could any of the other people Goonhammer brought on to discuss the new codex before release. You should be able to tell after 1 playtest with 9 Voidweavers, at the very least you should be able to tell that it's something to continue testing and taking notes about their performance in lists where you bring 1-3.
I mean lets even ignore the example of 9 voids, assume that play tester played with pre build list that maybe had 1 or even non, although that does rise the question how did they play test harlequins, because testing them like that is a bit like testing GKs without NDKs, how anyone think that a gunboat with top speed, multiple defence buffs and 3 heavy weapons, of which each one is at least good, should cost around 100pts. Specially considering how they costed, more or less every other vehicle in the game, and correcting for stuff like dragoons etc which they had to "fix". how many years of playtesting is it required form someone to say something along the line of , Guys someone missed and 1 before the 90 in the print drag, and I think that at 190pts the void weavers maybe a bit too pricy, lets drop them to 140pts .
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/12 16:54:36
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
NinthMusketeer wrote: OK, so the 'it's all a GW scheme' people still have no basis for their argument beyond speculation, got it. Figured that hadn't changed, but good to confirm once in a while.
because it is easier to believe the company you give 1000s of dollars has a hidden scheme to mess things up, rather than the company you gave 1000s of dollars is an incompetent and don't know what they are doing
Yeah. It creates a bad guy, to which negative feelings of resentment and irritation can be directed without needing to justify it. Of course GW corporate could very much demand better rules quality (and reward such with appropriate pay) but does not. Yet that still leaves them as incompetent rather than outright malicious, so isn't as attractive as an object of blame.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: (and majority of sales happens at start anyway)
I've still yet to see a shred of evidence backing the 'majority sales in the first year' claim, nor do I understand how so many buy into something so clearly absurd.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/12 17:39:03
Well marines are the biggest faction, they come out first and have the most players. So being out makes GW earn more money, and they are probably the only faction with enough players to sell everything no mater good or bad. for other factions you can check what sells. Dragoons will be gone in a mili second, same as raiders. On the other hand a box of GK terminators or a those 1ksons beastman will never get sold out.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
tneva82 wrote: (and majority of sales happens at start anyway)
I've still yet to see a shred of evidence backing the 'majority sales in the first year' claim, nor do I understand how so many buy into something so clearly absurd.
That's pretty common in this sector of retail. Things like boardgames, video games, tabletop wargames are all like that. If you ever listen to an earnings call from a retailer like that, they'll tell you. They have all the data and they're not going to lie to investors about something like that.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I've still yet to see a shred of evidence backing the 'majority sales in the first year' claim, nor do I understand how so many buy into something so clearly absurd.
We have seen sales numbers on individual model kits and codex only during the chapterhouse case
and there was a clear picture that sales outside the year of release were 0 (or close to 0) with Tactical Marines being the only exception, as those sold each time a Marine Codex was released (not just with the generic one)
outside of this, only rumours from Interviews with (Former) GW people
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
tneva82 wrote: Gw has no need to make new units op as they sell anyway(and majority of sales happens at start anyway).
What gw needs is op units changing. If game was balanced people could just focus on learning to play rather than buy new units.
By minimizing skill factor and maximizing on changing what's opatmgw gets tournament try-hards by new units to stay "competive".
You're talking about a terribly small population there. GW is absolutely not reliant on try-hards - most of whom will likely buy second hand, borrow, print or already own the models.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/12 17:57:52
tneva82 wrote: Gw has no need to make new units op as they sell anyway(and majority of sales happens at start anyway).
What gw needs is op units changing. If game was balanced people could just focus on learning to play rather than buy new units.
By minimizing skill factor and maximizing on changing what's opatmgw gets tournament try-hards by new units to stay "competive".
You're talking about a terribly small population there. GW is absolutely not reliant on try-hards - most of whom will likely buy second hand, borrow, print or already own the models.
this!
As what some stores would consider a "whale" or at least a consistent customer I just buy a kit or box set a month of what looks interesting. I like building and panting models so it more has to do with what catches my eye in the 40k universe. I run and participate in narrative games and campaigns and have talked with and helped out multiple local gaming stores build up terrain as I have also been 3d printing for many years. its anecdotal info but locally its the dozens of people buying 1-3 kits/boxes monthly that makes it worth keeping a good stock. They sell some stuff to faction specific players on codex releases and model releases. Those types usually are more likely to show up to weekly game days and such, but that is not where they are making the most money.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I've still yet to see a shred of evidence backing the 'majority sales in the first year' claim, nor do I understand how so many buy into something so clearly absurd.
We have seen sales numbers on individual model kits and codex only during the chapterhouse case
and there was a clear picture that sales outside the year of release were 0 (or close to 0) with Tactical Marines being the only exception, as those sold each time a Marine Codex was released (not just with the generic one)
outside of this, only rumours from Interviews with (Former) GW people
Uh-huh - no-one starts an army over a year after a 'dex or army book drops, no-one starts the game with an older faction because they like the look of it, etc, etc.
I can buy that sales in year 2 or 3 are lower than year 1, but a claim of "0 (or close to 0)"? That's straight-up bull-pucky...
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
It might not be a zero but it's a fraction of the sales on release. The first 2 weeks a new kit is out, the respective subreddits/facebook groups/forums for that faction are FLOODED with pictures of people who have painted the new kits. A year later, those same kits are like 1% of the content. It's not surprising, it happens in every similar industry. Majority of book, CD, and movie sales are on release. Same with video games. It would be surprising if that weren't the case for tabletop wargames considering the similarity to those other sectors of retail and the overlap in demographics.
I work in a corporation a thousand times the size of 
7000 
