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.

Announcing a balance data slate is risky if it fails for part of the community.
I guess most of the players know what to change in order to reach a kind of game balance.

Ah, dataslate is out now. Now comes the question of if AP 0 can be worsened to AP+1, essentially giving Marines a 2+ save.

JakeSiren wrote:
Ah, dataslate is out now. Now comes the question of if AP 0 can be worsened to AP+1, essentially giving Marines a 2+ save.

Really? You honestly think that'll pass anywhere?

I really don't understand why they felt the need to nerf indirect fire weapons.

 Valkyrie wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
Ah, dataslate is out now. Now comes the question of if AP 0 can be worsened to AP+1, essentially giving Marines a 2+ save.

Really? You honestly think that'll pass anywhere?

That seems to be the intent of the rule, to make Marines more durable against all weaponry. So yeah.

 Krusha wrote:
I really don't understand why they felt the need to nerf indirect fire weapons.

To keep punishing Orks - Squigbuggies nerfed again...

 Krusha wrote:
I really don't understand why they felt the need to nerf indirect fire weapons.

Probably because of T'au, and they are non-interactive.

 Krusha wrote:
I really don't understand why they felt the need to nerf indirect fire weapons.

Because it was really annoying to get constantly harassed by something you can't fight back against.
I remember Astral Aim and the old Hive Guard being a real bastard to play against.

What I don't understand is that right after they said Imperial Guard aren't subject to these changes. Seems a bit counterproductive but ok.

 Krusha wrote:
I really don't understand why they felt the need to nerf indirect fire weapons.

One word: Tau.

95 ppm Starweavers and 130 ppm voidweavers should put harlequins in check.

 Valkyrie wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
Ah, dataslate is out now. Now comes the question of if AP 0 can be worsened to AP+1, essentially giving Marines a 2+ save.

Really? You honestly think that'll pass anywhere?

I mean, the rule flat out says that you increase the target's armour save. It doesn't say that the weapon's AP is reduced.
So yes, attacking marines in cover will give them a 1+ armor save, which will then be modified by the attack's AP.

beast_gts wrote:

 Krusha wrote:
I really don't understand why they felt the need to nerf indirect fire weapons.

To keep punishing Orks - Squigbuggies nerfed again...

I don't think they thought about squigbuggies. Now they're extremely overpriced though, they should have returned to their original points cost.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
Ah, dataslate is out now. Now comes the question of if AP 0 can be worsened to AP+1, essentially giving Marines a 2+ save.

Really? You honestly think that'll pass anywhere?

I mean, the rule flat out says that you increase the target's armour save. It doesn't say that the weapon's AP is reduced.
So yes, attacking marines in cover will give them a 1+ armor save, which will then be modified by the attack's AP.

No, it says you "Worsen the Armour Penetration characteristic of that attack by 1".

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Krusha wrote:
I really don't understand why they felt the need to nerf indirect fire weapons.

One word: Tau.

Then why not just nerf Tau?

Why do my night spinners have to get nerfed because some other army has a broken unit?

The dataslate has been released, link to warcom article:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2022/04/14/the-warhammer-40000-balance-dataslate-find-out-what-changes-are-in-store-for-your-favourite-army/


i;ll edit in more when i have read it.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
Ah, dataslate is out now. Now comes the question of if AP 0 can be worsened to AP+1, essentially giving Marines a 2+ save.

Really? You honestly think that'll pass anywhere?

I mean, the rule flat out says that you increase the target's armour save. It doesn't say that the weapon's AP is reduced.
So yes, attacking marines in cover will give them a 1+ armor save, which will then be modified by the attack's AP.

For indirect fire weapons, yes. But Armour of Contempt does say that the weapon's AP is reduced, so AP0 weapons on Space Marines out of cover should be unaffected.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
Ah, dataslate is out now. Now comes the question of if AP 0 can be worsened to AP+1, essentially giving Marines a 2+ save.

Really? You honestly think that'll pass anywhere?

I mean, the rule flat out says that you increase the target's armour save. It doesn't say that the weapon's AP is reduced.
So yes, attacking marines in cover will give them a 1+ armor save, which will then be modified by the attack's AP.

No, it says you "Worsen the Armour Penetration characteristic of that attack by 1".

I thought we were talking about Indirect Fire weapons, my mistake.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Krusha wrote:
I really don't understand why they felt the need to nerf indirect fire weapons.

Because it was really annoying to get constantly harassed by something you can't fight back against.
I remember Astral Aim and the old Hive Guard being a real bastard to play against.

What I don't understand is that right after they said Imperial Guard aren't subject to these changes. Seems a bit counterproductive but ok.

The old hive guard were overpowered. They have been nerfed in their codex already. The problem has already been solved. Not only is it a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but if old hive guard are the reason then it's a sledgehammer to crack a nut that's already been cracked.

I wouldn't say indirect fire units are any harder to kill, or more annoying to play against, than objective campers behind an obscuring building scoring your opponent points turn after turn.

 Krusha wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Krusha wrote:
I really don't understand why they felt the need to nerf indirect fire weapons.

One word: Tau.

Then why not just nerf Tau?

Why do my night spinners have to get nerfed because some other army has a broken unit?

Because arty is not interactive? (Cheap excuse)
Because screening arty has become relative trivial ?(thanks guaranteed deepstrike with minimum inch distance away from enemy units)
Because actually kicking the Tau dex where it should be kicked would inevitably rise some questions about playtesting?
Using the cheap scapegoat los ignoring fire= problem is far simpler and convenient for gw.

 Tyran wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
Ah, dataslate is out now. Now comes the question of if AP 0 can be worsened to AP+1, essentially giving Marines a 2+ save.

Really? You honestly think that'll pass anywhere?

I mean, the rule flat out says that you increase the target's armour save. It doesn't say that the weapon's AP is reduced.
So yes, attacking marines in cover will give them a 1+ armor save, which will then be modified by the attack's AP.

For indirect fire weapons, yes. But Armour of Contempt does say that the weapon's AP is reduced, so AP0 weapons on Space Marines out of cover should be unaffected.

Oh my mistake, I thought it was about Indirect fire weapons.
Huh, that is a good question. RAW it would give armour, as they didn't think to write "to a minimum of 0".
This is, however, a rather cheesy way to play.

Hi everyone!

I'm Guardsmen Johannsen. I have a Lasgun. I feel pretty confident that the God-Emperor of Mankind is behind me, willing me to greater and greater acts of heroism and bravery.

Hello there, Traitors Warlord Titan of a Legion long since lost to the Emperor's Grace. You sure are a big scary robot. But, I rolled a 6, so I auto-wound you.

Why, good day, blue-skinned Tau. Your Manta is a majestic feat of technology - for a xenos that is - and I have seen them glow as they enter the atmosphere at super-high speeds, dog fighting with all manner of aerial foes. But I have a Lasgun, and a natural 6, so I guess that counts for nothing.

Hey Eldar! Your Phantom Titans sure look like works of art, and they move like real people. They blur as they move gracefully, and Wraithbone has been, to my experience, an unknowable dark art capable of turning aside almost anything. But I rolled a 6, so feth you!

Escalation is amazing.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Krusha wrote:
I really don't understand why they felt the need to nerf indirect fire weapons.

One word: Tau.

Then. Fix. TAU!!!

"That is it! I have had it with these mother fething blanket 'solutions to these mother fething specific problems!" - Samuel L. Jackson (probably)

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

"That is it! I have had it with these mother fething blanket 'solutions to these mother fething specific problems!" - Samuel L. Jackson (probably)

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Krusha wrote:
I really don't understand why they felt the need to nerf indirect fire weapons.

One word: Tau.

Then. Fix. TAU!!!

"That is it! I have had it with these mother fething blanket 'solutions to these mother fething specific problems!" - Samuel L. Jackson (probably)

Indirect fire was pretty annoying in general though.
It was fine in earlier editions because that's what deep strike is for and you had scatter, but the changes to deep strike made it impossible to get them in position to actually threaten indirect fire units, and the removal of scatter made artillery pieces a little more reliable to hit.

 Blackie wrote:
95 ppm Starweavers and 130 ppm voidweavers should put harlequins in check.

I was pretty on the money with my previous suggestions of +10-15 for starweavers and +30-50 pts for voidweavers.

 Krusha wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Krusha wrote:
I really don't understand why they felt the need to nerf indirect fire weapons.

One word: Tau.

Then why not just nerf Tau?

Why do my night spinners have to get nerfed because some other army has a broken unit?

Because your Night Spinners could also do with the nerf.

Indirect fire in general has almost always been very good and it has been somewhat regularly suggested to slap a generic -1 hit on shooting out of LoS. Granted the extra +1 sv might be to much.

And why is Guard except? Because Guard winrates are already in the dumpster and they didn't need yet another kick in the balls. I expect the exception to go away when the new Guard codex eventually comes out.

 Krusha wrote:
Why do my night spinners have to get nerfed because some other army has a broken unit?

Because despite the name of the document they just published, GW cannot into balance.

Not even if their fething lives depended on it. And it's AMAZING!

 Tyran wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
Ah, dataslate is out now. Now comes the question of if AP 0 can be worsened to AP+1, essentially giving Marines a 2+ save.

Really? You honestly think that'll pass anywhere?

I mean, the rule flat out says that you increase the target's armour save. It doesn't say that the weapon's AP is reduced.
So yes, attacking marines in cover will give them a 1+ armor save, which will then be modified by the attack's AP.

For indirect fire weapons, yes. But Armour of Contempt does say that the weapon's AP is reduced, so AP0 weapons on Space Marines out of cover should be unaffected.

To be clear, it's "worsen the Armour Penetration characteristic of that attack by 1", and AP +1 is precisely that to AP 0. Since weapon AP characteristics don't have a modifier limit, I think GW need to clarify what happens vs AP 0 weapons for thus rule.

The Imperial Guard changes now mean that equivalent points of Whiteshield conscripts under an order (so slightly more than equivalent points) will wipe out an Imperial Knight on average.

Yay lasgun buffs?

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
95 ppm Starweavers and 130 ppm voidweavers should put harlequins in check.

I was pretty on the money with my previous suggestions of +10-15 for starweavers and +30-50 pts for voidweavers.

Yeah, me too. I had drukhari raiders and ravagers in mind.

This is a good change and it doesn't destroy the army. The infamous list with 4 starweavers and 9 voidweavers, posted on Warhammer Community, now costs +400 points. But in the end it's just the exact same list with 6 voidweavers instead of 9. Still powerful and harlequins will remain top tiers, but they won't autowin everytime.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The Imperial Guard changes now mean that equivalent points of Whiteshield conscripts under an order (so slightly more than equivalent points) will wipe out an Imperial Knight on average.

Yay lasgun buffs?

Oh wow, the memes about lasguns killing tanks are real now
Great job GW.