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.

 Ordana wrote:

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.

I think it's a fair nerf generally speaking, although some units have already been punished for firing powerful indirect shots and GW should have given them a points drop along with the datasheet changes.

The squigbuggies in particular would be still pretty decent with those nerf if they costed 90ish points, instead they got a significant points hike and then this which makes them borderline playable now and just for very casual metas.

Ew.

Perhaps power armour needed a resilience boost, but this is hella klunky. It also messes up the balancing of several weapons, as AP 1 now becomes way less valuable. For example on various primaris bolt weapons assault versions without AP already were usually the best choice, but now they're a no-brainer over their AP 1 rapid fire counterparts.

And that IG autowound thing is pants on heads stupid. I never had a huge issue with lasguns being theoretically able to wound land raiders but this is just too much. I don't know what they were thinking.

This level of bypassing base mechanics such as AP and wound rolls as army wide features really doesn't fill me with confidence.

 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?

Why would you waste your orders on Conscripts(who have a 50/50 shot of outright not accepting the Order), when you could do the same with Veterans, Scions, or literally anything else?


And yeah. I know you said "Whiteshield Conscripts". That means you've locked yourself into a Cadian army(remember that the autowound on 6s is tied to ALL of your <Regiment> units in your army being of the same <Regiment&gt, and you've burned Command Points to upgrade Conscripts to Whiteshields.

 Ordana wrote:
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.

Night spinners are not that bad. They have random shots (I frequently find them underwhelming in my games as it is) and they're reasonably squishy once you can get to them. They're also a lot more difficult to hide than the indirect units people usually complain about due to their size.

Yes, I can use screening and terrain to keep *some* of your units away from them. Equally, you can use screening and terrain to keep my direct fire and melee units away from your objective campers. I'm not sure one is more annoying to play against than the other.

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. [i]TAU!!!

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

Well, don't complain to me. I was just answering the question. It isn't my fault gw likes to make blanket changes to everything. But in all fairness, indirect fire was a problem for more than just Tau.

And Voidweavers are now the same price as Ravagers. Told you guys that was the best comparison.

So I just want to understand this: a 30pt Mortar team is now more accurate than a Tau GPS guides Smart Missile System? That makes a TON of sense.

One hammer later, when a scalpel was needed.

I really like th update.

Mon't Kai got nerfed. SM got armour update. Detah guard also benefits from it. Much fun. :-)

Silly xeno for trusting heretical tech over The Emprah!

I wish they wouldn't keep balancing gak by throwing on more and more special rules.

Can't they just fix what's already there and cut the bs.
How many special rules do you get just for being an Astartes now?
And they're supposed to be the newbie friendly guys?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 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?

Why would you waste your orders on Conscripts(who have a 50/50 shot of outright not accepting the Order), when you could do the same with Veterans, Scions, or literally anything else?


And yeah. I know you said "Whiteshield Conscripts". That means you've locked yourself into a Cadian army(remember that the autowound on 6s is tied to ALL of your <Regiment> units in your army being of the same <Regiment&gt, and you've burned Command Points to upgrade Conscripts to Whiteshields.

Because 50% of their hits auto-wound now for an extremely cheap price, so giving them lots and lots of shots without affecting the price much is A+.

Veterans can't pull this same trick on a Knight, nor can Infantry Squads.

Wait, so PA marine is hit by AP 2 gun, he goes from 3+ to 4+ with new armour of contempt

Terminator gets hit with same gun, also.... goes to a .... 4+ save?

Huh?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 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.

Everything is fine, working as intended.

 Gir Spirit Bane wrote:
Wait, so PA marine is hit by AP 2 gun, he goes from 3+ to 4+ with new armour of contempt

Terminator gets hit with same gun, also.... goes to a .... 4+ save?

Huh?

Terminators also benefit from Armour of Contempt, so no, they'd go to a 3+.

Makes the stormshields a lot less valuable though.

 Crimson wrote:
Ew.

Perhaps power armour needed a resilience boost, but this is hella klunky. It also messes up the balancing of several weapons, as AP 1 now becomes way less valuable. For example on various primaris bolt weapons assault versions without AP already were usually the best choice, but now they're a no-brainer over their AP 1 rapid fire counterparts.

Only if your only opponents are Marines and Sisters.

And that IG autowound thing is pants on heads stupid. I never had a huge issue with lasguns being theoretically able to wound land raiders but this is just too much. I don't know what they were thinking.

Yeah, its odd. The flip side is that I think guard are so fundamentally broken theres no easy way to fix them in a document the size of the balance dataslate without resorting to a heavy handed change like this. Most armies can just remove 60-90+ guardsmen wholesale on turn 1 without really making an effort at it, so the guard that survive to turn 2 need to be lethal enough to make up for their compatriots lack of resilience.

I'll also point out that Hammer isn't specific to lasguns, and in fact will also apply to heavy bolters, missile launchers, autocannons, lascannons, flamers, plasma, melta, grenades, etc.

 Gir Spirit Bane wrote:
Wait, so PA marine is hit by AP 2 gun, he goes from 3+ to 4+ with new armour of contempt
Terminator gets hit with same gun, also.... goes to a .... 4+ save?
Huh?

How do you figure that? Armour of Contempt applies to both Power Armor and Terminator Armor, so the Terminator would go to a 3+, unless I'm missing something?

JakeSiren 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?

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

No, as per rulebook p. 364: reducing AP 0 by 1 results in AP 0. It cannot go into positives by this mechanism.

 Sherrypie wrote:

JakeSiren 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?

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

No, as per rulebook p. 364: reducing AP 0 by 1 results in AP 0. It cannot go into positives by this mechanism.

Could you give a heading/section/chapter quote there? For those of us that have the little rulebooks and not the huge core rulebook with all the fluff.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Perhaps power armour needed a resilience boost, but this is hella klunky. It also messes up the balancing of several weapons, as AP 1 now becomes way less valuable. For example on various primaris bolt weapons assault versions without AP already were usually the best choice, but now they're a no-brainer over their AP 1 rapid fire counterparts.

Only if your only opponents are Marines and Sisters.

Pfffff, who even plays marines? Been ages since I've even seen a marine army at the club /s

 Rihgu wrote:


Could you give a heading/section/chapter quote there? For those of us that have the little rulebooks and not the huge core rulebook with all the fluff.

Rules terms glossary, Characteristics, Reducing an AP characteristic: "When reducing an AP characteristic, add the appropriate amount to the characteristic, to a maximum of 0. For example: reducing an AP of -1 by 1 would result in an AP of 0; reducing an AP of 0 by 1 would result in an AP of 0."

 Sherrypie wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:


Could you give a heading/section/chapter quote there? For those of us that have the little rulebooks and not the huge core rulebook with all the fluff.

Rules terms glossary, Characteristics, Reducing an AP characteristic: "When reducing an AP characteristic, add the appropriate amount to the characteristic, to a maximum of 0. For example: reducing an AP of -1 by 1 would result in an AP of 0; reducing an AP of 0 by 1 would result in an AP of 0."

Thank you!

 Sherrypie wrote:

JakeSiren 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?

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

No, as per rulebook p. 364: reducing AP 0 by 1 results in AP 0. It cannot go into positives by this mechanism.

Good catch. I didn't realise this existed and had only reviewed the earlier sections on modifiers.

 Sherrypie wrote:

 Gir Spirit Bane wrote:
Wait, so PA marine is hit by AP 2 gun, he goes from 3+ to 4+ with new armour of contempt

Terminator gets hit with same gun, also.... goes to a .... 4+ save?

Huh?

Terminators also benefit from Armour of Contempt, so no, they'd go to a 3+.

Massively misread that. Yay.

 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 doesnt, it "worsens the AP characteristic of that attack by 1"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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 terrain is the main variable in 40k. Having models that outright ignore it with no penalties is stupid. Same problem that planes had.

Theyre finally fixing a problem that has been present since the start of 8th.

As usual I'd prefer a more holistic line by line roll through the books - but it doesn't seem that bad.

Harlequins nerfed. Good.
Custodes and Tau nerfed. Good (not sure its enough, but we can wait and see).
Ignore LOS shooting nerf. Mixed. Points could have resolved this. Not a terrible rule in itself - but yeah. The balance situation isn't resolved.

The buff to power armour factions probably isn't terrible in itself. But its kind of a clunky fix to the fact GW can't stop giving 1 extra AP to seemingly every weapon in the game. It may create some weird break points. Anyone actively paying for AP -1 (and there are some cases where this remains the case) feels kind of hard done by.

Guard shooting auto wounding on 6s is not remotely fluffy, but obviously they need help so its hard to feel too bad. First step on to GW "fixing" Guard by eventually having every unit do 100-150%~ more damage than it did before?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So I just want to understand this: a 30pt Mortar team is now more accurate than a Tau GPS guides Smart Missile System? That makes a TON of sense.

One hammer later, when a scalpel was needed.

Hear me out : feth the fluff when it comes to balance.

Armour of Contempt is the clunkiest rules fix I've ever seen. Its just awful in so many ways.

Woohuuu. No nerfs, no change and even a buff. Yay us, first FAQ I see that doesn't have a nerf for us of some sort. Very nice.

Also based IG burning titans using torch lights.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Makes the stormshields a lot less valuable though.

good, it means people won't need to spam that one loadout to have them be viable


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Armour of Contempt is the clunkiest rules fix I've ever seen. Its just awful in so many ways.

this should be a universal rule for vehicles only IMO

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I wish they wouldn't keep balancing gak by throwing on more and more special rules.

Can't they just fix what's already there and cut the bs.
How many special rules do you get just for being an Astartes now?
And they're supposed to be the newbie friendly guys?

The correct answer is eight:

And They Shall Know No Fear
Bolter Discipline
Shock Assault
Combat Doctrines
Combat Squads
Armor of Contempt
Chapter Tactics
Super Doctrine

Unless you count "Angel Of Death" and the "Chapter Tactics" rules which just give you the rules above, then it's ten.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

this should be a universal rule for vehicles only IMO

A space marine terminator is not less, and often more, armoured then a big chunk of vehicles in w40k.