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.

A bit of bloat on top of bloat for sure, but the armor of contempt change is amazing for the game.

It solves one of the biggest issues of 8th/9th edition, which is that the first point of AP was the most important one.

Now there is a widespread rule (14 factions) that makes your first point of AP a lot less valuable, and as a consequence the ones after that. It also makes high AP matter again.

Math wise, this was a great move.

well orks lost most thier AP vs power armor and they didn't reverse the buggies rule. nerfed our best unit and buffed other shooting... i think orks are back to a bottom tier codex now, that sucks, it was a poorly designed book to begin with and their work to make other armies stronger vs harlies, custodes and craftworld indecently smacked us down... lame. to be clear i am fine with a mid power book but i think they just broke us back to not having a single viable build.

Karol wrote:

 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.

And they get better saves than most vehicles already

Spoletta wrote:
A bit of bloat on top of bloat for sure, but the armor of contempt change is amazing for the game.

It solves one of the biggest issues of 8th/9th edition, which is that the first point of AP was the most important one.

Now there is a widespread rule (14 factions) that makes your first point of AP a lot less valuable, and as a consequence the ones after that. It also makes high AP matter again.

Math wise, this was a great move.

1st point of ap as most invunerables are 2 better than the armor of said unit. I disagree with it being a good thing though, see my above comment as its good for power armor armies but seems to hurt orks and gsc who were already not the big bads and have low ap on lots of stuff to maek them be able to actually hurt marines and custodes

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
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.

I would argue it effectively pays a penalty as it trades brute firepower for indirect fire. If I invest points in such units then I’m taking fewer raw damage dealers e.g. fire prisms. It’s no more stupid than you winning the game because I can’t touch your five-man chaff unit camping on an objective behind an obscuring building.

I hate gw so much.

Fix any of the real problems SoB have? Nah...let's give blanket -1 ap and nerf bodyguard because we truly, genuinely understand nothing about how this game works.

So Armor of Contempt will also give Redemptors and other dreads +1 save as well? Ouch....

ERJAK wrote:
I hate gw so much.

Fix any of the real problems SoB have? Nah...let's give blanket -1 ap and nerf bodyguard because we truly, genuinely understand nothing about how this game works.

Bodyguard is a gak rule and I'm glad it's dead.

Selfcontrol wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
I hate gw so much.

Fix any of the real problems SoB have? Nah...let's give blanket -1 ap and nerf bodyguard because we truly, genuinely understand nothing about how this game works.

Bodyguard is a gak rule and I'm glad it's dead.

Bodyguard was a better rule than "Look Out, Sir!".

Shame that wasn't the one killed.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Selfcontrol wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
I hate gw so much.

Fix any of the real problems SoB have? Nah...let's give blanket -1 ap and nerf bodyguard because we truly, genuinely understand nothing about how this game works.

Bodyguard is a gak rule and I'm glad it's dead.

Bodyguard was a better rule than "Look Out, Sir!".

Shame that wasn't the one killed.

It’s crazy how GW is struggling to fix a problem that didn’t need to be a problem.

Characters should be allowed to join squads again. Simple. If you’re worried about Death Stars, ok - limit it to one character per squad.

ERJAK wrote:
I hate gw so much.

Fix any of the real problems SoB have? Nah...let's give blanket -1 ap and nerf bodyguard because we truly, genuinely understand nothing about how this game works.

Now can they roll back the CA2022 points changes to make up for this...?

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.

IG is in a bad spot. They probably didn't need that nerf. The 6 auto wound though will be interesting.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Selfcontrol wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
I hate gw so much.

Fix any of the real problems SoB have? Nah...let's give blanket -1 ap and nerf bodyguard because we truly, genuinely understand nothing about how this game works.

Bodyguard is a gak rule and I'm glad it's dead.

Bodyguard was a better rule than "Look Out, Sir!".

Shame that wasn't the one killed.

lol hard disagree on that one.
Making a model untargettable because some other model was hidden behind a building near it was pants on head stupid.

But yes, just make characters able to join squads again (and make it so you can only have one character join a squad)

 Niiai wrote:
I really like th update.

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

My rubrics just got bananas tough. +1 for power armor ( assuming the AP is enough to matter ), +1 for D1, +1 for cover, +1 if you're shooting me with ooLOS.

I sort of like this PA change as it punishes high volume high AP more than it will punish low volume shooting.

I will point out that while GW should know better on their own, the community rarely applies nuance to its complaints so we shouldn't be surprised GW lacks it in their solutions.

Yeah, that rule was dumb, especially when the character is clearly out in the open and you have an easy shot to it.
No idea why they removed characters being able to join squads, I always thought that 8th ed change was silly.

If they were that worried about death stars just limit it to one character. Even Dawn of War got that right.
Wasn't it only one character in earlier editions of the game too? I don't remember multiple characters being able to join a squad in 4th ed.

Spoletta wrote:
A bit of bloat on top of bloat for sure, but the armor of contempt change is amazing for the game.

It solves one of the biggest issues of 8th/9th edition, which is that the first point of AP was the most important one.

Surely it just turns the wheel one step?

Now the first point of AP is lacklustre and the second pip is the most important.

Is this a great achievement?

I just realized Armour of Contempt also applies to vehicles. Oh happy day!

Really not getting the hate for Armor of Contempt though. Over the past two editions one of the very common suggestions I've seen popping up here and elsewhere were suggestions that power armor and terminator armor needed something more on top of being just a 3+/2+ save in order to both balance the relevant factions as well as to represent the fact that power armor was supposedly superior to other forms of armor that were offering 3+ saves to other factions, etc. Well, here it is.

Its not a particularly bloaty rule (and I'm sorry, "clunky"? I don't think that word means what you think it means, because theres nothing clunky about it) vs others that they could have gone with (sorry not sorry, the idea that Terminators should go back to taking their saves on 2d6 is a horrible one and I hope never comes to pass), and its fairly simple and works pretty well. Not getting the complaint that it devalues weapons/factions that have -1AP weapons, etc. this isn't a rule that applies outside of a certain subset of factions within the game and is far from universal, etc. The value of those weapons still exists when you're shooting at things like crisis suits or vehicles, etc. in other armies. Astartes/Sororitas having an advantage over AP buffs doesn't hurt these weapons any more than the same rule on units in other armies does.

That being said, maybe its time to move from d6 to d8 or d10 based mechanics, the only reason that they have to resort to giving marines, etc. this anti-AP rule is because theres nowhere left for them to go on a d6 to represent the superiority of power/terminator armor, etc. Keep terminator armor and power armor at 2+ and 3+ respectively, but move other units that currently get 2+ to 3+ and units which currently get 3+ to 4+, and then re-seed armor values for things that currently have 4+ to 6+ save as needed. Keeping things roughly level with where they are now, on a d8 a 4+ save would go to 5+, 5+ to 6+, and 6+ to 8+; on a d10 a 4+ would go to 6+, 5+ to 8+, and a 6+ to 9+. If you wanted to play with it a bit and represent the fact that one factions 4+ or 5+ armor is better than anothers you would have more room to do that.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

lol hard disagree on that one.
Making a model untargettable because some other model was hidden behind a building near it was pants on head stupid.

The same argument comes from a model getting saves just cause some other models are nearby.

But yes, just make characters able to join squads again (and make it so you can only have one character join a squad)

Or actively attempt to fix bodyguard into a real thing.

Crazy, right?

I've been running a talonmaster with DW command squads for ages and it's jank as hell. I shoot you to pieces at range and you can't shoot me back because I have a terminator tucked into the corner of a building nearby who can't even see the guy he's guarding. So you have to charge into my full BS overwatch. It's so dumb and so effective, that nonsense had to go.

Leave it to Dakka tho to somehow be the one place in the universe to have goobers crawling out of the woodwork to complain about even an unambiguously good change.

Spoletta wrote:
A bit of bloat on top of bloat for sure, but the armor of contempt change is amazing for the game.

It solves one of the biggest issues of 8th/9th edition, which is that the first point of AP was the most important one.

Now there is a widespread rule (14 factions) that makes your first point of AP a lot less valuable, and as a consequence the ones after that. It also makes high AP matter again.

Math wise, this was a great move.

It makes volume matter again, too.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ventus wrote:
I've been running a talonmaster with DW command squads for ages and it's jank as hell. I shoot you to pieces at range and you can't shoot me back because I have a terminator tucked into the corner of a building nearby who can't even see the guy he's guarding. So you have to charge into my full BS overwatch. It's so dumb and so effective, that nonsense had to go.

Leave it to Dakka tho to somehow be the one place in the universe to have goobers crawling out of the woodwork to complain about even an unambiguously good change.

Yep. I'm sure we'll see some quirks, but overall this was a pretty good run at the issues.

 Kanluwen wrote:

The same argument comes from a model getting saves just cause some other models are nearby.

i can kill the guardsment to get to the company commander behind them.

i can't kill the bodyguards (behind terrain) to get to the character in the open.

 Kanluwen wrote:


Or actively attempt to fix bodyguard into a real thing.

Crazy, right?

So by making bodyguards targeted instead of the character? Kinda like having the character be part of the bodyguard squad?

Reactions:

Bodyguard and all its variants just got turned into a USR. That's hilarious.

Indirect fire just seems bad now. I wonder how long the IG exception will last. Will their codex rescind their exception, or will there have to be a new dataslate specifically to get rid of it?

Armor of Contempt for Rules Bloat- just why, though? Are we creeping back to the old AP system where guard and orks just don't get saves and for power armor, low AP doesn't matter?
That specific shields turn it off and its incompatible with other rules (that got changed for Sallies and Vallies, which actually surprised me) is just bloat on the bloat.

Guard codex seems far off if they're still get layers of new rules through the dataslate. Daemons are either perfectly fine or non-existent to GW, can't tell.


But there seems to be a drift toward 'older edition' solutions to the current problems. Or what GW thinks are the current problems, anyway. Though the solution of 'don't hand out AP like candy' doesn't seem to be on the table.

Armour of contempt - Decent change, makes marines of all flavours (and SoB) a bit more durable, currently they die like flies to pretty much anything. Its not ideal, because AP inflation is a thing, but certainly an easier 'fix' than rebalancing all AP's of all weapons across the game.

Indirect fire - good change, although i would probably go a bit further and ban re-rolls if shooting indirect weapons at something you can't see. I'm a little curious as to why Guard ignore this particular rule, a bit of consistency would be nice, but I recognize guard are in a bad place atm. Indirect shooting should be worse than direct shooting in almost every situation in terms of efficiency.

Bodyguard - good riddance to a rule that was badly thought out and badly implemented. The rule, as was, essentially rendered sniper weapons pointless.

Now I am a Tau Player; and i like FE because I like crisis teams, and that was traditionally their thing. the reduction in the devastating counterstrike to 9" is a bit of a bummer, a small one since getting a markerlight out of DS is now impossible unless you have actual markerlights. the loss of the -1AP in mont'ka mainly affects the indirect and low AP weapons, which have already been hit quite hard, A lot of the other Tau weapons have really good AP natively, they keep the re-roll 1's to wound aswell, at least. Its not that big a deal, Drop Zone Clear is a thing after all.

The broadsides losing Core is a bit heavy handed imo, losing core is big, especially when the most common secondary weapon, SMS, has already been hit hard, now almost no buffs from any source can affect Broadsides. I think a points increase would have been a better route. I'm not too bothered by it personally, Crisis teams are much better overall IMO, especially because broadsides were never affected by the really useful Commander abilities anyway.

I can't speak as to the other changes, I've not played harlequins this year, but the points increases are, i am led to believe, warranted.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I just realized Armour of Contempt also applies to vehicles. Oh happy day!

Really not getting the hate for Armor of Contempt though.

Short version: it's a blanket rule to up the durability of a number of factions that only exists because GW can't stop pushing the lethality of its own game. If they had any amount of planning or foresight it wouldn't be a problem in the first place. It's fixing the wrong thing.

ccs wrote:

Karol wrote:
There is nothing parodic about w40k, if you are from my part of the world. But that is no wonder, a game writen in UK for mostly people in UK and US, is going to be rather specific in how it deals with anything.

Just because you don't understand/can't recognize the parody doesn't mean it isn't (or wasn't) there.

Okey. But you do understand that you can make some think that something is or isn't funny or is or isn't a parody? Romans found christians being eaten by lions or set up as torches hilarious. Also when something leaves a specific group of circle it changes meaning and how it is taken in or how it is treated. Specially when it goes global. There is a reason why some Witcher stories had to be changed, because stuff writen in the late 80s or early 90s in Poland, would not be understood by people who are neither slavic, know the slavic folklore or have the eastern block expiriance. What do you think a 13year old polish kid, who likes history, thinks when he is reading w40k lore about the empire. You think that that this is a parody of 80s british hooligans and that is a joke about a politician from times before his parents were born etc ?

 bullyboy wrote:
I have no idea what happened to this thread. Polish orcs, ok.

Not polish, ukrainian TV doesn't call us orcs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Armor of Contempt for Rules Bloat- just why, though?

Because power armoured armies are doing really bad after GW decided to hand out -1AP, high strenght and multi shots on basic weapons for multiple factions. GW seems to, or pretends to, not like the idea that a marine player may not want to play with marine models, because they die too fast. It also creates a situation like the one with GK, where if a GK player could, he wouldn't be taking any marines , just spaming NDKs of different types.

Karol wrote:

Okey. But you do understand that you can make some think that something is or isn't funny or is or isn't a parody? Romans found christians being eaten by lions or set up as torches hilarious. Also when something leaves a specific group of circle it changes meaning and how it is taken in or how it is treated. Specially when it goes global. There is a reason why some Witcher stories had to be changed, because stuff writen in the late 80s or early 90s in Poland, would not be understood by people who are neither slavic, know the slavic folklore or have the eastern block expiriance. What do you think a 13year old polish kid, who likes history, thinks when he is reading w40k lore about the empire. You think that that this is a parody of 80s british hooligans and that is a joke about a politician from times before his parents were born etc ?

Parody doesnt have to be funny.... Parody can be pushing the ridicule aspect of something. It's not something that makes you laugh out loud, i'ts something that makes you got "this is so dumb, i love it".

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


So by making bodyguards targeted instead of the character? Kinda like having the character be part of the bodyguard squad?

I have absolutly no idea why bodyguard doesn't mean "a Character becomes part of the unit".

madtankbloke wrote:
Indirect fire - good change, although i would probably go a bit further and ban re-rolls if shooting indirect weapons at something you can't see.

Indirect fire wasn’t a problem outside of hive guard, squig buggies and a couple of tau units, and hive guard have been fixed now anyway.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Parody doesnt have to be funny.... Parody can be pushing the ridicule aspect of something. It's not something that makes you laugh out loud, i'ts something that makes you got "this is so dumb, i love it".

If it is not funny then it is not parody. Then it is just a vailed form of an insult you make in a such a way that other people have to take it. Like a dude post match saying "thank you for the match", after he "accidently" dislocated three of your fingers just so a person from his school fighting you in the next round has an easier match.