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.

Slipspace wrote:

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.

Whilst this is right I can't imagine "reduce the ap of all weapons in the game by 1" would have come out well.

 Andilus Greatsword 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.

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

Only if the SoB players have to pay for it by buying another book.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface 804430 11345876 wrote:

Whilst this is right I can't imagine "reduce the ap of all weapons in the game by 1" would have come out well.

yes, but that would make eldar, tau, ad mecha and even orks, to a very small degree , more resilient. And those armies don't need it. It also would not require the changing of AP on anti tank weapons or weapons with AP2-AP3. Power armoured armies are the ones having problems with the AP system right now, so they get a patch fix. It isn't awesome, but it is all GW can do without dropping 10th in a month.

 vipoid wrote:

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?

No, it doesn't.

Upgrading from AP-1 to AP-2 is still less good than going from AP 0 to AP -1 against a lot of factions, but is very good when against the power armor factions. There are targets against which a -2AP is still useless (terminators in cover for example), which makes the AP-3 have a relevant role.

There is no longer a "Best" AP point increase. It is true that in general once you get past -2, you see diminishing returns, but now all the first 3 points are very important and cover a specific role.

Karol wrote:

yes, but that would make eldar, tau, ad mecha and even orks, to a very small degree , more resilient. And those armies don't need it.

wtf are you on about? ALL armies need to be more resilient, the lethality in this game is out of whack

No, they don't. If they needed to be reslient to work, then they wouldn't be doing so well as they do now, and the curve of good armies would be a lot more flat. Power armoured armies like marines or SoB, do struggle with the AP system the most in a non skirmish system like w40k. There for the fix was made for them. A void weaver , raider , malaceptor etc does not need to get tougher. And GW even noticed that for some units, mainly GK NDKs, the change maybe too good, so they are excluded from it, rightfuly so.

Im like super happy to see the armor of contempt rule. Becuase it just adds more creedence to what i have been saying for months now.

The rending AP system is to flawed to be used in the current interation of the game. GW created an arms race and the rending AP system is just broken, and armor of contempt is just more evidence that GW is trying to make a patch work solution to the problem rather then addressing it.

First models did not die fast enough, so we got more rend
Then they died to quick, so we got more wounds
THen they did not die fast enough, so we got a bunch of multi wound wepaons
Then stuff died to quick so we gave out a bucnh of invulns and wound only on a 4+
Then big guns felt horrible so we decided to make them have insane base damage and even ignore invulns in some cases.
Then we had damage caps/halves all wounds
Now we have things that just outright ignore AP of some weapons or reduces it.

To come, ignoring AP if its not of str = Toughness

All or nothing AP had its issues, but the problems caused by rending AP are to glaring to ignore at this point. The system either needs to be abandoned, or redone from the ground up.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 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.

It isn't just power armour Daed. It's all Heretic Astartes, Loyalist Scum Astartes, and SoB units. At least everything with the appropriate keywords. Tanks, Dreadnoughts, tanks, flyers, tanks, Daemon engines, and, oh yes, tanks. I'm digging this.

Lmao “your choppas are -1 ap to deal with marines better”
Marines ignore -1 ap.
What sorta gak hole are we falling into.

I really love the fact that GW's completely fething bailed on the CORE mechanic now with Obsec. It's basically Obsec units are determined by your last top finishes. Custodes being nerfed this was is honestly in my eyes the best case scenario. I think they just gave the nerf bat to Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder, and said go nuts. Our best units are still hilariously under costed, do absurd damage, and require zero skill. But sure, go ahead and nerf our Core unit mechanics. Meanwhile if the leaks are true I can basically add a Knight for free, and kill your entire list on first turn!

Spoletta 804430 11345882 wrote:

No, it doesn't.

Upgrading from AP-1 to AP-2 is still less good than going from AP 0 to AP -1 against a lot of factions, but is very good when against the power armor factions. There are targets against which a -2AP is still useless (terminators in cover for example), which makes the AP-3 have a relevant role.

There is no longer a "Best" AP point increase. It is true that in general once you get past -2, you see diminishing returns, but now all the first 3 points are very important and cover a specific role.

Thing is AP is free on basic guns, making the whole dimnishing return not a thing of weapon AP, but rather the armour save one has. When most weapons are ap1 or better, the armies that have their resiliance build around a +2 or +3 save drops very fast. Specially in case of spammed -2AP or higher weapons and the fact units are run MSU in 9th, means a unit of 5 +2 dudes is less resilient, then a unit of +3 guys, when they cost half the points.

Karol wrote:
No, they don't. If they needed to be reslient to work, then they wouldn't be doing so well as they do now, and the curve of good armies would be a lot more flat. Power armoured armies like marines or SoB, do struggle with the AP system the most in a non skirmish system like w40k. There for the fix was made for them. A void weaver , raider , malaceptor etc does not need to get tougher. And GW even noticed that for some units, mainly GK NDKs, the change maybe too good, so they are excluded from it, rightfuly so.

the whole game is too lethal. Obviously there are armies that are better right now, but my ideal 40k game wouldnt see games where people are nearly tabled.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Lmao “your choppas are -1 ap to deal with marines better”
Marines ignore -1 ap.
What sorta gak hole are we falling into.

Don't worry, I'm sure next we will be seeing a special rule that lets weapons to ignore the special rules that reduce their AP!

 Crimson wrote:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Lmao “your choppas are -1 ap to deal with marines better”
Marines ignore -1 ap.
What sorta gak hole are we falling into.

Don't worry, I'm sure next we will be seeing a special rule that lets weapons to ignore the special rules that reduce their AP!

My bet is on a rule that makes it so, if the weapon Strength => then target toughness, They dont get to ignore your AP.

Slipspace wrote:

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.

Thats kind of a pre-supposition of the problem and is purely a function of perspective. I say the level of lethality in the game is just fine - its more lethal than it once was many editions ago, and through that frame of reference/overton window it would certainly look to be too lethal... but there are other tabletop games that are even more lethal still. LIkewise, "pushing the lethality" is also a function of perspective and one tied to the drawn out pace of the release schedule - if GW had dropped all the codexes at once you wouldn't be saying they were "pushing the lethality", instead you would just say that they did a horrendous job of balancing the armies with too wide of a power spread, but because we're getting a codex every 1-2 months on average (if not longer) with a recent surge in power levels and lethality, you're perceiving it as a long march to more lethality rather than just inept design work, overlooking a handful of books like Genestealer Cults which are decidedly more tame than the other released around it.

This is the FIFTH major nerf Sisters of battle have gotten since january. I hate GW so goddam much.

ERJAK wrote:
This is the FIFTH major nerf Sisters of battle have gotten since january. I hate GW so goddam much.

Oh yeah, lets disregard the two buffes they got today.

If you hate GW, look at Grimdark future by OnePageRules

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
This is the FIFTH major nerf Sisters of battle have gotten since january. I hate GW so goddam much.

Oh yeah, lets disregard the two buffes they got today.

If you hate GW, look at Grimdark future by OnePageRules

Exactly, maybe a nerf to his Jank, but the entire army getting one better save (except his 30 sacresants I’m guessing) and 5 more miracle dice (at least) per game.

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?

Or maybe, just MAYBE, has bigger warhead so it doesn't need to hit as precisely and near miss matter less?

So pretty much the difference between HE and EFP ammunition in real life?

Oh wait, using common sense is forbidden these days, my bad, carry on

Tyel wrote:
Ignore LOS shooting nerf. Mixed. Points could have resolved this. Not a terrible rule in itself - but yeah. The balance situation isn't resolved.

This nonsense again?

No, the points could NOT fix this because you either make the artillery worthless when it's shooting in direct fire, or when it's using indirect fire. Nerfing indirect fire so it's not straight upgrade over direct fire and both have their place is the only sane option. No amount of repeating 'but muh points' will change that, it's literally impossible to balance two massively out of line uses with points without equalizing them.

This is also why IG is not affected by this change, because their vehicles were terrible to begin with any unlike everyone else, need to be leveled up, not down, even with indirect fire upside.

Anyone actively paying for AP -1 (and there are some cases where this remains the case) feels kind of hard done by.

Try paying for useless 3+ save for two editions now, then come come complaining your weapons have been made slightly less effective against small fraction of the 40K units. I dare you.

Also, new broken xeno gak with their -5 and -6AP modifiers handed out like candy laughs at this change anyway, it's still no save sooo...

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

Why people keep pushing for stupid, ugly mechanics from old editions that always caused endless problems? Bad memory much?

We also now have more characters than ever, so that limit would be dumb anyway. Look at fluffy SM company for example, you have apothecary, captain, librarian, techmarine, chaplain, ancient, champion, two lieutenants, and possibly 4-5 more - where do you propose they should be crammed? You'd run out of infantry units before getting half of that in, not to mention apothecary (or even more hilariously, champion, whose main job is character protection) telling captain "sorry sir, this squad is full, we're going full USA here, no healthcare for you" is downright insane...

So I now have to add little ERA blocks on all my units to show this armour of contempt, lol? Next up….new rules that specifically ignore armour of contempt (the tandem warhead or top attack rule).

Spoletta wrote:
Upgrading from AP-1 to AP-2 is still less good than going from AP 0 to AP -1 against a lot of factions, but is very good when against the power armor factions. There are targets against which a -2AP is still useless (terminators in cover for example), which makes the AP-3 have a relevant role.

What on earth are you talking about?

Upgrading from AP0 to AP-1 is now far worse than upgrading from AP-1 to AP-2.

Yes, AP-1 is still relevant against some factions. However, it's now *not* relevant against what is by far the most common faction in the game. Plus CSM (probably the second- or third-most-common faction in the game), and SoB to boot.

The idea that this somehow won't impact the usefulness of AP-1, relative to AP-2, is completely baffling.

As for your example, terminators in cover effectively ignore AP-2. Okay. But I fail to see how that makes it less valuable than AP-1, which is outright ignored by the entire faction.

 Irbis wrote:

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

Why people keep pushing for stupid, ugly mechanics from old editions that always caused endless problems? Bad memory much?

We also now have more characters than ever, so that limit would be dumb anyway. Look at fluffy SM company for example, you have apothecary, captain, librarian, techmarine, chaplain, ancient, champion, two lieutenants, and possibly 4-5 more - where do you propose they should be crammed? You'd run out of infantry units before getting half of that in, not to mention apothecary (or even more hilariously, champion, whose main job is character protection) telling captain "sorry sir, this squad is full, we're going full USA here, no healthcare for you" is downright insane...

Hint: a list shouldnt be able to bring every single character possible.

This would make people bring more troops (because theyre cheap) so we'd be pushing for troops in a way that is more meaningful than "you gotta becasue detachment said so".


Like wtf is your comment about (except bitching)? Champion could become a one-man squad that allows you to join a character to it. And if you bring : 3x5 intercessors, 1x3 eradicators, 1x5 devastator, you're already at 5 squads a character can join.

And the problems with older edition having characters that join squads was giving a deathstar a ton of keywords and roll over your opponent, limiting it to one character / squad fixes that problem. It even fixes the aura problem in a cleaner way than Core did

 bullyboy wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
This is the FIFTH major nerf Sisters of battle have gotten since january. I hate GW so goddam much.

Oh yeah, lets disregard the two buffes they got today.

If you hate GW, look at Grimdark future by OnePageRules

Exactly, maybe a nerf to his Jank, but the entire army getting one better save (except his 30 sacresants I’m guessing) and 5 more miracle dice (at least) per game.

You can just say that you don't know anything about the army. Like the rest of the words were a waste because of how obvious it is that you just don't understand how the Army works. The 30 sacristans are what matters. No one cares that battle sisters are immune to -1 AP. The change is a huge Nerf.

Miracle dice really don't matter either. Sisters don't do enough damage anymore for miracle dice to have any kind of meaningful impact. Even when using leap of faith you still end up with a stack of pain at the end of the game you can't do anything with.

ERJAK wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
This is the FIFTH major nerf Sisters of battle have gotten since january. I hate GW so goddam much.

Oh yeah, lets disregard the two buffes they got today.

If you hate GW, look at Grimdark future by OnePageRules

Exactly, maybe a nerf to his Jank, but the entire army getting one better save (except his 30 sacresants I’m guessing) and 5 more miracle dice (at least) per game.

You can just say that you don't know anything about the army. Like the rest of the words were a waste because of how obvious it is that you just don't understand how the Army works. The 30 sacristans are what matters. No one cares that battle sisters are immune to -1 AP. The change is a huge Nerf.

Miracle dice really don't matter either. Sisters don't do enough damage anymore for miracle dice to have any kind of meaningful impact. Even when using leap of faith you still end up with a stack of pain at the end of the game you can't do anything with.

How often did you make Morven vahl untargettable with your sacresants hidden? Because thats been a stupid, nonsense rule. Now its fixed and GW even gave you two sizeable buffs to compensate, stop bitching.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Making a model untargettable because some other model was hidden behind a building near it was pants on head stupid.

Then you just make it so that the bodyguard has to be visible to the attacking unit to provide the bodyguard function.

I mean hell, the Tervigon has a new rule that would be a pretty simple substitute.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Lmao “your choppas are -1 ap to deal with marines better”
Marines ignore -1 ap.
What sorta gak hole are we falling into.

The one that created 3rd-7th's AP system.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


the whole game is too lethal. Obviously there are armies that are better right now, but my ideal 40k game wouldnt see games where people are nearly tabled.

There is absolutly zero chance that someone at GW is going to sit down and rework all books, to makes weapons and overlaping rules in them less leathal. Maybe for 10th ed, and that is only if they decided this a year from now in the past.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Making a model untargettable because some other model was hidden behind a building near it was pants on head stupid.

Then you just make it so that the bodyguard has to be visible to the attacking unit to provide the bodyguard function.

The only difference to that is that snipers can target characters behind bodyguards now, right? Otherwise its effectively what you suggested.
WIth how bad snipers are, thats not really a nerf


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


the whole game is too lethal. Obviously there are armies that are better right now, but my ideal 40k game wouldnt see games where people are nearly tabled.

There is absolutly zero chance that someone at GW is going to sit down and rework all books, to makes weapons and overlaping rules in them less leathal. Maybe for 10th ed, and that is only if they decided this a year from now in the past.

It's called wishlisting, in a theoretical world (which i know you cannot comprehend), thats how i would hope the game to be.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


And the problems with older edition having characters that join squads was giving a deathstar a ton of keywords and roll over your opponent, limiting it to one character / squad fixes that problem. It even fixes the aura problem in a cleaner way than Core did

Yep. Bodyguard: Up to one character can join the unit. Any actions the hero performs means the unit does nothing (to balance out the protection he/she gets), if the squad performs an action that the character can't perform his, unless it is some super ultra rare special rule for 1-2 characters in the entire game. There is no spill over of rules, so a character with a storm shield doesn't give +1 armour to everyone etc. Simple and easy to use. No LoS problems, not interaction problems, no problems with special rules that make thing untargetable or weird interactions of range of weapons and LoS.
Also, what I think it crucial, the rule is not free. And I don't mean points by it. The character is stuck to his bodyguard and his ability to perform actions should be limited. Maybe or if w40k ever gets reworked to be more AoS like, this could mean a character with a bodyguard can't issue orders, or he can only issue it to the unit that bodyguards him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


It's called wishlisting, in a theoretical world (which i know you cannot comprehend), thats how i would hope the game to be.

Okey. I understand then. I would rather deal with realities of how GW design actually works. If were to go full wishlist, I would like w40k to be something like infinity with 30-40 models, but that will never happens as GW wants people to play and pay a lot for their armies, so they stick around longer when they buy in to the game.

right now with are , and I think this could have been a thing in the past too, in a loop. 8th ed marines are weak, their resiliance gets buffed with 2.0. Old armies can't deal with how resilient and killy marines are. Marine resiliance and killiness gets reign in. Armies get more kill power to deal with marines. The more armies there are, the more there is need to be resilient too. We arrive at DE when the edition breaks, because they are super killy and super resilient and fast at the same time, and then we just get new book after new book, that are too strong, which then get nerfed, which then can't deal with the new books coming out, so they have to be nerfed etc While at the same time the old and unupadated armies are in game play hell.

How bad does the IG expiriance has to be for GW to decide to , meh lets not change their indirect fire and give them an auto wound option on basic guns, and free upgrades on squads. It has to be VERY bad, for GW to react to it.

Karol wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


And the problems with older edition having characters that join squads was giving a deathstar a ton of keywords and roll over your opponent, limiting it to one character / squad fixes that problem. It even fixes the aura problem in a cleaner way than Core did

Yep. Bodyguard: Up to one character can join the unit. Any actions the hero performs means the unit does nothing (to balance out the protection he/she gets), if the squad performs an action that the character can't perform his, unless it is some super ultra rare special rule for 1-2 characters in the entire game. There is no spill over of rules, so a character with a storm shield doesn't give +1 armour to everyone etc. Simple and easy to use. No LoS problems, not interaction problems, no problems with special rules that make thing untargetable or weird interactions of range of weapons and LoS.
Also, what I think it crucial, the rule is not free. And I don't mean points by it. The character is stuck to his bodyguard and his ability to perform actions should be limited. Maybe or if w40k ever gets reworked to be more AoS like, this could mean a character with a bodyguard can't issue orders, or he can only issue it to the unit that bodyguards him.

TBF, I can think of one interaction that would be annoying... if an infantry character joins a bike bodyguard or a bike character joins an infantry bodyguard, it will cause whichever bike unit to get the infantry keyword and allow movement through breachable terrain.

Then just make it the way it is suppose to be. A Crissis suit commander is not going to run around with a bodyguard of kroot. A Termintor Librarian shouldn't be running around with a bodyguard of bikers etc.
It could even be USR like this

[Bodyguard Infantry, Terminator Armour]
[Bodyguard bike]
[Bodyguard Monster]
[Bodyguard Termintor Armour]

And then in some rare cases, and I mean like REALLY rare, a character could have a special rule that lets them join a specific bodyguard unit. So lets say an Inquisitor could be in any imperial bodyguard unit. Morgan Vall could join any SoB bodyguard unit.

Then entire rule sets could be build around it. Lets say some special DG characters, lets assume GW will do new models in the future, gets the option to have pox walkers as bodyguards. His whole kit would be build around an army with loads of pox walkers, mutants zombis, maybe renegade IG, maybe demons etc He wouldn't warp already existing DG builds. And if he did then the easy fix is to make all the special extra rules only activiate, if he is the warlord. GW could make updates like this linked to new model released combined with campaign books.

So the AP system had the entirely predictable same result as in 2nd edition (heavy armour becomes over-valued). But instead of fixing the problem, we get more rules. More bloat. More Marine exceptionalism. More rules which are totally illogical (my armour stops being as good when I carry a shield!)