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:

Marin wrote:
Flat out buff to power armor seem to yolo, that is not calculated move, it`s more like led`s do it and see what is going to happen. There are to many power armor units and i`m 100% sure GW did not check all of them to see what is fine with that rule. Also they flat out ignored all other armies units with the some characteristic, it`s again imperial melta is the best melta or the imperial marines have 1 more wound problem. It does not fix anything, it just create other problem. Giving it in melee seems even more cringe.

Umm, which armies have units with the same "characteristic"? And what is that "characteristic"? From what I can tell, it's "anything that's an Astartes or Sororitas", so, stuff armored with Ceramite?

i'm guessing they mean Necrons

Oh yeah the tournament meta doesn't matter. Awesome argument. How do you think an army like harlequin or custodes scales down in to a casual meta? Or any army that get a huge power bust. One day they play the most casual of list, like pre 2.0 IH with primaris in it, and next day they are the WAAC meta chaser. Even if one entertains the though of people never picking units for power and only for looks or esthetics, what happens if they like how tau suits look like or they like the pirate ship feel of DE. Or the army they picked has a limited number of units to pick from and thanks to GW it is extremly hard to impossible to not build a powerful tournament level army with what they have? You want to tell me that all "casual" custodes players are actually SoS players.
If at the top level some armies reach 65%+ win rates, then when the same armies go down the ladder they get only more powerful. Specially when they have a point and click style of game play. Which is most armies in w40k right now.

The big power imbalances are worse at the non tournament level, because if you play events the advice to pick a good army or a good build is a sound one. What are you going to tell an IG player facing tau, that he should feel good, because the tau isn't 100% carbon copy of a tournament list? And maybe it is just a 75% copy?

Karol wrote:
Oh yeah the tournament meta doesn't matter. Awesome argument. How do you think an army like harlequin or custodes scales down in to a casual meta? Or any army that get a huge power bust. One day they play the most casual of list, like pre 2.0 IH with primaris in it, and next day they are the WAAC meta chaser. Even if one entertains the though of people never picking units for power and only for looks or esthetics, what happens if they like how tau suits look like or they like the pirate ship feel of DE. Or the army they picked has a limited number of units to pick from and thanks to GW it is extremly hard to impossible to not build a powerful tournament level army with what they have? You want to tell me that all "casual" custodes players are actually SoS players.
If at the top level some armies reach 65%+ win rates, then when the same armies go down the ladder they get only more powerful. Specially when they have a point and click style of game play. Which is most armies in w40k right now.

The big power imbalances are worse at the non tournament level, because if you play events the advice to pick a good army or a good build is a sound one. What are you going to tell an IG player facing tau, that he should feel good, because the tau isn't 100% carbon copy of a tournament list? And maybe it is just a 75% copy?

They scale out great as long as people are moderately not powergamers. bringing one squad of voidweavers instead of 3, bringin one squad of crissi instead of 3, bringing 1 squad of jetbikes instead of 3, hmmm seems like i found the problem : spamming overly strong datasheet. Good thing most people i know don't max out on a datasheet because they don't want to play an army with no variation in it or paint a ton of the same model..
and i'm not a good player, i don't play optimised lists yet i've won against Tau/Custodes/Harlequins with armies like CSM, Thousand Sons and demons

yeah. only power gaming can happen without any choice of your own. If GW decides tomorrow that terminators are to be death machines of w40k , I go from the most casual of casual GK players to WAAC over night. And I have seen it happen. I told this story a lot, I have seen a guy play an IH army based around dark empire, some primaris dreads and Kno no Fear boxs for the entire 8th ed. Dude got man handled, by more or less everyone. then 2.0 came out, and suddenly 2 dreads and 40 intercessors was the most OP of OP armies in the game.

And the spaming thing. Well try playing a limited option without spaming at 2000pts. Try harlequins or DE without transports, no meat mountain, harlequins without transports and no voids. Or GK without interceptors and NDKs. Does armies aren't just a bit worse, then the real deal. They are borderline unfun to play, and in some cases you risk getting tabled, if you run something else. Drone farm was a horrible, boring, but efficient list for tau in 8th. Yet every tau played it. Why? because no spaming shield drones, trying to play suits etc ment you had a really bad time.

And also if it was true that people weren't running and maxing out the good option, then the reaction to 70%+ harli win rates, 60% DE, old 65% harli win rates would be a non reaction. Because no one would care. Same with 2.0 marines, cutodes, ork buggies etc There would be no threads, no talk about it on forums, aside for maybe those specific closed groups were real tournament players prep for events.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Marin wrote:
Flat out buff to power armor seem to yolo, that is not calculated move, it`s more like led`s do it and see what is going to happen. There are to many power armor units and i`m 100% sure GW did not check all of them to see what is fine with that rule. Also they flat out ignored all other armies units with the some characteristic, it`s again imperial melta is the best melta or the imperial marines have 1 more wound problem. It does not fix anything, it just create other problem. Giving it in melee seems even more cringe.

Umm, which armies have units with the same "characteristic"? And what is that "characteristic"? From what I can tell, it's "anything that's an Astartes or Sororitas", so, stuff armored with Ceramite?

i'm guessing they mean Necrons

And, what "characteristic" do Necrons share with Astartes and Sororitas, exactly?

I assume a 3+ save, but they may not know that wandered off for warriors (and flayed ones) a couple editions back.

And I suspect GW considered it, but decided reanimation was enough (whether that's true or not...).

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Marin wrote:
Flat out buff to power armor seem to yolo, that is not calculated move, it`s more like led`s do it and see what is going to happen. There are to many power armor units and i`m 100% sure GW did not check all of them to see what is fine with that rule. Also they flat out ignored all other armies units with the some characteristic, it`s again imperial melta is the best melta or the imperial marines have 1 more wound problem. It does not fix anything, it just create other problem. Giving it in melee seems even more cringe.

Umm, which armies have units with the same "characteristic"? And what is that "characteristic"? From what I can tell, it's "anything that's an Astartes or Sororitas", so, stuff armored with Ceramite?

i'm guessing they mean Necrons

And, what "characteristic" do Necrons share with Astartes and Sororitas, exactly?

3+ WS
3+ BS
4 Str
4 Tough
4+ on warriors now, but Immortals and others kept the 3+

Those characteristics I assume

Necrons just feel like they are in a weird space - because they seem like they should be trash, and yet seemingly often (although I may be overcounting) someone will place with them in a way that isn't happening with the other bad factions.

Not sure how these tweaks will change things.

Voss wrote:I assume a 3+ save, but they may not know that wandered off for warriors (and flayed ones) a couple editions back.

And I suspect GW considered it, but decided reanimation was enough (whether that's true or not...).

Well, if I was trying to make Necrons more durable, that's where I'd start: make Reanimation Protocols better. They used to get back up on 4s. Should probably give Warriors back their 3+ as well.

Da-Rock wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Marin wrote:
Flat out buff to power armor seem to yolo, that is not calculated move, it`s more like led`s do it and see what is going to happen. There are to many power armor units and i`m 100% sure GW did not check all of them to see what is fine with that rule. Also they flat out ignored all other armies units with the some characteristic, it`s again imperial melta is the best melta or the imperial marines have 1 more wound problem. It does not fix anything, it just create other problem. Giving it in melee seems even more cringe.

Umm, which armies have units with the same "characteristic"? And what is that "characteristic"? From what I can tell, it's "anything that's an Astartes or Sororitas", so, stuff armored with Ceramite?

i'm guessing they mean Necrons

And, what "characteristic" do Necrons share with Astartes and Sororitas, exactly?

3+ WS
3+ BS
4 Str
4 Tough
4+ on warriors now, but Immortals and others kept the 3+

Those characteristics I assume

Sororitas are T4 and S4 now?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Voss wrote:I assume a 3+ save, but they may not know that wandered off for warriors (and flayed ones) a couple editions back.

And I suspect GW considered it, but decided reanimation was enough (whether that's true or not...).

Well, if I was trying to make Necrons more durable, that's where I'd start: make Reanimation Protocols better. They used to get back up on 4s. Should probably give Warriors back their 3+ as well.

Reanimation protocols should be a FNP type roll.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Karol wrote:
Oh yeah the tournament meta doesn't matter. Awesome argument. How do you think an army like harlequin or custodes scales down in to a casual meta? Or any army that get a huge power bust. One day they play the most casual of list, like pre 2.0 IH with primaris in it, and next day they are the WAAC meta chaser. Even if one entertains the though of people never picking units for power and only for looks or esthetics, what happens if they like how tau suits look like or they like the pirate ship feel of DE. Or the army they picked has a limited number of units to pick from and thanks to GW it is extremly hard to impossible to not build a powerful tournament level army with what they have? You want to tell me that all "casual" custodes players are actually SoS players.
If at the top level some armies reach 65%+ win rates, then when the same armies go down the ladder they get only more powerful. Specially when they have a point and click style of game play. Which is most armies in w40k right now.

The big power imbalances are worse at the non tournament level, because if you play events the advice to pick a good army or a good build is a sound one. What are you going to tell an IG player facing tau, that he should feel good, because the tau isn't 100% carbon copy of a tournament list? And maybe it is just a 75% copy?

They scale out great as long as people are moderately not powergamers. bringing one squad of voidweavers instead of 3, bringin one squad of crissi instead of 3, bringing 1 squad of jetbikes instead of 3, hmmm seems like i found the problem : spamming overly strong datasheet. Good thing most people i know don't max out on a datasheet because they don't want to play an army with no variation in it or paint a ton of the same model..
and i'm not a good player, i don't play optimised lists yet i've won against Tau/Custodes/Harlequins with armies like CSM, Thousand Sons and demons

You're completely missing the point that not everyone has a lot of crisis suits just because they're OP, and they might not have the other models to swap for. If someone likes crisis so they buy an army full, then a year later crisis are buffed to the moon and the only way they can play a 2k game is using a bunch of crisis suits, what are they supposed to do? Is it their fault nobody will play with them because the models they happened to like a few years ago when they got into the hobby are now OP and they don't have a huge collection so they can't swap for less powerful units?

Wraithbone is tougher than ceramite as far as I'm aware so fire dragons and dark reapers should be prime candidates for a similar buff right?

 Eldarsif wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

I don't believe it was explicitly said, but my experience has been that GW doesn't announce or publish when a specific book or publication is no longer valid.

Interestingly enough that's what they kind of did in the last General's Handbook for AoS. There they listed all existing publications that would remain legal throughout the next season and said that any books coming after this publication would be legal unless otherwise stated. I am actually looking forward to the next GHB to see if they continue with that small article in the book.

I don't play AoS, but that is awesome. I don't see any reason why they couldn't maintain a similar list for 40k. It would unambiguously let players know what is and is not currently game legal.

Karol wrote:
.

And the spaming thing. Well try playing a limited option without spaming at 2000pts. Try harlequins or DE without transports, no meat mountain, harlequins without transports and no voids. Or GK without interceptors and NDKs. Does armies aren't just a bit worse, then the real deal. They are borderline unfun to play, and in some cases you risk getting tabled, if you run something else. Drone farm was a horrible, boring, but efficient list for tau in 8th. Yet every tau played it. Why? because no spaming shield drones, trying to play suits etc ment you had a really bad time.

Yeah, calling hard BS right here. Super easy to run harlies without spamming. HQs, jester, solitaire, troupes in transports, sky weavers, a couple voidweavers, done.
That’s the same with any army, including grey knights. Spamming is a conscious choice, not a forced result.

 kingheff wrote:
Wraithbone is tougher than ceramite as far as I'm aware so fire dragons and dark reapers should be prime candidates for a similar buff right?

I think at this point it's safe to assume that game balance is separate from fluff since a bunch of flashlights can down a warlord titan

 Tyran wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Voss wrote:I assume a 3+ save, but they may not know that wandered off for warriors (and flayed ones) a couple editions back.

And I suspect GW considered it, but decided reanimation was enough (whether that's true or not...).

Well, if I was trying to make Necrons more durable, that's where I'd start: make Reanimation Protocols better. They used to get back up on 4s. Should probably give Warriors back their 3+ as well.

Reanimation protocols should be a FNP type roll.

Disagree. Necrons should just have a FNP type roll on top of resurrection

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Voss wrote:I assume a 3+ save, but they may not know that wandered off for warriors (and flayed ones) a couple editions back.

And I suspect GW considered it, but decided reanimation was enough (whether that's true or not...).

Well, if I was trying to make Necrons more durable, that's where I'd start: make Reanimation Protocols better. They used to get back up on 4s. Should probably give Warriors back their 3+ as well.

Reanimation protocols should be a FNP type roll.

Disagree. Necrons should just have a FNP type roll on top of resurrection

To be honest, I think this is something GW has consistently struggled with.

- Making RPs a FNP save has been tried before (back in 7th). It was highly effective but also very, very dull. It didn't have the right feel, given what it was supposed to be representing, and just made Necrons feel like Robotic Plage Marines.

- On the other hand, the more traditional method of having models revive at the end of a phase or the start of each turn feels much more thematically appropriate but is much harder to pull of mechanically. Depending on implementation, you either have issues with units being immortal (if they can revive after the entire unit is wiped out) or else the ability rarely even seeing play (if they can't revive after the entire unit is wiped out).

5th edition actually had an interesting solution, which revolved around an interesting interaction between units and Lords/Crypteks. During deployment, you could split off Crypteks and Lords from the Royal Court and attach them to units. They weren't characters and instead acted more like sergeants for those units. Now, in 5th, Necron units couldn't revive if the entire unit had been killed. But Crypteks and Lords were an exception to this and could still make RP rolls even if their entire unit had been wiped.

So let's say you attached a Cryptek to a unit of 5 Immortals. After a bad shooting phase, the Cryptek and all the Immortals are slain. You can choose to first make the RP roll for the Cryptek. If it succeeds then, because it counts as part of the Immortal unit, the Immortals are now also eligible to make RP rolls.

I don't know if this would necessarily work in 9th but I do think it offers a good example of a compromise that worked quite well in the past.

Tbh, I find myself wondering whether RPs should work in a similar manner to Miracle Dice - wherein the Necron player rolls a set amount of dice at the start of his turns and can spend those dice to revive a number of wounds of destroyed models (perhaps spending extra to revive models whose entire units have been wiped out, if certain other conditions are also met), rather than rolling for every destroyed model individually.

Toofast wrote:


You're completely missing the point that not everyone has a lot of crisis suits just because they're OP, and they might not have the other models to swap for. If someone likes crisis so they buy an army full, then a year later crisis are buffed to the moon and the only way they can play a 2k game is using a bunch of crisis suits, what are they supposed to do? Is it their fault nobody will play with them because the models they happened to like a few years ago when they got into the hobby are now OP and they don't have a huge collection so they can't swap for less powerful units?

oh i understand the point, i get that "old bad model suddenly becomes OP".

I'm just stating that you don't HAVE to run all crisis, and nobody i know that plays the game only has exactly 2k pts to play. I'm not saying it's the players fault, it 100% is on GW but there are ways to make it less gak.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
armor of contempt was an excellent idea.

It needs to be expanded to Custodes and Sisters of Silence. I'm a bit bitter that a 28 point Heavy Intercessor is just as hard to remove, arguably harder depending on faction, than a 50 point Custodes. I'm not saying Marines aren't elite and are too good, only that they are too close to Custodes now, who have far, far fewer toys and options.

Marines have needed such a buff to be back in the game.
Marine players have shelved their army and can now think about rallying their Marines again.

Yup. That said I wouldn't mind Sisters of Silence getting it, but I don't think Custodes need a durability buff.

I mean, they do now considering the just nerfed custodes from one of the best to one of the worst 9th codexes in the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:
This thread:

Dakkites - "Gw NeEdS tO fIx ThIs GaMeS bAlAnCe IsSuEs"
GW - *releases great balance dataslate which fixes a huge number of issues*
Dakkites - "No, not like that."


Pretty telling that the vast majority of other online social media sources, as well as my in person interactions with other 40k players have been overwhelmingly positive on the balance dataslate. Im beginning to suspect that most of the people bitching in this thread don't actually play the game.

All this "bUt mAh ImMeRsIoN~~" pearl-clutching is pretty silly. Lasguns were already able to wound and destroy tanks, you just needed a few more of them than you do now (about 53% more by my math), the game and setting is already filled with all sorts of inconsistencies, etc. Recalibrate your disbelief suspension systems and your abstraction comprehension filters and move on. Theres a million and one immersive ways to spin or justify the changes, you're choosing not to accept them for arbitrary reasons. Arguments that this is unfluffy or immersion breaking really have no leg to stand on (though I know you believe they do, but your belief isnt a justifiable basis for an argument).

Spoletta wrote:
Now I remember why I rarely visit this board.

This dataslate is absolutely fantastic. One of the best publications we had from the GW in years, perfectly responding to the current issues of the game... and in here it is threated like the advent of another dark crusade...

In this dataslate:
-the lethality of the game nosedives
- the AP gets more important
- the AP0 weapons are given a new role
- the invulnerability saves are made less relevant
- the power armor factions get a boost
- the bodyguard rule and indirect fire rules are fixed
- the worst offenders of the meta are brought back in line
- the worst faction in the game gets a big boost

...

Seriously, when did this board become like this? You really suck the joy out of everything.

Give praise where praise is do.
This dataslate was a spectacular job from GW and we should give praise so that the next time, they know what we want.

Agreed. Just wish they had given Tyranids a pre-emptive nerf by dq'ing Crusher Stampede

Quasistellar wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

Look, I get what you're saying -- the dataslate will make the competitive meta healthier, and that was needed. But do you really not see why people are upset about this incredibly immersion-breaking Guard change?

Actually? Truly?

Yes, I do see. It's the MAGNITUDE of their outrage at the rule that I don't understand, lol.

Why is my battlefield limited to this darned table?! I should be able to drive my tank into the living room! Why is my tank only able to shoot the scale equivalent of across a city block???!!?! MUH ImMuRsIoN!!!

People on this forum just pick the most BIZARRE hills to die on or lines in sand to draw.

I can find a fluffy explaination for this guard rule: volume of fire and faith in the god-emperor. Think of it like an inverse shield of faith. Boom, fluff!

Spend less time being upset about this rule, and more time being upset that GW is still trickling out rules to you with overpriced dead trees that are so heavily errata'd within 6 months as to be unrecognizable.

I mean holy cow they are finally actually trying to balance factions every three months with a free digitally available thing and people are upset at THIS?

PREACH. Some of the posters in this thread (as well as the guys in the "lets call a time of death for 40k" thread -- SHEESH) really need to grow the feth up, go outside and touch some grass, and I suspect some of them need to actually pick up some dice and play a game or two - preferably against someone who isn't a regular opponent, because it seems some of them have a myopic and skewed perspective on the state of game balance that I can only explain as being the result of limited experience and exposure to other players and the broader meta/community.

The power armor buffs are good (Though is really shouldn't apply to dudes not actually in armor like heretics). Custodes nerfs are bad. Harley and Tau nerfs are good. Bodyguard and indirect nerfs are good.

It's mostly a good balance unless you were invested in 9 voidweavers or 20 frag launchers like a jack ass. Or if you played custodes at all, it really sucks to be a custodes player, they didn't just nerf the overperforming good stuff like they did tau and harleys, they nerfed the entire army, while handing out no reroll rules like candy and stripping it from the army that has always needed it most.

Toofast wrote:

 kingheff wrote:
Wraithbone is tougher than ceramite as far as I'm aware so fire dragons and dark reapers should be prime candidates for a similar buff right?

I think at this point it's safe to assume that game balance is separate from fluff since a bunch of flashlights can down a warlord titan

Given Grots have always been able to take down Terminators even with some difficulty. This has always been the case. Fluff influences game balance. It should not dictate it.

stratigo wrote:
I mean, they do now considering the just nerfed custodes from one of the best to one of the worst 9th codexes in the game.

One of the worst books my friggin foot. At WORST they got nerfed down to the fat middle, not below it. Friggin' bunch of reactionary bullcrap everytime a book is knocked out of S-tier that it's suddenly "worthless".

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Frankly, Armour of Contempt is long overdue. It should be expanded to a few other faction units though.

Necrons could benefit from it on their "elite" units for sure.

At that point, you're better off just shifting all the AP1 weapons to AP0.

Yes, but the only way GW seems to know how to do this is 1 faction at a time, and people would LOSE THEIR MINDS if theirs was the first codex in the list to be nerfed like this.

So GW keeps layering rules that exist to counter the rules they already added, until they need a counter to that counter, in an infinite spiral until we get back to the sludge of 7th and they 0 out the game again and start over.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

stratigo wrote:
I mean, they do now considering the just nerfed custodes from one of the best to one of the worst 9th codexes in the game.

One of the worst books my friggin foot. At WORST they got nerfed down to the fat middle, not below it. Friggin' bunch of reactionary bullcrap everytime a book is knocked out of S-tier that it's suddenly "worthless".

They are absolutely one of the worst 9th books. That makes them better then, like, the 5 remaining 8th books, but those books are mercilessly bad and getting replaced fast, Custodes aren't gonna be getting a new book for about 2-3 years. Right now custodes are worse then, uh, marines (all of them), tau, all eldar, nids, admech, sisters. They are boogeying with orks now. I don't think I'm forgetting anyone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
That's called an abstraction. We don't bother resolving successful cover saves in that instance because it's not worth the time to do so.

If "6s to hit autowound" was a general rule, I'd file it under abstraction. One I sincerely didn't like, but at least it'd be there. For a start I'd argue the "golden BB" is already represented in the abstract "a 6 to wound automatically wounds", hence a lasgun can even hurt a titan at all.
But it's not a general rule, you need to justify why Sgt Atkins with his boltgun is putting damage on titans (or battletanks) more effectively than a Space Marine.

6s to hit autowounding is under the abstraction that whoever is shooting is dedicated to dumping that much weight of fire doctrinally. It feels very guard. It's one of about a dozen rules GW uses to reflect this particular abstraction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Well, they could just go back to the old AP system and then they wouldn't need to, but seems a lot of people wanted armor modifiers

Armor modifiers are superior to a yes/no ap value.

but if you are gonna use modifiers, you should use MODIFIERS and not ignore the modifiers. I think there's getting to be too many rules that exist to ignore rules they put in the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CKO wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Anyone want to comment on how unwaveringly stupid and broken the Nids codex is now on release? 2 days after this "BALANCE" patch?

Please elaborate, how are they broken?

30 mortal wounds in a turn trivially. Without sacrificing the ability to stomp hardcore in combat and still hold their own in shooting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
Why would the Nid's Army of Renown be considered valid? It's for a book that has been superseded. GW would have to FAQ it otherwise for it to be valid again (such as the 8th Ed SM Supplements)

Crusher stamped is valid, it was released just 5 months ago.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Anyone want to comment on how unwaveringly stupid and broken the Nids codex is now on release? 2 days after this "BALANCE" patch?

The only real broken thing I see about tyranids is their army of renown, which isn't included in their codex or even in some expansion. It's a White Dwarf thing.

So? What difference does that make?
It's just one more GW source.

My point is that it isn't the tyranid codex to be stupid and broken, but that expansion. Only that.

There is absolutely no question among anyone competing in this game that nids are far and away the best codex right now without crusher stampede. Crusher stampede just allows nids to look at the 9 void weaver winrate and go "Amateurs"

Custodes.

Worst 9th book.

Well, that's a hot take all right. So hot I think it's melted.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Custodes.

Worst 9th book.

Well, that's a hot take all right. So hot I think it's melted.

Something melted. I think it was my brain trying to comprehend how they're now worse than Orks, Genestealer Cult, and Necrons at minimum, much less the other below-top-tier armies.

Lasguns so bright, Titans gotta wear shades.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Custodes.

Worst 9th book.

Well, that's a hot take all right. So hot I think it's melted.

It's gonna be after the overnerfs. Give it a couple more tournaments and watch.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Custodes.

Worst 9th book.

Well, that's a hot take all right. So hot I think it's melted.

It's gonna be after the overnerfs. Give it a couple more tournaments and watch.

So it's going to be worse than NECRONS? Worse than ORKS? Worse than GENESTEALER CULTS?

Easy there, you might cut yourself on the edge you're waving around there.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Custodes.

Worst 9th book.

Well, that's a hot take all right. So hot I think it's melted.

Something melted. I think it was my brain trying to comprehend how they're now worse than Orks, Genestealer Cult, and Necrons at minimum, much less the other below-top-tier armies.

Ha, I did forget something. They're about GSC level. Likely worse then Necrons now. Necrons suffer badly from AoC (but, so do custodes)

Orks, GSC, Custodes form the bottom of the pyramid of 9th edition books.

If 3 stratagems nerfs and losing access to objective secured outside troops was enough to put Custodes at the bottom of 9th, then 9th is way better balanced that I was giving it credit.

 Tyran wrote:
If 3 stratagems nerfs and losing access to objective secured outside troops was enough to put Custodes at the bottom of 9th, then 9th is way better balanced that I was giving it credit.

Custodes don't have much depth as an army. They were good because they had a couple things going for them. Note that their transhuman was ALSO nerfed (can't use it on bikes. Oh by the way big nids get it always on in leviathen) and, sadly, Custodes took the largest advantage of bodyguard BS in the game, which is now also gone. And Custodes were one of the few armies that DIDN'T care about indirect fire spam, so that nerf doesn't boost them at all.

Emperor's auspice and obsec were the pillars the army rested on. Amalgamation and martial discipline were nice, but not key. Auspice is why custodes were survivable. Auspice was it, Auspice was the boost of the army. It doubled unit survivability when used. Obsec was why they could score and outgrind other top armies. Now custodes will just die.

You know, it'd be fine, turning off rerolls is a STRONG effect that is tough to balance, if GW didn't proceed to start giving fething everyone the ability to turn off rerolls, often for free, and do so while stacking negatives on that stuff you can't reroll.

The stuff the nerf would have kicked custodes to the level of, marines, (of all flavors, includin tsons and deathguard) got dramatically better with AoC. Leaving the list of weak armies with 9th codexes actually quite thin. Orks, GSC, Necrons. Orks get to suffer from further nerfs to one of their performing units and there isn't an army in the game that is hurt as much by AoC then orks. GSC is just, iunno, I keep feeling like there should be SOMETHING there with all their combos, but they never turn out. Crons are also massively hurt by AoC, making their one build a lot less reliable. I'm not sure you can build a cron army to go into marines any more. But you definitely can build one that goes into custodes quite well. And I don't think they have trouble with orks or GSC either.