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.
2022/05/01 14:44:10
Subject: New balance datasheet due Easter week (slate out, pg 14)
Karol wrote: Wouldn't it be cool, which doesn't mean good, if Ld did stuff like make units shot less or worse, be unable to recive aura bonus, stratagems or army specific order like buff. Suffered too many loses, you can't concentrate enough to cast psychic powers etc
There could even be weapons that aren't very much damaging, specially to more armoured stuff, but which slow stuff down or make stuff like jetbikes(hit by grav weapons) half its movement. Some stuff could have a +X Stack rule, so if you get hit by one mortar it is different then being shelled by 9 or more.
It would.
And that stuff existed prior to 8th. Some weapons, especially those using blast templates, caused pinning. Pinned units couldn't move & their shooting was either impossible or greatly hindered. At the start of your turn you'd make LD tests for units to become unpinned.
And even earlier? Failed LD tests due to taking casualties didn't cause models to just vanish. The unit made a MV away towards your board edge. Failing the LD test in your next turn resulted in them continuing the retreat.
It was possible for units to retreat right off the board. Or recover waaay out of position. Another effect of these retreats was that they could screw up the movements of other units.
2022/05/01 15:12:21
Subject: New balance datasheet due Easter week (slate out, pg 14)
Jidmah wrote: Points can fix some problems but not all of them. I don't know enough about the current guard army to tell.
Point drops would certainly help Guard, but it doesn't fix their output or durability sadly.
For example, in terms of durability and firepower Leman Russ tanks (not Tank Commanders) are incredibly similar to Dunecrawlers. So Leman Russes should cost around:
- Vanquisher: 110 points (including hull heavy bolter)
- Eradicator and Exterminator: 115 points (including hull heavy bolter)
- Executioner: 120 points (including hull heavy bolter)
- Battle Tank: 125 points (including hull heavy bolter)
- Demolisher and Punisher: 130 points (including hull heavy bolter)
That's anywhere from a 20 - 35 point drop. The sad thing is, even at those point levels they're unlikely to be good. Dunecrawlers aren't a meta vehicle right now either.
Problem with points drops is that they have a non-linear impact and guard are so close to the floor that its not practical. Currently they effectively cost 6ppm (including upgrades), if you were to buy 2000pts of units you would get 33.3 squads. If you drop them 1 point to 5ppm you get 40 squads (~+7), if you drop them 2 to 4ppm you get 50 squads (+10 from 5ppm), if you drop them 3 to 3ppm you get 66 squads (+16 from 4ppm).
Obviously nobody is fielding 2000 pts of infantry squads, but the bugger picture here is that you can only realistically screw with the points so much before guard make a very sudden jump from underpowered to overpowered, thst "balance" point is very finite - and also maybe dropping points on guardsmen and making guard players have to build and paint even more models isn't the way to go
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
2022/05/01 15:17:04
Subject: New balance datasheet due Easter week (slate out, pg 14)
vipoid wrote: Just on this point, I think this is a problem with a lot of units that rely on force-multipliers in the form of psykers or the like. I don't know whether such units are intentionally made to be bad for their points ("because they'll have psyker support") or whether they just wind up being bad because GW span a roulette wheel to determine their cost. Either way, the issue is that you're almost always better off using your force-multiplier on a unit that's actually good to begin with. That is, it's usually more efficient to make an already good unit great than it is to make a poor unit merely okay.
In fact, I remember this coming up a lot in earlier editions with units like Howling Banshees. It was frequently pointed out that Banshees were a lot better with support in the form of Doom. The counter was that almost everything could benefit from Doom support - so why would you specifically include a unit that needed it to avoid sucking, rather than a unit that could still perform its role without it (that way you're not screwed if you lose your psyker, if the power gets denied, if you need it for a different target etc.).
I don't know if the use of CORE was intended to solve this problem but I'd argue that it certainly hasn't. Maybe if we instead had psychic powers only work on CRAP units.
I agree. I think GW have a very... disjointed idea of how synergy works or should work. Sometimes they seem to have things in that seem clearly designed. So for example I doubt the Leviathan+Maleceptor+Neurothrope potential is an accident. I assume someone went "wouldn't it be cool if..."
I think CORE is there for two reasons. There's the gameplay one - and this idea of "oh I don't like those heroes sitting behind a tank just so it gets buffs - that's not how I imagine 40k". Which is sort of a... cinematic concern rather than a practical one. And the two constantly rub up against each other. (I mean I don't see what's unfluffy about an Archon buffing Ravagers - its just he'd probably be standing on one rather than jogging along behind them.)
2022/05/01 16:51:56
Subject: New balance datasheet due Easter week (slate out, pg 14)
Catulle wrote: It's pretty clear after all these years that GW views 40K (and all of its games, tbh) through an almost purely aesthetic lens.
Which clashes directly with some of the decisions they have made.
"No 3rd party models! All daemons of a given type must look EXACTLY THE SAME. As we know, this is fluffy for daemons because uniformity is in the name: chaos."
2022/05/01 18:55:13
Subject: New balance datasheet due Easter week (slate out, pg 14)
I'm sure GW thinks they look good. Most of the models my friends stop at and oggle in the Fantasy section are Old World models, though.
I'm so scared they'll update Skaven before I can get my hands on all my favorites.
‘What Lorgar’s fanatics have not seen is that these gods are nothing compared to the power and the majesty of the Machine-God. Already, members of our growing cult are using the grace of the Omnissiah – the true Omnissiah, not Terra’s false prophet – to harness the might of the warp. Geller fields, warp missiles, void shields, all these things you are familiar with. But their underlying principles can be turned to so much more. Through novel exploitations of these technologies we will gain mastery first over the energies of the empyrean, then over the lesser entities, until finally the very gods themselves will bend the knee and recognise the supremacy of the Machine-God"
- Heretek Ardim Protos in Titandeath by Guy Haley
2022/05/01 19:48:33
Subject: New balance datasheet due Easter week (slate out, pg 14)
Catulle wrote: It's pretty clear after all these years that GW views 40K (and all of its games, tbh) through an almost purely aesthetic lens.
That isn't even remotely true. Age Of Sigmar is full of abominations that look like rejected WoW designs.
Do you have any examples in mind?
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
2022/05/01 20:35:17
Subject: New balance datasheet due Easter week (slate out, pg 14)
Catulle wrote: It's pretty clear after all these years that GW views 40K (and all of its games, tbh) through an almost purely aesthetic lens.
That isn't even remotely true. Age Of Sigmar is full of abominations that look like rejected WoW designs.
Do you have any examples in mind?
Most of the Fyreslayer line, those Khorne guys with axe flail things, the bonereaper(?) guys. I don't pay much attention to AoS so I can't tell you their specific names or remember them that well. Oh and that dragon thing the Stormcast have that has armour on its wing elbows that looks like it probably stabs through their wing membrane. And those new dragons that look like they came straight out of a Saturday morning cartoon. (Do they still show cartoons on Saturday mornings?)
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/05/01 20:41:26
2022/05/01 22:32:45
Subject: New balance datasheet due Easter week (slate out, pg 14)
Jidmah wrote: Points can fix some problems but not all of them. I don't know enough about the current guard army to tell.
Point drops would certainly help Guard, but it doesn't fix their output or durability sadly.
For example, in terms of durability and firepower Leman Russ tanks (not Tank Commanders) are incredibly similar to Dunecrawlers. So Leman Russes should cost around:
- Vanquisher: 110 points (including hull heavy bolter)
- Eradicator and Exterminator: 115 points (including hull heavy bolter)
- Executioner: 120 points (including hull heavy bolter)
- Battle Tank: 125 points (including hull heavy bolter)
- Demolisher and Punisher: 130 points (including hull heavy bolter)
That's anywhere from a 20 - 35 point drop. The sad thing is, even at those point levels they're unlikely to be good. Dunecrawlers aren't a meta vehicle right now either.
There is no scenario where your LEMAN RUSS tanks should cost slightly more than Ork Buggies. T8 and 2+ saves should never be that cheap. The problem the guard have is that GW doesn't know how to stack your damage output without breaking the game. A Leman russ by itself is dropping 2D6 shots at S8 -2AP D3dmg with incredibly easy access to re-roll 1s and other buffs. Its just not realistic for them to cost that little.
And yet Ork Buggies are really really good and the foundation of one of the most broken builds in 9th edition to date... and Leman Russes are not and people are actively advised against fielding most of them.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
2022/05/01 22:53:30
Subject: New balance datasheet due Easter week (slate out, pg 14)
chaos0xomega wrote: And yet Ork Buggies are really really good and the foundation of one of the most broken builds in 9th edition to date... and Leman Russes are not and people are actively advised against fielding most of them.
umm, I don't know how to tell you this but...buggies were in no way shape or form "one of the most broken builds in 9th edition to date". Leman russes's are also part of an 8th edition codex which is why they have none of the new rules that everyone else is getting in spades. But arguing for a 25pt price cut on a T8 2+ unit is a bit ridiculous. Making it 15pts more expensive than a squigbuggy is just stupid. Durability is usually overvalued but not by the amounts you seem to think it is.
Put another way, if a Leman russ was 125pts and I played guard, I would spam 9 of them without even thinking twice. 108 T8 2+ wounds for 1,125pts is a no brainer.
H.B.M.C. wrote: GW made an entire rule limiting Buggies because they were dominating the tournament scene.
That's a pretty good indication that they were part of a broken list.
Ork codex originally came out in July but few allowed it in tournament play until September. In September orkz had 8 tournament placings, only 1 #1 finish. in that same month Drukhari had 10 top 4 placings including 4 first place finishes, Ad-Mech had 9 top 4 placings and 3 first place finishes.
So when you say buggies were one of the most broken lists in the game...no, no they weren't. Even at their height, pre-nerf, they were losing on a regular basis to Ad-Mech and Drukhari. Their biggest mistake was tabling a Drukhari player at a top table which then caused the entire competitive meta to demand a nerf.
Put another way, at the height of the ork codex power they were playing 3rd string to Drukhari and Ad-Mech so saying they were broken is just patently false based on basic game statistics.
Catulle wrote: It's pretty clear after all these years that GW views 40K (and all of its games, tbh) through an almost purely aesthetic lens.
That isn't even remotely true. Age Of Sigmar is full of abominations that look like rejected WoW designs.
Do you have any examples in mind?
Most of the Fyreslayer line, those Khorne guys with axe flail things, the bonereaper(?) guys. I don't pay much attention to AoS so I can't tell you their specific names or remember them that well. Oh and that dragon thing the Stormcast have that has armour on its wing elbows that looks like it probably stabs through their wing membrane.
Thank you for sating my morbid curiosity. I certainly can't disagree with any of those.
Sim-Life wrote: And those new dragons that look like they came straight out of a Saturday morning cartoon. (Do they still show cartoons on Saturday mornings?)
I wouldn't know . . . these days I tend to get my cartoons online.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
2022/05/02 00:31:26
Subject: New balance datasheet due Easter week (slate out, pg 14)
Leadership was only ever good when legit horde units existed. Even then there were ways to ignore it, which made it dumb. Queue the meme of the Commissar shooting the entire squad due to failed attrition tests repeatedly.
2022/05/02 00:38:42
Subject: New balance datasheet due Easter week (slate out, pg 14)
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Leadership was only ever good when legit horde units existed. Even then there were ways to ignore it, which made it dumb. Queue the meme of the Commissar shooting the entire squad due to failed attrition tests repeatedly.
Thats gotta be the dumbest use of leadership. GW just doenst know what to do with that stat. They shouldve tied actions to leadership IMO (and add back pinning )
2022/05/02 00:55:52
Subject: New balance datasheet due Easter week (slate out, pg 14)
I've said it before, but the leadership rules as they exist in 9th are nothing but a "lose more" mechanic that punishes players for losing models.
"Oh, you lost some models? Well now you get to lose some more!"
But, somehow, it gets worse, because when you think about causing casualties you have to remember the various facets and overlapping systems:
1. Rolling To Hit (range considerations, cover, re-rolls, bonuses, penalties, etc.). 2. Rolling To Wound (strength vs toughness, and again bonuses/penalties/re-rolls/etc.). 3. Saves (of various types). 4. Applying damage/losing wounds/removing casualties.
The morale/attrition rules ignore all of these. You just lose models, with no mind paid to the standard methods for causing casualties. Like I said - it's a "lose more" mechanic punishing the player unfairly.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/02 00:59:51
H.B.M.C. wrote: I've said it before, but the leadership rules as they exist in 9th are nothing but a "lose more" mechanic that punishes players for losing models.
"Oh, you lost some models? Well now you get to lose some more!"
But, somehow, it gets worse, because when you think about causing casualties you have to remember the various facets and overlapping systems:
1. Rolling To Hit (range considerations, cover, re-rolls, bonuses, penalties, etc.).
2. Rolling To Wound (strength vs toughness, and again bonuses/penalties/re-rolls/etc.).
3. Saves (of various types).
4. Applying damage/losing wounds/removing casualties.
The morale/attrition rules ignore all of these. You just lose models, with no mind paid to the standard methods for causing casualties. Like I said - it's a "lose more" mechanic punishing the player unfairly.
The only time morale is interesting is when NIghtLords use it to buff themselves
H.B.M.C. wrote: I've said it before, but the leadership rules as they exist in 9th are nothing but a "lose more" mechanic that punishes players for losing models.
"Oh, you lost some models? Well now you get to lose some more!"
But, somehow, it gets worse, because when you think about causing casualties you have to remember the various facets and overlapping systems:
1. Rolling To Hit (range considerations, cover, re-rolls, bonuses, penalties, etc.).
2. Rolling To Wound (strength vs toughness, and again bonuses/penalties/re-rolls/etc.).
3. Saves (of various types).
4. Applying damage/losing wounds/removing casualties.
The morale/attrition rules ignore all of these. You just lose models, with no mind paid to the standard methods for causing casualties. Like I said - it's a "lose more" mechanic punishing the player unfairly.
The only time morale is interesting is when NIghtLords use it to buff themselves
While it's certainly useful, I really don't consider getting +1 to hit very "interesting".
2022/05/02 06:22:01
Subject: New balance datasheet due Easter week (slate out, pg 14)
chaos0xomega wrote: And yet Ork Buggies are really really good and the foundation of one of the most broken builds in 9th edition to date... and Leman Russes are not and people are actively advised against fielding most of them.
Except that had everything to do with indirect fire being broken and not with buggies - the one buggy which was a problem has been now nerfed into the ground and is considered the worst one in the book.
If you want all your artillery to be as good as squig buggies, let me tell you, you aren't going to be happy with the result.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: GW made an entire rule limiting Buggies because they were dominating the tournament scene.
That's a pretty good indication that they were part of a broken list.
They made a rule which nerfed three completely harmless models which were not spammed at all and also broke internal mechanics of the codex while doing so. They essentially nerfed predators, vindicators and razorbacks because whirlwinds were being a problem.
They also applied an even harder nerf to the completely unrelated goff archetype which was barely showing up in top spots, resulting in a harder nerf to that list than drukhari got - which had higher win % than those "dominating" buggies before AND after said nerf.
Anything GW does related to orks is usually a pretty good indicator what should not be done. The have no fething clue what they are doing and don't give a feth either. The only thing that matters is that they don't show up as a relevant faction in competitive play.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/05/02 06:59:07
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
2022/05/02 07:26:28
Subject: New balance datasheet due Easter week (slate out, pg 14)
Jidmah wrote: They made a rule which nerfed three completely harmless models which were not spammed at all and also broke internal mechanics of the codex while doing so.
Well of course they did. It's GW. They don't how to balance anything.
Jidmah wrote: They essentially nerfed predators, vindicators and razorbacks because whirlwinds were being a problem.
They nerfed every aircraft in the game because of Orky and AdMech flyers.
Jidmah wrote: Anything GW does related to orks is usually a pretty good indicator what should not be done.
I'd argue anything they do with anything as a reactionary lurching pendulum swing is a good indicator of the complete opposite way of writing rules. I await the complete fethery that is sure to result in Zoanthropes and Maleceptors being nerfed into the dirt because of a specific combo that most people will never do.
[EDIT]: Ah, so the word filter does not catch that word...
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2022/05/02 07:27:47
H.B.M.C. wrote: I've said it before, but the leadership rules as they exist in 9th are nothing but a "lose more" mechanic that punishes players for losing models.
"Oh, you lost some models? Well now you get to lose some more!"
But, somehow, it gets worse, because when you think about causing casualties you have to remember the various facets and overlapping systems:
1. Rolling To Hit (range considerations, cover, re-rolls, bonuses, penalties, etc.). 2. Rolling To Wound (strength vs toughness, and again bonuses/penalties/re-rolls/etc.). 3. Saves (of various types). 4. Applying damage/losing wounds/removing casualties.
The morale/attrition rules ignore all of these. You just lose models, with no mind paid to the standard methods for causing casualties. Like I said - it's a "lose more" mechanic punishing the player unfairly.
Yeah, that's something I really don't like seeing. It's one of the flaws of Parabellum conquest too, imo, where failing morale is just another way of losing models. Morale failures should really result in turn skips or debuffs, not casualties. From a simulation / narrative point of a view a turn skip makes more sense than taking losses; turn skip would represent the squad panicking or order breaking down as they lose the tactical advantage. Right now the morale system seems to simulate individual soldiers just vanishing from the unit. I guess its supposed to represent them fleeing, but for some reason I can't imagine a heavily indoctrinated and fanatical soldier like a Space Marine or Ork crapping himself and running away from his unit, never to return.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/02 09:56:53
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
2022/05/02 09:59:43
Subject: New balance datasheet due Easter week (slate out, pg 14)
Jidmah wrote: They essentially nerfed predators, vindicators and razorbacks because whirlwinds were being a problem.
They nerfed every aircraft in the game because of Orky and AdMech flyers.
After they nerfed marine flier spam and eldar flier spam and guard flier spam and heldrake spam and FMC spam and necron flier spam across multiple editions after each of them had become a problem for the very same reasons, I'd argue assuming that fliers are the problem and not specific models is fair game.
It's also not like any of the fliers have actually become worse from that change, unlike buggies who lost the ability to split up or take kustom jobs.
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
2022/05/02 10:08:00
Subject: New balance datasheet due Easter week (slate out, pg 14)
Lord Damocles wrote: Or failing morale tests could result in a unit having to fall back, or becoming pinned down.
But it's probably impossibly difficult to write rules to represent something like that.
Getting pinned was basically a turn skip, iirc. I do miss falling back, but from a game flow perspective I can see why one would want to do away with it, as it's yet more models being moved and yet more book keeping, as you'd have to remember who's retreating, who has regrouped, who needs to regroup and who's eligible for a regroup. Resolving fall back for a horde was quite tedious, I recall.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/05/02 10:09:56
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
2022/05/02 10:23:56
Subject: New balance datasheet due Easter week (slate out, pg 14)
Jidmah wrote: They essentially nerfed predators, vindicators and razorbacks because whirlwinds were being a problem.
They nerfed every aircraft in the game because of Orky and AdMech flyers.
After they nerfed marine flier spam and eldar flier spam and guard flier spam and heldrake spam and FMC spam and necron flier spam across multiple editions after each of them had become a problem for the very same reasons, I'd argue assuming that fliers are the problem and not specific models is fair game.
It's also not like any of the fliers have actually become worse from that change, unlike buggies who lost the ability to split up or take kustom jobs.
Agree. And the reason why the nerfed ork flyers specifically is that player could abuse thier massive footprints to prevent assaults, which combined to powerful indirect fire resulted in a very oppressive lists. But it had nothing to do with ork flyers stats, in fact ork flyers were never nerfed.
Spamming good flyers has always been a problem, due to their mechanics and abilities (I mean related to the unit's type, not to the specific model) rather than stats.
Leman russes's are also part of an 8th edition codex 
~1660
