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.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Every transport will spontaneously explode if there's no one inside of it as soon as combat starts? Its just an inelegant rule.
All they had to do was say "every dedicated transport must either have an infantry unit in it or within close proximity." That's all it needed, not that instant kill nonsense.

Hades will auto explode every game as it's supposed to have unit embarked or be destroyed yet doesn't have transport capacity so can't have unit embarked

Hence why my suggestion has the "within close proximity" clause, to catch esoteric cases like Ghost Arks and Hades.

Problem is there's no "within close proximity" when you are off board either. So that would auto-explode hades anyway...

GW forgot entirely there are dedicated transports without transport capacity(well to be fair they are pretty rare)

Oh that would be so typical for GW. Let's hope that's the case. Without the Tyrannofex changing it seems already a lot more manageable for non-tournament games.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
So, taking a step back on the Dedicated Transports thing, a couple of questions...

A, What was the issue that was being seen that merited a fix of some form?
2, Was it a significant enough issue within GT play that a fix was required?
iii, If a fix was needed, did it need to be as broad as this, or was it specific units that needed looking at?

δ) There was a small problem with people spamming gunboat transports without any intention of using them as transports that could have been fixed with a scalpel, but GW opted for the vortex grenade instead.

Except this change doesn't really fix it either, because they can just leave the transport on the first turn and still use the gunboat spam. All it does is change deployment a little.
If they really wanted to fix gunboats, they should have fixed the gunboats instead of implementing an arbitrary rule that affects all vehicles.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
So, taking a step back on the Dedicated Transports thing, a couple of questions...

A, What was the issue that was being seen that merited a fix of some form?
2, Was it a significant enough issue within GT play that a fix was required?
iii, If a fix was needed, did it need to be as broad as this, or was it specific units that needed looking at?

δ) There was a small problem with people spamming gunboat transports without any intention of using them as transports that could have been fixed with a scalpel, but GW opted for the vortex grenade instead.

Except this change doesn't really fix it either, because they can just leave the transport on the first turn and still use the gunboat spam. All it does is change deployment a little.
If they really wanted to fix gunboats, they should have fixed the gunboats instead of implementing an arbitrary rule that affects all vehicles.

Well does affect area you can screen and if you go 2nd at least gives you risk with people dying with transport dying(which btw is why in real life soldiers aren't inside transport when fight becomes spitting distance like 40k battles...).

But yeah silly change and in typical gw way sweeping change having side effects. But hey that's GW. Their goal isn't good game but sell models by changing what's good and bad all the time. The swingier the better.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
So, taking a step back on the Dedicated Transports thing, a couple of questions...

A, What was the issue that was being seen that merited a fix of some form?
2, Was it a significant enough issue within GT play that a fix was required?
iii, If a fix was needed, did it need to be as broad as this, or was it specific units that needed looking at?

δ) There was a small problem with people spamming gunboat transports without any intention of using them as transports that could have been fixed with a scalpel, but GW opted for the vortex grenade instead.

Except this change doesn't really fix it either, because they can just leave the transport on the first turn and still use the gunboat spam. All it does is change deployment a little.
If they really wanted to fix gunboats, they should have fixed the gunboats instead of implementing an arbitrary rule that affects all vehicles.

You are aware of how vortex grenades used to work?

 Jidmah wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
So, taking a step back on the Dedicated Transports thing, a couple of questions...

A, What was the issue that was being seen that merited a fix of some form?
2, Was it a significant enough issue within GT play that a fix was required?
iii, If a fix was needed, did it need to be as broad as this, or was it specific units that needed looking at?

δ) There was a small problem with people spamming gunboat transports without any intention of using them as transports that could have been fixed with a scalpel, but GW opted for the vortex grenade instead.

Except this change doesn't really fix it either, because they can just leave the transport on the first turn and still use the gunboat spam. All it does is change deployment a little.
If they really wanted to fix gunboats, they should have fixed the gunboats instead of implementing an arbitrary rule that affects all vehicles.

You are aware of how vortex grenades used to work?

You would throw one at a gunboat and it immediately fixed any gunboat balance issues!

From what I've been told, it was more like you tried to hit a wave serpent, but ended up creating a vortex to the warp the wiped out a dozen unrelated units, very much like this rules change.

tneva82 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
So, taking a step back on the Dedicated Transports thing, a couple of questions...

A, What was the issue that was being seen that merited a fix of some form?
2, Was it a significant enough issue within GT play that a fix was required?
iii, If a fix was needed, did it need to be as broad as this, or was it specific units that needed looking at?

δ) There was a small problem with people spamming gunboat transports without any intention of using them as transports that could have been fixed with a scalpel, but GW opted for the vortex grenade instead.

Except this change doesn't really fix it either, because they can just leave the transport on the first turn and still use the gunboat spam. All it does is change deployment a little.
If they really wanted to fix gunboats, they should have fixed the gunboats instead of implementing an arbitrary rule that affects all vehicles.

if you go 2nd at least gives you risk with people dying with transport dying(which btw is why in real life soldiers aren't inside transport when fight becomes spitting distance like 40k battles...).

Which doesn't really matter, because the gunboats would have been targeted first anyway and the infantry units taken for them are a tax unit; it doesn't matter if they take casualties because it's the gunboat the player cares about.
So really, as a means of stopping gunboat spam this rule is pointless.

Or yourself, if the enemy brought a vortex detonator... good old times...

 Sasori wrote:
The Hydra list goes up about 100 points from these changes, that's pretty significant.

This felt very scattershot with some of these Changes. Exocrenes and Tyrannofexes were not exactly tearing up the meta. Carnifexes getting a base increase + Plus HVC going up is probably too much.

I think hitting the major offenders + the CP changes would probably be enough to bring them down in combination with the other nerfs they had. I guess they just didn't want a Drukhari/Ad Mech situation again where they had to go through 3-4 nerf iterations to bring them down.

True on the 100 points. Those 3 Screamer Killers add up (I'd kind of forgotten them). I think you'd probably drop 1 and adjust the points a bit. Maybe tweak out some Hormagaunts or something.

Beyond that - I don't know about tearing up the meta exactly - but I feel Exocrines were appearing in a lot of top performing lists (if you go down that sort of archetype). More generally - and its a bit like Warriors - you just got too much stuff. It shouldn't have T8, 15 wounds, a 2+ SV with scope for decent invuls/transhuman etc and have an average of 8 good shots... and just be 170 points. You can I guess take the approach of "this is fine - the game just needs to adjust" - but its clearly out of line with other things as exist today.

I'm not really getting the mountains of salt that seem to be being poured over the CSM book - but you can see a friendly Forgefiend. T7, 12 wounds, 3+/5++. AoC kicking in to help a bit - but still.
If you take 3 Ecto cannons the Forgefiend has 3D3 S7 AP-3 3 damage shots. As compared with the Exocrine's D3+6 S8 AP-4 3 damage shots. (Ignoring cover if you don't move much etc). You are paying a bit more points (155 to 170) but this doesn't seem remotely close. It can perhaps be argued "well the Forgefiend just sucks" - a bit like drawing any comparison with say a predator - but I'm not sure there's much in the game that combines this package. Admittedly whether you'd bring an Exocrine at 200 points can be questioned (just as whether you'd bother with a Forgefiend) - but its more in line with the game as a whole.

It would be like me sitting here complaining about Deathleaper. Was it an auto-include? I'd say it was close. Was it the major reason Tyranids were so good? Not really. But you compare what you were getting for 95 points to a lot of other things in the game, and it feels very silly.

My view is that if Tyranids (or other factions) are going to have this power in the datasheets, you'd need to gut their buff architecture. (I.E. dramatically nerf the fleet traits, the imperatives, the stratagems etc) And GW probably decided that was too difficult after trying a bit last time round.

More baffling design decisions, I see.

So we've spent the last 2 editions stripping wargear and other customisation options from characters and turning them into warlord traits, relics and (depressingly) stratagems.

But it seems players have actually had the temerity to use those warlord traits, relics and stratagems (shock, horror!). Thus, the solution is to severely reduce starting CP and also to make players pay for both the first relic and the first warlord trait they take.

Surely I can't be the only one who thinks this is a terrible solution to a problem that should not have existed in the first place?

Incidentally, if this comes down to some warlord traits, relics and/or stratagems being overpowered, perhaps tweak those rather than punishing players who want to make remotely flavourful characters (or, in many cases, characters that aren't absolute arse on the table)?

Or perhaps warlord traits and relics could actually use a more granular system that would allow the more powerful traits and items to cost more, rather than all of them costing the exact same amount. If only such a system existed in warhammer.


Oh and then we have the delights of this dedicated transport rule, wherein any unoccupied transport will spontaneously detonate on turn 1. Even the Necron one. Maybe that was what the old Phase Out rule really represented - that every Necron's greatest fear is loneliness, to the point where the pilot of a Necron transport would rather obliterate himself than face the rejection of his passengers.

Welcome to GW rules design

Step 1: create a problem
Step 1a: market it as improvement/innovation/necessary
Step 2: sell the solution
Step 3: profit

I mean relics should have always cost points and be limited.. relics aren’t created equal… I can see the first relic not costing a CP but an additional relic cost 1cp and they both still cost points…

Warlord traits cost a CP is fine…

Rules bloat is real

I've been told that if you use a character as a Warlord then you get the Warlord Trait associated with them for free. True/False?

Tyel wrote:

 Sasori wrote:
The Hydra list goes up about 100 points from these changes, that's pretty significant.

This felt very scattershot with some of these Changes. Exocrenes and Tyrannofexes were not exactly tearing up the meta. Carnifexes getting a base increase + Plus HVC going up is probably too much.

I think hitting the major offenders + the CP changes would probably be enough to bring them down in combination with the other nerfs they had. I guess they just didn't want a Drukhari/Ad Mech situation again where they had to go through 3-4 nerf iterations to bring them down.

True on the 100 points. Those 3 Screamer Killers add up (I'd kind of forgotten them). I think you'd probably drop 1 and adjust the points a bit. Maybe tweak out some Hormagaunts or something.

Beyond that - I don't know about tearing up the meta exactly - but I feel Exocrines were appearing in a lot of top performing lists (if you go down that sort of archetype). More generally - and its a bit like Warriors - you just got too much stuff. It shouldn't have T8, 15 wounds, a 2+ SV with scope for decent invuls/transhuman etc and have an average of 8 good shots... and just be 170 points. You can I guess take the approach of "this is fine - the game just needs to adjust" - but its clearly out of line with other things as exist today.

I'm not really getting the mountains of salt that seem to be being poured over the CSM book - but you can see a friendly Forgefiend. T7, 12 wounds, 3+/5++. AoC kicking in to help a bit - but still.
If you take 3 Ecto cannons the Forgefiend has 3D3 S7 AP-3 3 damage shots. As compared with the Exocrine's D3+6 S8 AP-4 3 damage shots. (Ignoring cover if you don't move much etc). You are paying a bit more points (155 to 170) but this doesn't seem remotely close. It can perhaps be argued "well the Forgefiend just sucks" - a bit like drawing any comparison with say a predator - but I'm not sure there's much in the game that combines this package. Admittedly whether you'd bring an Exocrine at 200 points can be questioned (just as whether you'd bother with a Forgefiend) - but its more in line with the game as a whole.

It would be like me sitting here complaining about Deathleaper. Was it an auto-include? I'd say it was close. Was it the major reason Tyranids were so good? Not really. But you compare what you were getting for 95 points to a lot of other things in the game, and it feels very silly.

My view is that if Tyranids (or other factions) are going to have this power in the datasheets, you'd need to gut their buff architecture. (I.E. dramatically nerf the fleet traits, the imperatives, the stratagems etc) And GW probably decided that was too difficult after trying a bit last time round.

The one that is getting me anxious is the Tyrannofex.

In part because chances are GW is going to forget to fix the typo. In part because +40 is IMHO a little too much, +30 would be fine, although I would prefer +20 base and +10 on Rupture Cannon.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I've been told that if you use a character as a Warlord then you get the Warlord Trait associated with them for free. True/False?

Named characters, you mean? Some people assumed that their WTs would be free for...inexplicable reasons. Named characters still have to pay 1CP to get a warlord trait, they're just locked into their specific warlord trait.

The real head scratcher is what about characters with mutliple warlord traits?

Yes, I should have been more explicit and said "named characters".

gungo wrote:
I mean relics should have always cost points and be limited.. relics aren’t created equal… I can see the first relic not costing a CP but an additional relic cost 1cp and they both still cost points…

Warlord traits cost a CP is fine…

Rules bloat is real

Isn't it technically rules contraction now? They've reduced the amount of meaningful CP in a game by functionally almost half (-1 total, -2 from warlord traits/relics, -4 from T4 and T5 CP being worth almost nothing comparatively, bringing us from 15 meaningful CP to 9.) As a result we should see about that many less stratagems, warlord traits, or relics. That's half as many rules interacting half as a often. (I know it's 40% but half sounds better).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:
The real head scratcher is what about characters with mutliple warlord traits?

Based off the rules we have so far, Mortarion has to pay for his warlord traits. 3CP for him.

There is a footnote in the pre order article that clarifies that named characters such as mortarion have to only pay 1 CP to get all their traits.

tneva82 wrote:
GW forgot entirely there are dedicated transports without transport capacity(well to be fair they are pretty rare)

Well, what would we do with ourselves if we didn't have a day 1 FAQ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
Well does affect area you can screen and if you go 2nd at least gives you risk with people dying with transport dying(which btw is why in real life soldiers aren't inside transport when fight becomes spitting distance like 40k battles...).

There's also the effect of having more deployment drops than your opponent, but I imagine the rule is reflective of empty tyrranocytes.

Regardless of how I feel about strategems, I do like the idea of generating more CP during the game, instead of all at the beginning. I find I use strats turn 1 and 2, and then I just can't use them after that lol.

I find the starting relic and warlord trait costing CP a bit wild.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I've been told that if you use a character as a Warlord then you get the Warlord Trait associated with them for free. True/False?

That's Crusade.

ERJAK wrote:

gungo wrote:
I mean relics should have always cost points and be limited.. relics aren’t created equal… I can see the first relic not costing a CP but an additional relic cost 1cp and they both still cost points…

Warlord traits cost a CP is fine…

Rules bloat is real

Isn't it technically rules contraction now? They've reduced the amount of meaningful CP in a game by functionally almost half (-1 total, -2 from warlord traits/relics, -4 from T4 and T5 CP being worth almost nothing comparatively, bringing us from 15 meaningful CP to 9.) As a result we should see about that many less stratagems, warlord traits, or relics. That's half as many rules interacting half as a often. (I know it's 40% but half sounds better).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:
The real head scratcher is what about characters with mutliple warlord traits?

Based off the rules we have so far, Mortarion has to pay for his warlord traits. 3CP for him.

The footnote under the WarCom article says that you have to pay 1 CP, no matter how many warlord traits you get, naming Mortarion as an explicit example.

I'm liking the new CP allocation quite a lot. Currently there is still too much stratagems involved in the 2-3 first rounds, too much gotcha, too many extra relics, extra warlord traits involved for a honest wargaming experience. Add on top of that the extra patrol or specialist detachment for your additional limited HQ or more super duper units. I welcome most of these changes. Remember mid-8th edition, when you had your full allotment of 13 CP at the beginning of the game for a double battalion, and no generation ? Everyone was burning them like crazy to gain the advantage in alpha / beta strike. We have elvolved from this situation, now it's the final step (maybe not) of this evolution. We will have a restrained CP capital to build our armies, then a steady flow of CP through the game to spice up our actions up to the 5th round (if there is one of course). This is better.

The only change I'm a bit perplexed by is the cost for a warlord trait : it was a very nice, fluffy and cool addition of the 6th edition, and a unique but free warlord trait should have stayed as a cornerstone of army building. On the other hand, back in the day, relics had a point cost, so that the more powerful ones made you think twice about fielding them. The unforgivable mistake of the current design studio has been to made them free. Now they cost a CP, so that, you are not going to pay this cost for a fun albeit not very poweful one. For example, relics and warlord traits that may refund CP on a roll of 5+/6+ are out. A bit sad, but good riddance if you consider the whole picture IMHO.

What whole picture? The best armies aren't reliant on their warlord traits and relics, and only need the initial CP to fund their first turn anyway.

 jaredb wrote:
Regardless of how I feel about strategems, I do like the idea of generating more CP during the game, instead of all at the beginning. I find I use strats turn 1 and 2, and then I just can't use them after that lol.

I find the starting relic and warlord trait costing CP a bit wild.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I've been told that if you use a character as a Warlord then you get the Warlord Trait associated with them for free. True/False?

That's Crusade.

the problem is that my specific faction relies pretty heavily on spending a boatload of CP pregame in order to be competitive. Most Ork lists rely on multiple warlord traits/relics and a 2nd specialist detachment to fill in the required slots to be competitive...the AoR one for example is nothing but Fast Attack choices which means you pretty much have to take a -3CP hit from the start just to field your army. Atm if you want to run the remotely competitive AoR you need -3CP for the specialist detachment and if you want your warlord to be useful -2CP to equip them with a relic/trait, leaving you with 1CP.

I am actually fine with this mind you so long as GW buffs our units/rules to make them more attractive competitive choices and from the leaks so far....they haven't. giving our troops choices 1ppm discounts isn't suddenly going to make boyz go from a tax unit to competitive. Taking away prior unnecessary nerfs or partially taking them away again isn't going to turn a unit into a powerhouse to make up or the nerfs they are hitting us with these new changes.

Honestly, this feels a lot like the recent emergency patch which saw Indirect fire become garbage and Marines get AoC. Looked good on paper, but nobody took 5 seconds to see how it would impact all the factions, and in the case of orkz, it made all our IDF weapons useless and took away the biggest buff dmg wise orkz got in 9th, AP-1 Choppas.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
What whole picture? The best armies aren't reliant on their warlord traits and relics, and only need the initial CP to fund their first turn anyway.

I mean...the average nids list when up 150-200pts. We've mostly been assuming that the CP changes would be the single most important balance factor because GW's point changes have been so worthless historically.

If they're actually willing to make big swings all of a sudden, everything's up in the air.

 Ravajaxe wrote:
I'm liking the new CP allocation quite a lot. Currently there is still too much stratagems involved in the 2-3 first rounds, too much gotcha, too many extra relics, extra warlord traits involved for a honest wargaming experience. Add on top of that the extra patrol or specialist detachment for your additional limited HQ or more super duper units. I welcome most of these changes. Remember mid-8th edition, when you had your full allotment of 13 CP at the beginning of the game for a double battalion, and no generation ? Everyone was burning them like crazy to gain the advantage in alpha / beta strike. We have elvolved from this situation, now it's the final step (maybe not) of this evolution. We will have a restrained CP capital to build our armies, then a steady flow of CP through the game to spice up our actions up to the 5th round (if there is one of course). This is better.

The only change I'm a bit perplexed by is the cost for a warlord trait : it was a very nice, fluffy and cool addition of the 6th edition, and a unique but free warlord trait should have stayed as a cornerstone of army building. On the other hand, back in the day, relics had a point cost, so that the more powerful ones made you think twice about fielding them. The unforgivable mistake of the current design studio has been to made them free. Now they cost a CP, so that, you are not going to pay this cost for a fun albeit not very poweful one. For example, relics and warlord traits that may refund CP on a roll of 5+/6+ are out. A bit sad, but good riddance if you consider the whole picture IMHO.

Alpha Strike Combos stay the same for armies with the CP for them though, because if you have the CP for it, why wouldn't you still use the combo? Also, everyone has less CP for defensive strats, so if anything they've made these combos stronger.

Everyone has around the same amount of CP as their opponent, so for every CP spent on a combo a CP can be spent on defense.

It is up to the players if they want to spend their CP offensively or defensively.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
So, taking a step back on the Dedicated Transports thing, a couple of questions...

A, What was the issue that was being seen that merited a fix of some form?
2, Was it a significant enough issue within GT play that a fix was required?
iii, If a fix was needed, did it need to be as broad as this, or was it specific units that needed looking at?

δ) There was a small problem with people spamming gunboat transports without any intention of using them as transports that could have been fixed with a scalpel, but GW opted for the vortex grenade instead.

Less gunboat transports (although I'm sure those are a factor as well), more using Land Speeder Storms as a cheap objective holder/grabber in armies with no scouts. It showed up in a lot of top table Space Marine lists. Basically it sits safely out of line of sight on a backfield objective for most of the game, then hops on a safe objective in the mid to late using its 18+1d6" movement. Not quite as cheap of a backfield objective holder as Cyberwolves or Servitors, but a lot more durable against non-LoS shooting and more capable of actually hopping out and doing something.