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.

Karol wrote:
GK and 1ksons were saying that AtW is a bad secondary, and it took GW almost 3 years to notice that.

Abhor changed a couple times to soften the points per unit. It didn't stay static that whole time.

Dudeface wrote:
Boon for a sacrifice seems fairly apt for most but not all chaos marines, so that's not perfect admittedly, but not sure it's worth a complaint about beyond a passing "that's a bit weird".

I think that, like Oaths of Moment, it'd make a great detachment ability, as opposed to the single common rule that defines the faction as a whole.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Boon for a sacrifice seems fairly apt for most but not all chaos marines, so that's not perfect admittedly, but not sure it's worth a complaint about beyond a passing "that's a bit weird".

I think that, like Oaths of Moment, it'd make a great detachment ability, as opposed to the single common rule that defines the faction as a whole.

Yup, very good way of looking at it.

I'm more bothered with the "omg skitarii are going on the shelf, not worth any points now" type things. We have no points with which to measure these things by, or the points efficiency of sisters anti tank in absence of again, points or rules.

Well, don't you see? Skitarii used to have a 4+ save, which with the abundance of AP-1 weapons in the game often meant that they were saving on a 5+. Now they have a 5+ save, and there are far fewer AP-1 weapons, meaning that they'll often be saving... on a 5+.

Wait...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Well, don't you see? Skitarii used to have a 4+ save, which with the abundance of AP-1 weapons in the game often meant that they were saving on a 5+. Now they have a 5+ save, and there are far fewer AP-1 weapons, meaning that they'll often be saving... on a 5+.

Wait...

But that's okay because Eldar keep their buffed Guardians!

And people think Marine players are entitled...

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Well, don't you see? Skitarii used to have a 4+ save, which with the abundance of AP-1 weapons in the game often meant that they were saving on a 5+. Now they have a 5+ save, and there are far fewer AP-1 weapons, meaning that they'll often be saving... on a 5+.

Wait...

But that's okay because Eldar keep their buffed Guardians!

And people think Marine players are entitled...

Yeah, because doing cross-faction comparison with the minimal amount of info we got is sooooo productive.

Tyel wrote:
GW seem to have turned their face against Jidmah's old signature of "stand up for science, Orks are not a melee army".

Well, the melee part did need a push and our guns were mostly kept as they are. So I'd argue that GW actually agrees with me, in previous editions the squiglauncha would have been nerfed so hard wouldn't recover till 15th edition.

Karol wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think it's odd that Sisters of Silence don't do anything to psykers anymore. Sure, their guns get a bonus when they shoot at then, but the simple presence of a blank as powerful as your average Sister of Silence should terrify psykers. Seems extremely unusual that this was seemingly forgotten about.

It is an index, so one can imagine units are going to be light on rules comparing to the bonuses given by detachmants or codex rules.

At least they're providing factions rules with these indexes...unlike the 8th edition indexes. /shudder

Dudeface wrote:

It doesn't matter what DG have now

I'm pretty certain most DG players will disagree with this view.

I'm sympathetic to players being annoyed at their units being downgraded, even before costs are known, because having a unit you like become less effective is disappointing even if they get cheaper. It's also annoying if it's a unit that's time-consuming to build and paint, so you don't feel motivated to get more to make up the points shortfall.

I'm not sure why GW decided that Skitarii needed to be made more vulnerable; the 4+ save medium infantry role differentiated them from Guardsmen and made them more akin to Scions, which seems appropriate.

Efficiency is related to points and compared to other.

Thus can't yet say units got less effctive

 Trickstick wrote:
So with the new ork waaagh being "at the start of the battle round", does that mean that if you are going second that you have to do it in the opponents turn? A bit of an interesting 1st vs 2nd consideration for orks now.

Certainly pairs well with the 5++ Invul.

 catbarf wrote:
I'm sympathetic to players being annoyed at their units being downgraded, even before costs are known, because having a unit you like become less effective is disappointing even if they get cheaper. It's also annoying if it's a unit that's time-consuming to build and paint, so you don't feel motivated to get more to make up the points shortfall.

I'm not sure why GW decided that Skitarii needed to be made more vulnerable; the 4+ save medium infantry role differentiated them from Guardsmen and made them more akin to Scions, which seems appropriate.

They're only downgraded or less effective in the context of rules between editions, but this is deliberately an edition designed to reduce layered rules and make things less effective. Maybe I'm just wired up differently but I look at the rules for 10th in isolation of those from 9th generally and consider it as a distinct package, whereas most of the upset is coming from people who apply 9th edition knowledge to the 10th edition rules snippets and come out upset. As I said though, some sympathy to the fact that DG being the durable ones is simply now marines +1T, but that doesn't objectively make it bad in the context of 10th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
Efficiency is related to points and compared to other.

Thus can't yet say units got less effctive

This ^^^^

Moreover, the relative efficiency is against a benchmark level set across mission based needs and comparable levels between armies. You could tell me skitarii rangers kill 3 marines a turn and only cost as much as 5 marines for the unit of 10 skitarii. Which in isolation sounds ok, but if every other core infantry only ever manages 1 dead marine or whatever target of choice, they become over efficient relatively. Disclaimer: totally made up numbers.

tneva82 wrote:
Efficiency is related to points and compared to other.

Thus can't yet say units got less effctive

Who's talking about efficiency?

If Marines were downgraded to T3/W1/4+ but only 6pts a pop I'm sure we'd have some people proclaiming that ZOMG SO EFFICIENT, but a lot more complaining that they don't like their elite infantry being reduced to near-Guardsman stats.

We're not all tournament players here, solely concerned with what's best for the points. I'm open to seeing the rest of the rules package, but Skitarii being closer to Guardsmen than to Scions feels wrong, and that has zip, zero, nada to do with points efficiency.

"Battlecannon got worse!"

"Battlecannon russes are 50 points now"

"oh..."

I agree with catbarf, if your idea of a unit was "Scion cyborg" and they were downgraded to "IG Cyborg" that's a feel bad moment, even if they undercost them to 5ppm.

 catbarf wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Efficiency is related to points and compared to other.

Thus can't yet say units got less effctive

Who's talking about efficiency?

If Marines were downgraded to T3/W1/4+ but only 6pts a pop I'm sure we'd have some people proclaiming that ZOMG SO EFFICIENT, but a lot more complaining that they don't like their elite infantry being reduced to near-Guardsman stats.

We're not all tournament players here, solely concerned with what's best for the points. I'm open to seeing the rest of the rules package, but Skitarii being closer to Guardsmen than to Scions feels wrong, and that has zip, zero, nada to do with points efficiency.

As people love to remind others, the rules are an abstraction to gain approximate placement. The "feel" isn't limited purely to the stat line however, but is unfortunately, entirely subjective.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
I agree with catbarf, if your idea of a unit was "Scion cyborg" and they were downgraded to "IG Cyborg" that's a feel bad moment, even if they undercost them to 5ppm.

Again, if you identify scions as just being a bs 3+ 4+ save guy then sure, but that's not what they are or were about. It's more than a profile.

 catbarf wrote:
I'm sympathetic to players being annoyed at their units being downgraded, even before costs are known, because having a unit you like become less effective is disappointing even if they get cheaper. It's also annoying if it's a unit that's time-consuming to build and paint, so you don't feel motivated to get more to make up the points shortfall.

I'm not sure why GW decided that Skitarii needed to be made more vulnerable; the 4+ save medium infantry role differentiated them from Guardsmen and made them more akin to Scions, which seems appropriate.

I don't see the angle on Vanguard as much as I do Blightlord Termies. Those termies with the current info are just boring - none of the weapons are interesting and T6 is just kind of *yawn* on top of M4. Vanguard show actual synergy and options for play that take them well beyond the 'their armor looks tougher than flak' complaints.

Why do we need to distinguish them from guardsmen? They're a different army. I could say that visually Scions look more armored than Vanguard and so the 4+/5+ dichotomy seems appropriate, but I can base none of that in any sort of material science or useful logic. The bionics are seemingly suitably represented as the 6++. Whether or not that invuln will be useful is unknown.

People upset about the armor save are hyperfocused and miss the forest for the trees, in my opinion.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Why do we need to distinguish them from guardsmen? They're a different army. I could say that visually Scions look more armored than Vanguard and so the 4+/5+ dichotomy seems appropriate, but I can base none of that in any sort of material science or useful logic. The bionics are seemingly suitably represented as the 6++. Whether or not that invuln will be useful is unknown.

People upset about the armor save are hyperfocused and miss the forest for the trees, in my opinion.

The issue is people thought Skitarii were "X" in the wider 40k food chain - but GW are now saying "no, they are Y" (i.e. worse). Its the same complaint we see on how Necrons keep going down relative to Marines.

Yeah, I generally don't think 'I don't understand why people are upset (or just don't like it), so they shouldn't be' is a productive direction for discussion..

Tyel wrote:The issue is people thought Skitarii were "X" in the wider 40k food chain - but GW are now saying "no, they are Y" (i.e. worse). Its the same complaint we see on how Necrons keep going down relative to Marines.

Voss wrote:Yeah, I generally don't think 'I don't understand why people are upset (or just don't like it), so they shouldn't be' is a productive direction for discussion..

Yea, totally fair criticism, but what do these feelings actually mean? That you don't enjoy your models? That you can't play as well? What's the end result?

And why is no one upset that orks are getting tougher?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Tyel wrote:The issue is people thought Skitarii were "X" in the wider 40k food chain - but GW are now saying "no, they are Y" (i.e. worse). Its the same complaint we see on how Necrons keep going down relative to Marines.

Voss wrote:Yeah, I generally don't think 'I don't understand why people are upset (or just don't like it), so they shouldn't be' is a productive direction for discussion..

Yea, totally fair criticism, but what do these feelings actually mean? That you don't enjoy your models? That you can't play as well? What's the end result?

And why is no one upset that orks are getting tougher?

Human emotions, people have an attachment to what they know and enjoy and fear loss or get angry at regression, nobody is upset orks therefore get tougher as it's an upward shift.

Again though, it's tougher compared to 9th, no context in the wider sense of 10th.

In short, everyone likes to feel empowered and special, that's what they're representing on the tabletop. The changes for some units seem to make that harder for them to maintain the visage or connection they had.

I'm sure if skitarii come out swinging and hit hard with good results people will forget they've lost a point of save.

Chiming in just to correct a statement I have seen thrown around.

Tyranids have a boring army rule because it is one use only and randomic.

That's wrong. That's half of an army rule. Their main army rule is making cheap throw away infantry more disciplined than a Primarch in an edition where everyone and their mothers is forcing battleshock tests on you!

That's VERY fluffy, useful and provides options of play and counterplay.


On the same note, for those asking why sisters don't outright stop psy powers, that's for the same reason why necrons are not immune to poison. Because over the years GW has learned that having silver bullet rules doesn't make for a fun game.

Spoletta wrote:
Chiming in just to correct a statement I have seen thrown around.

Tyranids have a boring army rule because it is one use only and randomic.

That's wrong. That's half of an army rule. Their main army rule is making cheap throw away infantry more disciplined than a Primarch in an edition where everyone and their mothers is forcing battleshock tests on you!

That's VERY fluffy, useful and provides options of play and counterplay.


On the same note, for those asking why sisters don't outright stop psy powers, that's for the same reason why necrons are not immune to poison. Because over the years GW has learned that having silver bullet rules doesn't make for a fun game.

Valid points all round.

Dudeface wrote:
Human emotions, people have an attachment to what they know and enjoy and fear loss or get angry at regression,

But is that attachment JUST the armor save? If not, then why does it seem like the problem isn't addressed holistically?

I'm sort of distilling all the complaints into a bucket and I'm sure most individuals have more complex thoughts on the matter, but it feels like those thoughts aren't expressed and we see just this one facet.

nobody is upset orks therefore get tougher as it's an upward shift.

But Snaggas will be tougher than Vanguard by a mile. T5, 5+, 6+++ with the option for a 5++. The most these guys have visually is a shoulder pad. Or are there people upset by this and I've missed it?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Yea, totally fair criticism, but what do these feelings actually mean? That you don't enjoy your models? That you can't play as well? What's the end result?

And why is no one upset that orks are getting tougher?

There aren't many ork players, so there isn't much to be unhappy about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Karol wrote:
GK and 1ksons were saying that AtW is a bad secondary, and it took GW almost 3 years to notice that.

Abhor changed a couple times to soften the points per unit. It didn't stay static that whole time.

the changes were non changes, because you would take them in a regular game vs GK everytime. Because losing a psyker, didn't matter for factions that weren't already beating eldar real hard, and who in deed didn't care if AtW exists. I remember GW fixes to dark repears. They were fixed them every FAQ, up until eldar switched to playing flyer lists. Or when GW was nerfing regular DE stuff, when DE moved on to playing meat mountain.
AtW is/was a secondary which was just bad design. It is like making Imperial/Chaos knights practicaly unable to score in early 9th ed or be shot from behind cover without being able to shot back. As with many things GW does. There is bad and there is BAD.

 Jidmah wrote:

Tyel wrote:
GW seem to have turned their face against Jidmah's old signature of "stand up for science, Orks are not a melee army".

Well, the melee part did need a push and our guns were mostly kept as they are. So I'd argue that GW actually agrees with me, in previous editions the squiglauncha would have been nerfed so hard wouldn't recover till 15th edition.

still can happen no?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Human emotions, people have an attachment to what they know and enjoy and fear loss or get angry at regression,

But is that attachment JUST the armor save? If not, then why does it seem like the problem isn't addressed holistically?

I'm sort of distilling all the complaints into a bucket and I'm sure most individuals have more complex thoughts on the matter, but it feels like those thoughts aren't expressed and we see just this one facet.

nobody is upset orks therefore get tougher as it's an upward shift.

But Snaggas will be tougher than Vanguard by a mile. T5, 5+, 6+++ with the option for a 5++. The most these guys have visually is a shoulder pad. Or are there people upset by this and I've missed it?

People expect orks to be tough but lightly armored. These are. (And there's no indication that other orks will get FNP. Ghaz doesn't have it). And largely people got over the T5 adjustment last edition.
So they fall within expectations.

People also expect cyborgs to be better armored and tougher than run of the mill grunts. Vanguard... aren't. So they don't like it. (And reducing AP via protective doctrine doesn't feel like a 4+ save. Too many cases where it doesn't matter)
The fact that two of the less durable factions (eldar and tau) got to keep 4+ saves on their militia and got 4+ given to scouts grinds glass into that expectation.

Plus basic psychology of losing rather than staying the same or gaining is obviously in play.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Tyel wrote:The issue is people thought Skitarii were "X" in the wider 40k food chain - but GW are now saying "no, they are Y" (i.e. worse). Its the same complaint we see on how Necrons keep going down relative to Marines.

Voss wrote:Yeah, I generally don't think 'I don't understand why people are upset (or just don't like it), so they shouldn't be' is a productive direction for discussion..

Yea, totally fair criticism, but what do these feelings actually mean? That you don't enjoy your models? That you can't play as well? What's the end result?

And why is no one upset that orks are getting tougher?

I'm only upset about Orks being tougher when I face them.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


Yeah, because doing cross-faction comparison with the minimal amount of info we got is sooooo productive.

In general maybe not, but eldar are a special case in the way how GW treats them. There wasn't a single time in the games history, when they would get a book or new set of rules and didn't instantly become NPE for everyone and an edition breaker. You can have 0 data on eldar on eldar rules and 8 out of 9 edition they would be borderline OP. I think expecting 10 out of 9 is not exaggarated or unproductive.