Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Slipspace wrote:
The problem with a lot of indirect fire isn't just the points. It's the sheer number of them that ignore the indirect penalties that GW introduced late on in 9th and continue to use in 10th. It's idiotic to me that they carried those restrictions forward, then gave the majority of indirect fire weapons ways around it.

I like some methods, like scout sentinels. An 18" spotting unit to negate indirect penalties has some counterplay. Desolations marines that just need to stand still to negate seem a lot less interesting mechanically.

Slipspace wrote:
The problem with a lot of indirect fire isn't just the points. It's the sheer number of them that ignore the indirect penalties that GW introduced late on in 9th and continue to use in 10th. It's idiotic to me that they carried those restrictions forward, then gave the majority of indirect fire weapons ways around it.

Desolation Marines are especially egregious because of Indirect Fire on large squads, with Blast so bucket of dice, then they get mitigation for Indirect Fire and then their faction skills and character skills on top of that for lots of rerolls. It's a degenerate combo all in all.

GW writing rules and then immediately making those rules pointless as everything ignores them is an iconic duo at this point.

Tsagualsa wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
The problem with a lot of indirect fire isn't just the points. It's the sheer number of them that ignore the indirect penalties that GW introduced late on in 9th and continue to use in 10th. It's idiotic to me that they carried those restrictions forward, then gave the majority of indirect fire weapons ways around it.

Desolation Marines are especially egregious because of Indirect Fire on large squads, with Blast so bucket of dice, then they get mitigation for Indirect Fire and then their faction skills and character skills on top of that for lots of rerolls. It's a degenerate combo all in all.

Maybe swap them to fixed units of 5 as a possible part solution?

Dudeface wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
The problem with a lot of indirect fire isn't just the points. It's the sheer number of them that ignore the indirect penalties that GW introduced late on in 9th and continue to use in 10th. It's idiotic to me that they carried those restrictions forward, then gave the majority of indirect fire weapons ways around it.

Desolation Marines are especially egregious because of Indirect Fire on large squads, with Blast so bucket of dice, then they get mitigation for Indirect Fire and then their faction skills and character skills on top of that for lots of rerolls. It's a degenerate combo all in all.

Maybe swap them to fixed units of 5 as a possible part solution?

Or swap Superfrag from D6+1 shots to D3, and the Castellan to plain 1, they still get enough shots off at large mobs but become less of a one-size-fits-all tool. There are several ways how you could go about nerfing them, but it probably needs to be something they can't work around with faction/leader abilities.

ccs wrote:

nekooni wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

nekooni wrote:
Or the points system could be designed in a way not to feth over everyone that didn't pimp out their squads and rides.

If people have a bunch of models with no upgrades then it would seem the old system wasn't working very well.

I imagine the vast majority of people here likely have a collection broad enough to accommodate these issues.

This is giving me "dont you guys have phones?!" vibes, to be honest.

The old system allowed units with and without upgrades to be viable choice, and the new one does not.

I have close to 20k pts of Salamanders, and quite a few models are now basically unusable. Sure, i can "accommodate", but thats not the average collection size, and the new system benches a ton of my models for absolutely no good reason. Thats a failure of the new system, not the old one.

They're still a viable choice, it's a decision you can come to and legally field them with rules. If you mean your unit of bolters and nothing else isn't competitively viable, then yeah sure.

I'm being pedantic but there's some people who will literally think their units aren't field able now because of the changes, which isn't true.

"not being able to field them" is clearly not what I meant by writing "viable",

Please show us doubters one of these units you have that you claim aren't viable now.

Then tell us the last time it was viable & why.

18 naked Wraiths. 6 Canoptek Spyders missing guns. 25 Tomb Blades missing shields. They were all viable 2 weeks ago.

 vict0988 wrote:

18 naked Wraiths. 6 Canoptek Spyders missing guns. 25 Tomb Blades missing shields. They were all viable 2 weeks ago.

I couldn't tell you what the shields look like on a tomb blade to not know they have it. That aside, no qualms from me if you wanted to run any of those with optional pistols or whatever.

Even if you didn't, for the vast majority of friendly games you could use them without feeling stung too much, but I'd wager your opponent has to do the same.

Desolators either need a complete rewrite or need to go up around 50%.

nekooni wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

nekooni wrote:
Or the points system could be designed in a way not to feth over everyone that didn't pimp out their squads and rides.

If people have a bunch of models with no upgrades then it would seem the old system wasn't working very well.

I imagine the vast majority of people here likely have a collection broad enough to accommodate these issues.

This is giving me "dont you guys have phones?!" vibes, to be honest.

The old system allowed units with and without upgrades to be viable choice, and the new one does not.

I have close to 20k pts of Salamanders, and quite a few models are now basically unusable. Sure, i can "accommodate", but thats not the average collection size, and the new system benches a ton of my models for absolutely no good reason. Thats a failure of the new system, not the old one.

I obviously can't speak to anyone's collection, but I think people over emphasize putting minor upgrades in units that don't make use of them often and worrying about paying for that cost. The Devastator sarge can take a bunch of stuff, but you definitely aren't paying for that at 120. And them not having those upgrades isn't going to significantly change your game. If you're aiming for top tables at LVO then maybe you'll need them, but I suspect no one here has such ambitions.

I take issue with the term 'viable choice'. There were very clear non-viable options, which is why there's so many potential naked squads. You certainly had choices, but when the same choice keeps getting made over and over again...is it really a choice?

In 8th edition this forum went back and forth a ton about Guardsmen. We did a bunch of efficiency calculations and we compared them to what marines could do at the time. I recall Kan being stalwart on people being crazy that IS were too good for their points. And now that I reflect on it they may have been correct ( but perhaps not in approach ). IS are a wet noodle with just lasguns. They reason they got so much play is that orders made them super flexible for MMM and the whole Loyal 32 CP debacle.

What I'm working on is an app where you can plug in units and weapons and then it will give a sweeping calculation of their performance under all variety of conditions and a large array of targets. There's still a lot of work to go ( including a UI ), but this gives the general sense of what that looks like. Right now it gives an average number of kills over 10,000 rounds.

** NOTE : these figures aren't fully QA'd so this is just an example ( lethal hits seem wonky and the sarge's bolter seems to be overperforming a little, too ) ***

In this particular scenario Intercessors do 0.57 and 0.45 ( 1.02 ) into Marines for 95 points. IS do 0.5, 0.22, and 0.12 ( 0.84 ) on the move and at long for 65. Their max is 0.51 + 0.42 + 0.16 ( 1.09 ), but it'd be quite hard to get a full squad standing still in RF range. All conditions with cover in effect. If all cases the upgrades contributed a large part to the efficiency of that unit and it's intended effect on the battlefield.

So marines are 20% efficient into MEQ and IS are 25%. Now take out those upgrades and their effectiveness plummets. So how do you point IS without an upgrade? They're not surviving much, which is why they can be resurrected. Without an upgrade their efficiency is ~10%. Dropping their cost according to the new efficiency would make then 25 points. 35 points would get them to 20%. Is that GL worth 30? Or 5 or 10?

Obviously there's a lot more to it than that, but that's the core of what I'm driving at.

Is a Tactical Squad with 2 Grav Guns equal to a Tactical Squad with 1 Grav Gun and 1 Grav Cannon, yes or no?

Tyel wrote:
Desolators either need a complete rewrite or need to go up around 50%.

Rewrite would be nice. They're just too many dice full stop. They'll probably get hit by the indirect nerf ( whatever that is ) so hopefully they'll be harder to use tucked in a corner.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
GW writing rules and then immediately making those rules pointless as everything ignores them is an iconic duo at this point.

At least we didn't have to wait for codexes this time!

 vict0988 wrote:

ccs wrote:

nekooni wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

nekooni wrote:
Or the points system could be designed in a way not to feth over everyone that didn't pimp out their squads and rides.

If people have a bunch of models with no upgrades then it would seem the old system wasn't working very well.

I imagine the vast majority of people here likely have a collection broad enough to accommodate these issues.

This is giving me "dont you guys have phones?!" vibes, to be honest.

The old system allowed units with and without upgrades to be viable choice, and the new one does not.

I have close to 20k pts of Salamanders, and quite a few models are now basically unusable. Sure, i can "accommodate", but thats not the average collection size, and the new system benches a ton of my models for absolutely no good reason. Thats a failure of the new system, not the old one.

They're still a viable choice, it's a decision you can come to and legally field them with rules. If you mean your unit of bolters and nothing else isn't competitively viable, then yeah sure.

I'm being pedantic but there's some people who will literally think their units aren't field able now because of the changes, which isn't true.

"not being able to field them" is clearly not what I meant by writing "viable",

Please show us doubters one of these units you have that you claim aren't viable now.

Then tell us the last time it was viable & why.

18 naked Wraiths. 6 Canoptek Spyders missing guns. 25 Tomb Blades missing shields. They were all viable 2 weeks ago.

Ok, 18 naked wraiths would be 3 units of Wraiths... but whatever.

SO:
●in 9th you could take 6 wraiths with no upgrades for 210 pts.
●here in 10th those same 6 wraiths with or without any upgrades costs you 220 pts.

Tell me how an increase of 1.6666666667 pts per wraith suddenly rendered them non-viable if you choose to forgo any upgrsdes.

ccs wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

ccs wrote:

nekooni wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

nekooni wrote:
Or the points system could be designed in a way not to feth over everyone that didn't pimp out their squads and rides.

If people have a bunch of models with no upgrades then it would seem the old system wasn't working very well.

I imagine the vast majority of people here likely have a collection broad enough to accommodate these issues.

This is giving me "dont you guys have phones?!" vibes, to be honest.

The old system allowed units with and without upgrades to be viable choice, and the new one does not.

I have close to 20k pts of Salamanders, and quite a few models are now basically unusable. Sure, i can "accommodate", but thats not the average collection size, and the new system benches a ton of my models for absolutely no good reason. Thats a failure of the new system, not the old one.

They're still a viable choice, it's a decision you can come to and legally field them with rules. If you mean your unit of bolters and nothing else isn't competitively viable, then yeah sure.

I'm being pedantic but there's some people who will literally think their units aren't field able now because of the changes, which isn't true.

"not being able to field them" is clearly not what I meant by writing "viable",

Please show us doubters one of these units you have that you claim aren't viable now.

Then tell us the last time it was viable & why.

18 naked Wraiths. 6 Canoptek Spyders missing guns. 25 Tomb Blades missing shields. They were all viable 2 weeks ago.

Ok, 18 naked wraiths would be 3 units of Wraiths... but whatever.

SO:
●in 9th you could take 6 wraiths with no upgrades for 210 pts.
●here in 10th those same 6 wraiths with or without any upgrades costs you 220 pts.

Tell me how an increase of 1.6666666667 pts per wraith suddenly rendered them non-viable if you choose to forgo any upgrsdes.

You could just say you don't know what the guns for Wraiths do and that would've been less embarrassing than your current post. The guns that Wraiths have access to are NOT inconsequential.

Also lol 9th and 10th are different games, simply comparing points between the two of them doesn't provide any insights of value.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Also lol 9th and 10th are different games, simply comparing points between the two of them is really stupid ccs

bs.
10th is an evolution of 9th. While some #s have shifted & many units have gained bespoke rules?
Things are not so different that your using your wraiths (with or without upgrades - especially without upgrades) any differently than you were two weeks ago.
Or your SMs, etc etc etc.


So how did that 6 strong wraith unit go from viable to unviable?

ccs wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Also lol 9th and 10th are different games, simply comparing points between the two of them is really stupid ccs

bs.
10th is an evolution of 9th. While some #s have shifted & many units have gained bespoke rules?
Things are not so different that your using your wraiths (with or without upgrades - especially without upgrades) any differently than you were two weeks ago.
Or your SMs, etc etc etc.


So how did that 6 strong wraith unit go from viable to unviable?

Lost a point of AP on both melee weapons.
Lost Fallback and Shoot/Charge.
Lost various stratagems that could help, like adding AP or attacks, Fight on Death, +1 Strength...
Went up in points despite all that.

ccs wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Also lol 9th and 10th are different games, simply comparing points between the two of them is really stupid ccs

bs.
10th is an evolution of 9th. While some #s have shifted & many units have gained bespoke rules?
Things are not so different that your using your wraiths (with or without upgrades - especially without upgrades) any differently than you were two weeks ago.
Or your SMs, etc etc etc.


So how did that 6 strong wraith unit go from viable to unviable?

Seeing as you ignored my post, do you know what guns the Wraiths have access to, yes or no?

ccs wrote:
So how did that 6 strong wraith unit go from viable to unviable?

Just going with the old point values for argument's sake... every unit of 6 Wraiths is "giving up" 50 points in upgrades. So a theoretical opponent with 3 units of 6 Wraiths each with the most expensive upgrade plays with +150 points for these units alone.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Lost a point of AP on both melee weapons.
Lost Fallback and Shoot/Charge.
Lost various stratagems that could help, like adding AP or attacks, Fight on Death, +1 Strength...
Went up in points despite all that.

Also picked up T6 and MW moving over units.
Particle Caster gained a shot, DW, and BS2 ( up from BS4 ).
Beamer lost Assault.
I also think reanimate is useful on them? Not sure haven't tried them out yet, but it was near impossible to reanimate them before.

Strats weren't really baked in before.

Definitely a unit that got quite a few changes though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

a_typical_hero wrote:
Just going with the old point values for argument's sake... every unit of 6 Wraiths is "giving up" 50 points in upgrades. So a theoretical opponent with 3 units of 6 Wraiths each with the most expensive upgrade plays with +150 points for these units alone.

Wraiths are certainly not something you want to run without the gun - especially if you're maxing them. I never glued guns on mine, because magnetizing those was near impossible. I'm not gluing anything on until I see where the point system goes and I'll just run counts as with all the same ( except for the guys I have with coils ).

ccs wrote:
10th is an evolution of 9th.

and 9th is an evolution of 3rd, so we can compare units from 3rd and 10th

10th is a new game, and not just an evolution, same as 8th was a new game and 3rd
if 7th was a new game or an evolution or not is debatable, but no this is not a continuous series of upgrades but we are looking at 4 very different versions of 40k over those 10 Editions that you cannot compare 1:1

The issue surely is whether Wraith pistols were worth 10 points a model or whatever. If you didn't take them because no, you can't claim to be "out" of that many points.

But seriously don't get this Wysiwyg or death view on units most people don't know have options. Imperials suffer because a flamer isn't a lascannon. Xenos can basically do whatever and have people nod along.

In 8th GW were far more willing to use values other than multiples of 5, that's why the wargear options in 9th were borked.

ccs wrote:
●in 9th you could take 6 wraiths with no upgrades for 210 pts.
●here in 10th those same 6 wraiths with or without any upgrades costs you 220 pts.

Tell me how an increase of 1.6666666667 pts per wraith suddenly rendered them non-viable if you choose to forgo any upgrsdes.

By your logic they're casually viable, but the ones with particle casters are going to take over tournaments, because for 1,67 pts they have gained a weapon that will get at least 5 pts back if it shoots once.

Tyel wrote:
The issue surely is whether Wraith pistols were worth 10 points a model or whatever. If you didn't take them because no, you can't claim to be "out" of that many points.

But seriously don't get this Wysiwyg or death view on units most people don't know have options. Imperials suffer because a flamer isn't a lascannon. Xenos can basically do whatever and have people nod along.

vict0988 says that their Wraiths are without upgrades. If an opponent brings the same units with upgrades, there is an estimated difference of 150pts. The fact that there isn't a difference in point costs in the actual game is the core of the issue here.

ccs wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Also lol 9th and 10th are different games, simply comparing points between the two of them is really stupid ccs

bs.
10th is an evolution of 9th. While some #s have shifted & many units have gained bespoke rules?
Things are not so different that your using your wraiths (with or without upgrades - especially without upgrades) any differently than you were two weeks ago.
Or your SMs, etc etc etc.


So how did that 6 strong wraith unit go from viable to unviable?

Even if the cost increase is a pittance, the new cost is significantly lower than what a fully-equipped squad of Wraiths cost in 9th. So the most charitable thing you can say about naked Wraith is that they got a small nerf rather than the significant buff given to kitted-out Wraiths. If the naked Wraiths are still worthwhile at the new points level, then the fully-equipped ones are overpowered.

I mean, the points cost cannot simultaneously be an accurate representation of value for both a naked and a fully-geared-out squad unless the options are so minor as to be irrelevant- and this is not one of those cases.

 Trickstick wrote:
So in the latest Metawatch they said: "...indirect fire is perhaps too proliferated at its current point cost."

So there is a possible increase in points costs for indirect weapons coming. However, how does this work for a unit like field ordnance batteries? Only 1 of the 3 weapon options has indirect. They don't have the proper points mechanism in place to balance a unit when some of the weapons need increasing, and some don't.

Why should a heavy lascannon go up in points because a bombast field gun needs to?

I have said it before, I will say it again and again:
Mortars should not be fieldable outside of Heavy Weapon Squads.

That's a big portion of this "proliferation".

I don’t think Mortars are an issue at the moment.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I don’t think Mortars are an issue at the moment.

Then what's this "proliferation of indirect fire" nonsense? There's not that many armies that can field baseline units with indirect fire weapons.

An Astra Militarum army can contain 6 Infantry Squads with 12 Mortars (Blast, Heavy, Indirect Fire, 36", A d6, BS 5+, S 5, AP 0, D 1) for 780 Points.

A Space Marine army can contain 3 Desolation Squads with 30 Castellen Launchers (Blast, Indirect Fire, 36", A d3, BS 3+, S 4, AP 0, D 1) and 3 Vengor Launchers (Blast, Indirect Fire, 48", A d6, BS 2+, S 7, AP -1, D 2) that Ignore the -1 Hit for Indirect Fire if they Remain Stationary for 720 Points.

An Aeldari Army can contain 3 D-Cannon Support Weapons (Blast, Devastating Wounds, Heavy, Indirect Fire, 24", A d3, BS 3+, S 16, AP -4, D d6+2) for 255 points. Aeldari have Fate Dice that make a 6 to Wound turn that d6+2 damage to one model into d6+2 Mortal Wounds to a unit.

I think we can tell that Mortars in Infantry Squads are not the Indirect Fire problem people are speaking about.

Well mortars are not where the Guard indirect power really lies. It is the scout sentinel combining with basilisks, manticores, earthshakers, and medusas.

 Trickstick wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
The problem with a lot of indirect fire isn't just the points. It's the sheer number of them that ignore the indirect penalties that GW introduced late on in 9th and continue to use in 10th. It's idiotic to me that they carried those restrictions forward, then gave the majority of indirect fire weapons ways around it.

I like some methods, like scout sentinels. An 18" spotting unit to negate indirect penalties has some counterplay.

And it helps in the suspension of disbelief. You feel like your models are working together as a team/Army fighting together when one of them makes a different one better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Trickstick wrote:
Well mortars are not where the Guard indirect power really lies. It is the scout sentinel combining with basilisks, manticores, earthshakers, and medusas.

Which is a lot of units, but that's also likely why they're not looking there. Its a lot of units. Even if you hit the rule of 3 with 3 out of the 4 there - 9 Indirect Fire units with an average half dozen or so shots per - Meh. Its a lot, but its also a lot of your army, and isn't a significant "pause". Desolation Squads are going to get hammered for two reasons. People who hate Marines will whine about them, and they have one really stupid design flaw. Rolling a 10D3 and potentially 10D6 on top of that just to determine how many attacks they have - or worse 9D3, 10D6+10, 1D6 hits that can then reroll to hit, and reroll to wound. Most people probably wouldn't care about the rerolls, but two sets of PRE-ROLLS will drive just about anyone nuts. Give em fixed shots per model and they'll get a lot less anoying. 2 Castellan Shots (Average of D3) and 1 Krak Muniution or 3/4 Frag Munition (change the name for consistency preservation, but basically same statline just fixed average shots) No unit should have to roll 10 let alone 20 dice to find out how many times 10 models will shoot


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
The problem with a lot of indirect fire isn't just the points. It's the sheer number of them that ignore the indirect penalties that GW introduced late on in 9th and continue to use in 10th. It's idiotic to me that they carried those restrictions forward, then gave the majority of indirect fire weapons ways around it.

Desolation Marines are especially egregious because of Indirect Fire on large squads, with Blast so bucket of dice, then they get mitigation for Indirect Fire and then their faction skills and character skills on top of that for lots of rerolls. It's a degenerate combo all in all.

Maybe swap them to fixed units of 5 as a possible part solution?

Nah, just take the Pre-Rolls out. Aside from the people who just hate Marines, its the Pre-Rolls. Roll 9D3. Now roll 1D6. Now roll 10D6 more. Now roll that results for your attacks to generate hits...

Rolling a Large Bucket of Dice - especially from a one-off unit - isn't that big of a deal. Orks do it for all their big blocks of Boyz. Each block of 20 boys are going to drop 40ish dice. The likely one, maybe two blocks of Desolation Marines are going to drop 30-60ish for 10 guys - Except that's after they dropped 2 fistfuls of 10 dice to get to the 30/60 number.

You'd run into similar frustration from Killa Kans - especially if you could take 10 of em in a unit. First roll 10D3, now roll a different 10D3, and roll 10D6. Now roll 110 or so dice to hit. Even at the current top Unit Size of 6, you're looking at 6D3, a differend 6D3, and 6D6 to then roll the 63 or so result dice to hit.