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.

Are there any? I've not seen any mentioned in any reviews. If not, where would the points for the new units be found. If they are, will they be adjusting points values of units from the index? The internet seems to have concluded that the stormraven is far too strong for its points, so it'd be nice to see them adjust it now they have feedback.

They reduced the cost of inceptors by 15 pts, for one.

sossen wrote:
They reduced the cost of inceptors by 15 pts, for one.

that's pretty awesome, brings em back, amusingly to around what they where in the dark imperium box. heh.

Hmm I think the storm raven is fine. I don't Field them but have played against them about every other game and never had a problem.

We keep seeing those former OP tau and Eldar lists not being as reliable as they were in 7th so those players are now complaining about just about anything. I play foot Marines I think the game is a lot more balanced now.

So they ARE in the book then? That's definitely a positive if so. From what I'd heard inceptors were pretty bad, so that's a good move on their part at least.

And stormravens are being spammed by every second list in the ETC. I'm sure playing against one is fine (like playing against one riptide was fine in the last edition). When they're spammed and wipe the table with their opponents it shows they're a bit good.

Then don't play with a person who spams them... those lists are extremely competitive lists. Other armies are capable of spamming units also. Looking at you Orks, Nids, and Guard. For fun I played an Ork competitive list and Guard competitive list and got crushed. This edition focuses on bodies. I play friendly games mostly and think the game is fairly balanced.

Those competitive players who are used to 7th armies being the bee's knees had a rude awakening with 8th and I see those former Tau and Eldar players complaining a lot... especially how Nids and Orks are so competitive again. I've seen Ork armies move/advance/waghhh/and charge over half their army on turn 1 and slaughter this poor Tau army and then he complained. I saw a Eldar player get tabled by a SM army who brought 1 storm raven and then he complained the storm raven was OP... people will always complain.

I know other units have undercosted units. It'd be nice if they rebalanced them when they get round to them. I'm fully aware that my guard should get a hefty points increase on several units to bring them into line with most other armies.

I'm just hoping they rebalance units to make the game better as a whole - buffing units/armies that need it and nerfing ones that are far ahead of the power curve. The most obvious ones that I can think of in the SM codex are stormravens, though Guilliman and razorbacks both seem fairly strong for their points too.

Errr, no, guard don't really need a points increase.

One could argue... 400 conscripts plus additional units in a 2000 point list is a little ridiculous. But you proved my point to you they are okay. To me ravens are okay but someone will always complain.

usmcmidn wrote:
One could argue... 400 conscripts plus additional units in a 2000 point list is a little ridiculous. But you proved my point to you they are okay. To me ravens are okay but someone will always complain.

The only thing making conscripts more powerful than intended is synergy with orders. Nerfing their cost up to be equal in cost to guardsmen would mean there's little to no reason to take them over guardsmen. Nerfing the cost of Guardsmen up to compensate would hurt Guard an incredible amount, and force Guard players to rely even more upon the arguably even more broken Tempestus squads.

So basically, it's the old problem. There's a screw that needs tightening. Do you pick up the screwdriver, or the battleaxe?

And the same problem lies with the Stormraven.

C'mon guys, at least wait till the second page to start derailing.

BrianDavion wrote:

sossen wrote:
They reduced the cost of inceptors by 15 pts, for one.

that's pretty awesome, brings em back, amusingly to around what they where in the dark imperium box. heh.

I expect we will see this with a lot of the primaris stuff from DI and the other sets, as it looks like most of the testing for those boxes was self contained. This is one of the first times I've ever seen new GW models and units be almost universally overcosted, even the stuff that's just new models for old units like plague marines suffered from this.

 Melissia wrote:

usmcmidn wrote:
One could argue... 400 conscripts plus additional units in a 2000 point list is a little ridiculous. But you proved my point to you they are okay. To me ravens are okay but someone will always complain.

The only thing making conscripts more powerful than intended is synergy with orders. Nerfing their cost up to be equal in cost to guardsmen would mean there's little to no reason to take them over guardsmen. Nerfing the cost of Guardsmen up to compensate would hurt Guard an incredible amount, and force Guard players to rely even more upon the arguably even more broken Tempestus squads.

So basically, it's the old problem. There's a screw that needs tightening. Do you pick up the screwdriver, or the battleaxe?

And the same problem lies with the Stormraven.

Agreed, you can say this about other units in the game as well. It's the nature of the beast. I rarely play competitive games and I play more for fun. If I get tabled, hey I got to go out and play a fun game of 40k with friends. I do know some who take the game to seriously trying to break rules and armies, but again it's the nature of the beast. I say leave it alone for now.

No army needs point increases or points decreases. Some units in some armies need rebalances. Thats how you make a balanced game. You don't stop tweaking the units that are on top and at the bottom until a point where they are all near the middle.

usmcmidn wrote:
Then don't play with a person who spams them... those lists are extremely competitive lists. Other armies are capable of spamming units also. Looking at you Orks, Nids, and Guard. For fun I played an Ork competitive list and Guard competitive list and got crushed. This edition focuses on bodies. I play friendly games mostly and think the game is fairly balanced.

Those competitive players who are used to 7th armies being the bee's knees had a rude awakening with 8th and I see those former Tau and Eldar players complaining a lot... especially how Nids and Orks are so competitive again. I've seen Ork armies move/advance/waghhh/and charge over half their army on turn 1 and slaughter this poor Tau army and then he complained. I saw a Eldar player get tabled by a SM army who brought 1 storm raven and then he complained the storm raven was OP... people will always complain.

For those of us who like competitive tournament play, "don't play with that guy" is not an option.

In addition, the 6 Stormraven 2k list is waaaaaay different than what you are describing. Run the math on it's alpha strike a bit.

That said, I'm not for nerfs yet. We're still trying to make a meta.

On-topic: do we know of any point changes to Roubute?

Yeah, part of the problem is we are about to watch the the minimal meta we have get upset with each new codex, even without points being adjusted due to feedback. This next year will have too many rapid fire changes for that tbh.

 Galas wrote:
No army needs point increases or points decreases. Some units in some armies need rebalances. Thats how you make a balanced game. You don't stop tweaking the units that are on top and at the bottom until a point where they are all near the middle.

Well... Yes and No.
Balance is achieved thru doing both.
Merely always tweaking rules won't result in a balanced game
Merely always tweaking costs won't result in a balanced game

You need..................... a balance of both

 Melissia wrote:

usmcmidn wrote:
One could argue... 400 conscripts plus additional units in a 2000 point list is a little ridiculous. But you proved my point to you they are okay. To me ravens are okay but someone will always complain.

The only thing making conscripts more powerful than intended is synergy with orders. Nerfing their cost up to be equal in cost to guardsmen would mean there's little to no reason to take them over guardsmen. Nerfing the cost of Guardsmen up to compensate would hurt Guard an incredible amount, and force Guard players to rely even more upon the arguably even more broken Tempestus squads.

So basically, it's the old problem. There's a screw that needs tightening. Do you pick up the screwdriver, or the battleaxe?

And the same problem lies with the Stormraven.

Commissars are the problem, not Conscripts. Make Commissars not work with conscripts and you solve the problem.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

usmcmidn wrote:
One could argue... 400 conscripts plus additional units in a 2000 point list is a little ridiculous. But you proved my point to you they are okay. To me ravens are okay but someone will always complain.

The only thing making conscripts more powerful than intended is synergy with orders. Nerfing their cost up to be equal in cost to guardsmen would mean there's little to no reason to take them over guardsmen. Nerfing the cost of Guardsmen up to compensate would hurt Guard an incredible amount, and force Guard players to rely even more upon the arguably even more broken Tempestus squads.

So basically, it's the old problem. There's a screw that needs tightening. Do you pick up the screwdriver, or the battleaxe?

And the same problem lies with the Stormraven.

Commissars are the problem, not Conscripts. Make Commissars not work with conscripts and you solve the problem.

I'm curious why they always succeed, I mean there's many known regiments that end up killing abusive Commissars on the field.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

usmcmidn wrote:
One could argue... 400 conscripts plus additional units in a 2000 point list is a little ridiculous. But you proved my point to you they are okay. To me ravens are okay but someone will always complain.

The only thing making conscripts more powerful than intended is synergy with orders. Nerfing their cost up to be equal in cost to guardsmen would mean there's little to no reason to take them over guardsmen. Nerfing the cost of Guardsmen up to compensate would hurt Guard an incredible amount, and force Guard players to rely even more upon the arguably even more broken Tempestus squads.

So basically, it's the old problem. There's a screw that needs tightening. Do you pick up the screwdriver, or the battleaxe?

And the same problem lies with the Stormraven.

Commissars are the problem, not Conscripts. Make Commissars not work with conscripts and you solve the problem.

I'm curious why they always succeed, I mean there's many known regiments that end up killing abusive Commissars on the field.

that'd be an intreasting rule, "Make a LDR check, if you fail the comissair takes 1 mortal wound"?

 DoomMouse wrote:
When they're spammed and wipe the table with their opponents it shows they're a bit good.

Alternatively, it may show that one guy won a GT by spamming them, the list got internet famous and now everyone wants to try it.

Don't be alarmed by seeing the same lists over and over in GTs. Be alarmed when you see the same list WINNING in GTs over and over again.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 DoomMouse wrote:
When they're spammed and wipe the table with their opponents it shows they're a bit good.

Alternatively, it may show that one guy won a GT by spamming them, the list got internet famous and now everyone wants to try it.

Don't be alarmed by seeing the same lists over and over in GTs. Be alarmed when you see the same list WINNING in GTs over and over again.

Indeed, some lists can be winners purely by virtue of suprise factor, but once everyone is ready for it can shut it down fast and easy

I read on another forum Hellblasters were reduced by 4 power so I'm assuming their base cost went down. If so I'm thinking a squad of 10 in a new repulsor will be a good heavy hitter unit

Even 2 storm ravens are crazy OP. They can fire 3 heavy weapons, one with 72" range and 3 damage, and storm bolters at full BS will zooming across the table with -1 to hit. 2 of them means 4 multi melta, 4 missiles, 24 ass cannon and 24-48 bolter shots before you even move (assuming alpha strike). All on a 3+. With 14 wounds (meaning an average of 5 las cannon WOUNDS to kill one).

They are dramatically undercosted. They hit like a superheavy.

 Talamare wrote:

 Galas wrote:
No army needs point increases or points decreases. Some units in some armies need rebalances. Thats how you make a balanced game. You don't stop tweaking the units that are on top and at the bottom until a point where they are all near the middle.

Well... Yes and No.
Balance is achieved thru doing both.
Merely always tweaking rules won't result in a balanced game
Merely always tweaking costs won't result in a balanced game

You need..................... a balance of both

I agree. Most of the imbalance cases are because a unit is undercosted. Or overcosted. But other times is about rules.
For example, you can make Dreadnoughts very OP making them a 20 point model with their 7th stats. But that model isn't supposed to be that. 100-200 points for a Walking machine of war is good. They just needed better rules to reflect that cost.

Isn't that why terminators got their invulnerable save back in the day? There was a little chapter approved article I remember, about how terminators seemed to be the right cost for what you'd expect, by were to easy to kill with all the ways to ignore armor. So they gave them an invulnerable save.

sossen wrote:
They reduced the cost of inceptors by 15 pts, for one.

Per model or per squad? Because either is good by me, but I think they could go down by 15 pts per model and still be appropriately priced.

Landspeeders/storms are 10 pts cheaper base.
Whirlwinds are 15pts cheaper base.
No point change on flyers as far as I can remember (may be wrong about the stormraven weapons).
Scout bikers, bikers and attack bikes all got a little cheaper.

Not sure if company vets can take bikes now? Not sure I saw an entry for them.

 Flood wrote:
Landspeeders/storms are 10 pts cheaper base.
Whirlwinds are 15pts cheaper base.
No point change on flyers as far as I can remember (may be wrong about the stormraven weapons).
Scout bikers, bikers and attack bikes all got a little cheaper.

Not sure if company vets can take bikes now? Not sure I saw an entry for them.

Those sound like good changes if they also apply to DA/BA/SW/etc. versions as well.

 Flood wrote:
Landspeeders/storms are 10 pts cheaper base.
Whirlwinds are 15pts cheaper base.
No point change on flyers as far as I can remember (may be wrong about the stormraven weapons).
Scout bikers, bikers and attack bikes all got a little cheaper.

Not sure if company vets can take bikes now? Not sure I saw an entry for them.

Got to free up points in those existing collections so you will buy the new primaris crap

Trouble is, how willing will GW be to change points now that they have these big $50 codexes out? Doubt they will make any changes to the codex, which is kinda pointless. Didn't even have the indexes out for a few months to get results back on games played. Same 'ole, same 'ole...it will be codex power creep per usual, and everyone will soak it up.