MinscS2 wrote:
I'm more inclined to give my IG another go, but the core problem remains (playing around objectves), and probably won't be fixed until they get a new codex.

I don't fault GW for not being able to fix them with just some bandaid-slates and pointadjustments though.

 Afrodactyl wrote:
Compared to the kicking Orks took a little while back, we've done very well over the last two announcements.

It could be better, but it's a big step toward getting us out of low WR% hell.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I play Daemons, so…

 Nazrak wrote:
I'm not overly fussy about "competitiveness" or whatever, but for my Necrons I'm going to bother paying attention to Command Protocols for the first time,

 Daedalus81 wrote:
The new monolith is pretty similar in dimensions to the old one so I would think Veil is likely still no go there.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Daemons are potentially the only red headed step child. GSC were poor into Nids and Harlies, but great into Elves and ok into Tau.

Pure daemons were also rough with the top 3, but did well into Elves and really well into other lower tier armies. It gets muddy when you throw in soup. It could be that with secondaries the army will be survivable with WR currently in the 43%ish bracket.

With the nerfs to the top they could be "fine", but not great.

 Blndmage wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
The new monolith is pretty similar in dimensions to the old one so I would think Veil is likely still no go there.

Still, it doesn't cost me anything to check when I get home.

There's a rare rules section that covers this, you can do it!

ccs wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
The new monolith is pretty similar in dimensions to the old one so I would think Veil is likely still no go there.

Still, it doesn't cost me anything to check when I get home.

There's a rare rules section that covers this, you can do it!

I don't think you understand what's being discussed/joked about.
If the rule you're alluding to is the one concerning large models disembarking? No, it will not work. Because there is no disembarking going on when using a VoD.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Daemons are potentially the only red headed step child. GSC were poor into Nids and Harlies, but great into Elves and ok into Tau.

Pure daemons were also rough with the top 3, but did well into Elves and really well into other lower tier armies. It gets muddy when you throw in soup. It could be that with secondaries the army will be survivable with WR currently in the 43%ish bracket.

With the nerfs to the top they could be "fine", but not great.

Yeah right, after Nephilim just gutted their builds more than any other faction on top of not giving them a single buff to a codex unit I'm sure they'll be doing "okay".

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Void__Dragon wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Daemons are potentially the only red headed step child. GSC were poor into Nids and Harlies, but great into Elves and ok into Tau.

Pure daemons were also rough with the top 3, but did well into Elves and really well into other lower tier armies. It gets muddy when you throw in soup. It could be that with secondaries the army will be survivable with WR currently in the 43%ish bracket.

With the nerfs to the top they could be "fine", but not great.

Yeah right, after Nephilim just gutted their builds more than any other faction on top of not giving them a single buff to a codex unit I'm sure they'll be doing "okay".

There's a person from almost every faction saying that they were totally screwed over by the CP changes, so...you'll have to forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical of the doomposting.

 ph34r wrote:
So, does this mean Armageddon Steel Legion vehicles count AP -2 as AP 0 because armor of contempt means AP -2 is treated as AP -1 and the doctrine Armageddon: Industrial Efficiency AP -1 is treated as AP 0?

 ph34r wrote:
So, does this mean Armageddon Steel Legion vehicles count AP -2 as AP 0 because armor of contempt means AP -2 is treated as AP -1 and the doctrine Armageddon: Industrial Efficiency AP -1 is treated as AP 0?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Lol rip Armageddon

 Blndmage wrote:

ccs wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
The new monolith is pretty similar in dimensions to the old one so I would think Veil is likely still no go there.

Still, it doesn't cost me anything to check when I get home.

There's a rare rules section that covers this, you can do it!

I don't think you understand what's being discussed/joked about.
If the rule you're alluding to is the one concerning large models disembarking? No, it will not work. Because there is no disembarking going on when using a VoD.

There's a rule about setting up large models and them not being able to shoot and basically do much aside from abilities for the turn.

nekooni wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Lol rip Armageddon

Worst tanks of the Imperial Guard now - not sure how they missed that, though

 Daedalus81 wrote:


There's a person from almost every faction saying that they were totally screwed over by the CP changes, so...you'll have to forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical of the doomposting.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


There's a person from almost every faction saying that they were totally screwed over by the CP changes, so...you'll have to forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical of the doomposting.

You'd have to be on some next-level GW-shilling delusion to not think an army that spent at minimum like five CP before Nephilim won't be disproportionately impacted by a ruleset that cuts starting CP in half and forces you to pay a CP for your first WT and Relic. There's playing devil's advocate and then there's accusing people concerned that their already bad nearly monobuild army that didn't get a single buff in the balance dataslate or points update got further nerfed by Nephilim are "doomposting".

Try to be objective for once in your life and admit that Daemons players (and GSC players tbh) have every right to be pissed off about how their army is being treated.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Time will tell.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Time will tell.

Just because you phrase it differently doesn't mean you aren't just saying "Wait and see".

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And remember kids: Contempt will make your armour stronger, unless you have a shield. Shields are the natural enemy of contempt!

 Ordana wrote:
Daemon got screwed but atleast they still have a codex coming.
GW just completely forgot GSC existed.

Again.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And remember kids: Contempt will make your armour stronger, unless you have a shield. Shields are the natural enemy of contempt!

 Daedalus81 wrote:


Objective. "GW-shilling delusion". No irony there.
Of all the people not being objective I would imagine it's the ones concerned about their personal army.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Everyone is under the same guidelines and GSC were not bottom of the barrel win rates like Admech. If GSC loses some tools and other armies lose some tools and also take a bunch of nerfs...

Slipspace wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Everyone is under the same guidelines and GSC were not bottom of the barrel win rates like Admech. If GSC loses some tools and other armies lose some tools and also take a bunch of nerfs...

All this does is highlight why blanket changes in the middle of an edition are a bad idea. Most armies use CP in a fairly similar way. They maybe buy an extra detachment and take some number of WLTs and relics. All those armies are affected in roughly similar ways by this change and all will have to adapt in similar ways. That's why I'm sceptical of people complaining too much about - for example - their SM armies being nerfed as they can no longer take 3 relics and 4 WLT.

Daemons are different. Their list building was centred around using CPs to buff their army pre-game. Not in the way that it's nice to be able to have a Selfless Healer Apothecary and an Imperium's Sword Captain, while also regenerating CPs with you Adept of the Codex in a SM army. No, Daemons need their extra detachments if they want to run anything other than mono-god, otherwise they lose their sub-faction bonus. The Greater Daemons have been designed with the Exalted upgrade in mind. We know this because prior to getting it Greater Daemons were almost never taken and now they're the lynchpin of Daemon armies. GW decided to make that cost CP because at the time that was actually a fairly reasonable thing to do. Now it makes the army borderline unplayable.

Again, this isn't a case of "maybe you need to adapt and not run multiple detachments". It literally runs counter to how the army was designed. GW could have solved this in the points update and dataslate by making the Exalted upgrade cost points instead of CP and/or altering how mixed god armies work. They chose not to, probably because they don't really seem to think through their changes properly - as we see from the Steel Legion conversation above.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They reversed one of the most fluffy Tyranid rules ever devised, and made is so that if our Warlord is killed we lose one of our armies key army wide abilities.

Jarms48 wrote:
Still find it funny they dropped Gretchins. Gretchins were terrible, but just dropping them does promote Ork players to take Boys. They’ll just take more Gretchin to save more points on tax.

 Karhedron wrote:
Eldar got away with only a light tap from the nerf bat. Hail of Doom was becoming a default choice so I can see the reason for making this your only selection. The price increases for the HQs seem unnecessary but at least they are not extortionate.

Marines got around 10% off most of their vehicles. Combined with AoC, this might be enough to make 2+ save tanks like the Vindicator viable (not sure about Land Raiders). While not power-houses. They are decent for their points and actually require a bit more effort now on the part of the opponent to remove.

Sanguinary Guard and Death Company point went down 2ppm so my Blood Angels have an extra 20 points to spend on something.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Everyone is under the same guidelines and GSC were not bottom of the barrel win rates like Admech. If GSC loses some tools and other armies lose some tools and also take a bunch of nerfs...

Maybe you'll be right. Time will tell.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Time will tell.

Just because you phrase it differently doesn't mean you aren't just saying "Wait and see".

 Da-Rock wrote:
Having purchased Rogue Trader back in 1985 and seeing the game grow to 9th edition over the many years, I am still blown away by Human Nature.....

* GW doesn't do anything, they are not flexible, can't make changes when chages are needed....I'm gonna quit this is so stupid.

* GW shouldn't make changes like this, it was better the old way, I'm gonna quit.

This is literally the flow of fans for decades.

Slipspace wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Everyone is under the same guidelines and GSC were not bottom of the barrel win rates like Admech. If GSC loses some tools and other armies lose some tools and also take a bunch of nerfs...

All this does is highlight why blanket changes in the middle of an edition are a bad idea. Most armies use CP in a fairly similar way. They maybe buy an extra detachment and take some number of WLTs and relics. All those armies are affected in roughly similar ways by this change and all will have to adapt in similar ways. That's why I'm sceptical of people complaining too much about - for example - their SM armies being nerfed as they can no longer take 3 relics and 4 WLT.

Daemons are different. Their list building was centred around using CPs to buff their army pre-game. Not in the way that it's nice to be able to have a Selfless Healer Apothecary and an Imperium's Sword Captain, while also regenerating CPs with you Adept of the Codex in a SM army. No, Daemons need their extra detachments if they want to run anything other than mono-god, otherwise they lose their sub-faction bonus. The Greater Daemons have been designed with the Exalted upgrade in mind. We know this because prior to getting it Greater Daemons were almost never taken and now they're the lynchpin of Daemon armies. GW decided to make that cost CP because at the time that was actually a fairly reasonable thing to do. Now it makes the army borderline unplayable.

Again, this isn't a case of "maybe you need to adapt and not run multiple detachments". It literally runs counter to how the army was designed. GW could have solved this in the points update and dataslate by making the Exalted upgrade cost points instead of CP and/or altering how mixed god armies work. They chose not to, probably because they don't really seem to think through their changes properly - as we see from the Steel Legion conversation above.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
The Steel Legion conversation is a non sequitur. There are models that do not have AoC that still benefit from the old trait - as crappy as it is in comparison.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I get that and certainly they could have reworded the entire trait so that only vehicle catch no reroll wounds, but it isn't something that they wanted to bother thinking about for a book that's long overdue. I don't imagine Steel Legion was high on the priority list to make sure the game was in a healthy state.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
You're talking about a faction that can take all T8 tanks for their army.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
You're talking about a faction that can take all T8 tanks for their army. Now with AoC and 2+ saves...I'm not entirely sure that giving no reroll wounds would be particularly balanced. "But but marines" - their vehicle choices have been worse in general than IG's and I don't see Salamanders running lots of tanks with any sort of synergy.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
You're talking about a faction that can take all T8 tanks for their army.

Sure, if you want to pretty much auto-lose because you have no screening elements to keep them from getting locked in combat by turn 2 at the latest and your single-model obsec units can't hold objectives against more than token opposition. LRBT spam has fundamental issues that make it a non-option no matter how many durability buffs it gets.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
You're talking about a faction that can take all T8 tanks for their army.

Sure, if you want to pretty much auto-lose because you have no screening elements to keep them from getting locked in combat by turn 2 at the latest and your single-model obsec units can't hold objectives against more than token opposition. LRBT spam has fundamental issues that make it a non-option no matter how many durability buffs it gets.

I wouldn't advise pure tanks, but you could get a lot of mileage out of 'By Lasgun and Bayonet' and 'Inflexible Command'. 'Boots on the Ground' is pretty straightforward also - keep a couple blocks out of LOS in your corners and stick a CC in a Chimera near a Command Squad. Have a backup Command Squad inside. Use LRBTs to sight block.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And remember kids: Contempt will make your armour stronger, unless you have a shield. Shields are the natural enemy of contempt!

Daedalus81 wrote:You're talking about a faction that can take all T8 tanks for their army.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Interestingly in the case of the Razorback, they specifically increased the cost of the Assault Cannon while dropping the price of the Razorback.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Given the fact that Custodes will have next to no starting CP now, I feel it's an overboard nerf to us, given how much pre-game CP we spend. Making several of our best strats once per game, really went overboard. But then I don't play competitive, so who cares. I just think nerfing us further was unwarranted.

 Blackie wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Interestingly in the case of the Razorback, they specifically increased the cost of the Assault Cannon while dropping the price of the Razorback.

Yeah, I noticed but I still bring twin assault cannons since I consider them much more useful than lascannons. For the models I have, at least.

 Blndmage wrote:
Good thing Legends exists.

 vipoid wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
Good thing Legends exists.

Ah yes, Legends. Where wargear goes to die.

 alextroy wrote:
It is GW's solution

It is certainly better than them saying models are no longer supported for play in any way. They have already made it clear they are not necessarily going to carry something forward just because it was at one point a legal option/model/unit.

 alextroy wrote:
It is GW's solution

It is certainly better than them saying models are no longer supported for play in any way. They have already made it clear they are not necessarily going to carry something forward just because it was at one point a legal option/model/unit.

 Dysartes wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
It is GW's solution

It is certainly better than them saying models are no longer supported for play in any way. They have already made it clear they are not necessarily going to carry something forward just because it was at one point a legal option/model/unit.

It would be a better solution if they were prepared to update the files when things get removed - it is two and a half years since anything was added to the non-FW Legends files, and a year and a half for the FW file, despite a number of units having disappeared from books in the meantime.

 Blndmage wrote:
And Legends are still valid for Matched Play.

 vipoid wrote:

Or, you know, they could just not remove those options from the codex in the first place.

The_Real_Chris wrote:


Nooooooo current model noooooooo rules. Conversions are not what we can sell!

The_Real_Chris wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Or, you know, they could just not remove those options from the codex in the first place.

Nooooooo current model noooooooo rules. Conversions are not what we can sell!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You get a Razorback-compatible TL-Donkey Cannon from the Crusader kit.

 Dysartes wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
It is GW's solution

It is certainly better than them saying models are no longer supported for play in any way. They have already made it clear they are not necessarily going to carry something forward just because it was at one point a legal option/model/unit.

It would be a better solution if they were prepared to update the files when things get removed - it is two and a half years since anything was added to the non-FW Legends files, and a year and a half for the FW file, despite a number of units having disappeared from books in the meantime.

ccs wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
It is GW's solution

It is certainly better than them saying models are no longer supported for play in any way. They have already made it clear they are not necessarily going to carry something forward just because it was at one point a legal option/model/unit.

It would be a better solution if they were prepared to update the files when things get removed - it is two and a half years since anything was added to the non-FW Legends files, and a year and a half for the FW file, despite a number of units having disappeared from books in the meantime.

I'm certain that my Red Gobbo on squig is more recent than 2.5 years ago.