Chapter Approved AM feedback

[Feral_80]

So, I think most of us agree that points adjustments by CA has resulted in some fair improvements, but also in some very odd and unwelcome changes for AM. The general feeling, as far as I can tell, is that some nerfs were both excessive and unnecessary. The current state is certainly no disaster, but seems to be creating some issues.

 

After discussing my proposal (here, post #60), the admins have encouraged us to independently prepare some feedback for GW. If this post gets enough contributors/subscribers, we can send it to GW as a collective effort, and see if it produces any result on the next faq/fix round. There is currently another similar effort going on in the GK forum, which seems a good sign.

 

What this thread is about:

• politely list the major balance issues *introduced* up to CA and that we as AM players perceive as unnecessary
• politely list the major balance issues *not addressed* up to CA and that we as AM players perceive as necessary

What this thread is *not* about:

• asking for codex desiderata, i.e. we want platoons back, we want vdr for LR, etc. Only balance issues dealing with the current stuff. I have highlighted a few problems, but tried to avoid suggesting solutions, as I believe it is more beneficial to raise the points and let GW consider them.
• free salt. Only express your concern about *real* balance issues.

 

I have divided the topic below into some points (general points; AM points; FW points), which came to my mind after reading CA. These reflect my experience with the game so far. I have intentionally left out some points, as I feel it is unnecessary, unfair, and excessively pedantic to address every single change introduced, even if it is not perceived as exactly great. I'd like to focus on major points. It would be great to have more people contribute to this list, adjust it, and enrich it.

 

Let's say that anybody who contributes or 'likes' this first post agrees to be considered as a contributor (regardless of any actual proposal) and to have his/her forum nickname added to the list of subscribers that will 'sign' the document we'll send to GW at the end.

 

New deadline for proposals and revisions: 10 December.

 

 

For the final text, see page 4.

 

[Major_Gilbear]

Are there any specific buffs or nerfs that you would propose?

 

For example, I don't think the Conscript cost would be such a big problem if Commissars worked as they did before - you're just paying a fairer price for a fearless 30-man blob. The combination of the Conscript cost and the Commissar nerf renders both units unappealing, which removed choice overall (and harms regiments like Valhallans that make extensive fluff use of exactly these units). If Conscript spam is still an issue somehow, the number of units could perhaps also be limited to 0-1 per detachment.

 

I think that explaining the issues is excellent, but I also think some considered suggestions need to be put forward as well (as left to their own devices, GW hasn't seemed to know what to do on their own).

 

And whilst it's hard to sometimes say, are there any units that are perhaps too good? That could do with a nudge downwards? Would any such tweaks fix some of the other unit choices that compete with them by making them more attaractive?

[Galron]

I will add to this the Malcador series of tanks are drastically over priced compared to their codex equivalents. A codex basic LR shoots its cannon more, has better sponson options, no negatives to hit while moving and is still priced far less than a basic Malcador with its battle cannon.

 

Medusa- Its a single dice artillery piece. It went up in points at the same time I was considering removing it from my lists because I felt it was already overpriced for what it actually does on the field.

 

Colossus- Unchanged in the CA but still over priced. Needs to be closer to where the Medusa was. Its only Str 6 and does very little damage compared to a basilisk.

 

In case you are doing this for the other factions screwed over.

 

Most of my issues are in the space marine/chaos book or the eldar book. The worst out of all changes across the board is the Typhon tank by far. It was already overpriced at 550 and needed about a 100-150 point reduction to reflect its ability on the field and instead was hiked 200 points? The main cannon is meh but in every single game I have used it, the 2 lascannons do more work and I can get those on a lot of things.

 

Caestus- Why the hike? It was already pricy before and as far as I had seen myself or heard in lists on various boards no one was taking them(except me and only one). There was no reason at all to hike a rarely used and never abused unit like this. It certainly should not cost more base than a Storm Raven.

[FallenSoldiers]

Well said, Feral. The conscripts changes are my largest complaint. With a price increase and losing the ability to be fearless (while a host of other armies are retaining this ability) they are now almost worthless in a AM list.

 

While I welcome the changes to “nerf” Imperial Soup lists, it seems that this change punishes AM players and further limits our troops choices.

[Feral_80]

To address points raised so far:

 

• I will add the thing about the wicked interaction between Commissars and Conscripts and the questionable solution of punishing AM to fix Imperial soup
• Added the Malcador thing to the FW section
• Medusa and Colossus: fair, but honestly who ever fielded these anyway? I have never seen any around, and very rarely seen any discussion about them. As long as they deal with extremely rare units, even if they are screwed I would leave them out of the feedback as they belong to the 'minor issue' category anyway (like e.g. Titans).
• I would prefer not to propose specific rule changes, unless they are *extremely* simple and reasonable
• No discussion of other factions here, AM only please
• Units that are too good: I thought about including this, but it is extremely hard to think of it with no bias from our point of view. I honestly believe that after addressing Astropaths, the original Conscripts, the FW Earthshaker stuff - some of these, excessively - there is little left that can be seen as 'too good' really.

[Mitchverr]

Most of my issues are covered already in the original comment(such as the salamander command and FW infantry points per model).

 

Malcador points reduction would be enough I think, they are so overcosted that people I know with them use them as proxy leman russes, grinding advance applying to their "main armament" could be a useful way to make them valued (IE the twin lascannon, battlecannon, 5 h.bolters, possibly apply to the flame version though its a bit better off right now)

 

Heavy mortars currently dont really have a role, basic mortars do the same job vs medium infantry and full artillery deal with elites and vehicles, price reduction would be valued.

 

Death Korps and Elysian command squads have been given the option to take heavy weapons in chapter approved however in the index they cannot, further explaination required (such as which weapons could they take or if this is an error as krieg has access to 4 heavy weapons which no other regiment has with specific rules around them).

 

If I think of anything else I will let you know, tried to keep to things I feel are necessary in being looked at and not "hopes" etc.

[Chris521]

 

• Added the Malcador thing to the FW section
• Units that are too good: I thought about including this, but it is extremely hard to think of it with no bias from our point of view. I honestly believe that after addressing Astropaths, the original Conscripts, the FW Earthshaker stuff - some of these, excessively - there is little left that can be seen as 'too good' really.

 

I would the  Macharius tanks along with the Malcadors.  Fixes that apply to them would likely work for most of the Macharius versions. Maybe mention the Valdor as well just to be clear

 

other FW:

Vendetta gunship rule

 

If you go down that road of mentioning undercosted things, I would bring up the Baneblade variants.  Some of the points decreases were a bit unnecessary along side their other buffs. I would also mention the Punisher Cannon.  Nothing major here (maybr not even worth mentioning), but in my LR thread I noted how well it was performing (even compared to my buffed versions of other weapons).  It could go up a bit and still be good.

 

Things in need of help

Vox casters (point decrease would be a start)

Veterans ( I'm not sure point changes are whats needed to fix them, though the recent melta and plasma change certainly didn't help).

grenade launcher

"send in the next wave" stratagem should just be replaced

 

 

Some general FAQ stuff

 

The cost of heavy weapons team within infantry squads. An official ruling on this should have happens months ago.

 

The war gear of heavy weapons team within infantry squads. Just of RAW issue on how many lasguns the squad has

 

The interaction between Banners and Commissars (does the +1 ld stack?)

 

Laurels of command.  I don't think this is much of an issue but there have been arguments about it such as if FRFSRF can stack with take aim and what counts as "resolving an order"

 

 

 

I'm sure I'll think of other stuff. There are also things that I could go into, but I think the may go into more detail than you want to go with this one.  Though I did post a fix to summary execution to dakka that I believe would fix commissars.

[NatBrannigan]

One of the best changes I've seen proposed, so I take no credit for this, is to scrap the new differing points costs weapons between BS3+ and BS4+ units, to be replaced with differing points cost for regular guard and Scions. Scions seem to be the units making Plasma guns so effective and they are also better with a melta. This should bring Veteran squads slightly back towards being a decent unit.

 

An addition to this might be limiting command squads to 2 special weapons or similar. That's a change I'm in favour of regardless. 

 

Then a few basic things that have been touched on before:

• Meltaguns should really have been reduced in price. I play my Vet squad with meltaguns but with each codex or FAQ that come out they get harder and harder to justify. And they weren't good to start with!
• Ogryns are really poor compared to Bullgryns. I can't see any downside to taking Bullgryns over Ogryns at all.
• Battle tanks as a whole are in a good place right now but the Vanquisher cannon... It must be clear that it's a woeful choice?
• Bit peeved that in the index preview they bigged up rough riders then removed them, especially with the multiple cavalry models Games Workshop make, but that's probably off topic here!

[Galron]

I actually field both Medusa and Colossus in my Catachan army along with multiple twin flamer chimeras. One of the reasons they are not used often is their rules are lackluster and over pointed. They weren't so overpointed to be not worth bringing for rule of cool reasons before to where it was a significant handicap but the new increase on an already over pointed unit has changed that IMO. The tank basilisk is just too much better.

[Major_Gilbear]

• I would prefer not to propose specific rule changes, unless they are *extremely* simple and reasonable.

 

I think that suggesting fixes (and I believe that most of them can be very simple) you demonstrate both the type and level of change that you are requesting, and that as well as identifying a problem you have also considered a good solution.

 

As per my example earlier, if people complain to GW about the fearless Conscripts without proposing a sensible solution, then you get the clumsy sort nerf that came in the FAQ and CA.

 

 

• Units that are too good: I thought about including this, but it is extremely hard to think of it with no bias from our point of view. I honestly believe that after addressing Astropaths, the original Conscripts, the FW Earthshaker stuff - some of these, excessively - there is little left that can be seen as 'too good' really.

 

I think it's worth mentioning this then. If you only pick on the stuff that's bad, and you don't acknowledge what could be too good (or what's been suitably fixed) then it doesn't come across as very considered. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging fixes that were good for balance.

 

[Galron]

As for the Malcadors, just leaving them the same points but giving them the same shoot and move/double shot rules LRs have would make them workable while still having the LR as the more competitive choice with its superior options and variety. Hows that for simple rules changes.

[Chris521]

As for the Malcadors, just leaving them the same points but giving them the same shoot and move/double shot rules would make them workable while still having the LR as the more competitive choice with its superior options and variety. Hows that for simple rules changes.

 

Yes giving grinding advance to the Malcador and Macharius Chasiss would be how I would start to fix them. Though there are some exceptions that would likely need a few additional tweaks like like the Inferneus and the Vulcan (tone them back).

 

 

 

As far as I'm concerned there are a ton of units (not just in guard obviously) whose rules just don't work quite right.  I think it counter productive to just slap point decreases and call it a day for many of these things.  I see the same problem in video game balance.  First fix the functionality, then you can do the tweaks (points).  Unfortunately.  I'm not very confident that GW will take this approach, given that their  yearly chance for this just went by with almost no changes except points.

[Feral_80]

Added and re-organized some of the stuff discussed.

Added an extra point in the general section to clarify that, the way I see it, if the current game trends continues this way nobody will ever use even basic Basilisks  the meta is quickly forcing everybody to privilege short-range firefights, which is definitely not bad per se (I probably prefer it!), but should be taken into account when pricing units.

 

Also added a very important request for rules clarification at # 2.10. Please have a look, it seems very weird that this stuff has not been addresed yet.

[Galron]

Never used Commissars as I despise conscripts and with my playstyle being what it is, even the old effective commissars were useless to me.

 

Now your Wyvern point I agree with. I used them as part of my artillery battery along with the afore mentioned colossi and medusas and the pair I had were by far the weakest link and was the first to go when I wanted to try something else. I haven't even finished painting them they are so low in the queue. I hadn't noticed a price increase as it would take a major decrease to make me use them over standard mortar teams so I didn't even look. An increase in points is absolutely insane. Are they being used at major events so effectively or was this once again another blind points increase for no reason?

[Major_Gilbear]

2.10. Finally, the following issues urgently need rule clarifications because they still create uncertainties:

• • Clarify the way the pts cost of heavy weapon teams is calculated vis-a-vis that of Infantry and Veteran squad models.

 

I might be dense here, but what's the issue with this?

 

Is this along the lines of whether the loader keeps their lasgun and can fire it whilst the gunner fires the heavy weapon?

 

I think if you're going to make a point, it needs to be crystal clear and avoid fussy phasing like vis-a-vis. Explain what the difference is, or else you risk the reader just skipping over it.

 

 

 

Never used Commissars as I despise conscripts and with my playstyle being what it is, even the old effective commissars were useless to me.

 

But other people do use these units, and have nicely modelled and fluffy armies. I think all options should be valid, regardless of what each of us prefers.

[Halfpint100]

Just read my copy main issues i have found (that you haven't already covered):

 

Astropaths are slightly too much for their use (1d6 smite sucks anyway) maybe 25 points would be more appropriate 

Stygies vanquisher is still too overpriced, 38 points for a vanquisher with +1 to hit with no movement and a co-axiel storm bolter. the issue is the vanquisher unreliability, if it became 2d6 damage, then i could believe it. 

 

Stuff that you already have covered that i agree with:

conscripts points

tempestor prime rod price increase

meltaguns for bs 3+ (12 was fine for all)

Ratlings, just why did they need a points increase? 

vanquisher, eradictor and eterminator are all still useless, no point taking them at all. Need a re-work or good points drop. 

Earthshakers needed a points increase, but the current increase was a tad too much. maybe 100 points for battery and 95 for carriage. 

quad mortars are even more useless than they already were

Stygies tank hunter and thunderer (RIP) 

[Tirak]

When calculating the carriage you cannot forget to factor in the cost of the crew, 16 points. A 95pt carriage is still more expensive than a basilisk.

 

 

To add to the flyer section, it should be stressed that the points change is not internally consistant as the Lightning is objectively worse on a stat line basis than the Thunderbolt. In addition, it should also remind that flyers cannot take objectives or count as part of the army for the purpose of being tabled and therefore inferior to the cheaper Leman Russ hull which is T8, and can shoot it's main gun twice.

[Feral_80]

I did include the LR Stygies.

 

 

As for Astropaths, currently I am still very confused by our psykers. I would not want to push the Astropath thing too much (esp. for a 5-pts different as suggested) because before they were certainly too cheap. Now, I am unsure.

 

For 30 pts you can get an Astropath. But for 46 pts, you get a Primaris, who both helps filling an HQ slot (often an issue) and is better offensively. But then again, for 55 pts you get an Inquisitor, who, despite requiring a separate detachment (which you can use for DKK, Elysians, Scions and a bunch of other useful stuff anyway), is just better in so many ways. So I am unsure whether these costs are fine in any case, because actually I'm not very convinced that either the Astropath or the Primaris are that good in the first place.

[Halfpint100]

I did include the LR Stygies.

 

 

As for Astropaths, currently I am still very confused by our psykers. I would not want to push the Astropath thing too much (esp. for a 5-pts different as suggested) because before they were certainly too cheap. Now, I am unsure.

 

For 30 pts you can get an Astropath. But for 46 pts, you get a Primaris, who both helps filling an HQ slot (often an issue) and is better offensively. But then again, for 55 pts you get an Inquisitor, who, despite requiring a separate detachment (which you can use for DKK, Elysians, Scions and a bunch of other useful stuff anyway), is just better in so many ways. So I am unsure whether these costs are fine in any case, because actually I'm not very convinced that either the Astropath or the Primaris are that good in the first place.

 

Oh yes you did include the stygies, my bad. I do agree with the inquisitors, the points doesn't make much sense in that case, i use them to replace my commissars. But with astropaths not being great currently. I am running out of good elite choice for that good old 9cp. 

[Feral_80]

Well I think we still have some very good Elite options, although not so criminally cheap as the old Astropath.

By the way, how do you fill a Brigade? Unless you play a really self-sufficient regiment - and I can think of none except perhaps Tallarn - it is more likely that you'll want to have a mixture of different sources esp. for your troops, fast attack, and heavy support slots, because each benefits more from different regiments.

[Halfpint100]

Well I think we still have some very good Elite options, although not so criminally cheap as the old Astropath.

By the way, how do you fill a Brigade? Unless you play a really self-sufficient regiment - and I can think of none except perhaps Tallarn - it is more likely that you'll want to have a mixture of different sources esp. for your troops, fast attack, and heavy support slots, because each benefits more from different regiments.

 

I use cadia because they are all painted the same, so in my eyes, i need to make them the same regiment. I usually run 3 hellhounds (cause burn everything) as fast attack, with what used to be 1 command squad and 2 astropaths. Unsure what to do now, might have to go for more command squads or special weapon squads

[Withershadow]

I like this concept but the execution is a tad too wordy and the points have way toomuch “I feel this and we feel that” and too much waxing poetic rather than getting to the point.

 

In other words, this will be really difficult to get someone to read it. This is a topic I care about a great deal, and my eyes started rolling into the back of my head by the third or fourth main point.

 

Other stuff is simply wrong, which is a good way to get the document discarded as irrelevant wish listing. The Alpha Pattern Russ is the same cost now in CA, and thus gets its additional armor rule for free like other Russes get doctrines.

 

Krieg themselves I feel are worth 1 more point than other guardsmen. WS3+, Cult of Sacrifice, and krak grenades all around is better than any other regimental doctrine for Infantry.

 

In order to reach parity with the core guard, they just need a unique stratagem and to have access to the full range of regular orders. The vehicle part of their doctrine can be the alpha pattern hull upgrade that they just gave to Russes for free but charge Chimeras 15 points for.

[Bonzi]

I would drop the complaint of the overpowered -1 to hit armies and some regiments being see as weaker than others. There is not points cost or rules solution to fix that short of adding strategems or rewriting their rule (which is unlikely). It's a complaint that clouds the more reasonable and likely fixes that you are positing.

 

Autocannon point cost difference between individual autocannons and twin linked autocannons should be mentioned ala the Chapter Approved adjustments.

[Tirak]

Editing mistake on the flyers as it mentions the Lightning vs Avenger. It should be the Thunderbolt not the Avenger.

[Withershadow]

Agreed, I would focus on inconsistencies like that.

 

Twin autocannons used to get a 5 point discount, now are 1 point more expensive than two individual cannons. The discount helped Hydra batteries, but ignored Hydra tanks and Exterminator Russes.

 

Commissars are still helpful for their additional leadership, but their Summary Execution rule is now an active detriment. In 9/10 situations it will mean you lose more models than you would have otherwise.

 

Conscripts now require unreliable shenanigans that got more expensive (psychic buff) or a one-of-kind relic with a specific regiment to maintain their morale indifference. Their cost is not justified to be the same as regular guardsmen.

 

Re-rollable damage is valued too high, with guns like Vanquishers, meltaguns and hellstrike missiles being overcosted compared to simple and efficient weapons like plasmaguns and Lascannons.

 

That’s pretty much my only issues with the Codex. Yeah, astropaths are probably too expensive compared to Primaris or Inquisitors, but meh. I feel like there are larger problems than quibbling over 5 points here or there for a model you only may bring 1 or 2 of.

 

The issues with FW are innumerable, and I honestly don’t know where to even start with that. They knew many of the issues from the first printing, and a lot of the changes just made the situation worse or completely ignored it.