Discussion post points CA leak

[Khornestar]

A potential combination of marks/gear/armor seems like a poor reason to increase the price for every other permutation, i.e. non-Slaanesh, non-combi-plasma.

[Tyriks]

A potential combination of marks/gear/armor seems like a poor reason to increase the price for every other permutation, i.e. non-Slaanesh, non-combi-plasma.

Yeah, it is very poor design if it's intentional. If it is because of synergies, it is absurd to punish Terminators because other units / rules are too good. Increase the cost of the problematic stratagem, not a unit that doesn't even benefit a lot of the time.

[Sception]

As others have pointed out, the fact that none of the other units that benefit from this stratagem are more expensive than their loyalist vounterparts strongly suggests that the discrepency is a simple error and will be corrected via faq.

[Mekhitar]

I pull the defiler trick, but take it slaanesh and drop Delightful Agonies on it.  It plays on all sorts of boards from the most casual up to tournaments.  Quite fun, and surprised me by living through a gallant...

[Ghorgul]

 

A potential combination of marks/gear/armor seems like a poor reason to increase the price for every other permutation, i.e. non-Slaanesh, non-combi-plasma.

Yeah, it is very poor design if it's intentional. If it is because of synergies, it is absurd to punish Terminators because other units / rules are too good. Increase the cost of the problematic stratagem, not a unit that doesn't even benefit a lot of the time.

 

 

As others have pointed out, the fact that none of the other units that benefit from this stratagem are more expensive than their loyalist vounterparts strongly suggests that the discrepency is a simple error and will be corrected via faq.

 

Strictly speaking we cannot compare Chaos Terminators directly to Loyal Terminators as they have different weapon restrictions and stratagems available.

 

My earlier statement was poorly worded. Looking at the point cost decisions of GW it's my personal opinion that GW is balancing unit's based on synergies/combos/buffs/boots available.

Also many things are priced very assymmetrically. For example at another forum I calculated weapon equivalents for all Knight Castellan weapons, priced them accordingly and arrived to result that the Castellan pays 7.20 points per wound (T8, 3+, 5++, can't be tied to melee etc.) while rhino pays 7 points per wound (T7, 3+, X++, can be tied to melee). Of course you can argue that Rhino pays for the ability to carry units. Meanwhile Predator tank pays 8.18 points per wound (T7, 3+, X++, can be tied to melee), apparently premium per wound is for the ability to buy weapons?

Land raider compares even worse than Rhino/Predator against Knight Castellan, even after the point decrease.

 

Note that the T7-T8 breakpoint is extremely important, also 3+/5++ is far better than just 3+.

 

So bottom line the units are not priced symmetrically at all, the Chapter Approved 2018 (and 2017 earlier) had chance  bring unit prices to more symmetrical standing but they apparently aren't pricing them symmetrically. Also normal power armor marine point cost is not symmetrical at all to many other units in the game when considering the durability, it should honestly cost either 11 or 12 points with current stats. Also Rhino should be cheaper by maybe 5-10 points, but making atleast the Chaos Rhinos too cheap is problematic because Khorne Berserkers exist in our Codex.

 

[Ghorgul]

Additional commentary on the Predator tank post-CA:

 

Pricing Predator body symmetrically to Knight Castellan it should cost like 6.0 to 6.5 points per wound (so 66-72points). So with Predator Autocannon/Twin lascannon this would be 106-112 points total (Compare to 130 currently with the CA18). Instead they have been giving the weapon options (WHY??????) meager price decreases and as result the predators are still very bad. And they are bad exactly because many other codices get more wounds/durability for the same amount of points used.

 

Also do note that there is literally no reason for 2 x Lascannon to cost 50 points while 1 x Twin lascannon costs 40 points, like now. Or is 10 point decrease justified because the unit has less ability to split-fire?

If you disagree with me above, why don't Havocs have option to buy 2 Twin Lascannons instead of 4 normal Lascannons? And 'fluff' is bad answer, we are talking about balance. 5xHavocs with 2 Twin Lascannons would be so much better than 5x Havocs with 4 Lascannons, but surely this save in points is justified, they do have less chance to split fire because individual weapon is Heavy 2.

 

Note: I do agree that less chance for split fire should be reflected in lower point cost, by 2-3 or 5 pts MAX, but the jump from 2x25=50 to 40 is not justified. This jump is done to make predator better, while they could have easily tinkered with base body cost. This further infers that they are not even trying to price weapon and unit costs symmetrically.

 

Clearly this large decrease to Predator cannot be done because 5x Havocs + 2xLascannons cost 115 points for 5 wounds and horrible mobility. This problem is not with the Predator though, the problem is the MEQs are overcosted by 1-2 points to begin with.
Also the Havocs/Devastators still have completely artifical rule of max 4 heavy weapons per unit, which I think is at this point only an artefact from earlier editions they did not bother to alter.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

The points discrepancy between a Trilas Predator and las-Havocs ccan be explained as the Havocs benefitting from Legion Traits and more stratagems. The Predator may be more cost-efficient per wound, but the Havocs can have -1 to hit, +1 to wound, and fire twice.

[Sception]

Space wolf terminators have the same equipment options as chaos terminators, but they're not priced differently frim regular terminators. Havoks have the same stratagem options as chaos terminators, and they're not priced differently from loyalist devastators.

 

The chaos terminator points are a mistake, not deliberate.

[Kraken]

An interesting point concerning the Terminators cost discrepancy, is that in the original Indices/Codices we already had that 5 points difference between Loyalists and CSM.

Original costs were respectively 26 vs 31 per model.

So the CA2018 lowered both but kept that 5 points difference.

[Mallios]

Could the difference be a way to keep armies fluffier? As in, they want chaos armies to field fewer terminators than loyalist armies (not because of the potential of the unit itself) so they are priced slightly higher.

I'm thinking this is a way to keep chaos armies from mirroring loyalists and just adding spikes. Are chaos terminators supposedly rarer than their loyalist counterparts?

[Ghorgul]

An interesting point concerning the Terminators cost discrepancy, is that in the original Indices/Codices we already had that 5 points difference between Loyalists and CSM.

Original costs were respectively 26 vs 31 per model.

So the CA2018 lowered both but kept that 5 points difference.

Good point! This reinforces my opinion that CSM Terminators are being appraised considering their weapon options (probably mainly the Combi-plasmas in this case), Stratagems and buffs available. So the unit becomes victim of the best combos available, meawhile every other build is gimped because their base point cost is too high.

 

It looks like GW is between a rock and a hard place with plasma-Terminators and Endless Cacophony. Increasing Endless Cacophony to 3 CP IMO is not good deal for Obliterators or even Havocs anymore, these units' base damage output is not high enough to warrant paying 3 CP to double it.

[Ghorgul]

Could the difference be a way to keep armies fluffier? As in, they want chaos armies to field fewer terminators than loyalist armies (not because of the potential of the unit itself) so they are priced slightly higher.

I'm thinking this is a way to keep chaos armies from mirroring loyalists and just adding spikes. Are chaos terminators supposedly rarer than their loyalist counterparts?

In my opinion using points to force fluff considerations to tabletop is really, really slippery slope when the main idea of points is (or atleast should be) to reflect their power/efficiency as an unit choice.

 

Also if you were correct with this the fix for spamming of multiples, specifically 3+, of same datasheets should be fixed by increasing the cost of the spammed unit and decreasing the cost of ignored units. Instead they force intellectually dishonest 3 datasheet maximum for non-troop choices, while spamming multiples of the same unit implies the unit is too good relative to other options.

The 8th edition's very lax army construction and detachment rules also allow spamming of multiples, which was then fixed with this artificial quick-fix of max 3 datasheet limit. Older editions with FoC didn't have these same spam problems and the FoC itself forced relatively balanced armies.

For example I could very well see myself using more than 3 raptor units in army, especially at current 15 pts/raptor, now this can't be done because the poor design and spammers forced current situation.

[Tyriks]

 

An interesting point concerning the Terminators cost discrepancy, is that in the original Indices/Codices we already had that 5 points difference between Loyalists and CSM.

Original costs were respectively 26 vs 31 per model.

So the CA2018 lowered both but kept that 5 points difference.

 

Good point! This reinforces my opinion that CSM Terminators are being appraised considering their weapon options (probably mainly the Combi-plasmas in this case), Stratagems and buffs available. So the unit becomes victim of the best combos available, meawhile every other build is gimped because their base point cost is too high.

 

It looks like GW is between a rock and a hard place with plasma-Terminators and Endless Cacophony. Increasing Endless Cacophony to 3 CP IMO is not good deal for Obliterators or even Havocs anymore, these units' base damage output is not high enough to warrant paying 3 CP to double it.

It absolutely does not support your point. You think the index terminators cost more because of stratagems that didn't exist yet? And as has already been stated multiple times in this thread, SW terminators have more options than Chaos terminators and still don't have the increase.

[dice4thedicegod]

In my opinion using points to force fluff considerations to tabletop is really, really slippery slope when the main idea of points is (or atleast should be) to reflect their power/efficiency as an unit choice.

 

.

Right. Next thing would be that tactical ultramarines only cost 5 points per model because the ultramarines are so darn tactical.

[Ghorgul]

 

 

Good point! This reinforces my opinion that CSM Terminators are being appraised considering their weapon options (probably mainly the Combi-plasmas in this case), Stratagems and buffs available. So the unit becomes victim of the best combos available, meawhile every other build is gimped because their base point cost is too high.

 

It looks like GW is between a rock and a hard place with plasma-Terminators and Endless Cacophony. Increasing Endless Cacophony to 3 CP IMO is not good deal for Obliterators or even Havocs anymore, these units' base damage output is not high enough to warrant paying 3 CP to double it.

It absolutely does not support your point. You think the index terminators cost more because of stratagems that didn't exist yet? And as has already been stated multiple times in this thread, SW terminators have more options than Chaos terminators and still don't have the increase.

 

I don't care about index situation. They had 5 point difference (CSM terminators 5 points more expensive) already at 2017 codices. What is your point? And I'm fairly certain the stratagems came in the codices.

Don't get me wrong, I'm absolutely of the opinion that loyal terminator with same statline and rules should cost same amount of points as chaos terminator. However looking at original codices, CA17 and CA18 together it become unlikely the CSM terminator costing 5 points more than loyal terminator is just a mistake, like some people have suggested.

 

Regarding the options I write: "CSM Terminators are being appraised considering their weapon options (probably mainly the Combi-plasmas in this case), Stratagems and buffs available. So the unit becomes victim of the best combos available, meawhile every other build is gimped because their base point cost is too high."

I never claim the point cost difference is purely because of the variety of options, I write quite clearly that they apparently IMO have adjusted the point cost based on the Best Combos available.

[WarriorFish]

Let's try not to go round in circles on Termie point costs please. We can't know if it's a mistake or a product of GW's strange ways yet, so I don't think there's much else we can add at present. Thanks

[Trevak Dal]

I think cultists being upped to 5 points per model should let us run them in 5 man squads (in match play, what everybody plays). Justifies the higher pointcost (over guard who get orders etc) and we can get nicer things and fill out charts more easily.

 

I'm big on caustic MSU spam, in 7th it was my counter to eldar and guard. "Sucks you got to drop all 10 dire avengers shots into 5 Khorne Berserkers. Do you think the Khorne dogs or the other 80 zerkers will get you first? LET'S ROLL AAND FIND OUT!"

[Panzer]

So 25p units? Battalions for 135p (Warpsmith)? Why do you hate regular Chaos Marines so much? As if there wasn't already enough reasons to take Cultists over them lol

[Iron Father Ferrum]

Raising cultist point costs just to turn around and decrease their minimum squad size is so counter-productive it's not even funny.

[Trevak Dal]

Little tit for tat is all. Loyal 32 meet the disloyal 17.

[Iron_Within]

I mean isn't this hitting all wish listing at this point? How is that relevant to changes in ca18?

[Iron_Within]

If someone wanted to do their own "disloyal 32" to use instead, then the minimum sized amount would be 32 (2 commanders and 3 militia or Mutant Rabble WHICH ARE BOTH OVERCOSTED!) which would come to 170 points. This would be useful if you wanted to keep your elite troops to a maximum and less Characters.

However 3 Mini cultist units come to 150, so if you were planning on taking more characters simply ignoring the R&H and taking more characters you'd still be good. 

A chaos Space Marine based Disloyal 32 would be 270 points minimum (2 Warpsmiths, 3 Cultists). 

[Iron_Within]

I've had a few games now after CA18 and I've got some thoughts, please note this is running mono-Chaos Space Marines, not soup:

 

• An enjoyable way to play 40k atm is actually cityfight - it makes terrain so much more important
• On that note - don't play the Cityfight missions, just the rules. The Cityfight missions are horrible.
• Cityfight with MEQ, Hard Cover and -1 to hit makes the MEQ relatively survivable.
• The new costs of the Defiler make it.... okay? I've used it (Reaper and Scourage) at 1000 point games and it's a bullet magnet who's potential to inflict damage ensures that it gets serious attention from the other army.
• This is also true for the Maulerfiend, though it can hit things in combat, the extra 2" speed makes a difference.
• The 1 point extra has really hurt the viability of Cultist hordes. They in themselves do what they always do but they take away a lot of other options that we have before (it's hard to get triple Oblits in a list with Cultist horde without cutting into them).
• The new units are not really more viable, they're just cheaper, sorry if this doesn't make all the sense in the world. It's like we have cheaper mediocre units but anything with oompf is obvious but doesn't have a lot to protect
• Maelstrom is harder now, the new Maelstrom missions terribly fun, especially the Visions of Victory mission, that thing utterly sucks, I hated it. The Eternal War missions are fun though, just stick to Eternal with the CA18 missions, Maelstrom is annoying and random atm and it doesn't suite us.

Overall - CA18 was a nerf, We've dropped in viability as a mono army. The only thing really worse than us atm is Necrons, Grey Knights have 1 decent build it seems which hurts if you do it right. I would unfortunately say we're on par with Grey Knights now. I've played Tau several times, Space Marines, Imperial Guard (which hurt) and Knights. Just, yeah, we're in a fricking terrible place right now. But yeah, ATM I don't think the 40 man Cultist blob can do the business as it hurts the rest of the army atm.

This is all caveated with - unless you're playing soup. 

It's a depressing time to play Chaos.

[Sception]

It's a depressing time to play Chaos.

That's sad, but about what I expected looking at things. Not a sad time to play Chaos necessarily, but a sad time to play pure Chaos Marines. And I personally don't see that changing anytime soon, the things that make CSMs as a stand alone army kind of bad are sort of baked into the core game system and how it treats meq style units in general.

 

I still like our current rules a lot better than I did under the 4e or the 6e books.  Tinkering with lists is funner, it's great to have warbands and legions and relics and what not.  The codex has its heart in the right place for the first time since 3.5, but 8e as it currently stands is just not a game where CSM style armies are particularly fun or functional to play.  I really want to be into 40k, especially with the new black legion releases coming, but right now I just can't manage any enthusiasm for 40k in general.  It's to the point where I honestly feel like Age of Sigmar is the more enjoyable and rewarding tabletop experience, and that's just kind of shocking to me.

 

None of this is animosity to GW or 40k or CSMs in general, mind.  It's just a little deflating to finally have a CSM codex that feels like it's got the right general idea and is actually trying to do our faction justice, only for the army to just sort of gives up the moment dice start to roll.  And again, that's only for CSM armies specifically, not for soups, and the fact that soups exist may mean that it's unreasonable or unworkable for individual components of those soups to stand on their own.  Just a bit frustrating overall.

[adreal]

So I played a somewhat competitive game last night against mech guard. The other guy could have made a stronger list, but he likes to drink at tournies so lots of russes and a knight was his solution.

 

I played with

Naked lord

Naked lord

Nurgle dp with talons, wings and miasma

 

40 cultists of nurgle

34 cultists of nurgle

10 cultists of nurgle

 

Lord arkos

Slaanesh dp with talons, wings, agonies and elixir

 

Contemptor with 2 butcher cannons, nurgle

 

5 havocs with lascannons, slaanesh

5 havocs with missiles, slaanesh

Levi with 2 butcher cannon arrays, nurgle

Scorpius, nurgle

 

 

Arkos was a let down, but I can never seem to use him correctly, so dropping him and 13 cultists gives me a third DP, which I feel will work better.

 

Cultists are cultists, sure I miss the extra points (especially since guard didnt go up in points, golly gee) but they still work for board control

 

The new strat that gives you cover if you go second is pretty cool, you essentially take a point of AP off any anti tank gun, which is nice :)

 

Daemon engines need to hit on 3s, granted I didnt use any but a forge fiends essentially have butcher cannons, and they are a codex unit, but contemptors are just head and shoulders better before you consider legion traits.

 

I would have loved to take some marine units, but there is little point, basic marines need something and I dont think point cuts will be enough (not that we go that anyways)