Reaper and tantalus costs/ rules

Cerve wrote:

Guys....everyone use Battlescribe (:..

i may be an old geezer, but i dont (and dont intend) on using Battlescribe.
Nothing for me beats the feeling of sitting down at the table with pencil and paper, all my books opened with a good drink and spend an evening just to write down my Army list, taking everything into account, adding and removing stuff, counting my points value using my calculator.

I have some friends who uses Battlescribe and can do their army list in like 5 to 10 minutes before the actual game, and it really is ok, but it just does not reach me.
For me, its like: do you prefer the easy to build models or the ones where you need some glue, cutters and that in one evening you only build one model.....for me, i would not touch the easy to build models with a ten foot pole.

Note that i'm not judging the app at all, just that i prefer to take my time, that i find the list building to be as fun as actually playing the game or building models.

That being said.....back to the topic (i leave it to you here as i don't know a thing about the FW models)

Unpopular opinion:

I am unhappy that the Reaper isn't Kabal only, because I don't think that it's a good thing that Coven should be the most resilient subfaction, AND the the shootiest; Ravagers werent available to Coven for a reason.

It isn't an accident that Kabals have access to Ravagers, Razorwings, and Voidravens, Cults have the latter two, and Coven have none. It is because the design intent (however misguided) was that Kabals are shooty, Cults are a hybrid, and Coven are resilient. With DT/MoM and Reapers, Covens now do everything better than Kabals and Cults.

Then again, I also think that DT/MoM is a cancer to the internal balance of the Drukhari codex, for the same reason.

I'm also disappointed (but not surprised) that GW simply scrubbed the Reaper's gun's special rule, standardised the damage, and left it at that.

The gun looks like a supersized Haywire Blaster, and I think it would have been fitting to give it the Haywire rules.

"Just like the Reaper you knew, but a bit blander"

harlokin wrote:

Unpopular opinion:

I am unhappy that the Reaper isn't Kabal only, because I don't think that it's a good thing that Coven should be the most resilient subfaction, AND the the shootiest; Ravagers werent available to Coven for a reason.

It isn't an accident that Kabals have access to Ravagers, Razorwings, and Voidravens, Cults have the latter two, and Coven have none. It is because the design intent (however misguided) was that Kabals are shooty, Cults are a hybrid, and Coven are resilient. With DT/MoM and Reapers, Covens now do everything better than Kabals and Cults.

Then again, I also think that DT/MoM is a cancer to the internal balance of the Drukhari codex, for the same reason.

I'm also disappointed (but not surprised) that GW simply scrubbed the Reaper's gun's special rule, standardised the damage, and left it at that.

The gun looks like a supersized Haywire Blaster, and I think it would have been fitting to give it the Haywire rules.

"Just like the Reaper you knew, but a bit blander"

All Coven are other DE and would still retain all knowledge of raiders, reapers, tantalus, w/e they are using and all factions, subfactions, etc.. still would take units to break holes into defensive walls, large tanks, many others so they can preform actual breaches to gain slaves, etc.. It also doesn't make sense that they wouldn't make their own large vehicles.

From a lore stand point it doesn't make sense for Coven not to have something like a Reaper.

amishprn86 wrote:

harlokin wrote:

Unpopular opinion:

I am unhappy that the Reaper isn't Kabal only, because I don't think that it's a good thing that Coven should be the most resilient subfaction, AND the the shootiest; Ravagers werent available to Coven for a reason.

It isn't an accident that Kabals have access to Ravagers, Razorwings, and Voidravens, Cults have the latter two, and Coven have none. It is because the design intent (however misguided) was that Kabals are shooty, Cults are a hybrid, and Coven are resilient. With DT/MoM and Reapers, Covens now do everything better than Kabals and Cults.

Then again, I also think that DT/MoM is a cancer to the internal balance of the Drukhari codex, for the same reason.

I'm also disappointed (but not surprised) that GW simply scrubbed the Reaper's gun's special rule, standardised the damage, and left it at that.

The gun looks like a supersized Haywire Blaster, and I think it would have been fitting to give it the Haywire rules.

"Just like the Reaper you knew, but a bit blander"

All Coven are other DE and would still retain all knowledge of raiders, reapers, tantalus, w/e they are using and all factions, subfactions, etc.. still would take units to break holes into defensive walls, large tanks, many others so they can preform actual breaches to gain slaves, etc.. It also doesn't make sense that they wouldn't make their own large vehicles.

From a lore stand point it doesn't make sense for Coven not to have something like a Reaper.

Agree 100%, from a lore point of view. However if the codex is to be subdivided into three subfactions (which was a mistake on GW's part), then each of those subfactions need something to contribute, some niche protection. If Coven is the bestest at everything, it renders 2/3 of an already small codex pointless.

Well that is what traits are for.

Kabals should give vehicles better damage not Coven, while Coven should give better survivablity. Its GW's fault for giving DT to Coven and not Kabal. Coven should have gotten rr1's to Inure of Suffering and gives it to all vehicles instead of Kabals getting them.

So really the rules are mixed up.

Who knows, maybe this gets fixed when we get our 9th Edition codex.

If they give us half the effort the Marine codex got, we will be laughing all the way to the flesh-pits XD

Could you imagine Advance+charge, with re-roll charges and re-roll 1s to hit on Grots? Even with D1 weapons it would be nuts

All Wyches should be advance + charge now, i mean they have been from their creation till 8th.

amishprn86 wrote:

All Wyches should be advance + charge now, i mean they have been from their creation till 8th.

Yup. Wyches (and Incubi) should be able to charge from their transport after it moves too.

harlokin wrote:

amishprn86 wrote:

All Wyches should be advance + charge now, i mean they have been from their creation till 8th.

Yup. Wyches (and Incubi) should be able to charge from their transport after it moves too.

I actually think all dark eldar should be able to disembark from a vehicle after it moves, but not after advancing.

And yeah wyches should have something extra. Definitely need to be a little better in combat. Even just ap1 on 6s to wound or +1dmg on 6s to wound to represent them being gladiators and knowing where to strike.
Advance and charge is cool. Even being able to leave combat and still be able to charge after would be interesting. Being able to heroically intervene could be neat. Idk. Just something more.

And i think poison needs to change a bit.

You mean like we used to? It also doesn't add all that much distance if you remove the disembark distance.

Move 8, run with rr's 4, 12" movement, so it is adding 2" on wych units that can run and charge.

Also I would give the rule to Raiders instead of Venoms b.c the Raider was a literally boarding plank.

harlokin wrote:

Unpopular opinion:

I am unhappy that the Reaper isn't Kabal only, because I don't think that it's a good thing that Coven should be the most resilient subfaction, AND the the shootiest; Ravagers werent available to Coven for a reason.

It isn't an accident that Kabals have access to Ravagers, Razorwings, and Voidravens, Cults have the latter two, and Coven have none. It is because the design intent (however misguided) was that Kabals are shooty, Cults are a hybrid, and Coven are resilient. With DT/MoM and Reapers, Covens now do everything better than Kabals and Cults.

Then again, I also think that DT/MoM is a cancer to the internal balance of the Drukhari codex, for the same reason.

I'm also disappointed (but not surprised) that GW simply scrubbed the Reaper's gun's special rule, standardised the damage, and left it at that.

The gun looks like a supersized Haywire Blaster, and I think it would have been fitting to give it the Haywire rules.

"Just like the Reaper you knew, but a bit blander"

In principle, I agree 100%. But on the other hand, I'd rather have Covens as strong shooty faction than none at all. I don't mind Coven having shooty options at all, but Coven shouldn't be vehicle heavy aside from transports.

Coven should feature mostly monsters rand bio-constructs. I would love if covens had "Trueborn Wracks" which can all take Hexrifles, Ossefactors or Liquifiers. Or if we had a shooty-Grotesque version which serves as an analogue to Chaos Obliterators.

Coming in at only 400 points, take a look at the Vampire Raider in hover mode compared to a Tantalus.



That's crazy good, right?

Double the wounds and a 4++ with 4 less shots of almost the same gun but nat Toughness 8, and holds 30... wtf. At least it is legends I guess....

And a 6+ feel no pain built in. It's just a shame that rather than reducing the Tantalus from 400 to 310 points, they could have increased the survivability and made it a proper centerpiece.

Well remember, DE can't have nice things lol.

I would love to have a serious conversation with the rules designers behind these choices and figure out exactly why we don't get as much effort put into our rules that every other faction seems to get

Archon_91 wrote:

I would love to have a serious conversation with the rules designers behind these choices and figure out exactly why we don't get as much effort put into our rules that every other faction seems to get

Don't you all like to suffer?

Archon_91 wrote:

I would love to have a serious conversation with the rules designers behind these choices and figure out exactly why we don't get as much effort put into our rules that every other faction seems to get

I don't know this for certain, but I strongly suspect that it basically boils down to there not being many (or any?) people invested in Eldar left on the 40k design team. Phil Kelly, for instance, was the driving force behind the better CWE and DE books but now seems to be focused on Age of Sigmar.

It is very clear the motivation is for Marines.

Dear Santa, please let whoever did the Harlequins update write our new codex.

I want bits and pieces back from 3rd and 5th, and a little from 7th. Honestly IDK if there is 1 thing in 8th book that i truly like.

EDIT: Drazhar and Mandrakes for 8th lol

EDIT: EDIT: Back onto topic. Reaper is fine and will most likely be what DL turn into, Tantalus is still a waste of points.

Burnage wrote:

I don't know this for certain, but I strongly suspect that it basically boils down to there not being many (or any?) people invested in Eldar left on the 40k design team. Phil Kelly, for instance, was the driving force behind the better CWE and DE books but now seems to be focused on Age of Sigmar.

amishprn86 wrote:

It is very clear the motivation is for Marines.

I just dont understand this mindset. Not your mindsets, Burnage and Amish, but the mindset of "I am a dev for X thing which has N factions, but I only like Y faction, so lets neglect N-1 factions". I mean, is that not a failure to actually do your job?

I can only assume that to be a dev for something like Warhammer, or a game like Planetside, you have to be passionate about it. They are niche enough that it is likely only passionate people will apply, and well known enough to be able to have a selection and pick the most passionate people. But at the same time, I highly doubt that devs for these sorts of things are pro-players or tournament toppers themselves.

Lets set DE and Eldar aside for a moment as I am too close to them (which, frankly is what the designers should do for their chosen factions...). I am a warhammer enthusiast, but not a very knowledgeable one. I play friendly games with 3 friends. I have never faced a faction other than AdMech, Daemons, and Tau. I have never read another codex cover to cover. I have read no lore beyond the 8th ed DE codex, and the 2/3/4th ed Redux codex (the one I stared with). I have never read the stories, and all other knowledge comes from forums like this.

And yet, I can think of things for nearly every faction that I would want to see, just in terms of models and play styles. A common complaint for tyranids is that their models are awful, and its weird that they hold guns like humanoid characters do. Yes the guns are technically organisms, but their big units that look like they grew around a fleshy spore launching device look way cooler. Also, you would kind of expect them to be a melee focused army with some long range support in the form of artillery. But acid spitting devices, spine throwers, and claws would surely make up the majority. So as a NON TYRANID PLAYER, I would focus on those design aspects. Tau are your long range gunline. They should melt if people get in there. But there is room for Kroot (and other Tau-oppressed races) to be a mix of hold the line infantry and sneaky assassins. More snipers. More artillery. Vehicles have many similarities with AdMech, but where AdMech stuff locks down, Tau should get combat mobility (unfortunately, every tank now has decent mobility, so that is kind of impossible now). And if you are going to make them look like Protos (or Protos made to look like Tau), why not go for broke and give them 3 legged tall walkers? I swear Orks had more creativity back in the past, and given their whole "we are psykers but dont know it - things just work/appear because we believe they will" thing, I am amazed there are no ork-y beasts or completely bonkers, totally unfeesable machines beyond "Oh, its an Imperium mech/tank/flyer but made out of scrap instead!". We will leave Necrons, they are getting stuff right now. IG - I mean the point of IG is that they are today's military in the 41st millennium. They are the human equivalent of battle droids. What they lack in strength and tactics they make up for in numbers. And then there are the negative things. Im sorry, and this will heart a lot of Corsair players as its a little too close to home, but why the hell are genestealers a separate faction? No, seriously. Why? In what world does that make sense. "Cultists" are not a separate chaos faction. They are filler for Chaos armies. So what makes Genestealers special? They simply shouldnt exist as a stand alone. Hell, I am tempted to say the same about Quins. Sigh, maybe, maybe I can see Quin justification IFF other Aeldari "mercs" are grouped in with them. Mandrakes, Scourges, Incubi, and, yes, Corsairs. The Ynnari plotline is not enough justification to make an entire faction, which requires maintenance and balancing and thus takes up resources, out of what appears to be SEVEN MODELS. What were they thinking splitting them from Eldar? Why the hell were they not simply allowed to be taken by Drukhari? And I still dont understand, at all, why there are 12 named SM factions. Why are they not just slightly different bonuses taken for aligning to them? Some are just supplements, but some have their own full codexes! Why?! There should be a single, maybe 2 SM codexes, and then maybe 3 or 4 supplements which group the factions and maybe add one or 2 models.

And you might massively disagree with me. And thats OK. I am not a designed for GW. And we have not even looked at meaningful rules changes, tournament standings, etc (though personally I feel tournament standings would be the wrong thing to measure, and the game should be balanced around casual matched play, not the current meta). And I dont have a bunch of other people to work with with whom I could help to shape a coherent vision. BUT THEY DO HAVE THAT, and yet it seems their response is to all pick their favourite teams, with considerable overlap, and only update the rest when they "need" to.

Why designers are not permanently assigned to a faction REGARDLESS of what they play, with more designers assigned to the core rules and core vision, I dont know.

But here we are, starting "season" 9, which appears to be "the marine boys beat down the metal skele boys! This time with more Mars!"

Well if you knew the history of GW it would be more clear. There are 2 things that are very important

First; For 20yrs GW literally said "we are a model company first rules second" and they wanted to make great looking models for players.

Second; GW main let the core team basically work on what they wanted and had no time lines for anything. It was "Do what you are inspired to do" (Side note this is why there was LARGE amounts of fun rules and designs both in WHFB and 40k. Like Zombie Pirates and Movie marines in supplements). So when someone got a idea they wanted to do, then they worked on that army.
(think of it as your hobby, you get an idea and you work on it, you have no care to force an idea to force to build an army).

3rd that goes with 1 and 2; if a unit or models sold extremely well, the high ups would "suggest" that the next project they work on had something that could have the same sells. They seemed to not care if an army sells well but at least some units.

So in short, it was a bunch of guys that loved the hobby and didn't care about rules b.c thats how they started the company that put models are first, no deadlines, all teams can work on what and when they wanted with no one telling them otherwise.

But this all changed in 6th/7th (8th fantasy) as the old CEO destroyed profits for the investors (letting people stay in a cycle of do what you want and not what players want, and rules don't matter just make what you find fun is not a good way to balance the game and sell mini's). The next in line CEO changed the moto from "We are a models company" to basically We are a hobby company that rules matter too. This was the time Formations came out to prove to the investors that yes rules sell more than cool models (and why we went to 3-4 books per army).

So knowing the the history you can see how it got so bad. They are now force to work on armies, but its still clear other armies have more love than others b.c they literally do love some armies as it was their babies in the past.

albions-angel wrote:

A common complaint for tyranids is that their models are awful, and its weird that they hold guns like humanoid characters do. Yes the guns are technically organisms, but their big units that look like they grew around a fleshy spore launching device look way cooler. Also, you would kind of expect them to be a melee focused army with some long range support in the form of artillery. But acid spitting devices, spine throwers, and claws would surely make up the majority. So as a NON TYRANID PLAYER, I would focus on those design aspects.

I've never seen anyone complain about them holding the 'guns' as other do, and even then, that sort of argument about how they look is entirely subjective. The models look fine IMO. The main complaint for tyranids I've seen anywhere is the lack of new models, and the older models that just need to be touched up and taken out of resin.

albions-angel wrote:

I swear Orks had more creativity back in the past, and given their whole "we are psykers but dont know it - things just work/appear because we believe they will" thing, I am amazed there are no ork-y beasts or completely bonkers, totally unfeesable machines beyond "Oh, its an Imperium mech/tank/flyer but made out of scrap instead!".

There are orky beasts, a good chunk of ork vehicles are unique, and the main joy of ork conversions is that you can make feasibly any proportioned vehicle and it should fit the aesthetic.

albions-angel wrote:

but why the hell are genestealers a separate faction? No, seriously. Why? In what world does that make sense. "Cultists" are not a separate chaos faction. They are filler for Chaos armies. So what makes Genestealers special? They simply shouldnt exist as a stand alone.

Because they are unique enough that they are a stand alone. Literally the point of them is that something has gone wrong if they're fighting alongside normal tyranids. They're a faction depicting cults and the organisation within. There are genestealer cults that rule multiple planets, waiting for their progenitor fleet to arrive.

albions-angel wrote:

Sigh, maybe, maybe I can see Quin justification IFF other Aeldari "mercs" are grouped in with them. Mandrakes, Scourges, Incubi, and, yes, Corsairs. The Ynnari plotline is not enough justification to make an entire faction, which requires maintenance and balancing and thus takes up resources, out of what appears to be SEVEN MODELS. What were they thinking splitting them from Eldar? Why the hell were they not simply allowed to be taken by Drukhari?

Harlequins are a seperate faction, they typically operate alone, or go off to warn/provide support for other factions. They can be a main fighting force on their own. I agree, they could do with some more models, but that doesn't change that they are an independent faction. The 'aeldari mercs', ignoring corsairs because you can run them alongside other aeldari factions, are all from commorragh. They are based in commorragh. Unless they're on a raid there is very little reason for them to not be in commorragh. It's a possibilty for there to be circumstances that force 'team-ups', but that would be in such a narratively focussed space that you'd be playing a narrative campaign and could just do it.

albions-angel wrote:

And I still dont understand, at all, why there are 12 named SM factions. Why are they not just slightly different bonuses taken for aligning to them? Some are just supplements, but some have their own full codexes! Why?! There should be a single, maybe 2 SM codexes, and then maybe 3 or 4 supplements which group the factions and maybe add one or 2 models.

Because that's straight up not the case. The seperate SM typically have plenty of unique units, ignoring characters. And that's literally what's happening. There is a central space marine codex, and the unique chapters are in supplements.

albions-angel wrote:

Why designers are not permanently assigned to a faction REGARDLESS of what they play, with more designers assigned to the core rules and core vision, I dont know.

That's exactly what we don't want, we want people who are interested in the faction to make the rules for that faction. The opposite of that is what caused the decline in multiple factions.

As someone that has played nids for 10yrs, I have never even seen once until just now someone say another about Nids with hand/hold guns like humans.