List Building with our new codex!

I'd like to see Raiding Force getting tweaked eventually; it was a massively hyped up rule that was actually dead on arrival thanks to the changes to Brigades/Battalions and the limit of 3 detachments in most events.

Altering it to something like "3 Patrols give +6 Command Points, 6 Patrols give +13, and for the purpose of organised events a Raiding Force counts as a single detachment" would go a long way towards it actually seeing play on the tabletop.

Might also be nice for us to think about maybe compiling a sequel to the GW letter from a few months back, although we'd have to be careful that it wasn't just a wishlist of buffs.

The only change I think Raiding Party needs is to make a Raiding Party of 3 Patrol detachments count as 1 ‘Detachment slot’ and 6 count as 2 slots.

The effective requirements are 3 HQ, 3 Troops. One more HQ than a Battalion, one less CP and in return, you get to bring very specialised units.

Perhaps I could see an argument for 5 CP, to bring it on line with a Battalion’s boons, but I wouldn’t give it a higher CP count. The option to have 3 Obsessions per slot, as well as a reduction of Faction tax, I think would cover it.

I think your suggestion would be great for soup lists Ikol.

I would rather see a 3 partrol count as 2 detachment slots and 4 (or 5) cp.
While the 6 patrol would count as 3 detachment slots and give 10 (or even 12) cp
This means a 6 patrol would be a full army both in filled detachments and command points (and I think it should be). It would also mean that 6 patrol raiding massacre is not just the same as 2 times a 3 patrol raiding party. It would give a slight cp bonus for those who field pure deldar armies with a large raiding force, while making soup with the full deldar codex possible with the small raiding force.

Apologies for my ignorance, I haven't been playing 40k seriously for very long at all, but do GW actually make changes like the ones suggested for the Archon's buff and Raiding Force during an edition? As in, would we see these changes in the near future if GW decided they were appropriate?

It's probably unlikely for the most part. They have done a few things better in 8th Edition in terms of updates and release rate of new books, but a do-over of Codexes to fix up minor stuff probably isn't going to happen.

Maybe there will be new models that might cover some of the mobility options we want, but it's probably more likely the current model options will dictate things for a while yet.

Burnage wrote:

I'd like to see Raiding Force getting tweaked eventually; it was a massively hyped up rule that was actually dead on arrival thanks to the changes to Brigades/Battalions and the limit of 3 detachments in most events.

Altering it to something like "3 Patrols give +6 Command Points, 6 Patrols give +13, and for the purpose of organised events a Raiding Force counts as a single detachment" would go a long way towards it actually seeing play on the tabletop.

Yeah, as it stands it has more requirements than a Battalion, but provides fewer CPs.

WhatAHowl wrote:

Apologies for my ignorance, I haven't been playing 40k seriously for very long at all, but do GW actually make changes like the ones suggested for the Archon's buff and Raiding Force during an edition? As in, would we see these changes in the near future if GW decided they were appropriate?

Well, they've shown that they're willing to alter abilities - with the Commissar's aura having been changed considerably from the version originally printed in the codex (it used to limit losses to 1-per-unit, now you can instead kill a model to reroll a failed morale test).

I don't know how likely it is that they'll tweak the Archon's aura, but it's certainly possible.

Most rule changes we have seen were things that had a large impact on gameplay because they were powerfull, the only real rules changes because something was not powerfull enough was something they already edited I think.

About the only things I expect the designers to errata, if anything, are the Raiding Force rules and possibly the Agents of Vect (change to 4+ success) and Onslaught Stratagems (remove 'unmodified'). I don't think AoV is busted, but if survey says Black Heart is always a clear and obvious choice for top table Drukhari players I would hope it gets changed, along with Disintegrators bumped to 20pts.

Raiding Force was designed to work in tandem with our army's new layout, and I think it will be updated once the beta rules become firm. I think it was sensible of them to leave it alone for now while they see what kind of meta settles in with detachment limitations.

Vect should be cheaper then if it only has a 50/50 chance of success.

I see Kabalites, Grotesques, and Disintegrators as all likely candidates for point hikes. That’s about it though.

Venoms might get a love tap nerf, too.

lcfr wrote:

About the only things I expect the designers to errata, if anything, are the Raiding Force rules and possibly the Agents of Vect (change to 4+ success) and Onslaught Stratagems (remove 'unmodified'). I don't think AoV is busted, but if survey says Black Heart is always a clear and obvious choice for top table Drukhari players I would hope it gets changed, along with Disintegrators bumped to 20pts.  

I agree AoV isn't at all broken.

I think the problem with Black Heart is that it was given basically all the best support abilities. You've got a CP regeneration warlord trait, a reroll 1s to wound aura artefact, and a unique stratagem-countermeasure.

Combined with the 6+++, you've basically got the perfect Kabal for a Ravager spearhead.

The HQ gets the warlord trait and stratagem (and there are no wasted HQs), the Ravagers get the 6+++ and the double-auras, and the army gets access to Agents of Vect.

I think it might have been a mistake to have all those support abilities clustered in the same Kabal.

Burnage wrote:

Venoms might get a love tap nerf, too.

Do you think they really need one?

Certainly not a big one. They're just so easy to spam right now that I'm pretty sure GW will consider them A Problem.

Burnage wrote:

Certainly not a big one. They're just so easy to spam right now that I'm pretty sure GW will consider them A Problem.

Granted, but they're still pretty fragile, they have a transport capacity of 5, and even fully upgraded their firepower is still awful.

As an example, do you think they currently compare favourably to Starweavers? Those are closer to 100pts but have a better save, better mobility, better capacity, and vastly superior firepower.

if they nerfed AoV to a 4+, they would need to lower the cost, AND make it that the CP spent by the enemy are spent no matter what, otherwise its not reliable enough AND you'll be losing the CP fight quickly

Whilst a slight nerf would be fine, this is GW we are talking about.. If the ynnari nerf was any indication of their subtlety, I think we can assume ours will be quite harsh too.

Soulless Samurai wrote:

Burnage wrote:

Certainly not a big one. They're just so easy to spam right now that I'm pretty sure GW will consider them A Problem.

Granted, but they're still pretty fragile, they have a transport capacity of 5, and even fully upgraded their firepower is still awful.

As an example, do you think they currently compare favourably to Starweavers? Those are closer to 100pts but have a better save, better mobility, better capacity, and vastly superior firepower.

This. I barely even look at Venoms these days. Not anywhere near enough bang for my buck.

I still think Splinter Cannons should have been made to be -1ap. It would have made it worth the points on venoms

Soulless Samurai wrote:

Burnage wrote:

Certainly not a big one. They're just so easy to spam right now that I'm pretty sure GW will consider them A Problem.

Granted, but they're still pretty fragile, they have a transport capacity of 5, and even fully upgraded their firepower is still awful.

As an example, do you think they currently compare favourably to Starweavers? Those are closer to 100pts but have a better save, better mobility, better capacity, and vastly superior firepower.

In a vacuum I think they're fine compared to Starweavers - Venoms are 25%-33% cheaper, after all. The potential issue is due to the rest of the lists. We have much cheaper units than Harlequins, which means that it's much easier for us to spam transports; the price of an unupgraded unit of Kabalites in a Venom is still cheaper than the Starweaver by itself.

Hell, we can see on the last page that throwing 9 Venoms into a list is fully capable of winning a tournament. I'm not saying that they're a problem unit - and if they are, they're probably our least problematic problem unit - just that I think they're a possible candidate for getting tweaked in some way. I'd quite like to see their base cost increased, but Splinter Cannons buffed as compensation.

Burnage wrote:

In a vacuum I think they're fine compared to Starweavers - Venoms are 25%-33% cheaper, after all. The potential issue is due to the rest of the lists. We have much cheaper units than Harlequins, which means that it's much easier for us to spam transports; the price of an unupgraded unit of Kabalites in a Venom is still cheaper than the Starweaver by itself.

Granted, but 5 naked Warriors still aren't adding a whole lot.

It's certainly very different from 7th, when Warriors were used to unlock Venoms as gunboats. Now most people don't even bother buying the second Splinter Cannon on the Venom, because Splinter Cannons are just so underwhelming.

Burnage wrote:

Hell, we can see on the last page that throwing 9 Venoms into a list is fully capable of winning a tournament.

Perhaps, but we also don't know what role said Venoms played or how vital they were to those wins. Let's not forget that the list also contained 3 BH Ravagers (along with the accompanying RotLM Archon), plus a Shadowseer and 7 Skyweavers (which have the firepower of about 15 Haywire Scourges, alongside substantial melee ability).

Aschen wrote:

I still think Splinter Cannons should have been made to be -1ap.  It would have made it worth the points on venoms

To be honest, I'm not convinced that the current Poison rules are the way to go at all. Given the changes that have occurred, they seem more than a little outdated.

What's more, we seem to be the only army still using them. e.g. Tyranid poison weapons now work completely differently (in both shooting and melee), having a variety of strength and AP values, and sometimes the ability to deal Mortal Wounds (the only consistent aspect is that they all seem to inflict multiple damage). They also suffer no loss of power against vehicles.

Please delete, I posted in the wrong topic.