|
Post by bigbadbalou on May 4, 2022 14:23:55 GMT
I think capping Male MW output would be a mistake. And not even that, how do you really put the limitation on it? Is it a cap on it's psychic powers damage? cap on it's ability? A cap on all the MW outputs? And best case, if it's on the ability, you put a cap on something that, if the male gets to 7 wounds, would be mostly irrelevent for the rest of the game UNLESS it's in leviatan's fleet (so basically just nerfing 1 wound profile on the unit)? And whatever you cap, casting smite and neuroparasite could potentially get up to 18 MW (assuming max damage everywhere and psychic overload x2 only, so not too often to happens), so it would still be too overpowered then?
That doesn't make a lot of sense to me... I mean, at this point you might as well just change the mortal wounds suffered for either 1 or 2 MW max per psychic overload or the ability as a whole.
All in all, I think it's always an error to base the nerfing of a unit (any unit) if there is only certain circumstance that might happens to warrant it. It's been said a lot already, but it's not the maleceptor that needs a nerf in any way. The way to do that combo is still really hard to get and quite easy to avoid it for anyone who knows about it (short range, relatively slow unit, proc on psychic rolls of 7 only on 4 consecutive rolls, possibility of DtW on all thoses rolls, wound dependant...) couple that with low to no damage output outside psychic phase (no shooting capability at all and somewhat sub par melee capability with limited number of attack...). Yeah, the MW count are scary... but it's the only scary thing on that unit. Remove that and the unit serves no real purpose.
It's the leviathan strat that needs addressing. Nerfing Male would only put it sub par on ANY other circumstance if you are not running Leviathan and people will just ignore it.
|
|
|
Post by N.I.B. on May 4, 2022 14:45:37 GMT
I would hold with the self-defeating cries for nerfs until at least some weeks after the release of the new Knight codex and a good look on tournament results.
|
|
|
Post by purestrain on May 4, 2022 15:06:38 GMT
People would rather change the thing they hate than change the way they do things in order to achieve the same goal, its the same in normal life as it is on the tabletop. People like bringing MSU Killsquads, kitted out to the nines with every gun that can nearly 1 hit everything they need, this is where the maleceptor shines. You bring say, a 10 man cultist squad to stand in front of that incredibly useful unit, and the maleceptor suddenly becomes a bolter... I kill more things with my exocrine than I do the harpy, even with the fly over mortal wounds. People are just bad at positioning. A single cast of neuroparasite kills 8 of them on average. So casting a smite afterwards still gets you up to 6 (strat) or 9 (nexus) on whatever they're screening. Learn how to deny spells. also if you're more than 12" away you dont get hit by the extra mortal wounds, you can also pull models away to make the gap more than 12" because the overload happens after you resolve the spell.
|
|
|
Post by garg on May 4, 2022 16:16:55 GMT
I think capping Male MW output would be a mistake. And not even that, how do you really put the limitation on it? Is it a cap on it's psychic powers damage? cap on it's ability? A cap on all the MW outputs? And best case, if it's on the ability, you put a cap on something that, if the male gets to 7 wounds, would be mostly irrelevent for the rest of the game UNLESS it's in leviatan's fleet (so basically just nerfing 1 wound profile on the unit)? And whatever you cap, casting smite and neuroparasite could potentially get up to 18 MW (assuming max damage everywhere and psychic overload x2 only, so not too often to happens), so it would still be too overpowered then? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me... I mean, at this point you might as well just change the mortal wounds suffered for either 1 or 2 MW max per psychic overload or the ability as a whole. All in all, I think it's always an error to base the nerfing of a unit (any unit) if there is only certain circumstance that might happens to warrant it. It's been said a lot already, but it's not the maleceptor that needs a nerf in any way. The way to do that combo is still really hard to get and quite easy to avoid it for anyone who knows about it (short range, relatively slow unit, proc on psychic rolls of 7 only on 4 consecutive rolls, possibility of DtW on all thoses rolls, wound dependant...) couple that with low to no damage output outside psychic phase (no shooting capability at all and somewhat sub par melee capability with limited number of attack...). Yeah, the MW count are scary... but it's the only scary thing on that unit. Remove that and the unit serves no real purpose. It's the leviathan strat that needs addressing. Nerfing Male would only put it sub par on ANY other circumstance if you are not running Leviathan and people will just ignore it. I bolded in my original post that the ability should be capped not MW in the psy phase. It is not hard to get 3+ procs (the neuro will be in most lists as will warriors or other synapse to bounce the neuro buff). If it were hard to proc then the cap wouldn't matter most of the time so it would be a minor nerf to remove certain edge cases. The leviathan power may need a nerf but that is a lot more collateral damage than a simple cap.
|
|
|
Post by garg on May 4, 2022 16:20:48 GMT
A single cast of neuroparasite kills 8 of them on average. So casting a smite afterwards still gets you up to 6 (strat) or 9 (nexus) on whatever they're screening. Learn how to deny spells. also if you're more than 12" away you dont get hit by the extra mortal wounds, you can also pull models away to make the gap more than 12" because the overload happens after you resolve the spell. It is hard to avoid having units within 12" of opposing units for long periods in 9th. Standard DtW is not good against 3d6 pick 2 so for the majority of armies it is hard to avoid.
|
|
|
Post by nameless on May 4, 2022 16:22:41 GMT
Much as it would be nice to lift all other armies up to our level it is a lot easier to bring us down a peg. My preferred nerfs would be Maleceptor ability capped to 6MW.It's still strong this way and is a smaller change than converting the action to a power and I feel that 9 is a bit too much. Encircle the prey changes to a redeploy ala baharoth and once per turn.The spirit of the strat is kept and it's still useful but it reduces the non interaction of a tyrant casting powers shooting and then being off the board. A bump to 2CP will only make other stratagems be used less as the power of encircle will be the same but there will be less CP to go around. Harpy up 20 points.It will still be fine art 20 points more. These are all really reasonable changes and along the lines that I think we'll see.
|
|
|
Post by purestrain on May 4, 2022 16:37:49 GMT
No they aren't.
And thats not whats going to happen, they're going to jack the price of the maleceptor AND cap it, then make HVC cost more AND jack the harpies cost.
Stop asking for the whip.
|
|
|
Post by infornography on May 4, 2022 16:54:28 GMT
Listen, I get it, you want to have reasonable, measured rebalancing ideas out there for GW to stumble upon and potentially implement instead of their usual heavy handed hamfisted overbalancing that we are used to.
If history is any guide though, the only thing they will take away from threads like this is that even Tyranid players think they need nerfs. Then they will return to their usual hamfisted approach to implementing them.
I just ask that we hold off presenting our cheeks for the nerfbat until after we see what comes from the next few tourney results and possibly what the next codex or two bring that might invalidate most of our concerns. I would like for our codex to not lose a lot of our internal balance for the sake of knee-jerk half baked external balance concerns.
|
|
|
Post by nameless on May 4, 2022 17:12:07 GMT
No they aren't. And thats not whats going to happen, they're going to jack the price of the maleceptor AND cap it, then make HVC cost more AND jack the harpies cost. Stop asking for the whip. If you don't want to contribute to the discussion, don't post in the thread.
|
|
|
Post by nameless on May 4, 2022 17:21:40 GMT
Listen, I get it, you want to have reasonable, measured rebalancing ideas out there for GW to stumble upon and potentially implement instead of their usual heavy handed hamfisted overbalancing that we are used to. If history is any guide though, the only thing they will take away from threads like this is that even Tyranid players think they need nerfs. Then they will return to their usual hamfisted approach to implementing them. I just ask that we hold off presenting our cheeks for the nerfbat until after we see what comes from the next few tourney results and possibly what the next codex or two bring that might invalidate most of our concerns. I would like for our codex to not lose a lot of our internal balance for the sake of knee-jerk half baked external balance concerns. I want to discuss it. I don't care if GW reads it, so there's nothing to "get" on that front. It seems like a lot of people are flipping out because people are even having this discussion and if so, there are other threads to read if you'd rather not be involved. I don't want to buy or paint anything that could get nerfed. So I want to talk about it. New codex changes won't fundamentally change the need for some adjustments, what will change them are overall 40k wide changes (i.e. armour of contempt) which can lessen the need for some targeted nerfs (i.e. like warriors)
|
|
|
Post by infornography on May 4, 2022 17:36:03 GMT
I understand that angle, but again if history is any indication, there is no telling how things will change. We can anticipate that the changes will be excessive and it will likely be wide reaching, affecting many of our units, but there is absolutely no chance anyone on this forum has the slightest clue which units will survive the fallout on top and which ones will become unplayable. The only useful advice that can be provided is to hold off until at least the first big FAQ and possibly the first balance update if you are that concerned.
That said, unless you are chasing tourney success on a limited budget, you are probably better off buying the currently effective units you like or can build a fun list with. Any more than that, I don't know what you expect to get any special insight into from this thread. We don't have enough info yet to know what is truly broken as opposed to simply good. This entire discussion is premature, but even once we have some tourney results and CAN actually identify which units are truly broken, GW's rebalancing is often so wild that we cannot predict what will be hit by the splash damage.
In 8th edition, when our new codex was merely pretty good at first, within a VERY short time, GW fundamentally changed the deep strike rules and added the rule of 3 which had WIDE reaching effects not just on the game, but even across a lot of our codex knocking several units out of being competitive.
|
|
|
Post by bigbadbalou on May 4, 2022 17:38:57 GMT
I think capping Male MW output would be a mistake. And not even that, how do you really put the limitation on it? Is it a cap on it's psychic powers damage? cap on it's ability? A cap on all the MW outputs? And best case, if it's on the ability, you put a cap on something that, if the male gets to 7 wounds, would be mostly irrelevent for the rest of the game UNLESS it's in leviatan's fleet (so basically just nerfing 1 wound profile on the unit)? And whatever you cap, casting smite and neuroparasite could potentially get up to 18 MW (assuming max damage everywhere and psychic overload x2 only, so not too often to happens), so it would still be too overpowered then? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me... I mean, at this point you might as well just change the mortal wounds suffered for either 1 or 2 MW max per psychic overload or the ability as a whole. All in all, I think it's always an error to base the nerfing of a unit (any unit) if there is only certain circumstance that might happens to warrant it. It's been said a lot already, but it's not the maleceptor that needs a nerf in any way. The way to do that combo is still really hard to get and quite easy to avoid it for anyone who knows about it (short range, relatively slow unit, proc on psychic rolls of 7 only on 4 consecutive rolls, possibility of DtW on all thoses rolls, wound dependant...) couple that with low to no damage output outside psychic phase (no shooting capability at all and somewhat sub par melee capability with limited number of attack...). Yeah, the MW count are scary... but it's the only scary thing on that unit. Remove that and the unit serves no real purpose. It's the leviathan strat that needs addressing. Nerfing Male would only put it sub par on ANY other circumstance if you are not running Leviathan and people will just ignore it. I bolded in my original post that the ability should be capped not MW in the psy phase. It is not hard to get 3+ procs (the neuro will be in most lists as will warriors or other synapse to bounce the neuro buff). If it were hard to proc then the cap wouldn't matter most of the time so it would be a minor nerf to remove certain edge cases. The leviathan power may need a nerf but that is a lot more collateral damage than a simple cap. Sure, you can relatively easily get 3+ proc each turn... IF you have a neurothrope in your list, and IF you use it's ability on the maleceptor instead of another psyker, and IF you use the strat to get the additional psychic power for the Male (or use the Maleceptor's imperative to use it's action i guess...?), and IF one power doesn't get denied once in all 3 attempts (thinking about the strats that can deny on a roll of 4+ for example, or just good psykers armies like eldars) or failed (because you know, with 3d6 drop 1 you still have around 20% chance of failure to roll a 7, so on 3 rolls you still only have roughly 50% chance to make all 3 rolls...) , and IF you are within 12' of any valuable target... All this while not being wounded much because if below half health, the max cap of 6MW would not matter for the 3 procs... So yeah... in my book, that's more something you prepare for and commit to, rather than something easily done. In this case, sure it's "easy" to do, because you put lots of ressources to get it. And remove ANY one point mentioned above, and you are already looking at something more around a max 6MW per turn.
|
|
|
Post by anfauglirpainting on May 4, 2022 18:13:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by strangevisitor on May 4, 2022 18:34:26 GMT
I'm a lurker here at this site, but thought I'd add-in my two cents re: maleceptor.
There are some suggestions of limiting the ability output to 6 mortal wounds per phase, similar to other mortal wounds generating powers. However, I have another idea. If the mortal wound application of the ability was D3 damage, rather than flat three, it could address these concerns. The avg output would be 6 damage across three casts, with possibilities for spikes, but also dips, in offensive power. The variable output would provide a way for non-psychic and elite armies to better weather the incoming damage in sub-par phases, but still retain the raw potential of the original rule in the event of hot dice.
This seems like a safer, fairer way for both Nid players and their opponents to address the mortal wound spam. Whether the nerf is truly needed will be borne out by upcoming tournament results, but in the event the nerf bat is finally raised high, this adjustment could somewhat limit the bleeding for this particular unit. Just my thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by piersonsmuppet on May 4, 2022 20:43:38 GMT
I'm a lurker here at this site, but thought I'd add-in my two cents re: maleceptor. There are some suggestions of limiting the ability output to 6 mortal wounds per phase, similar to other mortal wounds generating powers. However, I have another idea. If the mortal wound application of the ability was D3 damage, rather than flat three, it could address these concerns. The avg output would be 6 damage across three casts, with possibilities for spikes, but also dips, in offensive power. The variable output would provide a way for non-psychic and elite armies to better weather the incoming damage in sub-par phases, but still retain the raw potential of the original rule in the event of hot dice. This seems like a safer, fairer way for both Nid players and their opponents to address the mortal wound spam. Whether the nerf is truly needed will be borne out by upcoming tournament results, but in the event the nerf bat is finally raised high, this adjustment could somewhat limit the bleeding for this particular unit. Just my thoughts. Moving to d3 MWs would require a complete re-write of the ability so that output still decreases as the Mal is injured. 2 CP for a Mal to cast a 3rd power is the right first step imo. This just feels like a massive oversight with how the Tfex got 2CP for Scorch Bugs. No way that 1CP for PotHM on a Mal is equal to PotHM on any other Nid Psyker, and is equal to 2CP spent for other factions when used on the Mal (1CP cast again, 1CP for 3 MWs). Hive Nexus could potentially use a change to an unused Synaptic Imperative, but I think the PotHM nerf will correct the problem enough without any impact to the Malceptor's useability for 99% of players. Bonus is that the CP increase of PotHM causes an indirect 25pt increase for the Mal for people wanting to still spam PotHM by making Enraged Reserves an extremely attractive option. You can either rarely use PotHM and not feel much impact or use PotHM heavily and feel a 25pt increase to a Malceptor and less CP efficiency using PotHM 3+ times. Same goes for Monsters using Encircle. I don't hear any griping about how Zoans or Raveners can Encricle. All the complaints are focused on Tyrants/Harpies using it every turn or multiple times per turn. That type of play stops real quick when 4-6 CP lists have to spend an additional CP every time.
|
|