Give GSC 3" deepstrike, super cool, super unique and asymmetrical - then give it to literally everyone else till it becomes a problem, then remove it so no-one gets to 3" deepstrike. Give Marines armor of contempt, super cool, super unique and asymmetrical - then give it to literally everyone else till it becomes a problem, then remove it so no-one gets -1AP for a phase.
As a HOA GSC player, the 3" hurt a lot for primary scoring. Really need the 20 blobs to roll a 9 on charges now in an aready cp hungry detachment. Not moaning but does hit hard
I think AoC would be fine if it couldn't stack with cover. It's even thematically weird for it to stack. "I look down at your contemptuous pathetic self as I hide behind this rock here"
I think that works. I've always viewed power armour in 40k as being the thing that lets you cross no-mans-land - i.e you don't NEED to hide behind cover. But I also get cover and positioning being a key gameplay element too..
Yeah, a few of our mitigation stratagems still last the whole phase. Only a couple subfactions got hit by the AoC nerf. And even Renegade Raiders, who ate the nerf, is happier to exist in an ecosystem where their AP trait is harder to counter.
playing Orks this was a godsend, most stuff doesn't get past AP -2 and before taktical brigade shooting BS was so poor that when an enemy used something like this I started to wonder why I'd even bothered to shoot (and then just decided Dakka was just fun, but my point still stands )
I just wish Orks had either more volume, keywords or AP on our Dakka to make the gamble worth it. Taktikal Brigade might make me love the game again after getting really frustrated with some of our slightly lackluster data sheets
As a CSM player I do enjoy it still as I only tend to run into killy bricks that have heavy output but few units, so just that one unit getting the brunt and surviving for that one hit is fine by me, I make use of most detachments anyway so now the ones lacking AoC aren't just worse.
A better nerf would have been to remove the stacks with cover on a 2+ save of it by making it come first Or rework cover so that everything doesn’t always have cover all the time
@Hallow_the_fur no it doesn't. That's only if the attack is with 0AP, as you can't reduce the AP below 0, so you wouldn't be able to then increase your save to a 2+ from a 3+ if the weapons AP was 0. Cover also doesn't increase your save by 1 if the attacking weapon is AP0. There is plenty of character/vehicle/infantry models that have a 2+ save, and were able to use AP reduction, and cover to ensure essentially anything below AP-3 would still keep them at a 2+ save.
This was just a case of GW getting caught in a design trap of their own making from the get-go. One of their goals in 10th edition was to lower AP to the point were Power Armour(and other 3+ save models) actually felt armoured(which they often didn't in 9th with how out of hand AP creep had gotten during that edition). So GW reduced the AP of a bunch of weapons across the game. To then scatter a -1AP stratagem across so many detachments was a massive error in judgement, as it very quickly made all AP-1 melee and AP-2 shooting that didn't ignore cover feel next to useless. Really, with 10th eds new AP values, AoC shouldn't have been in the game. Or at least, it shouldn't have been as universally applicable as it was in stratagem form. The default defensive stratagems should have been the 10th ed version of Transhuman for the "tough" armies(Marines, Votann, Custodes, Orks, etc) and the standard -1 To Be Hit stratagem for the "tricksy" armies(Eldar, Dark Eldar, GSC, T'au, etc).
@@d.t.m8393 Fr so much stuff in the game makes a 3+ save not really mean anything that AoC was used so much. This change is still probably good cuz I can't deal with stuff like a Land Raider getting AoC but damn this gonna hurt my Infantry.
For real tho! I have a R'vharna, super useful against infantry, but DAMN armor of contempt was such a crutch to save infantry that they had either badly poaitioned or were sacrificing because they had AoC, now at least this beast can be treathening against infantry and my opponent will be forced to use its brain when using the stratagem instead of just using it as a cheap crutch every f*cking turn
It's unfortunate since there are plenty of things that make tough armies feel like you're playing Imperial Guard and AOC helped make tough armies feel tough. I believe the AOC not stacking with Cover would work better than just nerfing AOC since it worked with the lore anyway.
@taffyadam6031 GW is British so they spell it like "Armour", which is the British English spelling, while the others spelling is the American English "Armor".
What vexed me was that the armies that got this kind of stratagem were all high toughness armies to begin with. Low save armies never got anything like this but when a custodes/grey knights/marines player fianlly exposed one of their 3 ultra durable mega damage units and you tried to focus it then suddeny OOPSY DAISY I SAVE -3 AP ON A 3+ LOL
I feel like James Worshop's seen the data & saw how practically every space marine player uses the strat. It only makes sense to me that they want players to start using different strategems besides AoC to make the game more interesting?
@@DARmanbuttermilk1136 Fr this is how I'm feeling about it. I play Marines and have to stack every defisive option I can otherwise my expensive infantry units die. I'd be ok with my 3+ save if the unit didn't evaporate as soon as a single model was in line of sight of my opponent. While this change is probably for the better because of stuff like Land Raider it does feel bad as someone who prefers infantry
What did they expect when they plastered it in every single SM detachment though? Its like ordering a bunch of fruit baskets and then being annoyed you have a lot of fruit baskets.
@xmaracx Yeah.... Last edition they found out that 3+ save doesn't matter when just about every single army has a good way of dealing with them so this edition they made it so everyone that needed it had a way to make it matter but here we are again.
I have always hated Armor of Contempt. It felt like they were ignoring the nightmare they made. AP needed to be reworked alongside Invulnerable Saves. Avoiding the issue GW.
It is on days like this that I look back at 7th edition with tears in my eyes, acknowledging it was, by far the GOAT edition of Wh40k. I have been playing the game since late 2nd...
I think GW should either introduce d10 or 2d6 saving throws at this point, or to make space marines cheaper, and militarum infantry equivalents even cheaper. This rule is getting ridiculous with all those conditions.
I like that they haven't just power-crept AP like in 9th (although there's still too much high-AP in 10th imho) and have taken this route instead - BUT from a Dark-Angels perspective, I don't like how it's indirectly nerfed standard shooty termies from an internal balance perspective. Those guys need a lot of help if they're ever going to see the tabletop.
It was obviously a little too good, as in some armies it was aoutomatically used 1-2 times every round, so initially I think the nerf is a good thing overall.
Problem was how low AOC could bring saves. no on minded it on hell blasters. but terminators or land raiders in cover being 2+ with -ap was rough. This helped the cover, but still miserable for melee armies as must melee is -2 ap, so running into termies with 2+ with 1 ap is rough, or worse your orc with massive of 1 ap... maybe make aoc improve save. but can't improve past 3+ for range og 4+ in melee. maybe ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@@peterpedersen3753 I feel this but also I feel like Power Armor should actually save stuff. Feels like Marines die to a stiff breeze with how many armies can deal with a 3+ save so easily😭. The change is probably for the better but this is gonna be rough.
@@JimH. Yes, they are. And they have always been. SM factions have by far the most wide and flexible rooster of any subset of the game. I am sorry that your very specific flavour of SM was not performing well. Meanwhile, you have had a SM-like army in the top 5/ above 50% WR for 99% of the game history. Maybe y'all should play a more limited army to finally understand what not everyone has access to all types of profiles both in defense and attack, all types of strats, etc. and that the only thing that sometimes weight you down is points. Some armies do in fact have weaknesses that cannot be solved by points alone, and that is by design.
@@darklink9922 Yeah, at this point i feel like there is more 2 dmg weapon than 1 damage weapons. (haven't looked it up), just like there is a massive amount of 3 damage weapons. And 2 damage weapons just kill marines super well. maybe flatten it out. So less 2 and 3 and more 1 and 4. with 1 dmg weapon getting str and ap to be actually good.
i feel that it should not stack with cover, seeing how cover rules still says you can not have a save better than a 3+. like apply an order of operations for this
I am a bit bummed that the Tyranids already had a nerfed version of armour of contempt by only affecting synapse units meaning exocrines, tyrannifexes, old one eye etc couldn't benefit from it but now that everyone is equally worse across the board i don't feel as bad as I've stop playing synaptic nexus all together a while ago.
Look i didn't enjoy AoC alot as alot of players in my group didn't run SM and we had 1 guy running blood angel's and just killed us with AoC so much we started to avoid games with him. So im happy AoC got hit the way it did.
@@mtrunkello Bru it's the fact most of the guys have had to slowly start with odd points numbers with low toughness and 0 or -1 ap units vs a guy who used meta Lists and then would shit everything inside ruins and cover and we just get rolled. Big difference mate. Especially when before the nerf to AoC. So I'm glad AoC is needed Hella hard it was required
@@mtrunkello It is pretty self-explanatory. Having a key "melee killer unit" that you can make sure take as little damage as possible the shooting phase and either of the combat phases, means the key unit survives for much longer and keeps killing the opposition. A lot of melee armies usually only have AP-1 or AP-2. Being able to consistently reduce that means much more survivability(example, going from 2+ save to 3+ save means you lose +100% more models on average). There is a reason why Armour of Contempt was the most used stratagem of any army that had access to it(even more used than command reroll). It was too impactful and too flexible and easy to use.
Fine change, I think. But certain models either needed more defense or needed to go down in points. My Land Raider is a 285 point target for anti tank weaponry now. A riptide is 100 points cheaper, and has an Invuln. I think AOC was an important resource for keeping my landraider alive, but now I can't. Sure it's more lethal now, but It's hard to justify taking with how easy it is to kill.
@@somegoodsalt IDK the Riptide still seems more vulnerable than the Landrader. Yeah they have a Inv but also less wounds, way lower toughness, slower, lower OC and weaker weapons.
Not to be offensive, but what is that comparison? First Land Raider is 240 points. Second, it is a transport. Third, it hits like a rail gun. Fourth, it allows move, disembark and then charge, which already gives you at least 7 inches over normal move of almost any unit. Finally, it is a T12 W16 2+, which is massive. How is any of that comparable to a Riptide suit?? Riptide is not a transport. It is a T9 W14 2+. Riptide's main weapon is a completely different profile, S7/8 v S12 for LR. So it is less durable, has different shooting targets, and it is not a transport. Why would they be cost anywhere near each other?? And the Riptide is 190! It is 50 p difference to a Land Raider! It is like comparing an knife and a coffee mug and complaining about how poorly the coffee mug cuts steaks.
@@holdenchambers3986 I made a point that it's not very tough, but you referenced all of it's lethality. I don't disagree at all that it kills and is useful. I am simply pointing out that it dies easy for its points. For example, and I just checked the math on math hammer, 2 gladiator lancers and a grenades strat will kill it on average without oath. When you consider that most lists will similarly take 2 anti tank options, most land raiders will die in one turn as soon as you move it up the board. With old AOC and smoke it can actually survive more than a single turn, which I think is fair considering it costs 2 command points to keep alive.
@@somegoodsalt Fair but also that's also 320 points worth of shooting and assuming you don't take one out first which if like you're saying most ppl bring similar amounts of Anti-tank you should be able to do. IDK feels like the Land Raider is still plenty tough you just can't leave it out in the middle of an open field and have it tank an army worth of shooting anymore but also that's just me.
Great content, as always! Could you help me with something unrelated: I have a SafePal wallet with USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (alarm fetch churn bridge exercise tape speak race clerk couch crater letter). How should I go about transferring them to Binance?
what really bothers me is that my armor of contempt got worse while dark eldar night shields, which feels like a similar rule, didn't get hit even though it seems more impactful in the games i have been play (it is my favorite strategem, claims my common dark eldar opponent who loads up on three ravagers and just anihilates me with them as they feel pretty indestructible while also feeling free looking at the point costs).
It's defensively like a chimera with a 4+ save and a 4+ invulnerable save. What are you shooting at it to make them feel invincible? Eradicators wound it on 4s, Infernus marines wound it on 5s...
@@filsyah1yeah as a Drukhari player my ravagers are very much not tanky at all haha. Lucky if they survive shooting from 1/2 squads when using the stratagem
Tanky eldar? T9 is the most we have. Sure ravager can do a lot of damage (or not because only 3 shot + random damage) But they will vanish whenever you shoot them. I play Ynnari and my only really tanky unit are Wraith
So my primary armies are Grey Knights, Tyranids, and sisters of battle. I primarily shoot at them with Exocrines, dreadknights, and multi-meltas, and if I expose myself to shoot rhem and don't kill them, I get obliterated by return fire. And with the invulnerable save, I find myself exposing two units to try to kill one, failing because of made invulnerable saves, and losing both units to return fire due to the mobility of his weapons platforms. Either I have extreme bad luck, he is rolling well, or my three primary armies are all paper to his scissors, but it certainly seems like every game I end up nearly getting tabled while he still has two thirds of his army left with a relatively close score that will get out of hand if we ever play a round five.
I have noticed it when playing my space marines. I have to be very picky when to use it and most often it is used on units to allow them to even have a save it feel like these days. Not having it for a phase means i have to hide more often unless they have invul saves the can tank.
At this point, I feel like they should start having Warhammer use D10 exclusively, to make save rolls more varied. Its difficult to see a Tank have a 2+ save and then an infantry unit have a 3+ save. Just doesn't make any sense anymore.
Stuff never makes sense. I play Orks. My friend is always shocked when I tell him big armored Ghaz has toughness 6, but the random shirtless generic boy on Squig has 7
Vehicles shouldn't have saves, they need to use what they do in heresy, armour values and hull points. That way low strength weapons cannot remove wounds from vehicles and you have to actually position units to get advantageous shooting.
@@colinbielat8558it takes 198 bolt rifle shots to kill a predator - I think that’s alright to show that it’s super tough, but not invulnerable. Weight of fire can still do some work with powerful futuristic anti infantry weapons even against tough targets which is kind of cool as a last resort
It is a stratagem that reduces the incoming AP for the entire phase(which is what was changed). It can be used in both the Shooting phase and the Combat phase. It only cost 1 CP. It is prevalent in factions that can reduce the cost by 1(currently making it free). They could have changed it to only work in 1 of the phases, change the cost or change how the mechanic worked. The current adjustment makes it powerful "against the right target and in the right situation", rather than being an easy "go to" at the start of a shooting phase/combat phase where you expect multiple units attacking your unit.
It's funny because I'm still new to the game. I've only played about 5 games. Never used Armor of Contempt when it was good because, being new, I didn't know how good it was and would forget it exists. I still haven't played a 2k game. I will be finishing my 2k list in the next week or two.
Armour of contempt change was the best thing GW has done since forever ago... lets just hope 11th editions isn't going to be as big of a mess as 10th was. Let us be honest, launch 10th edition vs current 10th edition are two different games at this point. Remember when they said they will limit rerolls and now they are handing them out left and right? 10th edition rules fundamentally are not good.
100% agreed. It is a shame because there are some good ideas in 10th, but overall it has been so poorly implemented. GW prioritised 'simplicity' over a well thought through game system, then had to make so many tweaks for a vaguely playable game that it negated the simplicity,. giving a worst of both worlds mess.
@@samhunter1205 I think removing a lot of wargear options and costs was the biggest mistake. We will see though, in Warhammer+ employees themselves talked about how they hope some of it comes back and it would make sense. Also make psychic be a positive thing again instead of a negative keyword.
@netprince455 again, I 100% agree about wargear costs. Per model squad costs need to return as well, it is the wrong thing to try to simplify. It wasn't complicated in the first place (I managed with it fine in 2nd edition when there were far more options, and I was 11 at the time), and it definitely does serve a useful purpose in the game. Personally I absolutely hate the lack of customisation options in general in 10th. Being able to tailor and customise my army is an absolute non-negotiable for me playing the game, and possibly the single biggest reason why I don't play 10th.
@nein4599 I think half the issue is management. Refusing to develop the army rules at the same time and having rules teams operate in silos is a recipe for disaster, and they don't even seem to have any objectives metric as a baseline for costing units, which is absolute insanity.
The biggest problem I have with this change is how uneven it is despite being applied as a sweeping thing across the entire game. The obvious comparison is between Marines of any stripe and Sisters. Marine units tend to be high-ish toughness with good saves, and there're multiple 2+ save units in their Codex that become very hard to shift with AoC and cover. In the Sisters' Codex, there's a grand total of one unit with a 2+ (Paragons) and nothing with a Toughness greater than 10, meaning they rely far more on saves to stay alive. On top of that, Paragons have a 4++, as do units with a 2+ from an Imagifier, further narrowing the usefulness of Shield of Aversion. And then guess which Detachment has that stratagem? It's the one where two more strats got nerfed in the same update. I feel like Shield of Aversion should just be replaced altogether with a different strat, because as it stands Bringers has been nerfed to the point of near-irrelevance, in some cases seemingly by accident.
Maybe, as a result, we will see some points adjustments. Sisters used to benefit from being fairly cheap for their saves and firepower. On another note, Sisters of Battle are able to get FNPs, various units do have access to Invulnerable saves, and you can manipulate dice with Miracle Dice. There are several factions that have none of these benefits, and still do not have access to a stratagem similar to Armour of Contempt.
@@fendelphi They have T3, and almost everything has 1 wound. You can get 6+++ from the Triumph, which is now ludicrously expensive, or 5+++ from a Hospitalier which is also expensive and now can't usually use its ability because of the MD nerf. With that nerf, you're unlikely to have enough MD to do more than a single save per Battle Round, and that's immediately cancelled out by low Toughness. Not to mention that doing that also means you're unlikely to have any dice for a damage roll or wound roll, and Sisters have barely any ways to re-roll either of those outside of Vahl. The MD nerf almost completely killed the army, and the AoC nerf just stamped on the corpse of Bringers a bit more for good measure.
@@Majere613 Dont forget the Stratagems that can give a FNP as well. The fact remains that the majority of their units(even vehicles) have an Inv. save to give them some protection even against high AP setups. Factions like Imperial Guard, GSC and Tau are also full of T3, W1 models, and they generally have worse saves and worse standard weaponry(BS 4+). They often end up with no saves at all when getting shot by half-decent weaponry. I agree that Sisters did not need more nerfs, but I also think that AoC should get nerfed across the board. If Sisters get a points cut, they can probably bounce right back.
@fendelphi There's one stray that gives FNP, it's against Mortals only and it's in Army of Faith, which effectively has no detachment rule at the moment. Sisters units have a 6++ innate, which effectively does nothing unless the attack is AP -3 or better and there's no cover, and none of their vehicles has a 2+. With T3 and 1W on ten-strong units the invulnerable is statistically irrelevant, it's unlikely to save more than one hit before the unit wipes. Sure, occasionally a Melta bounces off it and that's funny, but that's about it.
I'm not sorry about the change. AoC can be a trap for space marines: you pop it every turn and have no strats left for the cool stuff. And it's dismal playing into it as well. As a space marine player, I will probably switch to Vanguard to get -1 to hit from a distance. That will mitigate the loss of AoC. There's still a problem with all the units that have invulnerable saves. It's almost as if GW doesn't like AP, given that there are so many ways around it.
A lot of the time, the units that relies on Invulnerable Saves are either costly, have lower toughness or fewer wounds(or a worse standard save). The big problem with AoC(and similar) was that it kept the save range down in the 2+ or 3+ category with ease and for the entire phase(17/33% chance of failure). A 4+ Invulnerable save is, in the end, still a 50/50 chance that it will fail, and we still have things like the Grenade and Tank Shock stratagems(and other sources of Mortal Wounds) and Devastating Wounds that can bypass it. So it is all about using the right tool for the job.
This change is extremely frustrating especially when fighting lists with more durable tanks like guard. And don’t get me started about how CSM can still give thier tank lone op which is far more over powered
@@jeremiegartner464 My knowledge is second hand but from memory you can give a Vehicle a mark of nurgle and then a stratagem made it untagetable outside of 18. I'll be back ill try and verify. Yup that exactly it.
Guard tanks just haven't changed all that much tbh and even still a base Russ vs a base predator tank the predator wins most shooting. Plus the newer SM tanks are absolutely insane to deal with compared to guard ones
@@likeyacutg4720 I would say the Leman Russ Vanquisher is still the better anti-tank platform compared to a Predator Annihilator. That main gun is just deadly, you have a broad selection of secondary weapons that can still assist in tank killing(both Plasma Cannons and Multi-Meltas are great when you can get Lethal Hits from the Detachment rule), and the tank is more durable as well(T11, 2+ save, W13, compared to T10, 3+ save, W11).
Its only fair then to make sure all other defensive strats follow this example. Like no more fnp until the end of the phase, no more -1dmg no more -1 to wound or -1 to hit. Also dont give ap either.
I think the - damage thing is a bad thing in general. And as for FnP i think how GW had it many years ago was alot better, eg if a weapon was twice the strength of the toughness no fnp and if the Ap of a weapon was 1 (which would be 4+ now) no Fnp either. You were going to feel that melta shot in the face.
Custodes in 9th had a shield host that effectively gave them armour of contempt, so if they ended getting armour of contempt with the shield host they would’ve ignored ap 2
For sure AoC was good, quite good, but now its basically worthless. There are other defensive stratagems that last all phase, 5+++, and -1 to wound. I wonder if those will get changed, i know alot of space marine players love to swap AoC out for something "useful"
Do all of those stratagems allow any unit to be targeted? Can they be used in both the shooting and in either combat phase? Do they all cost 1 CP? Being able to mitigate AP at the right moment(either shooting or combat, on any unit, for 1 CP) is still good. It is just not to the degree that it is a no-brain decision every single time.
with how hard AP is to acquire for anti infantry weps, reducing the ability to reduce AP is more than a good idea, you don't want to add more AP to the game but you also don't want LSM to feel Op by ALWAYS getting a 3+ save no matter the circumstance, this nerf feels good, especially since more anti infantry weps are -1 and 99.9999999999999999999% of the time LSM cower in cover, which in my honest opinion is the most dumb thing ever, they shouldn't be allowed to gain the benefit of cover ever, with how low and rare AP is in the game its just so unnecessary and fluff wise stupid and counters the lore.
I mostly use it in melee, so it hasn't really changed for me. But i can see how other wouldn't like the change. SM are so far down the win rates they don't need any nerfs
@@whitee55 Ah, so you have already had your spot in the sun as part of the above 50% win rate. Anyway, there are other Space Marine chapters that have been doing very well for a long time, partially due to this stratagem. The thing is, it was the most used stratagem in the game for the factions that had access to it. Even surpassing Command Reroll and Overwatch. It needed to be toned down.
@fendelphi yeah templars were definitely up there before some of the other marine nerfs. And I've definitely heard people complain about AoC, but yeah i almost always used it in the fight phase, where you're generally only fighting one unit. I didn't realise it was quite that popular though, something being more popular than command reroll probably does need changing lol
Chaos claims the unwary or the incomplete. A true man may flinch away from its embrace, if he is stalwart, and he girds his soul with the armour of contempt.
I love the constant rule changes. Not confusing at all. They're totally not completely destroying the game and all the good will of long time fans with these senseless rule changes and rule bloat....
At this point the game has been updated so much they just need to chuck it in the bin. A game were there is more pages of updates than there is core rules says it time to say goodbye to the rules and stop flogging a dead horse.
That is a weird take. Are you one of the few who hates that video games get updates as well? Most of those pages simply elaborate and specify how a rule works(often with pictures), because, unfortunately, some people would bend the rules if there is just a possibility of a second meaning. If we condensed it all down to the most simple explaination, we would need far fewer pages, but a lot more abuse. If you want a clear overview of the rules, you can use the core rules on Wahapedia. It is updated with the new stuff as things gets added or removed. The alternative would be to make a game system that is so simple that there would be no room for interpretation, and so minimal additions would be required. But it would also be a very boring system with factions being almost identical.
@@fendelphi comparing video games to tabletop games in a weak dig. Jo blogs walks into a shop and buys a video game, he installs on his console or pc. Game auto updates and the person plays it. Person walks into a store and buys warhammer 40k, he reads the rules then goes to the local club to have a game and finds out that he is playing a game that it a year out of date and has to go and read a downloadable document that it 35 pages long and also check the faqs and updates for his faction so he can play properly. Not exactly a good system for someone that just once a game once in a while.
@@simplelogic933 didnt say that everyone thinks this way, just said my person opinion. If you like the constant updates and the triage approach that gw uses to balance their game, then all the power to you. Enjoy they game. But as someone that has very little spare time and only gets a game once a fortnight and 40k isnt my only tt game i play its not a great system.
@peppermintshore well you don't need to play all the rules I played like 13-14 games of 10th and I just now found out my group has royally been messing up the fight phase that doesn't change the fact it was still a blast playing unless the opponent was Tau
Tau and Guard weren't able to 100% effectively one shot stuff with their sub 200 point units. So, the rest of us got a nerf to ensure they can. Seems fair.
What a bs... Tell me the maths where our tanks one shot any tough vehicle? Please do! And if so, please don't consider orders in your maths, (or forget to price them) I'm curious!
No guard will always have to use guard level shooting 4+, which is worse to deal with space marine toughness space marine saves and are done dealing with our ap being negated every turn. Maybe space marine players will use brain cells when they run their vehicles now.
If AoC is nefed, then Strats that makes it harder to wound the target, or abilities like 😮Crossfire, that boost the ap for range and melee attacks, for a whole turn, should be nerfed as well.
It was a completely unnecessary nerf. You rarely used it to keep infantry alive but instead, it was vital to stop opponents detonating your vehicles too quickly. Marines will drop in their percentages now because of this, you watch. The strat was fine and should have been left alone.
Yes, I would hate that my anti vehicle weapon which costed me 200 points for a single shot would actually do its job and hurt the enemy SM Land Raider. It is only a T12 W16 2+ vehicle, which can pop smoke, benefit from covers, it can transport a full squad, etc. Oh, the horror! Not the Land Raider! SM-like factions will have to think about exposing their vehicles, just like the rest of us, instead of placing them in the middle of the board mindlessly, using this strat once per turn. Will they ever recover from this?
Sisters overall benefited. BoF being nerfed means we're all using Martyrs now, so AoC was still super rough to deal with. Now the enemy is going to be getting multiple AP -5 guns instead of just AP -4
@Wind-Whistler agree with Arn. Army of Faith is so so. The strats are really darn good but everything else in the detachment is weak sauce next to Martyrs. I also prefer the play style of Martyrs over Faith personally. Faiths Auras feel way too short even when you stage jump packs behind walls. Plus double MD barely comes up now. Martyrs meanwhile it's rule could make or break shooting which is extremely important
Ways to make your army more durable is always a good thing so this is a bad idea to me. Should have just written AOC to be a game wide strat so everyone can use it.
Give GSC 3" deepstrike, super cool, super unique and asymmetrical - then give it to literally everyone else till it becomes a problem, then remove it so no-one gets to 3" deepstrike. Give Marines armor of contempt, super cool, super unique and asymmetrical - then give it to literally everyone else till it becomes a problem, then remove it so no-one gets -1AP for a phase.
This. Seems like all armies have acces to all rules nowadays. No one has anything unique.
Space marines also had a unit that could do it from the start and it felt strong, that unit is still pointed for how strong it used to be. SMH
@@tuurderom2017 The nerf only applies to Stragagems, datasheet rules should be unchanged.
@ technically, right by where they nerfed stratagems they also modified datasheet abilities that did 3” deepstrike
As a HOA GSC player, the 3" hurt a lot for primary scoring. Really need the 20 blobs to roll a 9 on charges now in an aready cp hungry detachment. Not moaning but does hit hard
I think AoC would be fine if it couldn't stack with cover. It's even thematically weird for it to stack. "I look down at your contemptuous pathetic self as I hide behind this rock here"
I think that works. I've always viewed power armour in 40k as being the thing that lets you cross no-mans-land - i.e you don't NEED to hide behind cover. But I also get cover and positioning being a key gameplay element too..
I like that change better than what we got. Now AOC doesn't get used much and it overall made Armies that rely on good armor saves a lot squishier.
@@dsidhl yeah this - its not always great, but it has a place now.
More a 'I hate your very existence to such an extent that my will manifests its own shield around me'
As a CSM player, this helped me a hell of a lot more than it hurt.
Laughs in Night Lord
Yeah, a few of our mitigation stratagems still last the whole phase. Only a couple subfactions got hit by the AoC nerf. And even Renegade Raiders, who ate the nerf, is happier to exist in an ecosystem where their AP trait is harder to counter.
Glares at the mark of nurgal “ gee can’t imagine why
@@robrockstar9648 *Nurgle
I play Pactbound so we didn't even get it to start with 😅
playing Orks this was a godsend, most stuff doesn't get past AP -2 and before taktical brigade shooting BS was so poor that when an enemy used something like this I started to wonder why I'd even bothered to shoot (and then just decided Dakka was just fun, but my point still stands )
I just wish Orks had either more volume, keywords or AP on our Dakka to make the gamble worth it. Taktikal Brigade might make me love the game again after getting really frustrated with some of our slightly lackluster data sheets
2+ save stuff in cover with armor of contempt is a real pain. Could also stack it with smoke too to be even more annoying
No you can't stack because of the "just after" rule.
@ oh really? need to look that up. Rules commentary ?
As a CSM player I do enjoy it still as I only tend to run into killy bricks that have heavy output but few units, so just that one unit getting the brunt and surviving for that one hit is fine by me, I make use of most detachments anyway so now the ones lacking AoC aren't just worse.
The lack of invulnerable saves for the Votann (army wide) makes this far more brutal for us imo, compared to other armies
@@ajw5708 Just looked thought the index and damn not a single inv outside of characters 😭😭
Fair, but having T5 minimum in your army is goated
Marines have like 1 vehicle with an invulnerable save so we’re in the same boat.
Haha suck it
@@_Morph1ne_ Yeah but Marines can get em on alot of models if they really wanted to. Terminators, Bladeguard and anything that you ad a Librarian to
A better nerf would have been to remove the stacks with cover on a 2+ save of it by making it come first
Or rework cover so that everything doesn’t always have cover all the time
Cover only goes to a +3
@Hallow_the_fur no, it doesn't make a 3+ to a 2+, but that's it. If you have a 2+, you keep the 2+ at AP-1.
@Hallow_the_fur no it doesn't. That's only if the attack is with 0AP, as you can't reduce the AP below 0, so you wouldn't be able to then increase your save to a 2+ from a 3+ if the weapons AP was 0. Cover also doesn't increase your save by 1 if the attacking weapon is AP0.
There is plenty of character/vehicle/infantry models that have a 2+ save, and were able to use AP reduction, and cover to ensure essentially anything below AP-3 would still keep them at a 2+ save.
@@darklink9922 it would be a save 3+ not 2+ this is one of the situations where cover doesnt improve your save
@@darklink9922 cover cannot give you a cover. Save better than a 3+
I didn't realize, after all this time, hearing "transhuman physiology" would make my skin crawl like it did back in 9th
@@malal6512fighting dark angels was pain for that reason
@@joshuacouture479god I miss those days.
This was just a case of GW getting caught in a design trap of their own making from the get-go. One of their goals in 10th edition was to lower AP to the point were Power Armour(and other 3+ save models) actually felt armoured(which they often didn't in 9th with how out of hand AP creep had gotten during that edition).
So GW reduced the AP of a bunch of weapons across the game. To then scatter a -1AP stratagem across so many detachments was a massive error in judgement, as it very quickly made all AP-1 melee and AP-2 shooting that didn't ignore cover feel next to useless.
Really, with 10th eds new AP values, AoC shouldn't have been in the game. Or at least, it shouldn't have been as universally applicable as it was in stratagem form. The default defensive stratagems should have been the 10th ed version of Transhuman for the "tough" armies(Marines, Votann, Custodes, Orks, etc) and the standard -1 To Be Hit stratagem for the "tricksy" armies(Eldar, Dark Eldar, GSC, T'au, etc).
Agreed.
@@d.t.m8393 Fr so much stuff in the game makes a 3+ save not really mean anything that AoC was used so much. This change is still probably good cuz I can't deal with stuff like a Land Raider getting AoC but damn this gonna hurt my Infantry.
For real tho!
I have a R'vharna, super useful against infantry, but DAMN armor of contempt was such a crutch to save infantry that they had either badly poaitioned or were sacrificing because they had AoC, now at least this beast can be treathening against infantry and my opponent will be forced to use its brain when using the stratagem instead of just using it as a cheap crutch every f*cking turn
Woo, paragon suits are now even MORE squishy... Glass cannons AHOY!
I fully expected the comments of this one to be full of ions (mostly negatively charged) I was not disappointed.
It's unfortunate since there are plenty of things that make tough armies feel like you're playing Imperial Guard and AOC helped make tough armies feel tough. I believe the AOC not stacking with Cover would work better than just nerfing AOC since it worked with the lore anyway.
Man, it's so nerfed and pathetic now that they'll start calling _Armor_ of Contempt.
What?
@taffyadam6031 GW is British so they spell it like "Armour", which is the British English spelling, while the others spelling is the American English "Armor".
@@BoisegangGaming so... op is just a bigot?
@@taffyadam6031 Its a funny play on english language. You'd know if you had humor.
@@taffyadam6031 No he’s pointing out an idiosyncrasy in regional variations of the English language for comedic effect. See also: play on words.
Some armies literally had no offensive tools to deal with that type of durability. Especially at the beginning of 10th
Can someone tell me where to send some flowers to Tak from Play On Tabletop? I hear he's on life support now. 😂
What vexed me was that the armies that got this kind of stratagem were all high toughness armies to begin with. Low save armies never got anything like this but when a custodes/grey knights/marines player fianlly exposed one of their 3 ultra durable mega damage units and you tried to focus it then suddeny OOPSY DAISY I SAVE -3 AP ON A 3+ LOL
I feel like James Worshop's seen the data & saw how practically every space marine player uses the strat. It only makes sense to me that they want players to start using different strategems besides AoC to make the game more interesting?
I feel like what would help is if every freaking unit in the game didnt carry a gun that pops a marine every failed save
@@DARmanbuttermilk1136 Fr this is how I'm feeling about it. I play Marines and have to stack every defisive option I can otherwise my expensive infantry units die. I'd be ok with my 3+ save if the unit didn't evaporate as soon as a single model was in line of sight of my opponent. While this change is probably for the better because of stuff like Land Raider it does feel bad as someone who prefers infantry
What did they expect when they plastered it in every single SM detachment though?
Its like ordering a bunch of fruit baskets and then being annoyed you have a lot of fruit baskets.
Yeah I think they're trying to get rid of army wife reliance on oath and AOC
@xmaracx Yeah.... Last edition they found out that 3+ save doesn't matter when just about every single army has a good way of dealing with them so this edition they made it so everyone that needed it had a way to make it matter but here we are again.
The admech never had an armour of contempt rule they gave themselves a way around with galvanic fields stacking on each other
It was nerf because it was the best strat of the game and by a long shot.
Every single detachment would swap any of their strats for that one.
I will try to not split fire unless it is the repulsor executioner as it has so many weapons that have a range of APs and damages
I have always hated Armor of Contempt. It felt like they were ignoring the nightmare they made. AP needed to be reworked alongside Invulnerable Saves. Avoiding the issue GW.
It is on days like this that I look back at 7th edition with tears in my eyes, acknowledging it was, by far the GOAT edition of Wh40k.
I have been playing the game since late 2nd...
I think GW should either introduce d10 or 2d6 saving throws at this point, or to make space marines cheaper, and militarum infantry equivalents even cheaper. This rule is getting ridiculous with all those conditions.
Does the “Just After” rule mean that you can’t stack AoC and Smoke?
Does this affect the CSM equivalent stratagems?
@@benn1181 Affects all stratagems across the board. SM CSM Sisters Tyranids, Votann you name it
The Armour of Contempt is a Gaunt's Ghosts Novel, not a Ravenor novel, and a bittersweet (as they all are) read.
Happy New Year!
I like that they haven't just power-crept AP like in 9th (although there's still too much high-AP in 10th imho) and have taken this route instead - BUT from a Dark-Angels perspective, I don't like how it's indirectly nerfed standard shooty termies from an internal balance perspective. Those guys need a lot of help if they're ever going to see the tabletop.
It was obviously a little too good, as in some armies it was aoutomatically used 1-2 times every round, so initially I think the nerf is a good thing overall.
What's this mean for the sisters army of faith one that was an aura? Is it just for one shot too now
The aura is -1 to hit in army of faith. Not - 1 ap.
If you're talking about the bringers of flame equivalent to AoC it works like it does for SMs
@whitefamilliar3057 ty
Happy new year 🎆
Problem was how low AOC could bring saves. no on minded it on hell blasters. but terminators or land raiders in cover being 2+ with -ap was rough. This helped the cover, but still miserable for melee armies as must melee is -2 ap, so running into termies with 2+ with 1 ap is rough, or worse your orc with massive of 1 ap... maybe make aoc improve save. but can't improve past 3+ for range og 4+ in melee. maybe ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Or maybe the nerf is ok and now SM players will have to actually think when to use it, instead of just throwing it around every single turn.
@@peterpedersen3753 I feel this but also I feel like Power Armor should actually save stuff. Feels like Marines die to a stiff breeze with how many armies can deal with a 3+ save so easily😭. The change is probably for the better but this is gonna be rough.
@@JackDespero Because SM win rates were so OP with it?
@@JimH. Yes, they are. And they have always been. SM factions have by far the most wide and flexible rooster of any subset of the game.
I am sorry that your very specific flavour of SM was not performing well. Meanwhile, you have had a SM-like army in the top 5/ above 50% WR for 99% of the game history.
Maybe y'all should play a more limited army to finally understand what not everyone has access to all types of profiles both in defense and attack, all types of strats, etc. and that the only thing that sometimes weight you down is points.
Some armies do in fact have weaknesses that cannot be solved by points alone, and that is by design.
@@darklink9922 Yeah, at this point i feel like there is more 2 dmg weapon than 1 damage weapons. (haven't looked it up), just like there is a massive amount of 3 damage weapons.
And 2 damage weapons just kill marines super well. maybe flatten it out. So less 2 and 3 and more 1 and 4. with 1 dmg weapon getting str and ap to be actually good.
Cool video man keep it going
i feel that it should not stack with cover, seeing how cover rules still says you can not have a save better than a 3+. like apply an order of operations for this
that's only for AP0 which AOC is not relevant for anyway
the whole point in the strat is that it stacks with cover
I am a bit bummed that the Tyranids already had a nerfed version of armour of contempt by only affecting synapse units meaning exocrines, tyrannifexes, old one eye etc couldn't benefit from it but now that everyone is equally worse across the board i don't feel as bad as I've stop playing synaptic nexus all together a while ago.
1cp for current or 2cp for full phase ?
Option
@@jamcam5180 Maybe but would be 1cp with a captain. Would be a good target for a Vect tho.
I actually like the idea but that probably requires too much of a more complete rewrite for GW to go with it.
Of course vect doesn't exist anymore, it's just Lord of Deceit now
Look i didn't enjoy AoC alot as alot of players in my group didn't run SM and we had 1 guy running blood angel's and just killed us with AoC so much we started to avoid games with him.
So im happy AoC got hit the way it did.
How bad of a players are you lol
@mtrunkello well that's just a cringe response personally so I won't even bother explain it
@@likeyacutg4720 you dont have to. A guy with acces to -1 ap for one unit crushed you all lol
@@mtrunkello Bru it's the fact most of the guys have had to slowly start with odd points numbers with low toughness and 0 or -1 ap units vs a guy who used meta Lists and then would shit everything inside ruins and cover and we just get rolled. Big difference mate. Especially when before the nerf to AoC. So I'm glad AoC is needed Hella hard it was required
@@mtrunkello It is pretty self-explanatory. Having a key "melee killer unit" that you can make sure take as little damage as possible the shooting phase and either of the combat phases, means the key unit survives for much longer and keeps killing the opposition. A lot of melee armies usually only have AP-1 or AP-2. Being able to consistently reduce that means much more survivability(example, going from 2+ save to 3+ save means you lose +100% more models on average).
There is a reason why Armour of Contempt was the most used stratagem of any army that had access to it(even more used than command reroll). It was too impactful and too flexible and easy to use.
Fine change, I think. But certain models either needed more defense or needed to go down in points. My Land Raider is a 285 point target for anti tank weaponry now. A riptide is 100 points cheaper, and has an Invuln. I think AOC was an important resource for keeping my landraider alive, but now I can't. Sure it's more lethal now, but It's hard to justify taking with how easy it is to kill.
Yes. You're t12 2+ save with 2 canons that are d6+3 at 6 -2 2, while allowing disembark+charge after a 12" move, and oc 5 tank needs to go down.
@@somegoodsalt IDK the Riptide still seems more vulnerable than the Landrader. Yeah they have a Inv but also less wounds, way lower toughness, slower, lower OC and weaker weapons.
Not to be offensive, but what is that comparison?
First Land Raider is 240 points. Second, it is a transport. Third, it hits like a rail gun. Fourth, it allows move, disembark and then charge, which already gives you at least 7 inches over normal move of almost any unit. Finally, it is a T12 W16 2+, which is massive.
How is any of that comparable to a Riptide suit?? Riptide is not a transport. It is a T9 W14 2+. Riptide's main weapon is a completely different profile, S7/8 v S12 for LR. So it is less durable, has different shooting targets, and it is not a transport. Why would they be cost anywhere near each other?? And the Riptide is 190! It is 50 p difference to a Land Raider!
It is like comparing an knife and a coffee mug and complaining about how poorly the coffee mug cuts steaks.
@@holdenchambers3986 I made a point that it's not very tough, but you referenced all of it's lethality. I don't disagree at all that it kills and is useful. I am simply pointing out that it dies easy for its points. For example, and I just checked the math on math hammer, 2 gladiator lancers and a grenades strat will kill it on average without oath. When you consider that most lists will similarly take 2 anti tank options, most land raiders will die in one turn as soon as you move it up the board. With old AOC and smoke it can actually survive more than a single turn, which I think is fair considering it costs 2 command points to keep alive.
@@somegoodsalt Fair but also that's also 320 points worth of shooting and assuming you don't take one out first which if like you're saying most ppl bring similar amounts of Anti-tank you should be able to do. IDK feels like the Land Raider is still plenty tough you just can't leave it out in the middle of an open field and have it tank an army worth of shooting anymore but also that's just me.
My Blood Angels had a hell of a year lmao
The game is reaching dangerous levels of lethality
Armor of contempt is so thematic they can't stand it.
Great content, as always! Could you help me with something unrelated: I have a SafePal wallet with USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (alarm fetch churn bridge exercise tape speak race clerk couch crater letter). How should I go about transferring them to Binance?
what really bothers me is that my armor of contempt got worse while dark eldar night shields, which feels like a similar rule, didn't get hit even though it seems more impactful in the games i have been play (it is my favorite strategem, claims my common dark eldar opponent who loads up on three ravagers and just anihilates me with them as they feel pretty indestructible while also feeling free looking at the point costs).
It's defensively like a chimera with a 4+ save and a 4+ invulnerable save. What are you shooting at it to make them feel invincible? Eradicators wound it on 4s, Infernus marines wound it on 5s...
@@filsyah1yeah as a Drukhari player my ravagers are very much not tanky at all haha. Lucky if they survive shooting from 1/2 squads when using the stratagem
Tanky eldar?
T9 is the most we have.
Sure ravager can do a lot of damage (or not because only 3 shot + random damage)
But they will vanish whenever you shoot them.
I play Ynnari and my only really tanky unit are Wraith
So my primary armies are Grey Knights, Tyranids, and sisters of battle. I primarily shoot at them with Exocrines, dreadknights, and multi-meltas, and if I expose myself to shoot rhem and don't kill them, I get obliterated by return fire. And with the invulnerable save, I find myself exposing two units to try to kill one, failing because of made invulnerable saves, and losing both units to return fire due to the mobility of his weapons platforms.
Either I have extreme bad luck, he is rolling well, or my three primary armies are all paper to his scissors, but it certainly seems like every game I end up nearly getting tabled while he still has two thirds of his army left with a relatively close score that will get out of hand if we ever play a round five.
I have noticed it when playing my space marines. I have to be very picky when to use it and most often it is used on units to allow them to even have a save it feel like these days. Not having it for a phase means i have to hide more often unless they have invul saves the can tank.
I tend to use smoke alot more now, especially if my unit isn't in cover seems to save against shooting pretty often
I would of been fine with it being an entire phase still but make it 2 cp, but with all the free strats or reduced strats, maybe thats not a good idea
Oh noooo, ppl need to think before activating a stratagem...
Anyway.
😂
All it does is making shooting armies even more powerful.
At this point, I feel like they should start having Warhammer use D10 exclusively, to make save rolls more varied. Its difficult to see a Tank have a 2+ save and then an infantry unit have a 3+ save. Just doesn't make any sense anymore.
Stuff never makes sense. I play Orks. My friend is always shocked when I tell him big armored Ghaz has toughness 6, but the random shirtless generic boy on Squig has 7
Vehicles shouldn't have saves, they need to use what they do in heresy, armour values and hull points. That way low strength weapons cannot remove wounds from vehicles and you have to actually position units to get advantageous shooting.
Armor save isn’t the end all be all. That tank likely has 3X the toughness, and 5X the wounds of that infantry.
@@rickkcir2151thrn you bring out 40 shots of s3 weapons with lethal hits
@@colinbielat8558it takes 198 bolt rifle shots to kill a predator - I think that’s alright to show that it’s super tough, but not invulnerable. Weight of fire can still do some work with powerful futuristic anti infantry weapons even against tough targets which is kind of cool as a last resort
Change it back but make it not work on vehicles/monsters.
It is a stratagem that reduces the incoming AP for the entire phase(which is what was changed). It can be used in both the Shooting phase and the Combat phase. It only cost 1 CP. It is prevalent in factions that can reduce the cost by 1(currently making it free).
They could have changed it to only work in 1 of the phases, change the cost or change how the mechanic worked.
The current adjustment makes it powerful "against the right target and in the right situation", rather than being an easy "go to" at the start of a shooting phase/combat phase where you expect multiple units attacking your unit.
No. The whole point of AoC was to keep vehicles alive long enough for them to do something. Infantry rarely needed it in my experience.
The game is already too lethal why nerf defensive strats?
It's funny because I'm still new to the game. I've only played about 5 games. Never used Armor of Contempt when it was good because, being new, I didn't know how good it was and would forget it exists. I still haven't played a 2k game. I will be finishing my 2k list in the next week or two.
Made it easier for me in melee.
Armour of contempt change was the best thing GW has done since forever ago... lets just hope 11th editions isn't going to be as big of a mess as 10th was.
Let us be honest, launch 10th edition vs current 10th edition are two different games at this point. Remember when they said they will limit rerolls and now they are handing them out left and right? 10th edition rules fundamentally are not good.
100% agreed. It is a shame because there are some good ideas in 10th, but overall it has been so poorly implemented. GW prioritised 'simplicity' over a well thought through game system, then had to make so many tweaks for a vaguely playable game that it negated the simplicity,. giving a worst of both worlds mess.
@@samhunter1205 I think removing a lot of wargear options and costs was the biggest mistake. We will see though, in Warhammer+ employees themselves talked about how they hope some of it comes back and it would make sense.
Also make psychic be a positive thing again instead of a negative keyword.
@netprince455 again, I 100% agree about wargear costs. Per model squad costs need to return as well, it is the wrong thing to try to simplify. It wasn't complicated in the first place (I managed with it fine in 2nd edition when there were far more options, and I was 11 at the time), and it definitely does serve a useful purpose in the game.
Personally I absolutely hate the lack of customisation options in general in 10th. Being able to tailor and customise my army is an absolute non-negotiable for me playing the game, and possibly the single biggest reason why I don't play 10th.
Totally agree as well, there balance / rules team is a mess. I honestly can't believe they have any sort of school degree
@nein4599 I think half the issue is management. Refusing to develop the army rules at the same time and having rules teams operate in silos is a recipe for disaster, and they don't even seem to have any objectives metric as a baseline for costing units, which is absolute insanity.
Add a comment...😮
The biggest problem I have with this change is how uneven it is despite being applied as a sweeping thing across the entire game. The obvious comparison is between Marines of any stripe and Sisters. Marine units tend to be high-ish toughness with good saves, and there're multiple 2+ save units in their Codex that become very hard to shift with AoC and cover. In the Sisters' Codex, there's a grand total of one unit with a 2+ (Paragons) and nothing with a Toughness greater than 10, meaning they rely far more on saves to stay alive. On top of that, Paragons have a 4++, as do units with a 2+ from an Imagifier, further narrowing the usefulness of Shield of Aversion. And then guess which Detachment has that stratagem? It's the one where two more strats got nerfed in the same update. I feel like Shield of Aversion should just be replaced altogether with a different strat, because as it stands Bringers has been nerfed to the point of near-irrelevance, in some cases seemingly by accident.
Maybe, as a result, we will see some points adjustments. Sisters used to benefit from being fairly cheap for their saves and firepower.
On another note, Sisters of Battle are able to get FNPs, various units do have access to Invulnerable saves, and you can manipulate dice with Miracle Dice.
There are several factions that have none of these benefits, and still do not have access to a stratagem similar to Armour of Contempt.
@@fendelphi They have T3, and almost everything has 1 wound. You can get 6+++ from the Triumph, which is now ludicrously expensive, or 5+++ from a Hospitalier which is also expensive and now can't usually use its ability because of the MD nerf. With that nerf, you're unlikely to have enough MD to do more than a single save per Battle Round, and that's immediately cancelled out by low Toughness. Not to mention that doing that also means you're unlikely to have any dice for a damage roll or wound roll, and Sisters have barely any ways to re-roll either of those outside of Vahl. The MD nerf almost completely killed the army, and the AoC nerf just stamped on the corpse of Bringers a bit more for good measure.
@@Majere613 Dont forget the Stratagems that can give a FNP as well.
The fact remains that the majority of their units(even vehicles) have an Inv. save to give them some protection even against high AP setups.
Factions like Imperial Guard, GSC and Tau are also full of T3, W1 models, and they generally have worse saves and worse standard weaponry(BS 4+).
They often end up with no saves at all when getting shot by half-decent weaponry.
I agree that Sisters did not need more nerfs, but I also think that AoC should get nerfed across the board.
If Sisters get a points cut, they can probably bounce right back.
@fendelphi There's one stray that gives FNP, it's against Mortals only and it's in Army of Faith, which effectively has no detachment rule at the moment. Sisters units have a 6++ innate, which effectively does nothing unless the attack is AP -3 or better and there's no cover, and none of their vehicles has a 2+. With T3 and 1W on ten-strong units the invulnerable is statistically irrelevant, it's unlikely to save more than one hit before the unit wipes. Sure, occasionally a Melta bounces off it and that's funny, but that's about it.
Given that there are changes to the game nearly every two weeks is it actually playable?
I'm not sorry about the change. AoC can be a trap for space marines: you pop it every turn and have no strats left for the cool stuff. And it's dismal playing into it as well. As a space marine player, I will probably switch to Vanguard to get -1 to hit from a distance. That will mitigate the loss of AoC.
There's still a problem with all the units that have invulnerable saves. It's almost as if GW doesn't like AP, given that there are so many ways around it.
A lot of the time, the units that relies on Invulnerable Saves are either costly, have lower toughness or fewer wounds(or a worse standard save). The big problem with AoC(and similar) was that it kept the save range down in the 2+ or 3+ category with ease and for the entire phase(17/33% chance of failure).
A 4+ Invulnerable save is, in the end, still a 50/50 chance that it will fail, and we still have things like the Grenade and Tank Shock stratagems(and other sources of Mortal Wounds) and Devastating Wounds that can bypass it. So it is all about using the right tool for the job.
This change is extremely frustrating especially when fighting lists with more durable tanks like guard. And don’t get me started about how CSM can still give thier tank lone op which is far more over powered
How can csm give a tank lone op
Why is it more frustrating?
@@jeremiegartner464 My knowledge is second hand but from memory you can give a Vehicle a mark of nurgle and then a stratagem made it untagetable outside of 18. I'll be back ill try and verify. Yup that exactly it.
Guard tanks just haven't changed all that much tbh and even still a base Russ vs a base predator tank the predator wins most shooting. Plus the newer SM tanks are absolutely insane to deal with compared to guard ones
@@likeyacutg4720 I would say the Leman Russ Vanquisher is still the better anti-tank platform compared to a Predator Annihilator. That main gun is just deadly, you have a broad selection of secondary weapons that can still assist in tank killing(both Plasma Cannons and Multi-Meltas are great when you can get Lethal Hits from the Detachment rule), and the tank is more durable as well(T11, 2+ save, W13, compared to T10, 3+ save, W11).
Its only fair then to make sure all other defensive strats follow this example. Like no more fnp until the end of the phase, no more -1dmg no more -1 to wound or -1 to hit. Also dont give ap either.
I think the - damage thing is a bad thing in general.
And as for FnP i think how GW had it many years ago was alot better, eg if a weapon was twice the strength of the toughness no fnp and if the Ap of a weapon was 1 (which would be 4+ now) no Fnp either. You were going to feel that melta shot in the face.
@Spacefrisian also how would they justify the gsc -1 ap ability which gives bonus through the whole turn?
@@mtrunkello Easy GSC has bad AP.
Well alot of those armies don't have a base 3+ save T4 and 2 wounds
@@simplelogic933 given how prevalent 2+ damage is thats a weakness. I would rather have 10 marinws with 1 wound than 5 marines with 2 wounds.
I am skeptical that this needed to happen at all and I'm concerned it will make things such as vehicles significantly less durable now.
A lot of vehicles that had access to Armour of Contempt also have access to Smoke. Automatic Cover+Stealth.
Oh my... SM being durable? Blasphemy...
Custodes in 9th had a shield host that effectively gave them armour of contempt, so if they ended getting armour of contempt with the shield host they would’ve ignored ap 2
You know when you just want someone to get to the point....
Huh, let's see if Auspex has a new video 😅 oh shit
Imagine crying cuz of nerfing overpowered strat when u have buff for lots of units and entire army rule lol
For sure AoC was good, quite good, but now its basically worthless. There are other defensive stratagems that last all phase, 5+++, and -1 to wound. I wonder if those will get changed, i know alot of space marine players love to swap AoC out for something "useful"
Do all of those stratagems allow any unit to be targeted? Can they be used in both the shooting and in either combat phase? Do they all cost 1 CP?
Being able to mitigate AP at the right moment(either shooting or combat, on any unit, for 1 CP) is still good. It is just not to the degree that it is a no-brain decision every single time.
@@fendelphi some yes, prolly not all
If they balanced weapon S, AP, D to T, S, W you wouldn't need all this bullshit.
with how hard AP is to acquire for anti infantry weps, reducing the ability to reduce AP is more than a good idea, you don't want to add more AP to the game but you also don't want LSM to feel Op by ALWAYS getting a 3+ save no matter the circumstance, this nerf feels good, especially since more anti infantry weps are -1 and 99.9999999999999999999% of the time LSM cower in cover, which in my honest opinion is the most dumb thing ever, they shouldn't be allowed to gain the benefit of cover ever, with how low and rare AP is in the game its just so unnecessary and fluff wise stupid and counters the lore.
This was needed. Space marine vehichles can actually die now.
nice
I mostly use it in melee, so it hasn't really changed for me. But i can see how other wouldn't like the change. SM are so far down the win rates they don't need any nerfs
Did you miss the codex SM buff to Oath of Moment?
@filsyah1 also doesn't apply to me as i run Templars units.
@@whitee55 Ah, so you have already had your spot in the sun as part of the above 50% win rate. Anyway, there are other Space Marine chapters that have been doing very well for a long time, partially due to this stratagem.
The thing is, it was the most used stratagem in the game for the factions that had access to it. Even surpassing Command Reroll and Overwatch. It needed to be toned down.
@fendelphi yeah templars were definitely up there before some of the other marine nerfs. And I've definitely heard people complain about AoC, but yeah i almost always used it in the fight phase, where you're generally only fighting one unit. I didn't realise it was quite that popular though, something being more popular than command reroll probably does need changing lol
Chaos claims the unwary or the incomplete. A true man may flinch away from its embrace, if he is stalwart, and he girds his soul with the armour of contempt.
Sorry, I'll never feel bad for SM players.
Ill never feel bad for breaking peoples models.
Boy that thumbnail made me freak out. I thought they nerfed Redemptor Dreadnought and I was about to cry 😂
Can we talk about how powerful Oath of moment has become?
He already did
Can we talk about how bad SM were before this change?
@@JimH. never, space marines aren't super soldiers or anything.
I love the constant rule changes. Not confusing at all. They're totally not completely destroying the game and all the good will of long time fans with these senseless rule changes and rule bloat....
Go play vs day 1 Eldar if you think rules changes are such a bad thing
I understand why core space marines needed this Nerf, but it was undeserved for everyone else
Yo 1st minute view
At this point let's just get to 11th edition and hope that's better cause 10th feels terrible
As a custodes player i’d be happy if AoC was dead and buried, wvn if I understand why it exists.
The monotone puts me to sleep, I’m sorry, I just can’t.
At this point the game has been updated so much they just need to chuck it in the bin. A game were there is more pages of updates than there is core rules says it time to say goodbye to the rules and stop flogging a dead horse.
That is a weird take. Are you one of the few who hates that video games get updates as well?
Most of those pages simply elaborate and specify how a rule works(often with pictures), because, unfortunately, some people would bend the rules if there is just a possibility of a second meaning.
If we condensed it all down to the most simple explaination, we would need far fewer pages, but a lot more abuse.
If you want a clear overview of the rules, you can use the core rules on Wahapedia. It is updated with the new stuff as things gets added or removed.
The alternative would be to make a game system that is so simple that there would be no room for interpretation, and so minimal additions would be required. But it would also be a very boring system with factions being almost identical.
The growing millions of players say otherwise
@@fendelphi comparing video games to tabletop games in a weak dig. Jo blogs walks into a shop and buys a video game, he installs on his console or pc. Game auto updates and the person plays it.
Person walks into a store and buys warhammer 40k, he reads the rules then goes to the local club to have a game and finds out that he is playing a game that it a year out of date and has to go and read a downloadable document that it 35 pages long and also check the faqs and updates for his faction so he can play properly. Not exactly a good system for someone that just once a game once in a while.
@@simplelogic933 didnt say that everyone thinks this way, just said my person opinion. If you like the constant updates and the triage approach that gw uses to balance their game, then all the power to you. Enjoy they game. But as someone that has very little spare time and only gets a game once a fortnight and 40k isnt my only tt game i play its not a great system.
@peppermintshore well you don't need to play all the rules I played like 13-14 games of 10th and I just now found out my group has royally been messing up the fight phase that doesn't change the fact it was still a blast playing unless the opponent was Tau
I mean space marines are too tanky for their points anyway I think it’s a fine change
Space marines are meant to be tanky, they are super humans wearing the best armour
@ I didn’t say they shouldn’t be I said for their points they are too cheap to be that tanky
@@Trinine9 I would be totally fine if GW went back to making marines an elite army. Make them really good but also expensive for points.
Auspex.... WHEN DO YOU SLEEP.
Tau and Guard weren't able to 100% effectively one shot stuff with their sub 200 point units. So, the rest of us got a nerf to ensure they can. Seems fair.
Guard just took an absolutely massive nerf last slate and Tau are mid. Skill issue.
What a bs... Tell me the maths where our tanks one shot any tough vehicle? Please do!
And if so, please don't consider orders in your maths, (or forget to price them)
I'm curious!
@@nein4599 I suspect the commenter is using hyperbole to press their point. and it comes off as having 0% salt content.
No guard will always have to use guard level shooting 4+, which is worse to deal with space marine toughness space marine saves and are done dealing with our ap being negated every turn. Maybe space marine players will use brain cells when they run their vehicles now.
If AoC is nefed, then Strats that makes it harder to wound the target, or abilities like 😮Crossfire, that boost the ap for range and melee attacks, for a whole turn, should be nerfed as well.
It was a completely unnecessary nerf. You rarely used it to keep infantry alive but instead, it was vital to stop opponents detonating your vehicles too quickly. Marines will drop in their percentages now because of this, you watch. The strat was fine and should have been left alone.
Yes, I would hate that my anti vehicle weapon which costed me 200 points for a single shot would actually do its job and hurt the enemy SM Land Raider. It is only a T12 W16 2+ vehicle, which can pop smoke, benefit from covers, it can transport a full squad, etc.
Oh, the horror! Not the Land Raider!
SM-like factions will have to think about exposing their vehicles, just like the rest of us, instead of placing them in the middle of the board mindlessly, using this strat once per turn.
Will they ever recover from this?
Sisters overall benefited. BoF being nerfed means we're all using Martyrs now, so AoC was still super rough to deal with. Now the enemy is going to be getting multiple AP -5 guns instead of just AP -4
Don’t sleep on Army of Faith!
@@Wind-Whistler army of faith has been bad for a while lmao
@Wind-Whistler agree with Arn. Army of Faith is so so. The strats are really darn good but everything else in the detachment is weak sauce next to Martyrs. I also prefer the play style of Martyrs over Faith personally. Faiths Auras feel way too short even when you stage jump packs behind walls. Plus double MD barely comes up now. Martyrs meanwhile it's rule could make or break shooting which is extremely important
@@faddishbigfoot4914"weak sauce" 🤢
The worst of changes ngl
Ways to make your army more durable is always a good thing so this is a bad idea to me. Should have just written AOC to be a game wide strat so everyone can use it.
It would just make it more consistently annoying kind of like the rare cases insane bravery matters
It would just make it more consistently annoying like the rare cases insane bravery matters.
Please do a video on the new khornee detachment and some possible lists