akaean wrote: should always beat them in a straight shoot out between equal points.
Why? Aren't points a balance mechanism, between which you should have a relatively equal potential result between matched units.
The reason is because as I detailed above, a guardsman has other tactical advantages compared to marines that in a balanced game which must be accounted for by the Point system. 1) The ability to hold a backfield objective with 10 bodies for 40 points is valuable. It helps the guard player avoid situations where they are forced to chose between holding an objective and delivering a hammer blow. it also allows them to simultaneously hold more objectives easier than the marine player. Objectives are important and objective grabbing potential is something that should be factored into cost because it has a direct impact on winning games. 2) Imperial Guard are more numerous than Space Marines. this allows them to more effectively cover a lot of ground. Preventing access to the more valuable parts of the list- such as Basilisks or Leman Russ Battle tanks. Imperial Guard's ability to effectively and cheaply screen is a big important tactical advantage that is worth something outside of pure combat ablility. 3) Games are not fought in a vacuum between troops with basic weapons. Marines have a vulnerability to heavy and special weapons that guard do not due to sheer numbers and weak armor. This lowers the overall value of Marines in army building. If you have a situation where point for point Marines = Guardsmen when shot at by small arms, and Guardsmen >>>>> Marines when shot at by heavy and special weapons you have a disparity that must be addressed, yes in points. Ultimately it depends on the value of resiliency per point to small arms as opposed to the somewhat rarer but still plentiful anti MEQ weapons like Plasma and Disintegrator cannons. Ideally we have a situation where Marines are more durable per point than a Guardsmen vs Small Arms, and Guardsmen are more durable per point than Marines against heavy weapons. In this situation in a small arms shoot out between Marines and Guardsmen the Marines should always win, but this does not mean that they aren't balanced. Because the game is fought between entire armies and not between nothing but troops with basic weapons. Under the current rules, guardsmen are actually more durable per point than marines vs both small arms and heavy / special weapons. Which once again goes into why people complain about tactical space marines.
So yes, points are a balancing mechanism, but you need to take into consideration of other factors rather than pure combat potential. Units do other things aside from fighting, such as being good at claiming objectives (via speed or infiltration), being good at screening, etc. Furthermore you need to consider resiliancy to outside sources of damage when you point things and take into consideration what happens when Plasma Guns or Heavy Bolters are being used. Under all of these considerations, I absolutely stand by that 100 points of marines with bolters should almost always (barring outlier luck) defeat 100 points of guard with las guns. Because the guard have other advantages in other areas outside of a simple infantry v infantry slug fest.
Hmm at a glance it looks like Dire Avengers should be 9ppm and 2pp weapon. I have no doubt that Fire warriors could stand to be at 8ppm again. I am pretty surprised at how expensive eldar infantry are, but on the other hand oooh battle focus is noice. On the other hand it sounds like people don't dare to use it, opting for wave serpents instead.
As for guard, they should probably be 5ppm. Wouldn't that solve a fair bit of the complaints about them being too numerous, cheap CP farms, efficient bodies and shooters etc. While also giving conscripts a place to function again?
Then there's marines. Y'all have me less confident in either 11ppm as is or 15ppm 2W or even just adding 1A (still rather see bolter and chainsword combo.)
My preference would mainly be a change to the To Wound Chart.
Attackers strength Vs. Targets toughness (NEW) D6 Roll to Wound (NEW)
Is the strength more than TWICE the toughness? - Auto Wound
Is the strength TWICE the toughness? - 2+
Is the strenght GREATER than the toughness? - 3+
Is the strength EQUAL to the toughness? - 4+
Is the strength LOWER than the toughness? - 5+
Is the strength HALF of the toughness? - 6+
Is the strength less than HALF the toughness? - Cannot Wound
I know there would be some issue taken with the removal of the "Wound anything on a 6+" but i really do believe it is the major part of the horde/volume of fire problem.
to mitigate the loss, I'd like to see a stratagem implemented.
Stratagem 2CP Desperate Offensive
Choose a target unit you control. The next time that unit shoots or fights, it wounds its target(s) on a roll of 6.
Lastly, I think the trio of global rules, maybe limited to Matched Play, would go a long way to making not only marines,but units that are meant to have a good armor save, actually perform up to par.
Global Rules
- "Troops" units with a cost of less than 6 point per model have a Toughness characteristic of 2
- Units with a Save (Sv) characterisitic of 3+ re-roll failed Save (Sv) and Invulnerability (Inv) rolls. (Rerolls happen before modifiers are applied)
- Units with a Save (Sv) characterisitic of 2+ roll 2 dice and discard the lowest when rolling Save (Sv) and Invulnerability (Inv) rolls. (Rerolls happen before modifiers are applied)
Shas'O'Ceris wrote: Hmm at a glance it looks like Dire Avengers should be 9ppm and 2pp weapon. I have no doubt that Fire warriors could stand to be at 8ppm again. I am pretty surprised at how expensive eldar infantry are, but on the other hand oooh battle focus is noice. On the other hand it sounds like people don't dare to use it, opting for wave serpents instead.
As for guard, they should probably be 5ppm. Wouldn't that solve a fair bit of the complaints about them being too numerous, cheap CP farms, efficient bodies and shooters etc. While also giving conscripts a place to function again?
Then there's marines. Y'all have me less confident in either 11ppm as is or 15ppm 2W or even just adding 1A (still rather see bolter and chainsword combo.)
I agree guardsmen should be 5ppm, but this edition has shifted things downward. We now have things like fire warriors and skitarii rangers that are now 7ppm.
-A skitarii ranger is BS 3+, 4+ armor, 6++ and has a 30" str 4 weapon.
-A tau fire warrior is BS 4+, 4+ armor, and has a 30" str 5 weapon.
-A guardsman is BS 4+, 5+ armor, and has a 24" str 3 weapon.
A guardsman being 5 ppm in comparison to the other two is not exactly fair in my mind. Plus, GW have already had the opportunity to adjust the points costs of infantry in CA 2017 and they didn't. It looks like 4 point guardsmen are here to stay.
And the thing is that Rangers/Vanguard and Fire Warriors and Kalabites are actually fair for their prices. Are Guardsmen too durable for the cost? Maybe, but at least the former dudes have the offensive capabilities.
Sorry if this has been brought up already; I read half the thread but need to go to bed now and thought this needed to be thrown out there.
I think marines seem less tough because options of thinning hordes have been brought down in 8th. In previous editions, templates had the potential to kill scads of clumped horde units at once. I remember killing 9 ork boyz at a time with with one multi blast manticore strike in previous editions. Maybe make traditional horde killer weapons (large blasts and flame templates), scale based on unit size, much like how the grav flux bombard works. Flamer does D6 shots vs 5 man units but 2d6 vs 10, 3d6 vs 15, ect.
rooster92 wrote: Maybe make traditional horde killer weapons (large blasts and flame templates), scale based on unit size, much like how the grav flux bombard works. Flamer does D6 shots vs 5 man units but 2d6 vs 10, 3d6 vs 15, ect.
A suggestion that is often thrown around is to simply double the number of shots from the flamer-style weapons and restrict the number of hits they can inflict to the size of the target unit.
The more powerful blast weapons on the other hand (demolishers, battlecannons, etc) might benefit from your suggestion instead, as they need to generate multiple hits against heavy targets to get anywhere in this edition.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: And the thing is that Rangers/Vanguard and Fire Warriors and Kalabites are actually fair for their prices. Are Guardsmen too durable for the cost? Maybe, but at least the former dudes have the offensive capabilities.
So you are saying we should buff the offensive output of guardsmen and increase their cost to compensate?
rooster92 wrote: Maybe make traditional horde killer weapons (large blasts and flame templates), scale based on unit size, much like how the grav flux bombard works. Flamer does D6 shots vs 5 man units but 2d6 vs 10, 3d6 vs 15, ect.
A suggestion that is often thrown around is to simply double the number of shots from the flamer-style weapons and restrict the number of hits they can inflict to the size of the target unit.
The more powerful blast weapons on the other hand (demolishers, battlecannons, etc) might benefit from your suggestion instead, as they need to generate multiple hits against heavy targets to get anywhere in this edition.
The removal of blast templates really did enable hordes to be more effective used as a wall of meat. Before you had to space your army out, potentially if you brought to many modells even keep some of them in reserve, now we can just plot down as many as we want as close as we want and wont get punished for it via flammer, etc. Additionally Blasts could often hit multiple units, now they can't so in hindsight we could either do with better scatter/blast weapon rules instead of a blanket ammount of shots or with a scaling shot's system at 5/10/15/20/25/30 modells in the targeted unit etc. an additional d3 shots.
Granted that might be too good but still a better solution then what we have now in which basiliks turned into glorified AT weaponry instead of an artillery piece.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: And the thing is that Rangers/Vanguard and Fire Warriors and Kalabites are actually fair for their prices. Are Guardsmen too durable for the cost? Maybe, but at least the former dudes have the offensive capabilities.
So you are saying we should buff the offensive output of guardsmen and increase their cost to compensate?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: And the thing is that Rangers/Vanguard and Fire Warriors and Kalabites are actually fair for their prices. Are Guardsmen too durable for the cost? Maybe, but at least the former dudes have the offensive capabilities.
So you are saying we should buff the offensive output of guardsmen and increase their cost to compensate?
Um no. Not even close.
Then what are you suggesting?... Because the only thing 4ppm guardsmen have going for them is being cheap wounds that can bubble wrap more important units and being CP batteries for other armies. I'd take a unit of rangers over a unit of 5ppm guardsmen any day, and that is coming from a guard player.
Sure, but if you bump them up to 5ppm then rangers and fire warriors become better then them by miles. By reducing rangers and fire warriors to 7ppm instead of raising guardsmen to 5, they have boxed themselves in design-space wise.
I'm speaking to the idea that GW has locked in the cost of some models, leaving no space for pricing corrections to allow other models to be properly priced in comparison.
Kill Team makes some changes to the 40K prices, even while mostly staying similar. Could be coincidence, or could be a preview. The old Tactical Marine under current rules starts to look a a lot better if he is 12 points and Guardsman are 5 points rather than 13 and 4 respectively .
Probably the easiest way to put SM back in line with other factions is just to add this rule to all power armors (primaris included):
Power Armor: Reduce strenght of incoming ranged attacks by 1.
This is a rule that no one else has, so it feels distinctive and comboes extremely well with the general T4 of SM. S3 wounds on 6+, S4 on 5+ and S5 on 4+. This makes all the marines much harder against small arms, but still vulnerable to specialized weapons and melee attacks, which is exaclty how they should be.
Then change the crux terminatus from 5++ to -2 strenght for incoming ranged attacks and you have fixed terminators too.
Sure, but if you bump them up to 5ppm then rangers and fire warriors become better then them by miles. By reducing rangers and fire warriors to 7ppm instead of raising guardsmen to 5, they have boxed themselves in design-space wise.
Maybe ig should have an actual weakness. Like poor troops. I think they're fine at 5. Or even 6. IG would still have their undercosted tanks, undercosted artillery, undercosted psykers, undercosted hqs, and infinite cp. Seems like being weak in one place woudn't ruin them, right?
Sure, but if you bump them up to 5ppm then rangers and fire warriors become better then them by miles. By reducing rangers and fire warriors to 7ppm instead of raising guardsmen to 5, they have boxed themselves in design-space wise.
Maybe ig should have an actual weakness. Like poor troops. I think they're fine at 5. Or even 6. IG would still have their undercosted tanks, undercosted artillery, undercosted psykers, undercosted hqs, and infinite cp. Seems like being weak in one place woudn't ruin them, right?
-IG tanks aren't undercosted, they are exactly where they should be if you make comparisons with codices that are actually good.
-IG artillery may be slightly undercosted, I'll grant you, but IG has always had the best artillery in the game.
-IG having infinite CP is a consequence of the CP generation system and the dissolution of the platoon structure. It was not intended, and I fully expect to see it fixed soon.
-IG are supposed to have mediocre infantry that become dangerous in large numbers, and act as meatshields in smaller numbers. They are exactly as they should be right now.
TBH, IG are exactly where they should be as a faction if you compare them with eldar, dark eldar, and tyranids. Space Marines and GK are just hot garbage. Space Marines and GK need buffs, IG doesn't need nerfs.
Looking up from my gutter, ig seem much more bs than nids or tau. 4pt models really shouldnt be dangerous ever because of all the other value you get from them. They could have no shooting at all and still be worth 4ppm.
I posted this previously in another thread but it probably goes better here. There is some preamble that i think helps explain my thought process, and then my "marine fixes" at the bottom. It is likely imperfect, but I feel we need something in this direction if marines are ever going to feel powerful and fun to play.
The marine vs guardsmen comparisons is really only useful to a point.
The codex as a whole suffers from a severe lack of functionality in 8th edition.
They are the most basic faction that follows the majority of the rules in the game with the least number of special abilities. Their faction bonuses mostly amount to rerolls, which are nice but but not enough to outweigh the advantages of other factions.
Their transports are slow, have no fire points, and not being able to disembark after moving makes them very reactionary. They also cost so much that it's rarely worth paying their cost to deliver any of the squads Marines can actually put inside of them.
Chapter tactics not effecting vehicles is also strange.
Their damage focused vehicles are punished if they move because they almost exclusively have heavy weapons. This especially hurts attack bikes and landspeeders, as they are designed to be rapidly moving into position with short range heavy weapons like multi-meltas. Their actual tank vehicles also get shut down very easily in close combat.
For their troops, they have to choose between static heavy weapons or short range special weapons to actually start doing damage, but don't have the mobility to get into range with the special weapons, and the heavy weapons are too focused on 1 shot D6 damage to effectively get past enemy invul saves. They also cost too much.
Defensively, the more aspects of enemy guns you can ignore, the better you are. Having a 6+ armor save means you ignore a lot of the AP on enemy guns. Having an invul save means you ignore AP. Having FNP means you ignore damage and mortal wounds.
In general, most Marine units don't ignore the damage stats of enemy weapons at all, so when you shoot at them you are getting the full use of your firepower.
This goes for their tanks as well. It isn't a coincidence the best marine vehicle, the Leviathan dreadnought, has a 4++. Everything else just dies too easily.
Primaris are a different, very strange, issue. The second wound is useful against very weak guns, but pointless once 2D are aimed at them. The abundance of low invul saves, negatives to hit, and Necron shields make high rate of fire, low AP medium damage like autocannons very effective, and these weapons also vaporize primaris, so it's very likely that a typicalarmy will be able to kill a fair number of them with D2+ weapons before having to use 1D weapons, which are still fairly effective when you look at what the primaris cost.
Because of all this, Marines need to either get significant rules buffs and new abilities, or they need to get much cheaper. Until that happens they aren't going to be able to compete with armies that have wide spread invuls, negatives to hit, FNP, masses of bodies, the fly keyword, smite spam, and high mobility. Right now they aren't actually GOOD at anything, and pay for durability that isn't real.
think if it were up to me, id consider something like the changes below. Maybe not all of them at once, and points would definitely have to move around here and there, but to me the marine issue is less one of simple points cost issues and more of not having the abilities needed to operate in 8th edition. To me these changes are more about making Marines feel like Marines, and be fun and interesting to play again, than just making them competitive. Obviously it's mostly foolish wish listing.
First I'd make a few game wide changes:
1. Heavy weapon movement penalties only effect infantry. Why put them on vehicles if not to offer effective mobility.
2. All <vehicle> units can fall back and still shoot at -1 BS. <Fly> units can shoot normally. Fly can be better (as if the movement abilities aren't enough), but it doesn't need to be night and day.
3. CP generation is based on the number of points spent on troops and HQs, not generated from detachments. Perhaps 1CP per 100 points. Certain units or armies like knights could have special rules giving them extra CP as needed.
4. Change the deepstrike restriction to 25% of the points level, but let it happen during any turn. Deepstrike should be powerful but not overwhelming.
5. All strategems that let a unit deploy 9" away from the opponent on the first turn should be limited to 1 use per game. It's just not fun to have your opponent set up large multible units of aggressors, electropriests, zerkers, cultists, and so on with little to no counterplay other than who gets the first turn.
6. No unit can ever benefit from more than one -1 to hit modifier they give themselves. 1 is really bad enough. The exception to this would be negative to hit modifiers the firing unit gives itself by moving with heavy weapons and so on, and these also cap out at 1, for a max of -2 if you have yourself a penalty, and the target also gives you one.
7. Shooting attacks always hit on a 6 regardless of the modifier.
For Marines specifically:
1. Everything in the codex should ignore the first point of AP that effects their armor. So they always get a their save against anything worse than AP2. This wouldn't effect cover, so a heavy bolter against a marine in cover would still save on a 3+ since it didn't reduce their actual armor save. AP2 against a marine in cover would also save on a 3+ since the cover would be ignored and the first point of AP would be ignored. This notably doesn't make them any more durable against weapons without an AP value, but helps them stick around against heavier guns. This gives marines reasonable durability without making them heavy infantry or require D2 weapons to remove.
2. ATSKNF gets the ultramarine chapter tactic added into it. This let's all marine units fall out of combats they don't want to be in and still shoot.
3. All Marines with 1 attack should be bumped up to 2. This makes up for the loss of the attack they used to gain from charging and makes them fairly effective in close combat against typical troop units of similar cost.
4. Rhinos should have 2 fire points. There should also be a universal rhino 1 point strategem to let a squad disembark and still shoot from a rhino after it moved.
5. Bolters and chainswords gain AP1. Remember that Marines would mostly ignore this AP. It would help them chew through some tougher targets, and give them a slight increase to damage against light infantry (remember that the worse your armor save, the less they are bothered by enemy AP).
6. OC plasma gets a nerf / buff: it causes one mortal wound to the bearing model on any roll of an unmodified roll 1 to hit, whether it gets rerolled or not. Each shot can only cause one mortal wound, so if you do roll a 1 and then reroll to another 1, you still only take 1 MW. This makes Plasma more dangerous to single wound infantry but doesn't nerf its power. It also makes Terminator, hellblaster, and vehicle durability count for something as a plasma platform.
7. Melta and Las get a special rule causing them to never do less than 3 damage. It's worth noting that this only bumps the average damage from 3.5 to 4, but makes them much more consistent and satisfying when it does get through invuls.
8. Drop pods should have to be 9" away from the enemy, but the guys shouldn't have that limitation when they disembark. If you pay that much for a pod, you should be able to use your flamers and assault easier. Otherwise why buy a pod? If you think this is overpowered then look at what units like bloodletters can do the turn they come in (aka kill everything). Also keep in mind i think deepstrike should be limited to 25% of your army.
9. Land raiders should be able to disembark their contents after moving. The unit should then be able to shoot and charge.
10. Smoke launchers should be something you activate at the beginning of your opponents shooting phase, once a game. Choosing between shooting and smoke is a non choice 99% of the time. Makes smoke launchers actually useful.
11. Killshot, line breaker bombardment, and empyric channeling change to only require 2 of the units, but line breaker only does 2D3 if you use two tanks and 3D3 for three.
12. Honor guard, company vets, terminators of all types, vanguard Vets, sternguard, and the similar versions of vets other Marine books have all get BS2+/WS2+.
13. Apothecaries should be able to grant 1 unit within 6" with a 5+ FNP in addition to what they do now.
14. Vindicators should have 3 shots, +1D3 for every 5 models in the unit.
15. Chaplains should cause units to reroll all wounds in close combat instead of hits. This might make them actually worth taking. And doesn't invalidate captains.
16. Flamer weapons need to do 2d6 hits vs units over with over 5 models.
17. Gravguns should be assault 2 and all grav weapons should wound all vehicles and monsters on a 4+.
Finally, chapter tactics need a rework. Obviously they need to also effect vehicles. They also all need to be worth taking. My ideas here might not be as polished as some of these others.
A. Ultramarines can auto pass leadership tests, and overwatch on a 5+. Their strategem should change to allow a unit to fire twice. I would nerf Roboute, though, so that his aura no longer grants re-rolls to anyone but himself. He then no longer removes the need to for captains, Calgar, chapter masters, and LTs. He can then drop by about 100 points and just be a close combat god.
B. White scars should treat rapid fire weapons like assault weapons with half the range but double the shots (so a bolter becomes assault 2, 12"), in addition to their current bonuses. Their vehicles would treat all heavy weapons as assault weapons.
C. Imperial fists should gain +2 to their saves when they are in cover instead of +1, and their vehicles should only need to be 25% obscured to get cover. They lose all of their current bonuses.
D. Black Templars gain have a 4+ save mortal wounds, and reroll their charges.
E. Salanders keep their current trait, but vehicles get it too.
F. Ravenguard keep their current trait, but vehicles get it too.
G. Iron hands get an army wide +1T. Their strat changes to let them use 5+ FNP for 1 unit that turn.
Martel732 wrote: Looking up from my gutter, ig seem much more bs than nids or tau. 4pt models really shouldnt be dangerous ever because of all the other value you get from them. They could have no shooting at all and still be worth 4ppm.
IG seem BS in comparison to nids or tau because of how gak SMs are in comparison right now. Even in their sorry state, marines still out-shoot tyranids and can out-melee tau if you pull off the right tactics. IG definitely out-shoot marines (as they should) and aren't pushovers in melee either due to sheer numbers so it just seems like IG are "better" where in actuality they are exactly where they should be and it's just marines that suck.
The only army that should stand still and shoot better then Guard should be Tau. Space Marines should be an equal mix of shooting and melee but they overpay for it.
So one problem with Space Marines is that you pay for melee and shooting stats while only being able to use one most of the time.
How about allowing them to fall back and still shoot (maybe at -1 BS) and charge, at least with infantry, bikes and dreads? Along with that, give them 2 attacks.
These rules are part of the codex anyway, as chapter tactics (which have to be redone anyway so they are useful on other vehicles and other units).
This might be one important bit to make terminators good.
We can clearly see that many armies derive strength from subverting a rule, I'm of the impression that sm should be the army that follows the standard rules and is simply efficient enough to counter that. Currently they are not efficient at base, and have few ways to subvert standard rules, UM and WS tactics being some of them and appropriately mild. They should not outdo specialists in their field. T'au and IG should have more volume and/or efficiency in ranged, gaunts should surpass their ability to tie up enemies, genestealers should outdo them in cc kill potential. But having special weapons hidden in groups of tough infantry that can fight well under any circumstances should count for something. Standard marines are heavy chaff in this scenario and at 10ppm they might be affordable enough to fit that. Other units that cost more for similar stats should have gimmicks.
After all they are super soldiers, not mini meat tanks.
I am starting to feel much better about Marines being cheaper than Dire Avengers or Necron Warriors. Both of those other choices are paying for "gimmicks" that work far more often than Marines' "gimmick" of ATSKNF. And at 10ppm, Marines would still technically be more expensive than an 8ppm Avenger, who just so happens to have a 4ppm gun. It also brings a Marine a bit closer to "scale" for a 4ppm Guardsman
So, fingers crossed, Chapter Approved will have massive points reductions for basic MEQs as well as TEQs.
Dire Avengers are horribly overpriced for what they bring- even compared to Marines. You just don't notice it as much with Dire Avengers because their performance is bolstered by the myriad of under priced things in the Eldar dex. Especially the Wave Serpent they cruise around in.
Galef wrote: I am starting to feel much better about Marines being cheaper than Dire Avengers or Necron Warriors. Both of those other choices are paying for "gimmicks" that work far more often than Marines' "gimmick" of ATSKNF.
And at 10ppm, Marines would still technically be more expensive than an 8ppm Avenger, who just so happens to have a 4ppm gun.
It also brings a Marine a bit closer to "scale" for a 4ppm Guardsman
So, fingers crossed, Chapter Approved will have massive points reductions for basic MEQs as well as TEQs.
-
Necron Warriors aren't paying for any gimmick that works.
I don't understand this statement. At all. RP is a pretty good rule and you have to wipe the unit to completely ignore it. Having to dedicate fire to completely wipe a unit, especially a large one in cover, may take quite a bit. You therefore are dedicating a disproportionate amount to remove their ability to roll RP.
Even if 1 model lives, you get to make RP rolls, often improved by nearby Characters. Each successful roll increases the unit's cost efficiency.
Their other "gimmick" I am referring to is the AP-1 on their basic gun. That can make a pretty big difference in volume.
ATSKNF is a rule Marines pay for that almost NEVER comes into play. Necrons Warriors have 2 "gimmicks" that come into play just about every single game, as do Dire Avengers.
I don't understand this statement. At all. RP is a pretty good rule and you have to wipe the unit to completely ignore it. Having to dedicate fire to completely wipe a unit, especially a large one in cover, may take quite a bit. You therefore are dedicating a disproportionate amount to remove their ability to roll RP.
Even if 1 model lives, you get to make RP rolls, often improved by nearby Characters. Each successful roll increases the unit's cost efficiency.
Their other "gimmick" I am referring to is the AP-1 on their basic gun. That can make a pretty big difference in volume.
ATSKNF is a rule Marines pay for that almost NEVER comes into play. Necrons Warriors have 2 "gimmicks" that come into play just about every single game, as do Dire Avengers.
-
That would be a good point if universal spitfire didn't exist or ones that ran away don't get to try and revive.
I don't understand this statement. At all. RP is a pretty good rule and you have to wipe the unit to completely ignore it. Having to dedicate fire to completely wipe a unit, especially a large one in cover, may take quite a bit. You therefore are dedicating a disproportionate amount to remove their ability to roll RP.
Even if 1 model lives, you get to make RP rolls, often improved by nearby Characters. Each successful roll increases the unit's cost efficiency.
Their other "gimmick" I am referring to is the AP-1 on their basic gun. That can make a pretty big difference in volume.
ATSKNF is a rule Marines pay for that almost NEVER comes into play. Necrons Warriors have 2 "gimmicks" that come into play just about every single game, as do Dire Avengers.
-
That would be a good point if universal spitfire didn't exist or ones that ran away don't get to try and revive.
As with all things - you should play it smart. MSU destroyers and immortals/ 1 large unit of warriors. Do not invite multiple leadership tests a turn. FFS you have LD 10. 5 man squads never even have to take a LD test - EVER.
Like seriously. RP is on of the best rules in the game. However - I would have liked to see the resurrection orb have a once per game ability that allowed it to resurrect 1 completely wiped unit. Or a stratagem that costs 3 points.
I don't understand this statement. At all. RP is a pretty good rule and you have to wipe the unit to completely ignore it. Having to dedicate fire to completely wipe a unit, especially a large one in cover, may take quite a bit. You therefore are dedicating a disproportionate amount to remove their ability to roll RP. Even if 1 model lives, you get to make RP rolls, often improved by nearby Characters. Each successful roll increases the unit's cost efficiency.
Their other "gimmick" I am referring to is the AP-1 on their basic gun. That can make a pretty big difference in volume. ATSKNF is a rule Marines pay for that almost NEVER comes into play. Necrons Warriors have 2 "gimmicks" that come into play just about every single game, as do Dire Avengers.
-
That would be a good point if universal spitfire didn't exist or ones that ran away don't get to try and revive.
I'm not really sure how it works in your meta, but if players are consistently removing whole units for Necron Warriors then the owning players are just bad. There should be plenty of ways to prevent this, either by using cover or LoS blocking to keep 1 model out of LOS or using the Strat to prevent losing models to Morale, or even by having a decent list that presents more forward threats to keep the Warriors alive longer. There is also the fact that forcing the opponent to actually wipe the unit to prevent RP can be used to your advantage.
In any case, if whole 20-bot units of Warriors are consistently being removed in 1 turn in your Meta, there is literally no change to Marines that will prevent them from being likewise removed before contributing their value. So it pretty much becomes a moot point, or at the very least the issue has to be taken to another level (like re-evaluating the power to the shooting phase)
I don't understand this statement. At all. RP is a pretty good rule and you have to wipe the unit to completely ignore it. Having to dedicate fire to completely wipe a unit, especially a large one in cover, may take quite a bit. You therefore are dedicating a disproportionate amount to remove their ability to roll RP.
Even if 1 model lives, you get to make RP rolls, often improved by nearby Characters. Each successful roll increases the unit's cost efficiency.
Their other "gimmick" I am referring to is the AP-1 on their basic gun. That can make a pretty big difference in volume.
ATSKNF is a rule Marines pay for that almost NEVER comes into play. Necrons Warriors have 2 "gimmicks" that come into play just about every single game, as do Dire Avengers.
-
That would be a good point if universal spitfire didn't exist or ones that ran away don't get to try and revive.
I'm not really sure how it works in your meta, but if players are consistently removing whole units for Necron Warriors then the owning players are just bad. There should be plenty of ways to prevent this, either by using cover or LoS blocking to keep 1 model out of LOS or using the Strat to prevent losing models to Morale, or even by having a decent list that presents more forward threats to keep the Warriors alive longer.
There is also the fact that forcing the opponent to actually wipe the unit to prevent RP can be used to your advantage.
In any case, if whole 20-bot units of Warriors are consistently being removed in 1 turn in your Meta, there is literally no change to Marines that will prevent them from being likewise removed before contributing their value. So it pretty much becomes a moot point, or at the very least the issue has to be taken to another level (like re-evaluating the power to the shooting phase)
-
Yeah - I was thinking the exact thing. During a game often I am forced to leave 2-3 models left in a unit that I would like to destroy (because - saving throws and under average dice) Then I am left with a decision. If they are necrons - I have to consider shooting las cannons at that last remaining warrior. Plus - I'd really like to shoot that destroyer too with my las cannon but whats the point? He can just get back up if I kill him. RP does a whole lot more than resurrect units. It forces your opponents target priority - which I am sorry to say it - Target priority is the most important skill in this game.
Making that harder - or taking away choice in target priority is always going to be effective. I'd say as a whole competitively - Necrons are the most UNDER performing army.
I don't understand this statement. At all. RP is a pretty good rule and you have to wipe the unit to completely ignore it. Having to dedicate fire to completely wipe a unit, especially a large one in cover, may take quite a bit. You therefore are dedicating a disproportionate amount to remove their ability to roll RP.
Even if 1 model lives, you get to make RP rolls, often improved by nearby Characters. Each successful roll increases the unit's cost efficiency.
Their other "gimmick" I am referring to is the AP-1 on their basic gun. That can make a pretty big difference in volume.
ATSKNF is a rule Marines pay for that almost NEVER comes into play. Necrons Warriors have 2 "gimmicks" that come into play just about every single game, as do Dire Avengers.
-
That would be a good point if universal spitfire didn't exist or ones that ran away don't get to try and revive.
As with all things - you should play it smart. MSU destroyers and immortals/ 1 large unit of warriors. Do not invite multiple leadership tests a turn. FFS you have LD 10. 5 man squads never even have to take a LD test - EVER.
Like seriously. RP is on of the best rules in the game. However - I would have liked to see the resurrection orb have a once per game ability that allowed it to resurrect 1 completely wiped unit. Or a stratagem that costs 3 points.
You either build to get the most RP back (which means large squads) or your 5 man squad dies. You remember you guys complaining that 5 Tactical Marines aren't hard to shift? Try those Tactical Marines being 17 points instead.
I don't understand this statement. At all. RP is a pretty good rule and you have to wipe the unit to completely ignore it. Having to dedicate fire to completely wipe a unit, especially a large one in cover, may take quite a bit. You therefore are dedicating a disproportionate amount to remove their ability to roll RP.
Even if 1 model lives, you get to make RP rolls, often improved by nearby Characters. Each successful roll increases the unit's cost efficiency.
Their other "gimmick" I am referring to is the AP-1 on their basic gun. That can make a pretty big difference in volume.
ATSKNF is a rule Marines pay for that almost NEVER comes into play. Necrons Warriors have 2 "gimmicks" that come into play just about every single game, as do Dire Avengers.
-
That would be a good point if universal spitfire didn't exist or ones that ran away don't get to try and revive.
As with all things - you should play it smart. MSU destroyers and immortals/ 1 large unit of warriors. Do not invite multiple leadership tests a turn. FFS you have LD 10. 5 man squads never even have to take a LD test - EVER.
Like seriously. RP is on of the best rules in the game. However - I would have liked to see the resurrection orb have a once per game ability that allowed it to resurrect 1 completely wiped unit. Or a stratagem that costs 3 points.
You either build to get the most RP back (which means large squads) or your 5 man squad dies. You remember you guys complaining that 5 Tactical Marines aren't hard to shift? Try those Tactical Marines being 17 points instead.
You should take a mixture. Give opponent choices. Shoot my big squad or shoot my 2 5 mans. Again I am not an expert at Necrons - saying that RP is useless need to be called out though. If my hellblasters had a rule like that - they would be almost unstoppable.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You remember you guys complaining that 5 Tactical Marines aren't hard to shift? Try those Tactical Marines being 17 points instead.
Agreed, however it is important to know that those five 17ppm models end up being cheaper AND more effective than five 13ppm Marines. Because no one is taking just 5 Marines. You either take them with 2 Plasmas or 1 Heavy weapon. In either case they are more expensive (barring a Heavy Bolter) than 5 Immortals, but each Immortal have a S5 gun that is either AP-2 or gets extra hits on 6s. So while I agree that Immortals don't get too much use out of RP, they are still be better Troop than Marines
I don't understand this statement. At all. RP is a pretty good rule and you have to wipe the unit to completely ignore it. Having to dedicate fire to completely wipe a unit, especially a large one in cover, may take quite a bit. You therefore are dedicating a disproportionate amount to remove their ability to roll RP.
Even if 1 model lives, you get to make RP rolls, often improved by nearby Characters. Each successful roll increases the unit's cost efficiency.
Their other "gimmick" I am referring to is the AP-1 on their basic gun. That can make a pretty big difference in volume.
ATSKNF is a rule Marines pay for that almost NEVER comes into play. Necrons Warriors have 2 "gimmicks" that come into play just about every single game, as do Dire Avengers.
-
That would be a good point if universal spitfire didn't exist or ones that ran away don't get to try and revive.
As with all things - you should play it smart. MSU destroyers and immortals/ 1 large unit of warriors. Do not invite multiple leadership tests a turn. FFS you have LD 10. 5 man squads never even have to take a LD test - EVER.
Like seriously. RP is on of the best rules in the game. However - I would have liked to see the resurrection orb have a once per game ability that allowed it to resurrect 1 completely wiped unit. Or a stratagem that costs 3 points.
You either build to get the most RP back (which means large squads) or your 5 man squad dies. You remember you guys complaining that 5 Tactical Marines aren't hard to shift? Try those Tactical Marines being 17 points instead.
You should take a mixture. Give opponent choices. Shoot my big squad or shoot my 2 5 mans. Again I am not an expert at Necrons
Therein lies the issue. I'm Necrons primary and Marine variants/AdMech secondary.
I'd like you to go into the Necron thread and gather an understanding of RP.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You remember you guys complaining that 5 Tactical Marines aren't hard to shift? Try those Tactical Marines being 17 points instead.
Agreed, however it is important to know that those five 17ppm models end up being cheaper AND more effective than five 13ppm Marines.
Because no one is taking just 5 Marines. You either take them with 2 Plasmas or 1 Heavy weapon. In either case they are more expensive (barring a Heavy Bolter) than 5 Immortals, but each Immortal have a S5 gun that is either AP-2 or gets extra hits on 6s.
So while I agree that Immortals don't get too much use out of RP, they are still be better Troop than Marines
-
Immortals suffer the same problems as marines at almost 150% of the cost. A 3+ save that requires mid range to function *and* also requiring a massive point sink to be effective (Get that overlord / immotekh for Immortals, ~100 extra points per squad), this is exasperated by them also paying for the RP passive that is virtually ignored by any decent player because of splitfire.
Necrons can't afford to have that 'target saturation' - there are complaints of marine costs in this thread - but once again, Necrons are paying for a near useless and reactive only RP passive giving them even less points to play with than a marine player.
There are reasons why the Necron codex is placing worse than Space Marines or Grey Knights.
A great thing to do is to go back to the old format of how space marine squads (tacticals and the like) had reduced costs for special and heavy weapons.
Missle Launchers, Multi-Melta, Heavy Bolters were always free for tactical squad.
And they had reduced costs for the other heavy weapons.
Another thing to consider is just reducing the costs of most of the marines, while allowing you the option to take (optional choice) of taking grenades (krak or frag your choice).
Terminators need cheaper equipment not this crap of paying for every single model's equipment make storm bolters and powerfists and chainfists less expensive or free (storm bolter and powerfists) reducing their costs considerably from 220+ pts
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You remember you guys complaining that 5 Tactical Marines aren't hard to shift? Try those Tactical Marines being 17 points instead.
Agreed, however it is important to know that those five 17ppm models end up being cheaper AND more effective than five 13ppm Marines.
Because no one is taking just 5 Marines. You either take them with 2 Plasmas or 1 Heavy weapon. In either case they are more expensive (barring a Heavy Bolter) than 5 Immortals, but each Immortal have a S5 gun that is either AP-2 or gets extra hits on 6s.
So while I agree that Immortals don't get too much use out of RP, they are still be better Troop than Marines
-
Immortals suffer the same problems as marines at almost 150% of the cost. A 3+ save that requires mid range to function *and* also requiring a massive point sink to be effective (Get that overlord / immotekh for Immortals, ~100 extra points per squad), this is exasperated by them also paying for the RP passive that is virtually ignored by any decent player because of splitfire.
Necrons can't afford to have that 'target saturation' - there are complaints of marine costs in this thread - but once again, Necrons are paying for a near useless and reactive only RP passive giving them even less points to play with than a marine player.
There are reasons why the Necron codex is placing worse than Space Marines or Grey Knights.
Indeed, i had recently some small scale matches with a friend that played predominantly Necrons with my R&H traitor guard. (mind you, that is the bootlegversion of guard and i did not soup in some CSM allies). Jesus it was not pretty, at the end i asked him what the prices for his list were, low and behold nearly the whole Codex felt like a CSM codex without cultists and Obliterators and Psykers.
Around 10-20% overpriced for what units could do.
The main problem i saw though that whilest RP thechnically is a massive thing, practically it means nothing because the Warriors are too overcosted. However lower the price of Warriors too much and you have another tide of traitors to deal with. Basically GW in their wisdom boxed their designspace in, way too close, same goes for 2w primaris marines and some other things.
The only saving grace for marines compared to Necrons is the fact that you can Soup, whilest Necrons can't. This is also why Necrons overall perform worse then Marines, mainly because they would need acess to massive ammount of CP's for their good stratagems but don't get acess to them since their troop choices and min taxes are way to high.
At any rate, I still think Warriors are on-par with Marines and Immortals are still better. All of them are overpriced, though.
So if Marines go down to 10ppm, Necron Warriors should too and Immortals would likewise need to drop to about 13-14ppm
Models that die and come back at full life - is not something that should happen often. If you get a single destroyer back in a 2000 point game it's already done more for you than most army wide special rules that aren't "Power from pain"
Battle focus....lets talk about a rule that doesn't matter. (might score you 5-6 more hits in a game)
ATSKNF...Utterly useless.
Heres a pretty good one - "for the greater good" - oh what is that...a totally reactive rule that your opponent can avoid just by not charging you. Plus - ive tracked it's effectiveness in games - it kills maybe 50-100 points. About the same as getting a single destroyer back. If you are facing a full assault army it can do really well and do 300-400 points worth of damage BUT RP is the same way. If you are vs a low damage high defense army that struggles to finish off units - you are pretty much in control of that game.
Canticles - this one is pretty good - but it is random. A lot of it's buffs are redundant with your reroll auras - a lot of times you aren't in CC. So really it's a random chance to get +1 armor on your whole army...Yeah - decent but RP is better.
Synapse/shadow in the warp - amazing - always on. Makes you fearless. Draw back - lose synapse and lose control of your guys - this doesn't really produce damage though. It works a lot like RP if you think about it. Wipe out the synapse and then you can make all the little bugs run away and completely invalidate the synapse.
Death to the false emperor - much better than ATSKNF but still not amazing. Worthless vs non imperials - only works in CC.
Some armies don't even get one.
Obviously the best ones are harliquens and dark eldar.
Army wide buffs that produce huge results every game and fundamentally change the way the army plays. I'd rank RP as 3rd or 4th overall the tzeentch armywide buff (+1 invo save) is also really good.
Xenomancers wrote: Battle focus....lets talk about a rule that doesn't matter.
I get what you are saying in general, but I would like to note that I have seen and used Battle Focus to a great degree of success. It is pretty much the only thing Windriders have going for them since their only useful weapons are Assault Fire Dragons also make great use of BF to get within Melta range, or even Metla-bomb range for my Exarch (because she takes the Flamer to be more versatile) Dire Avengers, having 18" range can often use BF to either get in range, or retreat to a better position and still shoot at full BS.
So while BF isn't the most usefull rule, it is far from not mattering. Can't say the same for ATSKNF
Xenomancers wrote: Battle focus....lets talk about a rule that doesn't matter.
I get what you are saying in general, but I would like to note that I have seen and used Battle Focus to a great degree of success.
It is pretty much the only thing Windriders have going for them since their only useful weapons are Assault
Fire Dragons also make great use of BF to get within Melta range, or even Metla-bomb range for my Exarch (because she takes the Flamer to be more versatile)
Dire Avengers, having 18" range can often use BF to either get in range, or retreat to a better position and still shoot at full BS.
So while BF isn't the most usefull rule, it is far from not mattering. Can't say the same for ATSKNF
-
Well - if you really track it - how many 3's do you think you roll a game with advancing units? I try to keep track of this stuff sometimes. It's probably a lot less than you think. A lot of times you are doing it because there is no negative - it might score you 5-6 more hits a game. Nothing spectacular.
True - it's not useless - I exaggerated there a little bit. Fire dragons certainly make the best use out of it. I use it alot on my guardians too.
Is this the relative value in Kill Team only, or is it a preview of what to expect in Chapter Approved? Time will tell.
I actually think this is funny as I have been pushing for a 2W 2A marine that costs about 15ish and boom. 15 point intercessor. I'll be honest I would have preferred marines to cost more and be better then to be cheaper and squish all the different troops into a small window. But if this is the road they are taking then it is what it is.
I'm actually more concerned about the repulsor and the redemptor. The redemptor is just a mess, for 30ish points less I can get a Hellverin or armiger for whichever task and just get a flat out better unit. It either needs a whopping 40 point drop(seeing as it moves less, has no invulns, no special rules), or T8 and probably 20ish point drop or invuln and a point drop
So the first thing we need to do is make it so that the Codex can operate without Chapter Tactics. If we can agree how to fix the units, we can work on Chapter Tactics and make sure they aren't terribly ridiculous in terms of power. I keep talking about the different fixes I have, and I might as well throw them in a singular post to be picked at. So lemme just begin. Keep in mind that I believe that the Angels codices need to be consolidated into the Vanilla codex, with maybe each Chapter getting 2-3 exclusive generic units and then 2-3 exclusive Strategems. I'm also sure I'm going to forget different units and weapons because it IS a pretty large codex. Even I'm not perfect
Oh and I'm not gonna tackle the Special Characters and FW units for now as I want to focus on a few things at a time. Also do remind me if I forget a unit. Please.
Spoiler:
Universal Fixes:
1. Bolt Weapons either:
. Inflict an additional hit on a 6+ to hit
. Force rerolls of successful saves on a 6+ to wound
2. Grav Cannons are now 24 points
3. Missile Launchers are now 20 points
4. Multi-Meltas are now 22 points OR are now Heavy 2
5. Heavy Flamers are now 14 points and have Ignores Cover
6. Flamers are now 5 points and have Ignores Cover
7. Grav Guns are now 14 points and are Assault 2
8. Melta Guns are now 13 points
9. I don't know how to price Hand Flamers and Inferno Pistols as I don't own the Blood Angels codex, but I'm gonna assume they're probably too expensive. Plasma and Grav Pistols sure are, but by how much?
Librarius Discipline:
Open to suggestions
HQ Choices:
1. Captains seem okay as is.
2. Chaplains appear as bad because we have little incentive to run big squads and our melee units are bad. Price-wise, I don't think they're in a bad spot.
3. Librarians are bumped down to 90 points. The Librarius table NEEDS a rework and I'm open to suggestions.
4. The issues with the Primaris options is that they have literally zero options. How would you guys tackle this issue?
5. Techmarines can use their repairing ability twice if they're within X" of a Servitor maybe? Not sure on this one.
6. Librarian Dreadnoughts are a generic option for all Chapters except Black Templars of course
Troop Choices:
1. Intercessors are 16 points each
. Stalker Bolt Rifles are 1 point each
. Intercessors have Heavy Bolt Pistols standard
2. Scouts seem okay as is
. Camo Cloaks inflict a -1 to hit penalty for range attacks
. Sniper Rifles are 2 points each
3. Tactical Marines are 12 points each
. The Marines still get a choice of either Special or Heavy Weapon at 5 men, the opposite choice at 7 men, and then a choice of either at 10 men
Fast Attack Choices:
1. Assault Marines start at 12 points
. Jump Packs are 2 points each
. Eviscerators are 13 points each
. Repriced Special Pistols will help immensely after the price cuts
2. Bikers are 23 points each
3. Attack Bikes are 30 points each
4. Inceptors are 20 points each
5. Unsure how to tackle Scout Bikers (they're okay as is) and Land Speeders (they need Chapter Tactics and the weapon price reductions)
Elite Choices:
1. Company Veterans are 15 points each
. All Chapters gain the Jump Pack option for their Command Vets
2. Vanguard gain WS2+
3. Sternguard gain BS2+
. Special Issue Bolters are 1 point each
4. All Terminator variants are now WS/BS2+
. Terminator variants are 3 points less
5. Aggressors are fine as is and better with a special rule for their Boltstorm Gauntlet
. Flamestorm Gauntlets cost the same as the Boltstorm Gauntlets and Ignore Cover
6. Reivers gain -1AP on their Combat Knives and an additional shot on their Bolt Carbines
. Sergeants can buy a Power Sword. Seriously. It's ridiculous that they can't already.
7. Assault Centurions gain an additional wound
8. Honour Guard gain an additional attack and can increase their squad size up to 8.
9. Company and Chapter Ancients are fine and are probably the best thing about the codex.
10. The Company and Chapter Champions seem fine as is, but I'm open to hearing fixes for them.
Heavy Support Choices:
1. Devastators start at 9 points each. We revert to old school Legion standards and every member has to take a Heavy Weapon.
2. Hellblasters start at 14 points each
. Hellblasters have Heavy Bolt Pistols standard, and everyone has the option to take Plasma Pistols
3. Thunderfire Cannons are 115 points each
. Thunderfire Cannons use the BS2+ of the Techmarine as long as they have LoS of the targeted unit
4. I'm open to suggestions about Predators (because you folks have several suggestions for them) and the Vindicator (I don't even know where to start) and the AA vehicles.
5. Whirlwinds get maybe a 5 point decrease but that's it. They function fairly okay as is and need Chapter Tactics.
Dedicated Transport Choices:
1. The Cerberus Launcher from the Land Speeder Storm inflicts a -1 to hit penalty against hit units, and those hit units may not fire Overwatch.
2. Rhinos gain two Firing Points; up to two embarked models may fire their weapons
3. Open to suggestions to everything else in this category, including Land Raiders
CHAPTER Specific Units that stay or should be added. Note I wish for as little redundancy as possible, but obviously that'll be hard:
1. Ultramarines
. Tyrannic War Veterans need a serious overhaul
. What other units can be added? They have a Honour Guard looking unit from the Heresy if I recall.
2. Dark Angels
. Deathwing Knights gain that WS/BS2+ and 5 point discount
. Ravenwing Knights gain a 10 point discount and start with the Grenade Launcher standard. Plasma Talons are 5 points for the pair
. Ravenwing Darkshroud is good as is
3. Blood Angels
. Death Company seems to function as is, maybe give a 1 point discount and/or make them immune to Morale tests
. Sanguine Priests gain a 5 point discount
. Sanguine Guard gain an additional attack
4. Black Templars
. Crusader Neophytes and Initiates gain an additional attack. Unsure if Initiates need a point increase because of that, as otherwise they're the same as Scouts stats-wise.
. Units targeting the Emperor's Champion in melee suffer a -1 to hit penalty
5. Iron Hands
. Rules for Ironfathers (the Chaplain/Techmarine/Apothecary...thing they have) and...
. Helfathers (apparently this is an Honour Guard in Terminator armor or something)
. Possibly another Dreadnought HQ to round out the Chaplain and Librarian equivalents?
6. White Scars
. Obviously they should get an Honour Guard equivalent on Bikes for stereotypes of the army. Otherwise what's an additional unit they could get?
7. Imperial Fists
. Honestly I have no idea what they've got unique because I hate the Imperial Fists. Open for suggestions.
8. Raven Guard
. Obviously Mor Deythan Squads can be imported under a more silly Grimdark name. Open to rules for them AND another special unit or two
9. Salamanders
. Pyroclasts can be imported under a more silly Grimdark name as well, and of course more ideas for units will be nice
Probably should've made a whole separate thread for this stuff. Just do know I have ideas for most codices so far.
3. Tactical Marines are 12 points each . The Marines still get a choice of either Special or Heavy Weapon at 5 men, the opposite choice at 7 men, and then a choice of either at 10 men
I think giving the tactical squads the option of getting a free special weapon and heavy weapon (limited to missile launchers, heavy bolters, and flamers) would add alot of variety to them and also providing players a choice : Do you want tactical squads or the intercessor squads?
Intercessors
Their squad sgt should be able to take, chainswords, power swords, relic blades, combi weapon, and or a mastercrafted bolter.
Blood Angels and Space Wolves only: Each member can take a bolt carbine and a chainsword.
8. Raven Guard . Obviously Mor Deythan Squads can be imported under a more silly Grimdark name. Open to rules for them AND another special unit or two
Remove the roll to hit minus and instead have a "Can you see them?" check, on a roll of +4 you can see them and then you proceed. Currently it is a bit too powerful of a chapter tactic.
Devastators start at 9 points each. We revert to old school Legion standards and every member has to take a Heavy Weapon.
Disagree with this. a full devastator squad should always be between 4 - 5 heavy weapons anymore and its ridiculous.
Heavy Support Choices:
Decrease Cost of Land Raiders by 50 - 70 points in total. As it is currently land raiders are too expensive to be considered worthwhile.
10. The Company and Chapter Champions seem fine as is, but I'm open to hearing fixes for them.
May take anything from the melee weapons category (excluding ranged weapons)
Can take a Primaris Company Champion (similar options +1 wound +1 attack +7 pts)
2. Vanguard gain WS2+
vanguard need a way to ignore overwatch similar to shock grenades on reivers.
Vanguards can be taken as a fast attack choice if taken with jump packs.
3. Sternguard gain BS2+ . Special Issue Bolters are 1 point each
Sternguard need an option to take special ammunition, assault cannons, gattling guns, auto stubbers, and to take more than two special weapons, but no more than 2 heavy weapons per a squad.
Aggressors
Move Aggressors to Heavy Support Choice
Dedicated Transport Choices:
Drop Pods are too expensive and should cost on base 15 - 30 pts (like they used to be). Anymore and they are overcosted.
Primaris troops and heavy troops can take drop pods, storm ravens, and land raiders as transports.
5. Iron Hands
Needs Stronos Rules and armored tank bonuses (to give them an incentive to take more tanks and equipment). while also allowing for special rules for taking iron fathers as an HQ choice which is a mix between a captain and techmarine.
4. Black Templars
Allow Intercessors to be apart of Crusader Squads. Also allowing for command squads to have up to ten members per a squad and name changed to Sword Brethren.
. What other units can be added? They have a Honour Guard looking unit from the Heresy if I recall.
Ultramarines need their old traits.
special characters (normal)
Give all special characters up to par with Captain's if not better. (more of a reason to take them)
Imperial Fists
Bolter Drill may re-roll failed to wound or hit bolt weapons.
Black Templars
May take one Vow:
Deny the Witch : Pyskers suffer -1 to leadership when rolling to cast psychic abilities upon a Black Templar squad.
Suffer not the Xenos to Live : Gain +1 attack when fighting Xenos races
Purge the Mutant the heretic : Gain +2 LD and +1 to rolls to hit when fighting any Chaos or Renegade forces
White Scars
Choose One :
May take bikes as a troop choice
Moonslaker can be given to Korraso Khan
Astartes Trackers : Ignore any penalities to hit from any source.
Salamanders
Choose one:
Vulkan's toughness : All HQ and Elite choices have +1 Toughness
Master Craftsmen : For an additional +2 points to any weapon that weapon gains mastercraft which confers a reroll to hit and wound (You may reroll rerolls!)
Masters of Promethium Flame : +2 range to all flame weapons and +1 damage.
General
And they Shall know no fear, space marines instead of disappearing when failing a morale check may instead retreat and are not removed from the board.
Space Marine Chapter Officers :
At ten points per a captain!
(Can only take one per a detachment) (can only have two in a game) (can only take 1 per every one thousand points)
Master of the Arsenal : Can call down an orbital bombardment or artillery strike on a position which destroys selected cover of an opponent or unit. Collapsed buildings deal STR 1 AP 0 D3 damage to each member of the squad. Automatically hits.
Master of the Watch : Ignores negative hit to roll debuffs to this model and all those attached to the squad.
Master of the First : Elite Infantry Choices can now be taken as troop choices (excluding Aggressors and Terminators), all members wearing terminator armor gain a 6+ Feel No Pain.
Master of the Fleet : May call down an orbital bombardment twice per a game. Deep strikes do not fail within 8 inches of this character.
Master of Recruits : Slow and Steady, all infantry may inflitrate (excluding heavy infantry)
Master of the Honor Guard : Honor guard cost 10 points less and may take relic blades.
Master of the Forge : Terminators may be attached to any infantry squad excluding scouts.
Lord Executioner : May challenge any character. While in combat with that character, a squad attached with the opposing character may not target the Lord Executioner. Once that character has been slain, the lord executioner must declare a new target within d6 range. (Cooldown 1 turn)
Keeper of Relics : All grav weaponry may roll an additional dice when rolling to damage.
(These are meant to be kind of game breaking mostly spit balling)
The whole point is that the masters from 4th and 5th were actually pretty freaking cool, expanding that and adding that to give more flavor to a captain adds alot of customization and allows players to play how they want.
So yes most of these are outright broken. Better to start at a broken point than at a sucky point. Each one is like "Oh Okay, and WHAT?!" I think players want their guys to be good, and giving players the options to choose what specialities for their chapter from a base line is great.
Universal Fixes:
1. Bolt Weapons either: I'd have to see the math for each one, then dare i say them both together . Inflict an additional hit on a 6+ to hit
. Force rerolls of successful saves on a 6+ to wound
2. Grav Cannons are now 24 pointsI'd say leave them at 28, then maybe reroll wounds against T6 and higher or wounds T6+ on 4s. Might be a bit much though 4. Multi-Meltas are now 22 points OR are now Heavy 2 My vote is for 2 shots 7. Grav Guns are now 14 points and are Assault 2 I'd say just bump it down to 13 so it's inline with the Plasma gun and Melta gun like you want
Librarius Discipline:
1. Veil of time, just slot in warptime and call it a day
2. Might of heroes, just make it affect the entire unit and you have a great power. Maybe bump it to WC 7
3. Psychic Scourge, this one should just be scrapped
4. Fury of the ancients, I've never had much luck with this one so I say scrap it for a power to give a 5++
5. Psychic Fortress, I actually think this one is fine
6. Null Zone, Maybe make it a single unit and either 12" or 18".
HQ Choices:
1. Captains seem okay as is. I think giving these guys 2-3 global cast "orders" to reroll 1s or all for Chapter Masters would, open them up and prevent castling 5. Techmarines can use their repairing ability twice if they're within X" of a Servitor maybe? Not sure on this one. I was thinking of just tacking on the ability to let vehicles reroll random shots or max out damage
Troop Choices:
3. Tactical Marines are 12 points each I am not in favour of cheaper tacs but if kill team means anything we're gonna have 15pt intercessors. I also think that if they do not get the second would then they should ignore 1 point Ap so that all the weapons that didn't affect them before but got buffed to do this. My reasoning is because I assume cover was designed to counter act this but it just ends up gluing your guys to a single location most of the time
Elite Choices:
10. The Company and Chapter Champions seem fine as is, but I'm open to hearing fixes for them.I think in the index they could buy different weapons than a power sword 11. Apothicaries. Probably fine, but maybe a relic to revive on 3+. Points wise they're hit or miss only becasue if you fail that 4+ they cant do anything. Is it also too much to ask for the narthecium in melee?
Heavy Support Choices:
1. Devastators start at 9 points each. We revert to old school Legion standards and every member has to take a Heavy Weapon.I'm mixed on this idea and the hellblaster one too but I'd like to hear your reasoning 2. Hellblasters start at 14 points each
. Hellblasters have Heavy Bolt Pistols standard, and everyone has the option to take Plasma Pistols
Dedicated Transport Choices:.
3. Open to suggestions to everything else in this category, including Land Raiders LR variants just need a drop in points I'd say, this includes the repulsor and the drop pod
My thoughts are in bold and anything that's not there I either agree with or have no opinion on. I was kinda surprised you never touched on Chapter Tactics. While I Have said that I am against cheap marines, and I think simply making them cheap by itself wont do anything, maybe all of these fixes will help as a whole.
Universal Fixes:
1. Bolt Weapons either: I'd have to see the math for each one, then dare i say them both together . Inflict an additional hit on a 6+ to hit
. Force rerolls of successful saves on a 6+ to wound
2. Grav Cannons are now 24 pointsI'd say leave them at 28, then maybe reroll wounds against T6 and higher or wounds T6+ on 4s. Might be a bit much though 4. Multi-Meltas are now 22 points OR are now Heavy 2 My vote is for 2 shots 7. Grav Guns are now 14 points and are Assault 2 I'd say just bump it down to 13 so it's inline with the Plasma gun and Melta gun like you want
Librarius Discipline:
1. Veil of time, just slot in warptime and call it a day
2. Might of heroes, just make it affect the entire unit and you have a great power. Maybe bump it to WC 7
3. Psychic Scourge, this one should just be scrapped
4. Fury of the ancients, I've never had much luck with this one so I say scrap it for a power to give a 5++
5. Psychic Fortress, I actually think this one is fine
6. Null Zone, Maybe make it a single unit and either 12" or 18".
HQ Choices:
1. Captains seem okay as is. I think giving these guys 2-3 global cast "orders" to reroll 1s or all for Chapter Masters would, open them up and prevent castling 5. Techmarines can use their repairing ability twice if they're within X" of a Servitor maybe? Not sure on this one. I was thinking of just tacking on the ability to let vehicles reroll random shots or max out damage
Troop Choices:
3. Tactical Marines are 12 points each I am not in favour of cheaper tacs but if kill team means anything we're gonna have 15pt intercessors. I also think that if they do not get the second would then they should ignore 1 point Ap so that all the weapons that didn't affect them before but got buffed to do this. My reasoning is because I assume cover was designed to counter act this but it just ends up gluing your guys to a single location most of the time
Elite Choices:
10. The Company and Chapter Champions seem fine as is, but I'm open to hearing fixes for them.I think in the index they could buy different weapons than a power sword 11. Apothicaries. Probably fine, but maybe a relic to revive on 3+. Points wise they're hit or miss only becasue if you fail that 4+ they cant do anything. Is it also too much to ask for the narthecium in melee?
Heavy Support Choices:
1. Devastators start at 9 points each. We revert to old school Legion standards and every member has to take a Heavy Weapon.I'm mixed on this idea and the hellblaster one too but I'd like to hear your reasoning 2. Hellblasters start at 14 points each
. Hellblasters have Heavy Bolt Pistols standard, and everyone has the option to take Plasma Pistols
Dedicated Transport Choices:.
3. Open to suggestions to everything else in this category, including Land Raiders LR variants just need a drop in points I'd say, this includes the repulsor and the drop pod
My thoughts are in bold and anything that's not there I either agree with or have no opinion on. I was kinda surprised you never touched on Chapter Tactics. While I Have said that I am against cheap marines, and I think simply making them cheap by itself wont do anything, maybe all of these fixes will help as a whole.
That's because Chapter Tactics are a whole other problem. If we can agree what core issues are with each of the units, we can agree how Chapter Tactics should be handled in the first place.
So I'll touch on your points after work but I just wanted to point out why I did what I did so far.
Universal Fixes:
1. Bolt Weapons either:
. Inflict an additional hit on a 6+ to hit
. Force rerolls of successful saves on a 6+ to wound
Is this for all 'Bolt' weapons, including Hurricane Bolters (Which are already decent). But following that same train of thought I'd rather see less RNG. Perhaps something like "All saves of 5+ must be rerolled". This would make Heavy Bolters more appealing, and normal bolter fire better at clearing hordes
HQ Choices:
1. Captains seem okay as is.
I personally find the reroll aura really uninspired and boring. Give this guy something interesting like "One friendly unit this turn shoots at its base ballistic skill or its modified roll, whichever is better"
Troop Choices:
3. Tactical Marines are 12 points each
. The Marines still get a choice of either Special or Heavy Weapon at 5 men, the opposite choice at 7 men, and then a choice of either at 10 men
I'm also against lower cost TACs, and the special / heavy weapon change still doesn't fix MSU being the superior choice.
A change needs to be done to ATSKNF so that morale doesn't punish it hard (Perhaps something like 'May use highest leadership within 6" regardless of modifier') while also offering a discount on the 10th' marine special weapon
Fast Attack Choices:
1. Assault Marines start at 12 points
. Jump Packs are 2 points each
. Eviscerators are 13 points each
. Repriced Special Pistols will help immensely after the price cuts
Yet again the 'cheaper' TAC problem. Assault marines should have 2 attacks base (As they are losing their new and improved bolters)
2. Bikers are 23 points each
Bikers would still be punished by Plasma and friends. Either 3 Wounds and price hike, or a 'smoke cloud' that gives -1 to hit (Non stacking)
Elite Choices:
2. Vanguard gain WS2+
3. Sternguard gain BS2+
. Special Issue Bolters are 1 point each
4. All Terminator variants are now WS/BS2+
. Terminator variants are 3 points less
I don't agree with non-hero 2+ to hit (let alone 2+ to hit reroll 1's). Terminators however should definitely ignore any -1 penalties for their weapons in Melee and Ranged combat
Heavy Support Choices:
1. Devastators start at 9 points each. We revert to old school Legion standards and every member has to take a Heavy Weapon.
Is this change to stop Bolters from being 'extra wounds'? Cheaper than a normal marine (but costs more because of the weapon). I like this change
2. Hellblasters start at 14 points each
. Hellblasters have Heavy Bolt Pistols standard, and everyone has the option to take Plasma Pistols
Don't know how I feel about this, Hellblasters are already pretty good (Let alone dark angel ones). I think they are fine as is.
Here's my 10 cents, commentary is in quote in red. Note that this is from an outside perspective (I play Necrons and Orks).
I personally think Vanilla marines are in a very hard spot. Is it possible to 'balance' them while there are snowflake chapters that are marines +1?
Universal Fixes:
1. Bolt Weapons either:
. Inflict an additional hit on a 6+ to hit
. Force rerolls of successful saves on a 6+ to wound
Is this for all 'Bolt' weapons, including Hurricane Bolters (Which are already decent). But following that same train of thought I'd rather see less RNG. Perhaps something like "All saves of 5+ must be rerolled". This would make Heavy Bolters more appealing, and normal bolter fire better at clearing hordes
HQ Choices:
1. Captains seem okay as is.
I personally find the reroll aura really uninspired and boring. Give this guy something interesting like "One friendly unit this turn shoots at its base ballistic skill or its modified roll, whichever is better"
Troop Choices:
3. Tactical Marines are 12 points each
. The Marines still get a choice of either Special or Heavy Weapon at 5 men, the opposite choice at 7 men, and then a choice of either at 10 men
I'm also against lower cost TACs, and the special / heavy weapon change still doesn't fix MSU being the superior choice.
A change needs to be done to ATSKNF so that morale doesn't punish it hard (Perhaps something like 'May use highest leadership within 6" regardless of modifier') while also offering a discount on the 10th' marine special weapon
Fast Attack Choices:
1. Assault Marines start at 12 points
. Jump Packs are 2 points each
. Eviscerators are 13 points each
. Repriced Special Pistols will help immensely after the price cuts
Yet again the 'cheaper' TAC problem. Assault marines should have 2 attacks base (As they are losing their new and improved bolters)
2. Bikers are 23 points each
Bikers would still be punished by Plasma and friends. Either 3 Wounds and price hike, or a 'smoke cloud' that gives -1 to hit (Non stacking)
Elite Choices:
2. Vanguard gain WS2+
3. Sternguard gain BS2+
. Special Issue Bolters are 1 point each
4. All Terminator variants are now WS/BS2+
. Terminator variants are 3 points less
I don't agree with non-hero 2+ to hit (let alone 2+ to hit reroll 1's). Terminators however should definitely ignore any -1 penalties for their weapons in Melee and Ranged combat
Heavy Support Choices:
1. Devastators start at 9 points each. We revert to old school Legion standards and every member has to take a Heavy Weapon.
Is this change to stop Bolters from being 'extra wounds'? Cheaper than a normal marine (but costs more because of the weapon). I like this change
2. Hellblasters start at 14 points each
. Hellblasters have Heavy Bolt Pistols standard, and everyone has the option to take Plasma Pistols
Don't know how I feel about this, Hellblasters are already pretty good (Let alone dark angel ones). I think they are fine as is.
Here's my 10 cents, note that this is from an outside perspective (I play Necrons and Orks).
I personally think Vanilla marines are in a very hard spot. Is it possible to 'balance' them while there are snowflake chapters that are marines +1?
Consolidation of the Angels and Vanilla stuff into one codex is what will help this. Only exceptions are:
1. Space Wolves
2. Grey Knights
3. Deathwatch
The only Vanilla chapter you can really argue for not being in the codex would obviously be Black Templars. Most of the equipment options not being shared by 8 of the 9 Founding Chapters is, quote frankly, ridiculous. There are also not many unique units that cannot be represented by other means (Furiosos are just Ironclads for all intents and purposes) and it would be silly that not even successors of those Chapters NEVER used Centurions ever. It's just a ploy to sell more paper than necessary.
The more I think about it, the more I think one of the things Marines need (but not the only) is to move away from a la carte pricing.
If Tacs/Devs/ASM could take Flamers for 5 pts, Melta for 10, Grav or Plas for 15, and could take MM/HB for 5 pts, PC for 10, LC/ML for 15, and Grav for 20, it'd really help them out, and make them more flavorful. But a Quadlas Pred paying only 15pts per LC wouldn't be good.
Likewise, the Land Raider shouldn't need to pay the same point cost for an Assault Cannon that a "Rhino" pays (as in, the total price difference between a Rhino and an AC Razorback).
Alone, that doesn't fix the codex. But wouldn't it help?
Bharring wrote: The more I think about it, the more I think one of the things Marines need (but not the only) is to move away from a la carte pricing.
If Tacs/Devs/ASM could take Flamers for 5 pts, Melta for 10, Grav or Plas for 15, and could take MM/HB for 5 pts, PC for 10, LC/ML for 15, and Grav for 20, it'd really help them out, and make them more flavorful. But a Quadlas Pred paying only 15pts per LC wouldn't be good.
Likewise, the Land Raider shouldn't need to pay the same point cost for an Assault Cannon that a "Rhino" pays (as in, the total price difference between a Rhino and an AC Razorback).
Alone, that doesn't fix the codex. But wouldn't it help?
I would prefer not giving dual points costs to weapons. The "a la carte" pricing is actually one of the best things about 8E, at least from a consistency standpoint. Having said that, I think Tacs and ASM could be good with "free" options like in prior editions. 2 ASMs could swap pistol/chainsword for Special weapons* or Plasma Pistol/chainsword 5 Tac Marines could swap 1 bolter for a Special* or Heavy, at 10 models another model can swap for another Special or Heavy*
Each datasheet would have a note for Matched play to this affect: "Options markes with an * do not cost points in Matched play" So Tacs get 1 Special for free, but would have to pay for the second at 10 models OR would pay for the 1st Heavy weapon, but get a second for free at 10 models OR 10 models get 1 Special and 1 Heavy for free.
This would basically encourage mixing weapons (as per fluff) and discourage spamming the same weapon. After that you just need to either price down a few options, or make them better. i.e. Heavy 2 MMs and RF2 HBs (Guard can keep them Heavy 3)
Martel732 wrote: Weapons are not worth the same on every platform.
I agree. But it doesn't fit the format of 8E, which is (in theory) a weapon costs the same on every platform and the PLATFORM is costed up or down depending on how effective they use any given weapon.
This is also why some options have a 0 cost when they are mandatory "options" for all platforms in the given book. For example, Pulse Lasers. You would think a weapon like that would be 30+pts, but no, it's 0. Because the only 2 platforms it can be on (Falcons and Crimson Hunter) have to take PLs, thus the cost is part of the platform. The reverse is true for Reaper Launchers and Avenger Catapults, which are the default weapon for Reapers and Avengers, but require a points cost as they are not mandatory for the Exarch and are options for Autarchs.
Overall, the costs for Marine weapons is close to fine. Plasma & Melta points should be swapped and MMs need to be cheaper or Heavy 2, but otherwise they are fairly costed on 95% of platforms. Assigning points costs to specific datasheets will not happen. 8E is designed with Open/Narrative play in mind first and foremost (b/c that's how the designers play the game), with Matched play having to add extra rules and points costs. Obviously Marines aren't a good platform for the weapons they carry, but rather than start adding pts costs to datasheets, a Matched play note can be added to make some of their options free. It's the easiest way to do it that still fits the 8E format.
Bharring wrote: The more I think about it, the more I think one of the things Marines need (but not the only) is to move away from a la carte pricing.
If Tacs/Devs/ASM could take Flamers for 5 pts, Melta for 10, Grav or Plas for 15, and could take MM/HB for 5 pts, PC for 10, LC/ML for 15, and Grav for 20, it'd really help them out, and make them more flavorful. But a Quadlas Pred paying only 15pts per LC wouldn't be good.
Likewise, the Land Raider shouldn't need to pay the same point cost for an Assault Cannon that a "Rhino" pays (as in, the total price difference between a Rhino and an AC Razorback).
Alone, that doesn't fix the codex. But wouldn't it help?
I would prefer not giving dual points costs to weapons. The "a la carte" pricing is actually one of the best things about 8E, at least from a consistency standpoint.
Having said that, I think Tacs and ASM could be good with "free" options like in prior editions.
2 ASMs could swap pistol/chainsword for Special weapons* or Plasma Pistol/chainsword
5 Tac Marines could swap 1 bolter for a Special* or Heavy, at 10 models another model can swap for another Special or Heavy*
Each datasheet would have a note for Matched play to this affect: "Options markes with an * do not cost points in Matched play"
So Tacs get 1 Special for free, but would have to pay for the second at 10 models
OR would pay for the 1st Heavy weapon, but get a second for free at 10 models
OR 10 models get 1 Special and 1 Heavy for free.
This would basically encourage mixing weapons (as per fluff) and discourage spamming the same weapon.
After that you just need to either price down a few options, or make them better. i.e. Heavy 2 MMs and RF2 HBs (Guard can keep them Heavy 3)
-
Even if options were free, people are gonna go for a specialized squad. Command Squads will always be used even if you gave Tactical Marines a free Heavy Weapon.
Also free "upgrades" are not something people should need to relive. Mechanicus wa busted last edition because of it, and Marines getting free units was busted. It's a slippery slope as you can start to justify "free" in every codex. OR, you can fix the problem that they cannot specialize in the first place, and fix weapon costs too.
Melta is worth more on a fast platform than a slow one. But long range weapons are equally valuable on fast or slow usually.
Melta needs to be a lot cheaper, not just switch.
Plasma doesn't really need to go up, as it has some downsides, just not vs marines.
Grav needs to be quite cheap, as it is pretty terrible.
And I agree with all those points.
But in order to make those changes, the format of 8E needs to change and datasheets needs to include points costs for wargear.
As much as I am personally fine with that, it isn't the format GW has decided to go with for 8E, thus isn't likely to change in a Chapter Approved.
The costs of the wargear might change, but it will change for every unit, not just the ones that make better use of them.
GW needs to decide if the dissy cannon is going to be the standard heavy weapon or not. If so, Imperial weapons need a LOT of price cuts. Because they suck in comparison across the board.
Martel732 wrote: GW needs to decide if the dissy cannon is going to be the standard heavy weapon or not. If so, Imperial weapons need a LOT of price cuts. Because they suck in comparison across the board.
Or they bump the price on the Disintegrator like they're most likely to with the next update/Chapter Approved.
Martel732 wrote: GW needs to decide if the dissy cannon is going to be the standard heavy weapon or not. If so, Imperial weapons need a LOT of price cuts. Because they suck in comparison across the board.
Ya know what I find funny about dissy cannons being so "OP" is that they are so very similar to Star Cannons, which no competitive Eldar player will touch. Both weapons are 36" range, multiple shots, decent AP and multi-damage, but because Dissies go on a platform that makes them Assault weapons, Dissies get to be "OP". It sounds to me like Ravagers and the thing that needs to go up in points.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Or they bump the price on the Disintegrator like they're most likely to with the next update/Chapter Approved.
Bharring wrote: The more I think about it, the more I think one of the things Marines need (but not the only) is to move away from a la carte pricing.
If Tacs/Devs/ASM could take Flamers for 5 pts, Melta for 10, Grav or Plas for 15, and could take MM/HB for 5 pts, PC for 10, LC/ML for 15, and Grav for 20, it'd really help them out, and make them more flavorful. But a Quadlas Pred paying only 15pts per LC wouldn't be good.
Likewise, the Land Raider shouldn't need to pay the same point cost for an Assault Cannon that a "Rhino" pays (as in, the total price difference between a Rhino and an AC Razorback).
Alone, that doesn't fix the codex. But wouldn't it help?
Why is a predator which is basically a rhino anyway paying 15 points per lascannon an issue, it would actually just bring them into line with the Leman Russ. Thats how over costed the marine codex currently is.
Bharring wrote: Because when comparing the quad-las Pred to other faction offerings in the same class (Railhead, BL Falcon, etc), it's already not in a bad spot.
So a leman russ needs a points increase then?
I'm not in disagreement with you, but guard players constantly bitch that a leman russ isn't OP and some claim it is over pointed and needs a 15 point reduction to be competitive.
So are leman russes undercosted or has everyone else just been screwed with unuseable vehicals as they're overcosted massively?
Bharring wrote: Because when comparing the quad-las Pred to other faction offerings in the same class (Railhead, BL Falcon, etc), it's already not in a bad spot.
Galef wrote: It just seems dumb to me that Marines are designed to be withstand damage that would kill a normal human (even without the armour), but on the table-top, 5 Marines (with the armour) die faster than 10 GEQs in just about every situation.
This, in general, is a problem with Guardsmen, more than marines. They are brutally undercosted. Unless you ask a guard player. Then, everything is fine.
Galef wrote: It just seems dumb to me that Marines are designed to be withstand damage that would kill a normal human (even without the armour), but on the table-top, 5 Marines (with the armour) die faster than 10 GEQs in just about every situation.
This, in general, is a problem with Guardsmen, more than marines. They are brutally undercosted. Unless you ask a guard player. Then, everything is fine.
They basically got every request you could've asked for last edition. For their price point, they needed 1 or 2 of the following:
1. Be a point cheaper
2. Make the Lasgun less fallible
3. Make Orders automatic
4. More durability to the basic AP5 weapon
They got literally all that at once, with their armor only being ignored by what used to ignore Power Armor entirely last edition.
Galef wrote: It just seems dumb to me that Marines are designed to be withstand damage that would kill a normal human (even without the armour), but on the table-top, 5 Marines (with the armour) die faster than 10 GEQs in just about every situation.
This, in general, is a problem with Guardsmen, more than marines. They are brutally undercosted. Unless you ask a guard player. Then, everything is fine.
They basically got every request you could've asked for last edition. For their price point, they needed 1 or 2 of the following:
1. Be a point cheaper
2. Make the Lasgun less fallible
3. Make Orders automatic
4. More durability to the basic AP5 weapon
They got literally all that at once, with their armor only being ignored by what used to ignore Power Armor entirely last edition.
As a guard player, agreed. Guardsmen really should be 5ppm now, however it seems like GW doubled down on the cheap infantry dynamic by making rangers and fire warriors 7ppm. Now guardsmen have to be 4ppm in order to make sense because a mechanicus ranger is basically a guardsmen with a 30" bolter, a 4+ and a 6++ for only 7 pts.
Galef wrote: It just seems dumb to me that Marines are designed to be withstand damage that would kill a normal human (even without the armour), but on the table-top, 5 Marines (with the armour) die faster than 10 GEQs in just about every situation.
This, in general, is a problem with Guardsmen, more than marines. They are brutally undercosted. Unless you ask a guard player. Then, everything is fine.
They basically got every request you could've asked for last edition. For their price point, they needed 1 or 2 of the following:
1. Be a point cheaper
2. Make the Lasgun less fallible
3. Make Orders automatic
4. More durability to the basic AP5 weapon
They got literally all that at once, with their armor only being ignored by what used to ignore Power Armor entirely last edition.
As a guard player, agreed. Guardsmen really should be 5ppm now, however it seems like GW doubled down on the cheap infantry dynamic by making rangers and fire warriors 7ppm. Now guardsmen have to be 4ppm in order to make sense because a mechanicus ranger is basically a guardsmen with a 30" bolter, a 4+ and a 6++ for only 7 pts.
To which the most feasible solution for Marines then becomes making them 10ppm.
It's essentially an arms race, but instead of units getting better, they just keep getting cheaper. You can always find justification that X should be cheaper than Y. It's an endless cyle
That's part of the reason I want MEQs to be 2W. It specifically goes against the "arms race" of just making everything cheaper. If everything gets cheaper, nothing really changes does it? X will still cost more than Y.
A Falcon is akin to a Razorback the way a Space Marine is akin to a Guardsmen. Same general profile - vehicle w/heavy weapon vs infantry w/infantry weapon. Very different build though.
The Falcon is a tank that can transport. The Razorback is a transport that carries a heavy turret. The Razorback is more like the Starweaver or Venom in that regard. Craftworlders won't risk precious lives that actually matter in anything that doesn't get a 5-star crash rating. They don't have anything akin to a Rhino or Razorback.
If the LasPred, Railhead, and BL Falcon are all on about the same level, a Lascannon-heavy Russ should probably be brought to that level instead of the LasPred being brought to the Russ level. Which vehicles m I leaving out?
On infantry pricing, there seems to be two different pricing levels:
-IG, DE troops, Tau troops etc are pointed on one scale
-SM, CWE troops, etc seem to be pointed on a completely different one
Which side to repoint is certainly debateable. When Guardsmen were the outlier, it would have been really easy to just put them at 5ppm. I still prefer that change, but more things need updating now than would have back then.
The things priced around tacs are probably already trash. Your eldar infantry can't compete with guardsmen and kabalites already. Marines are irrelevant.
Bharring wrote: I was thinking more Necrons and Ork Boyz (the rest of the Ork codex isn't even in the Tac range).
I don't think we can discuss Orks just yet as we don't know what ruels they'll get in the Codex.
Necron, otoh, I agree. Warriors and Immortals both need about a 2-3ppm drop if Marines go to 10-11ppm. A Tac Marine and a Nercon Warrior are roughly equal, with Immortals not being too far better.
Bharring wrote: If the LasPred, Railhead, and BL Falcon are all on about the same level, a Lascannon-heavy Russ should probably be brought to that level instead of the LasPred being brought to the Russ level. Which vehicles m I leaving out?
Russes aren't exactly OP. If a las-pred had chapter tactics like it SHOULD, it would perform comparably to a Russ. GW really fethed up with the marine codex. Compare russes with something better like fire prisms.
Bharring wrote: On infantry pricing, there seems to be two different pricing levels:
-IG, DE troops, Tau troops etc are pointed on one scale
-SM, CWE troops, etc seem to be pointed on a completely different one
Which side to repoint is certainly debateable. When Guardsmen were the outlier, it would have been really easy to just put them at 5ppm. I still prefer that change, but more things need updating now than would have back then.
Martel732 wrote: Yeah, sure. Whatever necrons need. Another army boned by splinter for sure.
Sounds like you have a severe Dark Eldar problem in your meta to justify such contempt. I can't say they're a huge problem in mine. 1-2 DE players that don't win our local tourneys, that's about it.
I'd need to see some larger tourney results placing DE in the top 5 before I can understand your raw loathing for DE. They've got good options, sure, but you often come off more like a Rock complaining about Paper while refusing to take some Scissors.
If Dark Lances are 20ppm, Dissies should be 25. Fixed. I'm fine with Dissies having the profile they have (maybe should only be damage 1 though). I'm not fine with them costing less than DLs, which are an inferior (but appropriately costed) weapon.
Galef wrote: If Dark Lances are 20ppm, Dissies should be 25. Fixed.
I'm fine with Dissies having the profile they have (maybe should only be damage 1 though).
I'm not fine with them costing less than DLs, which are an inferior (but appropriately costed) weapon.
-
25 is still too cheap. It's better than every imperial heavy.
Which we have already established are too expensive and need to be improved and/or lowered in cost.
Curiosity questions for you:
A) Do you think Star Cannons are also OP? They have better strength and do d3 damage. Being Heavy 2 is really the only downside compared to Dissies
B) What specifically do you not like about Dissies? Being Assault 3? Flat D2?
C) If you were able bump Dissies up to 25ppm, what single other change would you make to the profile to make it "fair"?
My answer to C would be to make them D1. It makes their role fit anti-infantry better and as a result, makes it a harder choice between the Dark lance. You have to decide what role the vehicle will fill, rather than just taking Dissies because they are both cheaper AND multipurpose.
Speaking of weapon changes, and this being a thread for Marines, I think now is a decent time to post my thoughts on Marine weapon options:
As I've started before: HBs should be RF2...for Marines. Other factions can still be Heavy, but Marines should have a better capacity for using what is essentially a bigger version of their standard weapon RF2 makes the HB a more mobile weapon and rewards getting closer, which Marines should be doing. Still 10ppm
MM - Heavy 2, easy fix there. Maybe go to 25ppm Lascannons - As-is. Maybe go down to 20ppm Missile Launcher - Also should be 20ppm and the Str 4 mode should be either strait Heavy 6, or AP-1. It needs to be better than just D6 Bolter shots.
I figured I would try and tackle Chapter Tactics now. The main question is if we hand Vehicles the same Tactics or make different traits for the vehicles, and if Dreads get a combination of both of so. I will say that is the best thing that the Imperial Guard codex got right: infantry and tanks fight differently.
1. Iron Hands need love. The 6+++ not stacking anymore is probably the dumbest thing GW has done in 8th. Remove that restriction, and give Iron Hands infantry and Dreads Relentless lite. They ignore the -1 penalty for moving and firing with Heavy Weapons. Do Vehicles get the same stuff or something different?
2. Imperial Fists having Ignores Cover is fine, but their specific Warlord trait is something they should have standard. Infantry and Dreads in cover gain +2 to their save instead of just +1. All of them are cover camping cowards, not just the ones near their Warlord! Same question about other vehicles applies here too.
3. Black Templars have a solid first part for their Chapter Tactics as long as the melee units don't suck. Only other addition I would add was something I was a fan of that someone else suggested: you ignore Mortal Wounds caused by Psykers on a 4+, OR maybe for all mortal wounds in general. What would you do for the vehicles?
4. Ultramarines are sorta fine as is I think. I'm open to suggestions though. One idea I had for core rules was that units with Fly fleeing and all that junk get a -1 penalty on their BS. Then Ultramarines stay the same and their Flying infantry don't suffer a BS penalty for fleeing. Just something I had in mind.
5. Raven Guard already have a solid Chapter Tactic as is. Do they get a second part or nah? OR do we change how it is entirely?
6. Honestly I don't know what to do about White Scars.
7. Salamanders is too redundant. I'd suggest a copycat of the AdMech Lucius trait you guys want to incorporate in Marines, and they reroll damage on weapons with a random roll.
8. Blood Angels have a good trait. Maybe add +1" to charge rolls?
9. I like the morale part of Grim Resolve, but the rest of the trait is very redundant. What would you add instead?
7. Salamanders is too redundant. I'd suggest a copycat of the AdMech Lucius trait you guys want to incorporate in Marines, and they reroll damage on weapons with a random roll.
Don't you touch my Salamander Re-rolls.
Seriously, it's the only CT that allows me to consistently avoid blobhammer by reducing the reliance on reroll characters. I've been winning all of my games recently by combining 3 things that most people here think are pretty underwhelming (melta guns, rhinos, and tac squads) with Salamander CTs.
I prefer it more than RG, but I have a definite bias in that respect as I've always been a Salamander Player.
7. Salamanders is too redundant. I'd suggest a copycat of the AdMech Lucius trait you guys want to incorporate in Marines, and they reroll damage on weapons with a random roll.
Don't you touch my Salamander Re-rolls.
Seriously, it's the only CT that allows me to consistently avoid blobhammer by reducing the reliance on reroll characters. I've been winning all of my games recently by combining 3 things that most people here think are pretty underwhelming (melta guns, rhinos, and tac squads) with Salamander CTs.
I prefer it more than RG, but I have a definite bias in that respect as I've always been a Salamander Player.
There's too much redundancy the moment you have a Chapter Master and to a lesser extent a Captain. Marines are basically priced as though they're getting those aura buffs, so you gotta be sure they're in the auras.
I'd rather they have slightly better armor and more damaging weapons.
7. Salamanders is too redundant. I'd suggest a copycat of the AdMech Lucius trait you guys want to incorporate in Marines, and they reroll damage on weapons with a random roll.
Don't you touch my Salamander Re-rolls.
Seriously, it's the only CT that allows me to consistently avoid blobhammer by reducing the reliance on reroll characters. I've been winning all of my games recently by combining 3 things that most people here think are pretty underwhelming (melta guns, rhinos, and tac squads) with Salamander CTs.
I prefer it more than RG, but I have a definite bias in that respect as I've always been a Salamander Player.
There's too much redundancy the moment you have a Chapter Master and to a lesser extent a Captain. Marines are basically priced as though they're getting those aura buffs, so you gotta be sure they're in the auras.
I'd rather they have slightly better armor and more damaging weapons.
First, redundancy is not a bad thing
Second, a chapter master has an aura of 6" that can be used to stretch up to a foot using MSU (if your not MSUing why even bother with Salamander CT). That's not enough board control. This edition is all about board control. Being able to screen deepstrikers, slow assaulter, protect characters, engage firebases, and hold objectives. Tying yourself down to a captain/LT can limit your ability to control the board.
In my current list I have a Termi Captain (because I don't have the model for a jump captain) that is generally supposed to deepstrike with a wall of bodies piling out of rhinos and provide rerolling 1s. That almost never happens because the termi captain is better used elsewhere. The entire army is independent which allows me to be flexible (asides from non dread vehicles, because please give our vehicles CT like almost everyone else)
Also, don't forget that the Salamander CT gives a Re-roll for both hitting AND wounding which is really useful to ensure damage happens. Think of how many times you may have used the Re-roll CP to get an extra hit or wound in. Now spend that CP on a poor damage roll if needed.
Salamanders CT encourage an entirely different style of play from the reroll castle, which is what CT's should do.
2 fixes for chaos space marines and space marines, and more specifically powered armour
- Lethality
- Resilience
That is the 2 things that lacks marines and are not well represented on the tabletop if you compare to the fluff.
Marines lost the ''ignore armour of save 5+'' with the V8 on their bolters.
2 rules to add to space marines:
- Explosive Shells : Each 5+ to wound cause a mortal wound.
Bolters are like mini grenade launcher, a concentred volley of fire will do a better damage. 10 csm with voltw can also hurt a lot, or aggressors.
Superhuman Physiology: +1 wound to all marines. Primaris 3 wound, Plague marine 2 and terminators 3hp.
I am convinced that buffing marines is the way to do, and gw need to stop reduce their points. the more your reduce their points the more their feels elite.
Of course if they buff them like that they will go up in points.
Agreed 100%. Why do Bolters have a 1/3 chance of completely and utterly ignoring saves? Which, by the way, means they always wound on a 5+ and never worse.
Sarevokk wrote: 2 fixes for chaos space marines and space marines, and more specifically powered armour
- Lethality
- Resilience
That is the 2 things that lacks marines and are not well represented on the tabletop if you compare to the fluff.
Marines lost the ''ignore armour of save 5+'' with the V8 on their bolters.
2 rules to add to space marines:
- Explosive Shells : Each 5+ to wound cause a mortal wound.
Bolters are like mini grenade launcher, a concentred volley of fire will do a better damage. 10 csm with voltw can also hurt a lot, or aggressors.
Superhuman Physiology: +1 wound to all marines. Primaris 3 wound, Plague marine 2 and terminators 3hp.
I am convinced that buffing marines is the way to do, and gw need to stop reduce their points. the more your reduce their points the more their feels elite.
Of course if they buff them like that they will go up in points.
Lets see if we can fix this mess with some common sense
Boltguns, Bolt rifles, storm bolters, heavy bolters and bolt pistols(bolt storm guantlet agressors would probably be OP with this) have the Mass Reactive Rule (Can not be used by Deathwatch)
Mass Reactive all wound rules of 5+ generate an additional hit against the target unit. Roll to wound normally, these additional rolls can not generate additional hits.
If the target toughness is double the strength of the weapon this rule produces no additional hits.
Your really advocating 3wound 2+4++5+++ terminators for deathguard. That would need to be insane levels of points.
The idea is balanced not Aeldari levels of cheese topped with cheese with a side of dipping cheese. With a Cheese shake.
Sarevokk wrote: 2 fixes for chaos space marines and space marines, and more specifically powered armour
- Lethality
- Resilience
That is the 2 things that lacks marines and are not well represented on the tabletop if you compare to the fluff.
Marines lost the ''ignore armour of save 5+'' with the V8 on their bolters.
2 rules to add to space marines:
- Explosive Shells : Each 5+ to wound cause a mortal wound.
Bolters are like mini grenade launcher, a concentred volley of fire will do a better damage. 10 csm with voltw can also hurt a lot, or aggressors.
Superhuman Physiology: +1 wound to all marines. Primaris 3 wound, Plague marine 2 and terminators 3hp.
I am convinced that buffing marines is the way to do, and gw need to stop reduce their points. the more your reduce their points the more their feels elite.
Of course if they buff them like that they will go up in points.
Lets see if we can fix this mess with some common sense
Boltguns, Bolt rifles, storm bolters, heavy bolters and bolt pistols(bolt storm guantlet agressors would probably be OP with this) have the Mass Reactive Rule (Can not be used by Deathwatch)
Mass Reactive all wound rules of 5+ generate an additional hit against the target unit. Roll to wound normally, these additional rolls can not generate additional hits.
If the target toughness is double the strength of the weapon this rule produces no additional hits.
Your really advocating 3wound 2+4++5+++ terminators for deathguard. That would need to be insane levels of points.
The idea is balanced not Aeldari levels of cheese topped with cheese with a side of dipping cheese. With a Cheese shake.
Considering 2 Terminators cost more then a Sentinel, 3 can get you a fully kitted Chimera or other various goodies, i belive we could deal with 3w DG Terminators.
Frankly it would be annoying to play against, (albeit matches against DG can also turn into boring slugfests anyways) but considering that they are even more expensive than their CSM /Sm counterpart i belive they would not really break the balance, not aslong as the -1 to hits literally are flat out better then additional W's.
I personally still think that the problem lies within the fact that the "good" (e.g. BA smashcaptain broken) stuff of marines requires mass CP and that regular SM only achieve this via soup. Most elite Armies could do with more CP, especially necrons and marines of any flavour and with or without edgy spikes. That beeing said the regular Tac marines/CSM/Plague Marine/Raptor/Assult Marine don't have a place since they can't generate enough CP for their price tag to make the units that are good and can take advantage of stratagems actually viable.
This again boils down to my comparison sometimes back:
Why Pick a regular CSM squad for a min troop tax in a elite army that will allways suffer from to few pts, when you can get the min troop tax filled way cheaper (and get access to potentially 160pts recycling from any side of the table via tide of traitors).
Basically if i want to fill a regular 5 cp formation, with 3 troop squads, even if i take 3x5 CSM that are still 210 pts. For that i can get 2x10 cultists and a 30 cultists blob for tide of traitors. I even could split them up and go full brigade if i wanted to for 210 pts and nearly would get my min troop tax. Additionally if i just want to fill min taxes i just pay 120 pts with cultists saving me additional 90 pts on taxes for units that profit more from Stratagems, basically the good units, you know those slaaneshi doublshooting obliterators.
The same goes for SM. Why take a pure SM list without soup, if you overpay for CP massively and can just abuse AM for a CP farm.
Basically we face the Problem that CSM/SM regulares are obsolete, either they lack DMG and durability to be cost effective or can not generate enough CP compared to other options, massively thanks to the gold CP standard dominated via Cultists and CP farms. So long CP is needed to activate abilities and so long min-troop-taxes detachments get the most CP, so long no CSM/ SM player will field CSM/ SM regulars on a semi- competitive level or higher, when he has access to cannonfodder/ cultists.
Now we could go two ways about this:
A) Either Buff specific Elite factions (read models with a price tag higher then 10 on standard infantery) via allowing them to baseline generate more CP with smaller detachments. (Especially Necrons do need something like this, additionally pure CSM / SM armies that don't field cultists/souped allies or scouts could get a rule for their detachment). Basically making them CP effecive.
Or, Buff those elite factions standard infantery, then we just run into the problem that the design space really is extremely marginal what with Primaris marines and custodes blocking buffs to stats. Additionally we still have the CP inefectivness to deal with and that would be needed to counterbalance, leading inevitably to huge buffs for regular marines of any spike and edgyness.
Space marines need to be 2hp, DG marines and other will be increased in points that sure, but thats not shocking because we play an elite army.
- Transhuman Physiology : When inflicting damage up an "Insert Intercessor, etc...", reduce the damage of the attack by 1 to a minimum of 1.
This solves vulnerability of MEQ to plasmas, that will twice the shot to kill them, and D3 damage will not be certain death.
Explosives Shells or another fancy names for bolter : Count this weapons as Ap-2 against armor save up to 5+. This is maybe not elegant, but this idea is give the bolter the AP 5 thats they always had in previous editions, and focus them on what they are supposed to do : Kill infantry units.
I dont think its op because each model will be expensive
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I don't want anything close to the old AP system. All-or-nothing is a stupid mechanic and modifiers make more sense.
Completely agree. the AP system is probably one of the best things about 8E. It would be a shame to start adding rules to modify it.
A better option would be to USE the AP system as it is. Termies with 1+ armour is a good example of this. No special rule/ability needed since 1s already fail
Take this as a grain of salt, but apparently Grey hunters are going to 13ppm. They were 14 before since they could take a chain sword for free at no loss.
If GW wants to maintain the price difference between Tacticals and hunters then Tacticals will have to drop to 12. Which is in line with the new kill team points.
Well now I'm curious if them bumping rad rifles to do 3 damage on 6s to wound instead of 2 will make it to the core game. Seemed like a needless buff in KT to be honest
I would like to see two changes in the interim FAQ - for terminator armour whenever the model takes a wounding hit, reduce the wounds taken by 1 to a minimum of 1.
2 wound and to a lesser extent D3 wound weapons would be far less of a problem.
The second would be a universal marine boost. Any Astarte's bolter has an additional -1 to account for the larger calibers used. Bolt pistols, Bolters and Storm Bolters to -1, Bolt Rifles to -2. Chaos and Imperial.
Ice_can wrote: Adding Ap won't help marines the only way to make them semi competative is I hate to say it points cost drops.
How does fixing the main problem for the basic Marine NOT help make them better?
Because marines still die like flies to dark eldar, guardsmen etc they will now also die like flies to other marines and primaris are now rocking -2AP bolters and Deathwatch -what AP they'll ve better anti tank than a heavy bolter for crying out loud.
It also doesn't fix their huge weakness in CC or fix assualt marines, makes bike armies the best way to play marines again hello 7th edition. Marines need better stats or less AP in the game to be worth thier points. If they arn't worth their point make them cheaper it's all thats left. Also cheaper marines might actually give them some CP to play with and some board presence.
Also more dudes with guns = more shooting which is a lot more effective against all the - to hit shenanigans than an additional Ap
Ice_can wrote: Adding Ap won't help marines the only way to make them semi competative is I hate to say it points cost drops.
How does fixing the main problem for the basic Marine NOT help make them better?
The main problem for marines is not damage. It is durability. We can load all kinds of units with specials on every model. Rerolling all hits and 1's to wound. True bolters are trash and probably should be a little better but durability is the main issue.
Ice_can wrote: Adding Ap won't help marines the only way to make them semi competative is I hate to say it points cost drops.
How does fixing the main problem for the basic Marine NOT help make them better?
The main problem for marines is not damage. It is durability. We can load all kinds of units with specials on every model. Rerolling all hits and 1's to wound. True bolters are trash and probably should be a little better but durability is the main issue.
Except we really can't just load up on Special Weapons.
I'm not saying Marines are exactly durable, but Deathwatch proved that they CAN be offensively capable even with a basic Bolter when these base problems are fixed.
Ice_can wrote: Adding Ap won't help marines the only way to make them semi competative is I hate to say it points cost drops.
How does fixing the main problem for the basic Marine NOT help make them better?
The main problem for marines is not damage. It is durability. We can load all kinds of units with specials on every model. Rerolling all hits and 1's to wound. True bolters are trash and probably should be a little better but durability is the main issue.
Except we really can't just load up on Special Weapons.
I'm not saying Marines are exactly durable, but Deathwatch proved that they CAN be offensively capable even with a basic Bolter when these base problems are fixed.
Yeah deathwatch gets some stuff that is unreasonably good compared to trash space marine stuff. Pretty funny...because they are just space marines. Yet - they are still trash! LOL. All deatch-watch do is prove how trash space marines are. You give them all kinds of special rules for the cost of 1 ppm and they still can't compete.
And we can. Hellblasters / inceptors / sterngaurd / vangaurd / Centurians. Every single model has 1 or multiple specials.They do a lot of damage. The problem is - they die to whatever shoots at them.
I think that you give marines the ability to shrug off small arms fire better similar to 'all is dust' for 1k sons, and make basic marines, with basic bolters able to proc AP bonuses on 6s.
Keep them at the same price point, i'd rather have buffs than cheaper marines. They need it.
iGuy91 wrote: I think that you give marines the ability to shrug off small arms fire better similar to 'all is dust' for 1k sons, and make basic marines, with basic bolters able to proc AP bonuses on 6s.
Keep them at the same price point, i'd rather have buffs than cheaper marines. They need it.
Okay...so why not +1 wound like most people are saying? A conditional rule compared to one that always works is preferable why?
iGuy91 wrote: I think that you give marines the ability to shrug off small arms fire better similar to 'all is dust' for 1k sons, and make basic marines, with basic bolters able to proc AP bonuses on 6s.
Keep them at the same price point, i'd rather have buffs than cheaper marines. They need it.
Okay...so why not +1 wound like most people are saying? A conditional rule compared to one that always works is preferable why?
That actually makes more sense if we wanted to go the durability route.
iGuy91 wrote: I think that you give marines the ability to shrug off small arms fire better similar to 'all is dust' for 1k sons, and make basic marines, with basic bolters able to proc AP bonuses on 6s.
Keep them at the same price point, i'd rather have buffs than cheaper marines. They need it.
Okay...so why not +1 wound like most people are saying? A conditional rule compared to one that always works is preferable why?
Is the wound worth it?
I question that since d3 dmg weaponry and plasma, autocannons and everything along that line still ruin your day and are still cheaper then the marine they just shot. (except plasma in many cases.)
On the plus side, Lasguns, autoguns, Bolters, etc would now require double the ammount of bullets to wipe out a squad.
It's really a tossup, and durability is only half their problem, since they still are just bolter carriers paying for melee stats they can't use since they have no proper equipment for melee.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I also have a thought experiment for you, mainly for csm players but also applicable for sm players:
Would you consider tac marines or csm in the following scenario?
-12ppm
- Min squad size 3
- At size 3 they gain the same options as csm/ tac marines have now at 5 models per squad.
I personally could see them then beeing used over cultists for troop min tax. But that is my Personal opinion.
I'd like to see bolters get AP -1 on a 5+ to wound (HBs and Bolter Rifles therefore being AP -2 on a 5+ to wound) It would vastly improve Marines damage output without being too much of a copy-cat of Eldar Shuriken weapons and Necron Guass. It's be more of an in-between. Not as good as a flat additional AP like Guass, not as good of AP as Shuriken 6s, but gaining an AP bonus on 5s.
That single change might put Marines at being worth their ppm cost and improves literally any unit with bolt weapons
Galef wrote: I'd like to see bolters get AP -1 on a 5+ to wound (HBs and Bolter Rifles therefore being AP -2 on a 5+ to wound)
It would vastly improve Marines damage output without being too much of a copy-cat of Eldar Shuriken weapons and Necron Guass.
It's be more of an in-between. Not as good as a flat additional AP like Guass, not as good of AP as Shuriken 6s, but gaining an AP bonus on 5s.
That single change might put Marines at being worth their ppm cost and improves literally any unit with bolt weapons
-
I've before suggested to give Bolt weapons a unique mechanic where a 6+ to wound forces rerolls of successful saves. It's less samey which is why I suggest it all the time.
Martel732 wrote: Marines both lack offense and defense. That's why the simplest fix is to make them cheaper, as it fixes both at the same time.
No doubt the simplest fix is a points drop. It's also the most likely with Chapter Approved I just think it is the most boring fix. Marines should feel heroic, not expendable. +1W and decent Bolt weapons would do this.
Galef wrote: I'd like to see bolters get AP -1 on a 5+ to wound (HBs and Bolter Rifles therefore being AP -2 on a 5+ to wound)
It would vastly improve Marines damage output without being too much of a copy-cat of Eldar Shuriken weapons and Necron Guass.
It's be more of an in-between. Not as good as a flat additional AP like Guass, not as good of AP as Shuriken 6s, but gaining an AP bonus on 5s.
That single change might put Marines at being worth their ppm cost and improves literally any unit with bolt weapons
-
I've before suggested to give Bolt weapons a unique mechanic where a 6+ to wound forces rerolls of successful saves. It's less samey which is why I suggest it all the time.
What would give them a very unique mechanic would be each failed save generates an additional hit, as it's very fluffy a bolt round turning a poorly armoured opponent into additional shrapnel when it detonates.
The issue is it slows the game down a lot.
Also the other thing to consider is an changes made to the bolter will carry across to Sisiters of battle, one of if not the best index power armour faction.
Power armour appears to work at that points cost just not at marine points.
Maybe they could give boltguns the rule for every point of strength above the enemy models toughness increase the ap of the gun by 1, so against t3 you would have an ap of -1, and intercessors would have -2
masterhobo wrote: Maybe they could give boltguns the rule for every point of strength above the enemy models toughness increase the ap of the gun by 1, so against t3 you would have an ap of -1, and intercessors would have -2
I like the idea but it seems slow and makes bookkeeping for Deathwatch more painful.
Galef wrote: I'd like to see bolters get AP -1 on a 5+ to wound (HBs and Bolter Rifles therefore being AP -2 on a 5+ to wound)
It would vastly improve Marines damage output without being too much of a copy-cat of Eldar Shuriken weapons and Necron Guass.
It's be more of an in-between. Not as good as a flat additional AP like Guass, not as good of AP as Shuriken 6s, but gaining an AP bonus on 5s.
That single change might put Marines at being worth their ppm cost and improves literally any unit with bolt weapons
-
I've before suggested to give Bolt weapons a unique mechanic where a 6+ to wound forces rerolls of successful saves. It's less samey which is why I suggest it all the time.
What would give them a very unique mechanic would be each failed save generates an additional hit, as it's very fluffy a bolt round turning a poorly armoured opponent into additional shrapnel when it detonates.
The issue is it slows the game down a lot.
Also the other thing to consider is an changes made to the bolter will carry across to Sisiters of battle, one of if not the best index power armour faction.
Power armour appears to work at that points cost just not at marine points.
So either only Astartes Bolters get the bonus rule, or it's decidedly not broken so who cares if Sisters get it. I'm fine with either.
The only way to *not* coincidentally buff the better marine like factions into omnipotence while also fixing marine issues it to just improve the chapter tactics for vanilla marines massively.
And I think this is the pathway Games Workshop has taken. The SW trait ability is that much better than everything else (Other than the -1 to hit).
Some examples:
Imperial Fists Siege Masters - May also activate Bolter Drill for no cost if shooting at a unit in cover.
Bolster Fortifications - All units have a 4++ save while in cover
Iron Hands Flesh is Weak - Gives a 6+ FNP to all < Infantry >. If a unit already benefits from a similar rule it instead reduces all damage taken by 1 (to a minimum of 1).
Digital Mnemonics - If an attack would miss because of a 'to hit modifier', you may instead re-roll that attack.
Nah I don't really agree with those two. Imperial Fists should really be gaining +2 to cover saves instead of +1, and then you add their Ignore Cover mechanic for a pretty good camping army.
Iron Hands getting 6+++ (and allowing stacking) on everything is expected, but I think they should get a Relentless of sorts. They ignore the penalty for moving and firing with Heavy Weapons. This makes their infantry AND vehicles better on the move.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Nah I don't really agree with those two. Imperial Fists should really be gaining +2 to cover saves instead of +1, and then you add their Ignore Cover mechanic for a pretty good camping army.
Iron Hands getting 6+++ (and allowing stacking) on everything is expected, but I think they should get a Relentless of sorts. They ignore the penalty for moving and firing with Heavy Weapons. This makes their infantry AND vehicles better on the move.
I see what you're going for, but that would see Scouts with a 2+ save. Perhaps something like 'Ignore the first point of AP while in cover'. The Iron hands one looks good.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Nah I don't really agree with those two. Imperial Fists should really be gaining +2 to cover saves instead of +1, and then you add their Ignore Cover mechanic for a pretty good camping army.
Iron Hands getting 6+++ (and allowing stacking) on everything is expected, but I think they should get a Relentless of sorts. They ignore the penalty for moving and firing with Heavy Weapons. This makes their infantry AND vehicles better on the move.
I see what you're going for, but that would see Scouts with a 2+ save. Perhaps something like 'Ignore the first point of AP while in cover'. The Iron hands one looks good.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Nah I don't really agree with those two. Imperial Fists should really be gaining +2 to cover saves instead of +1, and then you add their Ignore Cover mechanic for a pretty good camping army.
Iron Hands getting 6+++ (and allowing stacking) on everything is expected, but I think they should get a Relentless of sorts. They ignore the penalty for moving and firing with Heavy Weapons. This makes their infantry AND vehicles better on the move.
I see what you're going for, but that would see Scouts with a 2+ save. Perhaps something like 'Ignore the first point of AP while in cover'. The Iron hands one looks good.
What's the issue with Scouts with a 2+ in cover?
It'd basically mean no Imperial Fist player would ever run Tactical Marines, which iirc was the point of this thread
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Nah I don't really agree with those two. Imperial Fists should really be gaining +2 to cover saves instead of +1, and then you add their Ignore Cover mechanic for a pretty good camping army.
Iron Hands getting 6+++ (and allowing stacking) on everything is expected, but I think they should get a Relentless of sorts. They ignore the penalty for moving and firing with Heavy Weapons. This makes their infantry AND vehicles better on the move.
I see what you're going for, but that would see Scouts with a 2+ save. Perhaps something like 'Ignore the first point of AP while in cover'. The Iron hands one looks good.
What's the issue with Scouts with a 2+ in cover?
It'd basically mean no Imperial Fist player would ever run Tactical Marines, which iirc was the point of this thread
I have 10 tactical squads.... I use two of them and split them into combat squads for cheap CP generation (but scouts are better at doing this)
So, if there were to be changes made to either SM/CSM to boost their durability, how should it be worded, to avoid making already troublesome units even more so?
Personally, I'd write it as such,
Black Carapace INFANTRY, BIKER, DREADNOUGHT, CAVALRY and HELLBRUTE units (other than than SCOUT, SERVITOR, CHAOS CULTISTS and DAEMON PRINCE units) in ADEPTUS ASTARTES or HERETIC ASTARTES Detachments may add 1 to Save (Sv) rolls for models in that unit.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Nah I don't really agree with those two. Imperial Fists should really be gaining +2 to cover saves instead of +1, and then you add their Ignore Cover mechanic for a pretty good camping army.
Iron Hands getting 6+++ (and allowing stacking) on everything is expected, but I think they should get a Relentless of sorts. They ignore the penalty for moving and firing with Heavy Weapons. This makes their infantry AND vehicles better on the move.
I see what you're going for, but that would see Scouts with a 2+ save. Perhaps something like 'Ignore the first point of AP while in cover'. The Iron hands one looks good.
What's the issue with Scouts with a 2+ in cover?
It'd basically mean no Imperial Fist player would ever run Tactical Marines, which iirc was the point of this thread
The problem with the Tactical Marine stems from the Bolter and the severely outdated 1 Special 1 Heavy at 10 man setup. I proposed fixes to those issues earlier in the thread, but if you don't want to dig to find them I'll gladly just say it again.
Galef wrote: I'd like to see bolters get AP -1 on a 5+ to wound (HBs and Bolter Rifles therefore being AP -2 on a 5+ to wound)
It would vastly improve Marines damage output without being too much of a copy-cat of Eldar Shuriken weapons and Necron Guass.
It's be more of an in-between. Not as good as a flat additional AP like Guass, not as good of AP as Shuriken 6s, but gaining an AP bonus on 5s.
That single change might put Marines at being worth their ppm cost and improves literally any unit with bolt weapons
-
I've before suggested to give Bolt weapons a unique mechanic where a 6+ to wound forces rerolls of successful saves. It's less samey which is why I suggest it all the time.
What would give them a very unique mechanic would be each failed save generates an additional hit, as it's very fluffy a bolt round turning a poorly armoured opponent into additional shrapnel when it detonates.
The issue is it slows the game down a lot.
Also the other thing to consider is an changes made to the bolter will carry across to Sisiters of battle, one of if not the best index power armour faction.
Power armour appears to work at that points cost just not at marine points.
That is a very interesting mechanic! I don't think it'd work for bolters, but I can totally see it being a heavy weapon of sorts.
Your second point is why I think the power needs to be baked into the vanilla Chapter Tactics, so as to not upset the plethora of snowflake chapters.
The problem with the Tactical Marine stems from the Bolter and the severely outdated 1 Special 1 Heavy at 10 man setup. I proposed fixes to those issues earlier in the thread, but if you don't want to dig to find them I'll gladly just say it again.
Sorry, I've gone back 10 pages of your history Ctrl+f'ing 'Special' and haven't found it.
That's fair. My proposed fixes would basically be around the following:
1. Marines revolve around the Bolter, but the Bolter sucks and Tactical Marines are expensive per model no matter how much better the Bolter becomes
2. Their weapon saturation is pretty garbage. Oh who am I kidding: it's super garbage.
3. Then with everyone being based around the basic Marine and not getting special rules, they end up suffering.
So while I already made mention of how to fix other units, my Tactical Marine fixes are as such, and bear in mind consider that weapon prices would obviously change:
1. Tactical Marines go down a point. This in turn means other units are deserving to go down a point as well, and doesn't lead into Marines being a horde army like some want.
2. Bolt weapons then gain their special rule. What that special rule is, of course, is up for debate. We can just assume my fix of Bolt Weapons forcing successful saves on a wound roll of 6+ is implemented.
3. Tactical Marines gain a point of LD. Tactical Marines are supposed to have a slight amount more grit as they're more experienced than Scouts, Assault and Biker Marines, and Devastator Marines. This then helps with wanting to max squads, which then leads to the following:
4. The squad does the usual either Special or Heavy at 5 man, but then becomes where you buy the opposite at 7 man and then you gain the choice of either one at the 10 man point. This enables the squad to actually specialize, rather than failing at each task you originally built them for in their current incarnation.
My other fixes are in another post in this thread of course.
I always enjoy these threads but feel a lot of suggestions would require pretty much an entire rewrite of the core rules and codices.
my suggestion would be the following- A simple set of rules that could be applied cumulatively depending on keyword, neither of which requires a change to the marine statline;
Astartes- "-1 to all wound roles" - this doesn't break the game, but gives all marines a survivability buff that fits with the fluff.
Terminator- "all AP is reduced by 1" - pair this with the above and terminators survive like terminators- lascannons are no longer wounding on 2's and you still have a 4+ save against it.
If you apply these rules to every model with astartes keyword you suddenly have models worth taking that arent custodes level cheese. I dont think these require points changes.
The other suggestion may need refinement-
All standard bolt weapons get -1 ap with -4 on a 6 to wound (360 no scope headshot rule). Primaris Bolt rifle variants turn to strength 5 remain the same AP as stated but gain the exploding AP rule.
This one MIGHT need a points adjustment, especially for storm/hurricane bolters- but as with above- marines are currently over pointed and pretty much unusable competitively, this brings them to a pretty good level, but not OP.
Ice_can wrote: Adding Ap won't help marines the only way to make them semi competative is I hate to say it points cost drops.
Well it would up their kills by 25% verses guard. E.g. 6 wounding hits would kill 5 not 4 guardsmen and it makes it more or an AP weapon it is in the fluff.
Galef wrote: I'd like to see bolters get AP -1 on a 5+ to wound (HBs and Bolter Rifles therefore being AP -2 on a 5+ to wound)
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I've before suggested to give Bolt weapons a unique mechanic where a 6+ to wound forces rerolls of successful saves. It's less samey which is why I suggest it all the time.
Honestly just keep it simple - if it is needed make it all the time...
Ice_can wrote: ]What would give them a very unique mechanic would be each failed save generates an additional hit, as it's very fluffy a bolt round turning a poorly armoured opponent into additional shrapnel when it detonates.
The issue is it slows the game down a lot.
Is this not just making it a 2 wound weapon? Or you mean roll for wound and armour again? I suppose another hit ont he unit would be interesting as the shrapnel travels. Still a bit of a dice fest.
Also the other thing to consider is an changes made to the bolter will carry across to Sisiters of battle, one of if not the best index power armour faction.
Power armour appears to work at that points cost just not at marine points.
Change should be the larger astartes bolters only.
Process wrote: Astartes- "-1 to all wound roles" - this doesn't break the game, but gives all marines a survivability buff that fits with the fluff.
It is quite a big jump. Strength 1 and 2 weapons can no longer wound you, str 3 is on a 6, str 4 on a 5+, str 7 on a 4+ and above that always 3+. Why would they be tough verses hell-hammer or volcano cannons?
Terminator- "all AP is reduced by 1" - pair this with the above and terminators survive like terminators- lascannons are no longer wounding on 2's and you still have a 4+ save against it.
Just make the armour save 1+? I still prefer the -1 damage to a minimum of 1 though as their bane is 2 wound weapons.
Ice_can wrote: Adding Ap won't help marines the only way to make them semi competative is I hate to say it points cost drops.
Well it would up their kills by 25% verses guard. E.g. 6 wounding hits would kill 5 not 4 guardsmen and it makes it more or an AP weapon it is in the fluff.
Galef wrote: I'd like to see bolters get AP -1 on a 5+ to wound (HBs and Bolter Rifles therefore being AP -2 on a 5+ to wound)
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I've before suggested to give Bolt weapons a unique mechanic where a 6+ to wound forces rerolls of successful saves. It's less samey which is why I suggest it all the time.
Honestly just keep it simple - if it is needed make it all the time...
Ice_can wrote: ]What would give them a very unique mechanic would be each failed save generates an additional hit, as it's very fluffy a bolt round turning a poorly armoured opponent into additional shrapnel when it detonates.
The issue is it slows the game down a lot.
Is this not just making it a 2 wound weapon? Or you mean roll for wound and armour again? I suppose another hit ont he unit would be interesting as the shrapnel travels. Still a bit of a dice fest.
Also the other thing to consider is an changes made to the bolter will carry across to Sisiters of battle, one of if not the best index power armour faction.
Power armour appears to work at that points cost just not at marine points.
Change should be the larger astartes bolters only.
Process wrote: Astartes- "-1 to all wound roles" - this doesn't break the game, but gives all marines a survivability buff that fits with the fluff.
It is quite a big jump. Strength 1 and 2 weapons can no longer wound you, str 3 is on a 6, str 4 on a 5+, str 7 on a 4+ and above that always 3+. Why would they be tough verses hell-hammer or volcano cannons?
Terminator- "all AP is reduced by 1" - pair this with the above and terminators survive like terminators- lascannons are no longer wounding on 2's and you still have a 4+ save against it.
Just make the armour save 1+? I still prefer the -1 damage to a minimum of 1 though as their bane is 2 wound weapons.
A 6 is always a hit, a 1 is always a fail, that has literally always been the case, i dont know why people struggle to grasp that one.
And how is a hellhammer wounding a marine on a 3 any more of a jump than a las pistol being able to wound a hellhammer AT ALL?
The thing is, the -1 to ap value works against a whole host of other weaponry, whereas tailoring a rule to save against 2 damage weapons only works against 2 damage weapons
As for what I'm currently thinking for balancing Marines:
-Battle Brothers get +1A base
-Battle Brothers go down to 10ppm, but the Boltgun now costs 1ppm (note - this actually makes specials/heavies 1ppm cheaper, and also makes Chainsword/pistol 1ppm cheaper as well).
-General durability changes I suggested here:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/761963.page#10118792 (cliffnotes - nerf most AP in the game, and nerf Plas back to 7th ed stats, basically)
-CTs affect Vehicles (note - I'd rather rework the CTs, but this is more in line with lightest-touch).
Avoiding giving more AP to Marines, because the super prevelance of AP is part of what's killing them.
Process wrote: The thing is, the -1 to ap value works against a whole host of other weaponry, whereas tailoring a rule to save against 2 damage weapons only works against 2 damage weapons
Which unless I have missed something are the biggest problem? As instead of needing two shots to kill plasma knocks them down in 1? It is aimed at 2 damage weapons (I would still just change the save to 1+ - it is the same as reducing the ap by one but is written a lot neater and as 1's always fail doesn't change their save vs bolters and co.) and to a lesser extent D3 damage, but honestly against lascannons and the like they should just be relying on the invulnerable save.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: Avoiding giving more AP to Marines, because the super prevelance of AP is part of what's killing them.
Unless you are playing a heresy lite game of marines vs marines in which case bolters aren't doing much..
Bharring wrote: Reposting from a less-relevant thread to here:
As for what I'm currently thinking for balancing Marines:
-Battle Brothers get +1A base
-Battle Brothers go down to 10ppm, but the Boltgun now costs 1ppm (note - this actually makes specials/heavies 1ppm cheaper, and also makes Chainsword/pistol 1ppm cheaper as well).
-General durability changes I suggested here:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/761963.page#10118792 (cliffnotes - nerf most AP in the game, and nerf Plas back to 7th ed stats, basically)
-CTs affect Vehicles (note - I'd rather rework the CTs, but this is more in line with lightest-touch).
Avoiding giving more AP to Marines, because the super prevelance of AP is part of what's killing them.
Nerfing weapons doesn't work. You would have to nerf every weapon in the game. Plus it goes against the concept of the eddition. Faster games is what they are going for. Problem is marines are dying too fast - it really is a unique problem with power armor.
Ice_can wrote: Adding Ap won't help marines the only way to make them semi competative is I hate to say it points cost drops.
Well it would up their kills by 25% verses guard. E.g. 6 wounding hits would kill 5 not 4 guardsmen and it makes it more or an AP weapon it is in the fluff.
The issue is it does weirder things like a bolter is as effect as an assualt cannon against vehicals, also it doesn't really help the issue that each dead marine gives up way too many points and they don't have any Close combat ability
Galef wrote: I'd like to see bolters get AP -1 on a 5+ to wound (HBs and Bolter Rifles therefore being AP -2 on a 5+ to wound)
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I've before suggested to give Bolt weapons a unique mechanic where a 6+ to wound forces rerolls of successful saves. It's less samey which is why I suggest it all the time.
Honestly just keep it simple - if it is needed make it all the time...
Ice_can wrote: ]What would give them a very unique mechanic would be each failed save generates an additional hit, as it's very fluffy a bolt round turning a poorly armoured opponent into additional shrapnel when it detonates.
The issue is it slows the game down a lot.
Is this not just making it a 2 wound weapon? Or you mean roll for wound and armour again? I suppose another hit on the unit would be interesting as the shrapnel travels. Still a bit of a dice fest.
Also the other thing to consider is an changes made to the bolter will carry across to Sisiters of battle, one of if not the best index power armour faction.
Power armour appears to work at that points cost just not at marine points.
Change should be the larger astartes bolters only.
Process wrote: Astartes- "-1 to all wound roles" - this doesn't break the game, but gives all marines a survivability buff that fits with the fluff.
It is quite a big jump. Strength 1 and 2 weapons can no longer wound you, str 3 is on a 6, str 4 on a 5+, str 7 on a 4+ and above that always 3+. Why would they be tough verses hell-hammer or volcano cannons?
Terminator- "all AP is reduced by 1" - pair this with the above and terminators survive like terminators- lascannons are no longer wounding on 2's and you still have a 4+ save against it.
Just make the armour save 1+? I still prefer the -1 damage to a minimum of 1 though as their bane is 2 wound weapons.
I still don't feel the issue with Terminators is their durability, as this is the most durable they've been in years. If you want durability, Centurions SHOULD be that wall (though how they perform is bad).
Process wrote: A 6 is always a hit, a 1 is always a fail, that has literally always been the case, i dont know why people struggle to grasp that one.
And how is a hellhammer wounding a marine on a 3 any more of a jump than a las pistol being able to wound a hellhammer AT ALL?
The thing is, the -1 to ap value works against a whole host of other weaponry, whereas tailoring a rule to save against 2 damage weapons only works against 2 damage weapons
Natural 6's are not always a hit and never have been.
"Nerfing weapons doesn't work. You would have to nerf every weapon in the game. Plus it goes against the concept of the eddition. Faster games is what they are going for. Problem is marines are dying too fast - it really is a unique problem with power armor."
Because screw:
AdMech
GK Necrons
Tau
Only our Boys in Blue (or green/red/etc) should be getting a buff!
If the problem is T4 or a 3+ armor save just isn't worth what people pay for it, then shouldn't that be fixed?
Bharring wrote: "Nerfing weapons doesn't work. You would have to nerf every weapon in the game. Plus it goes against the concept of the eddition. Faster games is what they are going for. Problem is marines are dying too fast - it really is a unique problem with power armor."
Because screw:
AdMech
GK Necrons
Tau
Only our Boys in Blue (or green/red/etc) should be getting a buff!
If the problem is T4 or a 3+ armor save just isn't worth what people pay for it, then shouldn't that be fixed?
AdMech and Tau aren't bad in durability for the points on top of their superior offense. That's what happens when your models are half the cost but only lose a small amount of durability.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I still don't feel the issue with Terminators is their durability, as this is the most durable they've been in years. If you want durability, Centurions SHOULD be that wall (though how they perform is bad).
Here is the way I think of it.
Lets just say you played the same guy every game.
Hes killing your tacticals without effort with plasma guns. It's like - okay - let me take a more durable unit and see if I can survive the firepower better. So you take some Terminators. Turns out you were better off with tacs. Still wounds on 2's - you get a 5+ instead of a 6+but lose twice the points per failed save.
Obviosuly this isn't the most fair example because plasma has always been good against both these targets. Should terminators really be worse off against plasma compared to tacticals? No - they shouldn't. Terminators should have a better chance to survive damage per point against everything short of a melta gun. That seems to be their roll for me. Yeah - they are called "terminators" but I feel their "ney indestructibility" is really what defines them.
They aren't more durable ether. In what eddition can a lasgun shoot twice? In what eddition was a ap3 rocket a threat to terminators? They are better vs some things - worse vs other. This has already been discussed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: "Nerfing weapons doesn't work. You would have to nerf every weapon in the game. Plus it goes against the concept of the eddition. Faster games is what they are going for. Problem is marines are dying too fast - it really is a unique problem with power armor."
Because screw:
AdMech
GK Necrons
Tau
Only our Boys in Blue (or green/red/etc) should be getting a buff!
If the problem is T4 or a 3+ armor save just isn't worth what people pay for it, then shouldn't that be fixed?
None of those armies are remotely as bad as an army that consists of power armor. By all means - all bad units need to be buffed.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I still don't feel the issue with Terminators is their durability, as this is the most durable they've been in years. If you want durability, Centurions SHOULD be that wall (though how they perform is bad).
Here is the way I think of it. Lets just say you played the same guy every game.
Hes killing your tacticals without effort with plasma guns. It's like - okay - let me take a more durable unit and see if I can survive the firepower better. So you take some Terminators. Turns out you were better off with tacs. Still wounds on 2's - you get a 5+ instead of a 6+but lose twice the points per failed save.
Obviosuly this isn't the most fair example because plasma has always been good against both these targets. Should terminators really be worse off against plasma compared to tacticals? No - they shouldn't. Terminators should have a better chance to survive damage per point against everything short of a melta gun. That seems to be their roll for me. Yeah - they are called "terminators" but I feel their "ney indestructibility" is really what defines them.
They aren't more durable ether. In what eddition can a lasgun shoot twice? In what eddition was a ap3 rocket a threat to terminators? They are better vs some things - worse vs other. This has already been discussed.
And to add to this, if a unit is made durable enough to survive to future turns, their offensive capabilities increase as well. Terminators shooting or assaulting for 1 turn does X damage. Doing it for another turn increases that to 2X and so on. 1 more turn's worth of damage could really make the difference
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I still don't feel the issue with Terminators is their durability, as this is the most durable they've been in years. If you want durability, Centurions SHOULD be that wall (though how they perform is bad).
Here is the way I think of it.
Lets just say you played the same guy every game.
Hes killing your tacticals without effort with plasma guns. It's like - okay - let me take a more durable unit and see if I can survive the firepower better. So you take some Terminators. Turns out you were better off with tacs. Still wounds on 2's - you get a 5+ instead of a 6+but lose twice the points per failed save.
Obviosuly this isn't the most fair example because plasma has always been good against both these targets. Should terminators really be worse off against plasma compared to tacticals? No - they shouldn't. Terminators should have a better chance to survive damage per point against everything short of a melta gun. That seems to be their roll for me. Yeah - they are called "terminators" but I feel their "ney indestructibility" is really what defines them.
They aren't more durable ether. In what eddition can a lasgun shoot twice? In what eddition was a ap3 rocket a threat to terminators? They are better vs some things - worse vs other. This has already been discussed.
And to add to this, if a unit is made durable enough to survive to future turns, their offensive capabilities increase as well.
Terminators shooting or assaulting for 1 turn does X damage. Doing if for another turn increases that to 2X and so on.
1 more turn's worth of damage could really make the difference
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I still don't feel the issue with Terminators is their durability, as this is the most durable they've been in years. If you want durability, Centurions SHOULD be that wall (though how they perform is bad).
Here is the way I think of it.
Lets just say you played the same guy every game.
Hes killing your tacticals without effort with plasma guns. It's like - okay - let me take a more durable unit and see if I can survive the firepower better. So you take some Terminators. Turns out you were better off with tacs. Still wounds on 2's - you get a 5+ instead of a 6+but lose twice the points per failed save.
Obviosuly this isn't the most fair example because plasma has always been good against both these targets. Should terminators really be worse off against plasma compared to tacticals? No - they shouldn't. Terminators should have a better chance to survive damage per point against everything short of a melta gun. That seems to be their roll for me. Yeah - they are called "terminators" but I feel their "ney indestructibility" is really what defines them.
They aren't more durable ether. In what eddition can a lasgun shoot twice? In what eddition was a ap3 rocket a threat to terminators? They are better vs some things - worse vs other. This has already been discussed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: "Nerfing weapons doesn't work. You would have to nerf every weapon in the game. Plus it goes against the concept of the eddition. Faster games is what they are going for. Problem is marines are dying too fast - it really is a unique problem with power armor."
Because screw:
AdMech
GK Necrons
Tau
Only our Boys in Blue (or green/red/etc) should be getting a buff!
If the problem is T4 or a 3+ armor save just isn't worth what people pay for it, then shouldn't that be fixed?
None of those armies are remotely as bad as an army that consists of power armor. By all means - all bad units need to be buffed.
Of COURSE Terminators should be worse off against Plasma. They're more expensive models and the counters to those expensive models is Plasma and Melta. When you're carrying Power Fists and more expensive Bolters, that's how it works.
They've never been durable, but this IS the most durable they've been in years outside a few niche weapons. Don't even try to argue it. Give me a list of things they're less durable against and I'll provide a list of double to what they're most durable to.
So honestly their survival being their trait was only ever made up in your mind. The only thing they've been consistent as is being Vets and being supposedly shock troops. They've failed that role too, but that's what their equipment tells us. So we make them better at that. So that's why, for all Terminators bar the Grey Knight troops, I propose the following:
1. You make them WS/BS2+. Rather than making them Relentless with their weapons, we instead actually help ALL loadouts and variations instead of being shortsighted like most people throwing that fix blindly.
2. Add an extra attack
This now scales appropriately, and makes Terminators less dependent on the rerolls of Captains and Chapter Masters, as appropriate for such Vets being given the honor of using those suits. If we want walls, GW clearly intended for Centurions to be that, except they fail at that this edition compared to the last one. I'd give them 4 wounds and a point decrease, which makes them better vs anything but D2 weapons.
I'd like to add that if we go the WS/BS2+ route for Termies, I'd like to see WS2+ for Assault Termies only. Regular Termies should still be WS3+, but can be BS2+. That would better define their different roles
Galef wrote: I'd like to add that if we go the WS/BS2+ route for Termies, I'd like to see WS2+ for Assault Termies only. Regular Termies should still be WS3+, but can be BS2+. That would better define their different roles
This is with no price increase and it's gotta be consistent. Assault Terminators would still have their role hitting more often with an extra attack too, whereas Tactical Terminators would be more TAC like they ought to be.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I also an firmly a fan of consolidating the Angels into the main codex too, so we COULD always allow the Deathwing way of things to make it just one unit entry.
So you're saying SM are worse off than Admech, GK, Necrons, and Tau?
I find I generally have more fun playing Ad-mech, and for what it's worth I personally would say marines are worse off than Ad-mech. But, I play in a more casual/"semi-competitive" environment so I probably get more wiggle room.
In addition to being both bad offensively and defensively they are immobile as feth. With the nerf to deepstriking they are even worse.
Upon wings of fire for termies needs to be a thing or you can change them as much as you want they will rarely threaten/engage more than one target and that will never be a good unit.
Fold the angels back into the codex and let all marines have their strats. Weapons from the dark ages and the BA strats (outside of death visions because fluff) would really help marines be competitive.
In addition to being both bad offensively and defensively they are immobile as feth. With the nerf to deepstriking they are even worse.
Upon wings of fire for termies needs to be a thing or you can change them as much as you want they will rarely threaten/engage more than one target and that will never be a good unit.
Fold the angels back into the codex and let all marines have their strats. Weapons from the dark ages and the BA strats (outside of death visions because fluff) would really help marines be competitive.
Having them be able to "teleport" like in Dawn Of War would be pretty good actually. I made a similar suggestion last edition.
Mono Tau like they have a choice are better than mono vanilla marines, not better than Astra Copywriten + Slamguinius + Scouts +flavour of the month.
So much metallic or fish soup in the meta
Allies are a big aspect I suspect as to part of marines problems.
They can't generate CP or shots as cheep as guard infantry, arn't as durable or damaging as custodes, and lack the synergies of admech. For such a large faction with so many options it's surprising just how little the bring to the table that does something different or better than anything else in the "imperium keyword faction".
Mono Tau like they have a choice are better than mono vanilla marines, not better than Astra Copywriten + Slamguinius + Scouts +flavour of the month.
So much metallic or fish soup in the meta
Allies are a big aspect I suspect as to part of marines problems.
They can't generate CP or shots as cheep as guard infantry, arn't as durable or damaging as custodes, and lack the synergies of admech. For such a large faction with so many options it's surprising just how little the bring to the table that does something different or better than anything else in the "imperium keyword faction".
Actually there would be a solution for CP generation.
Allow 3 man marine squads and drop the price for marines to 12 ppm whilest giving them at 3 man the options they now get at 5.
With that atleast some marines Chapters could generate cheap enough CP to be played mono.
It would also remove the weapons saturation problem, since you can take multiple 3 man squads with a Heavy / special weapon.
Other than that, drop the price of Rhinos down to 35 pts again, that alone would give marines the mobility boost they need and make them more durable.
I tried out a game the other night where I swapped out the Iron Hands chapter tactic and replaced it with the Inviolate Armor rule from Horus Heresy.
All shooting attacks against Iron Hands infantry suffers a -1 penalty to strength.
This made them feel like real heavy infantry as the Ad Mech Vanguard were wounding on 6's instead of 5's but a lot of the higher strength weapons weren't affected.
Keeping the dreadnaughts with the originally 40k chapter tactic isn't bad. Giving them Inviolate Armor seems OP.
Wenrun wrote: I tried out a game the other night where I swapped out the Iron Hands chapter tactic and replaced it with the Inviolate Armor rule from Horus Heresy.
All shooting attacks against Iron Hands infantry suffers a -1 penalty to strength.
This made them feel like real heavy infantry as the Ad Mech Vanguard were wounding on 6's instead of 5's but a lot of the higher strength weapons weren't affected.
Keeping the dreadnaughts with the originally 40k chapter tactic isn't bad. Giving them Inviolate Armor seems OP.
Wenrun wrote: I tried out a game the other night where I swapped out the Iron Hands chapter tactic and replaced it with the Inviolate Armor rule from Horus Heresy.
All shooting attacks against Iron Hands infantry suffers a -1 penalty to strength.
This made them feel like real heavy infantry as the Ad Mech Vanguard were wounding on 6's instead of 5's but a lot of the higher strength weapons weren't affected.
Keeping the dreadnaughts with the originally 40k chapter tactic isn't bad. Giving them Inviolate Armor seems OP.
Dreads would hardly be a problem with that rule.
Unless you give that rule also to leviathans and other fw dreads. Then will you have a problem.
Xenomancers wrote: Harlequins get a -1 to wound aura....-1 strength isn't nearly as bad as that.
That's from an HQ right?
I looked at them before they seem on par with Deathwatch. But with more special rules then eldar and DE combined.
Personally I'd rather do away with 1 rule chapter tactics like the marine ones and have primary and secondary almost like the freeblade chart but they cost points. Then you could have "custom" chapters more or less. But if you wanted say the Ultramarines warlord trait you'd need to use both their primary and secondary traits
Xenomancers wrote: Harlequins get a -1 to wound aura....-1 strength isn't nearly as bad as that.
That's from an HQ right?
I looked at them before they seem on par with Deathwatch. But with more special rules then eldar and DE combined.
Personally I'd rather do away with 1 rule chapter tactics like the marine ones and have primary and secondary almost like the freeblade chart but they cost points. Then you could have "custom" chapters more or less. But if you wanted say the Ultramarines warlord trait you'd need to use both their primary and secondary traits
Shadowseer.
And that'd be a bugger to balance. However, if you can do it, more power to you!
Wenrun wrote: I tried out a game the other night where I swapped out the Iron Hands chapter tactic and replaced it with the Inviolate Armor rule from Horus Heresy.
All shooting attacks against Iron Hands infantry suffers a -1 penalty to strength.
This made them feel like real heavy infantry as the Ad Mech Vanguard were wounding on 6's instead of 5's but a lot of the higher strength weapons weren't affected.
Keeping the dreadnaughts with the originally 40k chapter tactic isn't bad. Giving them Inviolate Armor seems OP.
Dreads would hardly be a problem with that rule.
Unless you give that rule also to leviathans and other fw dreads. Then will you have a problem.
You mean those models above 200 points? No it isn't a problem.
Bharring wrote: Because 200pt vehicles should be wounded on 5+s by heavy, expensive, anti-tank weapons?
Those vehicles are expensive in the first place and never reach something like T8 overall. It encourages thingies like Lances and Lascannons though. Which isn't bad.
Bharring wrote: Because 200pt vehicles should be wounded on 5+s by heavy, expensive, anti-tank weapons?
Those vehicles are expensive in the first place and never reach something like T8 overall. It encourages thingies like Lances and Lascannons though. Which isn't bad.
It is, i should not need a lascannon to destroy any overgrown dreadnaught. Additionally those dreads allready have an invulnerability save, which makes them vastly superior to regular dreads.
The problem here is called scalling and mind you leviathans are allready playable.
Bharring wrote: Because 200pt vehicles should be wounded on 5+s by heavy, expensive, anti-tank weapons?
Those vehicles are expensive in the first place and never reach something like T8 overall. It encourages thingies like Lances and Lascannons though. Which isn't bad.
It is, i should not need a lascannon to destroy any overgrown dreadnaught. Additionally those dreads allready have an invulnerability save, which makes them vastly superior to regular dreads.
The problem here is called scalling and mind you leviathans are allready playable.
You shouldn't need a Lascannon to kill a super Dread? You really said those words. Amazing.
Leviathans are already plenty killable for the price tag. What's your point?
My point is that a allready strong unit (double butchercannon f.e.) with an invulnerability is allready good enough.
I also question the whole idea since wounding on -1 is a pretty big deal, compared to the normal wounding. Additionally don't forget that you gain a bigger imunity range since the 6+ result is not a possible option anymore.
Not Online!!! wrote: My point is that a allready strong unit (double butchercannon f.e.) with an invulnerability is allready good enough.
I also question the whole idea since wounding on -1 is a pretty big deal, compared to the normal wounding. Additionally don't forget that you gain a bigger imunity range since the 6+ result is not a possible option anymore.
It's also a 350 point model that folds to a breeze for the price. Also Iron Hands don't get Butcher Cannons so...
It still is a terrible fix, and consecutivly would also be applied to csm which get double butchercannon loadouts.
Mind you i agree that marines need a fix but this one seems terribly thought out.
Not Online!!! wrote: It still is a terrible fix, and consecutivly would also be applied to csm which get double butchercannon loadouts.
Mind you i agree that marines need a fix but this one seems terribly thought out.
I'm pretty sure the suggestion was for Iron Hands. Helbrutes not getting a way to heal themselves is a crime though, even if they're likely going to die in a round of shooting.
Not Online!!! wrote: It still is a terrible fix, and consecutivly would also be applied to csm which get double butchercannon loadouts.
Mind you i agree that marines need a fix but this one seems terribly thought out.
I'm pretty sure the suggestion was for Iron Hands. Helbrutes not getting a way to heal themselves is a crime though, even if they're likely going to die in a round of shooting.
Then we have just another trait like ravenguard and alpha legion which is terrible internal balance.
There never be balance amongst Chapter Tactics and other such army traits in the manner in which it wouldn't matter which one you take. There will ALWAYS be a "clear winner" as that is the nature of competitive choice.
We can be fairly close, to the point that at first players won't immediately recognize the "best" trait, but eventually combos will emerge that make it obvious to all.
I feel like this was (almost) the case with Craftworld Eldar when it first came out. They all looked good, if a bit weird for our previous ideas of fluff. Alaitoc was obviously good, but the other seemed to have their merit, so it appeared more or less balanced at first.
But as we now know, Eldar only have 1 trait because -1 to hit modifiers combo too well with other rules.
Chapter Tactics are the same. If we tweak them, there will only be 2 outcomes:
1) The tweak to one tactic won't be enough to make it better than the current "best" tactic, therefore nothing changes in the overall meta or
2) The tweak makes a particular tactic better then the current "best" and thus replaces it in the meta. But then we still only see the same tactic over and over
GW includes these tactic for fluff, not competitive play, but as they clearly affect competitive play, we are stuck with it as-is.
The only change I would be for is to make all the -1 to be hit traits be the following instead:
"Units with this trait receive +1 to armour save rolls in the same manner as being in cover if the firing enemy unit is outside 12". If the unit is already in cover, the total bonus for this trait and cover are +2."
Then update Marine and CSM trait to apply to all units.
The -1 to hit is fine though and helps counter total gunline armies. That's where the complaints come from after all. Now, is stacking beyond -2 silly? Sure I'll agree with that.
Not Online!!! wrote: It still is a terrible fix, and consecutivly would also be applied to csm which get double butchercannon loadouts.
Mind you i agree that marines need a fix but this one seems terribly thought out.
I'm pretty sure the suggestion was for Iron Hands. Helbrutes not getting a way to heal themselves is a crime though, even if they're likely going to die in a round of shooting.
Then we have just another trait like ravenguard and alpha legion which is terrible internal balance.
Is it that those Traits are broken, or that the rest of the traits are bad?
And not (before modifiers)
So -1 to hit cancels procs on 6's
Makes overheats go off on 2's
It would still be a really strong trait but not the OP mess we have now. It is just too powerful.
Because of this before modifiers nonnsense. If you are 3+ reroll all hits. You are statistically down to 3+ to hit. Imagine you has an army trait a strong as reroll all hits in shooting!
"I feel like this was (almost) the case with Craftworld Eldar when it first came out. They all looked good, if a bit weird for our previous ideas of fluff."
Initial reaction that most people had to Craftworld Attributes:
-Alaitoc: OP -Uthwe: Better IH (somewhat trash)
-Iyanden: Inferior to Uthwe (trash)
-Sam-Hann: Reroll charges on everyone? Only a couple units will charge, and they'll be safe charges - CP reroll does this better. Oh, and Vypers and Scatter Bikes are slightly less bad. (trash)
-Biel-Tan: Small arms always pretend there's an Autarch nearby? In an army heavily dependent on it's non-small-arms? In the one CW that is most likely to have an Autarch nearby? (trash)
It was immediately obvious that one CT was clearly the best, by a lot. A few corner cases were seen for some of the others, but most were downright bad.
Lets not rewrite history.
As for IH getting the ShadowSeer effect army-wide: this just makes IH the best trait. Now, if they ever did try to balance Marines, Ultra Marines and White Scars tacs are paying points for IH's "Can't touch this" CT, and not benefiting from it.
And not (before modifiers)
So -1 to hit cancels procs on 6's
Makes overheats go off on 2's
It would still be a really strong trait but not the OP mess we have now. It is just too powerful.
Because of this before modifiers nonnsense. If you are 3+ reroll all hits. You are statistically down to 3+ to hit. Imagine you has an army trait a strong as reroll all hits in shooting!
So it's overpowered because it's a way to punish people bringing too many Plasma and Disintegrators?
Sorry but cry me a river with that complaint.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: "I feel like this was (almost) the case with Craftworld Eldar when it first came out. They all looked good, if a bit weird for our previous ideas of fluff."
Initial reaction that most people had to Craftworld Attributes:
-Alaitoc: OP -Uthwe: Better IH (somewhat trash)
-Iyanden: Inferior to Uthwe (trash)
-Sam-Hann: Reroll charges on everyone? Only a couple units will charge, and they'll be safe charges - CP reroll does this better. Oh, and Vypers and Scatter Bikes are slightly less bad. (trash)
-Biel-Tan: Small arms always pretend there's an Autarch nearby? In an army heavily dependent on it's non-small-arms? In the one CW that is most likely to have an Autarch nearby? (trash)
It was immediately obvious that one CT was clearly the best, by a lot. A few corner cases were seen for some of the others, but most were downright bad.
Lets not rewrite history.
As for IH getting the ShadowSeer effect army-wide: this just makes IH the best trait. Now, if they ever did try to balance Marines, Ultra Marines and White Scars tacs are paying points for IH's "Can't touch this" CT, and not benefiting from it.
I would actually argue Iyanden is a LOT better than Ulthwe and has several better applications. Then Sam Hainn is...blech. The other two Craftworlds were entirely screwed over though for sure.
And not (before modifiers)
So -1 to hit cancels procs on 6's
Makes overheats go off on 2's
It would still be a really strong trait but not the OP mess we have now. It is just too powerful.
Because of this before modifiers nonnsense. If you are 3+ reroll all hits. You are statistically down to 3+ to hit. Imagine you has an army trait a strong as reroll all hits in shooting!
So it's overpowered because it's a way to punish people bringing too many Plasma and Disintegrators?
Sorry but cry me a river with that complaint.
Well it doesn't punish disintegrators specifically. Plus a ravager/night fighter can probably just fly up within 12 of you and ignore your trait completely. It punishes every ability that needs a 6 to proc a special too...Like Tesla and splinter racks...
Overall - it's more than the -1 is what I am saying. Also - why is it that when you bring a lot of plasma it's like a sin against humanity compared to spamming any other weapon...probably weapons that don't kill their own users?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ignoring 18% of wounds including mortal is better than leadership immunity (which is pretty much useless always)
"I would actually argue Iyanden is a LOT better than Ulthwe and has several better applications."
At first glance, it's not apparent how much better the Uthwe trait is, I'll give you that. But:
-Using the better statline is great, until you realize Uthwe will also be using the better statline in almost all cases - because they haven't lost the wound. And it's better to not lose the wound than to pretend you haven't for one purpose. Yes, Uthwe is the much better choice for Spirit Hosts.
-Old Commisar rule looks great, until you realize that most of your squads can lose at most one model from Morale anyways - because they're MSU with high LD. Guardians can use it, but a 6+++ is a lot more useful. Ironically, it does mean Black Guardian Warhosts are the only army that might possibly want to be Iyanden over Uthwe, but even that is debateable.
And it's no end of amusement that Black Guardians align better with Iyanden and Biel Tan traits, Spirit Hosts align better with Uthwe, and Aspect Warriors want anyone but Biel Tan.
Back on topic: why would Iron Hands be more durable vs Lasguns than Nurgle-marked Marines? Or non-IH Bikers? -1-to-be-wounded is far better than +1T, and +1T is far better than almost all CTs.
Bharring wrote: "I would actually argue Iyanden is a LOT better than Ulthwe and has several better applications."
At first glance, it's not apparent how much better the Uthwe trait is, I'll give you that. But:
-Using the better statline is great, until you realize Uthwe will also be using the better statline in almost all cases - because they haven't lost the wound. And it's better to not lose the wound than to pretend you haven't for one purpose. Yes, Uthwe is the much better choice for Spirit Hosts.
-Old Commisar rule looks great, until you realize that most of your squads can lose at most one model from Morale anyways - because they're MSU with high LD. Guardians can use it, but a 6+++ is a lot more useful. Ironically, it does mean Black Guardian Warhosts are the only army that might possibly want to be Iyanden over Uthwe, but even that is debateable.
And it's no end of amusement that Black Guardians align better with Iyanden and Biel Tan traits, Spirit Hosts align better with Uthwe, and Aspect Warriors want anyone but Biel Tan.
Back on topic: why would Iron Hands be more durable vs Lasguns than Nurgle-marked Marines? Or non-IH Bikers? -1-to-be-wounded is far better than +1T, and +1T is far better than almost all CTs.
Bharring you've got good eldar knowledge. Don't sell black guardians short though +1 to hit stratagem +1 autarch (ofc I bring an Ulthwe autharch!) and you are 2+ reroll 1's....+ Doom. GG whatever you shoot.
But only one such unit. A true Black Guardian warhost will have several!
A Guardian bomb in a non-Guardian warhost (meaning, it's only one of your threats) isn't worth taking Iyanden over Uthwe for the trait - when you have only one Guardian unit to use it.
And you can only use stratagems and buffing powers on 1 unit. So a Guardian Bomb is a lot more common than a Guardian warhost (as in several).
So, no, Iyanden is not typically a non-trash choice.
Bharring wrote: "I would actually argue Iyanden is a LOT better than Ulthwe and has several better applications."
At first glance, it's not apparent how much better the Uthwe trait is, I'll give you that. But:
-Using the better statline is great, until you realize Uthwe will also be using the better statline in almost all cases - because they haven't lost the wound. And it's better to not lose the wound than to pretend you haven't for one purpose. Yes, Uthwe is the much better choice for Spirit Hosts.
-Old Commisar rule looks great, until you realize that most of your squads can lose at most one model from Morale anyways - because they're MSU with high LD. Guardians can use it, but a 6+++ is a lot more useful. Ironically, it does mean Black Guardian Warhosts are the only army that might possibly want to be Iyanden over Uthwe, but even that is debateable.
And it's no end of amusement that Black Guardians align better with Iyanden and Biel Tan traits, Spirit Hosts align better with Uthwe, and Aspect Warriors want anyone but Biel Tan.
Back on topic: why would Iron Hands be more durable vs Lasguns than Nurgle-marked Marines? Or non-IH Bikers? -1-to-be-wounded is far better than +1T, and +1T is far better than almost all CTs.
1. What's the wound count for the Serpent? Wraithlord? Wraithknight?
You're only getting 1 wound per 6 remember? So let's assume the Serpent has 12 wounds, which means it had a degrading status. By the time you reached 4, it'll be 6 on the one with FNP, except one is still firing better.
2. Actually the reason is precisely Guardians as to why Iyaden works better. As long as you can Deep Strike 20 dudes, you don't have to worry about 15 of them dying. Only one runs away, and the 2 or 3 you tried to save with Ulthwe will run away with the others unless you're gonna burn those CP.
5 or less unsaved wounds: neither bracketed
6 unsaved wounds. Iyanden is now at 4 wounds, but counts as unbracketed. Uthwe is at 5 wounds but counts as unbracketed (because it isn't).
7 unsaved: Iyanden is slightly better at this time, because Uthwe is more likely than not bracketed.
8 wounds: Both are bracketed once
9 wounds: Both are bracketed twice
10 wounds: Uthwe is still alive
11 wounds: Uthwe is still alive
12 wounds: They should both be dead
So they have the same killiness from 0-6 unsaved wounds. Iyanden pulls ahead at 7 unsaved wounds. Uthwe ties it up at 8. Uthwe pulls (way) ahead at 10. And that's just killiness.
Iyanden has a minor advantage when they've taken 7 unsaved wounds, and Uthwe has a major advantage at 10/11 unsaved wounds Otherwise, they're both just as deadly. So Uthwe is more deadly in more situations. And that's on top of *living longer*.
Iyanden is worse than Uthwe for performing at higher brackets. They're just that unbalanced.
But, of course if you take Alaitoc, all your units are less squishy in general and you have access to a WL trait to make Morale irrelevant for all your 20 Guardian blobs.
Arguing whether Ulthwe or Iyanden is a better choice is pointless when Alaitoc exists. It's the clear winner.
Even if GW mercifully added a basic rule that 6s to hit always succeed for all factions, or capped to hit mods at -2, Aliatoc would still be the best Eldar trait.
"As long as you can Deep Strike 20 dudes, you don't have to worry about 15 of them dying. Only one runs away, and the 2 or 3 you tried to save with Ulthwe will run away with the others unless you're gonna burn those CP."
So you're taking a Trait to only impact one or two units? Really?
Also, how much of a difference is it? If you've lost 15 Iyanden, you've lost 12.5 Uthwe. So you're probably going to have 4 remaining Iyanden versus 0 remaining Uthwe, that's true. So you saved 4 GEQs with bolgun-equivelents in the middle of the field. What are you going to do with 4 guardians? Sure, it's useful. But much less useful than a 6+++ on *everything in your army*. So if your entire army is mostly 20-man guardian squads? Yeah, sure, it could be useful. But for a single bomb, or even 2, not so much. Besides, it's not like killing 4 more Guardsmen within 12" of the entire enemy army is that big a feat for just about any army. I'd rather a 16% beefer *everything* than a small chance to save a half dozen Guardsmen if the enemy is dumb.
Galef wrote: But, of course if you take Alaitoc, all your units are less squishy in general and you have access to a WL trait to make Morale irrelevant for all your 20 Guardian blobs.
Arguing whether Ulthwe or Iyanden is a better choice is pointless when Alaitoc exists. It's the clear winner.
Even if GW mercifully added a basic rule that 6s to hit always succeed for all factions, or capped to hit mods at -2, Aliatoc would still be the best Eldar trait.
-
For me Ulthwe gardians are best because they will never be outside of 12" of anything. I only ever deep strike them or put them in a wave serpent. Alaitoc is great for that serpant - only turn 1 though - after turn 1 my serpants are in CC and the essentially "free spirit stones" is very much appreciate there.
Then again - I play Ulthwe because that is what I have painted. I just wouldn't call it trash. If it was trash - my eldar would be on the shelf.
Marine traits isn't the problem is what I am saying. Apart from the fact that the traits don't apply to vehicals (they should) they have good traits. Some of the best ones. I think -1 to hit 6+ FNP and ignore cover are some of the best traits out there. It really is just the units suck. My nids use 6+++ and it works great for them.
Put Ulthwe eldar up against Iron hands if you don't believe me. The results are pretty predictable.
Uthwe, I think - and appeared to be consensus as soon as the traits were revealed - is the 2nd best of the traits. But way behind Alaitoc.
More on-topic, the proposed trait is clearly a massive upgrade over the Uthwe/IH trait, and is stronger than the clearly-OP Alaitoc trait. So how can it be fair?
Automatically Appended Next Post: (I, too, play Uthwe - because that's what my army is. I think you're underselling what you get from Alaitoc, though - it pushes the opponent to close in, and you need the opponent close to do anything.)
Anyway to get this back on track, would changing the Ultramarines chapter tactic to being able to ignore models within 1 inch for the purposes of shooting or overwatch, actually be a worth while chapter tactic that doesn't work against taking vehicals or fly units in ultramarine lists.
(Yes Bobby G needs reworked but thats GW's screw up.)
Additionally what do people feel should be the Ultramarines warlord trait seing as their mandatory one got the grand strategist nuclear nerf.
Ice_can wrote: Anyway to get this back on track, would changing the Ultramarines chapter tactic to being able to ignore models within 1 inch for the purposes of shooting or overwatch, actually be a worth while chapter tactic that doesn't work against taking vehicals or fly units in ultramarine lists.
(Yes Bobby G needs reworked but thats GW's screw up.)
Additionally what do people feel should be the Ultramarines warlord trait seing as their mandatory one got the grand strategist nuclear nerf.
Make the roll an easier one to achieve or they can make one Stratagem cost 1 less CP a turn. Not too sure to be honest.
What if they made it so combat squads would allow you to either combine two squads (so long as the total # of models aren't greater than 10) or split them in half at the beginning of the movement phase.
Splitting (and not requiring a 10-man squad to do so) would give some great board control flexibility for objectives and such.
Combining would be a good way to use mandatory unit slots to buff up certain units (like a tac squad being used to provide wounds for devastators or sternguard instead of spending points on additional ablative wounds)
Primaris could only CS with other primaris, standard PA marines with standard PA, etc.,
What if they made it so combat squads would allow you to either combine two squads (so long as the total # of models aren't greater than 10) or split them in half at the beginning of the movement phase.
Splitting (and not requiring a 10-man squad to do so) would give some great board control flexibility for objectives and such.
Combining would be a good way to use mandatory unit slots to buff up certain units (like a tac squad being used to provide wounds for devastators or sternguard instead of spending points on additional ablative wounds)
Primaris could only CS with other primaris, standard PA marines with standard PA, etc.,
I haven't read the whole thread so apologies if this has already come up.
Regarding the balancing of chapter traits, whilst it is very hard to balance different traits with each other there are other thing that can be used other than just the basic trait it self. Chapter specific warlord traits, special characters, strats and relics should be used to fine tune each sub faction with each other. I think the Knight codex does a really good job of this with various houses being used in top tourney lists and most of the being at least useful and offering something unique.
Onto the topic of space marines and how to make them more competitive. Firstly I don't think it is realistic to think gw will alter the stat block for all marine units so best not to consider that. Fixing vehicles is just a case of giving them chapter tactics. My main issue with marines is their survivability, they become more dangerous if they live longer and they are super humans in super armour they should be hard to put down!
Upping wounds won't happen and upping saves doesn't work all round, I don't like a reroll mechanic as the game needs less rolls so how about this.
Transhuman physiology: all wound rolls made against models with this ability suffer minus 1 (a 6 always succeeds).
Add this to all actual marines (not cultists, dreads, vehicles, spawn, etc...) simple for gw to put in an faq an gives an instant simpl3 survivability boost to all marines making them twice as survivable against Lasguns, but having a much smaller but still useful effect against heavier weapons. It also has the added effect of making marines feel a little more special, my super soldiers shouldnt be the flat baseline of the game.
WisdomLS wrote: I haven't read the whole thread so apologies if this has already come up.
Regarding the balancing of chapter traits, whilst it is very hard to balance different traits with each other there are other thing that can be used other than just the basic trait it self. Chapter specific warlord traits, special characters, strats and relics should be used to fine tune each sub faction with each other. I think the Knight codex does a really good job of this with various houses being used in top tourney lists and most of the being at least useful and offering something unique.
Onto the topic of space marines and how to make them more competitive. Firstly I don't think it is realistic to think gw will alter the stat block for all marine units so best not to consider that. Fixing vehicles is just a case of giving them chapter tactics. My main issue with marines is their survivability, they become more dangerous if they live longer and they are super humans in super armour they should be hard to put down!
Upping wounds won't happen and upping saves doesn't work all round, I don't like a reroll mechanic as the game needs less rolls so how about this.
Transhuman physiology: all wound rolls made against models with this ability suffer minus 1 (a 6 always succeeds).
Add this to all actual marines (not cultists, dreads, vehicles, spawn, etc...) simple for gw to put in an faq an gives an instant simpl3 survivability boost to all marines making them twice as survivable against Lasguns, but having a much smaller but still useful effect against heavier weapons. It also has the added effect of making marines feel a little more special, my super soldiers shouldnt be the flat baseline of the game.
While it would help somewhat it doesn't address the issue that their vehicals are also far to easy to kill for what they cost.
The entire codex just feels way to armoured with paper for the points cost.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The -1 to hit is fine though and helps counter total gunline armies. That's where the complaints come from after all. Now, is stacking beyond -2 silly? Sure I'll agree with that.
Not Online!!! wrote: It still is a terrible fix, and consecutivly would also be applied to csm which get double butchercannon loadouts.
Mind you i agree that marines need a fix but this one seems terribly thought out.
I'm pretty sure the suggestion was for Iron Hands. Helbrutes not getting a way to heal themselves is a crime though, even if they're likely going to die in a round of shooting.
Then we have just another trait like ravenguard and alpha legion which is terrible internal balance.
Is it that those Traits are broken, or that the rest of the traits are bad?
-1 Traits, especially the "to hit's", are broken.
Not only do they just add 1/6th more durability but make whole armies ineffective in what is probably the most important battlephase.
Now you can argue that it is good against gunline armies, but consider this an Ork mekwarband loses HALF it's efficency against that trait, atleast half and up to their codex they can lose all efficency, but then you say " Why would you play a Mek warband, orks are not suposed to be able to shoot anything". Fine i say, but what about R&H? A army which has primary troops made for shooting but have bs 5+ also on average? Even armies like Tau or Guard or Tyranids suffer from a loss of 1/3rd in efficency because of this trait alone. Even "Elite" armies like other marines lose a 1/4th of efficency in what is probably our most important damage pahse. We haven't even talked about stacking of those yet.
Now you proposed a -1 to wound. Superficially it might looks better then the" -1 to hit" bs that we have to deal now with. Still though it adds again 1/6th in pure durability against all weaponry at ALL ranges.
Weapons like Battlecannons which normaly would and should wipe a t4 model now suddendly wounds only 2/3rds of the time? Heavy Bolter is wounding on 4+? Basically instead of the to hit change you now go into the problem that alot of guns suddendly lose their purpose or are not as effective against their intended targets as they should be for their pricetag. Is it equally as bad as the whole -1 bs fiasco? No. Is it still a terrible band aid solution and a future autopick? yes. I do think however that Terminator armor could give this, that atleast would solve their durability issue, now we just have to deal with the PF not doing stuff and the bolters beeing terrible at output.
Marines and also CSM however have another problem and that is to answer your last question: TIT or Terrible Internal Traitbalance.
Let's take a look shall we, in the CSM Codex: Traits range from WB trait, which is basically just ATSKNF, which is terrible as a trait btw, to WE which gain an additional attack if you successfully charge and is a melee trait, which surprise runs into the problem that the Melee units on the basis of a Marine profile will not get into, except if you devote ALOT of points for transports which CSM have the worse bin to chose from (no razorbacks). To EC, which is nice as a side buff but still not particulary relevant since their main reason to field are noise marines which don't want to get into melee anyways as of yet. Night lords is Morale shenanigans and requires a specific build to be played to it's strength but decentish, but Raptors and warptalons aren't that good atm and that makes their Morale shenanigans a bit too useless.
Black Legion is kinda like Renegades trait but instead of haveing a potential 1 turn charge you now have a mobile wall of fire, which loses -1 for using assult guns, hurray for requireing even more HQ's then we do now as a CSM warband in order to maintain accuracy. IW are great for a gunline duel and against buildings, probably a trait that will pay off in a match the easiest, especially in matches on good tables.
But all of these basically pale in comparison to the -1 to hit shenanigans that alpha legion can pull. IW havocs are decent, but you can give them alpha legion and they survive waaay longer. IW dakka hellbrutes are good but you can give the AL for waaaayyy better survivability and also to let plasma users detonate more frequently. etc.
Marines look much the same: basically 2 passable traits 1 really good one and the rest is either terribly situational or just plain bad.
Compare that now to guard:
IG Has 2 outliers really, Cadia a "free" reroll aura IF they stood still, so they atleast have a condition to their trait that in theory requires brain, in practice though just leads to mortars and stting somewhere and Catachan, which basically is just plain stupid buff to their Melee performance and a massive boost to the rate of fire for D3/6 weaponry. The rest of the traits are good but either require some conditions or are a bit weaker, still a better trait balance internally achieved then any marine /csm book offer.
Here's idea I was toying with:
- Oldmarines get +1 attack to bring them inline with Primaris (who would still be tougher with +1W)
- Bolters become assault 2 to give tac marines more firepower at long range
- Fix mis-pointed wargear (i.e assault marine jumppacks should cost the same as vanguard jumppacks, grav guns should drop in points)
- Maybe there should be an across the board reduction in points for marine wargear (at least for non-characters) to compensate for the expensive 'chasis'
- No change in cost for oldmarines (scout 11pts - 2pts deploy + 2pts save + 2points attack = 13pts)
This would mean
- Devastators the same (except maybe for points changes on weapons)
- Assault marines become much better
- Tac marines are better in melee, have more firepower at range, can advance and shoot
- Smash captain too good? Maybe can be compensated for with increased cost of thunderhammer for characters
- Blood angels and space wolves become too good? :(
You are correct I am proposing that marines become 1/6th more durable against everything, it's not a chapter trait just a general marine rule so it's not balancing against anything else other than other codex and I think it'll be fine against them.
Tabletop power wise it's an increase to be sure but i dont think anyon3 would think we are now op. Fluff wise i can see a marine surviving a battle cannon hit with more probability than a guardsman, that's the intention of the rule.
To prevent cases where marines are harder to wound than large vehicles with massive weapon we could change it to the following.
Transhuman physilogy: All wound rolls made against models with this ability suffer minus 1 unless the weapon inflicting the wound has a strength equal to triple this models toughness or more. (A roll of 6 always wounds).
This covers things like volcano cannons and reaper chainswords still being able to hurt marines on a 2+
WisdomLS wrote: You are correct I am proposing that marines become 1/6th more durable against everything, it's not a chapter trait just a general marine rule so it's not balancing against anything else other than other codex and I think it'll be fine against them.
Tabletop power wise it's an increase to be sure but i dont think anyon3 would think we are now op. Fluff wise i can see a marine surviving a battle cannon hit with more probability than a guardsman, that's the intention of the rule.
To prevent cases where marines are harder to wound than large vehicles with massive weapon we could change it to the following.
Transhuman physilogy: All wound rolls made against models with this ability suffer minus 1 unless the weapon inflicting the wound has a strength equal to triple this models toughness or more. (A roll of 6 always wounds).
This covers things like volcano cannons and reaper chainswords still being able to hurt marines on a 2+
Have you thought that through?
Because it seems you didn't but here let me make an exemple marine to show you how utterly slowed that idea is:
Legion trait, Alpha Legion: Plague marine. 17pts
Has t5 ergo S15 weaponry only is able to wound on 2 + for whatever reason.
Has disgustingly resilient on 5+
has a 3 + armor.
Has the -1 to hi trait form AL trait.
I am sorry but that is completely off the charts
Or even more questionable: A plasma gun gets to wound on 3+ normally with the non overheating mode now it does on 4+? A gun that is primarily designed to take out heavy armored models which costs somehwere inbetween 13- 17 pts?
+1A to the basic statline. (I.e. basic marines get 2A; Sgts/Vets get 3, etc.) Makes Tac Marines more flexible, helps out Assault Marines (in particular, you’re not totally mugging yourself off by taking any of the special weapon options), Terminators get punchier.
Let any Marines with Bolt weapons shoot twice. Sorts out the issue of anti-horde damage output.
I’m not sure they need two wounds; leave that for the Primaris lads to make them special, but I think if their damage output gets a bit of a boost, Marines will feel less fragile too.
Oh and how about this: if all your Tac/Dev/Assault squads are full-strength, you get an extra command point for each. Encourages bigger units and Codex Astartes compliance, gives Combat Squads a reason to exist rather than just taking 2x5 squads, gives Marines a bit of a CP boost without having to resort to mixing in Guard. It’s not a huge thing, but it gives a little boost for taking a fluffy army, rather than making it seem like you’re intentionally hobbling yourself by doing so.
+1A to the basic statline. (I.e. basic marines get 2A; Sgts/Vets get 3, etc.) Makes Tac Marines more flexible, helps out Assault Marines (in particular, you’re not totally mugging yourself off by taking any of the special weapon options), Terminators get punchier.
Let any Marines with Bolt weapons shoot twice. Sorts out the issue of anti-horde damage output.
I’m not sure they need two wounds; leave that for the Primaris lads to make them special, but I think if their damage output gets a bit of a boost, Marines will feel less fragile too.
Oh and how about this: if all your Tac/Dev/Assault squads are full-strength, you get an extra command point for each. Encourages bigger units and Codex Astartes compliance, gives Combat Squads a reason to exist rather than just taking 2x5 squads, gives Marines a bit of a CP boost without having to resort to mixing in Guard. It’s not a huge thing, but it gives a little boost for taking a fluffy army, rather than making it seem like you’re intentionally hobbling yourself by doing so.
That could work but what is full strength? 10 Man? because that is not clear cut, since CSM can field up to 20 man. altough CSM still have cultists so they don't need that.
+1A to the basic statline. (I.e. basic marines get 2A; Sgts/Vets get 3, etc.) Makes Tac Marines more flexible, helps out Assault Marines (in particular, you’re not totally mugging yourself off by taking any of the special weapon options), Terminators get punchier.
Let any Marines with Bolt weapons shoot twice. Sorts out the issue of anti-horde damage output.
I’m not sure they need two wounds; leave that for the Primaris lads to make them special, but I think if their damage output gets a bit of a boost, Marines will feel less fragile too.
Oh and how about this: if all your Tac/Dev/Assault squads are full-strength, you get an extra command point for each. Encourages bigger units and Codex Astartes compliance, gives Combat Squads a reason to exist rather than just taking 2x5 squads, gives Marines a bit of a CP boost without having to resort to mixing in Guard. It’s not a huge thing, but it gives a little boost for taking a fluffy army, rather than making it seem like you’re intentionally hobbling yourself by doing so.
That could work but what is full strength? 10 Man? because that is not clear cut, since CSM can field up to 20 man. altough CSM still have cultists so they don't need that.
Oh yeah, sorry, I was just thinking in terms of loyalists, so yeah, ten-man. Given that CSM have access to Cultists (crunch-wise) and don’t follow the C. Astartes (fluff), then I’d be ok with not having this apply to them.
Oh yeah, sorry, I was just thinking in terms of loyalists, so yeah, ten-man. Given that CSM have access to Cultists (crunch-wise) and don’t follow the C. Astartes (fluff), then I’d be ok with not having this apply to them.
I mean you could just say that for CSM to get the full benefit you need min 20 but get 2 CP? It would be fluffy since legions like the iron warriors still use such blocks for siege warfare and attritional style. Also 20 CSM are still 260 pts, i'd say that is fair game since that is more then a 1/10 of points in a 2000 game.
As for bolters on marines just doubling fire,ehh. I'd like for them to get something along the line of: "If a Astartes / heretics Astartes unit has not moved it adds plus 1 shot to the shooting charachteristic." This includes All weapons and gives a significant buff to SW's which let's face it are quite overpriced, aswell as buffing the Rapidfire weaponry moresoe then the heavy weapons. Still Bigger squads with HW's now would be better, even smaller squads. It would also be a good buff across the board. However i'd say that it should be restricted to Terminators of any colour, Tac /CSM squads, Devastor / Havoc Squads and ofcourse the Elite Chosen/Sternguard (i belive squads). I don't see it necesarry for exemple on Oblits or aggressors or primaris marines since they anyways get the better toys as standard.
Because it seems you didn't but here let me make an exemple marine to show you how utterly slowed that idea is: Legion trait, Alpha Legion: Plague marine. 17pts Has t5 ergo S15 weaponry only is able to wound on 2 + for whatever reason. Has disgustingly resilient on 5+ has a 3 + armor. Has the -1 to hi trait form AL trait.
I am sorry but that is completely off the charts
Or even more questionable: A plasma gun gets to wound on 3+ normally with the non overheating mode now it does on 4+? A gun that is primarily designed to take out heavy armored models which costs somehwere inbetween 13- 17 pts?
I have thought it through, are people complaining about the brokenness that is the Alpha legion plague marine, are they storming all the top tables? With a small but significant boost to their survivability they might become nearly as durable per point as a cultist or possibly even a guardsman!
If certain marine units seem to be ridiculously overpowered by this buff then they can have their points adjusted accordingly but the only ones that jump out at me initially would be some of the multiwound nurgle terminators and a few characters especially the 3 primarchs.
Its not the perfect solution but I think it is better and more likely to actually be implemented due to the lack of stat block changes and rolls involved. I just want my marines to feel a little more special than a standard human/eldar/ork and this gives them a unique ability that improves the whole range of models in an instant. Sure it makes them more survivable against an overcharged plasmagun, but another way of looking at it is that it makes them more survivable against an overcharged plasmagun than a guardsman :-)
Dude, that is off the charts. It is bad enough allready that -1 to hits exist, but such plague marines would literally break the game and worst of all you can not adapt the cost of these since regular DG plague marines won't get said benefit.
Now they won't charge the top tables. Non of the cult marines do but after such a buff, i'll bet with you that we see an increase in marines played in either alpha legion or Ravenguard.
10 Firewarriors shoot at rapidfire range against such marines (with al or Ravenguard trait) 70 vs 65 pts so a 5 pts advantage to the Tau:
20 shots: Hitting on 5+ means 6 2/3 hits only.Normally they would wound the marine on 3+ in this case however only on 4+ so there will be only 3 1/3 wounds to deal with. Statistically you lose 1 marine where before you would have lost easily 1 1/2 marine.
Secondly: A plasma gun should kill a marine, IT is designed to Kill marines or other equally good armored units. It costs atleast as much as a marine to field one, often on a inferior body. The plasma gun is by far not the problem of marines, and should kill regardless if it hits so long it is not a vehicle.
If you want to talk about a broken special weapons talk about DE.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: -1 to hit is only game breaking to people that like playing strict gunline and like to plink away. Sorry not sorry.
Not saying the rest of the fixes are good as I didn't read them, but this whining has got to stop.
Yeah sure: What was that ? your Hellblaster unit just killed itself because it shot at my Hellbrute? Fun times....
Additionally there are armies that are set up as either Specializd in Gunline or Melee. SO let's just tell them to go F themselves? Via one trait? Which even against generalists is too good?
You see you can even let Marines duke it out, Ultramarines vs Ravenguard or alpha legion for exemple. Just the fact that the later will suffer less hits --> less wounds --> less lost models means that by the time you are in rapid fire range, which then removes -1 to hit, he will allready have a potentially massive advantage. You can not tell me that that is correct or healthy for overall gamebalance.
Especially since they all pay the same price for the basic dude with a bolter.
Edit:
But let's say -1 is not a problem, how about -2 ? or better? CSM can bring that to the table, Aeldari can bring it too, they even have vehicles that profit from trait and from beeing a difficult to hit flyer?
Is that a fun matchup for marines?
Slayer,
-1 to hit *over 12" away* is what you're talking about. -1 to hit vs *all attacks* would be a much, much bigger deal. And -1 to wound would be even worse.
Others,
-1 to wound is *not* just a 1/6 increase in durability. A 6+++ FnP is, provided there aren't other FnPs in the equation, but that's because it's modifying a "7+" roll - in other words, you have 0/6 chance of success, then add 1/6 to it.
Against things wounded on a 5+, you go from a 2/6 of success to a 1/6 of success: that's 100% increase in durability. For every shot it used to take, it now takes 2.
For example, Guardsmen shooting against current-Marines:
(1/2)(1/3)(1/3) = 1/18 kills per shot
FnP Marines:
(1/2)(1/3)(1/3)(5/6) = 5/108 kills per shot
-1-to-wound Marines
(1/2)(1/6)(1/3) = 1/36 kills per shot
It takes *twice* as many S3 shots to kill a marine with -1-to-wound than now. That's not a 1/6 improvement.
And that's ignoring that RG/AL/Alaitoc *only* affects shooting, and even then only outside 12". The proposed rule has neither of those side effects.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: -1 to hit is only game breaking to people that like playing strict gunline and like to plink away. Sorry not sorry.
Not saying the rest of the fixes are good as I didn't read them, but this whining has got to stop.
Yeah sure: What was that ? your Hellblaster unit just killed itself because it shot at my Hellbrute? Fun times....
Additionally there are armies that are set up as either Specializd in Gunline or Melee. SO let's just tell them to go F themselves? Via one trait? Which even against generalists is too good?
You see you can even let Marines duke it out, Ultramarines vs Ravenguard or alpha legion for exemple. Just the fact that the later will suffer less hits --> less wounds --> less lost models means that by the time you are in rapid fire range, which then removes -1 to hit, he will allready have a potentially massive advantage. You can not tell me that that is correct or healthy for overall gamebalance.
Especially since they all pay the same price for the basic dude with a bolter.
Edit:
But let's say -1 is not a problem, how about -2 ? or better? CSM can bring that to the table, Aeldari can bring it too, they even have vehicles that profit from trait and from beeing a difficult to hit flyer?
Is that a fun matchup for marines?
-2 to hit isn't a big deal. -3 I'll concede.
Also yeah I've had Plasma explode to shooting stuff outside 12", and you know what? That was a risk I decided to take. Make the decision or don't.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: Slayer,
-1 to hit *over 12" away* is what you're talking about. -1 to hit vs *all attacks* would be a much, much bigger deal. And -1 to wound would be even worse.
Others,
-1 to wound is *not* just a 1/6 increase in durability. A 6+++ FnP is, provided there aren't other FnPs in the equation, but that's because it's modifying a "7+" roll - in other words, you have 0/6 chance of success, then add 1/6 to it.
Against things wounded on a 5+, you go from a 2/6 of success to a 1/6 of success: that's 100% increase in durability. For every shot it used to take, it now takes 2.
For example, Guardsmen shooting against current-Marines:
(1/2)(1/3)(1/3) = 1/18 kills per shot
FnP Marines:
(1/2)(1/3)(1/3)(5/6) = 5/108 kills per shot
-1-to-wound Marines
(1/2)(1/6)(1/3) = 1/36 kills per shot
It takes *twice* as many S3 shots to kill a marine with -1-to-wound than now. That's not a 1/6 improvement.
And that's ignoring that RG/AL/Alaitoc *only* affects shooting, and even then only outside 12". The proposed rule has neither of those side effects.
This makes Marines flat-out OP.
-1 to Hit is always shorthand for the -1 to hit outside 12" and you know that.
