Not Online!!! wrote: I'd assume so, but then again one would think gw would manage to propperly type in and copy paste stuff correctly.
I mean...this is GW. Part of the fun is finding mistakes.
I feel like they have rules writers and then data entry clerks. We're all criticising the rules writes when it's probably the data entry people messing it up
Not Online!!! wrote: I'd assume so, but then again one would think gw would manage to propperly type in and copy paste stuff correctly.
I mean...this is GW. Part of the fun is finding mistakes.
I feel like they have rules writers and then data entry clerks. We're all criticising the rules writes when it's probably the data entry people messing it up
We all know its Jeff the intern who is supposed to be doing the proof reading.
Jeff sits there with his sandwich and looks at the pile of work... "I'm sure its all fine.. I don't actualy need to proof read it.. Those guys wouldint make mistakes..." carries son eating sandwich and playing clash of clans.
Not Online!!! wrote: I'd assume so, but then again one would think gw would manage to propperly type in and copy paste stuff correctly.
I mean...this is GW. Part of the fun is finding mistakes.
I feel like they have rules writers and then data entry clerks. We're all criticising the rules writes when it's probably the data entry people messing it up
We all know its Jeff the intern who is supposed to be doing the proof reading.
Jeff sits there with his sandwich and looks at the pile of work... "I'm sure its all fine.. I don't actualy need to proof read it.. Those guys wouldint make mistakes..." carries son eating sandwich and playing clash of clans.
You assume Jeff was competent enough so say that out loud. People could have heard him and told him to do his work.
You sure about that? When some of the codex are clear copy paste action, with no real thought put in to how the armies are suppose to work within edition core rule set and other armies rules?
We are talking here about people who thought that making a salamander army invunerable to shoting is a good idea.
vict0988 wrote: If BA become a boogieman it might not make any sense to nerf Intercessors, Flyers, Repulsor Executioner, Eliminators, TFC, Aggressors and Assault Centurions which I think are currently the strongest SM units, but probably a side-note in a BA army.
TFC is probably the most common unit, but only partially because of its pts, it'd probably still be taken if it was 20 more pts at least as once to use the Stratagems it has.
That's not how balancing works, If the current SM's lists are dumpstering everyone (and from the looks of it they mostly are) then they need to be brought back in line, regardless of whether or not BA uses different units to dominate aswell or even more (those units obv need to brought in line aswell).
If you just nerf what the #1 army brings without realising that the #2 army is also unhealthy for everything below it your not going to get a somewhat balanced field.
On the other hand, the #2 army might not be as oppressive once #1 is removed because other lists might be able to handle #2, but not #1.
That is not the case here. We know Marines are oppressive, to pretty much everyone.
No, my point was that there might be something that would make #2 not be an issue but which is currently being demolished by #1 and thus isn't seen at all because #1 is such a defining part of the metagame.
Yeah screw paying money for this product. Again. They really don't want my money for their rules it seems.
Buy sm, 3 models for 50+CHF.
What you don't think that is good value?
Too bad./J
Honestly i feel that that race to the bottom is becoming clear, margins on sm must be higher therefore force sales of sm and screw xenos or fw for that matter, also screw csm because how dare you demand an actual working baseline, play soup you pleb.......
Vaktathi wrote: I for one certainly cannot see what sort of criteria GW is making changes by.
Looking at the IG changes, they made russ tanks inexplicably cheaper, made Mortars expensive enough that they're never going to be seen again, decided the Wyvern of all things needed a nerf, made Astropaths cheaper again, and none of the units that really need help and never see the table got any help at all, while Tank Commanders remain criminally undercosted.
I think they're operating by Ouiji board. It's certainly not gameplay feedback.
Base Russ tanks are cheaper because they've have never seen use. Mortars are expensive because they were super prevalent but I think they over did it a little. Wyvern was an odd one but perhaps the new strats people were taking made them too good (but not really). Astropaths were already cheap at 26pts. They are almost auto include elite tax but then again guard powers are sub par. Will need to see what PA gives them. Tank commanders now make more sense given the drop of the base leman russ makes the gap to get BS3 and 1 order fairly reasonable.
The oddest thing with the IG changes was the army wide nerf to anti infantry weapons. Mortars/Wyvers/Punishers are all decent in competitive meta but BS4 was the biggest limiting factor. Now in a marina meta these weapons are far worse.
Guard matching up with Tau/CSM cultist hordes/Orcs all got worse with these changes.
AnomanderRake wrote: If the Wyvern was priced in reference to mortars it seems natural that they'd hit it if they were going to hit mortars?
Yup most of the guard nerfs were optimal units from 6 months ago pre marines when the likes of Orks and GSC were more prevalent.
With marines, GSC disappeared altogether but the Ork hordes are still around and potentially cultists making a comeback. And Tau drone spam will be harder to deal with.
AnomanderRake wrote: If the Wyvern was priced in reference to mortars it seems natural that they'd hit it if they were going to hit mortars?
Yup most of the guard nerfs were optimal units from 6 months ago pre marines when the likes of Orks and GSC were more prevalent.
With marines, GSC disappeared altogether but the Ork hordes are still around and potentially cultists making a comeback. And Tau drone spam will be harder to deal with.
Ork Hordes are still around? Don't you mean Gretchin Spam with Big Gunz and SSAG's?
Not Online!!! wrote: I'd assume so, but then again one would think gw would manage to propperly type in and copy paste stuff correctly.
I mean...this is GW. Part of the fun is finding mistakes.
I guess so, but we as a community got promised improvements at the start of 8th, the only improved thing we got are the prices, and that also only out of gw's perspective.
We are talking here about people who thought that making a salamander army invunerable to shoting is a good idea.
Well, see, they didn't think that. They came up with a rule that people interpreted differently and needed to be fixed to be clear to everyone.
You know, this is going to sound strange coming from me. But his is a kids type of excuse. I did something, but I thought it would be different. From what I know GW does not have a design team consisting of people my age or younger. They can't say, after 30 or 40 years working on it on a game system, that they thought that the rule would work different. GW doesn't know that their characters have the infantry trait and that they have put an untargeting rule in place for characters? Don't they read or know they own rules? In sports the complain that you thought the rules work different only works, if the judges are your buds or you have the best sponsors and are a local.
Plus they do nothing when people point out mistakes to them. People have been telling them that there is something wrong with how they wrote GK, for what 2+ as many years other editions were since last time GK were good? But then there is small stuff took, they clearly pointed the razorback with psycannon as if it had a heavy one, a year passed, and maybe they fixed it now, but maybe they didn't. They just don't seem to care to fix all the stuff they sold, they just fix stuff that they want to sell right now. But who knows, I haven't see the GK pages, maybe they are full of rule changes and other stuff.
I honestly don't think GW really cares about balance in any way and these points tweaks are more done to stir up hype and act like they care when some of the choices are so strange as to make no real sense and some units that have sucked for awhile still suck after the points drops or aren't touched at all.
I'd be surprised but I really think this is all a smoke and mirrors thing to appease the player base with claims of care and effort given.
AngryAngel80 wrote: I honestly don't think GW really cares about balance in any way and these points tweaks are more done to stir up hype and act like they care when some of the choices are so strange as to make no real sense and some units that have sucked for awhile still suck after the points drops or aren't touched at all.
I'd be surprised but I really think this is all a smoke and mirrors thing to appease the player base with claims of care and effort given.
E.g., in view of GK, GW obviously tries to pacify the GK player base.
But GK is still not playable at the competitive level.
Squeezing in another unit or two at the 2000 pt level is not enough.
GK needs a total overhaul. However, GW is usually only rectifying at the surface.
AngryAngel80 wrote: I honestly don't think GW really cares about balance in any way and these points tweaks are more done to stir up hype and act like they care when some of the choices are so strange as to make no real sense and some units that have sucked for awhile still suck after the points drops or aren't touched at all.
I'd be surprised but I really think this is all a smoke and mirrors thing to appease the player base with claims of care and effort given.
E.g., in view of GK, GW obviously tries to pacify the GK player base.
But GK is still not playable at the competitive level.
Squeezing in another unit or two at the 2000 pt level is not enough.
GK needs a total overhaul. However, GW is usually only rectifying at the surface.
Atleast GK got some point drops, that's more then FW index lists can say
AngryAngel80 wrote: I honestly don't think GW really cares about balance in any way and these points tweaks are more done to stir up hype and act like they care when some of the choices are so strange as to make no real sense and some units that have sucked for awhile still suck after the points drops or aren't touched at all.
I'd be surprised but I really think this is all a smoke and mirrors thing to appease the player base with claims of care and effort given.
E.g., in view of GK, GW obviously tries to pacify the GK player base.
But GK is still not playable at the competitive level.
Squeezing in another unit or two at the 2000 pt level is not enough.
GK needs a total overhaul. However, GW is usually only rectifying at the surface.
Atleast GK got some point drops, that's more then FW index lists can say
Indeed, I was surprised to see the pt drops as they made already some adaptions recently.
Now its possible for a 2000 pt infantry GK army to field 200 pts more when compared with lists before the update.
Honestly, the drops won't change a thing.
Most of the standard fodder of most armies, got cut in price, as do other models.
I honestly doubt that this would improve anything for GK players.
Infact it exemplifies the issues imo.
But he, i guess we are back at square one.
AngryAngel80 wrote: I honestly don't think GW really cares about balance in any way and these points tweaks are more done to stir up hype and act like they care when some of the choices are so strange as to make no real sense and some units that have sucked for awhile still suck after the points drops or aren't touched at all.
I'd be surprised but I really think this is all a smoke and mirrors thing to appease the player base with claims of care and effort given.
There are still a few more PA books to come, and i think some point updates that now make very little will make sense once those books are released.
AngryAngel80 wrote: I honestly don't think GW really cares about balance in any way and these points tweaks are more done to stir up hype and act like they care when some of the choices are so strange as to make no real sense and some units that have sucked for awhile still suck after the points drops or aren't touched at all.
I'd be surprised but I really think this is all a smoke and mirrors thing to appease the player base with claims of care and effort given.
There are still a few more PA books to come, and i think some point updates that now make very little will make sense once those books are released.
Will they?
I doubt that, there is no reason to expect DKoK getting something, as do Corsairs or R&H.
And you can only do so much with Stratagems, WL traits. As exemplified by PA2.
Not Online!!! wrote: Honestly, the drops won't change a thing.
Most of the standard fodder of most armies, got cut in price, as do other models.
I honestly doubt that this would improve anything for GK players.
Infact it exemplifies the issues imo.
But he, i guess we are back at square one.
Necrons and orks mostly got drops on previously weak units at least so if GK's got cuts on their line models they are catching up those two at least.
AngryAngel80 wrote: I honestly don't think GW really cares about balance in any way and these points tweaks are more done to stir up hype and act like they care when some of the choices are so strange as to make no real sense and some units that have sucked for awhile still suck after the points drops or aren't touched at all.
I'd be surprised but I really think this is all a smoke and mirrors thing to appease the player base with claims of care and effort given.
There are still a few more PA books to come, and i think some point updates that now make very little will make sense once those books are released.
Will they?
I doubt that, there is no reason to expect DKoK getting something, as do Corsairs or R&H.
And you can only do so much with Stratagems, WL traits. As exemplified by PA2.
Those are FW, arent they ? They make their own rules, which have nothing to do with PA.
AngryAngel80 wrote: I honestly don't think GW really cares about balance in any way and these points tweaks are more done to stir up hype and act like they care when some of the choices are so strange as to make no real sense and some units that have sucked for awhile still suck after the points drops or aren't touched at all.
I'd be surprised but I really think this is all a smoke and mirrors thing to appease the player base with claims of care and effort given.
There are still a few more PA books to come, and i think some point updates that now make very little will make sense once those books are released.
Will they?
I doubt that, there is no reason to expect DKoK getting something, as do Corsairs or R&H.
And you can only do so much with Stratagems, WL traits. As exemplified by PA2.
Those are FW, arent they ? They make their own rules, which have nothing to do with PA.
NOPE.
FW rules FOR 40K are since the start of 8th whole sale done by the GW rules team.....
NOPE.
FW rules FOR 40K are since the start of 8th whole sale done by the GW rules team.....
Irrelevant. FW armies have nothing to do with PA.
Double irrelevant, because it's GW:
Also better FW index armies get something then more marines or snowflake marines. Except GK but that has understandable reasons.
Further in PA there were allready mentioned formations of R&H infact probably the main carrier of the IW meatgrinder, but he why expect some standards.
That some people still haven't figured out that GW wants little to nothing to do with FW specific armies is shocking to me.
How many more signals does GW need to send before you get it?
So long as your DKoK or R&H models are not in the standard GW catalogue they don't give a feth about you.
Indeed, I was surprised to see the pt drops as they made already some adaptions recently.
Now its possible for a 2000 pt infantry GK army to field 200 pts more when compared with lists before the update.
yes, if you use strikes. Plus other armies seem to be getting comperable point drops, so this is really helping much bottom armies like GK. I mean, unless NDKs or draigo gets cheaper, which is possible, I now have 95 extra points to spend on stuff. that is not enough to get a termintor squads, but enough to get a unit of strikes. I really doubt that a unit of strikes is going to help me much, because I had games where my opponents forgot 300pts of deepstrike and beat my army bad turn 1-2.
But maybe there are going to be rules changes too, the last GWFAQ had no changes to GK, besides them reprinting the +1A rule, which they already had added through a WD, so I don't class that as a rules errata. They massed two CA for GK, there is no way to mess up a third one too.
And back on the shelf Tau go again. Wallet not complaining, still haven't bought a single one and so it will remain.
Didn't its weapons go down?
Yes, the good main hand weapon went down by 12. The only useful secondary weapons (Burst Cannons) did not go down. Wargear did not go down. So in total it goes down by 12, when it needed to go down by 40.
The XV25, Kroot and Vespid points drops are more interesting though. Will allow me to fish out my fluffy stealth-based Tau from cold storage for low points values games once in a blue moon. But I still wish I could justify adding Ghostkeels and Remoras to "finish" the army.
Karol wrote: So GW thinks GK strikes should cost more then 1ksons. Interesting, maybe they are really making a huge book with rule for GK to use. Because the point changes look strange. If everyone gets their point costs cut, then the cuts only matter to top and mid tier armies. The bad ones will stay bad.
Strikes have the same problem loyalist Terminators do - they pay for having weapons that are pretty good for both shooting and close combat and therefore end up being pretty bad at both due to cost. If GW insists on sticking to fixed costs for wargear they're going to need to start slashing the base cost of things like GK to compensate but they seem reluctant to do that for some reason. I agree with you about the points cuts. I don't think constantly reducing the cost of almost everything is they way to go as it just leads to a further increase in damage output.
And an increase in sales as people are forced to buy models to fill in gaps...
Considering the broad strokes of the point decreases is , all in all considering , quite significant.
I had a marine based CSM list with 55 CSM in it. The list is allready now 110 pts cheaper, that is literally a whole other CSM squad.
Not to mention that the 30 cultist blob also got cheaper by 30 pts aswell.
And that is just expected model cuts, not to go into detail on some special weapory.
I also doubt that Havocs will remain 14 ppm aswell.
Chosen should come down as well. But then again raptors didn't. My contemptor will be at least 8 points cheaper thanks to the drop on chainfists.
Still hoping for a drop on the fellblade. They dropped the wraithknight so that's one non ik/ck low down. Didn't make the eldar players happy though. Always want more.
Yea, that drop will make seeing WK 0 times on top tables, to seeing it 0 times at top tables. The points were not the problem, it just don`t work.
I don't know how much a Baneblade went down by, but if it's another 40 we'll say they've gone from the 500-600 point range down to the 300-400 point range in like, 2 years flat. WTF.
Considering the firepower getting tossed around by 300-400pt units, there is no logical reason a Baneblade should cost 500-600pts. It's less survivable, easier to kill, less firepower due to it's inherent WS/BS, zero stratagems dedicated to it, and completely useless once in melee. But sure, it should cost more than every Knight, and twice as much as an Executioner.
wuestenfux wrote: Well, when all armies get a discount of 10% (such as Harlies and Necrons), what would that change in total?
more models on the field, more models sold for filling out the point limits.
But otherwise very little net change in balance or meta, sadly. Don't get me wrong, this many changes to some units and tons more left unchanged will shake things up, but once the dust settles, I don't expect there to be any significant meta shifts.
But I am starting to agree with others that instead of playing 2000pts as standard, we need to drop to 1750-1850 to really feel the differences. Even my casual 1500pt lists at home with my boys feel pretty different. Although that could be more because they play Marines and I play either Eldar or CSMs against them. Marines got almost no changes (Codex + Supplements just came out after all) and CSM and Eldar got some big drops
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Considering the firepower getting tossed around by 300-400pt units, there is no logical reason a Baneblade should cost 500-600pts. It's less survivable, easier to kill, less firepower due to it's inherent WS/BS, zero stratagems dedicated to it, and completely useless once in melee. But sure, it should cost more than every Knight, and twice as much as an Executioner.
Hey man, Baneblades are some of my favorite units in 40k. I agree with you completely (aside from the completely useless part. I drive them into melee with GLEE and shoot the whole damn time too).
What should happen is that 300-400 points of units shouldn't be able to delete it in one round. They should be consummately durable for their cost. That doesn't mean cost should go down - rather, it means that firepower in 40k right now is TOO DAMN HIGH.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Considering the firepower getting tossed around by 300-400pt units, there is no logical reason a Baneblade should cost 500-600pts. It's less survivable, easier to kill, less firepower due to it's inherent WS/BS, zero stratagems dedicated to it, and completely useless once in melee. But sure, it should cost more than every Knight, and twice as much as an Executioner.
It's not 0 stratagems. You can give one +1 to hit multiple ways. Plus their firepower is pretty legit for 540 points. Their Survivability is what is lacking. It just needs a 2+ save or an invune.
I play with a hellhammer often. 3d6str 10 ap-4 ignore covers at 36" range for flat 3 is fck all. Then you got 30 heavy bolter shots 4 lascannons and a democannon. It is a death machine if you give it +1 to hit. Put in supreme command with 3 demo command russ with 3 HB each. Use the +6 " range army trait which has the +1 to hit for a single unit stratagem. The real question is - is it better than 3 command russ? Well...you can only bring 3 command russ. Plus it is a much better target for +1 armor and -1 to hit ability.
wuestenfux wrote: Well, when all armies get a discount of 10% (such as Harlies and Necrons), what would that change in total?
My first impression is that harlies got the short end of the stick. The point reduction on the troupe is nice, but the good weapons are still to expensive and the included blade is worst than powershord.
Starweaver is still to expensive for his 6 wounds, some can be said about the Voidweaver. Skyweaver point drops will make some soup list cheaper, but mono harlies are still not impressive.
My second through are that frozen stars can be good in SM metta and good harlies players can perform if they get the right terrain and don`t get punished to much about their short range.
Marin wrote: ….but mono harlies are still not impressive.
Which, IMO is how it should be. I like Harlies a lot, but they never should have been made a stand alone force. They almost ALWAYS muster to war with the other Aeldari Factions and on the rare occasions they don't their numbers are incredibly small.
There are quite a few "factions" that really shouldn't have full Codices, but rather be supplements to others. Harlies (and Ynnari) should be a supplement to CWE & DE, requiring at least 1 CWE or DE detachment. Same goes for Knights & Inquisition
Marin wrote: ….but mono harlies are still not impressive.
Which, IMO is how it should be. I like Harlies a lot, but they never should have been made a stand alone force. They almost ALWAYS muster to war with the other Aeldari Factions and on the rare occasions they don't their numbers are incredibly small.
There are quite a few "factions" that really shouldn't have full Codices, but rather be supplements to others. Harlies (and Ynnari) should be a supplement to CWE & DE, requiring at least 1 CWE or DE detachment.
Same goes for Knights & Inquisition
-
the some think can be said about some SM factions that got supplement.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Considering the firepower getting tossed around by 300-400pt units, there is no logical reason a Baneblade should cost 500-600pts. It's less survivable, easier to kill, less firepower due to it's inherent WS/BS, zero stratagems dedicated to it, and completely useless once in melee. But sure, it should cost more than every Knight, and twice as much as an Executioner.
Hey man, Baneblades are some of my favorite units in 40k. I agree with you completely (aside from the completely useless part. I drive them into melee with GLEE and shoot the whole damn time too).
What should happen is that 300-400 points of units shouldn't be able to delete it in one round. They should be consummately durable for their cost. That doesn't mean cost should go down - rather, it means that firepower in 40k right now is TOO DAMN HIGH.
Firepower didn't largely change until Marines and this CA.
Previous CAs did not do massive drops of points across the board. The things deleting "naked" super heavies exist now as they did back then and baneblades still didn't see tables. The problem isn't really firepower, but people banking their whole army on a single model that can get deleted before it gets to shoot on top of people being forced to learn how to deal with Knights and list building around those problems.
A BB with no sponsons is still 384. Add 116 for the full kit, which is 500 points. So, 30 HB shots, 4 LC, 3.5 Demolisher, and 10.5 lascannon-y main gun shots.
Compare to a Repulsor Executioner -- 18 "HB" shots, 20 bolter-ish shots, 4 better lascannon shots, and a rocket pod for 330ish points. Both move and shoot. Both are T8 3+ and no invuln. And if we're being realistic you're splitting some character support to buff this thing, so closer to 400 points.
The BB produces 15 HB hits, 2 LC hits, 2ish Demolisher hits, and 5ish main gun hits.
The buffed Repulsor gets 16 HB hits, 18 bolter hits, and we'll say 4 main gun hits.
Considering that the Repulsor needs to be 24" to get all those bolter shots in they're fairly discountable. The HB hits are on par and the BB gets more big hits in. The marine tank will have better AP. They're kind of in the ballpark of each other when you account for the extra wounds on the BB and ignore bs like IF.
Now you guys might say that you'd prefer an invulnerable save over a points drop, but that doesn't save you from lots of various other issues like haywire / mortals or IF. Additionally, you can't ask for an invulnerable, then turn around and lament the uselessness of AP in another thread, and then turn around again and complain about all the AP marines have.
I think the problem is firepower. There wasn't much back in the 8th Edition index days that could reliably one-shot a Baneblade. Perhaps a Necron Pylon / the awful Macro rule on some FW units, but I wasn't losing a Baneblade a turn before the codexes started dropping.
Marin wrote: ….but mono harlies are still not impressive.
Which, IMO is how it should be. I like Harlies a lot, but they never should have been made a stand alone force. They almost ALWAYS muster to war with the other Aeldari Factions and on the rare occasions they don't their numbers are incredibly small.
There are quite a few "factions" that really shouldn't have full Codices, but rather be supplements to others. Harlies (and Ynnari) should be a supplement to CWE & DE, requiring at least 1 CWE or DE detachment. Same goes for Knights & Inquisition
-
the same thing can be said about some SM factions that got supplement.
I agree.
___IMO, the Main factions that should get a full Codex are_________ Space Marines Ad Mech Imperial Agents (which would include Inquisitions, Assassins, Custodes & Sisters of Battle) Guard Chaos Marines Daemons Craftworlds Dark Eldar Necrons Tau Orks Nids
___And "factions" that should be SUPPLEMENTS to the above are____________ Various SM Chapters from JUST the 9 First founding (BA, DA, SW and the 6 current supplements). BTs would be included in the Imp Fist supplement like CF GKs & DW (as either supplement to Marines or Imperial Agents) Various Chaos marine supplement, again from the 9 first founded Traitor legions Knights Harlies & Ynnari
I'm sure I am missing a few, but you get the picture
How would GK work as a supplment to custodes or marines, where besides rhinos, razorbacks and some vehicles they have no units in common with each other?
Yoyoyo wrote: You listed Knights but omitted Guard and Tyranids?
For shame
Fixed. I did say I missed some. I have to type fast in between calls at work.
Karol wrote: How would GK work as a supplment to custodes or marines, where besides rhinos, razorbacks and some vehicles they have no units in common with each other?
It would make sense for GKs to be a supplement to Inquisition, which I would include in the Imperial Agents Codex.
But the details aren't important, as the main thesis of my suggestion is that Factions ABC should be full codices while Factions XYZ should only get supplements that require fielding some of ABC first
Marin wrote: ….but mono harlies are still not impressive.
Which, IMO is how it should be. I like Harlies a lot, but they never should have been made a stand alone force. They almost ALWAYS muster to war with the other Aeldari Factions and on the rare occasions they don't their numbers are incredibly small.
There are quite a few "factions" that really shouldn't have full Codices, but rather be supplements to others. Harlies (and Ynnari) should be a supplement to CWE & DE, requiring at least 1 CWE or DE detachment.
Same goes for Knights & Inquisition
-
the same thing can be said about some SM factions that got supplement.
I agree.
___IMO, the Main factions that should get a full Codex are_________
Space Marines
Ad Mech
Imperial Agents (which would include Inquisitions, Assassins, Custodes & Sisters of Battle)
Guard
Chaos Marines
Daemons
Craftworlds
Dark Eldar
Necrons
Tau
Orks
Nids
___And "factions" that should be SUPPLEMENTS to the above are____________
Various SM Chapters from JUST the 9 First founding (BA, DA, SW and the 6 current supplements). BTs would be included in the Imp Fist supplement like CF GKs & DW (as either supplement to Marines or Imperial Agents)
Various Chaos marine supplement, again from the 9 first founded Traitor legions
Knights
Harlies & Ynnari
I'm sure I am missing a few, but you get the picture
Karol wrote: So GW thinks GK strikes should cost more then 1ksons. Interesting, maybe they are really making a huge book with rule for GK to use. Because the point changes look strange. If everyone gets their point costs cut, then the cuts only matter to top and mid tier armies. The bad ones will stay bad.
Strikes have the same problem loyalist Terminators do - they pay for having weapons that are pretty good for both shooting and close combat and therefore end up being pretty bad at both due to cost. If GW insists on sticking to fixed costs for wargear they're going to need to start slashing the base cost of things like GK to compensate but they seem reluctant to do that for some reason. I agree with you about the points cuts. I don't think constantly reducing the cost of almost everything is they way to go as it just leads to a further increase in damage output.
And an increase in sales as people are forced to buy models to fill in gaps...
Considering the broad strokes of the point decreases is , all in all considering , quite significant.
I had a marine based CSM list with 55 CSM in it. The list is allready now 110 pts cheaper, that is literally a whole other CSM squad.
Not to mention that the 30 cultist blob also got cheaper by 30 pts aswell.
And that is just expected model cuts, not to go into detail on some special weapory.
I also doubt that Havocs will remain 14 ppm aswell.
Chosen should come down as well. But then again raptors didn't. My contemptor will be at least 8 points cheaper thanks to the drop on chainfists.
Still hoping for a drop on the fellblade. They dropped the wraithknight so that's one non ik/ck low down. Didn't make the eldar players happy though. Always want more.
Yea, that drop will make seeing WK 0 times on top tables, to seeing it 0 times at top tables. The points were not the problem, it just don`t work.
Only the most points efficient units see top tables.
I just want my fellblade good enough for most fun games.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Considering the firepower getting tossed around by 300-400pt units, there is no logical reason a Baneblade should cost 500-600pts. It's less survivable, easier to kill, less firepower due to it's inherent WS/BS, zero stratagems dedicated to it, and completely useless once in melee. But sure, it should cost more than every Knight, and twice as much as an Executioner.
Useless in melee? Anything with the steel behemoth rule is nasty up close. Especially if take flamers instead of bolters. A flamer baneblade can go toe to toe with a bloodthirster.
And you can get two for the price of one fellblade.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Considering the firepower getting tossed around by 300-400pt units, there is no logical reason a Baneblade should cost 500-600pts. It's less survivable, easier to kill, less firepower due to it's inherent WS/BS, zero stratagems dedicated to it, and completely useless once in melee. But sure, it should cost more than every Knight, and twice as much as an Executioner.
While not dedicated, it's hard to imagine a better use of "Crush them!" than a baneblade, which gives it 9 S9, AP2, D: d3 attacks hitting on 2s.
The problem has always been the durability, as others have pointed out. In terms of firepower and function, they seem good, they just disappear very quickly.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Considering the firepower getting tossed around by 300-400pt units, there is no logical reason a Baneblade should cost 500-600pts. It's less survivable, easier to kill, less firepower due to it's inherent WS/BS, zero stratagems dedicated to it, and completely useless once in melee. But sure, it should cost more than every Knight, and twice as much as an Executioner.
While not dedicated, it's hard to imagine a better use of "Crush them!" than a baneblade, which gives it 9 S9, AP2, D: d3 attacks hitting on 2s.
The problem has always been the durability, as others have pointed out. In terms of firepower and function, they seem good, they just disappear very quickly.
Yeah, right. If you can afford to load your Baneblade with flamers be my guest. More than twice the cost, and are useless for the majority of the Baneblade's already short life on the table. This thing will die before turn 3, and adding 100pts in close range fire support and wasting CP on it's melee isn't helping it do it's job.
It turns big targets to toast. If your baneblade is in melee, you are doing it wrong.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Yeah, right. If you can afford to load your Baneblade with flamers be my guest. More than twice the cost, and are useless for the majority of the Baneblade's already short life on the table. This thing will die before turn 3, and adding 100pts in close range fire support and wasting CP on it's melee isn't helping it do it's job.
It turns big targets to toast. If your baneblade is in melee, you are doing it wrong.
With a Doomhammer at 364 I'd cackle with glee about pushing a couple up the table and when they die Ogryns and Inquisition pop out...like some Jokaero and Coteaz. it'd be fun for a little bit at least.
As far as lack of strategems goes, you ever see what a baneblade can do to a chaos army with vengeance for cadia on it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Yeah, right. If you can afford to load your Baneblade with flamers be my guest. More than twice the cost, and are useless for the majority of the Baneblade's already short life on the table. This thing will die before turn 3, and adding 100pts in close range fire support and wasting CP on it's melee isn't helping it do it's job.
It turns big targets to toast. If your baneblade is in melee, you are doing it wrong.
Gadzilla666 wrote: As far as lack of strategems goes, you ever see what a baneblade can do to a chaos army with vengeance for cadia on it?
While VFC is admittedly hideously OP on a Baneblade for 1CP, it's also basically only one of three (the others being Defensive Gunners and Crush Them!) they're ever going to get any use out of, and it's only useful against one faction.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Yeah, right. If you can afford to load your Baneblade with flamers be my guest. More than twice the cost, and are useless for the majority of the Baneblade's already short life on the table. This thing will die before turn 3, and adding 100pts in close range fire support and wasting CP on it's melee isn't helping it do it's job.
It turns big targets to toast. If your baneblade is in melee, you are doing it wrong.
I think we all agree that the thing is overly fragile.
I think we all agree that the thing is overly fragile.
Calling something T8 with 26 wounds overly fragile...I just don't know about that.
Considering vehicles with no other unafectable source of defenses is considered fragile atm, yes, i believe you can call a baneblade fragile, altough brittle would be better imo
I think we all agree that the thing is overly fragile.
Calling something T8 with 26 wounds overly fragile...I just don't know about that.
Considering vehicles with no other unafectable source of defenses is considered fragile atm, yes, i believe you can call a baneblade fragile, altough brittle would be better imo
Looking at what kills vehicles these days --
Disco Lords ignore the invulnerable saves of knights in melee. Non-IH/IF Marines lack a lot of ways to take T8 from range right now. Daemons are smiting to invulns are irrelevant. Harlies are haywire so again - no use. It takes 3 IH Repulsor Executioners -- 1,000 points to down one in a single turn considering that there is no reason to be in range of anything more than its main gun. The Astreaus isn't cutting through it, either.
We're not living in the days of Castellans and Ynnari Reapers.
Most lists nowadays are designed to be able to take down a knight turn one. So without something buffing it's durability I would say something like a baneblade is definitely "brittle ".
I think we all agree that the thing is overly fragile.
Calling something T8 with 26 wounds overly fragile...I just don't know about that.
What I've learned in general from this board is that "fragile" is a meaningless word, since pretty much every unit has been described as such, and I think it's born out of an idea that a unit "needs" to be able to survive an entire army's shooting or it's somehow not worth it.
It would make sense for GKs to be a supplement to Inquisition, which I would include in the Imperial Agents Codex.
But the details aren't important, as the main thesis of my suggestion is that Factions ABC should be full codices while Factions XYZ should only get supplements that require fielding some of ABC first
-
that would be really bad for anyone playing GK or DW, because not only would their armies be forced to be in books with other, potentialy better units, but being forced to run alongside other armies wouldn't really work. Why take worse options from other books and lose your doctrine, when you can take better units out of your own codex, go mono and get a buckets of good extra rules. DW aren't that bad all rounders, at least when compared to pre supplement marines, but why take GK at all? They are the worse army to take vs demons, not only are they bad at countering demons, but also give nothing when someone plays an opponent without demons.
May as well move them to narrative, but am not sure if even in narrative someone would want to play GK instead their own army. And GK players would have armies optimised to be played with majority of other army, so if someone really wanted to play just GK, they could have an army even worse then the one right now.
This sounds like a horrible idea, and I have no idea what people would be gaining out of it.
I think we all agree that the thing is overly fragile.
Calling something T8 with 26 wounds overly fragile...I just don't know about that.
I think it more says something about the problem with Lethality atm.
Knights are still a gatekeeper list. Any list that can deal with 3-4 Knights can deal with a Baneblade
It's a lot easier for assault cents to get into it with knights that have no screen than it a BB behind IS. Or for TFCs to slow down a melee knight where a BB literally doesn't care.
I think we all agree that the thing is overly fragile.
Calling something T8 with 26 wounds overly fragile...I just don't know about that.
While not fragile, I don't think it's unfair to call their resiliency weak for the relative investment. Depending on how you kit a BB out, equal points of Heavy Support Russ tanks (particularly with the new CA pricing) will have 36-48 T8 3++ wounds, and a Knight with a 5++ being shot at by AT weapons effectively has 32 wounds relative to the BB's 26.
The Baneblade's *relative* resiliency took a huge tanking with 8E. In previous editions they always had 3x the wounds/HP's/etc of a Russ instead of just 2x as they do now, and had 50% more wounds/HP relative to a Knight whereas now the Knight has basically an identical number of wounds.
That said, ultimately I think the issue is creep in the other units, the BB I think is actually more in line with where the game should be.
Yoyoyo wrote: You listed Knights but omitted Guard and Tyranids?
For shame
Fixed. I did say I missed some. I have to type fast in between calls at work.
Karol wrote: How would GK work as a supplment to custodes or marines, where besides rhinos, razorbacks and some vehicles they have no units in common with each other?
It would make sense for GKs to be a supplement to Inquisition, which I would include in the Imperial Agents Codex.
But the details aren't important, as the main thesis of my suggestion is that Factions ABC should be full codices while Factions XYZ should only get supplements that require fielding some of ABC first
-
Indeed, there should be an Inquistion codex with all the Ordos inside.
I'd prefer more generic codices with DIY rules.
Given the new changes where the all the BBs main guns except Stormlord got an extra D3/6 shots per gun, it's essentially a Glass Cannon. You can do a horrifying set of wounds to basically anything in the game now, but you may not survive the next round of shooting.
I always wondered why we never saw 3 Baneblade lists in 8th....
I would venture it's because they are horrifying to get around in well terrained boards, and they are relatively easy to play cat and mouse with them.
As for how easy it is to take them down, don't forget on their 2nd bracket they become essentially worthless, at BS5, and that is just 10 wounds. A single executioner could drop ten wounds on a Baneblade very easily.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Given the new changes where the all the BBs main guns except Stormlord got an extra D3/6 shots per gun, it's essentially a Glass Cannon. You can do a horrifying set of wounds to basically anything in the game now, but you may not survive the next round of shooting.
I always wondered why we never saw 3 Baneblade lists in 8th....
I would venture it's because they are horrifying to get around in well terrained boards, and they are relatively easy to play cat and mouse with them.
As for how easy it is to take them down, don't forget on their 2nd bracket they become essentially worthless, at BS5, and that is just 10 wounds. A single executioner could drop ten wounds on a Baneblade very easily.
I used to run 3 BB lists. They were tons of fun at the beginning of 8th, but the Knight codex dropped and their utility plummeted. Everyone brought stuff to kill Knights, and they could wipe a Baneblade and a half (or so) a turn, since a Baneblade is just a knight but FAR easier to get your wound through on. I've never been tabled on turn 2 with the list, but I have been tabled top of 3, typically from enemy shooting that was intended to kill 3++ castellans/4++knights (once the FAQ finally dropped for RIS and the Castellan was nerfed).
What do you mean the "new changes where they get an extra d3/d6 shots per gun?" I always found it odd that a Baneblade fired 4d6 shots (3d6 main gun, 1d6 with its demolisher cannon), and the Russes that were alongside it for roughly the same points fired 6d6 shots.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Given the new changes where the all the BBs main guns except Stormlord got an extra D3/6 shots per gun, it's essentially a Glass Cannon. You can do a horrifying set of wounds to basically anything in the game now, but you may not survive the next round of shooting.
I always wondered why we never saw 3 Baneblade lists in 8th....
I would venture it's because they are horrifying to get around in well terrained boards, and they are relatively easy to play cat and mouse with them.
As for how easy it is to take them down, don't forget on their 2nd bracket they become essentially worthless, at BS5, and that is just 10 wounds. A single executioner could drop ten wounds on a Baneblade very easily.
I used to run 3 BB lists. They were tons of fun at the beginning of 8th, but the Knight codex dropped and their utility plummeted. Everyone brought stuff to kill Knights, and they could wipe a Baneblade and a half (or so) a turn, since a Baneblade is just a knight but FAR easier to get your wound through on. I've never been tabled on turn 2 with the list, but I have been tabled top of 3, typically from enemy shooting that was intended to kill 3++ castellans/4++knights (once the FAQ finally dropped for RIS and the Castellan was nerfed).
What do you mean the "new changes where they get an extra d3/d6 shots per gun?" I always found it odd that a Baneblade fired 4d6 shots (3d6 main gun, 1d6 with its demolisher cannon), and the Russes that were alongside it for roughly the same points fired 6d6 shots.
I forgot where I read it, but I saw the main guns on BB got an extra D whatever thrown on. I thought, huh, that's interesting, still not buying one. I am suddenly apprehensive that it was a Apocfaq....
I forgot where I read it, but I saw the main guns on BB got an extra D whatever thrown on. I thought, huh, that's interesting, still not buying one. I am suddenly apprehensive that it was a Apocfaq....
You're almost certainly thinking the update that harmonized the Demolisher cannon to a flat D6 shots across all codexes. It's not remotely "hey, here's an extra D6 shots".
I think we all agree that the thing is overly fragile.
Calling something T8 with 26 wounds overly fragile...I just don't know about that.
What I've learned in general from this board is that "fragile" is a meaningless word, since pretty much every unit has been described as such, and I think it's born out of an idea that a unit "needs" to be able to survive an entire army's shooting or it's somehow not worth it.
Ya i gotta agree, even the Ta'unar is fragile minus drones (30 wounds, 5++ for a 1,000 point unit).
Perhaps fragile is the wrong word. Maybe, we can all agree that Baneblades are surprisingly easy to destroy or degrade into near uselessness? Compared to the basis russ, the baneblade quickly became a points sink that was all to easy for armies to knock out.
Polonius wrote: Perhaps fragile is the wrong word. Maybe, we can all agree that Baneblades are surprisingly easy to destroy or degrade into near uselessness? Compared to the basis russ, the baneblade quickly became a points sink that was all to easy for armies to knock out.
Agreed. It's the Land Raider syndrome. A LR is quite clearly more durable that a Predator, but for the points and damage output, you are way better off with 2 Predators.
Polonius wrote: Perhaps fragile is the wrong word. Maybe, we can all agree that Baneblades are surprisingly easy to destroy or degrade into near uselessness? Compared to the basis russ, the baneblade quickly became a points sink that was all to easy for armies to knock out.
Problem with the baneblade is just how bug and scary it is. Due to its sheer intimidation factor, and the weakness it has, it is the first thing an oppenent will focus on. The only real way to keep them alove is to make your opponent focus more o something else. Which is very hard to do when they are staring at a tank the size of a habblock gunning for their dudes.
Tau surges are going to dominate. I used to run a tripple surge list and I considered it the strongest possible tau army. Then again. In my shops I don't have garenteed magic boxes to hide my drones in and turn lascannon shots in 1 mortal wound for a busted sheild drones. Regardless they are very strong. Surge has gone down to 330 which is absolute madness (about a 70 point drop). MADNESS. That is with the 4++ save.
Encouraging though that the LR excelsior has dropped in price to about 330 now. At least it's got a 5++ save and that Grav cannon is preferable to heavy bolters. And filling an HQ slot is bettering than taking up a heavy. Any word on the rino primaris? I did not see a drop. Tell me though - in what world should a LR cost the same as a storm surge?
Eihnlazer wrote: Me looking at all the complaints about baneblades while I hold 3 barbed heirodules I purchased at the start of 8th edition in my arms...………..
I need about a 100 point drop on my superheavy's before they even come close to competitive.
Hey man one of those Heiodules might actually be competitive now with the new bug monster mash rules.
Polonius wrote: Perhaps fragile is the wrong word. Maybe, we can all agree that Baneblades are surprisingly easy to destroy or degrade into near uselessness? Compared to the basis russ, the baneblade quickly became a points sink that was all to easy for armies to knock out.
Agreed. It's the Land Raider syndrome. A LR is quite clearly more durable that a Predator, but for the points and damage output, you are way better off with 2 Predators.
-
And that's 8th ed in a nushell. One big thing is almost never as good as the two smaller things you could get for the same points.
Polonius wrote: Perhaps fragile is the wrong word. Maybe, we can all agree that Baneblades are surprisingly easy to destroy or degrade into near uselessness? Compared to the basis russ, the baneblade quickly became a points sink that was all to easy for armies to knock out.
Agreed. It's the Land Raider syndrome. A LR is quite clearly more durable that a Predator, but for the points and damage output, you are way better off with 2 Predators.
-
And that's 8th ed in a nushell. One big thing is almost never as good as the two smaller things you could get for the same points.
Realistically, to make it a completely viable tank/transport option, assuming the land raider costs exactly as much as two predators, it would have to have exactly twice the health and damage as them, plus the transport ability to make up for the fact its a single model that can be debuffed and death with easier, and can only be in one place at once.
Polonius wrote: Perhaps fragile is the wrong word. Maybe, we can all agree that Baneblades are surprisingly easy to destroy or degrade into near uselessness? Compared to the basis russ, the baneblade quickly became a points sink that was all to easy for armies to knock out.
Agreed. It's the Land Raider syndrome. A LR is quite clearly more durable that a Predator, but for the points and damage output, you are way better off with 2 Predators.
-
And that's 8th ed in a nushell. One big thing is almost never as good as the two smaller things you could get for the same points.
Your definition of almost never is off.
Start of edition: Magnus, Big Bird, 10-man deepstriking warptiming Chaos Terminator Squads, Gauss Pylons, Shadowswords, 30-man Ork mobs.
Middle of the edition: Magnus, Mortarion, Knights, Tesseract Vaults, 30-man Ork mobs, 6-man Hiveguard squads, 20-man Genestealer squads, big Ogryn squads (wait, Bullgryn*, I know the difference, I'm not GW).
Space Marines, Craftworlds, Drukhari and Tau have more efficient units than their biggest squads or models and are generally pretty MSU, but 8th has been riddled with Titanic units and huge squads. The Drukhari Tantalus isn't too bad and both Tau and Space Marine Titanic units have topped at least one tournament each even if I believe their other options are more competitive. Repuslor Executioners are pretty strong and you could get two cheaper vehicles if you wanted, but they've racked up a fair number of top placements at tournaments.
Xenomancers wrote: Tau surges are going to dominate. I used to run a tripple surge list and I considered it the strongest possible tau army. Then again. In my shops I don't have garenteed magic boxes to hide my drones in and turn lascannon shots in 1 mortal wound for a busted sheild drones. Regardless they are very strong. Surge has gone down to 330 which is absolute madness (about a 70 point drop). MADNESS. That is with the 4++ save.
Encouraging though that the LR excelsior has dropped in price to about 330 now. At least it's got a 5++ save and that Grav cannon is preferable to heavy bolters. And filling an HQ slot is bettering than taking up a heavy. Any word on the rino primaris? I did not see a drop. Tell me though - in what world should a LR cost the same as a storm surge?
Wait what? Stormsurges can't SP which is why they are generally considered less optimal than triptides.
Xenomancers wrote: Tau surges are going to dominate. I used to run a tripple surge list and I considered it the strongest possible tau army. Then again. In my shops I don't have garenteed magic boxes to hide my drones in and turn lascannon shots in 1 mortal wound for a busted sheild drones. Regardless they are very strong. Surge has gone down to 330 which is absolute madness (about a 70 point drop). MADNESS. That is with the 4++ save.
Encouraging though that the LR excelsior has dropped in price to about 330 now. At least it's got a 5++ save and that Grav cannon is preferable to heavy bolters. And filling an HQ slot is bettering than taking up a heavy. Any word on the rino primaris? I did not see a drop. Tell me though - in what world should a LR cost the same as a storm surge?
Wait what? Stormsurges can't SP which is why they are generally considered less optimal than triptides.
LMAO Stormsurge battlesuit? Nah that'd be too OP to have a Titanic unit that can shrug off Macro weapons. Supremacy Suit? Well of course, it has suit in its name so its a battlesuit.
Polonius wrote: Perhaps fragile is the wrong word. Maybe, we can all agree that Baneblades are surprisingly easy to destroy or degrade into near uselessness? Compared to the basis russ, the baneblade quickly became a points sink that was all to easy for armies to knock out.
Agreed. It's the Land Raider syndrome. A LR is quite clearly more durable that a Predator, but for the points and damage output, you are way better off with 2 Predators.
-
And that's 8th ed in a nushell. One big thing is almost never as good as the two smaller things you could get for the same points.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: So that really brings the question: what's the worth of a transport that doesn't fly and doesn't have any fire points.
Off the top of my head the only transport that isn't also a gunboat is the Rhino, where if you're not playing Chaos it's usually just better to swap the four seats for the heavy weapon mount and take a Razorback.
(Addendum: Trukk isn't overarmed but is open-topped, Land Speeder Storm exists but has been rendered basically redundant by the marketing push to Primaris Marines, and...that's pretty much it.)
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: So that really brings the question: what's the worth of a transport that doesn't fly and doesn't have any fire points.
Off the top of my head the only transport that isn't also a gunboat is the Rhino, where if you're not playing Chaos it's usually just better to swap the four seats for the heavy weapon mount and take a Razorback.
(Addendum: Trukk isn't overarmed but is open-topped, Land Speeder Storm exists but has been rendered basically redundant by the marketing push to Primaris Marines, and...that's pretty much it.)
Giving Scouts Advanced Deploy made the Storm redundant, if GW had never released a single Primaris model you'd still never see a Storm on the table.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: So that really brings the question: what's the worth of a transport that doesn't fly and doesn't have any fire points.
It depends. Nobz, meganobz, wyches and incubi would love a rhino instead of a trukk or a raider for example. I'd take a rhino over a 10ish points more expensive raider to carry 10 blood claws anytime, not to mention crappy 65 points venoms which are decent only for MSU shooting units. A trukk is way overpriced as it's basically useless unless it transports flash gitz or tankbustas, and both of them have more efficient ways to be deployed: on foot screened by gretchins and by tellyporta.
A 65ish points transport with T7 3+ save, transport capacity of 10 and some supporting fire could be very good for a close combat unit that isn't super fast, can't deep strike for free or have high T and invulns.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: So that really brings the question: what's the worth of a transport that doesn't fly and doesn't have any fire points.
It depends. Nobz, meganobz, wyches and incubi would love a rhino instead of a trukk or a raider for example. I'd take a rhino over a 10ish points more expensive raider to carry 10 blood claws anytime, not to mention crappy 65 points venoms which are decent only for MSU shooting units. A trukk is way overpriced as it's basically useless unless it transports flash gitz or tankbustas, and both of them have more efficient ways to be deployed: on foot screened by gretchins and by tellyporta.
A 65ish points transport with T7 3+ save, transport capacity of 10 and some supporting fire could be very good for a close combat unit that isn't super fast, can't deep strike for free or have high T and invulns.
Wyches and Incubi are gonna want the transport that flies though. Rhinos can't fit TEQ so the comparison for Meganobz is irrelevant.
As a Grey Knight player I am so damned glad their point cost has came down if I'm honest. 46 points for each Terminator was harsh as hell, but at their new point cost plus their natural psychic gifts makes them pretty decent if I'm honest.
I think the one rule that made Grey Knights come into their own though, in addition to Chapter Approved point reductions is Bolter Discipline. The amount of bolt shots Grey Knights can put out is obscene, the one thing that bugs me though is that it doesn't benefit them in Close Combat like True Grit used to where Storm Bolters were treated as pistols for Grey Knights.
That would add a bit more to them, enough to make them a viable choice, they're already beastly in Close Combat. I would also if I'm honest like to see Grey Knights get a bump to Leadership, and some kind of buff for charging into combat. With all their intense psychic abilities I'm thinking something like 'Blinding Charge', with -1 to enemy roll to hit in Close Combat, or something like cannot be Overwatched. It would definitely give them a niche feel, Close Combat beasts.
Gadzilla666 wrote: As far as lack of strategems goes, you ever see what a baneblade can do to a chaos army with vengeance for cadia on it?
While VFC is admittedly hideously OP on a Baneblade for 1CP, it's also basically only one of three (the others being Defensive Gunners and Crush Them!) they're ever going to get any use out of, and it's only useful against one faction.
I find that to be truth, VFC is amazing on the baneblade. Honestly with the point drops they feel like a solid choice, they can die pretty quick, but with proper boosting they can live for awhile too. I doubt they will often last the whole game but they don't need to with the damage they can lay down. It would be good if they could eventually get some buffs to longevity though over just point drops for days, like some kind of feel no pain mechanic would be great and feel a bit different from the invuln on the knights.
I have to say though I've found them to be amazing good in my games, that said I engage many chaos players and run into very few knights.
I think we all agree that the thing is overly fragile.
Calling something T8 with 26 wounds overly fragile...I just don't know about that.
Considering vehicles with no other unafectable source of defenses is considered fragile atm, yes, i believe you can call a baneblade fragile, altough brittle would be better imo
Well you can outflank them, add +1 to their save and i think you can make it -1 to hit from range.
MB did not realize they FAQ that the strat works only in infantry.
Which can mean little if they go first and nuke it or cripple it bad before you put up defenses. As well those defenses are all hinged on getting off psychic powers which isn't a promise either. Outflanking them is fun but really doesn't add much to it surviving past a few gotcha moments.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Which can mean little if they go first and nuke it or cripple it bad before you put up defenses. As well those defenses are all hinged on getting off psychic powers which isn't a promise either. Outflanking them is fun but really doesn't add much to it surviving past a few gotcha moments.
+1 to save is stratagem and i think you can use smoke in the opponent shooting phase.
Wyches and Incubi are gonna want the transport that flies though.
Not necessarily. FLY is a bonus but cheaper and more resilient transport is also a bonus. In all the games I've played with my former drukhari army sometimes FLY mattered for assaulting units that disembarked from the raider, sometimes didn't.
Rhinos can't fit TEQ so the comparison for Meganobz is irrelevant.
Meganobz could be TEQs in some way but orks and SM aren't the same army, meganobz don't have the deep strike ability but orks infantries have no restrictions about what can or can't fit a vehicle, that's why it's relevant.
Meganobz couldn't care less about the open topped rule, they just need a safe and fast ride and can't deep strike for free like termies. So they really would kill for a ride that costs as much a trukk but is more resilient and has better supporting fire. Meganobz would also kill for a free deepstriking ability, in fact the most common way to field them is to invest 2 CPs for the tellyporta stratagem.
Wyches and Incubi are gonna want the transport that flies though.
Not necessarily. FLY is a bonus but cheaper and more resilient transport is also a bonus. In all the games I've played with my former drukhari army sometimes FLY mattered for assaulting units that disembarked from the raider, sometimes didn't.
Rhinos can't fit TEQ so the comparison for Meganobz is irrelevant.
Meganobz could be TEQs in some way but orks and SM aren't the same army, meganobz don't have the deep strike ability but orks infantries have no restrictions about what can or can't fit a vehicle, that's why it's relevant.
Meganobz couldn't care less about the open topped rule, they just need a safe and fast ride and can't deep strike for free like termies. So they really would kill for a ride that costs as much a trukk but is more resilient and has better supporting fire. Meganobz would also kill for a free deepstriking ability, in fact the most common way to field them is to invest 2 CPs for the tellyporta stratagem.
Al through i agree with your assessment, its kind of irrelevant, because its obvious that certain units that are not used in certain armies, could be really good in others.
For Aeldar having cheap and durable transport can be massive upgrade, for harlies having transport with 10 man capacity that need dedicated firepower to get rid of could be really good.
For the new space marines, that have insane deployment tricks, Impulsor, Drop pod, and infantry that is +2 save in cover its just tax, because they did not need the extra durability
Al through i agree with your assessment, its kind of irrelevant, because its obvious that certain units that are not used in certain armies, could be really good in others.
For Aeldar having cheap and durable transport can be massive upgrade, for harlies having transport with 10 man capacity that need dedicated firepower to get rid of could be really good.
I may agree on that, but SM players that envy open topped vehicles and they wish their army (which doesn't even need them) could get something similar do exist.
In fact I really think that a rhino is a very good unit for its profile and points costs, it just doesn't fit the style and the most effective combos of some armies that can have it. Also trukks and raiders are good for their points and stats, even if they are both sub optimal choices in their codexes, just like a rhino is in many SM armies.
The rhino isn't worse than a trukk or a raider, that's for sure. I just disagree with those players that consider a rhino pure garbage but open topped vehicles from other armies good or very good instead, ignoring all the cons they have in those factions. So yeah a rhino worths 65ish points, not everyone needs it though, that's the point. Just like some other transports.
Gadzilla666 wrote: As far as lack of strategems goes, you ever see what a baneblade can do to a chaos army with vengeance for cadia on it?
While VFC is admittedly hideously OP on a Baneblade for 1CP, it's also basically only one of three (the others being Defensive Gunners and Crush Them!) they're ever going to get any use out of, and it's only useful against one faction.
I find that to be truth, VFC is amazing on the baneblade. Honestly with the point drops they feel like a solid choice, they can die pretty quick, but with proper boosting they can live for awhile too. I doubt they will often last the whole game but they don't need to with the damage they can lay down. It would be good if they could eventually get some buffs to longevity though over just point drops for days, like some kind of feel no pain mechanic would be great and feel a bit different from the invuln on the knights.
I have to say though I've found them to be amazing good in my games, that said I engage many chaos players and run into very few knights.
Exactly. A unit like a baneblade doesn't need to survive the whole game as long as it can earn back its cost by either killing your opponent's units or absorbing their fire/attention while your other units do what they need to do. The points drop makes them more efficient for this.
Now a similar unit that was priced about say 350 too high in ca 2018 for "reasons " and then not given a cut like most other low in ca 2019 for "reasons " not so much.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Which can mean little if they go first and nuke it or cripple it bad before you put up defenses. As well those defenses are all hinged on getting off psychic powers which isn't a promise either. Outflanking them is fun but really doesn't add much to it surviving past a few gotcha moments.
+1 to save is stratagem and i think you can use smoke in the opponent shooting phase.
That strat only works for infantry as per errata and no I am pretty sure smoke is only in your phase to not shoot at all which kinda ruins the point of taking a BB.
Correct me if I'm wrong as I'm not a tau player but with the points drop to the stormsurge do tau now have access to a 20 wound low with a 4+ invul for 350 points?
Also smoke launchers on baneblades, fellblades, et cetera are pointless.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong as I'm not a tau player but with the points drop to the stormsurge do tau now have access to a 20 wound low with a 4+ invul for 350 points?
Also smoke launchers on baneblades, fellblades, et cetera are pointless.
I'm not a guard player, but wasn't there an order which allows you to smoke and fire in the same turn?
Gadzilla666 wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong as I'm not a tau player but with the points drop to the stormsurge do tau now have access to a 20 wound low with a 4+ invul for 350 points?
Also smoke launchers on baneblades, fellblades, et cetera are pointless.
I'm not a guard player, but wasn't there an order which allows you to smoke and fire in the same turn?
Gadzilla666 wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong as I'm not a tau player but with the points drop to the stormsurge do tau now have access to a 20 wound low with a 4+ invul for 350 points?
Also smoke launchers on baneblades, fellblades, et cetera are pointless.
I'm not a guard player, but wasn't there an order which allows you to smoke and fire in the same turn?
Yes but it only works on leman russes. No baneblades.
It's all good, it's just odd so many people saying all these awesome things to buff a BB yet have no clue how the BB interacts with the codex it resides in.
Gary_1986 wrote: As a Grey Knight player I am so damned glad their point cost has came down if I'm honest. 46 points for each Terminator was harsh as hell, but at their new point cost plus their natural psychic gifts makes them pretty decent if I'm honest.
I think the one rule that made Grey Knights come into their own though, in addition to Chapter Approved point reductions is Bolter Discipline. The amount of bolt shots Grey Knights can put out is obscene, the one thing that bugs me though is that it doesn't benefit them in Close Combat like True Grit used to where Storm Bolters were treated as pistols for Grey Knights.
That would add a bit more to them, enough to make them a viable choice, they're already beastly in Close Combat. I would also if I'm honest like to see Grey Knights get a bump to Leadership, and some kind of buff for charging into combat. With all their intense psychic abilities I'm thinking something like 'Blinding Charge', with -1 to enemy roll to hit in Close Combat, or something like cannot be Overwatched. It would definitely give them a niche feel, Close Combat beasts.
The trouble is everyone else got decent cuts also... So with points inflation, the weakest armies sadly will still struggle. But its cerntainly a point in the right direction. GK suffer from core book issues with having very poor overpriced strats compared to other armies.
I think strike marines/interceptors are hot though and look like the real winners. Termies in general just do not feel offensively capably when with bolter discipline IMO.
I hope you get a lot more out of your army now though and get more even games though.
AngryAngel80 wrote: It's all good, it's just odd so many people saying all these awesome things to buff a BB yet have no clue how the BB interacts with the codex it resides in.
Well Spoletta did admit to not playing guard.
Just like I admitted to not playing tau. So is the stormsurge as good as I'm thinking or is my chaos addled mind just confused?
Gary_1986 wrote: As a Grey Knight player I am so damned glad their point cost has came down if I'm honest. 46 points for each Terminator was harsh as hell, but at their new point cost plus their natural psychic gifts makes them pretty decent if I'm honest.
I think the one rule that made Grey Knights come into their own though, in addition to Chapter Approved point reductions is Bolter Discipline. The amount of bolt shots Grey Knights can put out is obscene, the one thing that bugs me though is that it doesn't benefit them in Close Combat like True Grit used to where Storm Bolters were treated as pistols for Grey Knights.
That would add a bit more to them, enough to make them a viable choice, they're already beastly in Close Combat. I would also if I'm honest like to see Grey Knights get a bump to Leadership, and some kind of buff for charging into combat. With all their intense psychic abilities I'm thinking something like 'Blinding Charge', with -1 to enemy roll to hit in Close Combat, or something like cannot be Overwatched. It would definitely give them a niche feel, Close Combat beasts.
The trouble is everyone else got decent cuts also... So with points inflation, the weakest armies sadly will still struggle. But its cerntainly a point in the right direction. GK suffer from core book issues with having very poor overpriced strats compared to other armies.
I think strike marines/interceptors are hot though and look like the real winners. Termies in general just do not feel offensively capably when with bolter discipline IMO.
I hope you get a lot more out of your army now though and get more even games though.
Paladins will be...okay though, especially after their further price cut. W3 at their price point makes them still worse than Custodes but at least they'll be able to duke it out with them.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Well, the point cut AND the further cut on their Psilencers.
AngryAngel80 wrote: It's all good, it's just odd so many people saying all these awesome things to buff a BB yet have no clue how the BB interacts with the codex it resides in.
Well Spoletta did admit to not playing guard.
Just like I admitted to not playing tau. So is the stormsurge as good as I'm thinking or is my chaos addled mind just confused?
Which is fine and I'm not wishing to be mean, but saying you don't know , then offering advice on the topic you don't know, rarely leads to being helpful. Hence why I don't often speak on the useful strats for say Necrons, or how varied a Tyranid list can be.
Or as well why I can't help you with the stormsurge question, as I play the Tau but don't have or use that unit so I have no clue. Riptide is as large as I go currently.
AngryAngel80 wrote: It's all good, it's just odd so many people saying all these awesome things to buff a BB yet have no clue how the BB interacts with the codex it resides in.
Well Spoletta did admit to not playing guard.
Just like I admitted to not playing tau. So is the stormsurge as good as I'm thinking or is my chaos addled mind just confused?
They were already a top teir option at 400ish points. Now at 340ish with full build. They are auto include.
Compare it to a Repulsor executrioner which also costs 330.
Executioner
4 str 10 ap-5 D6 min 3
18 str 5 ap-2
2d6 + 4 strap -0
9x str 4 ap-2
t8 16 wounds 3+ save no invo
They have comparable firepower but The storm surge has an obvious advantage of being able to drop 4d3 mortal wounds which gets silly if you take 3 storm surge. The surge is also about twice as durable against most weapons and it has a huge amount of upgrades. If you take 3 of them with 5 marker lights on a target. It's pretty much auto dead for the mortal wounds. 3+ reroll 1's then take about 6-7 d3 mortal wounds. Your best unit can take 7d3 mortal wounds and I still have 3 executioners worth of firepower with 4++ saves. GG.
The stormsurge does have the distinct disadvantage of having a knight size base and a 6" move. Unlike the riptide builds, that thing will stay put if you manage to get a few models in melee with it.
You know, the thing that the fly keyword protects you from
wighti wrote: The stormsurge does have the distinct disadvantage of having a knight size base and a 6" move. Unlike the riptide builds, that thing will stay put if you manage to get a few models in melee with it.
You know, the thing that the fly keyword protects you from
Surge can fall back and shoot. You could potentially trap it which would totally suck but being charged is typically not something tau fear in general. Unless you can ignore overwatch you basically can't charge this army. Movement is something it loses out on a riptide to but tau don't really move much. For 10 points it can even take reroll all hits in overwatch. It's also got much greater range than a riptide. Not that riptides are bad. I tihnk we will be seeing these units working in tandem now and winning more than ever.
wighti wrote: The stormsurge does have the distinct disadvantage of having a knight size base and a 6" move. Unlike the riptide builds, that thing will stay put if you manage to get a few models in melee with it.
You know, the thing that the fly keyword protects you from
Surge can fall back and shoot. You could potentially trap it which would totally suck but being charged is typically not something tau fear in general. Unless you can ignore overwatch you basically can't charge this army. Movement is something it loses out on a riptide to but tau don't really move much. For 10 points it can even take reroll all hits in overwatch. It's also got much greater range than a riptide. Not that riptides are bad. I tihnk we will be seeing these units working in tandem now and winning more than ever.
Yup thought so. And still cheaper than a baneblade. And you can almost get three for one fellblade.
Good job gw. Excellent balance.
Wait. This isn't like when you said squigoths were good is it?
wighti wrote: The stormsurge does have the distinct disadvantage of having a knight size base and a 6" move. Unlike the riptide builds, that thing will stay put if you manage to get a few models in melee with it.
You know, the thing that the fly keyword protects you from
Surge can fall back and shoot. You could potentially trap it which would totally suck but being charged is typically not something tau fear in general. Unless you can ignore overwatch you basically can't charge this army. Movement is something it loses out on a riptide to but tau don't really move much. For 10 points it can even take reroll all hits in overwatch. It's also got much greater range than a riptide. Not that riptides are bad. I tihnk we will be seeing these units working in tandem now and winning more than ever.
Yup thought so. And still cheaper than a baneblade. And you can almost get three for one fellblade.
Good job gw. Excellent balance.
Wait. This isn't like when you said squigoths were good is it?
I said that a squigoth came in 2nd place with index orks vs armies that had real codex. At warzone atlanta which is one of the largest tournaments in the country every year. I think 250 players. Also - it's really not a bad unit. Lots of wounds. 2+ to deal d6 mortal wounds on charge. 2 very powerful guns and holds 20 orks. You just have to build around it. I never said it was OP.
Storm-surge is obviously OP at this price. It was already pretty aggressively costed around 400.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I think the ork point drops I've seen are equally if not more egregious. For some reason the best war-buggy (the squigbuggy) which was 140 points is now...100 points.
At this price it is probably fighting for best unit in the entire game.
The other buggys also saw significant drops. These were already some of the best units in the codex too for shooting units. A very uninformed choice from GW...
GK got some decent points drops and I am happy about that. They still need supporting rules to make them playable.
Meanwhile space marines tanks which are still pretty poor are made to suffer with no drops because ironhands superdoctrine exists and a few busted whitescars and ravengaurd traits.
Choas drops all seem pretty fair...except for oblitz maybe...that was pretty aggressive. IMO they could have gone more aggressive on units like warptalons. Really gotta explain to me why an auto include unit like a soceror in terminator armor went down though...
Eldar is a mess. Some good drops...Hemlock drops in price??? Meanwhile the CHE raised while not raising the regular crimson hunter while simultaneously dropping bright lances?? BL drop is pretty welcome but then why the heck am I paying 25 for a lascannon still? Infantry are still overcosted as crap...guardians 8 points? DE 11? Give me a break these units need to come down to 6 and 9 respectively. Have not reviewed thoroughly enough.
DE - no comment..seems reasonable but maybe unnecessary with other armies getting drops. Arcon got cheaper that is nice.
Quins - agressive drops...not sure it changes much though. As a solo army they need rules changes to really be effective. They will be as always a matchup nightmare. They win their good match-ups even harder now and still lose to gunlines.
Gaurd went really touched much. Baneblade drop is nice. Scions drop is nice. LR drop is also nice. Woulda liked to see chimera come down in price too. Probably wont change much - gaurd will still just be a soup addition to bring CP and command tanks. Maybe now a baneblade too.
Nids - insufficient points help for on of the few armies that REALLY needed adjustments. Some call outs. Hormagants 5 points? LOL. Termgants 4 points? Sure some other units got love taps but a unit like a tyranofex/haruspex needs more than a love tap. There is 0 reason why a haruspex should cost significantly more than a mutalith vortex beast - yet it does. Tervigone? If it's remaining at 3 attacks better go down to like 140 points. Same goes for maleceptor - needs big drops.
Crons - remains to be determined. These are pretty aggressive drops to. I reserve judgement here though because I personally don't think crons are a bad army to begin with.
They are legit the worst marine chapter. You might be right with me there with black templars. They are significantly weaker. Likely the difference between GK and the middle tier is the same difference between Ultras and Iron-hands in terms of power. That is what I was squawking about. It is evident by tournament results too.
Yes but the gulf in power between marines tends to still be nothing the gulf between marines and many other armies exists.
Though it's cool guard get to be CP batteries for other soup lists. I really hate allies and current CP generation, I wish they would both jog off so people would stop sticking the guard for drinks.
They are legit the worst marine chapter. You might be right with me there with black templars. They are significantly weaker. Likely the difference between GK and the middle tier is the same difference between Ultras and Iron-hands in terms of power. That is what I was squawking about. It is evident by tournament results too.
Ah so the other marine players just plain suck then seeing ultramarines are among top all the time behind IH.
Sure they aren't IH level but no other is IH level.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Yes but the gulf in power between marines tends to still be nothing the gulf between marines and many other armies exists.
Though it's cool guard get to be CP batteries for other soup lists. I really hate allies and current CP generation, I wish they would both jog off so people would stop sticking the guard for drinks.
Or CP generation could be detachment locked. Admin nightmare, sure, but it solves many (not all!) CP battery farm issues.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Yes but the gulf in power between marines tends to still be nothing the gulf between marines and many other armies exists.
Though it's cool guard get to be CP batteries for other soup lists. I really hate allies and current CP generation, I wish they would both jog off so people would stop sticking the guard for drinks.
Or CP generation could be detachment locked. Admin nightmare, sure, but it solves many (not all!) CP battery farm issues.
Except GW doesn't WANT to do that. Because money.
Best exemple, RC corsair battery.
(also if you'd take that away you'd arely see any real CSM on the field, which is just sad imo, but then again the ways of GW are unknown.)
AngryAngel80 wrote: Yes but the gulf in power between marines tends to still be nothing the gulf between marines and many other armies exists.
Though it's cool guard get to be CP batteries for other soup lists. I really hate allies and current CP generation, I wish they would both jog off so people would stop sticking the guard for drinks.
Or CP generation could be detachment locked. Admin nightmare, sure, but it solves many (not all!) CP battery farm issues.
Or make detachments COST CP rather than give. Start with base value, each detachment(depending on how taxing it is) reduces your CP. Also gives incentive to play mono and not just codex but sub faction. You either get more CP or you get soup. Not both.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Yes but the gulf in power between marines tends to still be nothing the gulf between marines and many other armies exists.
Though it's cool guard get to be CP batteries for other soup lists. I really hate allies and current CP generation, I wish they would both jog off so people would stop sticking the guard for drinks.
Or CP generation could be detachment locked. Admin nightmare, sure, but it solves many (not all!) CP battery farm issues.
Or make detachments COST CP rather than give. Start with base value, each detachment(depending on how taxing it is) reduces your CP. Also gives incentive to play mono and not just codex but sub faction. You either get more CP or you get soup. Not both.
Assuming this, then you would have a general limit of CP that get's counted down then?
So that you are forced to decide to either pay balanced force tax or CP?
Just one slight issue, CP, is not for everyone equally worth it.
And the price / CP issue is still there.
Not Online!!! wrote: Assuming this, then you would have a general limit of CP that get's counted down then?
So that you are forced to decide to either pay balanced force tax or CP?
Just one slight issue, CP, is not for everyone equally worth it.
And the price / CP issue is still there.
General would probably be the way. Guess another could be warlord related but that has it's own can of issues.
Cost of stratagems would need changing likely yes but then again they need to be redone anyway.
Not Online!!! wrote: Assuming this, then you would have a general limit of CP that get's counted down then?
So that you are forced to decide to either pay balanced force tax or CP?
Just one slight issue, CP, is not for everyone equally worth it.
And the price / CP issue is still there.
General would probably be the way. Guess another could be warlord related but that has it's own can of issues.
Cost of stratagems would need changing likely yes but then again they need to be redone anyway.
TBF, half the stratagems aren't really stratagems but upgrades that should have a pricepoint instead. (cue AA missile, grenadiers, skarboyz, 'ard boyz, etc....) then there are stratagems that are not really stratagems but just stupid, (cue double shooting , double fighting, etc) even as a CSM player that get's everything priced as if constantly doubleshooting and or double fighting or bust it gets annoying.
Stratagems should be (imo) movement related things, prepared positions, minefields, reserves, off map artillery, off map airstrikes, etc. and NOT, yolo i now just double my shooting because i say so.....
tneva82 wrote: Well wouldn't find me complaining if scope of stratagems were limited and several would become upgrades instead
I believe the best part is, that with the AL statagems they kinda went that route, but combat drugs and geneteic experimentation is locked to one squad again for EC.... not to mention butcher terminators
Double shooting/fighting strategems need to go. As do "combos". One strategem per unit per phase. Cut down on the whole taking turns erasing each others armies thing.
Combos are for ccg this is supposed to be a wargame.
tneva82 wrote: Well wouldn't find me complaining if scope of stratagems were limited and several would become upgrades instead
I believe the best part is, that with the AL statagems they kinda went that route, but combat drugs and geneteic experimentation is locked to one squad again for EC.... not to mention butcher terminators
But ba get all the death company intercessors they can pay for.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Double shooting/fighting strategems need to go. As do "combos". One strategem per unit per phase. Cut down on the whole taking turns erasing each others armies thing.
Combos are for ccg this is supposed to be a wargame.
tneva82 wrote: Well wouldn't find me complaining if scope of stratagems were limited and several would become upgrades instead
I believe the best part is, that with the AL statagems they kinda went that route, but combat drugs and geneteic experimentation is locked to one squad again for EC.... not to mention butcher terminators
But ba get all the death company intercessors they can pay for.
Fething goldilocks cannibals.
Why beeing mad at them? I find it good that they atleast CAN get their hallmark unit gimmick on the replacement marine.
Unlike WE, because feth you and the horse you rode in on if you want more the 1 unit of butcher terminators.
(also even more glorious, EC, the apothecary genetic experimentation legion, can modify ONE! unit.)
Xenomancers wrote: I think the ork point drops I've seen are equally if not more egregious. For some reason the best war-buggy (the squigbuggy) which was 140 points is now...100 points.
At this price it is probably fighting for best unit in the entire game.
The other buggys also saw significant drops. These were already some of the best units in the codex too for shooting units. A very uninformed choice from GW...
Meanwhile space marines tanks which are still pretty poor are made to suffer with no drops because ironhands superdoctrine exists and a few busted whitescars and ravengaurd traits.
Are you insane/trolling again? Honest question. You can't, with any sense of reasonable logic, honestly believe that -
a) The Squigbuggy is "fighting for best unit in the entire game"
b) Any of the buggies "were already some of the best units in the codex"
c) Space Marine tanks are "still pretty poor".
This must be a joke, right? If it's not Xeno I strongly suggest you invest a bit of time checking out Space Marine results compared to other factions' results over the past few months, as well as their lists. I also suggest you take a look at any Ork lists that finished in the top 4 over the last 2 years and see how many have your supposed "best war-buggy" the Squigbuggy in them (the answer is 0). In fact take a look how many lists included ANY buggies (the answer is 0 again).
You can't be taken seriously with all this rubbish you keep spouting and it's a shame because some of the stuff you say makes sense. Unfortunately people don't listen to you when you're talking sense because you spend so much time doing otherwise (as above).
I don't mean to be harsh here and apologies if it's too harsh. Really though, a little fact checking on your part would go a looooooooooooooooong way.
He's xenomancer. It's his speciality to turn worst units into best and best units into worst in his meta. Best guess is he's playing with some weird house rules he always forgets to mention. Only reason his claims could even be true.
The Squigbuggy is essentially a Ravager with one disi. It was awful then and it's awful now. An example of a unit that cant easily be fixed with points changes.
The scrapjet and dragsta are the interesting ones. With the other two probably being okay but not really doing much. (Suicide runs for explodes results aside.)
Tyel wrote: The Squigbuggy is essentially a Ravager with one disi. It was awful then and it's awful now. An example of a unit that cant easily be fixed with points changes.
The scrapjet and dragsta are the interesting ones. With the other two probably being okay but not really doing much. (Suicide runs for explodes results aside.)
The Squigbuggy's stats are like someone looked at a Ravager, then at the Taurox, and said "What if Iremoved the best aspect of both of these vehicles, mashed them together, and give it three grenade launchers and a bomb?"
The sad thing about the Snazzwagon and the Boosta-Blasta is they basically have the same problem: Inconsistent weapon ranges and a "give it everything" approach to rules means you're always failing to take advantage of half of it's abilities, while the scrapjet and dragsta you know what you're doing with them (they just were expensive)
Polonius wrote: Perhaps fragile is the wrong word. Maybe, we can all agree that Baneblades are surprisingly easy to destroy or degrade into near uselessness? Compared to the basis russ, the baneblade quickly became a points sink that was all to easy for armies to knock out.
Agreed. It's the Land Raider syndrome. A LR is quite clearly more durable that a Predator, but for the points and damage output, you are way better off with 2 Predators.
-
And that's 8th ed in a nushell. One big thing is almost never as good as the two smaller things you could get for the same points.
It all depends on the exact properties and costs.
Yeah, 8th ed in a nutshell, except when the meta was
gulliman buffed giganto-planes
magnus and morty power couple
a huge guard gunline with astropaths buffing a catachan baneblade chassis
ork mobbed up loota squads, that time when Orks used a stratagem specifically designed to make two smaller things for the same points one big thing and it was the meta
castellaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaans for a long ass time
Triptides
So, 8th in a nutshell, except for most of the metas we've seen in 8th.
Tyel wrote: The Squigbuggy is essentially a Ravager with one disi. It was awful then and it's awful now. An example of a unit that cant easily be fixed with points changes.
The scrapjet and dragsta are the interesting ones. With the other two probably being okay but not really doing much. (Suicide runs for explodes results aside.)
The Squigbuggy's stats are like someone looked at a Ravager, then at the Taurox, and said "What if Iremoved the best aspect of both of these vehicles, mashed them together, and give it three grenade launchers and a bomb?"
The sad thing about the Snazzwagon and the Boosta-Blasta is they basically have the same problem: Inconsistent weapon ranges and a "give it everything" approach to rules means you're always failing to take advantage of half of it's abilities, while the scrapjet and dragsta you know what you're doing with them (they just were expensive)
I never really found the boosta-blasta that hard to take advantage of. You want to get it within 8", and then you're using all its guns. and other than the grenades on the Snazzwagon, all its guns are anti-infantry 36" range, aren't they?
how much do you really think GW is charging the snazzwagon for a pair of frag grenades?
tneva82 wrote: Well wouldn't find me complaining if scope of stratagems were limited and several would become upgrades instead
I believe the best part is, that with the AL statagems they kinda went that route, but combat drugs and geneteic experimentation is locked to one squad again for EC.... not to mention butcher terminators
The thing is nothing is "priced as is double shooting" - Oblitz were and no one played them anymore even though it was a mathmatical buff to the combo. You really think noise marines are priced to double shoot? With +1 str +1 to wound and +1 damage with +1 to hit and reroll 1's? NOPE. They are priced without buffs. Every attempt to price a unit like it is buffed will be a fail because it doesn't pass the logic test. I am inclined to agree with others in this thread. Double shooting needs to be flat out removed. Max 1 stratagem per unit.
Xenomancers wrote: I think the ork point drops I've seen are equally if not more egregious. For some reason the best war-buggy (the squigbuggy) which was 140 points is now...100 points.
At this price it is probably fighting for best unit in the entire game.
The other buggys also saw significant drops. These were already some of the best units in the codex too for shooting units. A very uninformed choice from GW...
Meanwhile space marines tanks which are still pretty poor are made to suffer with no drops because ironhands superdoctrine exists and a few busted whitescars and ravengaurd traits.
Are you insane/trolling again? Honest question. You can't, with any sense of reasonable logic, honestly believe that -
a) The Squigbuggy is "fighting for best unit in the entire game"
b) Any of the buggies "were already some of the best units in the codex"
c) Space Marine tanks are "still pretty poor".
This must be a joke, right? If it's not Xeno I strongly suggest you invest a bit of time checking out Space Marine results compared to other factions' results over the past few months, as well as their lists. I also suggest you take a look at any Ork lists that finished in the top 4 over the last 2 years and see how many have your supposed "best war-buggy" the Squigbuggy in them (the answer is 0). In fact take a look how many lists included ANY buggies (the answer is 0 again).
You can't be taken seriously with all this rubbish you keep spouting and it's a shame because some of the stuff you say makes sense. Unfortunately people don't listen to you when you're talking sense because you spend so much time doing otherwise (as above).
I don't mean to be harsh here and apologies if it's too harsh. Really though, a little fact checking on your part would go a looooooooooooooooong way.
Once again we have someone looking at top tournament results and assuming that because the list they chose doesn't include x unit. That x unit is bad. At 140 the squid buggy was pretty bad. Not, lets drop the unit 40% bad though. That is a joke. Ork buggies were already some of the best units in the codex for shooting. Unfortunately orks are much better at shooting than melle the way the game works out. I play against them often. It's not just the squiggy that went down ether. They all did. Orks were already a top performing option. To get cuts like this is a joke. Plus. We all know the top marine factions are going to be nerfed. It would be insane for them not to be. Ironhands have like a 70% WR - Ultras are at like 52%. Do you realize what a massive difference that is? It is obviously something to do with Ironhands.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You just said the Squig one was the best one. That's how we know you have no clue what you're on about.
LOL. It's clear you have no idea what you are talking about when you assume I am saying something stupid when the alternate meaning of what I was saying makes the most sense. It was clear I was talking about the units abilties as it was probably the worst performer at it's cost but has overall the best loadout. It doesn't deserve a 40% drop in cost though. That is asinine.
Yes it is. But keep trying. Someday you might actually be able to have a conversation on this board without devolving into a gibbering fit about whatever latest combination catches your eye.
Yes it is. But keep trying. Someday you might actually be able to have a conversation on this board without devolving into a gibbering fit about whatever latest combination catches your eye.
according to nearly anyone. If you like that style of play. You are in the minority.
Xenomancers wrote: If you like that style of play. You are in the minority.
See? Right up until there, stating that he's in the minority requires data. I like the combos, I just like them to cost something, unlike Marines, who get strat level powers for free.
Xenomancers wrote: I think the ork point drops I've seen are equally if not more egregious. For some reason the best war-buggy (the squigbuggy) which was 140 points is now...100 points.
At this price it is probably fighting for best unit in the entire game. The other buggys also saw significant drops. These were already some of the best units in the codex too for shooting units. A very uninformed choice from GW...
Meanwhile space marines tanks which are still pretty poor are made to suffer with no drops because ironhands superdoctrine exists and a few busted whitescars and ravengaurd traits.
Are you insane/trolling again? Honest question. You can't, with any sense of reasonable logic, honestly believe that - a) The Squigbuggy is "fighting for best unit in the entire game" b) Any of the buggies "were already some of the best units in the codex" c) Space Marine tanks are "still pretty poor".
This must be a joke, right? If it's not Xeno I strongly suggest you invest a bit of time checking out Space Marine results compared to other factions' results over the past few months, as well as their lists. I also suggest you take a look at any Ork lists that finished in the top 4 over the last 2 years and see how many have your supposed "best war-buggy" the Squigbuggy in them (the answer is 0). In fact take a look how many lists included ANY buggies (the answer is 0 again).
You can't be taken seriously with all this rubbish you keep spouting and it's a shame because some of the stuff you say makes sense. Unfortunately people don't listen to you when you're talking sense because you spend so much time doing otherwise (as above).
I don't mean to be harsh here and apologies if it's too harsh. Really though, a little fact checking on your part would go a looooooooooooooooong way.
Once again we have someone looking at top tournament results and assuming that because the list they chose doesn't include x unit. That x unit is bad. At 140 the squid buggy was pretty bad. Not, lets drop the unit 40% bad though. That is a joke.
40/140*100%=29%
Ork buggies were already some of the best units in the codex for shooting.
What are you basing this on? If you've got math show it.
Squigbuggies are 11,11 pts per wound, Drukhari Ravagers are 12,5 pts per wound, they have a 5++ and FLY.
Adjusted for pts cost Squigbuggies do 1,94 S5 AP-3 2 damage hits, Ravagers do 6 S5 AP-3 2 damage hits, Squigbuggies have the utility of having alternate profiles and some small secondary weapons at close range.
Ravagers aren't good in the current meta and neither are Squigbuggies going to be. Add to that Orks having a difficult time putting together even a halfway mechanised competitive list and the 29% isn't that outrageous. Warbuggies are Legends now AFAIK, so unless someone converts some up or already owns them no more will enter circulation and banning them will become more common in the future if just one Legends unit ever becomes too OP. Compared to Destroyers or Heavy Destroyers I can't see Warbuggies at 43/57 as being too OP. Much less than a similar amount of pts worth og Boyz or Smasha Gunz.
See? Right up until there, stating that he's in the minority requires data. I like the combos, I just like them to cost something, unlike Marines, who get strat level powers for free.
Thats the problem with living in a permanent state of hyperbolic overreaction. The data never supports the rhetoric.
Eldar is a mess. Some good drops...Hemlock drops in price??? Meanwhile the CHE raised while not raising the regular crimson hunter while simultaneously dropping bright lances?? BL drop is pretty welcome but then why the heck am I paying 25 for a lascannon still? Infantry are still overcosted as crap...guardians 8 points? DE 11? Give me a break these units need to come down to 6 and 9 respectively. Have not reviewed thoroughly enough.
Hemlocks didnt change, theyre still 210.
Bright lances didnt drop, theyre still 20 pts (and theyre cheaper than lascannons becaure theyre : 36" 8 -4 D6 instead of 48" 9 -3 D6)
Xenomancers wrote: Once again we have someone looking at top tournament results and assuming that because the list they chose doesn't include x unit. That x unit is bad.
You assume way, waay too much. I'm using tournament results and data to back up what I already know through my own testing and trials. Trust me, I desperately WANT to be able to use the new Buggies without giving my opponent a free win. I tried, real hard, to make the various buggies work, they didn't. Not at their previous price. That's why you didn't see them in top performing tournament lists, they didn't perform.
At 140 the squid buggy was pretty bad.
It was a joke at 140. Do you even know it's profile and stats?
Not, lets drop the unit 40% bad though.
Worse.
That is a joke.
It is STILL not competitive, you realise this yea?
Ork buggies were already some of the best units in the codex for shooting.
Can you explain exactly what you mean by this? "Some of the best units in the codex for shooting" - what does this mean, even? They were/are awful units. There's no point having any shooting if you die so quick you never get to use it. The shooting isn't even particularly strong. It's awful, in fact.
Unfortunately orks are much better at shooting than melle the way the game works out.
No, what you mean is "the only competitive Ork build is a primarily shooting list currently".
I play against them often.
Do you? I don't believe you. You thought Boyz still cost 6ppm for pete's sake.
It's not just the squiggy that went down ether. They all did.
All the Buggies you mean? Justifiably so. None. I repeat - none. Were ever taken in competitive lists. They were/are awful.
Orks were already a top performing option.
No they aren't. Not anymore. Not since Marines.
To get cuts like this is a joke.
No it isn't, the only joke is how little they were cut considering other factions' alternatives and our utter lack of a decent competitive build in the marine meta.
Plus. We all know the top marine factions are going to be nerfed.
Do we? Do you know something we don't? Didn't CA BUFF Marines further still? Now THAT is a joke and perhaps why you are so insistent on moaning about other factions cuts - to take the glare away from your own, broken faction.
It would be insane for them not to be. Ironhands have like a 70% WR - Ultras are at like 52%. Do you realize what a massive difference that is? It is obviously something to do with Ironhands.
Yes it would be insane for them not to be. ALL Marine sub factions need a nerf. Including Ultras. The only factions Ultras lose to is, you guessed it, other Marines. They beat almost every other faction in the game more often than not and by a massive margin. It is not just IH at all. I have proved this time and time again, why do you keep ignoring the facts?
An Actual Englishman wrote: Yes it would be insane for them not to be. ALL Marine sub factions need a nerf. Including Ultras. The only factions Ultras lose to is, you guessed it, other Marines. They beat almost every other faction in the game more often than not and by a massive margin. It is not just IH at all. I have proved this time and time again, why do you keep ignoring the facts?
He plays Ultramarines and cognitive bias is a helluva drug.
The Squigbuggy's shooting is worth about 50 points.
This isn't a wind up - its what one inaccurate disi or a d3 damage assault cannon or "worse than a pair of venom cannons but with more range" is worth.
Its rubbish. Needs a hard faq to get double the shots on all profiles - preferably triple and it can then go back up a bit in points.
The boostablasta can sit at 36" - but its just... bad if it does so. Even with th reductions its still 80 points for 3 lootas with an extra point of AP - who are much worse to buff up (or hope you get those 3 shots). You need to get into 8" for the flamers but this is hard to pull off and its still mediocre at best.
The Snazzwagon is in a similar boat. Haha - 4 big shootas, three with two points of AP! Great, but its still Ork BS. Its not impressing anyone. I feel you are paying for the -1 to hit and 4+ explodes rule. Run them in, deal some inconsequential firepower, die, and hopefully scatter mortal wounds all over your opponent.
The points reductions are about to the level I think they should have started at - but they are not priced to be competitive in the current meta. Its priced not to be a laughing stock on casual tables.
Both suffer I think from the fact a few more points nets you 4 big shootas and on average 5 rockits. This is the sort of upgrade you want on your other buggies for a few inconsequential points.
The Dragsta is still a bit north of the 80 points I think would make it an auto-take - but some accurate firepower is nice (although just bring more smasha guns), and the teleport ability is good in many missions where you want to get "something" onto a specific objective, and don't always have da Jump handy.
Eldar is a mess. Some good drops...Hemlock drops in price??? Meanwhile the CHE raised while not raising the regular crimson hunter while simultaneously dropping bright lances?? BL drop is pretty welcome but then why the heck am I paying 25 for a lascannon still? Infantry are still overcosted as crap...guardians 8 points? DE 11? Give me a break these units need to come down to 6 and 9 respectively. Have not reviewed thoroughly enough.
Hemlocks didnt change, theyre still 210.
Bright lances didnt drop, theyre still 20 pts (and theyre cheaper than lascannons becaure theyre : 36" 8 -4 D6 instead of 48" 9 -3 D6)
Bright lances are 15. Hemlocks went down in price. Have you not seen the book?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You just said the Squig one was the best one. That's how we know you have no clue what you're on about.
LOL. It's clear you have no idea what you are talking about when you assume I am saying something stupid when the alternate meaning of what I was saying makes the most sense. It was clear I was talking about the units abilties as it was probably the worst performer at it's cost but has overall the best loadout. It doesn't deserve a 40% drop in cost though. That is asinine.
Hahaha. What drugs you are using? As only drug induced hallucinations explain those claim. Squigbuggy still is worst of the lot and sucks. Frankly none of the buggies are competive but with new prices not worst junk
They are legit the worst marine chapter. You might be right with me there with black templars. They are significantly weaker. Likely the difference between GK and the middle tier is the same difference between Ultras and Iron-hands in terms of power. That is what I was squawking about. It is evident by tournament results too.
They're at a 52.5% win rate, just 2.5% behind Raven Guard and White Scars, and comfortably ahead of Salamanders (not including BT since F&F is relatively new). There's a colossal difference between "weaker than some other Marine Chapters but still able to slug it out with competetive armies" and "trash".
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You just said the Squig one was the best one. That's how we know you have no clue what you're on about.
LOL. It's clear you have no idea what you are talking about when you assume I am saying something stupid when the alternate meaning of what I was saying makes the most sense. It was clear I was talking about the units abilties as it was probably the worst performer at it's cost but has overall the best loadout. It doesn't deserve a 40% drop in cost though. That is asinine.
Loadout only matters at the cost. So no you're still wrong and you should probably just admit it at this point.
I just took a quick look at the squiggbuggy and I'm also... lets say surprised that one could consider those to compete for best unit even at 100 points. When I compare it to IG Tauros Assault Vehicles with Grenade launchers (which is definitly no competetive choice and the GL is stupidly expensive, but the model and weapons are quite comparable):
You get almost 2 Tauros (114) for one Squigbuggy (now 100). If you compare it to the old cost you could even add two Hunter Killer missiles and be still cheaper than 140 points.
The Tauri
- are faster (M14 vs. M10)
- sturdier (T5, 2 x W6, 4+,5++ vs T6, W9, 4+)
- a bit weaker in melee (both have A4 at WS4 but the Buggy has + 2S and -1AP)
- quite comparably in the firepower department:
Boom Squiggs are almost identical to Krak missiles, the buggy does on average 2.66 hits, the Tauri 2, so the buggy is slightly better
on average 4,67 Bile Squig hits wounding non vehicles at 4+ vs on average 7 Frag grenades => the Buggy is better against T6+ non vehicles and equal against T4-5 non.vehicles. Otherwise it is worse.
bitey Squigs are not really comparable, but mathhammering around they only beat the Tauri Krak Grenades vs T3,T4,T7+ with a 2+ save and no Invulnarability save and then only by a hair.
The Buggy now still has his shotgun and grenades and DAKKADAKKADAKKA going for him, so I would say he has a slight advantage in firepower overall at 100 points.
So taken together I would argue: The Squigbuggy is not really better than 2 Tauri which are a very uncompetitive choice for guard. At 140 points he would be more expensive than those two vehicles who could then even pack two Hunter Killer missiles and still be cheaper. At 100 points I personally would say he is fairly costed against the Tauri - which is still not really fair against the rest of the IG codex, let alone some options of other factions.
They are legit the worst marine chapter. You might be right with me there with black templars. They are significantly weaker. Likely the difference between GK and the middle tier is the same difference between Ultras and Iron-hands in terms of power. That is what I was squawking about. It is evident by tournament results too.
They're at a 52.5% win rate, just 2.5% behind Raven Guard and White Scars, and comfortably ahead of Salamanders (not including BT since F&F is relatively new). There's a colossal difference between "weaker than some other Marine Chapters but still able to slug it out with competetive armies" and "trash".
I have long stated that Ultramarines are where space marines should be in terms of power. Ultras have comparable WR to strong competitive armies like Eldar and tau. There should be aproximately 0 outrage coming for Ultras compared to tau and eldar. Tau got hugely buffed too.
There really is a colossal difference between ultras and other marines. As Ultras win at about the same rate as other powerful factions. The busted supplements (Ironhands/IF/RG/WS) in that order are significant outliers. Ironhands win 70% of their damn games dude.
Eldar is a mess. Some good drops...Hemlock drops in price??? Meanwhile the CHE raised while not raising the regular crimson hunter while simultaneously dropping bright lances?? BL drop is pretty welcome but then why the heck am I paying 25 for a lascannon still? Infantry are still overcosted as crap...guardians 8 points? DE 11? Give me a break these units need to come down to 6 and 9 respectively. Have not reviewed thoroughly enough.
Hemlocks didnt change, theyre still 210.
Bright lances didnt drop, theyre still 20 pts (and theyre cheaper than lascannons becaure theyre : 36" 8 -4 D6 instead of 48" 9 -3 D6)
Bright lances are 15. Hemlocks went down in price. Have you not seen the book?
Dark lances are 15, not bright lances. Twin bright lances dropped to 35pts. Hemlocks are still 210...
They are legit the worst marine chapter. You might be right with me there with black templars. They are significantly weaker. Likely the difference between GK and the middle tier is the same difference between Ultras and Iron-hands in terms of power. That is what I was squawking about. It is evident by tournament results too.
They're at a 52.5% win rate, just 2.5% behind Raven Guard and White Scars, and comfortably ahead of Salamanders (not including BT since F&F is relatively new). There's a colossal difference between "weaker than some other Marine Chapters but still able to slug it out with competetive armies" and "trash".
I have long stated that Ultramarines are where space marines should be in terms of power. Ultras have comparable WR to strong competitive armies like Eldar and tau. There should be aproximately 0 outrage coming for Ultras compared to tau and eldar. Tau got hugely buffed too.
There really is a colossal difference between ultras and other marines. As Ultras win at about the same rate as other powerful factions. The busted supplements (Ironhands/IF/RG/WS) in that order are significant outliers. Ironhands win 70% of their damn games dude.
Iron Hands win 65%, not 70%, but that's beside the point. You said that the Ultramarines were going to be trash; they're not.
Xenomancers wrote: I have long stated that Ultramarines are where space marines should be in terms of power. Ultras have comparable WR to strong competitive armies like Eldar and tau. There should be aproximately 0 outrage coming for Ultras compared to tau and eldar.
Wow, that's super, and completely useless, since that win rate would be significantly higher if they weren't running into other absurdly overpowered Marine lists that are lowering that win percentage. We've basically moved into the 'good guy with a gun' narrative portion of the argument.
Pyroalchi wrote: I just took a quick look at the squiggbuggy and I'm also... lets say surprised that one could consider those to compete for best unit even at 100 points. When I compare it to IG Tauros Assault Vehicles with Grenade launchers (which is definitly no competetive choice and the GL is stupidly expensive, but the model and weapons are quite comparable):
You get almost 2 Tauros (114) for one Squigbuggy (now 100). If you compare it to the old cost you could even add two Hunter Killer missiles and be still cheaper than 140 points.
The Tauri
- are faster (M14 vs. M10)
- sturdier (T5, 2 x W6, 4+,5++ vs T6, W9, 4+)
- a bit weaker in melee (both have A4 at WS4 but the Buggy has + 2S and -1AP)
- quite comparably in the firepower department:
Boom Squiggs are almost identical to Krak missiles, the buggy does on average 2.66 hits, the Tauri 2, so the buggy is slightly better
on average 4,67 Bile Squig hits wounding non vehicles at 4+ vs on average 7 Frag grenades => the Buggy is better against T6+ non vehicles and equal against T4-5 non.vehicles. Otherwise it is worse.
bitey Squigs are not really comparable, but mathhammering around they only beat the Tauri Krak Grenades vs T3,T4,T7+ with a 2+ save and no Invulnarability save and then only by a hair.
The Buggy now still has his shotgun and grenades and DAKKADAKKADAKKA going for him, so I would say he has a slight advantage in firepower overall at 100 points.
So taken together I would argue: The Squigbuggy is not really better than 2 Tauri which are a very uncompetitive choice for guard. At 140 points he would be more expensive than those two vehicles who could then even pack two Hunter Killer missiles and still be cheaper. At 100 points I personally would say he is fairly costed against the Tauri - which is still not really fair against the rest of the IG codex, let alone some options of other factions.
Uhh..A torox has heavy weapons. Squiggy has assault weapons. Only A prime can take missiles too. Missle and autocannon is a good build coming out to 130 points. This is a nice little vehicle but moving and shooting it is hitting on 4's. It doesn't have exploding 6's. It is much worse in melle. Can't get a 5++ save from an auto include model and it can't benifit from an army wide aura of +1 to hit (it will in fact have no trait unless you go straight scions). It also doesn't have really good mutiple fire modes. There is no reason to ever shoot frag with a missle. There is a reason to shoot 3d6 poision rounds at something. Also - tarox can't take HKM. PLus it degrades (this is very bad). You criminally undervalue dakka dakka dakka.
Lets also preclude this by saying a taurox prime is a really good vehicle for it's cost. I would take it over literally ever space marine vehicle if I could that wasn't a dread. It used to get spammed early in the edition but - the fact it can't move and shoot well and is a dedicated transport doesn't help it. It is certainly not helped by the fact it is useless if it gets in assault. Plus the fact it's in an army that you can just get a command tank for a little bit more.
Not everything is about unit profiles. The units you have to bring with sometimes often factor huge into the equation here.
Dunno where the problem is but the squig buggy is by far the most crappy buggy in the codex. Chapter approved helped him nothing.
It's crap
Long range fire with average killing what 1-2 Marines if you're lucky for 100 points common....
Xenomancers wrote: I have long stated that Ultramarines are where space marines should be in terms of power. Ultras have comparable WR to strong competitive armies like Eldar and tau. There should be aproximately 0 outrage coming for Ultras compared to tau and eldar.
Wow, that's super, and completely useless, since that win rate would be significantly higher if they weren't running into other absurdly overpowered Marine lists that are lowering that win percentage. We've basically moved into the 'good guy with a gun' narrative portion of the argument.
The faction you are has 0 impact of the matchups you face. Ultramarines compared to CWE have to face literally the same armies and win roughly the same amount - though they probably have different strong and weak matchups.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
T1nk4bell wrote: Dunno where the problem is but the squig buggy is by far the most crappy buggy in the codex. Chapter approved helped him nothing.
It's crap
Long range fire with average killing what 1-2 Marines if you're lucky for 100 points common....
You see this is why this game will always fail at balance. It's literally one of the best units in the game for 100 points and you think it is bad. You probably think a 31 point smasha gun is "just okay" too.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm gonna eat you guys alive when ork squig buggies start dominating the meta. Like really. I am not going to go soft.
Xenomancers wrote: The faction you are has 0 impact of the matchups you face.
No kidding, you don't say?
Xenomancers wrote: Ultramarines compared to CWE have to face literally the same armies and win roughly the same amount - though they probably have different strong and weak matchups.
Yes, wow, thanks for more completely useless analysis. You sure you didn't need a few more sentences to say...absolutely nothing?
I will say, this argument is likely to be settled soon. I'm sure people will try the new buggies either way, and while our reading of the results should always be tempered with healthy optimism and scepticism respectively, the main question to be answered for the moment is whether they are good or not versus the current Space Marines. Not just because they're the strongest competitively, but also because they're the most popular faction, thus the most likely faction you'll face.
Eldar is a mess. Some good drops...Hemlock drops in price??? Meanwhile the CHE raised while not raising the regular crimson hunter while simultaneously dropping bright lances?? BL drop is pretty welcome but then why the heck am I paying 25 for a lascannon still? Infantry are still overcosted as crap...guardians 8 points? DE 11? Give me a break these units need to come down to 6 and 9 respectively. Have not reviewed thoroughly enough.
Actually you are wrong, hemlock did not go down in price and the normal Crimson hunter did go up in price.
They did not drooped bright lanced, they dropped twin bright lance that can only be used by few units.
@ Xeno: read carefully: Tauros not Taurox. The Taurox you are referring to is a transport with heavy weapons. The Tauros I talked about mentioning its grenade launcher and similarity is a fast attack option from the index, a buggy with effectively a twin grenade launcher.
Therefore: yes it has an inv, yes it has assault weapons, yes it can be included in any guard regiment including Elysians, yes it can take HK missile.
I know Tauros and Taurox sound similar, yet when you looked at the Transport whose datasheet in no way resembles what I described, did you not consider that I might be talking about another unit?
Darsath wrote: I will say, this argument is likely to be settled soon. I'm sure people will try the new buggies either way, and while our reading of the results should always be tempered with healthy optimism and scepticism respectively, the main question to be answered for the moment is whether they are good or not versus the current Space Marines. Not just because they're the strongest competitively, but also because they're the most popular faction, thus the most likely faction you'll face.
The answer to that question is no. Quite obviously. Let Xeno live in his insane dream world where reality is as he wishes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: You see this is why this game will always fail at balance. It's literally one of the best units in the game for 100 points and you think it is bad. You probably think a 31 point smasha gun is "just okay" too.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm gonna eat you guys alive when ork squig buggies start dominating the meta. Like really. I am not going to go soft.
I'd blame the lack of game balance more because of the insane ramblings of certain Marine fanboys, as much as anything else...
Darsath wrote: I will say, this argument is likely to be settled soon. I'm sure people will try the new buggies either way, and while our reading of the results should always be tempered with healthy optimism and scepticism respectively, the main question to be answered for the moment is whether they are good or not versus the current Space Marines. Not just because they're the strongest competitively, but also because they're the most popular faction, thus the most likely faction you'll face.
The answer to that question is no. Quite obviously. Let Xeno live in his insane dream world where reality is as he wishes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: You see this is why this game will always fail at balance. It's literally one of the best units in the game for 100 points and you think it is bad. You probably think a 31 point smasha gun is "just okay" too.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm gonna eat you guys alive when ork squig buggies start dominating the meta. Like really. I am not going to go soft.
I'd blame the lack of game balance more because of the insane ramblings of certain Marine fanboys, as much as anything else...
Balance has always been bad and marines have been med iocre or poor for most of the history.
Sry but what I missed that the squig buggy is good?
I don't like bad balance but the squig buggy brings nothing?
The only good option is the boom squig
Heavy and normal squig launcha together is 3 hits average
Let's say vs a primaris = 2 wounds average = 1 unsaved
For 100 points of shooting you kill average one freaking marine.... That's by far not good and that on a squishy platform.
I see the meta running if you have 9 of them you nearly kill a squat intercessor
For screen clearing we got better options like a kbb or a ton of others.
Xenomancers wrote: I have long stated that Ultramarines are where space marines should be in terms of power. Ultras have comparable WR to strong competitive armies like Eldar and tau. There should be aproximately 0 outrage coming for Ultras compared to tau and eldar.
Wow, that's super, and completely useless, since that win rate would be significantly higher if they weren't running into other absurdly overpowered Marine lists that are lowering that win percentage.
You don't know that's what would happen if the stronger Marines lists (in particular Iron Hands) were removed though. It is one possibility, but another is that other factions also would become more competetive because they in turn would also not be held back by the now-gone lists.
Change the lynchpin of the metagame and you change the whole metagame; other parts won't remain static.
T1nk4bell wrote: Dunno where the problem is but the squig buggy is by far the most crappy buggy in the codex. Chapter approved helped him nothing.
It's crap
Long range fire with average killing what 1-2 Marines if you're lucky for 100 points common....
You see this is why this game will always fail at balance. It's literally one of the best units in the game for 100 points and you think it is bad. You probably think a 31 point smasha gun is "just okay" too.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm gonna eat you guys alive when ork squig buggies start dominating the meta. Like really. I am not going to go soft.
Oh xeno some of the things you say are so backwards I can't help but think you're some advanced markov chain bot
Xenomancers wrote: I have long stated that Ultramarines are where space marines should be in terms of power. Ultras have comparable WR to strong competitive armies like Eldar and tau. There should be aproximately 0 outrage coming for Ultras compared to tau and eldar.
Wow, that's super, and completely useless, since that win rate would be significantly higher if they weren't running into other absurdly overpowered Marine lists that are lowering that win percentage.
You don't know that's what would happen if the stronger Marines lists (in particular Iron Hands) were removed though. It is one possibility, but another is that other factions also would become more competetive because they in turn would also not be held back by the now-gone lists.
Change the lynchpin of the metagame and you change the whole metagame; other parts won't remain static.
I think so too. The meta has changed really a lot in the last couple of months. CA and the PA changed everything that we know.
IH and IF are keeping a lid on it so we can't see, but they are not going to last, especially IF.
They had the bad bad idea of taking all the 5 five top spots at the last GWGT.
Xenomancers wrote: I have long stated that Ultramarines are where space marines should be in terms of power. Ultras have comparable WR to strong competitive armies like Eldar and tau. There should be aproximately 0 outrage coming for Ultras compared to tau and eldar.
Wow, that's super, and completely useless, since that win rate would be significantly higher if they weren't running into other absurdly overpowered Marine lists that are lowering that win percentage.
You don't know that's what would happen if the stronger Marines lists (in particular Iron Hands) were removed though. It is one possibility, but another is that other factions also would become more competetive because they in turn would also not be held back by the now-gone lists.
Change the lynchpin of the metagame and you change the whole metagame; other parts won't remain static.
I think so too. The meta has changed really a lot in the last couple of months. CA and the PA changed everything that we know.
IH and IF are keeping a lid on it so we can't see, but they are not going to last, especially IF.
They had the bad bad idea of taking all the 5 five top spots at the last GWGT.
That is a death sentence for any faction.
It's funny, three years ago that'd be business as usual.
dont marines have spots in the top 8s of all big events, but the events themselfs are kept being won, by tau lists with the same riptides, drones, commanders etc, at least in the US?
Xenomancers wrote: I have long stated that Ultramarines are where space marines should be in terms of power. Ultras have comparable WR to strong competitive armies like Eldar and tau. There should be aproximately 0 outrage coming for Ultras compared to tau and eldar.
Wow, that's super, and completely useless, since that win rate would be significantly higher if they weren't running into other absurdly overpowered Marine lists that are lowering that win percentage.
You don't know that's what would happen if the stronger Marines lists (in particular Iron Hands) were removed though. It is one possibility, but another is that other factions also would become more competetive because they in turn would also not be held back by the now-gone lists.
Change the lynchpin of the metagame and you change the whole metagame; other parts won't remain static.
This argument would hold a lot more weight if all marine sub factions weren’t over performing in the current meta. Nerf IH severely and IF, RG, WS or UM just take their place. As well you know - the best counter to an Iron Hands list currently is a WS or RG list. This says nothing of the incredibly powerful marine soup list and successor chapter lists that have also been dominating nor the impact the now buffed Black Templars, BA and soon to be buffed DA, GK and SW sub factions have on the meta.
Finally, let’s not conveniently forget that so far each and every PA book has buffed the ‘Not Marine’ factions far less than the Marine factions.
There is nothing to say that GW even see this as a problem, less that they have any idea how to fix it and that Marines won’t continue to dominate for the foreseeable future. When you have playtesters claiming things like ‘people are overreacting, Marines are beatable’ or ‘wait and see what PA will bring’ or ‘the meta needs to settle, that’s all’ I have very little faith that anything will change for the better.
Related to all of this is the fact that GW saw the need to buff Marines twice since their supplement releases - once in PA2 and again in CA. It beggars belief.
Karol wrote: dont marines have spots in the top 8s of all big events, but the events themselfs are kept being won, by tau lists with the same riptides, drones, commanders etc, at least in the US?
Nah, Tau are winning 1/8 tournaments, Marines are winning 3/8.
But that is the difference per captia right? There is a lot more marine players at events then tau, if you normalize the numbers between marines and tau, the tau players are wrecking up numbers no other NPC faction achives in w40k.
Karol wrote: But that is the difference per captia right? There is a lot more marine players at events then tau, if you normalize the numbers between marines and tau, the tau players are wrecking up numbers no other NPC faction achives in w40k.
No.
Average Marine First Loss and TWiP (going 4-0 at a 5 round or 5-0 at a 6 round event) statistics are VASTLY MORE than they should be considering their relative numbers. They only make up around 30% of the field yet they dominate the top placements, as we have seen time and time again at multiple tournaments.
E - Tau have 2 dedicated, extremely good players that make up the majority of their top performances the last 9 months. They sneak a few wins, sure. This doesn't compare to the Marine numbers.
If few people can consitantly win against a large number of players, against less flexible lists, as tau have only one codex, while marines have multiple ones and can soup, and have stuff like supplements. Then clearly tau are the superior faction to play, specially when tau practicaly specilize in taking out marine armies without specialising in to it. As long as they don't run in to an orc or gsc army game 1-2, they have a huge chance to face marines later on.
Karol wrote: If few people can consitantly win against a large number of players, against less flexible lists, as tau have only one codex, while marines have multiple ones and can soup, and have stuff like supplements. Then clearly tau are the superior faction to play, specially when tau practicaly specilize in taking out marine armies without specialising in to it. As long as they don't run in to an orc or gsc army game 1-2, they have a huge chance to face marines later on.
You don't seem to understand the statistics I've provided you. I don't think anyone, even the most fanatic GK supporter, would consider Tau to be superior to codex 2.0 Marines.
Just to get this straight - you're suggesting that a faction that can beat another as long as it doesn't run into certain other factions early on, is better than a faction that can simply beat all of those factions and only struggles against its own? Right.
However, if Marines get toned down a bit and more Daemons, Eldar, etc.. show up again, Tau might lose a step just by that. Also, some of the new Chaos Marines stuff and the plethora of no-overwatch, no-fallback rules will hurt Tau if (if!) they show up in larger numbers.
That said, shooting Shield Drones 5 turns out of 6 isn't the most fun way to play Warhammer 40K. Similar to the Eldar-Flyer lists of 2-3 months ago, it's not super-op as far as tournament winnings go (though it could/can win tournaments if you didn't run into bad match-ups), but for people that just bring their favourite army to an event because they wanna have a fun weekend of playing toy solders, it's a very, very dull 3 hours to sit through.
You don't seem to understand the statistics I've provided you. I don't think anyone, even the most fanatic GK supporter, would consider Tau to be superior to codex 2.0 Marines.
Just to get this straight - you're suggesting that a faction that can beat another as long as it doesn't run into certain other factions early on, is better than a faction that can simply beat all of those factions and only struggles against its own? Right.
Well of course same way as in sports. If my only bad side are 180+ left handed people, at in my age and weight class those are limited to 3 people in the entire country. And I am good vs everyone else, then as long as I don't get matched against them in the elimination rounds or back to back in the swiss rounds, am okey.
As the good vs marines thing goes. Now I don't know it works under the rule packs played in UK, but under ITC and under what we play, Tau seem to have no problem beating even the most powerful marine lists.
Am not sure am following the GK part though, I don't think there are regular GK tournament fans, unless right now they play other armies.
That said, shooting Shield Drones 5 turns out of 6 isn't the most fun way to play Warhammer 40K. Similar to the Eldar-Flyer lists of 2-3 months ago, it's not super-op as far as tournament winnings go (though it could/can win tournaments if you didn't run into bad match-ups), but for people that just bring their favourite army to an event because they wanna have a fun weekend of playing toy solders, it's a very, very dull 3 hours to sit through.
that is true. I think that maybe what we have problem is the number of list a faction or codex can access. A sm player build the most brutal of tournament armies for his rule set. But he can also build a casual list, which is not going to be bad. A tau player, has the option of a really good tournament list or nothing. It seems to be the same for many other factions. With the tau the problem, which to me is not a problem a tall, comes from the fact that their tournament aka good is very good and on top of it all it is good vs the majority of armies being played. Considering the opinions about tau and tau players, I think it may have been historicaly so too. Or people just dislike tau, just because.
Karol wrote: Now I don't know it works under the rule packs played in UK, but under ITC and under what we play, Tau seem to have no problem beating even the most powerful marine lists.
They do. The stats show this. The stats show that EVERY faction struggles beating Marines excluding, you could argue, Necrons (though they haven't played many games) and Chaos Daemons. These stats include ITC games.
Amazing! The squigbuggy, one of the crappiest unit in the entire 40k universe, is suddenly good now. Or even one of the most powerful units in the game for someone
Driving` like a rain
The gretchins are dancing
On the buggies again
Speedfreeks are gathering
Breaking the day
No point of running
Couse they are coming your way
Smash the toasters
Crack centurion if they dare look your way
The buggies are coming
Yeaaaaaaaaaaaa
Time to die
Blackie wrote: Amazing! The squigbuggy, one of the crappiest unit in the entire 40k universe, is suddenly good now. Or even one of the most powerful units in the game for someone
I'd rather field R&H cultists then a squig buggy.
a unit that is proven to be overpriced by 20% even still before the 100pts squigbuggy.
Xenomancers wrote: I have long stated that Ultramarines are where space marines should be in terms of power. Ultras have comparable WR to strong competitive armies like Eldar and tau. There should be aproximately 0 outrage coming for Ultras compared to tau and eldar.
Wow, that's super, and completely useless, since that win rate would be significantly higher if they weren't running into other absurdly overpowered Marine lists that are lowering that win percentage.
You don't know that's what would happen if the stronger Marines lists (in particular Iron Hands) were removed though. It is one possibility, but another is that other factions also would become more competetive because they in turn would also not be held back by the now-gone lists.
Change the lynchpin of the metagame and you change the whole metagame; other parts won't remain static.
This argument would hold a lot more weight if all marine sub factions weren’t over performing in the current meta. Nerf IH severely and IF, RG, WS or UM just take their place. As well you know - the best counter to an Iron Hands list currently is a WS or RG list.
No, that's the point: that is just one possibility of many. For all we know, Iron Hands prevent counters to the other Marine lists from surfacing.
I'll try to illustrate what I mean with an example:
Let's assume that Unit A is really strong as Iron Hands. This unit shows up so often that the units that get countered by Unit A get pushed out of the meta. One of these units is Unit B. Another of these units, from another army, is Unit C.
Further, assume that Unit A is much less oppressive if it is not ran as Iron Hands.
When we nerf Iron Hands, the lynchpin of the entire meta, the presence of Unit A will drop, and those that are still present will not be as oppressive as before. This allows Unit B and Unit C to potentially see play, as they would no longer be hard-countered by the single most popular army in the game. These units could be counters to the rest of the metagame, but this would not become apparent until the Iron Hands Unit A keeping them down was nerfed.
In other words, trying to make predictions about what the metagame would look like if the defining metagame threat no longer existed in its current form is really, really tricky.
What I think is going to happen though is that Iron Hands and Imperial Fists are going to get slapped down, although I cannot say how soon. GW isn't exactly known for consistent long-term balancing.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: What I think is going to happen though is that Iron Hands and Imperial Fists are going to get slapped down, although I cannot say how soon. GW isn't exactly known for consistent long-term balancing.
I wouldn't hold your breath, one of the most incredible things i read recently was the writers of CA, the codex supplements, and PA aren't consulting each other on their work, and the supplement writers were worried SMs wouldn't be any good.
I'm convinced GW has the same problem Blizzard had a few years ago - they had no competitive gamers testing their content, all the testing was done in house and by friends and family, so crap was wildly out of balance.
If GWdoes have competitive players test their stuff they need to cull that nerd stock and start fresh with people who have actually played an ETC.
I wouldn't hold your breath, one of the most incredible things i read recently was the writers of CA, the codex supplements, and PA aren't consulting each other on their work, and the supplement writers were worried SMs wouldn't be any good.
You realize the root source of that little nugget was the 100% bs 4chan post that had things like 2-wound chaos marines, 4 point grots and codex marine point drops right (all of which were incorrect)?
Sterling191 wrote: You realize the root source of that little nugget was the 100% bs 4chan post that had things like 2-wound chaos marines, 4 point grots and codex marine point drops right (all of which were incorrect)?
I believe you, i read it on SpikeyBits.
I still stand by my second statement (evident by the current state of the meta).
AlmightyWalrus wrote: What I think is going to happen though is that Iron Hands and Imperial Fists are going to get slapped down, although I cannot say how soon. GW isn't exactly known for consistent long-term balancing.
I wouldn't hold your breath, one of the most incredible things i read recently was the writers of CA, the codex supplements, and PA aren't consulting each other on their work, and the supplement writers were worried SMs wouldn't be any good. I'm convinced GW has the same problem Blizzard had a few years ago - they had no competitive gamers testing their content, all the testing was done in house and by friends and family, so crap was wildly out of balance. If GWdoes have competitive players test their stuff they need to cull that nerd stock and start fresh with people who have actually played an ETC.
They apparently have tournament organizers and their groups playtesting (not sure about the Europeans but in the USA a lot of the big ITC events are also testers, along with the Frontline guys). The issue seems to be that GW's playtesting, from the bits and pieces we've been told, is basically "Take this 1500 point army we designed and see if everything feels right". They don't, apparently, let playtesters try to build armies to break the game, just see if the rules as written interact well together. Thing is I think their testing is all under NDA so we have no way of knowing what exactly it entails unless someone wants to risk breaking it. Which already seems kind of stupid because you would want to know the testing process to see if it's any good.
So the issue doesn't seem to be the lack of playtesting, but the fact their playtesting isn't trying to find the broken combos to catch them before going to print. At least that's what the rumors are about GW's testing. And even then there's no way of knowing if they listen to the feedback they get, although presumably the point changes and FAQs are made in response to what they see in the big tournaments.
And there's also the fact that yes, apparently the codex writers don't communicate with each other about things so each book is sort of done in isolation, which would explain why so many combos that pop up when you soup in or use multiple books get overlooked.
Wayniac wrote: They don't, apparently, let playtesters try to build armies to break the game, just see if the rules as written interact well together. Thing is I think their testing is all under NDA so we have no way of knowing what exactly it entails unless someone wants to risk breaking it.
So the issue doesn't seem to be the lack of playtesting, but the fact their playtesting isn't trying to find the broken combos to catch them before going to print. At least that's what the rumors are about GW's testing. And even then there's no way of knowing if they listen to the feedback they get, although presumably the point changes and FAQs are made in response to what they see in the big tournaments.
That's exactly the point i was trying to make with the Blizzard example. If GW doesn't have min/max players testing their content - they don't have competitive players testing their content, it's as simple as that.
Wayniac wrote: They don't, apparently, let playtesters try to build armies to break the game, just see if the rules as written interact well together. Thing is I think their testing is all under NDA so we have no way of knowing what exactly it entails unless someone wants to risk breaking it.
So the issue doesn't seem to be the lack of playtesting, but the fact their playtesting isn't trying to find the broken combos to catch them before going to print. At least that's what the rumors are about GW's testing. And even then there's no way of knowing if they listen to the feedback they get, although presumably the point changes and FAQs are made in response to what they see in the big tournaments.
That's exactly the point i was trying to make with the Blizzard example. If GW doesn't have min/max players testing their content - they don't have competitive players testing their content, it's as simple as that.
No, I mean they DO have min/max players testing it. They just don't LET them fully test it and, from what rumors say, have very specific things that they are allowed to test/give feedback on. It's GW who lays out the guideline for testing, which is the aforementioned "use this thrown together army and play a game". Not the players.
Wayniac wrote: No, I mean they DO have min/max players testing it. They just don't LET them fully test it.
What's the difference? Sounds like a total cop to me.
That's like saying they have F1 drivers and a race ready test track but everyones required to putt around in an Oldsmobile Firenza.
Wayniac wrote: No, I mean they DO have min/max players testing it. They just don't LET them fully test it.
What's the difference? Sounds like a total cop to me.
That's like saying they have F1 drivers and a race ready test track but everyones required to putt around in an Oldsmobile Firenza.
It's not mucch of a difference, true, but they are using min/max players and handicapping them, basically.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: In other words, trying to make predictions about what the metagame would look like if the defining metagame threat no longer existed in its current form is really, really tricky.
It's not that tricky. Yes, some non-Marine army could end up rising like a phoenix gloriously beating back the nu-Marine scourge.
It's not bloody fething likely though. Certainly not based on the data. In Pollyanna-Marines-are-fine land who knows what can happen, it's a world full of possibilities for the rest of those adorable NPC factions.
What does it matter if competitive players are allowed to fully test new rules or not? Anybody who's ever played the game could see that things like the ih supplement are totally broken.
Did you see the gakstorm this forum erupted in when that was leaked? Nobody needed to playtest that to know it was broken.
Gw obviously doesn't listen to whatever playtesters it has.
Considering their "Competitive" events are largely being won by extremely suspect players, using extremely suspect tactics, and their TO situation is an utter fricking joke, it's no shock that their rules team "made of top ETC players" is also a complete joke.
3 of the last 5 majors have been dogged by allegations of rampant cheating, behinds the scenes and on the tables, and they are doing nothing about that.
GW is a business in the interest of making money. Whether you like the game is completely arbitrary. The points changes are done to drive sales. Iron Hands was intentional.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Considering their "Competitive" events are largely being won by extremely suspect players, using extremely suspect tactics, and their TO situation is an utter fricking joke, it's no shock that their rules team "made of top ETC players" is also a complete joke.
3 of the last 5 majors have been dogged by allegations of rampant cheating, behinds the scenes and on the tables, and they are doing nothing about that.
GW is a business in the interest of making money. Whether you like the game is completely arbitrary. The points changes are done to drive sales. Iron Hands was intentional.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Considering their "Competitive" events are largely being won by extremely suspect players, using extremely suspect tactics, and their TO situation is an utter fricking joke, it's no shock that their rules team "made of top ETC players" is also a complete joke.
3 of the last 5 majors have been dogged by allegations of rampant cheating, behinds the scenes and on the tables, and they are doing nothing about that.
GW is a business in the interest of making money. Whether you like the game is completely arbitrary. The points changes are done to drive sales. Iron Hands was intentional.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Considering their "Competitive" events are largely being won by extremely suspect players, using extremely suspect tactics, and their TO situation is an utter fricking joke, it's no shock that their rules team "made of top ETC players" is also a complete joke.
3 of the last 5 majors have been dogged by allegations of rampant cheating, behinds the scenes and on the tables, and they are doing nothing about that.
GW is a business in the interest of making money. Whether you like the game is completely arbitrary. The points changes are done to drive sales. Iron Hands was intentional.
Citation needed.
We had direct proof with the Wraithknight. You really think they stopped the habit?
We had direct proof with the Wraithknight. You really think they stopped the habit?
A single unsubstantiated reddit post is not direct proof, no matter what you want to believe. Furthermore, last I checked that nugget happened before the above allegations of rampant cheating, TO complicity and systemic match rigging.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Considering their "Competitive" events are largely being won by extremely suspect players, using extremely suspect tactics, and their TO situation is an utter fricking joke, it's no shock that their rules team "made of top ETC players" is also a complete joke.
3 of the last 5 majors have been dogged by allegations of rampant cheating, behinds the scenes and on the tables, and they are doing nothing about that.
GW is a business in the interest of making money. Whether you like the game is completely arbitrary. The points changes are done to drive sales. Iron Hands was intentional.
Citation needed.
We had direct proof with the Wraithknight. You really think they stopped the habit?
The problem is more cherry picking than anything else. A lot of new units got crap rules straight out of the box and never really sold much.
I think the evidence for this cherry picking is that whenever someone claims GW are making things super intentionally they use the Wraithknight as "proof". At this point we can just call it Wraithpicking.
Will Betts hosting his own tournaments locally to farm ITC points.
Neil Kerr reporting about relationships between TOs and players.
Vanguard Tactics talking about how the person who ended up wining his tournament got "perfect" scores after losing the match, and nobody checking it.
Alex Harrison has competed in recent events. ALEX.....HARRISON.
Rigged dice were found 3 times at LGT.
Loose rolling at LGT.
Fast dice at LGT.
Multiple complaints about Patrick Sanfillipo at a recent major, verified TO warnings, still allowed to compete and place.
Congratulations, you've managed to show that independent tournaments using varied TOs and rulesets have wildly varying degrees of integrity. But please continue to blame GW for things they arent involved in.
Citing ITC tournaments where shenanigans go down as evidence that GW is cooking the books to sell models is hilarity incarnate.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: In other words, trying to make predictions about what the metagame would look like if the defining metagame threat no longer existed in its current form is really, really tricky.
It's not that tricky. Yes, some non-Marine army could end up rising like a phoenix gloriously beating back the nu-Marine scourge.
It's not bloody fething likely though. Certainly not based on the data. In Pollyanna-Marines-are-fine land who knows what can happen, it's a world full of possibilities for the rest of those adorable NPC factions.
If you cannot understand the difference between "Nerf Iron Hands, let meta shake out, nerf further if needed" and "Marines are fine!" then perhaps you shouldn't be part of a discussion you clearly do not understand?
We had direct proof with the Wraithknight. You really think they stopped the habit?
A single unsubstantiated reddit post is not direct proof, no matter what you want to believe. Furthermore, last I checked that nugget happened before the above allegations of rampant cheating, TO complicity and systemic match rigging.
But hey, you do you.
The guy was literally a designer for them, and that was just one example that was asked about.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: If you cannot understand the difference between "Nerf Iron Hands, let meta shake out, nerf further if needed" and "Marines are fine!" then perhaps you shouldn't be part of a discussion you clearly do not understand?
I understand it completely, I just think it's a joke. GW has had months to 'let the meta shake out' and have done nothing. Thinking that they're going to suddenly come around to seeing the problem and actually doing something about it is the very definition of Pollyanna.
This farcical belief that it's just IH that's the problem is simply a refusal to acknowledge the obvious in the interest of catering to the favored PoV faction.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: In other words, trying to make predictions about what the metagame would look like if the defining metagame threat no longer existed in its current form is really, really tricky.
It's not that tricky. Yes, some non-Marine army could end up rising like a phoenix gloriously beating back the nu-Marine scourge.
It's not bloody fething likely though. Certainly not based on the data. In Pollyanna-Marines-are-fine land who knows what can happen, it's a world full of possibilities for the rest of those adorable NPC factions.
If you cannot understand the difference between "Nerf Iron Hands, let meta shake out, nerf further if needed" and "Marines are fine!" then perhaps you shouldn't be part of a discussion you clearly do not understand?
Ugh, I'm getting real tired of bogus "let the meta shake out [after nerfing X Marine subfaction] bru" argument. It's fething obvious that Marines of all colours are a step above all other factions. It's also obvious that the only people who claim otherwise, are those with a Marine army.
There is no current counter, to any Marine build, apart from "MOAR MARINES". This is great for you Marine players. But as someone without a Marine army, it sucks, hard.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: If you cannot understand the difference between "Nerf Iron Hands, let meta shake out, nerf further if needed" and "Marines are fine!" then perhaps you shouldn't be part of a discussion you clearly do not understand?
I understand it completely, I just think it's a joke. GW has had months to 'let the meta shake out' and have done nothing. Thinking that they're going to suddenly come around to seeing the problem and actually doing something about it is the very definition of Pollyanna.
This farcical belief that it's just IH that's the problem is simply a refusal to acknowledge the obvious in the interest of catering to the favored PoV faction.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: If you cannot understand the difference between "Nerf Iron Hands, let meta shake out, nerf further if needed" and "Marines are fine!" then perhaps you shouldn't be part of a discussion you clearly do not understand?
I understand it completely, I just think it's a joke.
And yet you go on to not understand what I'm arguing.
TwinPoleTheory wrote: GW has had months to 'let the meta shake out' and have done nothing.
You can't both do something and not do something, by definition.
TwinPoleTheory wrote: Thinking that they're going to suddenly come around to seeing the problem and actually doing something about it is the very definition of Pollyanna.
The very definition of the "Polyanna principle" is that people tend to remember pleasant items more accurately than unpleasant ones. Me arguing a normative statement is in absolutely zero ways indicative of what I believe is actually going to happen. I'm arguing what I wish could be the case in an ideal world. I have zero faith that GW is going to handle this in a sound manner, but that doesn't stop me from arguing that they ought to.
This farcical belief that it's just IH that's the problem is simply a refusal to acknowledge the obvious in the interest of catering to the favored PoV faction.
But that's not what I am saying, is it? See, you STILL haven't understood! What part of "nerf Iron Hands, let meta settle, nerf further if needed" precludes further nerfs? I'm explicitly saying that further nerfing could be acceptable.
Ugh, I'm getting real tired of bogus "let the meta shake out [after nerfing X Marine subfaction] bru" argument. It's fething obvious that Marines of all colours are a step above all other factions.
Personally, I'm really tired of people not understanding how metagames work...
You cannot take performance in the current metagame outside the context of the metagame in which it takes place. In a metagame where everyone is gearing up to kill a Knight in one turn, Land Raiders are trash. In a metagame where everyone is gearing up to counter hordes, Land Raiders at least have a chance. Assume that Knights are the dominant meta threat and that they kill Hordes with their 20618025610982659 shots per turn. GW releases an FAQ pointing out that it was a misprint, and that the real amount of shots should be "2". Knights drop from their top spot, Hordes move in, meta changes and people start spamming high-ROF low-D weapons to counter Hordes. The Land Raider is objectively in a much better place, despite recieving 0 buffs and despite only one part of the meta having been directly nerfed.
There is no current counter, to any Marine build, apart from "MOAR MARINES". This is great for you Marine players. But as someone without a Marine army, it sucks, hard.
How is Iron Hands being too strong a benefit for me playing Black Templars, again?
Sterling191 wrote: Congratulations, you've managed to show that independent tournaments using varied TOs and rulesets have wildly varying degrees of integrity. But please continue to blame GW for things they arent involved in.
To be fair, ITC/ETC only exist becauseGW isn't involved. They exited the tournament scene years ago, and if it wasn't left up to individuals rather than some type of governing body i doubt we'd see as much drama. So yes, they share the blame.
Sterling191 wrote: Nah, im perfectly happy with you continuing to prove your own claims are (once again) hyperbolic and inaccurate.
You have a surprising amount of confidence in the merits of your argument, and you're being kind of a dick about it.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: How is Iron Hands being too strong a benefit for me playing Black Templars, again?
Because a lot of what makes Iron Hands great comes directly from the Space Marine codex, a codex you share.
But the thing taking it over the top is not shared. What makes Marine fliers good, for example, is the Iron Hands super doctrine, not the planes being inherently good. I get absolutely no benefit from Raven Guard being able to infiltrate their Assault Centurions or Imperial Fists being strong with their Siegebreaker Cohorts; what incentive do I have to defend them other than believing that they do not currently merit nerfing?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: But that's not what I am saying, is it? See, you STILL haven't understood! What part of "nerf Iron Hands, let meta settle, nerf further if needed" precludes further nerfs? I'm explicitly saying that further nerfing could be acceptable.
It's really easy to say that when you know it hasn't and most likely won't happen.
The nerfs are done. This is what SM is at this point, it will be like this for the foreseeable future.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Personally, I'm really tired of people not understanding how metagames work...
The meta has settled. The 'adjustments' are done, this is it. Seriously, what pattern of GW releases makes you believe some mythical second round of balancing is coming anytime soon? There is literally ZERO evidence, historical or otherwise to support this blatantly Pollyanna point of view. It's like a fantasy conjured entirely out of nothing.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: How is Iron Hands being too strong a benefit for me playing Black Templars, again?
It's not, but who cares? You're right, nobody's complaining about Black Templars (other than people who thought World Eaters had a chance) currently, so what? I assume the concern stems from belief that BT could suffer collateral damage to their codex if GW actually tries to bring Marines back into some kind of competitive balance.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: How is Iron Hands being too strong a benefit for me playing Black Templars, again?
Because a lot of what makes Iron Hands great comes directly from the Space Marine codex, a codex you share.
But the thing taking it over the top is not shared. What makes Marine fliers good, for example, is the Iron Hands super doctrine, not the planes being inherently good. I get absolutely no benefit from Raven Guard being able to infiltrate their Assault Centurions or Imperial Fists being strong with their Siegebreaker Cohorts; what incentive do I have to defend them other than believing that they do not currently merit nerfing?
OMG stop making these pathetic excuses.
There's plenty of variation at "the top" insofar as different Marine builds and sub factions goes. You know this. I have literally provided you with proof that you asked for via PM. You also know that every Marine subfaction have been proven to be overperforming (excluding Sallies and IF who were released too soon to gather any real data).
The benefit you gain is quite obvious because you have made it painfully so. You have another subfaction nerfed so there is no impact on your own. Yours remains mega powerful while others are nerfed because "they" are the problem. It's a classic, and obvious, misdirection tactic often employed on these forums. There are now many units in the SM codex that are so points efficient they are OP. This is a benefit you all share, regardless of subfaction.
Right, but what makes all Space Marine chapters fundamentally broken is the new codex itself, specifically the doctrine system. Unless they make drastic changes none of the chapters are going to be balanced, now or in the future.
The meta has settled. The 'adjustments' are done, this is it. Seriously, what pattern of GW releases makes you believe some mythical second round of balancing is coming anytime soon? There is literally ZERO evidence, historical or otherwise to support this blatantly Pollyanna point of view. It's like a fantasy conjured entirely out of nothing.
What makes you think that's what I think? Seriously, our entire disagreement can be traced back to you confusing my normative statements for statements of fact. I haven't argued that I think GWWILL do something (other than that Iron Hands in their current form will be getting nerfed eventually), I've been making arguments about what I think GWOUGHT to do.
This is why I said you still haven't understood what I'm saying. You keep responding as though I believe GW is going to do any of what I argue. I don't.
Right, but what makes all Space Marine chapters fundamentally broken is the new codex itself, specifically the doctrine system. Unless they make drastic changes none of the chapters are going to be balanced, now or in the future.
If you gave Orks a rule that let them get -1AP in melee and autowounds on 6s to hit against non-vehicles in melee on a turn in which they charge, would that make them "fundamentally broken"? The existence of Doctrines in and of themselves is not broken.
There's plenty of variation at "the top" insofar as different Marine builds and sub factions goes. You know this. I have literally provided you with proof that you asked for via PM.
What, the podcast that said people weren't playing Salamanders because they were waiting for the FAQ, which promptly showed up and didn't let them do what people feared they wouldn't be allowed to do?
Remove the biggest outlier, reiterate data, remove biggest outlier. Rinse, repeat. This is really, really basic methodological stuff.
The benefit you gain is quite obvious because you have made it painfully so. You have another subfaction nerfed so there is no impact on your own. Yours remains mega powerful while others are nerfed because "they" are the problem. It's a classic, and obvious, misdirection tactic often employed on these forums. There are now many units in the SM codex that are so points efficient they are OP. This is a benefit you all share, regardless of subfaction.
There's not even any data for us to disagree about on Black Templars. You've just already made up your mind about how the world is, and damn anyone saying anything else. Only one of us is actually driving a narrative: you're saying all Marines are OP regardless of supplement, I'm saying you can't prove that. That is not the same as saying Marines are balanced.
Find me anywhere where I've said that the Marine Codex is not overpowered, as opposed to arguing against someone using shoddy methodology.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Remove the biggest outlier, reiterate data, remove biggest outlier. Rinse, repeat. This is really, really basic methodological stuff.
Then why isn't it being done? Could there be another reason? I mean, if this is 'really basic methodological stuff' and GW isn't doing it, doesn't that make them basically idiots at best or basically biased at worst?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Find me anywhere where I've said that the Marine Codex is not overpowered, as opposed to arguing against someone using shoddy methodology.
But just before this you make an argument that the fundamental mechanic of the new SM codex is not the problem, rather definitively you stated it in fact. So is it just a unit or two? Was it that 1 point drop on Marines? (I was pretty sure that was the problem too...) It must be something relatively minor and easy to fix if it's not the core mechanics of the new SM codex, stunning that GW hasn't gotten around to clearing up what must be a minor discrepancy.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Remove the biggest outlier, reiterate data, remove biggest outlier. Rinse, repeat. This is really, really basic methodological stuff.
Then why isn't it being done? Could there be another reason? I mean, if this is 'really basic methodological stuff' and GW isn't doing it, doesn't that make them basically idiots at best or basically biased at worst?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Find me anywhere where I've said that the Marine Codex is not overpowered, as opposed to arguing against someone using shoddy methodology.
But just before this you make an argument that the fundamental mechanic of the new SM codex is not the problem, rather definitively you stated it in fact. So is it just a unit or two? Was it that 1 point drop on Marines? (I was pretty sure that was the problem too...) It must be something relatively minor and easy to fix if it's not the core mechanics of the new SM codex, stunning that GW hasn't gotten around to clearing up what must be a minor discrepancy.
Super Doctrines can be overtuned without being fundamentally broken. If GW released a unit with Toughness 27, we wouldn't say it's the Toughness system that's fundamentally broken, it's GW's application of said system that's pants.
For example, if you had a Super Doctrine that triggered in the Tactical Doctrine that gave you +2 Leadership it'd be absolute rubbish. If you got, say, +1" to charges in the Assault Doctrine it'd be good, and if you got +5T to all your models in the Devastator Doctrine it'd obviously be busted. None of this is inherent in the Super Doctrine as a concept.
It looks to me, an outsider, like there's a lot of people who have their minds made up about their position, and anyone who disagrees with them is either a GW apologist or a salt-miner. Maybe this discussion has run its course? Just a thought.
My dark angels, space wolves and death watch would love some of that all colors opness...The new marine supplements have forced me off of the table top as putting down the SAME FRICKIN MODEL but paying more for it doing so much less is just a bridge too far.
As for cheating at tournaments, I've played the best of the best and dozens of tournaments and haven't had a bad game
yet (maybe one with some clock shenanigans but part of that was my fault for not being more familiar with using clocks). Even against TFG of my LGS, being clear about my intent, clarifying my opponents intent, speaking up if something makes me uncomfortable and not being a jerk has served me well.
If Siegler and Nanavati can have a classy game with 5k on the line it's not the good players you need to worry about. Those reports stem from such a small % of actual tournament games played that 40k tournaments are a much friendlier environment than any "competitive" event I've gone to in my life (literal stabbings at MtG events: https://kotaku.com/man-stabbed-seven-times-during-magic-the-gathering-gam-1797380701)
If you run into any shady behavior at an event channel the spirit of the late great Geoff Robinson and stand up for yourself. You don't have to be a jerk but just mentioning that you are uncomfortable about the way someone is doing something works 99% of the time.
I agree with the too much, too quickly. But nerfing marines across the board just turns us back into the days of guilliman or nothing. You nerf all marines to bring IH, IF & RG in line then everyone else suffers too hard.
I don't think the game is in a good place right now. There are a lot of things that need to change with marines: thunderfire cannons, stacking super docs on top of regular docs, some ravenguard strats, master of artisans and stealthy, eliminators, seigebreaker cohort all seem to be currently breaking the game and seem to be things GW is reluctant about changing as they are the linchpins of the new 35$ supplements they just sold thousands of.
As bad as the external balance of the codexes is the internal balance of the codexes is so bad I can't believe that GW calls themselves professionals. Not every unit has to be meta defining but there are so many terrible units out there that the barrier to entry building a good/competitive force is really high for any new players. With constant nerfs/changes and the cost/time of minis this is inexcusable.
I don't know how GW digs themselves out of this hole without disappointing a lot of customers by basically invalidating a ton of their very recent purchases (SM supplements) or upping the other armies to a level where games that go beyond turn 3 will be quite the anomalies.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: If you cannot understand the difference between "Nerf Iron Hands, let meta shake out, nerf further if needed" and "Marines are fine!" then perhaps you shouldn't be part of a discussion you clearly do not understand?
I understand it completely, I just think it's a joke. GW has had months to 'let the meta shake out' and have done nothing. Thinking that they're going to suddenly come around to seeing the problem and actually doing something about it is the very definition of Pollyanna.
This farcical belief that it's just IH that's the problem is simply a refusal to acknowledge the obvious in the interest of catering to the favored PoV faction.
It hasn't been a week since CA19 dropped. GW nerfed IH within a month, do you mean they didn't implement a nerf within a month of implementing the first nerf?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: ==If you gave Orks a rule that let them get -1AP in melee and autowounds on 6s to hit against non-vehicles in melee on a turn in which they charge, would that make them "fundamentally broken"?
If you gave Orks flat -1AP across the board there would be riots in the streets, not to mention rerolling both your charge rolls and auto hitting auto wounding.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: What, the podcast that said people weren't playing Salamanders because they were waiting for the FAQ, which promptly showed up and didn't let them do what people feared they wouldn't be allowed to do?
Yes, point? People wanted to know whether to build around Self Sacrifice or not, the answer is no so they've built different lists.
Remove the biggest outlier, reiterate data, remove biggest outlier. Rinse, repeat. This is really, really basic methodological stuff.
But what you're conveniently forgetting/ignoring is that there are several outliers at the minute that all need "removing" - IH, WS, IF, RG and UM.
There's not even any data for us to disagree about on Black Templars. You've just already made up your mind about how the world is, and damn anyone saying anything else. Only one of us is actually driving a narrative: you're saying all Marines are OP regardless of supplement, I'm saying you can't prove that. That is not the same as saying Marines are balanced.
Not at all, I'm simply sick of people, such as yourself, pretending this is an IH only problem when it obviously isn't. You said all this before I sent you my podcast of proof. You continue to say it now, despite the knowledge (assuming you listened to it all) that all sub factions released at that point were/are over-performing. This isn't a "narrative", this is a fact.
Find me anywhere where I've said that the Marine Codex is not overpowered, as opposed to arguing against someone using shoddy methodology.
you wrote:But the thing taking it over the top is not shared. What makes Marine fliers good, for example, is the Iron Hands super doctrine, not the planes being inherently good. I get absolutely no benefit from Raven Guard being able to infiltrate their Assault Centurions or Imperial Fists being strong with their Siegebreaker Cohorts; what incentive do I have to defend them other than believing that they do not currently merit nerfing?
Above, literally right there you tried to claim that it was the "Iron Hands super doctrine, not the planes being inherently good". You aren't arguing about bad methodology at all, your arguing in bad faith to protect your strong units/builds/combos.
vict0988 wrote: It hasn't been a week since CA19 dropped. GW nerfed IH within a month, do you mean they didn't implement a nerf within a month of implementing the first nerf?
Yes, CA19, the great white hope. Also known as the 'holy crap we've completely fethed the game let's desperately throw out a bunch of points changes that make no sense and hope it fixes the problem' codex.
Find me anywhere where I've said that the Marine Codex is not overpowered, as opposed to arguing against someone using shoddy methodology.
you wrote:But the thing taking it over the top is not shared. What makes Marine fliers good, for example, is the Iron Hands super doctrine, not the planes being inherently good. I get absolutely no benefit from Raven Guard being able to infiltrate their Assault Centurions or Imperial Fists being strong with their Siegebreaker Cohorts; what incentive do I have to defend them other than believing that they do not currently merit nerfing?
Above, literally right there you tried to claim that it was the "Iron Hands super doctrine, not the planes being inherently good". You aren't arguing about bad methodology at all, your arguing in bad faith to protect your strong units/builds/combos.
The Marine Codex as a whole can be overpowered without individual parts of it being so. The Marine Codex is overpowered because Iron Hands are overperforming. It might also be overpowered because of other factors.
You didn't see people calling for nerfs to the Deathstrike Missile Launcher when the Imperial Guard were in their prime.
An Actual Englishman wrote: You aren't arguing about bad methodology at all, your arguing in bad faith to protect your strong units/builds/combos.
Which is?
No, really. Tell me: what are the strong units/builds/combos for Black Templars? While we're at it, how do you know?
Remove the biggest outlier, reiterate data, remove biggest outlier. Rinse, repeat. This is really, really basic methodological stuff.
But what you're conveniently forgetting/ignoring is that there are several outliers at the minute that all need "removing" - IH, WS, IF, RG and UM.
One of them is a much bigger outlier (as in, almost three times as far from the ideal of 50% as number two, discounting Crimson Fists with a sample size of 2). There's a vast difference.
I wouldn't mind these "the meta evolves!!!" takes if they could provide examples.
Because in my experience 40k is not very meta driven. You just have lists which are "good" (i.e. you get "greater than X" probability to kill/survive for so many points). This changes over time as GW release new stuff, update stuff and so on.
40k has very rarely - if ever - been a rock paper scissors game. It doesn't have a "aha, 60% of people play rock, I'll bring paper" sort of meta you can sometimes get in Card Games.
We don't really see "anti-meta" lists. Mainly because they don't exist. What build for instance existed which was kind of crap versus X, but gave you a 75% win rate versus say Castelan builds, or Eldar flying circuses, or any of the meta dominant choices we have since throughout 8th?
Basically, what "list" is currently not viable, because its auto-lose 30% win rate versus Iron Hands, but at the same time racks up a 60-70% win rate versus Ravenguard? White Scars? Etc?
I don't think it exists - because by and large, good builds in 40k are good against everything.
This isn't to say if you bring your non-optimised mech list and your friend builds a list with all the lascannons/melta etc he isn't skewing the game - but that sort of thing, as a rule, does not happen with top competitive lists.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: No, really. Tell me: what are the strong units/builds/combos for Black Templars? While we're at it, how do you know?
I would assume any that perform well without requiring psykers, which is plenty.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: One of them is a much bigger outlier (as in, almost three times as far from the ideal of 50% as number two, discounting Crimson Fists with a sample size of 2). There's a vast difference.
Yet, still performing admirably, with more Chapters to come to reinforce a system of already demonstrably broken mechanics. I mean, it was perfectly obvious to the rest of us what adding -1 AP to entire categories of weapons was going to do to the game, but Marine players love to say 'just let the meta shake out' while they curbstomp 90% of their non-Marine opponents.
Then they wonder why everyone's got a bad attitude about it.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: No, really. Tell me: what are the strong units/builds/combos for Black Templars? While we're at it, how do you know?
I would assume any that perform well without requiring psykers, which is plenty.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: One of them is a much bigger outlier (as in, almost three times as far from the ideal of 50% as number two, discounting Crimson Fists with a sample size of 2). There's a vast difference.
Yet, still performing admirably, with more Chapters to come to reinforce a system of already demonstrably broken mechanics. I mean, it was perfectly obvious to the rest of us what adding -1 AP to entire categories of weapons was going to do to the game, but Marine players love to say 'just let the meta shake out' while they curbstomp 90% of their non-Marine opponents.
Then they wonder why everyone's got a bad attitude about it.
Its -1 AP for a whole codex of units that were overcosted. With marines having something between 40-45% win rates. There is no question 1.0 marines needed large fixes being decidedly bottom tier for the greater part of 2 years.
Ultra marines even have a decent super doctrine plus the -1 AP bonus and +1 attack bonus and some decent stratagems and they are only able to muster a win rate on par with eldar (who were nerfed massively with the ynnari rules changes, yet also recently received a minor buff which likely isn't showing up in the stats - we will know probably in a month where Eldar truly stand) and tau (who just received a massive buff). For Ultramarines(and successors) I would say they are performing "well" to be competing at the level tau and eldar (a place where I wish more armies would be elevated to). It is clear who the overperformers are and I knew it the second I saw their rules. For RG/WS the removal of a single stratagem or WL trait would bring them in line. For Ironhands and Crimson fists - a complete rewrite of their super doctrines is required...+1 damage to vehicles or +1 to hit and reroll 1's for heavies on the move is just straight up ludacris. I only hope GW fixes the problem correctly. A nerf to marine units will result in my Ultras being unplayable even in casual games (just like before). I would be hugely baffled if GW (even with their history of sheer incompotence) wouldn't soon hotfix CF and IH at the very least. I believe at the last GW major event at GW - 10 marine armies took top with the top 5 being CF. That is a message that even GW can't miss.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyel wrote: I wouldn't mind these "the meta evolves!!!" takes if they could provide examples.
Because in my experience 40k is not very meta driven. You just have lists which are "good" (i.e. you get "greater than X" probability to kill/survive for so many points). This changes over time as GW release new stuff, update stuff and so on.
40k has very rarely - if ever - been a rock paper scissors game. It doesn't have a "aha, 60% of people play rock, I'll bring paper" sort of meta you can sometimes get in Card Games.
We don't really see "anti-meta" lists. Mainly because they don't exist. What build for instance existed which was kind of crap versus X, but gave you a 75% win rate versus say Castelan builds, or Eldar flying circuses, or any of the meta dominant choices we have since throughout 8th?
Basically, what "list" is currently not viable, because its auto-lose 30% win rate versus Iron Hands, but at the same time racks up a 60-70% win rate versus Ravenguard? White Scars? Etc?
I don't think it exists - because by and large, good builds in 40k are good against everything.
This isn't to say if you bring your non-optimised mech list and your friend builds a list with all the lascannons/melta etc he isn't skewing the game - but that sort of thing, as a rule, does not happen with top competitive lists.
Absolutely - a measure of a strong tournament list is it's ability to defeat any kind of list. Ultimately this boild down to how much damage you can do - how much you can take - and how you have to move your units to do this. Ironhands excel at all these factors.
vict0988 wrote: It hasn't been a week since CA19 dropped. GW nerfed IH within a month, do you mean they didn't implement a nerf within a month of implementing the first nerf?
Yes, CA19, the great white hope. Also known as the 'holy crap we've completely fethed the game let's desperately throw out a bunch of points changes that make no sense and hope it fixes the problem' codex.
For months/years we saw post after post about how to make marines great again, what can be done, they need new rules, not point changes so they actually feel elite. Well guess what, GW also seemed to agree with that sentiment, they heard you, and set the marine level up to 11.....happy? do they feel like frickin' super soldiers now? This is the marine army you asked for.
But sure, it's all about the money.....like people weren't buying marines before, lol. You can't say that GW only produces marines because that's what sells and then on the other hand say that they intentionally made them OP so they can sell marines. lol. Which one is it?
The truth is they over played their hand and maybe took them a little too far, but I'm going to say probably not as far as many of you are claiming. A few tweaks and they probably will be sitting about right. Other factions need some tweaks to bring them up to the same level, but Eldar are just fine after infusing some simple bonuses in PA:1. The next few months are going to be very interesting IMHO.
Marines have been giving some serious boosts....a bolter is now a very dangerous weapon (which people wanted), basic marines no longer suck in melee (which people wanted), seeing a trend here.
The new marines are exactly what people have been asking for in 8th edition, an elite army that feels like an elite army. Sure, there are some outliers that need to be addressed and toned down, for sure. Then you bring up some of the other low hanging fruit in other armies and things get fun again.
Marines are back, they are exactly what you asked for, and now people are scrambling how to deal with them. This is the game.
For months/years we saw post after post about how to make marines great again, what can be done, they need new rules, not point changes so they actually feel elite. Well guess what, GW also seemed to agree with that sentiment, they heard you, and set the marine level up to 11.....happy? do they feel like frickin' super soldiers now? This is the marine army you asked for.
But sure, it's all about the money.....like people weren't buying marines before, lol. You can't say that GW only produces marines because that's what sells and then on the other hand say that they intentionally made them OP so they can sell marines. lol. Which one is it?
The truth is they over played their hand and maybe took them a little too far, but I'm going to say probably not as far as many of you are claiming. A few tweaks and they probably will be sitting about right. Other factions need some tweaks to bring them up to the same level, but Eldar are just fine after infusing some simple bonuses in PA:1. The next few months are going to be very interesting IMHO.
Marines have been giving some serious boosts....a bolter is now a very dangerous weapon (which people wanted), basic marines no longer suck in melee (which people wanted), seeing a trend here.
The new marines are exactly what people have been asking for in 8th edition, an elite army that feels like an elite army. Sure, there are some outliers that need to be addressed and toned down, for sure. Then you bring up some of the other low hanging fruit in other armies and things get fun again.
Marines are back, they are exactly what you asked for, and now people are scrambling how to deal with them. This is the game.
I think a big part of the problem is that gw is taking its time getting to that "low hanging fruit " in other armies.
Obviously everyone will eventually get new rules. But until then it feels like everyone else is an edition behind.
Especially if your army is supposed to be loyalist marine's "dark mirror ".
For months/years we saw post after post about how to make marines great again, what can be done, they need new rules, not point changes so they actually feel elite. Well guess what, GW also seemed to agree with that sentiment, they heard you, and set the marine level up to 11.....happy? do they feel like frickin' super soldiers now? This is the marine army you asked for.
But sure, it's all about the money.....like people weren't buying marines before, lol. You can't say that GW only produces marines because that's what sells and then on the other hand say that they intentionally made them OP so they can sell marines. lol. Which one is it?
The truth is they over played their hand and maybe took them a little too far, but I'm going to say probably not as far as many of you are claiming. A few tweaks and they probably will be sitting about right. Other factions need some tweaks to bring them up to the same level, but Eldar are just fine after infusing some simple bonuses in PA:1. The next few months are going to be very interesting IMHO.
Marines have been giving some serious boosts....a bolter is now a very dangerous weapon (which people wanted), basic marines no longer suck in melee (which people wanted), seeing a trend here.
The new marines are exactly what people have been asking for in 8th edition, an elite army that feels like an elite army. Sure, there are some outliers that need to be addressed and toned down, for sure. Then you bring up some of the other low hanging fruit in other armies and things get fun again.
Marines are back, they are exactly what you asked for, and now people are scrambling how to deal with them. This is the game.
ITT: Poster Is Surprised That Different People On The internet Have Different Opnions
For months/years we saw post after post about how to make marines great again, what can be done, they need new rules, not point changes so they actually feel elite. Well guess what, GW also seemed to agree with that sentiment, they heard you, and set the marine level up to 11.....happy? do they feel like frickin' super soldiers now? This is the marine army you asked for.
But sure, it's all about the money.....like people weren't buying marines before, lol. You can't say that GW only produces marines because that's what sells and then on the other hand say that they intentionally made them OP so they can sell marines. lol. Which one is it?
The truth is they over played their hand and maybe took them a little too far, but I'm going to say probably not as far as many of you are claiming. A few tweaks and they probably will be sitting about right. Other factions need some tweaks to bring them up to the same level, but Eldar are just fine after infusing some simple bonuses in PA:1. The next few months are going to be very interesting IMHO.
Marines have been giving some serious boosts....a bolter is now a very dangerous weapon (which people wanted), basic marines no longer suck in melee (which people wanted), seeing a trend here.
The new marines are exactly what people have been asking for in 8th edition, an elite army that feels like an elite army. Sure, there are some outliers that need to be addressed and toned down, for sure. Then you bring up some of the other low hanging fruit in other armies and things get fun again.
Marines are back, they are exactly what you asked for, and now people are scrambling how to deal with them. This is the game.
I mainly wanted points drops. Not.. this. Because marines were very overpriced before.
For months/years we saw post after post about how to make marines great again, what can be done, they need new rules, not point changes so they actually feel elite. Well guess what, GW also seemed to agree with that sentiment, they heard you, and set the marine level up to 11.....happy? do they feel like frickin' super soldiers now? This is the marine army you asked for.
But sure, it's all about the money.....like people weren't buying marines before, lol. You can't say that GW only produces marines because that's what sells and then on the other hand say that they intentionally made them OP so they can sell marines. lol. Which one is it?
The truth is they over played their hand and maybe took them a little too far, but I'm going to say probably not as far as many of you are claiming. A few tweaks and they probably will be sitting about right. Other factions need some tweaks to bring them up to the same level, but Eldar are just fine after infusing some simple bonuses in PA:1. The next few months are going to be very interesting IMHO.
Marines have been giving some serious boosts....a bolter is now a very dangerous weapon (which people wanted), basic marines no longer suck in melee (which people wanted), seeing a trend here.
The new marines are exactly what people have been asking for in 8th edition, an elite army that feels like an elite army. Sure, there are some outliers that need to be addressed and toned down, for sure. Then you bring up some of the other low hanging fruit in other armies and things get fun again.
Marines are back, they are exactly what you asked for, and now people are scrambling how to deal with them. This is the game.
GW can never win, several people on this board will never be happy with whatever they do. Watch how much of a minor footnote SM become in 6 months once other books receive their 2.0 treatment - it's the typical codex cycle.
For months/years we saw post after post about how to make marines great again, what can be done, they need new rules, not point changes so they actually feel elite. Well guess what, GW also seemed to agree with that sentiment, they heard you, and set the marine level up to 11.....happy? do they feel like frickin' super soldiers now? This is the marine army you asked for.
But sure, it's all about the money.....like people weren't buying marines before, lol. You can't say that GW only produces marines because that's what sells and then on the other hand say that they intentionally made them OP so they can sell marines. lol. Which one is it?
The truth is they over played their hand and maybe took them a little too far, but I'm going to say probably not as far as many of you are claiming. A few tweaks and they probably will be sitting about right. Other factions need some tweaks to bring them up to the same level, but Eldar are just fine after infusing some simple bonuses in PA:1. The next few months are going to be very interesting IMHO.
Marines have been giving some serious boosts....a bolter is now a very dangerous weapon (which people wanted), basic marines no longer suck in melee (which people wanted), seeing a trend here.
The new marines are exactly what people have been asking for in 8th edition, an elite army that feels like an elite army. Sure, there are some outliers that need to be addressed and toned down, for sure. Then you bring up some of the other low hanging fruit in other armies and things get fun again.
Marines are back, they are exactly what you asked for, and now people are scrambling how to deal with them. This is the game.
There's such a thing as going overboard, and the units most in need of assistance largely didn't change. Insane army-wide buffs are a really poor hamfisted way to try and fix those issues.
For months/years we saw post after post about how to make marines great again, what can be done, they need new rules, not point changes so they actually feel elite. Well guess what, GW also seemed to agree with that sentiment, they heard you, and set the marine level up to 11.....happy? do they feel like frickin' super soldiers now? This is the marine army you asked for.
But sure, it's all about the money.....like people weren't buying marines before, lol. You can't say that GW only produces marines because that's what sells and then on the other hand say that they intentionally made them OP so they can sell marines. lol. Which one is it?
The truth is they over played their hand and maybe took them a little too far, but I'm going to say probably not as far as many of you are claiming. A few tweaks and they probably will be sitting about right. Other factions need some tweaks to bring them up to the same level, but Eldar are just fine after infusing some simple bonuses in PA:1. The next few months are going to be very interesting IMHO.
Marines have been giving some serious boosts....a bolter is now a very dangerous weapon (which people wanted), basic marines no longer suck in melee (which people wanted), seeing a trend here.
The new marines are exactly what people have been asking for in 8th edition, an elite army that feels like an elite army. Sure, there are some outliers that need to be addressed and toned down, for sure. Then you bring up some of the other low hanging fruit in other armies and things get fun again.
Marines are back, they are exactly what you asked for, and now people are scrambling how to deal with them. This is the game.
There's such a thing as going overboard, and the units most in need of assistance largely didn't change. Insane army-wide buffs are a really poor hamfisted way to try and fix those issues.
perhaps, but you can't argue that GW didn't address the core issue of marines not really feeling like an elite, killer army. If you go for points drops, then they become the hoard...and that doesn't make sense.
They didn't go overboard on everything, some things feel right. Others, I agree, probably too much and hopefully they will get addressed in time if shown to be repeatedly OTT. I do hope that they now start looking at the other factions in more detail. That's why I think it's going to be an interesting few months.
Chaos is a tough one, they really shouldn't have received that codex update....it didn't really do anything. They have a ton of tools at their disposal, but I haven't taken the time to really look into all the combos after Faith and Fury plus CA.
Cut the hyperbole down guys. The supplements made marines broken, but they were absolutely good before those books were released. They were even ok with the version 1.0 actually. A BT army will do fine in any real meta, if it's well optimized for 8th edition. Copy-paste lists from 5th or older editions will struggle, of course, I don't see any issue in that and it's true for all armies, not just BT or other SM uncommon chapters.
Standalone chapters like SW, BA and DA are far from being terrible either, especially after CA19.
So yeah, the chapters that didn't get the doctrine are also competitive, just not as broken as the current nastiest ones.
For months/years we saw post after post about how to make marines great again, what can be done, they need new rules, not point changes so they actually feel elite. Well guess what, GW also seemed to agree with that sentiment, they heard you, and set the marine level up to 11.....happy? do they feel like frickin' super soldiers now? This is the marine army you asked for.
But sure, it's all about the money.....like people weren't buying marines before, lol. You can't say that GW only produces marines because that's what sells and then on the other hand say that they intentionally made them OP so they can sell marines. lol. Which one is it?
The truth is they over played their hand and maybe took them a little too far, but I'm going to say probably not as far as many of you are claiming. A few tweaks and they probably will be sitting about right. Other factions need some tweaks to bring them up to the same level, but Eldar are just fine after infusing some simple bonuses in PA:1. The next few months are going to be very interesting IMHO.
Marines have been giving some serious boosts....a bolter is now a very dangerous weapon (which people wanted), basic marines no longer suck in melee (which people wanted), seeing a trend here.
The new marines are exactly what people have been asking for in 8th edition, an elite army that feels like an elite army. Sure, there are some outliers that need to be addressed and toned down, for sure. Then you bring up some of the other low hanging fruit in other armies and things get fun again.
Marines are back, they are exactly what you asked for, and now people are scrambling how to deal with them. This is the game.
There's such a thing as going overboard, and the units most in need of assistance largely didn't change. Insane army-wide buffs are a really poor hamfisted way to try and fix those issues.
perhaps, but you can't argue that GW didn't address the core issue of marines not really feeling like an elite, killer army. If you go for points drops, then they become the hoard...and that doesn't make sense.
They didn't go overboard on everything, some things feel right. Others, I agree, probably too much and hopefully they will get addressed in time if shown to be repeatedly OTT. I do hope that they now start looking at the other factions in more detail. That's why I think it's going to be an interesting few months.
Chaos is a tough one, they really shouldn't have received that codex update....it didn't really do anything. They have a ton of tools at their disposal, but I haven't taken the time to really look into all the combos after Faith and Fury plus CA.
Dropping points without better rules makes an army that's supposed to be elite feel more like a horde huh?
Good thing gw doesn't seem to be doing that to any other armies compromised of power armoured transhumans.
Blackie wrote: Cut the hyperbole down guys. The supplements made marines broken, but they were absolutely good before those books were released. They were even ok with the version 1.0 actually. A BT army will do fine in any real meta, if it's well optimized for 8th edition. Copy-paste lists from 5th or older editions will struggle, of course, I don't see any issue in that and it's true for all armies, not just BT or other SM uncommon chapters.
Standalone chapters like SW, BA and DA are far from being terrible either, especially after CA19.
So yeah, the chapters that didn't get the doctrine are also competitive, just not as broken as the current nastiest ones.
That is not true. Comparing to eldar or tau, who both run the same lists they are running now, they were very bad, and required souping and over focus on certain units. Right now a space marine player can play, maybe not every option out of his codex, but a lot of them. They have 4 troop choices alone, which don't make the list automaticlly bad. There is more then one heavy, FA and elite unit worth taking. Multiple characters are valid. Pre the new sm book and supplements , some armies didn't even exist. Who played IH pre buff? BA were technicly played, but BA armies were max smash hammers 15 scouts and the rest of something else. With SW am not even sure what units are run in their armies, because no one seems to be playing them. DA have some very efficient units, but it is hard to make an army out of DA without a soup. Now a marine player doesn't have to soup and play armies, he doesn't want to play. He pics a successor and tinkers the army rules, or picks one of the established chapters, and stuff just works.
Ah and when that happens, tau still beat them in shoting and long game objective taking.
Marines weren't good before they where one of the worst army's outside with nearly zero impact of the meta.
They needed a good buff, but gw just made Tam a bit too good.
And I rly just mean a bit.
It's just ih and if the rest like ultras or so are problay good balanced
Karol wrote: With SW am not even sure what units are run in their armies, because no one seems to be playing them.
Again, cut down the hyperbole. 40k isn't just the most crowded GT in US an UK. Are you really saying that no one plays SW? There are thousands of SW players at the very least I'm doing ok with my SW against anyone that plays a real army (because things like 5 stormravens or 18 smasha guns ain't real). I tipycally play in a semi-competitve meta, with and against optimized lists, but realistic ones and full WYSIWYG.
If you see no SW at tournaments is because they are imperium and imperium can have a bazillion of good or overpowered units. You don't see ork koptas, nobz, KMK or buggies at tournaments, and probably not even the nauts but it doesn't mean that those units are bad. For the same reason SW aren't bad either. But in a WAAC environment players just bring the most powerful combos available.
Stop referring only to the ITC ultra competitive results, that's just a tiny part of 40k around the world. In casual games SM were quite balanced, trash armies are other ones. Even competitive factions like eldar, drukhari or orks can be absolute trash outside the few competitive builds they have while typical casual SM armies are rarely to be trash. Those data are also affected by the tournaments house rules like times limitations that can change everything: orks competitive lists for example are very good in 3 turns games but not so in 5-7 ones as they're able to score fast but they're also easy to wipe out and from turns 4+ they just struggle to avoid getting tabled.
But even if you look at the tournament datas, it doesn't seem that SM (all of them) were doing that terrible, and considering that pretty much everyone has a SM army, to let them be average tier is actually very healthy for the meta. People will play marines regardless of their competitiveness, but if they are overpowered too many people will play them and suddenly 8th edition becomes the new 30k.
The problem with the new SM is that they are overpowered even without spamming a few broken combos, like other competitive armies must do instead, and an average collection is already a competitive built. That's the issue, other factions have to chase the flavor of the month to be top tier and that helps balance since it's not easy to adjust quickly and many players are not willing to re-buy their army over and over again.
I see this way, if threads on forums that deal with lists aren't poping up with , how do I beat SW in multiple topics, and people durning list anayls don't ask stuff like, how do you plan beat SW, then the faction is not being played.
Also, look at my flag. I am not from the US. We don't play ITC here, and still SW are not a thing in Poland. And it isn't just a flavour of the month thing, because eldar are not the flavour now, but people still ask about them, same with tau or marines like the CF or BT.
the combo comment seems to be strange. I have not paid multiple editions, but all of 8th, and people claim this to be the ebst edition, the good lists about game breaking combos, undercosted units and breaking or ignoring the core rules of the game. It seems to me, that to be good, you have to have rules and units with rules that do just that.
If you don't, well then you get something like SW or GK.
For months/years we saw post after post about how to make marines great again, what can be done, they need new rules, not point changes so they actually feel elite. Well guess what, GW also seemed to agree with that sentiment, they heard you, and set the marine level up to 11.....happy? do they feel like frickin' super soldiers now? This is the marine army you asked for.
But sure, it's all about the money.....like people weren't buying marines before, lol. You can't say that GW only produces marines because that's what sells and then on the other hand say that they intentionally made them OP so they can sell marines. lol. Which one is it?
The truth is they over played their hand and maybe took them a little too far, but I'm going to say probably not as far as many of you are claiming. A few tweaks and they probably will be sitting about right. Other factions need some tweaks to bring them up to the same level, but Eldar are just fine after infusing some simple bonuses in PA:1. The next few months are going to be very interesting IMHO.
Marines have been giving some serious boosts....a bolter is now a very dangerous weapon (which people wanted), basic marines no longer suck in melee (which people wanted), seeing a trend here.
The new marines are exactly what people have been asking for in 8th edition, an elite army that feels like an elite army. Sure, there are some outliers that need to be addressed and toned down, for sure. Then you bring up some of the other low hanging fruit in other armies and things get fun again.
Marines are back, they are exactly what you asked for, and now people are scrambling how to deal with them. This is the game.
There's such a thing as going overboard, and the units most in need of assistance largely didn't change. Insane army-wide buffs are a really poor hamfisted way to try and fix those issues.
perhaps, but you can't argue that GW didn't address the core issue of marines not really feeling like an elite, killer army. If you go for points drops, then they become the hoard...and that doesn't make sense.
They didn't go overboard on everything, some things feel right. Others, I agree, probably too much and hopefully they will get addressed in time if shown to be repeatedly OTT. I do hope that they now start looking at the other factions in more detail. That's why I think it's going to be an interesting few months.
Chaos is a tough one, they really shouldn't have received that codex update....it didn't really do anything. They have a ton of tools at their disposal, but I haven't taken the time to really look into all the combos after Faith and Fury plus CA.
Dropping points without better rules makes an army that's supposed to be elite feel more like a horde huh?
Good thing gw doesn't seem to be doing that to any other armies compromised of power armoured transhumans.
not sure where you've been, but that was the long playing discussion before SM 2.0 dropped. If you keep dropping marine points to a level that felt fitting with the statline and level of power, they'd be too cheap and only effective run as a horde, which marines should not be in any way.
I have CA, am I missing something? I can't find 8pt Deathwatch or Grey Knights etc. I do see a few points drops on units not being utilized, but nothing that was in the earlier discussions.
Marines needed better rules, not continued points drops. They got those with the addition of improved traits, shock assault, bolter discipline and doctrines (both regular and super). The middle two worked great (and chaos get these too), the first works for all but Iron Hands. Not sure why they needed 3 bonuses instead of the usual 2. Doctrines I think missed the mark slightly although the concept was good, execution not so much. Super doctrines were unnecessary IMHO.
For months/years we saw post after post about how to make marines great again, what can be done, they need new rules, not point changes so they actually feel elite. Well guess what, GW also seemed to agree with that sentiment, they heard you, and set the marine level up to 11.....happy? do they feel like frickin' super soldiers now? This is the marine army you asked for.
But sure, it's all about the money.....like people weren't buying marines before, lol. You can't say that GW only produces marines because that's what sells and then on the other hand say that they intentionally made them OP so they can sell marines. lol. Which one is it?
The truth is they over played their hand and maybe took them a little too far, but I'm going to say probably not as far as many of you are claiming. A few tweaks and they probably will be sitting about right. Other factions need some tweaks to bring them up to the same level, but Eldar are just fine after infusing some simple bonuses in PA:1. The next few months are going to be very interesting IMHO.
Marines have been giving some serious boosts....a bolter is now a very dangerous weapon (which people wanted), basic marines no longer suck in melee (which people wanted), seeing a trend here.
The new marines are exactly what people have been asking for in 8th edition, an elite army that feels like an elite army. Sure, there are some outliers that need to be addressed and toned down, for sure. Then you bring up some of the other low hanging fruit in other armies and things get fun again.
Marines are back, they are exactly what you asked for, and now people are scrambling how to deal with them. This is the game.
There's such a thing as going overboard, and the units most in need of assistance largely didn't change. Insane army-wide buffs are a really poor hamfisted way to try and fix those issues.
perhaps, but you can't argue that GW didn't address the core issue of marines not really feeling like an elite, killer army. If you go for points drops, then they become the hoard...and that doesn't make sense.
They didn't go overboard on everything, some things feel right. Others, I agree, probably too much and hopefully they will get addressed in time if shown to be repeatedly OTT. I do hope that they now start looking at the other factions in more detail. That's why I think it's going to be an interesting few months.
Chaos is a tough one, they really shouldn't have received that codex update....it didn't really do anything. They have a ton of tools at their disposal, but I haven't taken the time to really look into all the combos after Faith and Fury plus CA.
Dropping points without better rules makes an army that's supposed to be elite feel more like a horde huh?
Good thing gw doesn't seem to be doing that to any other armies compromised of power armoured transhumans.
not sure where you've been, but that was the long playing discussion before SM 2.0 dropped. If you keep dropping marine points to a level that felt fitting with the statline and level of power, they'd be too cheap and only effective run as a horde, which marines should not be in any way.
I have CA, am I missing something? I can't find 8pt Deathwatch or Grey Knights etc. I do see a few points drops on units not being utilized, but nothing that was in the earlier discussions.
Marines needed better rules, not continued points drops. They got those with the addition of improved traits, shock assault, bolter discipline and doctrines (both regular and super). The middle two worked great (and chaos get these too), the first works for all but Iron Hands. Not sure why they needed 3 bonuses instead of the usual 2. Doctrines I think missed the mark slightly although the concept was good, execution not so much. Super doctrines were unnecessary IMHO.
You ever hear of sarcasm? Dropping points without improving rules is EXACTLY what they're doing with csm.
As of ca csm are officially the cheaper, inferior space marines. The fact that csm are now cheaper than tac marines proves gw isn't going to improve our rules. We just need to win through superior numbers.
bullyboy wrote: Marines needed better rules, not continued points drops. They got those with the addition of improved traits, shock assault, bolter discipline and doctrines (both regular and super). The middle two worked great (and chaos get these too), the first works for all but Iron Hands. Not sure why they needed 3 bonuses instead of the usual 2. Doctrines I think missed the mark slightly although the concept was good, execution not so much. Super doctrines were unnecessary IMHO.
Pretty much this. Doctrines were a bridge too far. Adding -1 AP across the board to broad categories of weapons is too much of a swing to add to a game that runs on a d6, so we'll get more invuln saves, more fnp saves, and more funky strats that say 'you can't shoot this' to compensate. Not to mention the knock on effects of lethality upgrades that will be dripped out to the non-Marine armies, so we get to look forward to a year of Marines dominating the meta or a year of whiplash-inducing balance swings while GW tries to fix this shitshow.
vict0988 wrote: It hasn't been a week since CA19 dropped. GW nerfed IH within a month, do you mean they didn't implement a nerf within a month of implementing the first nerf?
Yes, CA19, the great white hope. Also known as the 'holy crap we've completely fethed the game let's desperately throw out a bunch of points changes that make no sense and hope it fixes the problem' codex.
It's almost like we need a living ruleset
Ahh predictable counter to strong arguement with logical fallacy and miss quoting. Classic stuff man.
bullyboy wrote: Marines needed better rules, not continued points drops. They got those with the addition of improved traits, shock assault, bolter discipline and doctrines (both regular and super). The middle two worked great (and chaos get these too), the first works for all but Iron Hands. Not sure why they needed 3 bonuses instead of the usual 2. Doctrines I think missed the mark slightly although the concept was good, execution not so much. Super doctrines were unnecessary IMHO.
Pretty much this. Doctrines were a bridge too far. Adding -1 AP across the board to broad categories of weapons is too much of a swing to add to a game that runs on a d6, so we'll get more invuln saves, more fnp saves, and more funky strats that say 'you can't shoot this' to compensate. Not to mention the knock on effects of lethality upgrades that will be dripped out to the non-Marine armies, so we get to look forward to a year of Marines dominating the meta or a year of whiplash-inducing balance swings while GW tries to fix this shitshow.
-1 ap to a certain class of weapons across the board is too much but amping a 20 man units firepower by over 1000% is okay? Just wait until these CA point drops for CSM come into play. I'd venture to say CSM are already on par with loyalist at this point. My Bl legion list went down over 200 points. They might not be ironhands but ironhands are borked and are going to get borked.
Karol wrote: With SW am not even sure what units are run in their armies, because no one seems to be playing them.
Again, cut down the hyperbole. 40k isn't just the most crowded GT in US an UK. Are you really saying that no one plays SW? There are thousands of SW players at the very least I'm doing ok with my SW against anyone that plays a real army (because things like 5 stormravens or 18 smasha guns ain't real). I tipycally play in a semi-competitve meta, with and against optimized lists, but realistic ones and full WYSIWYG.
If you see no SW at tournaments is because they are imperium and imperium can have a bazillion of good or overpowered units. You don't see ork koptas, nobz, KMK or buggies at tournaments, and probably not even the nauts but it doesn't mean that those units are bad. For the same reason SW aren't bad either. But in a WAAC environment players just bring the most powerful combos available.
Stop referring only to the ITC ultra competitive results, that's just a tiny part of 40k around the world. In casual games SM were quite balanced, trash armies are other ones. Even competitive factions like eldar, drukhari or orks can be absolute trash outside the few competitive builds they have while typical casual SM armies are rarely to be trash. Those data are also affected by the tournaments house rules like times limitations that can change everything: orks competitive lists for example are very good in 3 turns games but not so in 5-7 ones as they're able to score fast but they're also easy to wipe out and from turns 4+ they just struggle to avoid getting tabled.
But even if you look at the tournament datas, it doesn't seem that SM (all of them) were doing that terrible, and considering that pretty much everyone has a SM army, to let them be average tier is actually very healthy for the meta. People will play marines regardless of their competitiveness, but if they are overpowered too many people will play them and suddenly 8th edition becomes the new 30k.
The problem with the new SM is that they are overpowered even without spamming a few broken combos, like other competitive armies must do instead, and an average collection is already a competitive built. That's the issue, other factions have to chase the flavor of the month to be top tier and that helps balance since it's not easy to adjust quickly and many players are not willing to re-buy their army over and over again.
IOW the poor balance is fine if you don't pay attention to it and build your army straight from the box with mixed weapons and everything.
Xenomancers wrote: -1 ap to a certain class of weapons across the board is too much but amping a 20 man units firepower by over 1000% is okay?
Ahh, the whataboutism argument, speaking of 'logic'. Speaking of misrepresentation, calling it a 'certain class' of weapons definitely makes it sound much smaller than a 'broad category' of weapons, but of course a single unit becoming more powerful under very specific circumstances, let's see, what's the logical fallacy for that? Oh yeah, False Equivalence.
Xenomancers wrote: -1 ap to a certain class of weapons across the board is too much but amping a 20 man units firepower by over 1000% is okay?
Ahh, the whataboutism argument, speaking of 'logic'. Speaking of misrepresentation, calling it a 'certain class' of weapons definitely makes it sound much smaller than a 'broad category' of weapons, but of course a single unit becoming more powerful under very specific circumstances, let's see, what's the logical fallacy for that? Oh yeah, False Equivalence.
I'm sorry it's not false equivalence.
It's literally - how much damage this army can do vs how much damage this army can do. SM get flat buffs - CSM have to amp up with stratagems. The result is the same. Entire armies get removed.
Xenomancers wrote: -1 ap to a certain class of weapons across the board is too much but amping a 20 man units firepower by over 1000% is okay?
Ahh, the whataboutism argument, speaking of 'logic'. Speaking of misrepresentation, calling it a 'certain class' of weapons definitely makes it sound much smaller than a 'broad category' of weapons, but of course a single unit becoming more powerful under very specific circumstances, let's see, what's the logical fallacy for that? Oh yeah, False Equivalence.
I'm sorry it's not false equivalence.
It's literally - how much damage this army can do vs how much damage this army can do. SM get flat buffs - CSM have to amp up with stratagems. The result is the same. Entire armies get removed.
Its not equivalent because SM don't need to spend any resources to achieve an increase in firepower, CMS do. If you had to pay to get your additionnal AP sure you could say these situations were similar, as it is, loyalists get free rules. Sure noise marines will be able to delete things in the shootnig phase when pumped full of CPs, but loyalists will do the same without CPs. In fact, the made so many buffs that shouldve cost something free that they had to add stratagems that gives even more buffs because CPs are not required for the army to perform.
Xenomancers wrote: -1 ap to a certain class of weapons across the board is too much but amping a 20 man units firepower by over 1000% is okay?
Ahh, the whataboutism argument, speaking of 'logic'. Speaking of misrepresentation, calling it a 'certain class' of weapons definitely makes it sound much smaller than a 'broad category' of weapons, but of course a single unit becoming more powerful under very specific circumstances, let's see, what's the logical fallacy for that? Oh yeah, False Equivalence.
I'm sorry it's not false equivalence.
It's literally - how much damage this army can do vs how much damage this army can do. SM get flat buffs - CSM have to amp up with stratagems. The result is the same. Entire armies get removed.
Its not equivalent because SM don't need to spend any resources to achieve an increase in firepower, CMS do. If you had to pay to get your additionnal AP sure you could say these situations were similar, as it is, loyalists get free rules. Sure noise marines will be able to delete things in the shootnig phase when pumped full of CPs, but loyalists will do the same without CPs. In fact, the made so many buffs that shouldve cost something free that they had to add stratagems that gives even more buffs because CPs are not required for the army to perform.
Pretty sure every space marine player would trade every stratagem in their codex for a 2 CP stratagem that let you shoot twice with any infantry unit and they don't even have 20 man units. SM stratagems are much better than 1.0 codex BUT CSM stratagems are much better. You do have to pay for the AP too. It is included in the unit profiles. CSM is 11 and it's 12 for a tactical. Nearly every CSM unit dropped in points (not all) where almost no changes for loyalists.
Xenomancers wrote: -1 ap to a certain class of weapons across the board is too much but amping a 20 man units firepower by over 1000% is okay?
Ahh, the whataboutism argument, speaking of 'logic'. Speaking of misrepresentation, calling it a 'certain class' of weapons definitely makes it sound much smaller than a 'broad category' of weapons, but of course a single unit becoming more powerful under very specific circumstances, let's see, what's the logical fallacy for that? Oh yeah, False Equivalence.
I'm sorry it's not false equivalence.
It's literally - how much damage this army can do vs how much damage this army can do. SM get flat buffs - CSM have to amp up with stratagems. The result is the same. Entire armies get removed.
Its not equivalent because SM don't need to spend any resources to achieve an increase in firepower, CMS do. If you had to pay to get your additionnal AP sure you could say these situations were similar, as it is, loyalists get free rules. Sure noise marines will be able to delete things in the shootnig phase when pumped full of CPs, but loyalists will do the same without CPs. In fact, the made so many buffs that shouldve cost something free that they had to add stratagems that gives even more buffs because CPs are not required for the army to perform.
Pretty sure every space marine player would trade every stratagem in their codex for a 2 CP stratagem that let you shoot twice with any infantry unit and they don't even have 20 man units. SM stratagems are much better than 1.0 codex BUT CSM stratagems are much better. You do have to pay for the AP too. It is included in the unit profiles. CSM is 11 and it's 12 for a tactical. Nearly every CSM unit dropped in points (not all) where almost no changes for loyalists.
All armies would love to get a 2CP shoot again strat, not jsut marines. But you missed the point again, marines got doctrines, super doctrines, better chapter tactics, chapter tactics on their vehicles, options to upgrade their characters, access to 2W troops and tons of new relics/warlord traits/psychic powers. Oh and the option to spam warlord traits.
Chaos SM got : new strats, relics and warlord traits.
Remove endless cacophony and Votlw and chaos takes a massive dive. remove any one special rule that the marines got and theyll still overperform.
Also, my original response to you was pointing out that all these "OP buffs" that Chaos gets costs CP, of which armeis have a finite amount of, sure chaos will blow its load and have one powerful punch, the problem is that if you want to have sustained puch, you need to keep feeding cps into units, which means you need cp farms, which means you need cultists or bad space marines, which means youre taking less threats, which means your threats will get focused down fast while your gakky units will only be killed tog et pts for the mission.
Xenomancers wrote: Pretty sure every space marine player would trade every stratagem in their codex for a 2 CP stratagem that let you shoot twice with any infantry unit and they don't even have 20 man units. SM stratagems are much better than 1.0 codex BUT CSM stratagems are much better. You do have to pay for the AP too. It is included in the unit profiles. CSM is 11 and it's 12 for a tactical. Nearly every CSM unit dropped in points (not all) where almost no changes for loyalists.
But we're not talking strats are we? We're talking Doctrines, so here's the deal, you can have Endless Cacophany, you can have Excruciating Frequencies (for 1 single chapter of Marines), hell, you can even have Veterans of the Long War and we'll get Doctrines and Super-Doctrines. We'll even pay the extra point for our Marines and you can have the 1 point discount. What? You're not interested in that? Color me fething flabbergasted!
Know whats funny? AP is not that great. Countless debates about how useless it was before space marine doctrines. Now that marines get some AP on their weapons that they should have had all along its OP to have AP on weapons..
Quins don't care/Orks don't care/ Plenty of 4++ saves out there still.
Xenomancers wrote: Know whats funny? AP is not that great. Countless debates about how useless it was before space marine doctrines. Now that marines get some AP on their weapons that they should have had all along its OP to have AP on weapons..
Quins don't care/Orks don't care/ Plenty of 4++ saves out there still.
Please tell me its the Xeno Hot Take after "Squigbuggies are the best unit in the game" is "just play pure harlequins to counter nu-marines"
Please please tell me that's the sweet new pro gamer move.
You do realize one of the armies that numarines suplexed out of the meta when they showed up and started being 60+% of top lists was Drukhari with venomspam and grotspam, yeah?
the_scotsman wrote: Please tell me its the Xeno Hot Take after "Squigbuggies are the best unit in the game" is "just play pure harlequins to counter nu-marines"
Please please tell me that's the sweet new pro gamer move.
You do realize one of the armies that numarines suplexed out of the meta when they showed up and started being 60+% of top lists was Drukhari with venomspam and grotspam, yeah?
An army with a LOT of invulnerable saves?
We can add it to the list, filled with hits like:
'KFF makes your army invulnerable yo!'
'Why you don't play Sorc smash?!'
'AP never helped anyone!'
'Squig buggies will dominate the meta!'
'Quins hard counter nu-Marines!'
Expected, or in the studio:
'Daemons are the most dominant army in the current meta!'
'EC crush all yo!'
'Warphead is the most broken strat evah!'
Xenomancers wrote: Know whats funny? AP is not that great. Countless debates about how useless it was before space marine doctrines. Now that marines get some AP on their weapons that they should have had all along its OP to have AP on weapons..
Quins don't care/Orks don't care/ Plenty of 4++ saves out there still.
ap doesnt matter against these armies , rate of fire does. Were comlpaining about the AP because weapons that used to be exclusively efficient against horder can now deal with elite infantry/light vehicles.
Quins still die to bolter fire, same as before.
Orks still die to bolter fire (And actually, the AP matters greatly for orks since it removes their saves completely).
Xenomancers wrote: Know whats funny? AP is not that great. Countless debates about how useless it was before space marine doctrines. Now that marines get some AP on their weapons that they should have had all along its OP to have AP on weapons..
Quins don't care/Orks don't care/ Plenty of 4++ saves out there still.
ap doesnt matter against these armies , rate of fire does. Were comlpaining about the AP because weapons that used to be exclusively efficient against horder can now deal with elite infantry/light vehicles.
Quins still die to bolter fire, same as before.
Orks still die to bolter fire (And actually, the AP matters greatly for orks since it removes their saves completely).
Well no, not really.
An ork can just lose his t-shirt save, which isn't a big deal. The first -1 AP will grant the attacker a 20% bonus damage over no AP, the other points of AP are wasted.
When shooting at something like a necron warrior, the first point of AP will result in a 33% bonus damage, and AP -2 and -3 also matter.
MEQ and TEQ are much much worse.
The worse your save the less you are affected by AP.
Xenomancers wrote: Know whats funny? AP is not that great. Countless debates about how useless it was before space marine doctrines. Now that marines get some AP on their weapons that they should have had all along its OP to have AP on weapons..
Quins don't care/Orks don't care/ Plenty of 4++ saves out there still.
So the Brightlance is better than the Lascannon weapon-for-weapon, because going from AP-3 to AP-4 is a *huge* improvement - well beyond +1S or +12" range!
Conversely, AP is not that great. Marines going from AP0 to AP-1 and AP-1 to AP-2 doesn't matter. No big deal.
Xenomancers wrote: Know whats funny? AP is not that great. Countless debates about how useless it was before space marine doctrines. Now that marines get some AP on their weapons that they should have had all along its OP to have AP on weapons..
Quins don't care/Orks don't care/ Plenty of 4++ saves out there still.
ap doesnt matter against these armies , rate of fire does. Were comlpaining about the AP because weapons that used to be exclusively efficient against horder can now deal with elite infantry/light vehicles.
Quins still die to bolter fire, same as before.
Orks still die to bolter fire (And actually, the AP matters greatly for orks since it removes their saves completely).
Well no, not really.
An ork can just lose his t-shirt save, which isn't a big deal. The first -1 AP will grant the attacker a 20% bonus damage over no AP, the other points of AP are wasted.
When shooting at something like a necron warrior, the first point of AP will result in a 33% bonus damage, and AP -2 and -3 also matter.
MEQ and TEQ are much much worse.
The worse your save the less you are affected by AP.
Hilariously, Marines would have likely been the hardest-hit faction if AP5 had translated into AP-1 in 8th Ed. Fortunately, it translated into AP0.
I've shown you the math that noise marines kill 33 intercessors in 1 turn. For 4 CP standing next to a lord. Or kills 2 repulsors executioners in 1 turn...Both pretty close to double points return on their point cost.
Xenomancers wrote: I've shown you the math that noise marines kill 33 intercessors in 1 turn. For 4 CP standing next to a lord. Or kills 2 repulsors executioners in 1 turn...Both pretty close to double points return on their point cost.
EC Noise Marines, if they get lucky. If they get first turn. If, if, if, if, if, blah, blah, blah. If you don't get first turn they get torched because unless your opponent is a drooling idiot he shoots them first. EC has no way to protect this squad unless you stack a couple hundred extra points on top of them.
This is such a bs cherry-picked argument, seriously, you should store it in that same dark place you store your head.
Useless in melee? Anything with the steel behemoth rule is nasty up close. Especially if take flamers instead of bolters. A flamer baneblade can go toe to toe with a bloodthirster.
if you have 9 of them you nearly kill a squat intercessor
