Argive wrote: And yet...... reroll everything aura, doctrines/super doctrines benefits every unit in your books.
So you dont see SM placing in half of top 10 lists outside of ITC as an indicator of anything?
They are a great army. They are also incredibly popular, probably more than half of all hobbyists have collected them. When you have a popular faction that plays well you're going to see a lot of it.
No need for people to be hysterical lol. At any given time one faction or another will be on top. Marines today, Eldar yesterday, Castellan day before that. There has never been a period of perfect balance in 40k. Ever.
This will not last indefinitely, so no need to complain over, and over, and over whilst it does.
What's the point of having different chapters with distinctive and unique rules? Are you joking?
Frankly, I don't think there is much point.
Completely agree. It used to be that differentiating your army was about a personal choice in playstyle. So if you wanted to play Iron Hands they were just a regular Space Marine chapter with more vehicles and a bit more of a tendency to field heavy weapons, probably with a few more Techmarines than a regular army. Salamanders would get more melta/flamer, White Scars more bikers and transports, etc. One of GW's biggest mistakes in the last 10-15 years or so, IMO, has been the explosion of rules for things that really don't need them. Not only is it a nightmare to balance it also stifles creativity. I rarely see people asking about someone's cool personal army now, like I did previously when someone showed up with a well-apinted Imperial Fists army (which was essentially SM with some self-imposed restrictions). Now the first thing anyone asks is "what rules you using", usually followed by some rolled eyes and muttering under their breath.
Lol anyone complaining about more variety should leave the hobby. Every faction is getting a supplement via psychic awakening creating extra variation - Scions have the exact same additional rule stacking as Astartes, as an example.
If you want to reduce faction variance go and play chess.
Or how about you knock off the constant gatekeeping and deciding for everyone else what "proper" 40k is? There are nuances between complete agreement and complete disagreement with an opinion but I don't think I've ever seen you display any understanding of that ever.
To reiterate, the game worked fine (well, it was OK I guess) before every chapter had a Codex worth of rules/stratagems/warlord traits/psychic powers added to it and also benefitted from more focus on creativity and individuality while simultaneously being easier to balance. I get the desire for more rules for more factions but I disagree that it's required or a good thing, especially with GW's track record with balance. We see that now with how utterly miserable it can be to play against SM nowadays. It's not even purely about power level, just the layers of rules upon rules which make it feel like you're playing a different game to them.
Yeah, except...scions kinda dont have the same rule stacking. You want one of those new scion doctrines? You give up the base scion doctrine. Like a big boy faction.
They for a few traits and relics, sure, but they also could not take the lion's share of the ones in the base guard book.
Which is how it should be. You should sacrifice something to gain something. That's how it works in hh, rites of war and the like have downsides to go with the upsides. Why is it gw understood that concept for that game, and for most factions in 40k, but can't quite grasp it when they make rules for loyalist marines?
Rites of war should've been how they introduced doctrines into 40k.
Argive wrote: And yet...... reroll everything aura, doctrines/super doctrines benefits every unit in your books.
So you dont see SM placing in half of top 10 lists outside of ITC as an indicator of anything?
They are a great army. They are also incredibly popular, probably more than half of all hobbyists have collected them. When you have a popular faction that plays well you're going to see a lot of it.
No need for people to be hysterical lol. At any given time one faction or another will be on top. Marines today, Eldar yesterday, Castellan day before that. There has never been a period of perfect balance in 40k. Ever.
This will not last indefinitely, so no need to complain over, and over, and over whilst it does.
There's a difference between "being on top" in a fairly even playing field and being a heavyweight fighting in the welterweight division.
What's the point of having different chapters with distinctive and unique rules? Are you joking?
Frankly, I don't think there is much point.
Completely agree. It used to be that differentiating your army was about a personal choice in playstyle. So if you wanted to play Iron Hands they were just a regular Space Marine chapter with more vehicles and a bit more of a tendency to field heavy weapons, probably with a few more Techmarines than a regular army. Salamanders would get more melta/flamer, White Scars more bikers and transports, etc. One of GW's biggest mistakes in the last 10-15 years or so, IMO, has been the explosion of rules for things that really don't need them. Not only is it a nightmare to balance it also stifles creativity. I rarely see people asking about someone's cool personal army now, like I did previously when someone showed up with a well-apinted Imperial Fists army (which was essentially SM with some self-imposed restrictions). Now the first thing anyone asks is "what rules you using", usually followed by some rolled eyes and muttering under their breath.
Lol anyone complaining about more variety should leave the hobby. Every faction is getting a supplement via psychic awakening creating extra variation - Scions have the exact same additional rule stacking as Astartes, as an example.
If you want to reduce faction variance go and play chess.
Or how about you knock off the constant gatekeeping and deciding for everyone else what "proper" 40k is? There are nuances between complete agreement and complete disagreement with an opinion but I don't think I've ever seen you display any understanding of that ever.
To reiterate, the game worked fine (well, it was OK I guess) before every chapter had a Codex worth of rules/stratagems/warlord traits/psychic powers added to it and also benefitted from more focus on creativity and individuality while simultaneously being easier to balance. I get the desire for more rules for more factions but I disagree that it's required or a good thing, especially with GW's track record with balance. We see that now with how utterly miserable it can be to play against SM nowadays. It's not even purely about power level, just the layers of rules upon rules which make it feel like you're playing a different game to them.
Yeah, except...scions kinda dont have the same rule stacking. You want one of those new scion doctrines? You give up the base scion doctrine. Like a big boy faction.
They for a few traits and relics, sure, but they also could not take the lion's share of the ones in the base guard book.
Which is how it should be. You should sacrifice something to gain something. That's how it works in hh, rites of war and the like have downsides to go with the upsides. Why is it gw understood that concept for that game, and for most factions in 40k, but can't quite grasp it when they make rules for loyalist marines?
Rites of war should've been how they introduced doctrines into 40k.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ishagu wrote: Doctrines represent the Astartes mastery of war.
Guard get orders for free. Tau get marker lights, etc
Orders affect a limited number of units per turn and require living hqs to use. I can kill markerlights. Marines get free buffs all the time.
There's a difference between one specific unit/list being "on top/ FOTM " vs entire faction and all its supplemented sub-factions being on top..
And to be honest I think post ynnari, doom, and castellan nerf, the game was in a very decent even playing field. From then on all that had to be done was to tweak CHE and some elements of soup. We had a couple months for the meta to settle and you seen a lot of veriety in both ITC and non ITC tourneys. So rather than build on that, we have this...
The disparity between Astartes and other factions isn't that high. You're exaggerating again. Their highest performance also applies to particular chapters and not the whole codex.
In CA missions I actually have more success with my AdMech than my Astartes, and I own and run every unit including FW regularly.
Ishagu wrote: The disparity between Astartes and other factions isn't that high. You're exaggerating again. Their highest performance also applies to particular chapters and not the whole codex.
In CA missions I actually have more success with my AdMech than my Astartes, and I own and run every unit including FW regularly.
You know, actually I think it's only in itc where IH and IF are the only dominant marine chapters, and in CA missions all of them are broken. You really shouldnt use these house rule set reaults to make balance decisions. Until you can show me non-existent data that shows marines are balanced in CA mission format im afraid we just have no way to know for sure.
Im certain GW wont take negative feedback as an excuse to do any weird kneejerk reactions though. After all, GW has balanced the game, right?
"chapters". Plural.. Plus, It's all the same faction dude..
Anyway, at this stage, not really sure why I'm trying to have a discussion with someone acting in bad faith and refusing to be objective. Ima go cook some dinner.
Ishagu wrote: The disparity between Astartes and other factions isn't that high. You're exaggerating again. Their highest performance also applies to particular chapters and not the whole codex.
In CA missions I actually have more success with my AdMech than my Astartes, and I own and run every unit including FW regularly.
You know, actually I think it's only in itc where IH and IF are the only dominant marine chapters, and in CA missions all of them are broken. You really shouldnt use these house rule set reaults to make balance decisions. Until you can show me non-existent data that shows marines are balanced in CA mission format im afraid we just have no way to know for sure.
Im certain GW wont take negative feedback as an excuse to do any weird kneejerk reactions though. After all, GW has balanced the game, right?
Lol you guys are funny. There is a lot of hysteria on this forum.
Almost as bad as when the Castellan was single handedly hoisting the Imperium up.
Funny enough the Castellan did not perform as well in CA18 missions back when it dominated the ITC. Those missions forced a lot more movement out of the armies, putting it at risk.
Ishagu wrote: Lol you guys are funny. There is a lot of hysteria on this forum.
Almost as bad as when the Castellan was single handedly hoisting the Imperium up.
Funny enough the Castellan did not perform as well in CA18 missions back when it dominated the ITC. Those missions forced a lot more movement out of the armies, putting it at risk.
I am certainly finding your one man PR campaign hysterical.
Marines have a strong base, there's no denying this. Definitely the strongest in the game, with far fewer "trap" choices than other Factions, and far more "superior" choices as well. The stacking bonuses are just icing on the cake.
The base marine book is pretty fair, I'd say. But GW couldn't stop there. Oh, no. With so many supplements, there was no way they could help themselves. So now you have power disparities within vanilla marines on top of disparities between vanilla and snowflake marines.
The only solution I see that is mathematically fair is for each supplement to have its own point costs.
It is kinda hard to asses the power of marines as a full faction. ITC rules skew things for many major tournaments and different supplements are definitely not equal. Also GW keeps constantly pushing new bonus rules for other factions too. I have not paid super much attention to what the IG is getting in the new PA book, but they have really solid core so with some extra buffs on top of that they might become pretty powerful. When balancing marines I think the first step should be to nerf the more powerful supplements to be in line on the weaker ones. That would fix the internal balance and if it is not enough to fix the external balance, then the core faction can be nerfed too. But that might not be necessary once all factions have gotten their PA buffs.
Crimson wrote: It is kinda hard to asses the power of marines as a full faction. ITC rules skew things for many major tournaments and different supplements are definitely not equal. Also GW keeps constantly pushing new bonus rules for other factions too. I have not paid super much attention to what the IG is getting in the new PA book, but they have really solid core so with some extra buffs on top of that they might become pretty powerful. When balancing marines I think the first step should be to nerf the more powerful supplements to be in line on the weaker ones. That would fix the internal balance and if it is not enough to fix the external balance, then the core faction can be nerfed too. But that might not be necessary once all factions have gotten their PA buffs.
For a couple factions maybe. But so far PA has just upgraded most from bringing knives to a gunfight to bringing flint locks. Better but still outgunned.
Crimson wrote: It is kinda hard to asses the power of marines as a full faction. ITC rules skew things for many major tournaments and different supplements are definitely not equal. Also GW keeps constantly pushing new bonus rules for other factions too. I have not paid super much attention to what the IG is getting in the new PA book, but they have really solid core so with some extra buffs on top of that they might become pretty powerful. When balancing marines I think the first step should be to nerf the more powerful supplements to be in line on the weaker ones. That would fix the internal balance and if it is not enough to fix the external balance, then the core faction can be nerfed too. But that might not be necessary once all factions have gotten their PA buffs.
What a fantastic post.
Here is how Marines should be measured:
1: Lots of data collected using official GW rules and missions.
2: The supplements that excel are toned down to match those that don't perform as well.
3: Once these are rebalanced you collect more and more data of Astartes performance against other factions in the official Missions.
4: If Astartes are still too strong, when internal codex balance is achieved, they should then increase some points.
5: Ignore ITC results that skew lists and unit popularity.
The points cost should be for the rules.
Chapter tactic cost x points.
doctrines y points
super docts z points.
Free stuff where some is obviously better will not get balanced ever. with points costs you can tweak things with changes and eventually get a level of equality in forces.
No one argues a tank is more effective in IH hands. So obviously IH chapter tactics should cost more than ultras.
Its pretty obvious.
Wrong. That Tank (Repulsor) is overpriced in a Black Templar army and can easily be destroyed by a unit that costs half the points. Literally.
Why are you nerfing the tank when it's chapter bonuses and relics that are making the biggest improvement?
Also tactics shouldn't cost anything lol. They just need a few tweaks here and there, nothing even that substantial. You just nerd to decrease effectiveness by 10% or so in a few cases. Those are the margins.
No. The tank should cost more for ih than say ws. Each supplement needs its own points costs. Thats the shitworld gw has created because of their marine fetish.
Crimson wrote: It is kinda hard to asses the power of marines as a full faction. ITC rules skew things for many major tournaments and different supplements are definitely not equal. Also GW keeps constantly pushing new bonus rules for other factions too. I have not paid super much attention to what the IG is getting in the new PA book, but they have really solid core so with some extra buffs on top of that they might become pretty powerful. When balancing marines I think the first step should be to nerf the more powerful supplements to be in line on the weaker ones. That would fix the internal balance and if it is not enough to fix the external balance, then the core faction can be nerfed too. But that might not be necessary once all factions have gotten their PA buffs.
What a fantastic post.
Here is how Marines should be measured:
1: Lots of data collected using official GW rules and missions.
2: The supplements that excel are toned down to match those that don't perform as well.
3: Once these are rebalanced you collect more and more data of Astartes performance against other factions in the official Missions.
4: If Astartes are still too strong, when internal codex balance is achieved, they should then increase some points.
5: Ignore ITC results that skew lists and unit popularity.
How much fething data do we need? Everyone knows who the strongest chapters are already.
More data. More data. More data.
You work for the government? Some fething boardroom?
But you also said GW doesn't know how to make Astartes a strong faction? Clearly they know exactly what to do because they went ahead and did it.
As for the data, we need more data using the official rules so we can see the extent of the problem. If Iron Hands are the still best using CA missions, but their win rate overall is only 59% compared to 74% in ITC, then they need less power reduction, as compared to what the ITC might suggest. Alternatively if their win rate was even higher they would need more reductions in power. From the large CA tournaments it suggests the disparities are smaller when using the official rules.
Here is why I make this point so often:
Iron Hands do need a power reduction, we all agree. If they were substantially punished so their performance dropped to a 50% win rate in ITC missions, but it means they are now sub par using official rules, then that's another substantial failure of game balance that has punished the players too much.
The ITC might indeed highlight problems, but those problems might be exaggerated when using the homebrew missions so we don't really have a proper measure of the issue. You can't punish those using the official rules for the meta created using the homebrew ones, or visa versa.
I meant balanced rules for astates, not this shitshow. Anyone can turn the knob up to 11 and break it off. GW should have made these changes one at a time, not all at once.
If the rules of one chapter make it more effective. that chapters rules should cost more.
Its a simple concept. You also have no fear of it ever happening. Cost for something that isnt a model???? you mean less models on the table!!!! horrors!
ImperialArmy wrote: If the rules of one chapter make it more effective. that chapters rules should cost more.
Its a simple concept. You also have no fear of it ever happening. Cost for something that isnt a model???? you mean less models on the table!!!! horrors!
But different chapter rules dont benefit all units equallly for each chapter. Therefore we need unit level differentiation. One wound ih models benfit far less than two wound models from the 6+++ for example.
Wrong. That Tank (Repulsor) is overpriced in a Black Templar army and can easily be destroyed by a unit that costs half the points. Literally.
Why are you nerfing the tank when it's chapter bonuses and relics that are making the biggest improvement?
Also tactics shouldn't cost anything lol. They just need a few tweaks here and there, nothing even that substantial. You just nerd to decrease effectiveness by 10% or so in a few cases. Those are the margins.
Correct. Actually the majority of the space marine units are only good if you take them as Ironhands. A few units are better as RG.
The Repuslor executioner for example. Is very overcosted. 340ish points in it's most expensive configuration. Which is more than a friggen storm surge. Without an ironhands relic it is literally unplayable. This tank should be in the 280 point range. It is only moderately better than a LR commander. Also it is vastly inferior to 2 Admech dune crawlers. Who believe it or not have access to reroll all hits auras and have a natural 5++ save that they can reroll 1's with. 2 I think is about 240 points. 330-340 for a executioner is a dang joke.
This is the real probably with the unbalance of supplements. When a marine combo is good - 20 times more people play it. So it basically always wins just based on attrition making it look worse than it really is. Granted the Ironhands supplement is TOO MUCH. Which was pretty easy to see from the start. What people fail to realize is that most of the units in the marine codex are still really bad even with the doctrines. The doctrines were a specific fix for an entire army that was roughly 20-30% overcosted to begin with. Whats silly is they raised the cost of an executioner and left the obviously over-costed repulsor the same when both those units actually needed drops.
Ishagu wrote: Lots of sheep on the Internet. I'm not one of them.
Isn't that funny? Every once in a while someone comes along who doesn't just parrot others.
Professional(?) shill for GW claims he's not a sheep. That's pretty rich. Although I guess you could say that Dakka's surprisingly devoid of the cult-like reverence for GW products some boards have, so maybe you are unique in that regard... not that Dakka lacks for them either.
I'll give you props for one thing though, I can never tell if you keep replying to these topics because you're so straight faced that people think you believe what you type.
If nothing else this whole fiasco between PA and Supplements has shown that GW has learnt pretty much nothing, though maybe I'm not giving them enough credit and when 9th 'resets the clock' back to 0 and everybody proclaims them genius' who've changed their balancing act (again) I can give them due credit for recognising their fanbase have the memories of flies.
So, basically, every Supplement should have been a stand-alone Dex? Cuz if you price individual datasheets based on the Chapter rules, that's what happens.
flandarz wrote: So, basically, every Supplement should have been a stand-alone Dex? Cuz if you price individual datasheets based on the Chapter rules, that's what happens.
That is really the only way to balance units with an access to such variety of special rules.
Martel732 wrote: Yes a separate online free codex. Updated in real time.
That milks to low money out of the player base.
Make it subscription based.
I'm honestly genuinely baffled at how slow on the uptake GW has been to the digital space, though I do remember back in 3rd when they had those army list builders (think Battlescribe) on CD that were very short lived.
flandarz wrote: So, basically, every Supplement should have been a stand-alone Dex? Cuz if you price individual datasheets based on the Chapter rules, that's what happens.
That is really the only way to balance units with an access to such variety of special rules.
I actually agree.
This entire situation has been created not because of the base Marine rules (for the most part) but because of the expanded supplements.
If an Iron Hands Primaris Eyesore is significantly more effective than the same tank in a Black Templar army, then its cost should reflect that.
Yeah, for the most part the basic Space Marine units themselves are hardly overpowered. It's the stupendous number of bolt-on freebies and insanely powerful Stratagems that break it.
In my last game against a Space Marine army, my opponent never made a single shooting attack that wasn't getting at least two non-inherent enhancement abilities to it (e.g. rerolls, modifiers, the ability to ignore pentalties, etc), more often three and sometimes four. With the narrow range D6's offer and the volume of buff abilities, it can get crazy real fast. With the way Stratagems are getting, particularly with Space Marines but not uniquely to them, there's pretty much always a way to ensure a clutch action goes off.
The game as a whole is increasingly lurching in this direction and I think all we're going to end up with is increasing numbers of 1 and 2 turn games where everything is decided by deployment and turn order as the alpha strike capabilities and general lethality spike further.
Ishagu wrote: So we need an Alaitoc codex? And a seperate codex for each hive fleet?
How about a seperate codex for every Astra Militarum regiment?
It's a bad idea. We need faction consolidation, there's too much as is with the likes of BA, DA and SW
Yes, it is bad idea, but you were the one who though that adding all this bonus rule bloat was a good idea and this is the only way to balance it.
(I mean it doesn't need to be separate codex, but it needs to be separate point list of every unit for every chapter, and that will be quite a number of pages.)
the_scotsman wrote: The difference between alaitoc and ulthwe is one single army wide ability, one stratagem, one character, one relic and one warlord trait.
The difference between IH and UM is 4 army wide abilities, 12? Stratagems, 6 relics, 6 WL traits, 6 psychic powers and what, 10 characters?
Not exactly apples to apples dude. Theres a fething ton of different gak.
One IH land raider wins in a duel with 2 identically equipped CSM land raiders, assuming the ih raider gets to go first. The exact same unit.
Gw seems to have extreme difficulty with that concept. They think just because csm and loyalists use the same units they are the same and should be priced accordingly even when the units themselves have different abilities and rules irrespective of their factions rules.
For example look at the hellforged vs relic leviathan. The relic variant has a superior invul and the hellforged has a rule preventing it from regaining lost wounds except through killing other models in cc. Yet they have the same price. Up until the latest big faq the relic super heavys had potms and the hellforged versions didn't, while also suffering from the same rule preventing them from being repaired. Once again same cost.
Not for everything it isn't. For Marines they already do it - Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Deathwatch and so on. Hell, the other First Foundings already have their own Codices, just without all the units. They'd be more worthwhile if they had all the units in there and didn't require you to purchase another book.
However...
Crimson wrote: ... but it needs to be separate point list of every unit for every chapter...
That, however complex it would end up, is a really good compromise.
A points list for units in each supplement would be fantastic.
Ishagu wrote: So we need an Alaitoc codex? And a seperate codex for each hive fleet?
How about a seperate codex for every Astra Militarum regiment?
It's a bad idea. We need faction consolidation, there's too much as is with the likes of BA, DA and SW
That's funny...this was you 3 pages ago:
Lol anyone complaining about more variety should leave the hobby.
Hypocritical much? Almost as if in your ongoing quest to be as contrarian as possible you've lost track of all the different arguments you've made.
The fact remains SM are busted beyond the normal "one faction on top" level of imbalance we've seen before. Whether that's ITC, which does seeem to exacerbate the problem, or using CA missions, where even though the last GT wasn't won by SM they were still heavily represented at the top of the standings. The problem is the rules stacking that no other army gets and the only solutions I can see are to tone down that rules stacking at the supplement level or different costs for different Chapters. That doesn't mean you have to apply different costs to Ulthwe vs Alaitoc units since the differences between SM supplements are so huge they offer meaningful power boosts to some units under some circumstances.
Vaktathi's point also highlights a secondary issue. Alongside the power level of SM, there is a problem with the implementation of their rules. Players around here are starting to get frustrated at the sheer number of rules SM get, which makes them frustrating to play against and leads to the feeling that they're playing a different game to everyone else. It's not strictly about the power of the army, it's the experience of playing against them.
Ishagu wrote: People get into 40k because it's an old fashioned, analogue, face to face experience that involves physical hobbying.
I think GW are right to limit their digital services. I already subscribe to multiple digital services. I like my 40k the old fashioned way lol
I agree with this one general level, but the points really should be online. For free. Preferably with a armybuilder app.
This is why I feel almost spoiled by Age of Sigmar. All the points are on the Warscroll Builder that GW provides and I have access to updated Warscrolls all the time through their app. The only thing I don't get free - and need the book for - is faction traits, artifacts, and command traits.
Giving every sub faction a seperate codex isn't needed to have varied playstyles, clearly.
The new Astartes codex and supplements have already created multiple varied playstyles. There's nothing inconsistent about what I've said - You guys should stop moving the goal posts. Psychic awakening has given other factions nearly the same volume of unique rules in some cases. Alpha Legion also have a set of relics, traits, strats, etc. As do Iron Warriors, Night Lords, etc. Not as much, but not far off.
Some of you guys are literally complaining that GW have given a faction a lot of rules. Once 9th drops - and it will as history repeats itself every few years, the cycle will start again and all the complainers will forget and move on to complain about something else. I suspect many of you have a complaint fetish lol. I know someone like that in person.
Ishagu wrote: Giving every sub faction a seperate codex isn't needed to have varied playstyles, clearly.
The new Astartes codex and supplements have already created multiple varied playstyles. There's nothing inconsistent about what I've said - You guys should stop moving the goal posts. Psychic awakening has given other factions nearly the same volume of unique rules in some cases. Alpha Legion also have a set of relics, traits, strats, etc. As do Iron Warriors, Night Lords, etc. Not as much, but not far off.
Some of you guys are literally complaining that GW have given a faction a lot of rules. Once 9th drops - and it will as history repeats itself every few years, the cycle will start again and all the complainers will forget and move on to complain about something else. I suspect many of you have a complaint fetish lol. I know someone like that in person.
Honestly, believe it or not I'm most commonly called a GW fanboy round these parts.
While GW has miraculously succeeded at the herculean task of expanding the playstyle of space marines from the one they previously had (miserable, uninteractive gunline) to the two they now have (miserable, uninteractive alpha strike) we haven't actually seen the same in any other faction coming out of PA. Sure, we see people taking IH and IF, but are those two REALLY doing much that's different from one another at the end of the day? They take slightly different mixes of units but they both just deploy on the table, squat in devastator doctrine and aim for a turn 2/turn 3 table. RG/WS is pretty much the same story, just two flavors of miserable alpha strike lists. People certainly aren't taking thematic White Scars lists with a bunch of bikers, mobile infantry and assault units.
So far, the PA books have covered, let's see... Eldar, Drukhari, Ynnari, CSM, Black Templars, Dark Angels, Grey Knights, Thousand Sons, and we have upcoming Tau GSC and Guard. I don't think I'm missing any there.
The only faction I've seen appearing to use the rules they got in PA to any capacity in the competitive scene are Eldar, and the Eldar lists I've seen have only changed from their previous iteration in one way - adding Vibro-Cannons, which benefit from master crafters quite a lot.
We certainly haven't seen sneaky alpha legion lists, armored iron warriors lists, leadership-based Night Lords lists, or anything like that. Chaos Soup lists are basically identical to what they were doing before, maybe with an extra relic or wl trait from PA thrown in here or there but they're taking the exact same stuff. No drukhari player will ever use the garbage custom traits from PA1. And Black Templars certainly aren't making much of a splash.
You can make theoretical statements like the new rules will bring armored companies and stormtrooper armies and close range tau back into existence, but I'm gonna take a page from your book here and say I'll believe that when I see someone, anyone able to actually win a tournament against the dominant SM chapters.
Ishagu wrote: People get into 40k because it's an old fashioned, analogue, face to face experience that involves physical hobbying.
I think GW are right to limit their digital services. I already subscribe to multiple digital services. I like my 40k the old fashioned way lol
I agree with this one general level, but the points really should be online. For free. Preferably with a armybuilder app.
This is why I feel almost spoiled by Age of Sigmar. All the points are on the Warscroll Builder that GW provides and I have access to updated Warscrolls all the time through their app. The only thing I don't get free - and need the book for - is faction traits, artifacts, and command traits.
Almost like they know AoS needs a good amount of support to get people into it and keep them there while 40k has a dedicated base they can gouge. I'm not complaining, its a free market and in this day and age you don't need to spend money on anything printed or digital if you don't want to. If GW haven't made 40k points and such for free then it means people are buying codexes and books in sufficient numbers that its more profitable to keep making books than to give them away for free in order to retain a player base.
Cry "havoc!" and let slip the Codex: Black Templars.
Also, to be a little self-indulgent, I told y'all so. Distinct rules for Marine Chapters are mutually exclusive with book consolidation, assuming that balance is not up for sacrifice. In our hypothetical triangle of "distinct rules", "book consolidation", and "balance", you only get to pick two. If you want to consolidate Marines into fewer books, you have to sacrifice distinctiveness or run into balance issues. If that is a sacrifice you're willing to make then that is a valid argument (one I disagree with, but valid).
Ishagu wrote: Giving every sub faction a seperate codex isn't needed to have varied playstyles, clearly.
The new Astartes codex and supplements have already created multiple varied playstyles. There's nothing inconsistent about what I've said - You guys should stop moving the goal posts. Psychic awakening has given other factions nearly the same volume of unique rules in some cases. Alpha Legion also have a set of relics, traits, strats, etc. As do Iron Warriors, Night Lords, etc. Not as much, but not far off.
Some of you guys are literally complaining that GW have given a faction a lot of rules. Once 9th drops - and it will as history repeats itself every few years, the cycle will start again and all the complainers will forget and move on to complain about something else. I suspect many of you have a complaint fetish lol. I know someone like that in person.
Yeah other factions got some stuff in pa but it pales in comparison to what loyalist marines have gotten.
We may have new warlord traits and relics but without strategems that allow taking multiples of each cheaply like loyalists got you still only ever see the best ones over and over. And without the kind of internal codex balance that c:sm had you still just see the same old units played on the table.
Basically pa comes down to a few new strategems per factions unless those factions are loyalist astartes.
You can make theoretical statements like the new rules will bring armored companies and stormtrooper armies and close range tau back into existence, but I'm gonna take a page from your book here and say I'll believe that when I see someone, anyone able to actually win a tournament against the dominant SM chapters.
Take a look outside the ITC mess and you'll see even tournaments with no marines in top 4 Marines and in particular IH and IF are issue yes but ITC magnifies the issue a lot. In real 40k the issue isn't as dominating as ITC
Ishagu wrote: People get into 40k because it's an old fashioned, analogue, face to face experience that involves physical hobbying.
I think GW are right to limit their digital services. I already subscribe to multiple digital services. I like my 40k the old fashioned way lol
I agree with this one general level, but the points really should be online. For free. Preferably with a armybuilder app.
This is why I feel almost spoiled by Age of Sigmar. All the points are on the Warscroll Builder that GW provides and I have access to updated Warscrolls all the time through their app. The only thing I don't get free - and need the book for - is faction traits, artifacts, and command traits.
Of course this still leaves you having to buy the book. You would be severely handicapped without those traits etc
You can make theoretical statements like the new rules will bring armored companies and stormtrooper armies and close range tau back into existence, but I'm gonna take a page from your book here and say I'll believe that when I see someone, anyone able to actually win a tournament against the dominant SM chapters.
Take a look outside the ITC mess and you'll see even tournaments with no marines in top 4 Marines and in particular IH and IF are issue yes but ITC magnifies the issue a lot. In real 40k the issue isn't as dominating as ITC
Where are you finding these real 40k competitive tournament data sets? I keep seeing one particular tournament referenced where marines did so terribly that they were only 1/2 of the top 10 armies, but that's the only one I've actually seen since the supplements dropped.
Gl getting that info. I have tried searching on the internet the only results I can find are ITC results. Then when I asked here a couple times if people could point me in the right direction I was met with deafening silence. I'm starting to think poeple are just making grandiose claims without actual data to back it up. But this is the internet who would do such a thing?
Ishagu wrote: Giving every sub faction a seperate codex isn't needed to have varied playstyles, clearly.
The new Astartes codex and supplements have already created multiple varied playstyles. There's nothing inconsistent about what I've said - You guys should stop moving the goal posts. Psychic awakening has given other factions nearly the same volume of unique rules in some cases. Alpha Legion also have a set of relics, traits, strats, etc. As do Iron Warriors, Night Lords, etc. Not as much, but not far off.
Some of you guys are literally complaining that GW have given a faction a lot of rules. Once 9th drops - and it will as history repeats itself every few years, the cycle will start again and all the complainers will forget and move on to complain about something else. I suspect many of you have a complaint fetish lol. I know someone like that in person.
Yeah other factions got some stuff in pa but it pales in comparison to what loyalist marines have gotten.
We may have new warlord traits and relics but without strategems that allow taking multiples of each cheaply like loyalists got you still only ever see the best ones over and over. And without the kind of internal codex balance that c:sm had you still just see the same old units played on the table.
Basically pa comes down to a few new strategems per factions unless those factions are loyalist astartes.
No one denies that marines got the most. They were also at the worst starting place.
So here is the example I would go for.
Marines Were D- Tier and their supplements brought them up to between a B+ to A++ level.
Eldar were A- and their supplement brought them to an A+.
CSM were a C+ and they were brought to a B+.
Tyranids Were a D + Brought to a C-.(Probably the only army that has any right to complain from these supplements)
AM and Tau seem to be getting maybe a grade level or a 1/2 grade level increase.
The only problem is the A++ supplements which is as always - the one or 2 overpowered codex weve had all edition.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: LOL Chaos Marines were not brought up that far. Outside Alpha Legion they're dependent on CP to operate at all.
Every army needs CP to operate. Choas stratagems are flat out better than marine stratagems.
Before c:sm and the supplements I'd agree. Now not so much.
Can we at least agree that no army should require cp to function properly?
My personal preference would be to remove stratagems all together and reblance the game entirely. However - with their existence they are essential to every army using them no army doesn't derive a huge boon from them. CSM might be more reliant on them but that is because they have some of the best strats in the game (Shoots twice with additional buffs) plus some of their new stratas are really good too. It's not an argument to say that an army isn't good because it needs to use stratagems to be strong. That is every army really.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: Sorta like how Salamanders definitely DON'T have a better Vets Of The Long War-one that works on everything, rather than Infantry only.
Nope. That's not true. Definitely doesn't exist.
Where is the space marine stratagem that lets any infantry unit shoot twice to combine it with? Or the Ultra combo.
EC with +1 damage and str +1 to wound and shoot twice. 4cp from 3 stratagems. On a 20 man noise marine with prescience next to a lord - kills 38 primaris marines or 2 knights. Space marines have nothing compare to that stratagem wise.
I'm not salty that Night Lords got the same stratagem Black Templars got except it's guaranteed to work and half the cost in CP... Not at all...
Doesn't it only work on one unit while the BT one works on multiple?
Nope. I thought so too at first, but it explicitly calls out "that unit":
"Use this Stratagem in the Movement Phase, when an enemy Infantry unit that does not have the Flyer Battlefield Role and is within 1" of any Black Templars Infantry unit from your army is chosen to Fall Back. Roll one D6; on a 2+ that unit cannot Fall Back this turn."
Here's the Night Lords one for reference:
"Use this stratagem at the start of your opponent's Movement Phase. Select one Night Lords unit from your army that's not a Vehicle. Until the start of your next turn, enemy units within 1" of that unit cannot Fall Back unless they have the Vehicle or Titanic Keyword, or have a minimum Move characteristic."
The Night Lords one can lock multiple units, always works, and is half the cost. They're printed in the same book.
60 shots
175/3 hits (2+ rerollable)
175/6 wounds (4+, no rerolls)
175/18 unsaved (3+ save)
175/9 damage, or 19.44 per volley (doubled, of course, with Endless Cacophony)
So, you are NOT killing two Knights-you're killing one, and maybe bracketing a second. Unless the Knight has Armor of the Sainted Ion, which outright HALVES the damage dealt. And this costs you 340 points and 4 CP, while being VERY fragile. If you don't get T1, you don't get this combo against a tournament list.
I'm not salty that Night Lords got the same stratagem Black Templars got except it's guaranteed to work and half the cost in CP... Not at all...
Doesn't it only work on one unit while the BT one works on multiple?
Nope. I thought so too at first, but it explicitly calls out "that unit":
"Use this Stratagem in the Movement Phase, when an enemy Infantry unit that does not have the Flyer Battlefield Role and is within 1" of any Black Templars Infantry unit from your army is chosen to Fall Back. Roll one D6; on a 2+ that unit cannot Fall Back this turn."
Here's the Night Lords one for reference:
"Use this stratagem at the start of your opponent's Movement Phase. Select one Night Lords unit from your army that's not a Vehicle. Until the start of your next turn, enemy units within 1" of that unit cannot Fall Back unless they have the Vehicle or Titanic Keyword, or have a minimum Move characteristic."
The Night Lords one can lock multiple units, always works, and is half the cost. They're printed in the same book.
The Night Lords stratagem allows one nl infantry unit to lock opponents in cc. The bt version locks any enemy unit within 1 of anybt infantry unit in cc. You don't select just one unit. So multiple bt units can lock units in cc from the same strategem. Not the same.
JNAProductions wrote: 60 shots
175/3 hits (2+ rerollable)
175/6 wounds (4+, no rerolls)
175/18 unsaved (3+ save)
175/9 damage, or 19.44 per volley (doubled, of course, with Endless Cacophony)
So, you are NOT killing two Knights-you're killing one, and maybe bracketing a second. Unless the Knight has Armor of the Sainted Ion, which outright HALVES the damage dealt. And this costs you 340 points and 4 CP, while being VERY fragile. If you don't get T1, you don't get this combo against a tournament list.
And it's locked to EC. So worth feth all to other legions.
JNAProductions wrote: 60 shots
175/3 hits (2+ rerollable)
175/6 wounds (4+, no rerolls)
175/18 unsaved (3+ save)
175/9 damage, or 19.44 per volley (doubled, of course, with Endless Cacophony)
So, you are NOT killing two Knights-you're killing one, and maybe bracketing a second. Unless the Knight has Armor of the Sainted Ion, which outright HALVES the damage dealt. And this costs you 340 points and 4 CP, while being VERY fragile. If you don't get T1, you don't get this combo against a tournament list.
And it's locked to EC. So worth feth all to other legions.
That too. Admittedly, VotLW+ is Salamander exclusive too.
JNAProductions wrote: 60 shots
175/3 hits (2+ rerollable)
175/6 wounds (4+, no rerolls)
175/18 unsaved (3+ save)
175/9 damage, or 19.44 per volley (doubled, of course, with Endless Cacophony)
So, you are NOT killing two Knights-you're killing one, and maybe bracketing a second. Unless the Knight has Armor of the Sainted Ion, which outright HALVES the damage dealt. And this costs you 340 points and 4 CP, while being VERY fragile. If you don't get T1, you don't get this combo against a tournament list.
You are right - it's 40 wounds on average to a knight. The point is without these stratagems and just presence you deal just 3.5 wounds to a knight. Space marines don't have offensive stratagems which can ramp the damage of a unit by over 1000%. Not even saying this is the best way to run a choas army. Just stating marines don't get stratagems like this. It is a good thing too. If aggressors or cents had access to anything like this they would destroy your entire army in 1 turn.
I'm not salty that Night Lords got the same stratagem Black Templars got except it's guaranteed to work and half the cost in CP... Not at all...
Doesn't it only work on one unit while the BT one works on multiple?
Nope. I thought so too at first, but it explicitly calls out "that unit":
"Use this Stratagem in the Movement Phase, when an enemy Infantry unit that does not have the Flyer Battlefield Role and is within 1" of any Black Templars Infantry unit from your army is chosen to Fall Back. Roll one D6; on a 2+ that unit cannot Fall Back this turn."
Here's the Night Lords one for reference:
"Use this stratagem at the start of your opponent's Movement Phase. Select one Night Lords unit from your army that's not a Vehicle. Until the start of your next turn, enemy units within 1" of that unit cannot Fall Back unless they have the Vehicle or Titanic Keyword, or have a minimum Move characteristic."
The Night Lords one can lock multiple units, always works, and is half the cost. They're printed in the same book.
The Night Lords stratagem allows one nl infantry unit to lock opponents in cc. The bt version locks any enemy unit within 1 of anybt infantry unit in cc. You don't select just one unit. So multiple bt units can lock units in cc from the same strategem. Not the same.
No it doesn't. You use it when an enemy unit wants to fall back. On a 2+ that unit cannot fall back. It explicitly affects a single unit. The "any" is referring to a Black Templars unit that the selected unit has to be within 1" of, but you're only allowed to select one enemy unit.
If it worked the way you guys thought it did, I'd agree that it would be worth double the cost, but it doesn't.
JNAProductions wrote: 60 shots
175/3 hits (2+ rerollable)
175/6 wounds (4+, no rerolls)
175/18 unsaved (3+ save)
175/9 damage, or 19.44 per volley (doubled, of course, with Endless Cacophony)
So, you are NOT killing two Knights-you're killing one, and maybe bracketing a second. Unless the Knight has Armor of the Sainted Ion, which outright HALVES the damage dealt. And this costs you 340 points and 4 CP, while being VERY fragile. If you don't get T1, you don't get this combo against a tournament list.
You are right - it's 40 wounds on average to a knight. The point is without these stratagems and just presence you deal just 3.5 wounds to a knight. Space marines don't have offensive stratagems which can ramp the damage of a unit by over 1000%. Not even saying this is the best way to run a choas army. Just stating marines don't get stratagems like this. It is a good thing too. If aggressors or cents had access to anything like this they would destroy your entire army in 1 turn.
Yeah, and for less points, a Space Marine DEDICATED TRANSPORT can do just shy of 8 points of damage to a Knight. With no outside buffs. A Dedicated Transport. For less than 300 points. Does more than double the damage of a more expensive CSM Squad.
Nope, perfectly balanced. Nothing to see here. CSM are better than SM, nothing to worry about!
JNAProductions wrote: 60 shots
175/3 hits (2+ rerollable)
175/6 wounds (4+, no rerolls)
175/18 unsaved (3+ save)
175/9 damage, or 19.44 per volley (doubled, of course, with Endless Cacophony)
So, you are NOT killing two Knights-you're killing one, and maybe bracketing a second. Unless the Knight has Armor of the Sainted Ion, which outright HALVES the damage dealt. And this costs you 340 points and 4 CP, while being VERY fragile. If you don't get T1, you don't get this combo against a tournament list.
You are right - it's 40 wounds on average to a knight. The point is without these stratagems and just presence you deal just 3.5 wounds to a knight. Space marines don't have offensive stratagems which can ramp the damage of a unit by over 1000%. Not even saying this is the best way to run a choas army. Just stating marines don't get stratagems like this. It is a good thing too. If aggressors or cents had access to anything like this they would destroy your entire army in 1 turn.
Yeah, and for less points, a Space Marine DEDICATED TRANSPORT can do just shy of 8 points of damage to a Knight. With no outside buffs. A Dedicated Transport. For less than 300 points. Does more than double the damage of a more expensive CSM Squad.
Nope, perfectly balanced. Nothing to see here. CSM are better than SM, nothing to worry about!
What does what you just said have to do with the assertion that CSM have better stratagems than Marines?
EDIT: Also, for what it's worth, the various infiltration stratagems, as well as Tremor Shells, are at least on par with the stronger CSM Stratagems IMO.
It does imply that SMs are far less reliant on their Stratagems, giving them more flexibility in Detachments (cuz they don't need to farm CP as much) and thus what they field.
My personal stance is that this game is WAY too killy, to the point where who gets first go practically decides the victor. Stratagems obviously exacerbate this problem.
I'm not salty that Night Lords got the same stratagem Black Templars got except it's guaranteed to work and half the cost in CP... Not at all...
Doesn't it only work on one unit while the BT one works on multiple?
Nope. I thought so too at first, but it explicitly calls out "that unit":
"Use this Stratagem in the Movement Phase, when an enemy Infantry unit that does not have the Flyer Battlefield Role and is within 1" of any Black Templars Infantry unit from your army is chosen to Fall Back. Roll one D6; on a 2+ that unit cannot Fall Back this turn."
Here's the Night Lords one for reference:
"Use this stratagem at the start of your opponent's Movement Phase. Select one Night Lords unit from your army that's not a Vehicle. Until the start of your next turn, enemy units within 1" of that unit cannot Fall Back unless they have the Vehicle or Titanic Keyword, or have a minimum Move characteristic."
The Night Lords one can lock multiple units, always works, and is half the cost. They're printed in the same book.
The Night Lords stratagem allows one nl infantry unit to lock opponents in cc. The bt version locks any enemy unit within 1 of anybt infantry unit in cc. You don't select just one unit. So multiple bt units can lock units in cc from the same strategem. Not the same.
No it doesn't. You use it when an enemy unit wants to fall back. On a 2+ that unit cannot fall back. It explicitly affects a single unit. The "any" is referring to a Black Templars unit that the selected unit has to be within 1" of, but you're only allowed to select one enemy unit.
If it worked the way you guys thought it did, I'd agree that it would be worth double the cost, but it doesn't.
Ok. If you're correct then it is inferior. Is there any errata on this?
I'm not salty that Night Lords got the same stratagem Black Templars got except it's guaranteed to work and half the cost in CP... Not at all...
Doesn't it only work on one unit while the BT one works on multiple?
Nope. I thought so too at first, but it explicitly calls out "that unit":
"Use this Stratagem in the Movement Phase, when an enemy Infantry unit that does not have the Flyer Battlefield Role and is within 1" of any Black Templars Infantry unit from your army is chosen to Fall Back. Roll one D6; on a 2+ that unit cannot Fall Back this turn."
Here's the Night Lords one for reference:
"Use this stratagem at the start of your opponent's Movement Phase. Select one Night Lords unit from your army that's not a Vehicle. Until the start of your next turn, enemy units within 1" of that unit cannot Fall Back unless they have the Vehicle or Titanic Keyword, or have a minimum Move characteristic."
The Night Lords one can lock multiple units, always works, and is half the cost. They're printed in the same book.
The Night Lords stratagem allows one nl infantry unit to lock opponents in cc. The bt version locks any enemy unit within 1 of anybt infantry unit in cc. You don't select just one unit. So multiple bt units can lock units in cc from the same strategem. Not the same.
No it doesn't. You use it when an enemy unit wants to fall back. On a 2+ that unit cannot fall back. It explicitly affects a single unit. The "any" is referring to a Black Templars unit that the selected unit has to be within 1" of, but you're only allowed to select one enemy unit.
If it worked the way you guys thought it did, I'd agree that it would be worth double the cost, but it doesn't.
Ok. If you're correct then it is inferior. Is there any errata on this?
flandarz wrote: It does imply that SMs are far less reliant on their Stratagems, giving them more flexibility in Detachments (cuz they don't need to farm CP as much) and thus what they field.
My personal stance is that this game is WAY too killy, to the point where who gets first go practically decides the victor. Stratagems obviously exacerbate this problem.
Yes exactly. Csm are forced to use ridiculous combos to compete, and make horrible un thematic lists to power them.
I'm not salty that Night Lords got the same stratagem Black Templars got except it's guaranteed to work and half the cost in CP... Not at all...
Doesn't it only work on one unit while the BT one works on multiple?
Nope. I thought so too at first, but it explicitly calls out "that unit":
"Use this Stratagem in the Movement Phase, when an enemy Infantry unit that does not have the Flyer Battlefield Role and is within 1" of any Black Templars Infantry unit from your army is chosen to Fall Back. Roll one D6; on a 2+ that unit cannot Fall Back this turn."
Here's the Night Lords one for reference:
"Use this stratagem at the start of your opponent's Movement Phase. Select one Night Lords unit from your army that's not a Vehicle. Until the start of your next turn, enemy units within 1" of that unit cannot Fall Back unless they have the Vehicle or Titanic Keyword, or have a minimum Move characteristic."
The Night Lords one can lock multiple units, always works, and is half the cost. They're printed in the same book.
The Night Lords stratagem allows one nl infantry unit to lock opponents in cc. The bt version locks any enemy unit within 1 of anybt infantry unit in cc. You don't select just one unit. So multiple bt units can lock units in cc from the same strategem. Not the same.
No it doesn't. You use it when an enemy unit wants to fall back. On a 2+ that unit cannot fall back. It explicitly affects a single unit. The "any" is referring to a Black Templars unit that the selected unit has to be within 1" of, but you're only allowed to select one enemy unit.
If it worked the way you guys thought it did, I'd agree that it would be worth double the cost, but it doesn't.
Ok. If you're correct then it is inferior. Is there any errata on this?
Nope.
Figures.
But until we have clarification I concede the point to you.
You need something in your list which can deploy outside your deployment zone to block this. I realise that Aeldari are short of choices in this regard but 80pts for a huge great Webway Gate of Nope for all those RG tricks could be points well spent. If their tricks are currently costing you more than 80pts in casualties then I'd say that is a good trade. At least it looks real pretty
Looks real pretty is all it's worth... 80pts for one? One wouldn't be enough half the time. In an already expensive army, 80-160 pts is huge... In a competitive setting would you really waste the pts if you take them in case you match up against RG? I understand taking things like night spinners as there is a lot primaris but they can kill other things. But the gate is just very acute tailoring.
If you can't spare 4% of your list to hold off Raven Guard, deepstriking Night Lords etc then it just can't be a problem for you. Clearly you don't think any of those things are enough of a problem to tool up against. Which is fine, in that case RG etc are clearly not OP because you see no need to counter them.
The gate is BIG. Yes it is a few more points than a barebones scout squad but it does their job in a codex that otherwise does not handle this particular risk very well - and most codexes have to pay more points to fill this role than just marines do.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: LOL Chaos Marines were not brought up that far. Outside Alpha Legion they're dependent on CP to operate at all.
Every army needs CP to operate. Choas stratagems are flat out better than marine stratagems.
Before c:sm and the supplements I'd agree. Now not so much.
Can we at least agree that no army should require cp to function properly?
Stratgems costing cp instead of being bought pre battle for points is genuinely one of the largest head scratchers I have about the game. Make them cost points, make it so if you want to use it more than once you have to buy it multiple times, make them costed appropriate to their strength and make it so no more than 20% of points can be spent on them.
All of a sudden it's almost fine that a certain army or way of playing needs stratagems to function properly, as you are sacrificing models for tactical flexibility. It can also make some armies more elite in nature that usually wouldn't be.
Catachan devils themed army list? All of a sudden you have the stratagems to make them feel unique and elite.
I'm not salty that Night Lords got the same stratagem Black Templars got except it's guaranteed to work and half the cost in CP... Not at all...
Doesn't it only work on one unit while the BT one works on multiple?
Nope. I thought so too at first, but it explicitly calls out "that unit":
"Use this Stratagem in the Movement Phase, when an enemy Infantry unit that does not have the Flyer Battlefield Role and is within 1" of any Black Templars Infantry unit from your army is chosen to Fall Back. Roll one D6; on a 2+ that unit cannot Fall Back this turn."
Here's the Night Lords one for reference:
"Use this stratagem at the start of your opponent's Movement Phase. Select one Night Lords unit from your army that's not a Vehicle. Until the start of your next turn, enemy units within 1" of that unit cannot Fall Back unless they have the Vehicle or Titanic Keyword, or have a minimum Move characteristic."
The Night Lords one can lock multiple units, always works, and is half the cost. They're printed in the same book.
The Night Lords stratagem allows one nl infantry unit to lock opponents in cc. The bt version locks any enemy unit within 1 of anybt infantry unit in cc. You don't select just one unit. So multiple bt units can lock units in cc from the same strategem. Not the same.
No it doesn't. You use it when an enemy unit wants to fall back. On a 2+ that unit cannot fall back. It explicitly affects a single unit. The "any" is referring to a Black Templars unit that the selected unit has to be within 1" of, but you're only allowed to select one enemy unit.
If it worked the way you guys thought it did, I'd agree that it would be worth double the cost, but it doesn't.
Ok. If you're correct then it is inferior. Is there any errata on this?
Nope.
Oh well. At least you can play those BT as a certain other, Black coloured Marine sub faction, huh?
Your complaints, while valid, aren't new or in any way unique to BT. Nor does a slightly overcosted stratagem a bad sub faction make.
My Evil Sunz Orks who are allegedly obsessed with 'going fasta' have no way to lock anything in combat, nor can they disembark from a vehicle and charge.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Oh believe me, I want it to work the way people seemed to think it did too.
I actually had them reversed - the NL strat allows the unit to lock multiple others in combat. For half the CP cost? Chaos. Literally.
I'm not salty that Night Lords got the same stratagem Black Templars got except it's guaranteed to work and half the cost in CP... Not at all...
Doesn't it only work on one unit while the BT one works on multiple?
Nope. I thought so too at first, but it explicitly calls out "that unit":
"Use this Stratagem in the Movement Phase, when an enemy Infantry unit that does not have the Flyer Battlefield Role and is within 1" of any Black Templars Infantry unit from your army is chosen to Fall Back. Roll one D6; on a 2+ that unit cannot Fall Back this turn."
Here's the Night Lords one for reference:
"Use this stratagem at the start of your opponent's Movement Phase. Select one Night Lords unit from your army that's not a Vehicle. Until the start of your next turn, enemy units within 1" of that unit cannot Fall Back unless they have the Vehicle or Titanic Keyword, or have a minimum Move characteristic."
The Night Lords one can lock multiple units, always works, and is half the cost. They're printed in the same book.
The Night Lords stratagem allows one nl infantry unit to lock opponents in cc. The bt version locks any enemy unit within 1 of anybt infantry unit in cc. You don't select just one unit. So multiple bt units can lock units in cc from the same strategem. Not the same.
No it doesn't. You use it when an enemy unit wants to fall back. On a 2+ that unit cannot fall back. It explicitly affects a single unit. The "any" is referring to a Black Templars unit that the selected unit has to be within 1" of, but you're only allowed to select one enemy unit.
If it worked the way you guys thought it did, I'd agree that it would be worth double the cost, but it doesn't.
Ok. If you're correct then it is inferior. Is there any errata on this?
Nope.
Oh well. At least you can play those BT as a certain other, Black coloured Marine sub faction, huh?
Believe it or not most of the stuff I own could well be worse as Iron Hands. I could buy a bunch of new units and play Iron Hands, but then so could anyone else.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Believe it or not most of the stuff I own could well be worse as Iron Hands. I could buy a bunch of new units and play Iron Hands, but then so could anyone else.
So your stuff is better than the IH equivalent? Sounds OP!
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Believe it or not most of the stuff I own could well be worse as Iron Hands. I could buy a bunch of new units and play Iron Hands, but then so could anyone else.
So your stuff is better than the IH equivalent? Sounds OP!
Or maybe he'd prefer sticking to his chosen faction instead of jumping on bandwagons for easy wins?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Believe it or not most of the stuff I own could well be worse as Iron Hands. I could buy a bunch of new units and play Iron Hands, but then so could anyone else.
So your stuff is better than the IH equivalent? Sounds OP!
Or maybe he'd prefer sticking to his chosen faction instead of jumping on bandwagons for easy wins?
Quick digression back to Salamanders VoTlw, it is better on its own as it can be used on any salamanders unit but it doesn't combo as well with the army due to all SM 'criticals' happening on unmodified 6's where as Chaos crits happen on modified 6's which syncs particularly well with stuff like the crimson crown, blades of putrefaction, or doubleshoot (endless cacophany?).
Still pushes Chaos as the wombo-combo faction as they are relying on cumulative buffs to pull stuff off
The salamander VotLW is more versatile
The Chaos VotLW can be more powerful
Vilehydra wrote: Quick digression back to Salamanders VoTlw, it is better on its own as it can be used on any salamanders unit but it doesn't combo as well with the army due to all SM 'criticals' happening on unmodified 6's where as Chaos crits happen on modified 6's which syncs particularly well with stuff like the crimson crown, blades of putrefaction, or doubleshoot (endless cacophany?).
Still pushes Chaos as the wombo-combo faction as they are relying on cumulative buffs to pull stuff off
The salamander VotLW is more versatile
The Chaos VotLW can be more powerful
Well some of us don't want wombo-combos. If I wanted wombo-combos I'd play a fething ccg.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Believe it or not most of the stuff I own could well be worse as Iron Hands. I could buy a bunch of new units and play Iron Hands, but then so could anyone else.
So your stuff is better than the IH equivalent? Sounds OP!
Or maybe he'd prefer sticking to his chosen faction instead of jumping on bandwagons for easy wins?
There are a few of us out there.
Yes - according to some. Players that make this choice aren't even trying to win and or can't possibly be good players- cause they coulda just played Ironahnds. So the results these armies get can just be ignored. They can't possibly be skilled players.
Vilehydra wrote: Quick digression back to Salamanders VoTlw, it is better on its own as it can be used on any salamanders unit but it doesn't combo as well with the army due to all SM 'criticals' happening on unmodified 6's where as Chaos crits happen on modified 6's which syncs particularly well with stuff like the crimson crown, blades of putrefaction, or doubleshoot (endless cacophany?).
Still pushes Chaos as the wombo-combo faction as they are relying on cumulative buffs to pull stuff off
The salamander VotLW is more versatile
The Chaos VotLW can be more powerful
Well some of us don't want wombo-combos. If I wanted wombo-combos I'd play a fething ccg.
Hey I am with you. Game feels so much like MTG right now I barely want to play competitive. Cause like in MTG - you can't win without taking the cheesiest stuff.
You need something in your list which can deploy outside your deployment zone to block this. I realise that Aeldari are short of choices in this regard but 80pts for a huge great Webway Gate of Nope for all those RG tricks could be points well spent. If their tricks are currently costing you more than 80pts in casualties then I'd say that is a good trade. At least it looks real pretty
Looks real pretty is all it's worth... 80pts for one? One wouldn't be enough half the time. In an already expensive army, 80-160 pts is huge... In a competitive setting would you really waste the pts if you take them in case you match up against RG? I understand taking things like night spinners as there is a lot primaris but they can kill other things. But the gate is just very acute tailoring.
If you can't spare 4% of your list to hold off Raven Guard, deepstriking Night Lords etc then it just can't be a problem for you. Clearly you don't think any of those things are enough of a problem to tool up against. Which is fine, in that case RG etc are clearly not OP because you see no need to counter them.
The gate is BIG. Yes it is a few more points than a barebones scout squad but it does their job in a codex that otherwise does not handle this particular risk very well - and most codexes have to pay more points to fill this role than just marines do.
But its not that simple though is it.. I would have to tailor turned up to 11... AND sacrifice 80pts AND sacrifice an entire detachment slot in an army where I struggle to fit enough things into dual battalion + spearhead pts wise AND composition wise and to get CP so that my army can function and also be decent. All just because marines exists as they do and invictor war suit exists.. Id happily take T1 DS and infiltrating optiosn for my army though and I wonder how quick the meta would cry about eldar being OP. Imagine putting a 10 man squad of wraith guard with a spirit seer 9" from your line before T1? lol...
Perhaps 80pts is not a lot in a marine list, and you can just get some troops that do this and also count as troops for CP... You don't really need CP apart from chapter master I guess, but for the my faction its the difference between having extra couple to star canons/reapers/LFR which will often clutch the game.
flandarz wrote: It does imply that SMs are far less reliant on their Stratagems, giving them more flexibility in Detachments (cuz they don't need to farm CP as much) and thus what they field.
My personal stance is that this game is WAY too killy, to the point where who gets first go practically decides the victor. Stratagems obviously exacerbate this problem.
SM are reliant on their auras. Choas is more reliant on spells. Their spells are better too though. In a game that is all about consistency that is also as killy as this one - auras blanket buffing most of your units is more reliable because no matter what your opponent kills you still have the strength to fight back. CSM much more bursty. Realistically in match up against each other the game is decided by who goes first. You deep strike 10 combi plasma terms and kill 500 points in thee shooting phase the same turn you just got 2-3 disco lords into combat...the game is over. Ignoring stuff like Ironhands which have an indestructible unit screening 3 chaplain dreads which will eat 3 disco lords for breakfast the next turn.
The game designers really need to examine the combos in each book with thought put behind every stratagem/ability that can mesh well with it. The probably need to come up with a new version of character protection (I honestly had no issue with characters being part of units - just get rid of LOS and it's not a problem) Vehicles regardless of wounds should not have character protection.
Ishagu wrote: Giving every sub faction a seperate codex isn't needed to have varied playstyles, clearly.
The new Astartes codex and supplements have already created multiple varied playstyles. There's nothing inconsistent about what I've said - You guys should stop moving the goal posts. Psychic awakening has given other factions nearly the same volume of unique rules in some cases. Alpha Legion also have a set of relics, traits, strats, etc. As do Iron Warriors, Night Lords, etc. Not as much, but not far off.
Some of you guys are literally complaining that GW have given a faction a lot of rules. Once 9th drops - and it will as history repeats itself every few years, the cycle will start again and all the complainers will forget and move on to complain about something else. I suspect many of you have a complaint fetish lol. I know someone like that in person.
Yeah other factions got some stuff in pa but it pales in comparison to what loyalist marines have gotten.
We may have new warlord traits and relics but without strategems that allow taking multiples of each cheaply like loyalists got you still only ever see the best ones over and over. And without the kind of internal codex balance that c:sm had you still just see the same old units played on the table.
Basically pa comes down to a few new strategems per factions unless those factions are loyalist astartes.
No one denies that marines got the most. They were also at the worst starting place.
So here is the example I would go for.
Marines Were D- Tier and their supplements brought them up to between a B+ to A++ level.
Eldar were A- and their supplement brought them to an A+.
CSM were a C+ and they were brought to a B+.
Tyranids Were a D + Brought to a C-.(Probably the only army that has any right to complain from these supplements)
AM and Tau seem to be getting maybe a grade level or a 1/2 grade level increase.
The only problem is the A++ supplements which is as always - the one or 2 overpowered codex weve had all edition.
I mean, theres also the four factions you just forgot even got stuff, Drukhari GSC Ynnari and Tsons.
Whose rules were all so forgettable they basically got nothing.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Believe it or not most of the stuff I own could well be worse as Iron Hands. I could buy a bunch of new units and play Iron Hands, but then so could anyone else.
So your stuff is better than the IH equivalent? Sounds OP!
Or maybe he'd prefer sticking to his chosen faction instead of jumping on bandwagons for easy wins?
Chapter master needs to go to 3CP, and/or be made a once per battle thing then go back down to 1's/ and or only effect one unit within 6". Or something..
Obviously not just SM, this should apply to all re-roll everything auras. The rerolls is what's absolutely makes the game suck the most IMO. Certainty should not be an element of a dice game.
Psychic is not on par with auras. You have to roll for those, potnetialy spend CP for re-rolls, and there are denies so it never a guarantee.
Somewhat back on topic - this entire thread is kinda ridiculous. We have certain Marine players (whose names may or may not begin with "Xeno" and end in "mancer") that are pre-emptively arguing against any potential nerfs to their precious units because their particular sub faction is just so *dang* balanced (according to a very limited data sample and/or in this case a singular article regarding a single event). Seemingly oblivious to the plight of other factions that are actually kindafethed right now.
It [this thread] is like some sick mirror of the "Marines need to be buffed!!!11one" threads we've had throughout 8th until 6 months ago. It is like we've entered some weird meta commentary where 40k players are emulating their favoured Adeptus Astartes with, what I can only describe as; indoctrinated ramblings and zealous preaching. It's truly bizarre.
Perhaps efforts would be better spent looking at those factions that are truly struggling, rather than worrying about those that seem, for all intents and purposes, to be somewhere between 'fine' and 'OP'?
Looks to me like even the worst performing factions have a win rate of around 45-48% currently. A few are worse. And this is using the ITC data which isn't even a good measure of the game, the meta is more balanced using CA.
Looks to me like even the worst performing factions have a win rate of around 45-48% currently. A few are worse. And this is using the ITC data which isn't even a good measure of the game, the meta is more balanced using CA.
Some are struggling a fair bit. The factions above 50% are pulling that from somewhere. There is also the factor of what lists will work - that isn't a problem for right now though.
Looks to me like even the worst performing factions have a win rate of around 45-48% currently. A few are worse. And this is using the ITC data which isn't even a good measure of the game, the meta is more balanced using CA.
I think there's often a broader issue of "number-of-viable-builds". Marines at the moment have a ton of reasonably viable, high-mid-to-top-tier ways to be played right now. While it's often the case that other factions have maybe just a few, or only one build that sees decent results on competitive tables. Some armies can wind up being more restrained in terms of choice, even though their win percentage is decent. To me that's an issue.
Looks to me like even the worst performing factions have a win rate of around 45-48% currently. A few are worse. And this is using the ITC data which isn't even a good measure of the game, the meta is more balanced using CA.
The meta is no more balanced using CA. I’d suggest that the fewer recorded games and more random nature of the missions lead the data on CA and it’s apparent ‘balance’ to be highly skewed. Not to mention the lack of chess clocks. Not that this is the thread to discuss that. For the hundredth time.
And to answer your question - yes. Clearly certain factions are struggling. Even if said faction has a ‘viable’ build, it is often a chore to play, incredibly one dimensional, easily countered or all three. That is not a good place for a faction to be.
Vilehydra wrote: Quick digression back to Salamanders VoTlw, it is better on its own as it can be used on any salamanders unit but it doesn't combo as well with the army due to all SM 'criticals' happening on unmodified 6's where as Chaos crits happen on modified 6's which syncs particularly well with stuff like the crimson crown, blades of putrefaction, or doubleshoot (endless cacophany?).
Still pushes Chaos as the wombo-combo faction as they are relying on cumulative buffs to pull stuff off
The salamander VotLW is more versatile
The Chaos VotLW can be more powerful
Well some of us don't want wombo-combos. If I wanted wombo-combos I'd play a fething ccg.
I get that, I didn't necessarily say that it was a good thing.
On one hand armies need to have differing flavors, on the other too much flavor and your pushed into a certain direction.
I have a chaos friend who absolutely loves the wombo-combos. Is he wrong for wanting chaos to be like that? What other directions can be pushed specifically for chaos? Summoning, but summoning is one of those things that everyone is cautious about because it helped ruin 7th Ed
Off the top of my head I can't think of any other faction that relies on combos as hard as Chaos does, and for better or worse that is part of the flavor currently. Not wanting to use the flavor is like saying I don't want to rely on tau shooting, I can go for it but I'm going to have one rough time. Due to the nature of collecting models if you don't like the flavor of the army that you've spent years collecting, I offer my condolences because that's an awful feeling.
Looks to me like even the worst performing factions have a win rate of around 45-48% currently. A few are worse. And this is using the ITC data which isn't even a good measure of the game, the meta is more balanced using CA.
I think there's often a broader issue of "number-of-viable-builds". Marines at the moment have a ton of reasonably viable, high-mid-to-top-tier ways to be played right now. While it's often the case that other factions have maybe just a few, or only one build that sees decent results on competitive tables. Some armies can wind up being more restrained in terms of choice, even though their win percentage is decent. To me that's an issue.
Right. Most xenos factions have one or two builds that can compete with marines. Meanwhile chaos only works as soup, generally spamming ridiculous combos. Marines on the other hand have enough good strategems, psychic powers, warlord traits, and viable units to function effectively with multiple builds and strategies.
Vilehydra wrote: Quick digression back to Salamanders VoTlw, it is better on its own as it can be used on any salamanders unit but it doesn't combo as well with the army due to all SM 'criticals' happening on unmodified 6's where as Chaos crits happen on modified 6's which syncs particularly well with stuff like the crimson crown, blades of putrefaction, or doubleshoot (endless cacophany?).
Still pushes Chaos as the wombo-combo faction as they are relying on cumulative buffs to pull stuff off
The salamander VotLW is more versatile
The Chaos VotLW can be more powerful
Well some of us don't want wombo-combos. If I wanted wombo-combos I'd play a fething ccg.
I get that, I didn't necessarily say that it was a good thing.
On one hand armies need to have differing flavors, on the other too much flavor and your pushed into a certain direction.
I have a chaos friend who absolutely loves the wombo-combos. Is he wrong for wanting chaos to be like that? What other directions can be pushed specifically for chaos? Summoning, but summoning is one of those things that everyone is cautious about because it helped ruin 7th Ed
Off the top of my head I can't think of any other faction that relies on combos as hard as Chaos does, and for better or worse that is part of the flavor currently. Not wanting to use the flavor is like saying I don't want to rely on tau shooting, I can go for it but I'm going to have one rough time. Due to the nature of collecting models if you don't like the flavor of the army that you've spent years collecting, I offer my condolences because that's an awful feeling.
Tau have pretty much always been about shooting. Combos are an 8th edition thing, as they're based primarily on strategems. For some baffling reason gw has decided that csm should be more reliant on them than most other armies. That sucks for us old heretics because it's not what we're used to or want. Or at least that's me.
It wasn't the freely summoned units that ruined the summoning mechanic. It's that it was piss easy to summon a lot. Make it harder (but still free) and you're good.
Vilehydra wrote: Quick digression back to Salamanders VoTlw, it is better on its own as it can be used on any salamanders unit but it doesn't combo as well with the army due to all SM 'criticals' happening on unmodified 6's where as Chaos crits happen on modified 6's which syncs particularly well with stuff like the crimson crown, blades of putrefaction, or doubleshoot (endless cacophany?).
Still pushes Chaos as the wombo-combo faction as they are relying on cumulative buffs to pull stuff off
The salamander VotLW is more versatile
The Chaos VotLW can be more powerful
Not true, not all criticals are allowed to be modified, cult leader for exemple for al.
It vastly depends on what.
Looks to me like even the worst performing factions have a win rate of around 45-48% currently. A few are worse. And this is using the ITC data which isn't even a good measure of the game, the meta is more balanced using CA.
Win % is a really bad stat to see if anything is balanced. It works great to see if something is overpowered though. You cant get a very high win% unless you can beat all the other best armies most of the time which means that a high win % is broken for sure.
Those below 50% most likely didnt get their wins against good armies in good players hands but at the bottom tables against other bottom tier armies that may or may not be piloted by skilled players. If Tyranids, snowflake marines, dark eldar, custodes, mono chaos legions and absolute newbies play it all out against each other except for the first game in a tournament they are almost 50-50 in winrates. So they wont really drop low in winrate but they still might not have much of a chance at all when facing the top factions.
I saw some statistics a month ago for some of the factions. They had around 40-49% winrate overall but up against armies like the better marines or eldar subfactions it dropped down to 10-25%. The winrate% in of themselves should only be used to spot the outliers but then you need better data. If tournament pairings were random instead of swiss and the winrates stayed the same as now I would say it is fairly balanced but that isnt how pairings are done.
Marines and in particular 
