God, I wish they'd never done 2W marines. It's hastened the arm race with this damn game.
I wish they would scale the game back down to 1W for everything on 32mm or less base and just tweak S & T as appropriate. Save the wounds for heroes, monsters and tanks.
And then get attacks/shooting under control. Basic troops should have *1* attack shooting or melee and only ultra elite stuff/blast & hosing-style weapons (such as the assault cannon) should be looking at more than one shot per turn.
It would sure make the game go faster rather than having to reload and count your bucket of dice for every model's attack.
Kanluwen wrote: Having an additional -1 absolutely does do something. It negates any potential +1s that a unit has.
If you have a -2 and I have a +1, you still get a -1. If you have a -1 and I have a +1, you have no bonus nor do I.
Ah, yes, all those +1s to hit from two places in the Imperial Guard codex and nowhere else. Definitely would be a useful thing to have.
I don't own every single codex but off the top of my head?
Eliminator Squads. The Sergeant can forego shooting to give the unit +1 to Hit and Wound rolls. Vanguard Warlord trait "Target Priority" allows you to grant +1 to hit rolls for a <Chapter> Phobos unit.
Longstrike adds 1 to hit rolls for T'au Sept Hammerheads within 6" of him. Markerlights, obviously, give +1 to hit rolls for Tau Empire units firing at a unit with 5+ markerlight counters on them. Drop Zone Clear stratagem adds another 1 to hit rolls for a Farsight Enclaves unit that used Manta Strike ability that turn.
Kanluwen wrote: Having an additional -1 absolutely does do something. It negates any potential +1s that a unit has.
If you have a -2 and I have a +1, you still get a -1. If you have a -1 and I have a +1, you have no bonus nor do I.
Ah, yes, all those +1s to hit from two places in the Imperial Guard codex and nowhere else. Definitely would be a useful thing to have.
I don't own every single codex but off the top of my head?
Eliminator Squads. The Sergeant can forego shooting to give the unit +1 to Hit and Wound rolls. Vanguard Warlord trait "Target Priority" allows you to grant +1 to hit rolls for a <Chapter> Phobos unit.
Longstrike adds 1 to hit rolls for T'au Sept Hammerheads within 6" of him. Markerlights, obviously, give +1 to hit rolls for Tau Empire units firing at a unit with 5+ markerlight counters on them. Drop Zone Clear stratagem adds another 1 to hit rolls for a Farsight Enclaves unit that used Manta Strike ability that turn.
Ah yes, eliminators, hammerheads, and Phobos units. My 30 daemonette blobs tremble in fear of anti-tank guns and single-shot sniper rifles...
Seriously. If a unit has a native -1 to-hit rule, I hope it's essentially free in 9th edition, with the cap to modifiers. Certainly isn't worth one whole point.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Darmonettes could have a bonus to their save or a modifier to be hit for all I care.
You don't care about the potential for a 30-girl unit to have 6 or 7 attacks per model?
And hit modifiers are capped, so we can't use that do change durability (if Terrain gives a -1, then having an additional -1 doesn't do anything). We'll have to adjust their save, it's already a 5++.
I guess an armywide 4++, buffable with warp-surge or Tzeench to a 3++, is totally fine and not broken at all.
I don't care how many attacks a unit has usually simply because most units won't make it to melee and, if it's a death star plan, it'll already have a bunch of attacks to begin with.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Darmonettes could have a bonus to their save or a modifier to be hit for all I care.
You don't care about the potential for a 30-girl unit to have 6 or 7 attacks per model?
And hit modifiers are capped, so we can't use that do change durability (if Terrain gives a -1, then having an additional -1 doesn't do anything). We'll have to adjust their save, it's already a 5++.
I guess an armywide 4++, buffable with warp-surge or Tzeench to a 3++, is totally fine and not broken at all.
I don't care how many attacks a unit has usually simply because most units won't make it to melee and, if it's a death star plan, it'll already have a bunch of attacks to begin with.
That's certainly a hot take. I suppose engaging with such insanity isn't worth my time.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Darmonettes could have a bonus to their save or a modifier to be hit for all I care.
You don't care about the potential for a 30-girl unit to have 6 or 7 attacks per model?
And hit modifiers are capped, so we can't use that do change durability (if Terrain gives a -1, then having an additional -1 doesn't do anything). We'll have to adjust their save, it's already a 5++.
I guess an armywide 4++, buffable with warp-surge or Tzeench to a 3++, is totally fine and not broken at all.
I don't care how many attacks a unit has usually simply because most units won't make it to melee and, if it's a death star plan, it'll already have a bunch of attacks to begin with.
That's certainly a hot take. I suppose engaging with such insanity isn't worth my time.
When someone wants a unit to get that many attacks, there will be a way to do so already in the codex.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Darmonettes could have a bonus to their save or a modifier to be hit for all I care.
You don't care about the potential for a 30-girl unit to have 6 or 7 attacks per model?
And hit modifiers are capped, so we can't use that do change durability (if Terrain gives a -1, then having an additional -1 doesn't do anything). We'll have to adjust their save, it's already a 5++.
I guess an armywide 4++, buffable with warp-surge or Tzeench to a 3++, is totally fine and not broken at all.
I don't care how many attacks a unit has usually simply because most units won't make it to melee and, if it's a death star plan, it'll already have a bunch of attacks to begin with.
That's certainly a hot take. I suppose engaging with such insanity isn't worth my time.
When someone wants a unit to get that many attacks, there will be a way to do so already in the codex.
Right, but we're talking baseline, right?
Remember, we're trying to put baseline Primaris up against baseline "Other Units". Not Primaris + Stratagems + Warlord Traits + Army Bonuses vs "Other Unit" + Stratagems + Warlord Traits + Army Bonuses. That way lies madness, for the combinations are so infinite.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Darmonettes could have a bonus to their save or a modifier to be hit for all I care.
You don't care about the potential for a 30-girl unit to have 6 or 7 attacks per model?
And hit modifiers are capped, so we can't use that do change durability (if Terrain gives a -1, then having an additional -1 doesn't do anything). We'll have to adjust their save, it's already a 5++.
I guess an armywide 4++, buffable with warp-surge or Tzeench to a 3++, is totally fine and not broken at all.
I don't care how many attacks a unit has usually simply because most units won't make it to melee and, if it's a death star plan, it'll already have a bunch of attacks to begin with.
That's certainly a hot take. I suppose engaging with such insanity isn't worth my time.
When someone wants a unit to get that many attacks, there will be a way to do so already in the codex.
Right, but we're talking baseline, right?
Remember, we're trying to put baseline Primaris up against baseline "Other Units". Not Primaris + Stratagems + Warlord Traits + Army Bonuses vs "Other Unit" + Stratagems + Warlord Traits + Army Bonuses. That way lies madness, for the combinations are so infinite.
Baseline, a 7 attack Daemonette would kill maybe half a Tactical Marine on the charge. Granted I didn't incorporate Rending into that head math. Rending would probably equate to one for during dying per Daemonette. For a strictly melee unit I don't see that as terribly unreasonable.
Insectum7 wrote: Until you have to roll 70 dice for a 10-man unit.
Orks already get close to that so your point?
My 30 girl unit needs to roll 210 dice. You're welcome to sit through it while I roll them. Should we do it in batches of 5? I have big dice and am holding my codex in one hand. You might wanna pull up the latest episode of westworld; I'll have how many wounds I did by the end probably. After that, we'll do my two other 30-girl squads. Oh, and one has +1 attack for the rapturous standard, so they have to roll 240 dice.
EDIT: Orks are already being targeted by complaints of slowing the game down too much.
Nurglitch wrote: There's a wonderful passage in one of John Mortimer's novels (Titmuss Regained) where a character muses that music gets uglier as you get older so you won't miss it when you're dead. I'm starting to feel that way about Space Marines. I have ~3 Companies worth or so, and my lingering hopes that there will be Primaris beakies have dwindled to nigh-zilch. On the bright side, all the money I'm not spending on SM has gone to other things.
There are primaris beakies. There is a primaris beakie helmet in the Raven Guard sprue and of course old beakie helmets fit them too. They go particularly well with the phobos armour.
I think I was moreso hoping for a Mk VI Legion kit like the Mk III and Mk IV kits. The Phobos armour, like the Intercessor stuff, just looks 3rd party.
Honestly, the Mark X stuff doesn't really look "third party"...it just looks Great Crusade era. It looks like it's standard issue gear rather than relics handed down over great passages of time.
You can't imagine, right now, Chapters launching missions to recover the wargear of fallen Captain Guy in Phobos Armor. Not yet.
My 30 girl unit needs to roll 210 dice. You're welcome to sit through it while I roll them. Should we do it in batches of 5? I have big dice and am holding my codex in one hand. You might wanna pull up the latest episode of westworld; I'll have how many wounds I did by the end probably. After that, we'll do my two other 30-girl squads. Oh, and one has +1 attack for the rapturous standard, so they have to roll 240 dice.
Dice ... Roller ....APP
I mentioned this in another thread, but I've been genuinely surprised to find out so few people are apparently using them? They're pretty popular in my area. Mind you, I'm not excusing the rules requiring that amount of dice - just saying I don't get why people are taking orks for example, and trying to actually roll so many dice. 8th ed takes long enough as it is.
My 30 girl unit needs to roll 210 dice. You're welcome to sit through it while I roll them. Should we do it in batches of 5? I have big dice and am holding my codex in one hand. You might wanna pull up the latest episode of westworld; I'll have how many wounds I did by the end probably. After that, we'll do my two other 30-girl squads. Oh, and one has +1 attack for the rapturous standard, so they have to roll 240 dice.
Dice ... Roller ....APP
I mentioned this in another thread, but I've been genuinely surprised to find out so few people are apparently using them? They're pretty popular in my area. Mind you, I'm not excusing the rules requiring that amount of dice - just saying I don't get why people are taking orks for example, and trying to actually roll so many dice. 8th ed takes long enough as it is.
Is it just a problem of finding an app you trust?
I knew a dice roller app would be brought up. Suffice to say, I prefer rolling physical dice. If I wanted a machine to do the game adjudication for me, I'd just give the game complex and more realistic adjudication and have the machine tell me the results. That is to say, if the game is already so ridiculous that I'm pulling out my phone to adjudicate actions, then why not have an app that does the adjudication for me, and then make the adjudication complex so it's more realistic? Why not make such adjudicator apps proprietary? Say, that's a good way to make money. Just plug your daemonette squad size and target squad and size into the Warhammer™ 40,000 ActionAdjudication™ app that you subscribe to for a buck a month, and it'll tell you what happens and how many Marine casualties to remove! That'd be even faster than rolling each step individually in an app.
My 30 girl unit needs to roll 210 dice. You're welcome to sit through it while I roll them. Should we do it in batches of 5? I have big dice and am holding my codex in one hand. You might wanna pull up the latest episode of westworld; I'll have how many wounds I did by the end probably. After that, we'll do my two other 30-girl squads. Oh, and one has +1 attack for the rapturous standard, so they have to roll 240 dice.
Dice ... Roller ....APP
I mentioned this in another thread, but I've been genuinely surprised to find out so few people are apparently using them? They're pretty popular in my area. Mind you, I'm not excusing the rules requiring that amount of dice - just saying I don't get why people are taking orks for example, and trying to actually roll so many dice. 8th ed takes long enough as it is.
Is it just a problem of finding an app you trust?
It is not just a problem of finding an app.
It is a problem of you have your f***ing phone/tablet out during our game. It's one thing to get a call and step outside and take it, then come back in. It's another thing to be using your devices all game long.
I do not use e-books, and hate them. I do not use apps to replace die rolling, and also hate them.
you might be amazed to find that tabletop wargamers, on average, tend to prefer an analog rather than a digital experience.
and somehow, every other wargame on the market including previous editions of warhammer 40k did not require a volume of dice rolling so as to make such an application necessary.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: If I took an App to roll the dice I could as well play on Tabletop simulator.
true. and playing a digital version of the game would be cheaper too. Even if it went for 60$. heck even if you had to buy a phone to play it or a playstation it would cost less then a w40k army.
"Just use an app to roll the dice because we made you have to roll too many" is really not a good argument.
If you're having to roll that many dice in the first place, it probably isn't an interaction that should be determined by rolling dice in the first place.
8th edition just got way out of control on the volume of dice, and it's a direct result of those 2W primaris and all the inflation that came along with it.
"Just use an app to roll the dice because we made you have to roll too many" is really not a good argument.
If you're having to roll that many dice in the first place, it probably isn't an interaction that should be determined by rolling dice in the first place.
8th edition just got way out of control on the volume of dice, and it's a direct result of those 2W primaris and all the inflation that came along with it.
Like I said in my original post - Having an app doesn't excuse the fact that we have to roll (and often re-roll) so many dice in the first place. Ideally the rules themselves get fixed. But since that hasn't happened, and since it isn't even likely to happen, I just thought the fact that there was a free and easy solution might be a good thing? Use the app for large rolls, roll the actual dice for medium to small ones.
you might be amazed to find that tabletop wargamers, on average, tend to prefer an analog rather than a digital experience.
And yet, every single time codexes and updates get brought up the community refrain is "WHY ARENT THEY DIGITAL YET!!!!???"
I realize many (myself included) prefer actual dice and books, but so many people scream about wanting digital books, and yet don't want to use a dice app because "I don't want my phone out during a game". Where's the phone gonna be if your codex is digital? It's definitely not for everyone. I resisted at first too, but it makes games go faster, and since I'm still rolling dice for the medium and smaller rolls, I'm not missing out on that experience. Claiming that the use of a dice app for very large rolls is just a stone's throw away from just "playing table top simulator" is a pretty disingenuous argument that sounds an awful lot like "Get off my lawn!"
To each his own, but I would at least recommend trying it before you knock it. Totally get not finding one you like. I haven't played since quarantine started, but the creatively named "Dice Roller" was pretty popular amongst the horde players in my area pre-lockdown.
It is a problem of you have your f***ing phone/tablet out during our game. It's one thing to get a call and step outside and take it, then come back in. It's another thing to be using your devices all game long.
Airplane mode. And you don't need to use it "all game long". Just for those big rolls where your opponent doesn't want to wait 20 minutes while you roll the 100 shots form that Boyz mob, tally the exploding 6's and reroll those. It isn't nearly as intrusive as I originally thought it would be.
I do not use e-books, and hate them. I do not use apps to replace die rolling, and also hate them.
That's fair. I'm in the same boat. But GW doesn't appear to be listening to those complaints and 9th is looking to double down on most of the mechanics that are currently slowing the game (volume of fire, rerolls, strats etc). As it stands now, 9th is looking to be even SLOWER than 8th. So we need to find solutions or just not play. To each his own, but for me, playing with the app is better than not playing at all, and it's significantly better than needing 100+ dice. Would be better if 100+ dice wasn't a thing, but it is, and I don't see them changing that so there you have it.
Completely anecdotal, but every time someone’s used a dice roller app against me, the results have been outrageous. Like, roll 180 3+ and then he hits 171 times. It just tilts me somehow and I proceed to say next batch you roll manually.
I just can’t completely trust an app like that. Unless it’s on a neutral phone and both players use the same one.
Completely anecdotal, but every time someone’s used a dice roller app against me, the results have been outrageous. Like, roll 180 3+ and then he hits 171 times. It just tilts me somehow and I proceed to say next batch you roll manually.
I just can’t completely trust an app like that. Unless it’s on a neutral phone and both players use the same one.
Insectum7 wrote: Until you have to roll 70 dice for a 10-man unit.
Orks already get close to that so your point?
Get close= half the dice actually
10 orks have 30-31 attacks in combat and 10-20 shots depending on which ranged weapon are equipped with, and the nob loadout. Also combat isn't guaranteed like shooting so....
Therion wrote: Completely anecdotal, but every time someone’s used a dice roller app against me, the results have been outrageous. Like, roll 180 3+ and then he hits 171 times. It just tilts me somehow and I proceed to say next batch you roll manually.
I just can’t completely trust an app like that. Unless it’s on a neutral phone and both players use the same one.
You would probably be more suspicious of that roll with regular dice then.
Insectum7 wrote: Until you have to roll 70 dice for a 10-man unit.
Orks already get close to that so your point?
Get close= half the dice actually
10 orks have 30-31 attacks in combat and 10-20 shots depending on which ranged weapon are equipped with, and the nob loadout. Also combat isn't guaranteed like shooting so....
That's pretty close actually when we are talking about a theoretical Daemonette with 7 attacks.
Also for the record I'm kinda in favor of Orks getting W2 in their profile.
Elbows wrote: Negative, an Ork boy can - under the right circumstances have seven attacks per model. It requires Gaz, a spell, taking the Goff trait....and I think a banner? But they're not exaggerating. Seven attacks is actually possible (technically it's 6 attacks, generating additional hits on rolls of '6' which mathematically gives you the seventh).
So where do we get when models start with 7 attacks base?
Kanluwen wrote: Honestly, the Mark X stuff doesn't really look "third party"...it just looks Great Crusade era. It looks like it's standard issue gear rather than relics handed down over great passages of time.
You can't imagine, right now, Chapters launching missions to recover the wargear of fallen Captain Guy in Phobos Armor. Not yet.
I'm not saying it's rational. I spent years trimming purity seals and skulls and whatnot off their armour. Now that clean, well-proportioned sci-fi SMs are available I don't want them. Maybe someday I'll figure out how to rationalize that in a way that makes sense.
Elbows wrote: Negative, an Ork boy can - under the right circumstances have seven attacks per model. It requires Gaz, a spell, taking the Goff trait....and I think a banner? But they're not exaggerating. Seven attacks is actually possible (technically it's 6 attacks, generating additional hits on rolls of '6' which mathematically gives you the seventh).
A 10 man squad has only 3 attacks base though, it can reach 5 attacks thanks to Warpath (by Weirdboy) and Ghaz aura. If the unit is 20+ they gain another attack. Exploding 6s are possible only if the unit is Goff, which are quite inferior to another clan that buffs melee which is Evil Sunz; in fact Goffs are hands down one of the weakest clans and no one takes it, especially now that Ghaz is available for all clans. So it's a max of 6-7 attack per model BUT we're talking about a 140+ points units with t-shirt save dudes and another additional 347 points of characters. A 500+ points combo for a super fragile melee unit. A unit of boyz that unleash overkill is possible, like is possible to see a Land Raider getting killed by guardsmen.
Also for the record I'm kinda in favor of Orks getting W2 in their profile.
I'm not, I'd hate W2 orks. I'm all in favor to reduce rate of fire and killyness (AKA reduce dice rolling), not to make things tougher or playing with lesser but stronger models.
I'm not, I'd hate W2 orks. I'm all in favor to reduce rate of fire and killyness (AKA reduce dice rolling), not to make things tougher or playing with lesser but stronger models.
Lesser but stronger models is meant to be SM in a nutshell.
There is an obvious tradeoff between model point and model price, like someone said it's not fair if I need to shell out $500 on my army to counter $100 of yours, but is it fair to charge $25 per miniatures when others are $0.75?
I'm not, I'd hate W2 orks. I'm all in favor to reduce rate of fire and killyness (AKA reduce dice rolling), not to make things tougher or playing with lesser but stronger models.
Lesser but stronger models is meant to be SM in a nutshell.
There is an obvious tradeoff between model point and model price, like someone said it's not fair if I need to shell out $500 on my army to counter $100 of yours, but is it fair to charge $25 per miniatures when others are $0.75?
Hey bud, do you have a GW kit where models cost $0.75? Because I'm looking at my stuff, and it doesn't seem like there's any correlation between game points and dollar price. Instead it seems more like more recent kits just cost more.
Seems like a bad correlation if we're being honest. 3.33 points per buck for space marines, 0.9 points per buck for GSC. And that's "ala carte" option for space marines, if I don't feel like getting my dudes from starter boxes where I can easily get way way more points of marines for cheaper by buying starter boxes and SC sets. For example, I can get 10 intercessors, 3 aggressors and a captain from SC space wolves for $95 or 10 infiltrators, 3 eliminators, 3 suppressors and a lieutenant from SC vanguard marines for $95.
Hey bud, do you have a GW kit where models cost $0.75? Because I'm looking at my stuff, and it doesn't seem like there's any correlation between game points and dollar price. Instead it seems more like more recent kits just cost more.
Seems like a bad correlation if we're being honest. 3.33 points per buck for space marines, 0.9 points per buck for GSC. And that's "ala carte" option for space marines, if I don't feel like getting my dudes from starter boxes where I can easily get way way more points of marines for cheaper by buying starter boxes and SC sets. For example, I can get 10 intercessors, 3 aggressors and a captain from SC space wolves for $95 or 10 infiltrators, 3 eliminators, 3 suppressors and a lieutenant from SC vanguard marines for $95.
That was sorta the point I was trying to make, I obviously did it badly.
There is a consideration to be made for real world cost and in game terms cost of a unit. It shouldn't be pay-to-play but neither should it be an army of half the real world $ value beating another one. If my SM army has more points per buck then I'll get to an army points total for less outlay than a GSC will.
Hey bud, do you have a GW kit where models cost $0.75? Because I'm looking at my stuff, and it doesn't seem like there's any correlation between game points and dollar price. Instead it seems more like more recent kits just cost more.
Seems like a bad correlation if we're being honest. 3.33 points per buck for space marines, 0.9 points per buck for GSC. And that's "ala carte" option for space marines, if I don't feel like getting my dudes from starter boxes where I can easily get way way more points of marines for cheaper by buying starter boxes and SC sets. For example, I can get 10 intercessors, 3 aggressors and a captain from SC space wolves for $95 or 10 infiltrators, 3 eliminators, 3 suppressors and a lieutenant from SC vanguard marines for $95.
That was sorta the point I was trying to make, I obviously did it badly.
There is a consideration to be made for real world cost and in game terms cost of a unit. It shouldn't be pay-to-play but neither should it be an army of half the real world $ value beating another one. If my SM army has more points per buck then I'll get to an army points total for less outlay than a GSC will.
I mean obviously there is some level of reasonableness. People want to play armies with more models - heck, I sure do - and understand you pay by the plastic. But the way this edition has shaken out, GW's solution to 8th ed's ludicrous firepower was basically "people who like every army except marines/knights/custodes, I'm afraid you're going to just have to buy wayyyyyyyyy more models my dudes". We ended up with Kabalites at 6, Guardians at like 7, daemons at 6, nid gribbles at 5, GSC at 5, guardsmen at 4, because everything just dies to one shooting attack. The stat difference between a gretchin and a guardsman is like the stat difference between a sister and an intercessor, but because everything below a certain threshold just fething dies when you look at it, it doesn't matter at all.
I really hope the new balancing point at the release of 9th works. I would LOVE a functional, reasonably balanced game where Cultists are worth it at 6ppm. people are saying that has horrible implications but I think it has the best implications of any piece of info so far, as long as it actually works at that value.
I'm not, I'd hate W2 orks. I'm all in favor to reduce rate of fire and killyness (AKA reduce dice rolling), not to make things tougher or playing with lesser but stronger models.
Lesser but stronger models is meant to be SM in a nutshell.
There is an obvious tradeoff between model point and model price, like someone said it's not fair if I need to shell out $500 on my army to counter $100 of yours, but is it fair to charge $25 per miniatures when others are $0.75?
Hey bud, do you have a GW kit where models cost $0.75? Because I'm looking at my stuff, and it doesn't seem like there's any correlation between game points and dollar price. Instead it seems more like more recent kits just cost more.
Seems like a bad correlation if we're being honest. 3.33 points per buck for space marines, 0.9 points per buck for GSC. And that's "ala carte" option for space marines, if I don't feel like getting my dudes from starter boxes where I can easily get way way more points of marines for cheaper by buying starter boxes and SC sets. For example, I can get 10 intercessors, 3 aggressors and a captain from SC space wolves for $95 or 10 infiltrators, 3 eliminators, 3 suppressors and a lieutenant from SC vanguard marines for $95.
We already know GSC are one of the worst armies when it comes to money per model. Take that to GW though and don't buy the models though.
Elbows wrote: Negative, an Ork boy can - under the right circumstances have seven attacks per model. It requires Gaz, a spell, taking the Goff trait....and I think a banner? But they're not exaggerating. Seven attacks is actually possible (technically it's 6 attacks, generating additional hits on rolls of '6' which mathematically gives you the seventh).
A 10 man squad has only 3 attacks base though, it can reach 5 attacks thanks to Warpath (by Weirdboy) and Ghaz aura. If the unit is 20+ they gain another attack. Exploding 6s are possible only if the unit is Goff, which are quite inferior to another clan that buffs melee which is Evil Sunz; in fact Goffs are hands down one of the weakest clans and no one takes it, especially now that Ghaz is available for all clans. So it's a max of 6-7 attack per model BUT we're talking about a 140+ points units with t-shirt save dudes and another additional 347 points of characters. A 500+ points combo for a super fragile melee unit. A unit of boyz that unleash overkill is possible, like is possible to see a Land Raider getting killed by guardsmen.
Also for the record I'm kinda in favor of Orks getting W2 in their profile.
I'm not, I'd hate W2 orks. I'm all in favor to reduce rate of fire and killyness (AKA reduce dice rolling), not to make things tougher or playing with lesser but stronger models.
Then you clearly don't have an open mind. How do W2 Orks break the game? I haven't seen Nobz be broken whatsoever and they're really not much more expensive!
Then you clearly don't have an open mind. How do W2 Orks break the game? I haven't seen Nobz be broken whatsoever and they're really not much more expensive!
A nob is literally 2x the points cost of a boy. And you have to pay more overcosted points to give him better weapons than the boy.
An intercessor is 1.41 tac Marines in points. And has more quality improvements in stats and equipment included in that cost
2w or not, Primaris Marines are hilariously undercosted across the board.
Martel732 wrote: I didn't use those terms. I used "glass cannon". Which they are.
Well, glass cannon means "not durable." You seemed to imply it was bad that they were glass cannons, meanwhile over in "every-other-army-land" their cannons are even glassier.
Would you believe there are models that are 2 wounds with only a 5++ save and about the same price as an intercessor with no gun?
Then you clearly don't have an open mind. How do W2 Orks break the game? I haven't seen Nobz be broken whatsoever and they're really not much more expensive!
A nob is literally 2x the points cost of a boy. And you have to pay more overcosted points to give him better weapons than the boy.
An intercessor is 1.41 tac Marines in points. And has more quality improvements in stats and equipment included in that cost
2w or not, Primaris Marines are hilariously undercosted across the board.
A boy with W2 at 8-9 points would not break the game and seeing as Nobz are BAD you prove my point.
Martel732 wrote: I didn't use those terms. I used "glass cannon". Which they are.
Well, glass cannon means "not durable." You seemed to imply it was bad that they were glass cannons, meanwhile over in "every-other-army-land" their cannons are even glassier.
Would you believe there are models that are 2 wounds with only a 5++ save and about the same price as an intercessor with no gun?
I consider it a borderline disaster that they are glass cannons. Models existing that are worse doesn't really change my assessment.
I told you guys the marine hate was real. The second marines become competitive in any way the complaining is incessant.
That was really just Ironhands and Ravengaurd abusing busted "stratagems" and warlord traits and having nothing to do with a primaris marine having 2W. LOL. Ork boys have literally been the cog in several successful tournament builds.
I've been playing primaris marines all eddition - including when marines were bottom tier. A 17 point intercessor without doctrines was overcosted by about 2 points (they started at 20 points in the index). It is worth it with doctrines now. I mean - they are worth their points now FINALLY. What that means is - my 174 point intercessor squad (yeah...thats enough points for a top teir unit in just about any army.) Does not lost me the game. It's also not going to roll over and die like the chaf units boys normally roll over. Cause MARINES ARE NOT A CHAFF UNIT. BOYS ARE.
Marines are in the same category as an army like custodians. NOTHING in the army is chaff. A custodian has 3 W...why does no one complain about custodians have a "basic infantry" with 3 W and a 2+ save and power weapons with d3 damage? Yeah...never seen anyone complain about that once. Cause no one is in dispute...A custodian deserves to be hard to kill. A marine made even more big and bad by primaris geenseed having 2 wounds though? Travesty!
A freaking wrak in prophets of the flesh is literally bouncing Plasmaguns with Skin...that flesh is so tough dude...shoulda left the power armor at home.
Marines are in the same category as an army like custodians. NOTHING in the army is chaff. A custodian has 3 W...why does no one complain about custodians have a "basic infantry" with 3 W and a 2+ save and power weapons with d3 damage? Yeah...never seen anyone complain about that once. Cause no one is in dispute...A custodian deserves to be hard to kill. A marine made even more big and bad by primaris geenseed having 2 wounds though? Travesty!
1) Nobody complains about custodes because they're super expensive. If intercessors cost 30 points each and came in max squad sizes of 5 I don't think anyone would complain about them either, other than for the fact that they break the game lore completely in a transparent attempt to resell SM players their entire armies.
2) This is not historically true. For 30+ years, space marines were 1W infantry with one point higher toughness and a better save than normal humans. Better, but not radically so. Then 8th came along.
Marines are in the same category as an army like custodians. NOTHING in the army is chaff. A custodian has 3 W...why does no one complain about custodians have a "basic infantry" with 3 W and a 2+ save and power weapons with d3 damage? Yeah...never seen anyone complain about that once. Cause no one is in dispute...A custodian deserves to be hard to kill. A marine made even more big and bad by primaris geenseed having 2 wounds though? Travesty!
1) Nobody complains about custodes because they're super expensive. If intercessors cost 30 points each and came in max squad sizes of 5 I don't think anyone would complain about them either, other than for the fact that they break the game lore completely in a transparent attempt to resell SM players their entire armies.
2) This is not historically true. For 30+ years, space marines were 1W infantry with one point higher toughness and a better save than normal humans. Better, but not radically so. Then 8th came along.
They should have had 2W in 2nd ed, though. Even moreso than now. 3rd-7th didn't have multidamage weapons, so I don't see how they factor in.
Marines are in the same category as an army like custodians. NOTHING in the army is chaff. A custodian has 3 W...why does no one complain about custodians have a "basic infantry" with 3 W and a 2+ save and power weapons with d3 damage? Yeah...never seen anyone complain about that once. Cause no one is in dispute...A custodian deserves to be hard to kill. A marine made even more big and bad by primaris geenseed having 2 wounds though? Travesty!
1) Nobody complains about custodes because they're super expensive. If intercessors cost 30 points each and came in max squad sizes of 5 I don't think anyone would complain about them either, other than for the fact that they break the game lore completely in a transparent attempt to resell SM players their entire armies.
2) This is not historically true. For 30+ years, space marines were 1W infantry with one point higher toughness and a better save than normal humans. Better, but not radically so. Then 8th came along.
IMO the games rules have been pretty bad at representing marines on the table in literally every edition except this one that I have played. Actually I think my first post on dakka was back in 3rd edition asking players why marines were so terrible compared to what I read about them. Consensus was something like...yeah...they aren't killers but they are "okay" in this roll ect ect. For literally decades people have been asking to pay more to get more with marines (tacs/ect). Finally we get it and the hate commences.
I told you guys the marine hate was real. The second marines become competitive in any way the complaining is incessant.
That was really just Ironhands and Ravengaurd abusing busted "stratagems" and warlord traits and having nothing to do with a primaris marine having 2W. LOL. Ork boys have literally been the cog in several successful tournament builds.
I've been playing primaris marines all eddition - including when marines were bottom tier. A 17 point intercessor without doctrines was overcosted by about 2 points (they started at 20 points in the index). It is worth it with doctrines now. I mean - they are worth their points now FINALLY. What that means is - my 174 point intercessor squad (yeah...thats enough points for a top teir unit in just about any army.) Does not lost me the game. It's also not going to roll over and die like the chaf units boys normally roll over. Cause MARINES ARE NOT A CHAFF UNIT. BOYS ARE.
Marines are in the same category as an army like custodians. NOTHING in the army is chaff. A custodian has 3 W...why does no one complain about custodians have a "basic infantry" with 3 W and a 2+ save and power weapons with d3 damage? Yeah...never seen anyone complain about that once. Cause no one is in dispute...A custodian deserves to be hard to kill. A marine made even more big and bad by primaris geenseed having 2 wounds though? Travesty!
A freaking wrak in prophets of the flesh is literally bouncing Plasmaguns with Skin...that flesh is so tough dude...shoulda left the power armor at home.
I've been a marine player since RT. I can honestly say, for the first time in history, even I am starting to hate marines. For one thing, you have armies like Dark Eldar, who have not had units added in ages, but HAVE consistently LOST units from the codex, and armies like Sisters that went from 3rd to NOW with no meaningful updates. In the face of all that, 8th has just felt like all marines all the time. Upset that your Death Guard haven't been updated since 2017? Sorry, we had to find a way to release codex marines, codex marines 2.0, codex Ultramarines, Codex Salamanders, Codex Primaris LT, etc etc in that same time frame so what were we to do? Sacrifices have to be made.
For years I've been the one saying "Yeah, but they're a business and marines are a reason to print money so I can't fault them" and to an extent, that's still true, but there's a limit!
And saying marines are in the same boat as Custodes? You're kidding right? No one complains about Custodes because you might face 16 of them at once. In the whole army. Not exactly a 1-to-1 w/marines is it? Yes, Iron Hands were ridiculous. The problem is, several chapters were also OP or at least bordering on too strong at the same time. Iron Hands were so OP no one picked up on the fact that Raven Guard, and probably certain aspects of IF needed changed too. We have an edition where the rules were carefully (or at least as carefully as GW ever handles rules) laid out to make the game play a certain way, and then suddenly marines are getting buffs that basically allow them to play almost a completely different game form everyone else. Not only that, but suddenly, they've gone from being able to do everything, but not necessarily being true experts at any of it, to being able to basically be top tier at whatever you want them to do. They gained everything while not losing a single thing. That's probably the biggest issue. They were definitely too weak for too long, but this has been a significant over-correction IMO.
In 7th, when the Eldar book essentially became "Codex Easy Button", everyone complained just as hard. I think it's just that much more frustrating for people when they have an army that literally hasn't been touched in YEARS despite the increased pace of releases, but they see an army that gets constant releases AND is OP at nearly every level. It's not irrational fab-boy hate. It's legitimate frustration IMO. Particularly when you look at what has been released in terms of rules for 9th and realize the edition is, so far, heavily favoring things like Marine MSU ...
It would be nice if units could address each other somehow other than just killing each other. In Regicide, which I somehow love, some options involved preventing other pieces/models from accessing their options. There's lots of arguments for that being bad game design, but suppression is a good thing in war-games because it forces maneuver. Something I'd enjoyed about 8th edition is that it allows models to move around close to each other in interesting ways. Stuff like tri-pointing isn't ideal, but it feels pretty good when a charge maneuver coordinating models and whatnot works (although likewise terrible when it doesn't).
the bike are cool and the ATV is ok but some sound clearance might have been nice!
need to stop a marine spear head all you need is a speed bump !
as for the shield marines there are great models but being able to build them de blinded would be good. i like the clean lines of the primaris and really with guilliman back you'd expect a lot of the gothic to disappear from UM units. saying that these models would make amazing black templars or dark angels which begs the question why paint them blue for the marketing !!
goundry wrote: Im a bit on the fence with the new models,
the bike are cool and the ATV is ok but some sound clearance might have been nice!
need to stop a marine spear head all you need is a speed bump !
as for the shield marines there are great models but being able to build them de blinded would be good. i like the clean lines of the primaris and really with guilliman back you'd expect a lot of the gothic to disappear from UM units. saying that these models would make amazing black templars or dark angels which begs the question why paint them blue for the marketing !!
personally I think the ATV is the worst looking model they ever produced. The bikes clearance is pathetic too. I will be modifying mine to have some clearance.
Ultramarines look awesome IMO. I do wish they would give you a different chapter on the front of every kit. Which ever look best for the unit. I think the reason is they build and paint a marketing army and they want it to look cohesive for when they make giant chapter images in white dwarfs and stuff.
goundry wrote: Im a bit on the fence with the new models,
the bike are cool and the ATV is ok but some sound clearance might have been nice!
need to stop a marine spear head all you need is a speed bump !
as for the shield marines there are great models but being able to build them de blinded would be good. i like the clean lines of the primaris and really with guilliman back you'd expect a lot of the gothic to disappear from UM units. saying that these models would make amazing black templars or dark angels which begs the question why paint them blue for the marketing !!
personally I think the ATV is the worst looking model they ever produced. The bikes clearance is pathetic too. I will be modifying mine to have some clearance.
I like the brutality of the bikes, it seems like quite a marine thing to punch bad terrain out of the way.
The ATV is really quite bad, I cant get the image of the driver getting showered by all the gak on the road becuase they only fitted mudguards to the back wheels.....The turret is badly designed, and it's sort of like the ATV has not enough roll cage, while the Invictor has too much.
I told you guys the marine hate was real. The second marines become competitive in any way the complaining is incessant.
That was really just Ironhands and Ravengaurd abusing busted "stratagems" and warlord traits and having nothing to do with a primaris marine having 2W. LOL. Ork boys have literally been the cog in several successful tournament builds.
I've been playing primaris marines all eddition - including when marines were bottom tier. A 17 point intercessor without doctrines was overcosted by about 2 points (they started at 20 points in the index). It is worth it with doctrines now. I mean - they are worth their points now FINALLY. What that means is - my 174 point intercessor squad (yeah...thats enough points for a top teir unit in just about any army.) Does not lost me the game. It's also not going to roll over and die like the chaf units boys normally roll over. Cause MARINES ARE NOT A CHAFF UNIT. BOYS ARE.
Marines are in the same category as an army like custodians. NOTHING in the army is chaff. A custodian has 3 W...why does no one complain about custodians have a "basic infantry" with 3 W and a 2+ save and power weapons with d3 damage? Yeah...never seen anyone complain about that once. Cause no one is in dispute...A custodian deserves to be hard to kill. A marine made even more big and bad by primaris geenseed having 2 wounds though? Travesty!
A freaking wrak in prophets of the flesh is literally bouncing Plasmaguns with Skin...that flesh is so tough dude...shoulda left the power armor at home.
I've been a marine player since RT. I can honestly say, for the first time in history, even I am starting to hate marines. For one thing, you have armies like Dark Eldar, who have not had units added in ages, but HAVE consistently LOST units from the codex, and armies like Sisters that went from 3rd to NOW with no meaningful updates. In the face of all that, 8th has just felt like all marines all the time. Upset that your Death Guard haven't been updated since 2017? Sorry, we had to find a way to release codex marines, codex marines 2.0, codex Ultramarines, Codex Salamanders, Codex Primaris LT, etc etc in that same time frame so what were we to do? Sacrifices have to be made.
For years I've been the one saying "Yeah, but they're a business and marines are a reason to print money so I can't fault them" and to an extent, that's still true, but there's a limit!
And saying marines are in the same boat as Custodes? You're kidding right? No one complains about Custodes because you might face 16 of them at once. In the whole army. Not exactly a 1-to-1 w/marines is it? Yes, Iron Hands were ridiculous. The problem is, several chapters were also OP or at least bordering on too strong at the same time. Iron Hands were so OP no one picked up on the fact that Raven Guard, and probably certain aspects of IF needed changed too. We have an edition where the rules were carefully (or at least as carefully as GW ever handles rules) laid out to make the game play a certain way, and then suddenly marines are getting buffs that basically allow them to play almost a completely different game form everyone else. Not only that, but suddenly, they've gone from being able to do everything, but not necessarily being true experts at any of it, to being able to basically be top tier at whatever you want them to do. They gained everything while not losing a single thing. That's probably the biggest issue. They were definitely too weak for too long, but this has been a significant over-correction IMO.
In 7th, when the Eldar book essentially became "Codex Easy Button", everyone complained just as hard. I think it's just that much more frustrating for people when they have an army that literally hasn't been touched in YEARS despite the increased pace of releases, but they see an army that gets constant releases AND is OP at nearly every level. It's not irrational fab-boy hate. It's legitimate frustration IMO. Particularly when you look at what has been released in terms of rules for 9th and realize the edition is, so far, heavily favoring things like Marine MSU ...
The game actually favors 10 Man units for marines (with 10 man units I can basically cover the whole table and chain to a 6" aura of reroll everything.) ITC was an entirely different way to play the game. I say was because ITC looks to be the way 9th ed will play. Which is sad because they have catered to the MTG style players that dont actually want units interacting at all. Can't get to pessimistic - I like a lot of these new changes so far as well.
On the issue for marines. They needed those buffs. Super doctrines they probably didn't need. You gotta realize. Marine vehicals weren't getting chapter tactics for all of 8th eddition until the new codex...when everyone elses did (cept chaos....which still makes no sense) - marine units were over-costed by approximately 20% accorss the board (because they were the first codex released). Instead of reducing the cost of everything they decided to make things worth those points...So they got +1A first round of combat and an additional -1 AP for certain weapon types on certain turns and IMO a great way to make bad units good.
IMO buffing IF chapter tactic was a stupid idea...they already had an amazing tactic (ignore cover is a fantastic army wide ability) They didn't need DAKKA DAKKA on top of it. Iron hands literally have 3 army traits when most armies have 1. It is clear where they messed up.
Drager wrote: I dream of chapter tactics on all my units. Imagine if they let devastator squads have CT... Off. The. Chain.
Wait. No. I meant obsessions and Scourges.
I liked the marines getting fixed. I really didn't like them getting super doctrines. Their power is perfect without them.
Yeah makes no sense why there are units in the DE codex that are literally excluded in writing from befitting from kabal traits.
It's because they're MERCENARIES...well, except for they're literally all supposed to be mercenaries...including the units like Hellions and Reavers who are members of independent gangs and just as much a separate mercenary organization like the Scourges are....except you can't have your Kabalites hire a group of Reavers as mercenaries, they're part of the wych cults and they're locked in to the wych cult traits....
WE WANTED TO SPLIT UP THE CODEX, OK? GOD. JUST LET US ARBITRARILY DIVIDE IT INTO THREE, PLUS A BUNCH OF RANDOS WHO JUST DONT GET A TRAIT BECAUSE WE DONT KNOW HOW THEY FIT IN!!!
goundry wrote:saying that these models would make amazing black templars or dark angels which begs the question why paint them blue for the marketing !!
A lot of that comes down to GW wanting a coherent aesthetic for all their "generic" Marines. It's why they have all their Admech in the Mars scheme, and their Chaos in Black Legion, and Tau in their white scheme - it's just so they look unified on the shelves.
GW do a pretty good job of showing off what the models look like in other Chapter colours through the back box art and their online resources.
goundry wrote:saying that these models would make amazing black templars or dark angels which begs the question why paint them blue for the marketing !!
A lot of that comes down to GW wanting a coherent aesthetic for all their "generic" Marines. It's why they have all their Admech in the Mars scheme, and their Chaos in Black Legion, and Tau in their white scheme - it's just so they look unified on the shelves.
GW do a pretty good job of showing off what the models look like in other Chapter colours through the back box art and their online resources.
Hence why reckon that, while it might still look a little silly, the ATV thing might look better in another color.
This brings me to a slightly off topic observation I've made regarding Primaris. I'm seeing many more Primaris painted in a camouflage pattern than we ever saw Baby Marines. The argument being Marines should be seen and heard. Was there a fluff section I glossed over that said Primaris are more inclined for stealth than their older kin?
I think it’s just people harking back to RT, in line with things like helmet stripes coming back. That, or embracing the tacticool look and deciding that Primaris and the Vanguard allow for a fresh start and the use of camouflage.
Then you clearly don't have an open mind. How do W2 Orks break the game? I haven't seen Nobz be broken whatsoever and they're really not much more expensive!
Very simple. Nobz are units of 5-10 dudes. 20W in total. And they're exactly 2x than a single boy, plus weapons. So they can be even 4x more expensive than a boy, in fact even 6x if equipped with both ranged and melee special weapons like a power klaw and kombi-skorcha. But it's fine as they are the elite unit, not the standard grunt unit.
30 orks with 2W would be 60W (or 61 if assuming that nob has +1W). Nobz and bikes would bump to 3W, meganobz to 4W, etc.... Now I may have to roll 60 saves, eventually with 60 FNP, just for a single troop unit. Not to mention that I'll probably have to field half the models in the list, which is something I'd hate.
We'll end up with either a few models on the table or with hordes that require infinte dice rolling.
More dice rolling for a single unit, lesser models. Both negative things, IMHO. In fact I think primaris are a mistake on any possible level, 1W tacs at 13-14 points were perfect. I can't stand this obsession with trying to push everything in lethality and/or survivability; to me a unit with high rate of fire should be a squad of devastators with 4 HB or a twin ass razorbacks, not things like Aggressors.
Kayback wrote: This brings me to a slightly off topic observation I've made regarding Primaris. I'm seeing many more Primaris painted in a camouflage pattern than we ever saw Baby Marines. The argument being Marines should be seen and heard. Was there a fluff section I glossed over that said Primaris are more inclined for stealth than their older kin?
Edited for speelingz
Personally my Phobos armored primaris marines are joining my 10th company force, which has classically worn camo. Although they are going with arctic patterns to match the snow bases on my main force. My old scouts were on the exchange program with my Eldar, where their recon units were based to match the opposing forces.
From a fluff POV I always thought that a scout’s job was to gather information, not give it away, so they had no unit markings, and camo, not chapter colors.
From a practical POV, I painted my scouts when I still entertained the thought of keeping both my BA and Ultras as active armies. So no chapter color/markings meant I could use my scouts with either force.
Generally, the Primaris have been accepted more as “modern/future soldier” than “knights in space” so more practical color/camo choices fit better than banners flying and heraldic schemes.
Then you clearly don't have an open mind. How do W2 Orks break the game? I haven't seen Nobz be broken whatsoever and they're really not much more expensive!
Very simple. Nobz are units of 5-10 dudes. 20W in total. And they're exactly 2x than a single boy, plus weapons. So they can be even 4x more expensive than a boy, in fact even 6x if equipped with both ranged and melee special weapons like a power klaw and kombi-skorcha. But it's fine as they are the elite unit, not the standard grunt unit.
30 orks with 2W would be 60W (or 61 if assuming that nob has +1W). Nobz and bikes would bump to 3W, meganobz to 4W, etc.... Now I may have to roll 60 saves, eventually with 60 FNP, just for a single troop unit. Not to mention that I'll probably have to field half the models in the list, which is something I'd hate.
We'll end up with either a few models on the table or with hordes that require infinte dice rolling.
More dice rolling for a single unit, lesser models. Both negative things, IMHO. In fact I think primaris are a mistake on any possible level, 1W tacs at 13-14 points were perfect. I can't stand this obsession with trying to push everything in lethality and/or survivability; to me a unit with high rate of fire should be a squad of devastators with 4 HB or a twin ass razorbacks, not things like Aggressors.
13-14 for a tac was a joke. Way too fragile, especially after gear. Beginning to sound like you just want easy wins over marines.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kayback wrote: This brings me to a slightly off topic observation I've made regarding Primaris. I'm seeing many more Primaris painted in a camouflage pattern than we ever saw Baby Marines. The argument being Marines should be seen and heard. Was there a fluff section I glossed over that said Primaris are more inclined for stealth than their older kin?
Edited for speelingz
Sounds like accepting the reality that power armor is garbage in 40K.
"But it's fine as they are the elite unit, not the standard grunt unit."
Generally, the Primaris have been accepted more as “modern/future soldier” than “knights in space” so more practical color/camo choices fit better than banners flying and heraldic schemes.
That's what I always thought of the Primaris, then they went OTT with the Bladeguard Vets.
Then you clearly don't have an open mind. How do W2 Orks break the game? I haven't seen Nobz be broken whatsoever and they're really not much more expensive!
Very simple. Nobz are units of 5-10 dudes. 20W in total. And they're exactly 2x than a single boy, plus weapons. So they can be even 4x more expensive than a boy, in fact even 6x if equipped with both ranged and melee special weapons like a power klaw and kombi-skorcha. But it's fine as they are the elite unit, not the standard grunt unit.
30 orks with 2W would be 60W (or 61 if assuming that nob has +1W). Nobz and bikes would bump to 3W, meganobz to 4W, etc.... Now I may have to roll 60 saves, eventually with 60 FNP, just for a single troop unit. Not to mention that I'll probably have to field half the models in the list, which is something I'd hate.
We'll end up with either a few models on the table or with hordes that require infinte dice rolling.
More dice rolling for a single unit, lesser models. Both negative things, IMHO. In fact I think primaris are a mistake on any possible level, 1W tacs at 13-14 points were perfect. I can't stand this obsession with trying to push everything in lethality and/or survivability; to me a unit with high rate of fire should be a squad of devastators with 4 HB or a twin ass razorbacks, not things like Aggressors.
You still haven't described how W2 Orks would break the game and you're only demonstrating Nobz as bad to begin with.
JohnnyHell wrote: I think it’s just people harking back to RT, in line with things like helmet stripes coming back. That, or embracing the tacticool look and deciding that Primaris and the Vanguard allow for a fresh start and the use of camouflage.
For me it was just that the primaris marines and dreadnaughts look good in od green(or I think they do), I didn’t go full camo paint scheme though.
I am not a great painter by any means but with an OD green base color this is what mine looked like: https://imgur.com/a/Xepb2an
The game actually favors 10 Man units for marines (with 10 man units I can basically cover the whole table and chain to a 6" aura of reroll everything.) ITC was an entirely different way to play the game. I say was because ITC looks to be the way 9th ed will play. Which is sad because they have catered to the MTG style players that dont actually want units interacting at all. Can't get to pessimistic - I like a lot of these new changes so far as well.
On the issue for marines. They needed those buffs. Super doctrines they probably didn't need. You gotta realize. Marine vehicals weren't getting chapter tactics for all of 8th eddition until the new codex...when everyone elses did (cept chaos....which still makes no sense) - marine units were over-costed by approximately 20% accorss the board (because they were the first codex released). Instead of reducing the cost of everything they decided to make things worth those points...So they got +1A first round of combat and an additional -1 AP for certain weapon types on certain turns and IMO a great way to make bad units good.
IMO buffing IF chapter tactic was a stupid idea...they already had an amazing tactic (ignore cover is a fantastic army wide ability) They didn't need DAKKA DAKKA on top of it. Iron hands literally have 3 army traits when most armies have 1. It is clear where they messed up.
If you look at the 9th ed rules, it looks like it's shifting to MSU. Which was my point. Just about everything seems to favor 5 man marine squads so far ("any squad of 6 or more" etc), but I admit that it only LOOKS that way and we need to wait for the final rules.
And yeah, as someone who started the edition w/marines and DG, I totally agree marines needed buffs. Here's what we DIDN't need. TWO full codexes in 3 years, and the 7 million supplements we got. IN an edition where some armies literally don't function without their CP, and in an edition where some armies had almost no useful strats, marines (even the bare bones basic ones) basically got a strat that let's them avoid every rule that might be harmful to them. They went too far across the board imo. The problem is, the went SO far over with IH (I mean that might have been the most egregiously OP army ever - INCLUDING 7thed Eldar and 3rd ed BA) that it's hard to calibrate how bad the regular strats are. The problem is that everyone else in the game is more or less playing by the core rules, and the marines are playing a totally different game.
Then you add in the fact that ever since the 2.0 codex, the releases have essentially been "all marines all the time" in the face of DG not even getting a codex update in 3 years and Drukhari not getting any new models or characters in almost, what? 7, 8 years? On top of LOSING models with every release? In the past I've been the first one to defend marines. But we're at a point where, if you can't understand why people are having issues with how GW is handling them, I don't think you've been paying attention ...
Drager wrote: I dream of chapter tactics on all my units. Imagine if they let devastator squads have CT... Off. The. Chain.
Wait. No. I meant obsessions and Scourges.
I liked the marines getting fixed. I really didn't like them getting super doctrines. Their power is perfect without them.
Yeah makes no sense why there are units in the DE codex that are literally excluded in writing from befitting from kabal traits.
It's because they're MERCENARIES...well, except for they're literally all supposed to be mercenaries...including the units like Hellions and Reavers who are members of independent gangs and just as much a separate mercenary organization like the Scourges are....except you can't have your Kabalites hire a group of Reavers as mercenaries, they're part of the wych cults and they're locked in to the wych cult traits....
WE WANTED TO SPLIT UP THE CODEX, OK? GOD. JUST LET US ARBITRARILY DIVIDE IT INTO THREE, PLUS A BUNCH OF RANDOS WHO JUST DONT GET A TRAIT BECAUSE WE DONT KNOW HOW THEY FIT IN!!!
To be fair. Power from pain is a really powerful ability to begin with. GW might have been playing it safe due to power from pain being so good. It was the wrong call ofc. I really don't think flayed skull scourges would have been that OP. They certainly would be auto include level good though.
Part of the issue is you not getting traits if you mix them into the same detachment as well. THEN on top of that there's so many units that don't even get benefits overall, with Incubi being the worst offender.
And power from pain is only good on some units (excluding the first benefit) reroll charges and +1 to hit in combat are not useful on shooting units, whilst Immune to morale does next to nothing for a pretty dedicated MSU army and -1 to opponents leadership within six is real niche.
That's what I always thought of the Primaris, then they went OTT with the Bladeguard Vets.
Yeah - the more I look at/think about the new models, the less I like them. When I look at my own collection of "classics" and Primaris, there's a really cool contrast where the older marines are, to varying degrees decked out in all their bling and religious icons, etc, and the Primaris look more tactical. Like they're really just about the business of being soldiers and nothing else. Which, to me, is kind of cool because the Primaris are essentially Bobby G's idea, and he's not down with the whole Imperial Death Cult thing. It looked like a physical representation of the two different philosophies from the fluff. I liked that, and it made it feel like there was at least *some* reason to shoehorn the Primaris in using the story they did. But now, we're just going back to business as usual and I'm back to saying "yeah, should have just called 'em "true-scale".
It's just that they've reached Phase II of replacing the entire marine line. Now that the plan to completely replace and obsolete every original marine model is in full swing, they need to make gothic primaris too to fill that niche, because as soon as they can justify it to the boiled frogs, all those original marines are going the way of the dodo.
Xenomancers wrote: To be fair. Power from pain is a really powerful ability to begin with. GW might have been playing it safe due to power from pain being so good. It was the wrong call ofc. I really don't think flayed skull scourges would have been that OP. They certainly would be auto include level good though.
While I can't disagree (and I play Flayed Skull to boot), something to make Scourges an auto take was needed. It's such a lovely kit, but on the battlefield it's a suicide unit that struggles to kill things; all glass, no cannon.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: That's ALSO another problem: Flayed Skull is the only Kabal that rewards you for playing Kabal units like they should be played.
Mostly agree with this! Poisoned Tongue could be Kabalish as well in the way they played (the redeploy strat fits the style well), but mostly only FS ever really encouraged me to play 'correctly'.
The other problem with DE is they have so very few generic strats. Most strats (that would be generic in other armies) are locked behind specific obsessions. This locks you in to playing the obsession for that strat, which is infuriating. It also means that when we got the choose your own traits stuff and got no new strats or warlord traits to go with it those new traits were pretty underpowered by lack of strats. DE was the book that arguably needed new strats for generic factions the most, I think we were the only faction not to get them. Even CWEin the same book did.
DE have the worst set of strats in the game. They also have the best single strat in the game, but overall, they're incredibly weak. Really suffer from being in the first PA book, before GW knew what PA books were supposed to be.
yukishiro1 wrote: DE have the worst set of strats in the game. They also have the best single strat in the game, but overall, they're incredibly weak. Really suffer from being in the first PA book, before GW knew what PA books were supposed to be.
Nah. DE were just shafted. The CWE though in the same book got a significant buff in power. They are marine tier.
Xenomancers wrote: To be fair. Power from pain is a really powerful ability to begin with. GW might have been playing it safe due to power from pain being so good. It was the wrong call ofc. I really don't think flayed skull scourges would have been that OP. They certainly would be auto include level good though.
While I can't disagree (and I play Flayed Skull to boot), something to make Scourges an auto take was needed. It's such a lovely kit, but on the battlefield it's a suicide unit that struggles to kill things; all glass, no cannon.
I take them usually in full kabal lists. Still one of the better options you have. It's really too bad they don't get ignore cover and reroll 1's like the rest of your army.
yukishiro1 wrote: CWE didn't get new strats either, they just got a ridiculously overpowered, cheesy, terrible compbination of custom traits.
Which again feeds back into the point of GW not knowing what they were doing with the PA books at that stage.
PA is similar to every other series of releases GW has ever done.
Some are OP like SM/Tau/Eldar
Some are okish like CSM Some are terrible like DE and Tyranids and IK
That's what I always thought of the Primaris, then they went OTT with the Bladeguard Vets.
Yeah - the more I look at/think about the new models, the less I like them. When I look at my own collection of "classics" and Primaris, there's a really cool contrast where the older marines are, to varying degrees decked out in all their bling and religious icons, etc, and the Primaris look more tactical. Like they're really just about the business of being soldiers and nothing else. Which, to me, is kind of cool because the Primaris are essentially Bobby G's idea, and he's not down with the whole Imperial Death Cult thing. It looked like a physical representation of the two different philosophies from the fluff. I liked that, and it made it feel like there was at least *some* reason to shoehorn the Primaris in using the story they did. But now, we're just going back to business as usual and I'm back to saying "yeah, should have just called 'em "true-scale".
That actually makes sense to me, since these are the first veteran primaries that we get.
The primaries marines are indeed a Gman creation, and they come without all the blings that define a chapter. If you read the fluff, most chapters use them as cannon fodder initially, because they don't mesh really well with them.
Centuries have passed though since the first primaries. Now some of those really made it into the ranks of the chapters and gained enough merits on the battlefield to become veterans. Those marines have been necessarily fully accepted by the chapter and have started looking like a marine of it. They have taken up their chapter's habits and uses, bling included.
To me, a "clean" veteran primaries would have sounded weird.
You still haven't described how W2 Orks would break the game and you're only demonstrating Nobz as bad to begin with.
Because they'd contribute to escalate the rush towards killyness. Everything becomes more resistent because everything can also do tons of damage. That's a bad concept that culminates in more elite oriented armies and more dice rolling, both cancer of 8th edition.
I simply dislike superheroes, unkillable stuff and units that cause overkill. It has nothing to do with the game's balance, only with the game's design. I would hate playing with 50-60 uber orks if that means a perfectly balanced 40k, orks are designed to have way more infantry models than SM. They can also go elite oriented with a list full with nobz, meganobz, flash gitz but that's the player choice. Primarizing everything just because primaris are broken isn't the answer, nerf the primaris is the way to go.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: DE have the worst set of strats in the game. They also have the best single strat in the game, but overall, they're incredibly weak. Really suffer from being in the first PA book, before GW knew what PA books were supposed to be.
True, DE strats are mostly garbage and only a very few of them actually are used by the players. But DE also are one of the few armies that are very effective even without investing a single CP in stratagems.
Then you clearly don't have an open mind. How do W2 Orks break the game? I haven't seen Nobz be broken whatsoever and they're really not much more expensive!
Very simple. Nobz are units of 5-10 dudes. 20W in total. And they're exactly 2x than a single boy, plus weapons. So they can be even 4x more expensive than a boy, in fact even 6x if equipped with both ranged and melee special weapons like a power klaw and kombi-skorcha. But it's fine as they are the elite unit, not the standard grunt unit.
30 orks with 2W would be 60W (or 61 if assuming that nob has +1W). Nobz and bikes would bump to 3W, meganobz to 4W, etc.... Now I may have to roll 60 saves, eventually with 60 FNP, just for a single troop unit. Not to mention that I'll probably have to field half the models in the list, which is something I'd hate.
We'll end up with either a few models on the table or with hordes that require infinte dice rolling.
More dice rolling for a single unit, lesser models. Both negative things, IMHO. In fact I think primaris are a mistake on any possible level, 1W tacs at 13-14 points were perfect. I can't stand this obsession with trying to push everything in lethality and/or survivability; to me a unit with high rate of fire should be a squad of devastators with 4 HB or a twin ass razorbacks, not things like Aggressors.
You still haven't described how W2 Orks would break the game and you're only demonstrating Nobz as bad to begin with.
Because then you would have to cost them at least at 11 points (8th edition points), and this takes them away from the horde role they are assumed to cover in the faction.
You still haven't described how W2 Orks would break the game and you're only demonstrating Nobz as bad to begin with.
Because they'd contribute to escalate the rush towards killyness. Everything becomes more resistent because everything can also do tons of damage. That's a bad concept that culminates in more elite oriented armies and more dice rolling, both cancer of 8th edition.
I simply dislike superheroes, unkillable stuff and units that cause overkill. It has nothing to do with the game's balance, only with the game's design. I would hate playing with 50-60 uber orks if that means a perfectly balanced 40k, orks are designed to have way more infantry models than SM. They can also go elite oriented with a list full with nobz, meganobz, flash gitz but that's the player choice. Primarizing everything just because primaris are broken isn't the answer, nerf the primaris is the way to go.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: DE have the worst set of strats in the game. They also have the best single strat in the game, but overall, they're incredibly weak. Really suffer from being in the first PA book, before GW knew what PA books were supposed to be.
True, DE strats are mostly garbage and only a very few of them actually are used by the players. But DE also are one of the few armies that are very effective even without investing a single CP in stratagems.
Except it doesn't promote killyness. It makes them worth their cost. It's basically the same as cutting their cost in half for the amount of wounds you would get. Killing an Ork with W2 at 8-9 points is not any worse than killing 2 Gaunts or Infantry.
Then you clearly don't have an open mind. How do W2 Orks break the game? I haven't seen Nobz be broken whatsoever and they're really not much more expensive!
Very simple. Nobz are units of 5-10 dudes. 20W in total. And they're exactly 2x than a single boy, plus weapons. So they can be even 4x more expensive than a boy, in fact even 6x if equipped with both ranged and melee special weapons like a power klaw and kombi-skorcha. But it's fine as they are the elite unit, not the standard grunt unit.
30 orks with 2W would be 60W (or 61 if assuming that nob has +1W). Nobz and bikes would bump to 3W, meganobz to 4W, etc.... Now I may have to roll 60 saves, eventually with 60 FNP, just for a single troop unit. Not to mention that I'll probably have to field half the models in the list, which is something I'd hate.
We'll end up with either a few models on the table or with hordes that require infinte dice rolling.
More dice rolling for a single unit, lesser models. Both negative things, IMHO. In fact I think primaris are a mistake on any possible level, 1W tacs at 13-14 points were perfect. I can't stand this obsession with trying to push everything in lethality and/or survivability; to me a unit with high rate of fire should be a squad of devastators with 4 HB or a twin ass razorbacks, not things like Aggressors.
You still haven't described how W2 Orks would break the game and you're only demonstrating Nobz as bad to begin with.
Because then you would have to cost them at least at 11 points (8th edition points), and this takes them away from the horde role they are assumed to cover in the faction.
Why do you HAVE to price them at 11 points? We ready know GW did a random increase of points anyway that doesn't make any sense all the time. Spoiler Alert: Cultists aren't going to be a great horde unit at 6 points either!
Surely, if the game is too lethal for you, adding in extra wounds on models that are historically described as tough would be in your interest? If there are twice as many wounds (and obviously not everything would go up, but just for arguments sake), then wouldn't the number of models removed in a turn go down by about half? Thus halving the lethality? I don't think anyone is claiming that we should up the damage output to compensate for the increased durability, after all.
That aside, there's always going to be an certain skew to how 40k represents survivability, as there are three different stats for "how hard it is to kill once you hit them" and none for "how hard it is to hit them in the first place". Ideally they'd add in a stat, let's call it "defense" for now, that interacts with WS/BS to determine hits. I also wouldn't mind rolling T and Sv into a single stat, as the differentiation (how you shrug off the damage) isn't super important at 40k's current scale (outside of a few outlier weapons), but that's really just to speed up play by removing a set of rolls. Low T/Sv but high Wounds gets you a punching bag that can roll with the hits, while high T/Sv and low Wounds gives you something that's hard to wound but brittle, though, so that distinction has a place even if you do combine T and Sv.
Trimarius wrote: Surely, if the game is too lethal for you, adding in extra wounds on models that are historically described as tough would be in your interest? If there are twice as many wounds (and obviously not everything would go up, but just for arguments sake), then wouldn't the number of models removed in a turn go down by about half? Thus halving the lethality? I don't think anyone is claiming that we should up the damage output to compensate for the increased durability, after all.
That aside, there's always going to be an certain skew to how 40k represents survivability, as there are three different stats for "how hard it is to kill once you hit them" and none for "how hard it is to hit them in the first place". Ideally they'd add in a stat, let's call it "defense" for now, that interacts with WS/BS to determine hits. I also wouldn't mind rolling T and Sv into a single stat, as the differentiation (how you shrug off the damage) isn't super important at 40k's current scale (outside of a few outlier weapons), but that's really just to speed up play by removing a set of rolls. Low T/Sv but high Wounds gets you a punching bag that can roll with the hits, while high T/Sv and low Wounds gives you something that's hard to wound but brittle, though, so that distinction has a place even if you do combine T and Sv.
This. Change nothing besides doubling the wound count on every single thing in the game and moving the Character protection limit to 19 (...and double the degradation charts I suppose) would massively tone down 8th ed's absurd lethality.
Trimarius wrote: Surely, if the game is too lethal for you, adding in extra wounds on models that are historically described as tough would be in your interest? If there are twice as many wounds (and obviously not everything would go up, but just for arguments sake), then wouldn't the number of models removed in a turn go down by about half? Thus halving the lethality? I don't think anyone is claiming that we should up the damage output to compensate for the increased durability, after all.
That aside, there's always going to be an certain skew to how 40k represents survivability, as there are three different stats for "how hard it is to kill once you hit them" and none for "how hard it is to hit them in the first place". Ideally they'd add in a stat, let's call it "defense" for now, that interacts with WS/BS to determine hits. I also wouldn't mind rolling T and Sv into a single stat, as the differentiation (how you shrug off the damage) isn't super important at 40k's current scale (outside of a few outlier weapons), but that's really just to speed up play by removing a set of rolls. Low T/Sv but high Wounds gets you a punching bag that can roll with the hits, while high T/Sv and low Wounds gives you something that's hard to wound but brittle, though, so that distinction has a place even if you do combine T and Sv.
This. Change nothing besides doubling the wound count on every single thing in the game and moving the Character protection limit to 19 (...and double the degradation charts I suppose) would massively tone down 8th ed's absurd lethality.
No thanks. It doesn't solve the problem of buckets of dice rolls slowing the game down, which is the problem child of more wounds + more lethality.
The game needs less wounds AND less lethality.
It also needs to stop giving marines superior weaponry and rules at similar price points.
Well then it is a unsolvable problem. Because less wounds means fewer models, and GW is never ever going to want people to buy fewer models.
1W marines with inferior or the same weapons as other armies also do not work, And its seems like GW is slowly understanding the fact that keeping the majority of their player base in general state of happines is a good idea.
Part of the fun of playing non-marines factions in 40k is feeling like you're winning despite the odds being stacked against you.
The other part is not having to replace your models every edition because GW decides to milk you again for the same army all over again by releasing new units that are like the old units you had but just better.
The downside is you hardly ever get new models and you have to be good at playing the game or you just get brushed off the table by space marines that are just better than you for the same points.
None of this changes the fact that primaris were a big mistake from a gameplay point of view, another case of $$$ considerations trumping everything else.
Trimarius wrote: Surely, if the game is too lethal for you, adding in extra wounds on models that are historically described as tough would be in your interest? If there are twice as many wounds (and obviously not everything would go up, but just for arguments sake), then wouldn't the number of models removed in a turn go down by about half? Thus halving the lethality? I don't think anyone is claiming that we should up the damage output to compensate for the increased durability, after all.
That aside, there's always going to be an certain skew to how 40k represents survivability, as there are three different stats for "how hard it is to kill once you hit them" and none for "how hard it is to hit them in the first place". Ideally they'd add in a stat, let's call it "defense" for now, that interacts with WS/BS to determine hits. I also wouldn't mind rolling T and Sv into a single stat, as the differentiation (how you shrug off the damage) isn't super important at 40k's current scale (outside of a few outlier weapons), but that's really just to speed up play by removing a set of rolls. Low T/Sv but high Wounds gets you a punching bag that can roll with the hits, while high T/Sv and low Wounds gives you something that's hard to wound but brittle, though, so that distinction has a place even if you do combine T and Sv.
This. Change nothing besides doubling the wound count on every single thing in the game and moving the Character protection limit to 19 (...and double the degradation charts I suppose) would massively tone down 8th ed's absurd lethality.
No thanks. It doesn't solve the problem of buckets of dice rolls slowing the game down, which is the problem child of more wounds + more lethality.
The game needs less wounds AND less lethality.
It also needs to stop giving marines superior weaponry and rules at similar price points.
Not sure where you're getting that last bit, Marines generally pay a premium for any given weapon.
Trimarius wrote: Surely, if the game is too lethal for you, adding in extra wounds on models that are historically described as tough would be in your interest? If there are twice as many wounds (and obviously not everything would go up, but just for arguments sake), then wouldn't the number of models removed in a turn go down by about half? Thus halving the lethality? I don't think anyone is claiming that we should up the damage output to compensate for the increased durability, after all.
That aside, there's always going to be an certain skew to how 40k represents survivability, as there are three different stats for "how hard it is to kill once you hit them" and none for "how hard it is to hit them in the first place". Ideally they'd add in a stat, let's call it "defense" for now, that interacts with WS/BS to determine hits. I also wouldn't mind rolling T and Sv into a single stat, as the differentiation (how you shrug off the damage) isn't super important at 40k's current scale (outside of a few outlier weapons), but that's really just to speed up play by removing a set of rolls. Low T/Sv but high Wounds gets you a punching bag that can roll with the hits, while high T/Sv and low Wounds gives you something that's hard to wound but brittle, though, so that distinction has a place even if you do combine T and Sv.
This. Change nothing besides doubling the wound count on every single thing in the game and moving the Character protection limit to 19 (...and double the degradation charts I suppose) would massively tone down 8th ed's absurd lethality.
No thanks. It doesn't solve the problem of buckets of dice rolls slowing the game down, which is the problem child of more wounds + more lethality.
The game needs less wounds AND less lethality.
It also needs to stop giving marines superior weaponry and rules at similar price points.
Not sure where you're getting that last bit, Marines generally pay a premium for any given weapon.
That was true up untill flandarisation Marines 2.0 arrived who have
Free weapons that totally out power pointed upgrade weapons evwm for actual marines, Because Hi diddle hoo marinearineo
Trimarius wrote: Surely, if the game is too lethal for you, adding in extra wounds on models that are historically described as tough would be in your interest? If there are twice as many wounds (and obviously not everything would go up, but just for arguments sake), then wouldn't the number of models removed in a turn go down by about half? Thus halving the lethality? I don't think anyone is claiming that we should up the damage output to compensate for the increased durability, after all.
That aside, there's always going to be an certain skew to how 40k represents survivability, as there are three different stats for "how hard it is to kill once you hit them" and none for "how hard it is to hit them in the first place". Ideally they'd add in a stat, let's call it "defense" for now, that interacts with WS/BS to determine hits. I also wouldn't mind rolling T and Sv into a single stat, as the differentiation (how you shrug off the damage) isn't super important at 40k's current scale (outside of a few outlier weapons), but that's really just to speed up play by removing a set of rolls. Low T/Sv but high Wounds gets you a punching bag that can roll with the hits, while high T/Sv and low Wounds gives you something that's hard to wound but brittle, though, so that distinction has a place even if you do combine T and Sv.
This. Change nothing besides doubling the wound count on every single thing in the game and moving the Character protection limit to 19 (...and double the degradation charts I suppose) would massively tone down 8th ed's absurd lethality.
No thanks. It doesn't solve the problem of buckets of dice rolls slowing the game down, which is the problem child of more wounds + more lethality.
The game needs less wounds AND less lethality.
It also needs to stop giving marines superior weaponry and rules at similar price points.
Not sure where you're getting that last bit, Marines generally pay a premium for any given weapon.
That was true up untill flandarisation Marines 2.0 arrived who have
Free weapons that totally out power pointed upgrade weapons evwm for actual marines, Because Hi diddle hoo marinearineo
Zero-point weapons are always built into the cost of the carrying unit. Everyone knows this.
Trimarius wrote: Surely, if the game is too lethal for you, adding in extra wounds on models that are historically described as tough would be in your interest? If there are twice as many wounds (and obviously not everything would go up, but just for arguments sake), then wouldn't the number of models removed in a turn go down by about half? Thus halving the lethality? I don't think anyone is claiming that we should up the damage output to compensate for the increased durability, after all.
That aside, there's always going to be an certain skew to how 40k represents survivability, as there are three different stats for "how hard it is to kill once you hit them" and none for "how hard it is to hit them in the first place". Ideally they'd add in a stat, let's call it "defense" for now, that interacts with WS/BS to determine hits. I also wouldn't mind rolling T and Sv into a single stat, as the differentiation (how you shrug off the damage) isn't super important at 40k's current scale (outside of a few outlier weapons), but that's really just to speed up play by removing a set of rolls. Low T/Sv but high Wounds gets you a punching bag that can roll with the hits, while high T/Sv and low Wounds gives you something that's hard to wound but brittle, though, so that distinction has a place even if you do combine T and Sv.
This. Change nothing besides doubling the wound count on every single thing in the game and moving the Character protection limit to 19 (...and double the degradation charts I suppose) would massively tone down 8th ed's absurd lethality.
No thanks. It doesn't solve the problem of buckets of dice rolls slowing the game down, which is the problem child of more wounds + more lethality.
The game needs less wounds AND less lethality.
It also needs to stop giving marines superior weaponry and rules at similar price points.
Not sure where you're getting that last bit, Marines generally pay a premium for any given weapon.
That was true up untill flandarisation Marines 2.0 arrived who have
Free weapons that totally out power pointed upgrade weapons evwm for actual marines, Because Hi diddle hoo marinearineo
Zero-point weapons are always built into the cost of the carrying unit. Everyone knows this.
Which leads back to the point if those uber weapons are in the models points the model is under costed. Free weapon and underpointing the model or the model being fair and being given and undercosted weapon still make either option balance breaking.
Trimarius wrote: Surely, if the game is too lethal for you, adding in extra wounds on models that are historically described as tough would be in your interest? If there are twice as many wounds (and obviously not everything would go up, but just for arguments sake), then wouldn't the number of models removed in a turn go down by about half? Thus halving the lethality? I don't think anyone is claiming that we should up the damage output to compensate for the increased durability, after all.
That aside, there's always going to be an certain skew to how 40k represents survivability, as there are three different stats for "how hard it is to kill once you hit them" and none for "how hard it is to hit them in the first place". Ideally they'd add in a stat, let's call it "defense" for now, that interacts with WS/BS to determine hits. I also wouldn't mind rolling T and Sv into a single stat, as the differentiation (how you shrug off the damage) isn't super important at 40k's current scale (outside of a few outlier weapons), but that's really just to speed up play by removing a set of rolls. Low T/Sv but high Wounds gets you a punching bag that can roll with the hits, while high T/Sv and low Wounds gives you something that's hard to wound but brittle, though, so that distinction has a place even if you do combine T and Sv.
This. Change nothing besides doubling the wound count on every single thing in the game and moving the Character protection limit to 19 (...and double the degradation charts I suppose) would massively tone down 8th ed's absurd lethality.
No thanks. It doesn't solve the problem of buckets of dice rolls slowing the game down, which is the problem child of more wounds + more lethality.
The game needs less wounds AND less lethality.
It also needs to stop giving marines superior weaponry and rules at similar price points.
Recently played a game where my opponent and I outlawed any rerolls. Normally when he and I play at 2K (Marines vs Orks) we spend around an 1:45 minutes of total play time, not including set up and takedown. This time without the rerolls we concluded out game in about 1 hour 20 minutes.
Trimarius wrote: Surely, if the game is too lethal for you, adding in extra wounds on models that are historically described as tough would be in your interest? If there are twice as many wounds (and obviously not everything would go up, but just for arguments sake), then wouldn't the number of models removed in a turn go down by about half? Thus halving the lethality? I don't think anyone is claiming that we should up the damage output to compensate for the increased durability, after all.
That aside, there's always going to be an certain skew to how 40k represents survivability, as there are three different stats for "how hard it is to kill once you hit them" and none for "how hard it is to hit them in the first place". Ideally they'd add in a stat, let's call it "defense" for now, that interacts with WS/BS to determine hits. I also wouldn't mind rolling T and Sv into a single stat, as the differentiation (how you shrug off the damage) isn't super important at 40k's current scale (outside of a few outlier weapons), but that's really just to speed up play by removing a set of rolls. Low T/Sv but high Wounds gets you a punching bag that can roll with the hits, while high T/Sv and low Wounds gives you something that's hard to wound but brittle, though, so that distinction has a place even if you do combine T and Sv.
This. Change nothing besides doubling the wound count on every single thing in the game and moving the Character protection limit to 19 (...and double the degradation charts I suppose) would massively tone down 8th ed's absurd lethality.
No thanks. It doesn't solve the problem of buckets of dice rolls slowing the game down, which is the problem child of more wounds + more lethality.
The game needs less wounds AND less lethality.
It also needs to stop giving marines superior weaponry and rules at similar price points.
Recently played a game where my opponent and I outlawed any rerolls. Normally when he and I play at 2K (Marines vs Orks) we spend around an 1:45 minutes of total play time, not including set up and takedown. This time without the rerolls we concluded out game in about 1 hour 20 minutes.
Let's just get rid of die rerolls!
So basically Captains and Warbosses do nothing. How EXCITING.
Trimarius wrote: Surely, if the game is too lethal for you, adding in extra wounds on models that are historically described as tough would be in your interest? If there are twice as many wounds (and obviously not everything would go up, but just for arguments sake), then wouldn't the number of models removed in a turn go down by about half? Thus halving the lethality? I don't think anyone is claiming that we should up the damage output to compensate for the increased durability, after all.
That aside, there's always going to be an certain skew to how 40k represents survivability, as there are three different stats for "how hard it is to kill once you hit them" and none for "how hard it is to hit them in the first place". Ideally they'd add in a stat, let's call it "defense" for now, that interacts with WS/BS to determine hits. I also wouldn't mind rolling T and Sv into a single stat, as the differentiation (how you shrug off the damage) isn't super important at 40k's current scale (outside of a few outlier weapons), but that's really just to speed up play by removing a set of rolls. Low T/Sv but high Wounds gets you a punching bag that can roll with the hits, while high T/Sv and low Wounds gives you something that's hard to wound but brittle, though, so that distinction has a place even if you do combine T and Sv.
This. Change nothing besides doubling the wound count on every single thing in the game and moving the Character protection limit to 19 (...and double the degradation charts I suppose) would massively tone down 8th ed's absurd lethality.
No thanks. It doesn't solve the problem of buckets of dice rolls slowing the game down, which is the problem child of more wounds + more lethality.
The game needs less wounds AND less lethality.
It also needs to stop giving marines superior weaponry and rules at similar price points.
Recently played a game where my opponent and I outlawed any rerolls. Normally when he and I play at 2K (Marines vs Orks) we spend around an 1:45 minutes of total play time, not including set up and takedown. This time without the rerolls we concluded out game in about 1 hour 20 minutes.
Let's just get rid of die rerolls!
So basically Captains and Warbosses do nothing. How EXCITING.
Yeah I've totally NEVER seen ANYONE kit a Captain for combat, that NEVER happens in 40k......
Yeah I've totally NEVER seen ANYONE kit a Captain for combat, that NEVER happens in 40k......
Primaris Cpts and Lt suck at melee though, they are there to be buff bots. Same with GK brother captins, you take them to extend ranger of spells and not to try doing melee with a slow, low A, low inv character.
Trimarius wrote: Surely, if the game is too lethal for you, adding in extra wounds on models that are historically described as tough would be in your interest? If there are twice as many wounds (and obviously not everything would go up, but just for arguments sake), then wouldn't the number of models removed in a turn go down by about half? Thus halving the lethality? I don't think anyone is claiming that we should up the damage output to compensate for the increased durability, after all.
That aside, there's always going to be an certain skew to how 40k represents survivability, as there are three different stats for "how hard it is to kill once you hit them" and none for "how hard it is to hit them in the first place". Ideally they'd add in a stat, let's call it "defense" for now, that interacts with WS/BS to determine hits. I also wouldn't mind rolling T and Sv into a single stat, as the differentiation (how you shrug off the damage) isn't super important at 40k's current scale (outside of a few outlier weapons), but that's really just to speed up play by removing a set of rolls. Low T/Sv but high Wounds gets you a punching bag that can roll with the hits, while high T/Sv and low Wounds gives you something that's hard to wound but brittle, though, so that distinction has a place even if you do combine T and Sv.
This. Change nothing besides doubling the wound count on every single thing in the game and moving the Character protection limit to 19 (...and double the degradation charts I suppose) would massively tone down 8th ed's absurd lethality.
No thanks. It doesn't solve the problem of buckets of dice rolls slowing the game down, which is the problem child of more wounds + more lethality.
The game needs less wounds AND less lethality.
It also needs to stop giving marines superior weaponry and rules at similar price points.
Recently played a game where my opponent and I outlawed any rerolls. Normally when he and I play at 2K (Marines vs Orks) we spend around an 1:45 minutes of total play time, not including set up and takedown. This time without the rerolls we concluded out game in about 1 hour 20 minutes.
Let's just get rid of die rerolls!
So basically Captains and Warbosses do nothing. How EXCITING.
Not at all. We had them charge eachother, and fight in combat. They shot guns and used stratagems. It was quite a lot of fun. My ten intercessors and their captain managed to kill the Ork Boss in melee, taking significant losses. But we did do it.
Yeah I've totally NEVER seen ANYONE kit a Captain for combat, that NEVER happens in 40k......
Primaris Cpts and Lt suck at melee though, they are there to be buff bots. Same with GK brother captins, you take them to extend ranger of spells and not to try doing melee with a slow, low A, low inv character.
Primaris Lieutenants suck in melee because of their gear options. Firstborn Lts are almost as good as Firstborn Captains, but if you're going to pay the points for the melee kit you might as well put it on the best base unit.
Primaris Captains though? They can be absolute monsters, but they don't have the mobility to really leverage it.
Except it doesn't promote killyness. It makes them worth their cost.
No? Then why do SM bolters and their equivalents need their rule to bypass the rapid fire range, get -1AP thanks to the doctrine (cumulative to the -1AP that the overpowered troops already have) and allow units of 6 dudes and only 220 points to fire 140 shots? Now if all bolters, including primaris ones, were S4 ap0 with rapid fire always in play and no free re-rolls like they should be and aggressors could fire 40ish shots in total (also like they should be with their points cost), no one would argue on giving +1W to units like boyz.
A unit of 30 shoota boyz fires 70 shots and kills on average 1-2 primaris or 10 GEQ which are their appropriate target. If all the basic infantry models become tough as primaris then also basic weapons should become deadlier otherwise they'd just make you roll a hundred of dice to kill a couple of models at most. At that point enhanced basic troop weapons become effective even against tanks and we'll go back to old editions when vehicles had no durability at all. See, how this mentality escalates killyness?
Boyz don't need more wounds, their durability isn't an issue against 90%+ of the factions, in fact they've never been so tough with their 6+ that is actually rolled sometimes (as most former AP6 and AP5 weapons are now AP0) and possible free 6+++ or 6++ thanks to clans bonuses. Boyz don't worth their cost anymore for one reason and one reason only: they lost their purpose. They've always have been the ablative wounds for the lone power klaw in the squad but now klaws are a joke. In fact only 30 man squads remained somehow competitive, because in that number they can mess deepstrikers, tarpit things and add more wounds to the army to avoid getting tabled. Even if the full squad manages to strike, the ork player would roll an insane amount of dice and end up with a mediocre result so doubling their wounds will solve nothing, other than consolidating their role of tarpitters which is really sad.
Instead of buffing their T, W, save or FNP make klaws great again, like AP-5 damage D6, like they should be. Boyz (and also transports) will appreciate it.
Buffing close combat units while nerfing shooting is the way to go for a more balanced (and fun) game.
Absolutely false. A SM army with only PA dudes instead of primaris is still quite (if not very) competitive
yeah if those PA dudes are made out of vehicles, thunderfire canons, sniper scouts ,smash hammers, teleporting centurions and stuff that is similar. .
I am talking about the normal power armoured dudes, with the rised point costs people propose here. Such an army is horrible, and I know it, because my dudes cost 20 or 40 pts per troop most of 8th ed.
As much as I dislike eldar and eldar players, what you are proposing is to nerf eldar guardians, because an army of eldar flyers works fine.
Absolutely false. A SM army with only PA dudes instead of primaris is still quite (if not very) competitive
yeah if those PA dudes are made out of vehicles, thunderfire canons, sniper scouts ,smash hammers, teleporting centurions and stuff that is similar. .
I am talking about the normal power armoured dudes, with the rised point costs people propose here. Such an army is horrible, and I know it, because my dudes cost 20 or 40 pts per troop most of 8th ed.
As much as I dislike eldar and eldar players, what you are proposing is to nerf eldar guardians, because an army of eldar flyers works fine.
Your dudes might cost 20, but my dudes cost 12-14, and I take 70+ of them, and they work great.
No one's yet laid out a scenario where having more wounds for "tough" stuff magically makes more dice happen. If Necron infantry, for example, gets a wound bump, how does this make more dice get rolled in a SM vs Necron game? In a Necron vs Guard (where guardsmen obviously would stay at 1w each, given that they aren't tough) match up? The necrons absorb more damage and get removed more slowly, but you aren't suddenly rolling eight shots for every guardsman who fires at a warrior.
And yukishiro, I have to assume that you're relatively new with a comment like that, but marines are not generally on top of the competitive scene. They tend to be somewhere in the middle, or slightly below, with a couple of notable high/low points (I'd say Eldar are the most consistent over performers in general). Right now is one of those high points, of course, but that's pretty clearly due to the supplements going nuts with free bonuses.
Good for you then. I still see no reason why anyone would take tacticals over scouts, specialy if the tacticals were to lose options and have them cost more points.
Karol wrote: Good for you then. I still see no reason why anyone would take tacticals over scouts, specialy if the tacticals were to lose options and have them cost more points.
Tacticals can do more damage against more targets than the other troop choices in the marine book. Specifically they can do more damage against more expensive targets.
But this doesn't compare to GK. I don't know much about the GK army these days, but I do know they are expensive and lack the flexibility of gear that Tacs have.
Karol wrote: Good for you then. I still see no reason why anyone would take tacticals over scouts, specialy if the tacticals were to lose options and have them cost more points.
Not in a world where overpowered primaris exist, of course. But primaris are a problem, not the humble PA dudes. Any SM chapter could do well enough with PA infantries instead of their primaris equivalents, as their codex are really solid.
A unit of 30 shoota boyz fires 70 shots and kills on average 1-2 primaris or 10 GEQ which are their appropriate target.
That sounds about right for Orks though. The thing is you should have another 200 Shoota Boyz.
Exactly, 70 shots and 10 kills is what that unit is supposed to achieve but if everything gets primarized 70 dice for 1-2 casualties in any possible scenario sounds insane. And the only option would be to buff shootas like SM bolters. Also insane.
Except it doesn't promote killyness. It makes them worth their cost.
No? Then why do SM bolters and their equivalents need their rule to bypass the rapid fire range, get -1AP thanks to the doctrine (cumulative to the -1AP that the overpowered troops already have) and allow units of 6 dudes and only 220 points to fire 140 shots? Now if all bolters, including primaris ones, were S4 ap0 with rapid fire always in play and no free re-rolls like they should be and aggressors could fire 40ish shots in total (also like they should be with their points cost), no one would argue on giving +1W to units like boyz.
[snip/]
Those 220 point Aggressors only gets 134 shots if someone obligingly leaves a unit within 18" of them and doesn't kill them in the shooting phase, or if their controller built their entire list around delivering them and then getting them to count as stationary. They're only 67 shots under anyone else, and anyone who knows what those things do will shoot every gun they can manage at them.
Yes, Aggressors are undercosted. Three of them should cost about as much as a unit of Terminators, but even then they're impossible to cost properly when Ultramarines and Salamanders can pretty much double their shooting effectiveness.
Aggressors aren't the problem, they're just the symptom of the problem. The problem is 2W primaris and then all the free bonuses and offensive inflation they had to give out to make 2W primaris worth taking.
2W base troops are just problematic, because they're neither elite nor non-elite and that means the inflation necessary to make their elites appear elite compared to the 2W base troops is extreme.
yukishiro1 wrote: Aggressors aren't the problem, they're just the symptom of the problem. The problem is 2W primaris and then all the free bonuses and offensive inflation they had to give out to make 2W primaris worth taking.
2W base troops are just problematic, because they're neither elite nor non-elite and that means the inflation necessary to make their elites appear elite compared to the 2W base troops is extreme.
I still think this analysis is not quite correct. There's nothing extreme about having some unit differentiation. I'd increase the wounds on a lot of units the way 8th ed plays, actuallly.
yukishiro1 wrote: Aggressors aren't the problem, they're just the symptom of the problem. The problem is 2W primaris and then all the free bonuses and offensive inflation they had to give out to make 2W primaris worth taking.
2W base troops are just problematic, because they're neither elite nor non-elite and that means the inflation necessary to make their elites appear elite compared to the 2W base troops is extreme.
You've still not shown how making the "tough" models have more wounds breaks the game. No one's arguing that the supplements weren't too much free stuff and hurt the game.
I'll go back to tyranid warriors, who have three(!) wounds and haven't destroyed the game. 2W marines gives the whole army (bar scouts, if they stay at 1W) an elite and durable slant, but that isn't a bad thing - it's what they're billed as.
yukishiro1 wrote: Aggressors aren't the problem, they're just the symptom of the problem. The problem is 2W primaris and then all the free bonuses and offensive inflation they had to give out to make 2W primaris worth taking.
2W base troops are just problematic, because they're neither elite nor non-elite and that means the inflation necessary to make their elites appear elite compared to the 2W base troops is extreme.
I don't think 2W base Troops are that problematic. The Deathwatch felt like the right place for Space Marines to be for most of 8e, they had the 2W of Primaris Marines, mixed squads let you sort of get upgrade weapons back, and SIA let their rifle fire make more of a difference. Then the Marine books landed and took the base model of the Deathwatch (a bit of extra AP, a bit of extra mobility) and started stacking better Chapter Tactics and Chapter-specific Doctrines and the Chaplain auras and ever-fancier stratagems on top of them and they just went out of control.
Recently played a game where my opponent and I outlawed any rerolls. Normally when he and I play at 2K (Marines vs Orks) we spend around an 1:45 minutes of total play time, not including set up and takedown. This time without the rerolls we concluded out game in about 1 hour 20 minutes.
Let's just get rid of die rerolls!
THANK YOU! I've been saying this for months now. Play a game with no, or at least very limited strats, and ZERO rerolls and watch how much faster time goes. Worried about your Captains and Warbosses? Fair enough. Let's give them a different ability. Pretty simple. Armies would need adjusted because certain books (Orks in particular) really need strats to function, but I will be shocked if, when 9th comes out, we don't see pretty dramatic rewrites anyway. No way will they be able to make a faster game, that is more balanced while also keeping the 8th ed books truly compatible.
As it stands, 9th is looking to double down on the time wasters. My bet is - it's a longer game, with a more complex rule set. We land on different but the same. Remove or at least severley limit re-rolls and we end up with a significant time savings.
That actually makes sense to me, since these are the first veteran primaries that we get.
The primaries marines are indeed a Gman creation, and they come without all the blings that define a chapter. If you read the fluff, most chapters use them as cannon fodder initially, because they don't mesh really well with them.
Centuries have passed though since the first primaries. Now some of those really made it into the ranks of the chapters and gained enough merits on the battlefield to become veterans. Those marines have been necessarily fully accepted by the chapter and have started looking like a marine of it. They have taken up their chapter's habits and uses, bling included.
To me, a "clean" veteran primaries would have sounded weird.
That actually makes a lot of sense, and I hadn't really thought of it. But since they jumped the timeline forward so far, so quickly I'm just back to "why didn't we just call these true-scale". lol
THANK YOU! I've been saying this for months now. Play a game with no, or at least very limited strats, and ZERO rerolls and watch how much faster time goes. Worried about your Captains and Warbosses? Fair enough. Let's give them a different ability.
Warbosses don't have re-roll auras like captains, their aura buffs morale. Actually there's only one datasheet in the entire ork codex that has a re-roll aura, it's Badrukk and only works on Flash Gitz. Oh, there's Ghaz too (re-roll 1s in melee) but Goffs locked.
yukishiro1 wrote: Aggressors aren't the problem, they're just the symptom of the problem. The problem is 2W primaris and then all the free bonuses and offensive inflation they had to give out to make 2W primaris worth taking.
2W base troops are just problematic, because they're neither elite nor non-elite and that means the inflation necessary to make their elites appear elite compared to the 2W base troops is extreme.
You've still not shown how making the "tough" models have more wounds breaks the game. No one's arguing that the supplements weren't too much free stuff and hurt the game.
I'll go back to tyranid warriors, who have three(!) wounds and haven't destroyed the game. 2W marines gives the whole army (bar scouts, if they stay at 1W) an elite and durable slant, but that isn't a bad thing - it's what they're billed as.
It breaks expected unit capability against them, and makes engaging them less rewarding. This is much less of a problem with Tyranid Warriors because they are usually fielded alongside other units that are easer to kill, and Marine armies are far more common. Tyranid Warriors are generally taken in small enough amounts that you can afford to engage them with heavier weapons, leaving small arms to combat Gaunts, etc.
It's basically not that fun to have supposedly elite troops of other armies bounce off a swarm of Primaris infantry, and then have Primaris double-fire back with AP-2 shots.
