When CSM codex gets updated, will they have better Plaguemarines and Rubrics than in the deathguard and Thousand Sons codexes?

 catbarf wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
There is only so much than clever tactics can accomplish. If the enemy has tens or hundreds of times the numbers you're just busted. Besides, if you think such methods are such a force multiplier, then certainly it is still waste of time making marines? Just train your guardsmen that way and not they can take on twenty times their numbers of orks!

Seriously?

Operation Gothic Serpent (AKA Black Hawk Down) pitted 160 US Army Rangers and Delta Force operators, with air support, against an estimated 2,000-4,000 Somali militants. That's a ratio of somewhere between 12.5:1 and 25:1. The final casualty count was 19 dead Americans and 1 captured, to 250-500 dead Somalis. There are similar examples from both World Wars of soldiers succeeding against overwhelming odds. Audie Murphy single-handedly held off an entire company of Germans for over an hour. In one incident on the Eastern Front, a German platoon held a frontage of an entire kilometer against a Soviet infantry division.

Training, tactics, and operational conditions count for a lot more than wargamers credit, and it's a classic and all-too-common mistake to focus almost exclusively on technology and equipment. Soft factors are the distinguishing characteristic between a team of special forces operators and a team of grunts, not super-weapons that give the former 5x the offensive firepower.

Hrm, I would argue that in some of those cases cases, particularly Somalia, that equipment and technology played an outsized factor. When you have the resources of a superpower, real time satellite info, air supremacy and fire support, armored vehicles, body armor, etc, it makes it significantly easier for a few to hold against many.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Marine's aren't line troopers, sitting in a trench desperately trying to hold off waves of Orks or trading shots at extended range with the Tau.

GW has basically made marines try to fit every trope and concept under the sun, and we have entire marine subfactions devoted to being exactly that, both loyalist and chaos, with gobs of fluff representations (including the original Dawn of War opening cinematic).

Doohicky wrote:
When CSM codex gets updated, will they have better Plaguemarines and Rubrics than in the deathguard and Thousand Sons codexes?

Depends.
Chaos might get the same 'base codex + supplements' approach as loyalists.

There are a couple reasons not to (like the very restricted arsenals they've allowed TS and DG), but I'd like to see it for consistency's sake.

Voss wrote:

Doohicky wrote:
When CSM codex gets updated, will they have better Plaguemarines and Rubrics than in the deathguard and Thousand Sons codexes?

Depends.
Chaos might get the same 'base codex + supplements' approach as loyalists.

There are a couple reasons not to (like the very restricted arsenals they've allowed TS and DG), but I'd like to see it for consistency's sake.

Yeah, I was thinking the same. That DG and TS have much more restriction than the loyalist marines.
I don't play loyalist so I could be wrong, but I believe all the sub legions have access to all the base units from the SM codex + their own specific units? (I assume SW & DW are slightly different?)

TS and DG only have access to a small amount of CSM units (I would say well under half?)

So on that basis having them done similar to loyalist would be difficult

 Vaktathi wrote:
Hrm, I would argue that in some of those cases cases, particularly Somalia, that equipment and technology played an outsized factor. When you have the resources of a superpower, real time satellite info, air supremacy and fire support, armored vehicles, body armor, etc, it makes it significantly easier for a few to hold against many.

Good point! And how well does 40K model the massive advantages provided by individual-level radio comms, coordination from a nearby TOC, seamless integration of air assets and computerized fire coordination, and satellite reconnaissance? Well, I guess it does model body armor, and vehicles at least exist.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

nekooni wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Which means Intercessors pay just two points for the extra attack and significantly better gun. Tacticals can't even be cheaper meatshields for the gak Special and Heavy Weapon saturation they already had. Soooooo what's really the point in the unit?

Tac Squads can do things OTHER than mow down GEQs and MEQs, that's what they're good for.

One weapon is not "mowing down" anything.

Not sure how you managed to completely flip around what I wrote to end up with a single weapon mowing down anything, to be honest. You DID notice the word "OTHER", right?

I was referring to what a squad of Intercessors does to eg an Infantry Squad - mow them down. That's something they do REALLY well, much better than Tac Squads.
But Tac Squads can take down tanks much easier than Intercessors can, just give them melta weapons.

40k is a badly-designed wargame that refuses to take into account a huge array of military factors, including ones that would be very useful for differentiating the factions in the grim darkness of the 41st millenium World War 2 in space, duh.

2W Grey Knights! Now paying those 20+ppm may finally seem worth it!

It’s says in the community article that updates for each army will come as and when codexes are released. How many releases a year? 3? Of course the SM supplements will come thick and fast.

Weapons are becoming more powerful and unita are getting more wounds, feels counter productive. But it means a codex updated for 9th will be twice as good as a pre 9th codex. Now we will find out which armies are at the bottom of GW pecking order

mrFickle wrote:
How many releases a year? 3?

2018 saw 10 codexes:

Knights, DW, Harlies, DE, Necrons, T'au, DA, Custodes, Thousand Sons, Daemons

In 2017 from August until the end of the year they did 9:

BA, Nids, Eldar, Mechanicus, AM, DG, GK, and CSM

2019 was 4 when you exclude SM and supplements as well as PA, Vigilus, and WD Index updates.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mrFickle wrote:
Of course the SM supplements will come thick and fast.

The only necessary supplements will be for BA, SW, DA to bring them inline.

 Waking Dreamer wrote:
2W Grey Knights! Now paying those 20+ppm may finally seem worth it!

2W Grey Knights...most likely a year from now, certainly 6 months at a minimum. Doesn't sound so great any more.

Doohicky wrote:

Voss wrote:

Doohicky wrote:
When CSM codex gets updated, will they have better Plaguemarines and Rubrics than in the deathguard and Thousand Sons codexes?

Depends.
Chaos might get the same 'base codex + supplements' approach as loyalists.

There are a couple reasons not to (like the very restricted arsenals they've allowed TS and DG), but I'd like to see it for consistency's sake.

Yeah, I was thinking the same. That DG and TS have much more restriction than the loyalist marines.
I don't play loyalist so I could be wrong, but I believe all the sub legions have access to all the base units from the SM codex + their own specific units? (I assume SW & DW are slightly different?)

Deathwatch has been very different, no idea how they're going to handle it.
Wolfs... have their own version of Tactical/Assault/Devastator squads (in some ways they're more similar to Chaos weapon restrictions)

Black Templars are otherwise the most restricted- 'can't take librarians'

Daedalus, I would actually exclude Chaos Space Marines not Space Marines. They billed CSM as a "second edition" rather than a whole new book even in their initial promo stuff.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
40k is a badly-designed wargame that refuses to take into account a huge array of military factors, including ones that would be very useful for differentiating the factions in the grim darkness of the 41st millenium World War 2 in space, duh.

World War 2 in Space which fails to implement any rules which incentivise WW2 tactics like the four Fs

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Waking Dreamer wrote:
2W Grey Knights! Now paying those 20+ppm may finally seem worth it!

2W Grey Knights...most likely a year from now, certainly 6 months at a minimum. Doesn't sound so great any more.

I feel COVID-19 will still be a thing in the next 6 months, at a minimum. After that, we'll see.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
40k is a badly-designed wargame that refuses to take into account a huge array of military factors, including ones that would be very useful for differentiating the factions in the grim darkness of the 41st millenium World War 2 in space, duh.

World War 2 in Space which fails to implement any rules which incentivise WW2 tactics like the four Fs

So not even that.

40k isn't a war-anything, and instead is just a game with no attempt to be accurate to any sort of anything except existing for the sake of the game itself.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Daedalus, I would actually exclude Chaos Space Marines not Space Marines. They billed CSM as a "second edition" rather than a whole new book even in their initial promo stuff.

Agreed. Csm "2" was not a new codex.

Which made it all the funnier to me when everyone got upset about it.

GW themselves took great pains to make it abundantly clear that it was NOT a new book. It just was a compiled book.

Literally. This statement is in at the bottom of the product info.

Important Note

This is an updated version of Codex: Chaos Space Marines, containing new art, lore and updated rules encompassing new content from Imperium Nihilus: Vigilus Ablaze, including Prayers to the Dark Gods, updated units, and more. If you already own a copy of Chaos Space Marines and Vigilus Ablaze, you'll find this book a handy compilation. However, you do not need a copy of the original codex or Vigilus Ablaze to use this product!

GW can pump out codexes pretty fast these days, as we saw early on in 8th edition when there was a new book like every 2-3 weeks.

Still there are enough armies that it is going to take time, around a year and a half if we look at how long 8th took.

That is a long time where armies are going to be complete garbage if these Marine buffs are anything to go by.
It looks bigger then 8th's index to codex power creep and its going to make a lot of people very salty, rightfully so.

You can't do this to people every 3 years and not expect them to tell you to feth off and spend their money somewhere else.

well this news is certainly a hefty nail in the coffin..

 Argive wrote:
well this news is certainly a hefty nail in the coffin..

Also great for those that get dexes later down the Line isn't it...

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Argive wrote:
well this news is certainly a hefty nail in the coffin..

Also great for those that get dexes later down the Line isn't it...

Ohh yeha the NPCs will be pleased eventualy im sure.

 Argive wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Argive wrote:
well this news is certainly a hefty nail in the coffin..

Also great for those that get dexes later down the Line isn't it...

Ohh yeha the NPCs will be pleased eventualy im sure.

I mean i'd be salty as a marines aswell, all those rules to be rebought how Long? And not one multipose and Equipment hq leutnant?

Gsc and orkz allready probably aclimated to their late position , because that worked well for them... /S.

The average age of cwe models challanges my own.

Drukhari" dude , where's my hq section gone?!?" The dex.

Chaos " the cardhouse effect stacker" marine, suffering from obliterators Syndrome .

But all is fine, no need to not spread dexes ...

So I had figured this news would make old marine players happy.

I thought it might end some of the GW wants to squat oldmarines in favour of primaris.

But of course, if you're going to see somebody complaining about the doubling in survivability for a mere 20% increase, your going to see it on dakka.

Serious question: what actually would make you happy?

Now I'm not a total white knight either- mistakes that have been made on warcom before make me take everything with a grain of salt. But I believe they weren't just talking about weapons when they said it will go global once the marine dex drops.

And it makes sense, because they want everyone on the app. So if you've got the app, once the dex drops, every faction's statlines and weapon profiles could be updated over night.

Like I said, grain of salt- warcom has been inaccurate before.

That's simply not what it says. It very clearly says that the only things that will be updated with the Space Marine and Necron codexes is weapons that appear both in those codexes and in other codexes. It explicitly says that all other changes will come only when the codex for that specific faction is released.

Overlapping weapons:

Now, we know that LOTS of armies use these weapons, whether supplied by the Tech-Adepts of Mars or perhaps even “acquired” through less Imperium-friendly means to turn on their former masters. In any case, when Codex: Space Marines arrives in October, every other unit that utilises the same wargear – regardless of Faction – will get their weapon profiles upgraded accordingly.

Other stuff:

Don’t worry – your weaponry will get the same treatment! While most of their wargear may not be as ubiquitous as the Imperium’s mass-produced arsenal, their weapons will also be looked at too, when each of their codexes comes around.

And as for future codexes for other genetically engineered transhuman warriors (both of the shiny grey and spikey variety), the same will apply to them. Just think how durable that will make units like Rubric Marines or Plague Marines.

PenitentJake wrote:
So I had figured this news would make old marine players happy.

I thought it might end some of the GW wants to squat oldmarines in favour of primaris.

But of course, if you're going to see somebody complaining about the doubling in survivability for a mere 20% increase, your going to see it on dakka.

Serious question: what actually would make you happy?

My primary army is classic marines. The change is great when compared to Primaris. I also have a Chaos army. The 2W change is great.

However.

I also have Tyranid, Eldar, and now some Necron models (who were waiting for the codex before I really jumped in). As a Xenos player I find the 2W change to be kinda infuriating. I like basic troops in my armies. I've got a lot of Termagants and Hormagaunts. I've got a lot of Eldar Guardians and such, too. 2W takes a big dump on a lot of those models. This would be a lot easier if I knew what the solution was supposed to be, but I've been playing since 2nd edition and have been quite comfortable with 1W marines for a long time. I don't like that some of my favorite Xenos models seem to continue getting worse and worse in comparison to marines over the years.

Primaris were already skewing infantry engagements, but I could be comfortable in the idea that my Classics felt reasonable in comparison to their various opposing troops. But instead of reigning in the Primaris, GW has instead buffed up the normal guys. So now a bunch of my non-marine collection is kinda going "wtf?".

yukishiro1 wrote:
That's simply not what it says. It very clearly says that the only things that will be updated with the Space Marine and Necron codexes is weapons that appear both in those codexes and in other codexes. It explicitly says that all other changes will come only when the codex for that specific faction is released.

Overlapping weapons:

Now, we know that LOTS of armies use these weapons, whether supplied by the Tech-Adepts of Mars or perhaps even “acquired” through less Imperium-friendly means to turn on their former masters. In any case, when Codex: Space Marines arrives in October, every other unit that utilises the same wargear – regardless of Faction – will get their weapon profiles upgraded accordingly.

Other stuff:

Don’t worry – your weaponry will get the same treatment! While most of their wargear may not be as ubiquitous as the Imperium’s mass-produced arsenal, their weapons will also be looked at too, when each of their codexes comes around.

And as for future codexes for other genetically engineered transhuman warriors (both of the shiny grey and spikey variety), the same will apply to them. Just think how durable that will make units like Rubric Marines or Plague Marines.

I stand corrected.

It's an understandable mistake, because releasing the changes all together would make actual sense, and what GW is doing literally makes no sense at all.

yukishiro1 wrote:
It's an understandable mistake, because releasing the changes all together would make actual sense, and what GW is doing literally makes no sense at all.

It makes Sense buissness wise to spread earnings over all Quartals.

SemperMortis wrote:
In no battle field situation should a Space Marine lose to an Ork boy if we are going by fluff alone.

Do you know who was an ork boy? Ghazghkull Mag Uruk Thraka. Along with basically every boss and nob. Sometimes upsets happen.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
2018 saw 10 codexes:

Knights, DW, Harlies, DE, Necrons, T'au, DA, Custodes, Thousand Sons, Daemons

In 2017 from August until the end of the year they did 9:

BA, Nids, Eldar, Mechanicus, AM, DG, GK, and CSM

2019 was 4 when you exclude SM and supplements as well as PA, Vigilus, and WD Index updates.

They had also just released an edition of the game that completely invalidated all previously printed products, and thus had to churn through Codices so people weren't stuck using Index armies for 4+ years.

The same cannot be said for 9th.

What does that have to do with anything? During 8th, over half the Codexes were released two in one month, month after month after month. That's not something that happened before. Do you really think GW is going to go back to quarterly Codex releases after putting out a new edition and announcing a restructuring of units?

 alextroy wrote:
What does that have to do with anything?

I thought I spelled that out pretty darn well, but if you want to argue for argument's sake, then fine:

The change from 7th to 8th was massive because it was like 2nd to 3rd - a complete re-write of the basic core rules and a total invalidation of all previous published material. This is why 8th (like 2nd and 3rd before it) started with Indices, so that everyone had updated army lists for the new game from the get go. They then went through Codex releases very quickly to bring everyone up to speed.

The change from 8th to 9th is like the change from 3rd to 4th, 4th to 5th, 5th to 6th, and 6th to 7th - it's a revised set of existing rules rather than a completely new set of core rules. As a result of this, the existing Codices have not been invalidated. The same level of urgency to update them need not exist. This does not mean that they cannot do that, only that they don't have to.

I know you know all this, but since you started your post with a bafflingly obtuse "What does that have to do with anything?", I figured I'd explaini it in excruciatingly unnecessary detail.

yukishiro1 wrote:
It's an understandable mistake, because releasing the changes all together would make actual sense, and what GW is doing literally makes no sense at all.

No, it doesn't make sense, because 1) they surely haven't written it all, 2) there are interactions in old codexes that must be considered, and 3) shoe horning a foundational change to an army without cleanly addressing the rest of their codex will turn it upside down - something you'd complain about.

That is one thing that some people seem to miss: As Daedalus said, they likely haven't written most of the new Codices yet.

Given lead times on getting books to store shelves, I'd say they've maybe got 4 more books beyond Marines/'Crons in various stages of readiness, and the rest have yet to be started.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
It's an understandable mistake, because releasing the changes all together would make actual sense, and what GW is doing literally makes no sense at all.

No, it doesn't make sense, because 1) they surely haven't written it all, 2) there are interactions in old codexes that must be considered, and 3) shoe horning a foundational change to an army without cleanly addressing the rest of their codex will turn it upside down - something you'd complain about.

Then they should have wriiten the books, before releasing 9th.

Or done another index like they did in 8th.

Or worked out some basic updates in a chapter approved so everyone is at least playing the same game.

After october, the only games worth playing will be narines vs marines or xenos vs xenos.

Niiru wrote:


Then they should have wriiten the books, before releasing 9th.

Or done another index like they did in 8th.

Or worked out some basic updates in a chapter approved so everyone is at least playing the same game.

After october, the only games worth playing will be narines vs marines or xenos vs xenos.

Right, because we haven't ever seen W2 marines before now. Total game changer.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Niiru wrote:


Then they should have wriiten the books, before releasing 9th.

Or done another index like they did in 8th.

Or worked out some basic updates in a chapter approved so everyone is at least playing the same game.

After october, the only games worth playing will be narines vs marines or xenos vs xenos.

Right, because we haven't ever seen W2 marines before now. Total game changer.

The damage output of Special/Heavy weapons with the bonus of shielding bodies with 2W might be stronger than you think.

10 Intercessors vs. MEQ, Rapid Firing = 3.3 wounds
10 man Tac Squad vs MEQ, GravCannon, Plasma, Combi-Plasma, Rapid Firing = 8.16 wounds.
(Calculated no Doctrines, no rerolls)

With CM, Lt, Tac Doctrine for funsies:
Tacs 15.1W
Intercessors 7W

Points as we know makes Tacs 210. Intercessors I'm not sure but I think someone said 20 per for 200.

You could say something about Hellblasters, who put out lots of damage. But that damage output drops real fast and you lose points real quick as they die. Having your damage output shielded by other bodies makes for a more resilient unit that's also less of a bullet magnet. Quite different, imo.

will this be as bad as it seems if they have dramatically reduced effectiveness of doctrines or chapter master etc. If pointed appropriately, and egregious rules calmed down, it might not be too bad.
Personally, with a substantial 8E codex collection, indexes would have seriously pissed me off.

I've seen this Firstborn/Primaris story before.

 bullyboy wrote:
will this be as bad as it seems if they have dramatically reduced effectiveness of doctrines or chapter master etc. If pointed appropriately, and egregious rules calmed down, it might not be too bad.

I don't think they will reduce doctrines. They'll keep the locked progression that got FAQed in (because people 'played it wrong'), but with oldmarines going up in point cost and Primaris likely not really changing much from the CA20 values, GW will likely reckon that marines need the doctrine buffs to cope with their slightly smaller (if old) or same size (primaris) armies. It also reinforces the 'super-elite of the elite' theme they seem to be playing up.

Because this

WarCom wrote:And it means Space Marine forces will be compact, elite, durable and utterly deadly – just as they should be.

Point and wound increase covers compact and durable, but better heavy bolters and meltas don't really cover 'elite and utterly deadly.' (partially because Sisters, Guard and even traitors will get those buffs) Doctrines allow for that extra edge and allows chapter customization above and beyond chapter traits.

Plus, frankly, necrons are getting new 'protocols' and get dynasty-based buffs to specific protocols. They aren't getting that if SM doctrines are getting reined in. It just isn't a thing that would happen.

 Oaka wrote:
I've seen this Firstborn/Primaris story before.

What a film

 Strg Alt wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
And oldmarines will remain at 1W because they want to squat them.

Told everybody so when Restartes reared their ugly helmets but nobody wanted to listen. Now they are forced to recollect their SM faction.

Considering how wrong you both just were, I guess we'll just continue not to listen.

 Argive wrote:

 Oaka wrote:
I've seen this Firstborn/Primaris story before.

What a film

Seconded. I think I'm going to stream it right now.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That is one thing that some people seem to miss: As Daedalus said, they likely haven't written most of the new Codices yet.

Given lead times on getting books to store shelves, I'd say they've maybe got 4 more books beyond Marines/'Crons in various stages of readiness, and the rest have yet to be started.

But that makes even less sense. You don't fundamentally rebalance the stats of your game and do it one army at a time, finishing some before you even start others, that's bizarre.

If you're going to do a fundamental rebalance, it's done all at once. That's what a new edition is for.

It'd be like if they decided to take away armor values for vehicles halfway through an edition, and only did it for each new codex, so some people were working with predators with armor values while others were working with predators with wounds. Or like if you had predators with armor values but rhinos with wounds. It's odd at the best of times, and it's downright bizarre when they just had a new edition release that was the perfect logical time to reorient stats if that's what they want to do.

 Argive wrote:

 Oaka wrote:
I've seen this Firstborn/Primaris story before.

What a film

The movie that, if you watch closely, is a crossover with both Blade Runner and the Aliens franchise. Apparently they all exist in the same continuity.

yukishiro1 wrote:
But that makes even less sense. You don't fundamentally rebalance the stats of your game and do it one army at a time, finishing some before you even start others, that's bizarre.

GW writes their books in a vacuum. We'll be lucky if we even get a quarter of the way into this edition before they do a shift in direction.

yukishiro1 wrote:
It'd be like if they decided to take away armor values for vehicles halfway through an edition...

Let me cut you off right there. This isn't that level of change. This is giving Marines an extra wound, not a fundamental change to the core rules of the game.

You and I have been pretty lock-step in regards to how we view 40K since 9th was announced, but please use some perspective here. This is not as big a change as the change from AV to T/W, or the change from AP values to AP modifiers, and so on. This is a change in stats, yes, and it's a fairly significant one as far as relative power is concerned, but it doesn't change the game itself.

Hence why it's bizarre.

And no, it isn't just giving marines an extra wound. It's giving marines an extra wound and kicking up the lethality of many or most of their weapons at the same time, to compensate for the additional wound. In other words, a fundamental rebalance through stat inflation. More offensive stats, more defensive stats. With the promise that months or years down the road they'll get around to applying the same stat inflation to everybody else. But in the meantime, you'll have a world where some factions have their Super Saiyan version and others are stuck with the old, pre-inflation stats. That's a recipe for disaster, even if they do a much better job pointing it that they have in the past.

I've edited the above post to add a bit more.

Voss wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
will this be as bad as it seems if they have dramatically reduced effectiveness of doctrines or chapter master etc. If pointed appropriately, and egregious rules calmed down, it might not be too bad.

I don't think they will reduce doctrines. They'll keep the locked progression that got FAQed in (because people 'played it wrong'), but with oldmarines going up in point cost and Primaris likely not really changing much from the CA20 values, GW will likely reckon that marines need the doctrine buffs to cope with their slightly smaller (if old) or same size (primaris) armies. It also reinforces the 'super-elite of the elite' theme they seem to be playing up.

Because this

WarCom wrote:And it means Space Marine forces will be compact, elite, durable and utterly deadly – just as they should be.

Point and wound increase covers compact and durable, but better heavy bolters and meltas don't really cover 'elite and utterly deadly.' (partially because Sisters, Guard and even traitors will get those buffs) Doctrines allow for that extra edge and allows chapter customization above and beyond chapter traits.

Plus, frankly, necrons are getting new 'protocols' and get dynasty-based buffs to specific protocols. They aren't getting that if SM doctrines are getting reined in. It just isn't a thing that would happen.

The general doctrine can be adjusted to be less game altering than an additional AP for weapons A&B each while still leaving space for the Chapter-specific doctrines. They've already shown that many Chapter Tactics will be taking a step back from being as effective as they are.

Imagine Doctrines that remove some of the downsides of specific weapons types like:
Devastator Doctrine: Infantry models with Heavy Weapons ignore the -1 to Hit when they move.
Tactical Doctrine: When firing Assault Weapons after advancing, ignore the -1 to Hit Penalty.

I'm not saying that is what they are going to do, but they have many options to keep Doctrines while changing the rule from the current overpowered version. Just compare Doctrines to Sisters Sacred Rights to get an idea of the power difference they can move down towards.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Niiru wrote:


Then they should have wriiten the books, before releasing 9th.

Or done another index like they did in 8th.

Or worked out some basic updates in a chapter approved so everyone is at least playing the same game.

After october, the only games worth playing will be narines vs marines or xenos vs xenos.

Right, because we haven't ever seen W2 marines before now. Total game changer.

The damage output of Special/Heavy weapons with the bonus of shielding bodies with 2W might be stronger than you think.

10 Intercessors vs. MEQ, Rapid Firing = 3.3 wounds
10 man Tac Squad vs MEQ, GravCannon, Plasma, Combi-Plasma, Rapid Firing = 8.16 wounds.
(Calculated no Doctrines, no rerolls)

With CM, Lt, Tac Doctrine for funsies:
Tacs 15.1W
Intercessors 7W

Points as we know makes Tacs 210. Intercessors I'm not sure but I think someone said 20 per for 200.

You could say something about Hellblasters, who put out lots of damage. But that damage output drops real fast and you lose points real quick as they die. Having your damage output shielded by other bodies makes for a more resilient unit that's also less of a bullet magnet. Quite different, imo.

Points as they are though. That's the key.
We already know from the Munitorium that tons of things went up. However, that 15 point Heavy Bolter is not the codex Heavy Bolter, just like those 15 point Tactical Marines are not the new 18 point ones.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Hence why it's bizarre.

And no, it isn't just giving marines an extra wound. It's giving marines an extra wound and kicking up the lethality of many or most of their weapons at the same time, to compensate for the additional wound. In other words, a fundamental rebalance through stat inflation. More offensive stats, more defensive stats. With the promise that months or years down the road they'll get around to applying the same stat inflation to everybody else. But in the meantime, you'll have a world where some factions have their Super Saiyan version and others are stuck with the old, pre-inflation stats. That's a recipe for disaster, even if they do a much better job pointing it that they have in the past.

That's not 100% true though.

They are not increasing the lethality, they are just buffing the less used weapons.
They are buffing heavy bolters, flamers and melta. The most common choices like plasma, lascannons and gravs are not getting touched.

The buff on the melta gun isn't even something that huge, the only one which is worrysome is the buff to multimelta, but if they price that thing at someting like 35 points, then it can be fine.
If in the same codex they also nerf eradicators (which after getting some games with them, they are as broken as expected), then marines are probably getting much more on the durable side of things than on the lethal.

That and it's not just Marines. It's all Imperial and also CSM units that are getting the weapons buff.

It's not a fundamental change to the game.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That and it's not just Marines. It's all Imperial and also CSM units that are getting the weapons buff.

It's not a fundamental change to the game.

They made the cups smaller, but now you get 3 free refills?

THE SODA FOUNTAIN IS RUINED, BURN IT ALL DOWN

Tbf , i Find the 30 " boltguns more problematic then +1w more on classic marines...
Especially when gw lowered Minimum size boards.

Shock assault at this point is not going away, or the tac marines would have been increased to 2 attacks. Marines with a single attack has always felt pathetic and I don't think that GW is re enacting that.

Bolter Discipline instead is probably going away. It did run against the concept of the SM faction, and the increased range of the bolters seems to indicate that they are meant to close range if they want to rapid fire.

Spoletta wrote:
Shock assault at this point is not going away, or the tac marines would have been increased to 2 attacks. Marines with a single attack has always felt pathetic and I don't think that GW is re enacting that.

Bolter Discipline instead is probably going away. It did run against the concept of the SM faction, and the increased range of the bolters seems to indicate that they are meant to close range if they want to rapid fire.

if bolter disipline goes away that'll be a serious nerf to my ultramarines :(

 alextroy wrote:
What does that have to do with anything? During 8th, over half the Codexes were released two in one month, month after month after month. That's not something that happened before. Do you really think GW is going to go back to quarterly Codex releases after putting out a new edition and announcing a restructuring of units?

8th ed had no codexes before so needed codexes fast. 9th ed has codexes.

GW wants to release miniatures. Seeing any model not released ~3 months sells already only trickles and GW gets most of sales via models releasing just books rather than miniatures isn't good.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
What does that have to do with anything?

I thought I spelled that out pretty darn well, but if you want to argue for argument's sake, then fine:

The change from 7th to 8th was massive because it was like 2nd to 3rd - a complete re-write of the basic core rules and a total invalidation of all previous published material. This is why 8th (like 2nd and 3rd before it) started with Indices, so that everyone had updated army lists for the new game from the get go. They then went through Codex releases very quickly to bring everyone up to speed.

The change from 8th to 9th is like the change from 3rd to 4th, 4th to 5th, 5th to 6th, and 6th to 7th - it's a revised set of existing rules rather than a completely new set of core rules. As a result of this, the existing Codices have not been invalidated. The same level of urgency to update them need not exist. This does not mean that they cannot do that, only that they don't have to.

I know you know all this, but since you started your post with a bafflingly obtuse "What does that have to do with anything?", I figured I'd explaini it in excruciatingly unnecessary detail.

I think the new business model GW's shifted to will push an aggressive cycling of codexes to something of a similar level to 8th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
What does that have to do with anything? During 8th, over half the Codexes were released two in one month, month after month after month. That's not something that happened before. Do you really think GW is going to go back to quarterly Codex releases after putting out a new edition and announcing a restructuring of units?

8th ed had no codexes before so needed codexes fast. 9th ed has codexes.

GW wants to release miniatures. Seeing any model not released ~3 months sells already only trickles and GW gets most of sales via models releasing just books rather than miniatures isn't good.

I don't think you have any way to prove this

I think the more interesting question is what will change for the xenos because of the increased resilience of Marines. An extra wound is no small feat. It means extra resilience which results in guns staying longer on the table and making them harder to shift off objectives.

I have a few ideas:

- All Aspects go to 2 Wound min. Will help differentiate between Aspects and Guardians.
- Shuriken Catapults go back to 24"
- Avenger Shuriken Catapults go to 30"
- Drukhari Poison weapon go to wounds on a 2+ or they get a -1 AP.
- Scatter Laser becomes -1 AP
- Shuriken Cannon becomes range 36 with -1 AP and the -3 AP bonus.

They've basically opened up a lot of design space for changes to Aeldari weapons with these changes to Marines. The big question is whether they will capitalize on it or leave it as is.

 Eldarsif wrote:
I think the more interesting question is what will change for the xenos because of the increased resilience of Marines. An extra wound is no small feat. It means extra resilience which results in guns staying longer on the table and making them harder to shift off objectives.

I have a few ideas:

- All Aspects go to 2 Wound min. Will help differentiate between Aspects and Guardians.
- Shuriken Catapults go back to 24"
- Avenger Shuriken Catapults go to 30"
- Drukhari Poison weapon go to wounds on a 2+ or they get a -1 AP.
- Scatter Laser becomes -1 AP
- Shuriken Cannon becomes range 36 with -1 AP and the -3 AP bonus.

They've basically opened up a lot of design space for changes to Aeldari weapons with these changes to Marines. The big question is whether they will capitalize on it or leave it as is.

Or even better, no changes at all.
Almost everything you listed would increase the lethality against non SM factions, which is bad. This is clearly a push to make the game LESS lethal.

Or you can have those above but with matching point increases so that the overall lethality per point doesn't change, which would be my preferred way to do that. Do you want movie warp spiders? Fine, they can do whatever they do in the fluff, but they become 50 points per model. Increase the point distance between grunts and genetically enhanced fluff powered marines/aspects whatever. I fear though that this doesn't align with GW objective of selling a certain amount of models (but would make the game more accessible, so I wouldn't fully rule it out).

stratigo wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
What does that have to do with anything?

I thought I spelled that out pretty darn well, but if you want to argue for argument's sake, then fine:

The change from 7th to 8th was massive because it was like 2nd to 3rd - a complete re-write of the basic core rules and a total invalidation of all previous published material. This is why 8th (like 2nd and 3rd before it) started with Indices, so that everyone had updated army lists for the new game from the get go. They then went through Codex releases very quickly to bring everyone up to speed.

The change from 8th to 9th is like the change from 3rd to 4th, 4th to 5th, 5th to 6th, and 6th to 7th - it's a revised set of existing rules rather than a completely new set of core rules. As a result of this, the existing Codices have not been invalidated. The same level of urgency to update them need not exist. This does not mean that they cannot do that, only that they don't have to.

I know you know all this, but since you started your post with a bafflingly obtuse "What does that have to do with anything?", I figured I'd explaini it in excruciatingly unnecessary detail.

I think the new business model GW's shifted to will push an aggressive cycling of codexes to something of a similar level to 8th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
What does that have to do with anything? During 8th, over half the Codexes were released two in one month, month after month after month. That's not something that happened before. Do you really think GW is going to go back to quarterly Codex releases after putting out a new edition and announcing a restructuring of units?

8th ed had no codexes before so needed codexes fast. 9th ed has codexes.

GW wants to release miniatures. Seeing any model not released ~3 months sells already only trickles and GW gets most of sales via models releasing just books rather than miniatures isn't good.

I don't think you have any way to prove this

Not to Mention the fact that they could just do an FAQ similar to the one with shock assault And Bolter discipline. I think they also know this thing applying only at a codex drop will make Everyone angry, so a quick fix to put everything in line is not that far off... it just sucks for everyone that isn’t a marine.... or imperial/chaos

Not Online!!! wrote:
Tbf , i Find the 30 " boltguns more problematic then +1w more on classic marines...
Especially when gw lowered Minimum size boards.

This is the only aspect* about this change that I dislike. I get why they've made them 30", but they shouldn't've. Increasing the range just makes them more static.

*Unless it really wasn't a misprint and Heavy Bolters are going to 1 shot. Then that would also annoy me greatly.

 Eldarsif wrote:
- All Aspects go to 2 Wound min. Will help differentiate between Aspects and Guardians.

Eldar are not a durable race. 2 wounds doesn't seem right for them outside of characters.

 Eldarsif wrote:
- Shuriken Catapults go back to 24"

Still a baffling change from better Storm Bolters in 2nd Ed to 12" pop-guns forever after. That does need to change.

 Eldarsif wrote:
- Avenger Shuriken Catapults go to 30"

I don't think they should be 30", but neither should bolters. Given that the latter is, I don't see the harm in increasing Avenger guns to 30" to match.

 Eldarsif wrote:
- Drukhari Poison weapon go to wounds on a 2+ or they get a -1 AP.

I don't think people will want to fight an army that wounds everything on a 2+.

 Eldarsif wrote:
- Scatter Laser becomes -1 AP
- Shuriken Cannon becomes range 36 with -1 AP and the -3 AP bonus.

I say give the Scatter Laser 6 shots instead.

Then put the Shuricannon to S5 but AP-2 by default, AP-4 bonus for the odd good hit.

And then the other updates to match the rest - 12" flamers, Fusion weapons with D6+2 damage, and so on.

Spoletta wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
I think the more interesting question is what will change for the xenos because of the increased resilience of Marines. An extra wound is no small feat. It means extra resilience which results in guns staying longer on the table and making them harder to shift off objectives.

I have a few ideas:

- All Aspects go to 2 Wound min. Will help differentiate between Aspects and Guardians.
- Shuriken Catapults go back to 24"
- Avenger Shuriken Catapults go to 30"
- Drukhari Poison weapon go to wounds on a 2+ or they get a -1 AP.
- Scatter Laser becomes -1 AP
- Shuriken Cannon becomes range 36 with -1 AP and the -3 AP bonus.

They've basically opened up a lot of design space for changes to Aeldari weapons with these changes to Marines. The big question is whether they will capitalize on it or leave it as is.

Or even better, no changes at all.
Almost everything you listed would increase the lethality against non SM factions, which is bad. This is clearly a push to make the game LESS lethal.

Or you can have those above but with matching point increases so that the overall lethality per point doesn't change, which would be my preferred way to do that. Do you want movie warp spiders? Fine, they can do whatever they do in the fluff, but they become 50 points per model. Increase the point distance between grunts and genetically enhanced fluff powered marines/aspects whatever. I fear though that this doesn't align with GW objective of selling a certain amount of models (but would make the game more accessible, so I wouldn't fully rule it out).

Im sorry are you saying that dark eldar dont need buffs? im gong to laugh at your face and walk away in disgust. Kabalites are in serious trouble at 9pts with a gun just barely better than a lasgun by itself at nearly twice the cost of a guardsman.

Gw is trying to diversify heavy infantry from light infantry, and finally gave in and doing it on wounds, which means weapons designed to kill heavy infantry need an adjustment, and weapons designed to kill light infantry also need a slight adjustment.

If anything from the above lists, Catapults should go back to 24" like they originally wore, or 18" at the minmum, with avenger Catapults being 24 or 30 definately agree. There is 0 reason catapults should still be hard nerfed from third edition when the game has gotten so much more deadly and everyone has run and gun and assault weapons, the catapult isnt unique anymore and doesnt need the nerfs.

If anything i would see the Shuriken Cannon would go up to 2D if it isnt already. Cannon for killing heavy infantry (putting it in line with heavy bolters), Scatter laser for killing light infantry.

for DE splinter rifles definitely need something, even if its just +1 to wound vs infantry, a point or AP, or something. right now DE infantry outside of wracks are a complete joke, and with heavy infantry going up to 2w makes them even more of a joke.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Tbf , i Find the 30 " boltguns more problematic then +1w more on classic marines...
Especially when gw lowered Minimum size boards.

Yeah, fully agreed. I still really hope that this was just some special-issue bolter the veterans get and the normal ones remain at 24".

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Tbf , i Find the 30 " boltguns more problematic then +1w more on classic marines...
Especially when gw lowered Minimum size boards.

This is the only aspect* about this change that I dislike. I get why they've made them 30", but they shouldn't've. Increasing the range just makes them more static.

*Unless it really wasn't a misprint and Heavy Bolters are going to 1 shot. Then that would also annoy me greatly.

 Eldarsif wrote:
- All Aspects go to 2 Wound min. Will help differentiate between Aspects and Guardians.

Eldar are not a durable race. 2 wounds doesn't seem right for them outside of characters.

 Eldarsif wrote:
- Shuriken Catapults go back to 24"

Still a baffling change from better Storm Bolters in 2nd Ed to 12" pop-guns forever after. That does need to change.

 Eldarsif wrote:
- Avenger Shuriken Catapults go to 30"

I don't think they should be 30", but neither should bolters. Given that the latter is, I don't see the harm in increasing Avenger guns to 30" to match.

 Eldarsif wrote:
- Drukhari Poison weapon go to wounds on a 2+ or they get a -1 AP.

I don't think people will want to fight an army that wounds everything on a 2+.

 Eldarsif wrote:
- Scatter Laser becomes -1 AP
- Shuriken Cannon becomes range 36 with -1 AP and the -3 AP bonus.

I say give the Scatter Laser 6 shots instead.

Then put the Shuricannon to S5 but AP-2 by default, AP-4 bonus for the odd good hit.

And then the other updates to match the rest - 12" flamers, Fusion weapons with D6+2 damage, and so on.

Iff they go to 2 wounds they would just be slightly more durable as they are only T3 with average saves compared to SM. This would also just apply to Aspects that are already woefully bad except for Shining Spears. It would also help differentiate elite chaff from infantry(guardians). Otherwise we need to add invuln saves to Aeldari which I don't think is a good idea.

For the sake of clarity my original take was that the 2+ wound would be with similar rule as the old poison regarding vehicles; so only wounding infantry and such on a 2+. I might not have expressed that outright.

Drukhari poison is woefully bad right now and Deathwatch already has 2+ to wound with their special thingy. Could add caveat that it doesn't affect monsters. Currently poison weapons only wound on a 6+ on vehicles either way. I might agree to a wound on a 3+ instead of 2+, but I would then argue DW should move their special ammunition into the same range. Splinter Rifles are Rapid Fire 1 at 24 which isn't exactly the best thing ever, and with 5+ save and 6+++ they are already weak. Drukhari should be a glass cannon army but currently there is nothing cannon about Drukhari except dissies and darklight which for the most part are only on a select few units. For the sake of clarity my original take was that the 2+ wound would be with similar rule as the old poison regarding vehicles; so only wounding infantry and such on a 2+. I might not have expressed that outright.

If nothing is changed for Kabalite Warriors they will need to go to 6 points or something ridiculous.

Ultimately Craftworlds and Drukhari need a serious rework as they are currently just relying on a very small set of units to carry everything.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I don't think people will want to fight an army that wounds everything on a 2+.

Ultimately an army that wounds everything on a 2+ has a lot going for it .

 warmaster21 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
I think the more interesting question is what will change for the xenos because of the increased resilience of Marines. An extra wound is no small feat. It means extra resilience which results in guns staying longer on the table and making them harder to shift off objectives.

I have a few ideas:

- All Aspects go to 2 Wound min. Will help differentiate between Aspects and Guardians.
- Shuriken Catapults go back to 24"
- Avenger Shuriken Catapults go to 30"
- Drukhari Poison weapon go to wounds on a 2+ or they get a -1 AP.
- Scatter Laser becomes -1 AP
- Shuriken Cannon becomes range 36 with -1 AP and the -3 AP bonus.

They've basically opened up a lot of design space for changes to Aeldari weapons with these changes to Marines. The big question is whether they will capitalize on it or leave it as is.

Or even better, no changes at all.
Almost everything you listed would increase the lethality against non SM factions, which is bad. This is clearly a push to make the game LESS lethal.

Or you can have those above but with matching point increases so that the overall lethality per point doesn't change, which would be my preferred way to do that. Do you want movie warp spiders? Fine, they can do whatever they do in the fluff, but they become 50 points per model. Increase the point distance between grunts and genetically enhanced fluff powered marines/aspects whatever. I fear though that this doesn't align with GW objective of selling a certain amount of models (but would make the game more accessible, so I wouldn't fully rule it out).

Im sorry are you saying that dark eldar dont need buffs? im gong to laugh at your face and walk away in disgust. Kabalites are in serious trouble at 9pts with a gun just barely better than a lasgun by itself at nearly twice the cost of a guardsman.

Gw is trying to diversify heavy infantry from light infantry, and finally gave in and doing it on wounds, which means weapons designed to kill heavy infantry need an adjustment, and weapons designed to kill light infantry also need a slight adjustment.

If anything from the above lists, Catapults should go back to 24" like they originally wore, or 18" at the minmum, with avenger Catapults being 24 or 30 definately agree. There is 0 reason catapults should still be hard nerfed from third edition when the game has gotten so much more deadly and everyone has run and gun and assault weapons, the catapult isnt unique anymore and doesnt need the nerfs.

If anything i would see the Shuriken Cannon would go up to 2D if it isnt already. Cannon for killing heavy infantry (putting it in line with heavy bolters), Scatter laser for killing light infantry.

for DE splinter rifles definitely need something, even if its just +1 to wound vs infantry, a point or AP, or something. right now DE infantry outside of wracks are a complete joke, and with heavy infantry going up to 2w makes them even more of a joke.

I never said that DE don't need buffs, especially on kabalites, I'm saying that wanting more firepower on your weapons because some models of a faction have increased in durability is an overly dumb reasoning.

Well, Drukhari poison weapons are doing near nil damage these days unless you are a cultist so...

10 shots of Splinter Rifles are doing 1 wound on a marine on average. When Marines are 2 wounds that isn't going to change a thing. By putting those shots to wounding infantry on a 2+ it changes to about 2 wounds. So a 90 points of kabalites can either do 1 wound or 2 wounds at 24" range. 90 points to kill 20 points.

Marine durability would still hold.

 Eldarsif wrote:
Well, Drukhari poison weapons are doing near nil damage these days unless you are a cultist so...

10 shots of Splinter Rifles are doing 1 wound on a marine on average. When Marines are 2 wounds that isn't going to change a thing. By putting those shots to wounding infantry on a 2+ it changes to about 2 wounds. So a 90 points of kabalites can either do 1 wound or 2 wounds at 24" range. 90 points to kill 20 points.

Marine durability would still hold.

I play nid monster heavy, and an entire army of wound on 2+ no matter what would leave a pretty sour taste in my mouth personally. It may help against marines but also would kick MC heavy armies harder.

 Eldarsif wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Tbf , i Find the 30 " boltguns more problematic then +1w more on classic marines...
Especially when gw lowered Minimum size boards.

This is the only aspect* about this change that I dislike. I get why they've made them 30", but they shouldn't've. Increasing the range just makes them more static.

*Unless it really wasn't a misprint and Heavy Bolters are going to 1 shot. Then that would also annoy me greatly.

 Eldarsif wrote:
- All Aspects go to 2 Wound min. Will help differentiate between Aspects and Guardians.

Eldar are not a durable race. 2 wounds doesn't seem right for them outside of characters.

 Eldarsif wrote:
- Shuriken Catapults go back to 24"

Still a baffling change from better Storm Bolters in 2nd Ed to 12" pop-guns forever after. That does need to change.

 Eldarsif wrote:
- Avenger Shuriken Catapults go to 30"

I don't think they should be 30", but neither should bolters. Given that the latter is, I don't see the harm in increasing Avenger guns to 30" to match.

 Eldarsif wrote:
- Drukhari Poison weapon go to wounds on a 2+ or they get a -1 AP.

I don't think people will want to fight an army that wounds everything on a 2+.

 Eldarsif wrote:
- Scatter Laser becomes -1 AP
- Shuriken Cannon becomes range 36 with -1 AP and the -3 AP bonus.

I say give the Scatter Laser 6 shots instead.

Then put the Shuricannon to S5 but AP-2 by default, AP-4 bonus for the odd good hit.

And then the other updates to match the rest - 12" flamers, Fusion weapons with D6+2 damage, and so on.

Iff they go to 2 wounds they would just be slightly more durable as they are only T3 with average saves compared to SM. This would also just apply to Aspects that are already woefully bad except for Shining Spears. It would also help differentiate elite chaff from infantry(guardians). Otherwise we need to add invuln saves to Aeldari which I don't think is a good idea.

For the sake of clarity my original take was that the 2+ wound would be with similar rule as the old poison regarding vehicles; so only wounding infantry and such on a 2+. I might not have expressed that outright.

Drukhari poison is woefully bad right now and Deathwatch already has 2+ to wound with their special thingy. Could add caveat that it doesn't affect monsters. Currently poison weapons only wound on a 6+ on vehicles either way. I might agree to a wound on a 3+ instead of 2+, but I would then argue DW should move their special ammunition into the same range. Splinter Rifles are Rapid Fire 1 at 24 which isn't exactly the best thing ever, and with 5+ save and 6+++ they are already weak. Drukhari should be a glass cannon army but currently there is nothing cannon about Drukhari except dissies and darklight which for the most part are only on a select few units. For the sake of clarity my original take was that the 2+ wound would be with similar rule as the old poison regarding vehicles; so only wounding infantry and such on a 2+. I might not have expressed that outright.

If nothing is changed for Kabalite Warriors they will need to go to 6 points or something ridiculous.

Ultimately Craftworlds and Drukhari need a serious rework as they are currently just relying on a very small set of units to carry everything.

Looking at leaked Immortal rules i doubt aeldar are going to 2 wounds, most probably they will be moved to T4. Probably units like reapers and scorpions to T5.

Which leads to its own issues of us now having a bunch of units in other codex's that are supposed to be more durable than marines and definitely more durable than eldar sporting similar Statlines.

Like seriously a Crusis suit and a Custodian Guard T5 W3 3+ and 2+ armour are they going to get similar buffs or are they just going to do another Cawlathon and Yet 20+ years of fluff into the Not convenient retco pile. Despite their models being significantly more imposing than a DG marine. Who will be T5 W2 Sv3+.

That's before we get into things like vehicals etc which apparently aren't seeing stat changes and are going to go back to old 3-7 edition chocolate armour.

Gir Spirit Bane wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
Well, Drukhari poison weapons are doing near nil damage these days unless you are a cultist so...

10 shots of Splinter Rifles are doing 1 wound on a marine on average. When Marines are 2 wounds that isn't going to change a thing. By putting those shots to wounding infantry on a 2+ it changes to about 2 wounds. So a 90 points of kabalites can either do 1 wound or 2 wounds at 24" range. 90 points to kill 20 points.

Marine durability would still hold.

I play nid monster heavy, and an entire army of wound on 2+ no matter what would leave a pretty sour taste in my mouth personally. It may help against marines but also would kick MC heavy armies harder.

Unfortunately, it seems someone basically has to get screwed. Especially since GW decided that it would be a great idea to have stuff like Riptides be Monsters.

So Dark Eldar are expected to shoot the same weapons as Riptides with 2+ saves and 14 wounds as Hive Tyrants with 3+ saves and 12 wounds (to say nothing of Marines with 2 wounds apiece). You can argue that they should shoot other weapons at the Riptide, but then what even is the point of Poison weapons? It's certainly not anti-infantry because they're no better than Bolters against Marines (and I'm talking about basic bolters here - not the bolters that have better poison than anything in the DE arsenal just because) and are actually worse against T3 targets. So if they also suck against Monsters then what's the point of them at all?

Hence, the nature of poison weapons means that DE have to either be too good against the monsters of one faction or abysmal against the monsters of another.

To be honest, I really don't know how you solve this without changing poison weapons entirely. If they're to keep a fixed value, the best solution I could suggest would be:
Poison Weapons: "Weapons with this special rule always count as having a strength value 1pt higher than the toughness of the unit they're attacking (e.g. against a T5 unit they will count as S6). However, against any unit with the VEHICLE or TITANIC keyword, they instead count as having a strength value 1pt lower than the toughness of the unit they're attacking (e.g. against a T5 unit, they will count as S4)."
Basically a long-winded way of saying they wound VEHICLES and TITANIC units on 5s and everything else on 3s.

I think that that is the *absolute minimum* that Poison weapons would need to still be moderately effective, without wounding everything on 2s. Otherwise, I think you'd have to drop the fixed-value wounding thing and make them do something else entirely. No idea what, frankly.

Unpopular as it is, if DE poison's a problem, its one shared by essentially every lowish strength AP- 1 damage weapon in the game.

Yes, for plinking away at guardsmen or cultists you shoot like a BS3+ lasgun. Which is a bit sad. But for hitting anything tougher (vehicles aside) you move up to being a bolter, a pulse rifle and so on.

The fact Marines in cover have a 2+ and shooting them with AP- sucks is true for everyone else.

Really think Kabalites just need to be about 7~ points, and splinter cannons should be 10 points on vehicles. Then give DE some more tools for cracking solid armour saves beyond a sprinkle of blaster style weapons or dissies on vehicles. Dare I say *new units*. (cue: haha, we sending Grotesques and Mandrakes to legends).

Marin wrote:

Looking at leaked Immortal rules i doubt aeldar are going to 2 wounds, most probably they will be moved to T4. Probably units like reapers and scorpions to T5.

Not gonna happen. Absolutely no chance in h...

GW elves (be it 40k or WFB) have always been known for their frailty, which they compensate for by hitting fast and hard.
They will remain T3, but will probably get some movement/save-shenanigans. An updated Battle Focus if you will.

Tyel wrote:
Unpopular as it is, if DE poison's a problem, its one shared by essentially every lowish strength AP- 1 damage weapon in the game.

I assume you mean every AP0 weapon?

Because believe me, I would really love for DE poison weapons to have AP-1.

Tyel wrote:

Yes, for plinking away at guardsmen or cultists you shoot like a BS3+ lasgun. Which is a bit sad. But for hitting anything tougher (vehicles aside) you move up to being a bolter, a pulse rifle and so on.

Except that other armies actually get better weapons on other units or as Heavy weapons.

You know how the Heavy Bolter is now Heavy 3 S5 AP-1 D2
Imagine if instead it was Rapid Fire 3 S4 AP0 D1.
Would that be a good upgrade?

Now imagine if it was like that for almost every weapon. Because that's the situation DE are in.

I wholeheartedly agree with those saying Eldar should stay at 1W at least for their regular INFANTRY that aren't Wraithguard.
Bikes could go to 3W, maybe. Eldar aren't known for durability on their INFANTRY.

But to me what would be far fluffier is for Eldar weapons to get overhauls to make them more lethal to Marines.
Star Cannons could go to flat D:3
Shuricannons could become D:2
And I like the idea of Scatter lasers being Heavy 6 (not really a change against Marines but would help it be on par with D2 Shuricannons)

Although if Star cannons do go to D:3, Bright (and Dark) Lance's would need some kind of bump too. Eldar have melta gun equivalents but nothing like Multimeltas. So lances would need to fill that niche.

Before 8th, Lance's counted amour above 12 as 12 but were otherwise just Lascannons with S8. That translated to AP-4 in 8th which was the same thing AP1 weapons like Melta became.
I'd like to see Lance's become D:d6+2 to counter all this additional wounds and be balanced with D:3 Star cannons

-

 vipoid wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Unpopular as it is, if DE poison's a problem, its one shared by essentially every lowish strength AP- 1 damage weapon in the game.

I assume you mean every AP0 weapon?

Because believe me, I would really love for DE poison weapons to have AP-1.

Tyel wrote:

Yes, for plinking away at guardsmen or cultists you shoot like a BS3+ lasgun. Which is a bit sad. But for hitting anything tougher (vehicles aside) you move up to being a bolter, a pulse rifle and so on.

Except that other armies actually get better weapons on other units or as Heavy weapons.

You know how the Heavy Bolter is now Heavy 3 S5 AP-1 D2
Imagine if instead it was Rapid Fire 3 S4 AP0 D1.
Would that be a good upgrade?

Now imagine if it was like that for almost every weapon. Because that's the situation DE are in.

Its not just DE that seem to be in a weird place though GW's decision to make poison weapons wound on fixed values is odd as it leads to them being almost OP vrs Mosters paying lots of points for high Toughness, and limp against weady units like grots and guardsmen.

More fundamental issue that's about to become a big problem is that with marine stats getting boosted your transports are about to dang near share a statline with models that come in units of 3 or 5.

Like seriously DG with 2-3 T5 wounds with their 5+FNP are going to need S6+ Flat 3 damage or more AP-1/-2 weapons in significant numbers.
That's a statline that feels like it's goijg to rip through Drukari transports.

 Insectum7 wrote:
The damage output of Special/Heavy weapons with the bonus of shielding bodies with 2W might be stronger than you think.

10 Intercessors vs. MEQ, Rapid Firing = 3.3 wounds
10 man Tac Squad vs MEQ, GravCannon, Plasma, Combi-Plasma, Rapid Firing = 8.16 wounds.
(Calculated no Doctrines, no rerolls)

With CM, Lt, Tac Doctrine for funsies:
Tacs 15.1W
Intercessors 7W

Points as we know makes Tacs 210. Intercessors I'm not sure but I think someone said 20 per for 200.

You could say something about Hellblasters, who put out lots of damage. But that damage output drops real fast and you lose points real quick as they die. Having your damage output shielded by other bodies makes for a more resilient unit that's also less of a bullet magnet. Quite different, imo.

This presumes that whole unit is w/i 12" and that overheats aren't worth consideration.

On the move the First Born get 4.8, but this presumes they're shooting stuff with W2 and 3+ or better. If they're shooting GEQ then its 7.4 vs 5 in favor of Intercessors.

Only problem here is the prevalence of said weapons. Craftworlds have a nice coverage with most of their weapons spanning jets, walkers, lords, bikes, weapons platforms, and so on; things that can take a hit and keep walking. Drukhari, however, are stuck with one transport, one tank, and two flyers. Everything else is T3 weak units that can be mowed off the table by a single TFC as an afterthought.

Ultimately the problem is that for a glass cannon army it lacks a certain amount of "cannon".

Dark Lance could go to 2 shots, same with blasters. Blasters aren't exactly in abundance these days after Trueborns got removed so giving them assault 2 might be a nice bonus even if it doesn't fix the entire issue. 2 Dark Lance shots might get a bit overbearing with Ravagers fielding 3 of them.

Its not just DE that seem to be in a weird place though GW's decision to make poison weapons wound on fixed values is odd as it leads to them being almost OP vrs Mosters paying lots of points for high Toughness, and limp against weady units like grots and guardsmen.

This could be fixed by giving the weapon a Strength profile of 4. It would at least fix the grot and guardsmen issue.

More fundamental issue that's about to become a big problem is that with marine stats getting boosted your transports are about to dang near share a statline with models that come in units of 3 or 5.

Like seriously DG with 2-3 T5 wounds with their 5+FNP are going to need S6+ Flat 3 damage or more AP-1/-2 weapons in significant numbers.
That's a statline that feels like it's goijg to rip through Drukari transports.

Happy days...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gir Spirit Bane wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
Well, Drukhari poison weapons are doing near nil damage these days unless you are a cultist so...

10 shots of Splinter Rifles are doing 1 wound on a marine on average. When Marines are 2 wounds that isn't going to change a thing. By putting those shots to wounding infantry on a 2+ it changes to about 2 wounds. So a 90 points of kabalites can either do 1 wound or 2 wounds at 24" range. 90 points to kill 20 points.

Marine durability would still hold.

I play nid monster heavy, and an entire army of wound on 2+ no matter what would leave a pretty sour taste in my mouth personally. It may help against marines but also would kick MC heavy armies harder.

Deathwatch already has this rule, and yes, it is annoying if they can get their sights on one of your big ones. However, the question is whether Drukhari can provide the weight of fire to do proper damage. A drukhari in Rapid Fire range is most likely to get eaten the next turn.

 vipoid wrote:
I assume you mean every AP0 weapon?

Because believe me, I would really love for DE poison weapons to have AP-1.

Except that other armies actually get better weapons on other units or as Heavy weapons.

You know how the Heavy Bolter is now Heavy 3 S5 AP-1 D2
Imagine if instead it was Rapid Fire 3 S4 AP0 D1.
Would that be a good upgrade?

Now imagine if it was like that for almost every weapon. Because that's the situation DE are in.

I mean "AP-" (so yes AP0) - 1 damage weapons. Lasguns, boltguns, pulse rifles, the vast majority of infantry guns in the game that were pretty crap versus Primaris before and are now seemingly going to be crap versus all MEQ. Kabalites are screwed due to being 9 points - they were fine, even good at 6 points in 8th.

The Heavy Bolter has got a considerable number of buffs by the removal of the heavy penalty on vehicles and now getting 2 damage just because.
So yes, Splinter Cannons could do with more. I suggested a points cut - but maybe that wouldn't cut it.

But then it depends on what you want the weapon to do.

Shoot guardsmen:
Splinter Cannon: 6*2/3*1/2*2/3=1.333.
HB: 3*2/3*2/3*1/6=1.111.

Shoot Sister of battle:
Splinter Cannon 6*2/3*1/2*1/3=0.666.
HB: 3*2/3*2/3*1/2=0.666.

Shoot Immortals:
Splinter Cannon: 6*2/3*1/2*1/3=0.666.
HB: 3*2/3*1/2*1/2=0.5

So its shooting say Primaris/new Marines where there is a clear difference.
Splinter Cannon: 6*2/3*1/2*1/3=0.666 wounds.
HB: 3*2/3*2/3*1/2*2 damage=1.333 wounds. Skewed a bit down by any FNPs and so on.

If Splinter Cannons were 10 points and HBs were 15-20 would it be so bad? A venom with one would be 70 points, 80 for two (probably not worth it, but short of a major change versus 2 splinter rifles that's probably just inevitable.)

Could make Splinter Cannons AP-1 perhaps. Or always wound on 3s. But don't be surprised if they suddenly start to look quite good as per the above comparisons.

You could also I guess lament that you only get the 6 shots in 18", which is a bit of a tactical issue - but when you are on a vehicle that can fly 16" or something, I'm not sure that's apocalyptic.

The problem is that the splinter cannon on Venoms is competing with the TL Splinter Rifle which means that you are paying most of the time 5 points per extra shot or 10 if you keep outside of rapid fire range. For 10 points you can buy a kabalite warrior for 9 points who does 2 shots in Rapid Fire Range(RFR) and is an extra wound.

Splinter Cannon was nice in 5th edition(I ran many of them on foot), but ever since it got updated it has had a hard time competing with its siblings.

Currently the big selling point of Splinter Cannon is its range, but on a smaller table with ever increasing ranges this means less and less as you'll have a hard time evading either way.

 MinscS2 wrote:

Marin wrote:

Looking at leaked Immortal rules i doubt aeldar are going to 2 wounds, most probably they will be moved to T4. Probably units like reapers and scorpions to T5.

Not gonna happen. Absolutely no chance in h...

GW elves (be it 40k or WFB) have always been known for their frailty, which they compensate for by hitting fast and hard.
They will remain T3, but will probably get some movement/save-shenanigans. An updated Battle Focus if you will.

I hope they will not make that mistake, its not good for the game and not accurate according to the lore.
Aeldar are stronger than normal humans and have the some toughness as the power armor. It`s a joke that some random girl in power armor is more durable than aeldar that is trained for centuries.
Its good opportunity to think what toughness, wounds and save is according the the lore and gameplay.

Marin wrote:
It`s a joke that some random girl in power armor is more durable than aeldar

Girls? GIRLS? Every one knows that girls can't be durable, lol.
Especially when they are random.

Toughness is exactly that: physical constitution. Nothing about Aeldari has ever had them being tougher than humans. They're more agile and have more dexterity--the standard Elf tropes. Also, better with space magic!

Wounds are the other side of that: the amount of punishment one can take before being rendered ineffective. That doesn't mean "Bill's dead!"--it means "Bill is combat ineffective!".

Save is the amount of protection their armour grants them.

Being old doesn't increase any of those things, and I really don't know where you're getting the idea that a Sister of Battle(T3) is more durable than an Aspect Warrior, Wych, or Kabalite...the only Aeldari that are "trained for centuries" for warfare.

I wouldn't see a problem with splinter rifles wounding infantry on 2+ and splinter cannons wounding non vehicles on 2+.

Spoletta wrote:
I wouldn't see a problem with splinter rifles wounding infantry on 2+ and splinter cannons wounding non vehicles on 2+.

I'd rather avoid stuff like that happening again. Arc(which are Haywire weapons) bump their damage to D3 vs Vehicles now...maybe Splinter weapons could get an additional hit inflicted on Infantry?

 Kanluwen wrote:
Toughness is exactly that: physical constitution. Nothing about Aeldari has ever had them being tougher than humans. They're more agile and have more dexterity--the standard Elf tropes. Also, better with space magic!

Wounds are the other side of that: the amount of punishment one can take before being rendered ineffective. That doesn't mean "Bill's dead!"--it means "Bill is combat ineffective!".

Save is the amount of protection their armour grants them.

Being old doesn't increase any of those things, and I really don't know where you're getting the idea that a Sister of Battle(T3) is more durable than an Aspect Warrior, Wych, or Kabalite...the only Aeldari that are "trained for centuries" for warfare.

Yea, normal human is as tough as commandos, oo wait its not. Aeldar are much faster than humans and even SM cant keep up with them in combat, that is more that just 2 speed and currently is not presented in the game. Toughness could also be the ability to dodge hits or minimize the damage.
Currently sisters are 3+ save and have 6++ and aspect warrior is 4++ and no invul, its just stupid.

the Eldar units need serious buffs, but increasing toughness or wounds is completely wrong way to do it (at least outside Exarchs and Warlocks which should be proper characters with profiles to match.) The Eldar can have other buffs. If durability is desired, then dodge saves, an ability to move out of LOS or the hit penalties are the way to go.

 MinscS2 wrote:

Marin wrote:

Looking at leaked Immortal rules i doubt aeldar are going to 2 wounds, most probably they will be moved to T4. Probably units like reapers and scorpions to T5.

Not gonna happen. Absolutely no chance in h...

GW elves (be it 40k or WFB) have always been known for their frailty, which they compensate for by hitting fast and hard.
They will remain T3, but will probably get some movement/save-shenanigans. An updated Battle Focus if you will.

Eldar are not a durable race. 2 wounds doesn't seem right for them outside of characters.

Elves and Eldar in both universes are at least as durable as base line humans - with far faster reactions and agility.

 Crimson wrote:
the Eldar units need serious buffs, but increasing toughness or wounds is completely wrong way to do it (at least outside Exarchs and Warlocks which should be proper characters with profiles to match.) The Eldar can have other buffs. If durability is desired, then dodge saves, an ability to move out of LOS or the hit penalties are the way to go.

I would agree with this.

 Mr Morden wrote:


Elves and Eldar in both universes are at least as durable as base line humans - with far faster reactions and agility.

Not sure what your point is here – Space Marines certainly aren't "base line humans"; it's kinda the whole point of them


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
the Eldar units need serious buffs, but increasing toughness or wounds is completely wrong way to do it (at least outside Exarchs and Warlocks which should be proper characters with profiles to match.) The Eldar can have other buffs. If durability is desired, then dodge saves, an ability to move out of LOS or the hit penalties are the way to go.

I would agree with this.

Likewise. Seems like "Space Marines got a resilience boost, so Eldar should too" rather misses the point of them being two entirely different armies.

Aspect warriors have always had special armor that is extremely durable in the fluff. They need to keep them at 1 wound but give them all a 2+ save. The superior technology of Eldar aspect armor needs to be updated.

Yeah. Space elves definitely need a buff, but throwing toughness and wounds at everything is just bad game design.

Eldar need a design space of their own. Whether that's simply being so bloody amazing everyone always has -1 to hit them that can't be mitigated by any means, or something more subtle, they need a change.

Part of that change needs to be undoing the nerf to their basic weapons. Yes, shuriken catapults were obscene in 1st and 2nd edition. That does not matter in the 9th edition world of firepower++. Putting your citizen militia at point blank range makes no sense whatsoever.

Poison also needs some design work. 4+ minimum, +1 to wound vs 5+ (or worse) armor saves, or something. More poison getting to lightly armored units. Or +1 to wound on a 6 to hit, getting an extra dose through a chink in the armor.

Currently the basic eldar units are worse (and more expensive) guardsmen, and that's an utterly ridiculous starting point for an army.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
In no battle field situation should a Space Marine lose to an Ork boy if we are going by fluff alone.

Do you know who was an ork boy? Ghazghkull Mag Uruk Thraka. Along with basically every boss and nob. Sometimes upsets happen.

And going by the fluff he didn't beat a single Space Marine by himself when he was a boy. In the fluff a Space Marine can take on dozens of ork boyz with little chance of getting hurt except by the occasional lucky shot. In the fluff Ghaz got his head half blown off when trying to raid a marine base lol. The point I was making is that if you want to think of the fluff as being accurate than instead of viewing each boyz model as an individual boy, think of them as their own mob of boyz represented by that single model. In the fluff 10 Marines would never get overwhelmed by 30 boyz but in the game it happens all the time. But if you viewed each boy as representing 10-20 boyz each for fluff reasons than all of the sudden it makes more sense.

Again though, from a balance perspective that is irrelevant. Boyz are currently 8ppm, Tac Marines are what? 18pts? Back in 5th Boyz were 6ppm and Tacs were 14pts, or 2.3 Boyz per Marine. Since that time Boyz have gained....1 strength (they had it already on the charge) Tac Marines have gained ...wow, I don't want to go over it, but lets just say A LOT! and now the difference in price is 2.25 boyz per Marine And as of right now those Marines are 2 wounds and boyz are still 1.

We have gone from somewhat balanced to absurdly one sided and I believe Jidmah said it best himself where he explained the reason was GW is tired of Ork players playing their army how they want to and instead are trying to hamfist orkz into playing how they envision the NPC army to play as, a couple of mobz of boyz a squad or two of grots and lots and lots of toyz that tend to explode very easily.

SemperMortis wrote:
And going by the fluff he didn't beat a single Space Marine by himself when he was a boy.

Ref for that?

 Nazrak wrote:
Likewise. Seems like "Space Marines got a resilience boost, so Eldar should too" rather misses the point of them being two entirely different armies.

100% agree. You don't fix Eldar by giving them the stats that Marines used to have. Eldar are not tough.

 Crusaderobr wrote:
Aspect warriors have always had special armor that is extremely durable in the fluff. They need to keep them at 1 wound but give them all a 2+ save. The superior technology of Eldar aspect armor needs to be updated.

... you're joking right?

Two plus saves have very little value in the game currently TBH, they're never worth the points premium GW puts on them

BrianDavion wrote:

 Crusaderobr wrote:
Aspect warriors have always had special armor that is extremely durable in the fluff. They need to keep them at 1 wound but give them all a 2+ save. The superior technology of Eldar aspect armor needs to be updated.

... you're joking right?

2+ is steep but for a technologically supposed advanced race a 3+ should be in it imo, especially when the speed as defence thing got curbed to the side...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

stratigo wrote:
Two plus saves have very little value in the game currently TBH, they're never worth the points premium GW puts on them

Are you sure about that? Considering terminators, especially the chaos brand, exist and do very well?

The point being made is that GW have REMOVED all the mechanics that you COULD improve Eldar with in a lore appropriate way.

There's no initiative, there's now even less ability to reduce incoming attacks chances of hitting.

Hell back when WS was an opposed test, giving eldar good WS meant they were harder to hit in melee.

All these core mechanics that directly reflected Eldar abilities are now gone.

So people are now saying 'given the much narrower design space of 40k the only options available are toughness, wounds and saves'.

The only other way is giving them a special mechanic that breaks the core rules - like can't be hit on better than a 4+, always hit first in melee, save can't be reduced to less than 4+, ignore an incoming hit on a 4+ etc.

But the very fact you can't just give them an improved core rules shows how far the game has slid towards a very narrow design space specifically favouring marines and their equivalents

SemperMortis wrote:

We have gone from somewhat balanced to absurdly one sided and I believe Jidmah said it best himself where he explained the reason was GW is tired of Ork players playing their army how they want to and instead are trying to hamfist orkz into playing how they envision the NPC army to play as, a couple of mobz of boyz a squad or two of grots and lots and lots of toyz that tend to explode very easily.

Meh that applies to nearly all armies tho, think Chaos with 6 ppm cultists for no reason but to force people to use CSM.Or the constant pushes to Daemonengines. (funnily enough gw still hasn't figured out why they don't work and their solution was the creation of the discordant, which in it's very mission to make a Daemonengine list finally playable didn't work out aswell) . I do wonder if they insist to force CSM players to remain buffstacker combo wombo or actually start fixing the issue that comes with that. People can only play so often against 3 obliterators- slaanesh- sorcerer - Lord prescience cacophony votwl combo without getting bored to death.

 Hellebore wrote:
The point being made is that GW have REMOVED all the mechanics that you COULD improve Eldar with in a lore appropriate way.

There's no initiative, there's now even less ability to reduce incoming attacks chances of hitting.

Hell back when WS was an opposed test, giving eldar good WS meant they were harder to hit in melee.

All these core mechanics that directly reflected Eldar abilities are now gone.

So people are now saying 'given the much narrower design space of 40k the only options available are toughness, wounds and saves'.

The only other way is giving them a special mechanic that breaks the core rules - like can't be hit on better than a 4+, always hit first in melee, save can't be reduced to less than 4+, ignore an incoming hit on a 4+ etc.

But the very fact you can't just give them an improved core rules shows how far the game has slid towards a very narrow design space specifically favouring marines and their equivalents

Guardians can certainly have 4+ save, they have full body covering ultra-tech armour. Should be better than the crap they give to the IG. Aspects can have 3+, or they can 5+ invulnerable dodge save or even both. Some aspect (or hell, just all Eldar) could have -1 hit penalty on turns they moved a certain distance (or to make it simple, at all.) And then of course fix their weapons, for starters make Shuriken Catapult assault 2, range 24". S4 AP -1 or something like that. There are plenty of simple ways to easily improve the Eldar and of course you can have bespoke special rules on top of pure stats.

 Crimson wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
The point being made is that GW have REMOVED all the mechanics that you COULD improve Eldar with in a lore appropriate way.

There's no initiative, there's now even less ability to reduce incoming attacks chances of hitting.

Hell back when WS was an opposed test, giving eldar good WS meant they were harder to hit in melee.

All these core mechanics that directly reflected Eldar abilities are now gone.

So people are now saying 'given the much narrower design space of 40k the only options available are toughness, wounds and saves'.

The only other way is giving them a special mechanic that breaks the core rules - like can't be hit on better than a 4+, always hit first in melee, save can't be reduced to less than 4+, ignore an incoming hit on a 4+ etc.

But the very fact you can't just give them an improved core rules shows how far the game has slid towards a very narrow design space specifically favouring marines and their equivalents

Guardians can certainly have 4+ save, they have full body covering ultra-tech armour. Should be better than the crap they give to the IG. Aspects can have 3+, or they can 5+ invulnerable dodge save or even both. Some aspect (or hell, just all Eldar) could have -1 hit penalty on turns they moved a certain distance (or to make it simple, at all.) And then of course fix their weapons, for starters make Shuriken Catapult assault 2, range 24". S4 AP -1 or something like that. There are plenty of simple ways to easily improve the Eldar and of course you can have bespoke special rules on top of pure stats.

At the minimum I think All Eldar should go up in armour.

Guardians 4+
Aspects 3+
Wraithguard could go to 2+ imo, but not that important


How you keep them alive with T3 and w1 after that will require some kind of special rule, inventive (fixed to hit roll for all attacker's) or boring (invulnerable save).

But if we expect that Eldar will stay t3 w1, even a 3+ means nothing. Something else must come into play.

pts.

Glasscannon builds for eldar seem thematic.

allbeit i'd hate to see them turn into horde like other factions did for no reason at all.

 Hellebore wrote:

But if we expect that Eldar will stay t3 w1, even a 3+ means nothing. Something else must come into play.

SoB work just fine with that. Scions and Tau work with T3, Sv4+.

scions have inate deepstrike , better gun, better special gun access and really good stats overall aswell as a more synergystic dex to draw from.

 Crimson wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:

But if we expect that Eldar will stay t3 w1, even a 3+ means nothing. Something else must come into play.

SoB work just fine with that. Scions and Tau work with T3, Sv4+.

But they cost less. Sisters are the closest thing to a power armour horde army. And they don't do just fine with that anyway because they have their special rules that give them invulnerable saves etc.

There's a reason no one takes eldar aspects and it's because they're too fragile to do anything before they die.

 Hellebore wrote:

But they cost less. Sisters are the closest thing to a power armour horde army. And they don't do just fine with that anyway because they have their special rules that give them invulnerable saves etc.

There's a reason no one takes eldar aspects and it's because they're too fragile to do anything before they die.

Sure, aspects need a buff, no question. But that's not hard to do*. Also 6+ invulnerable on 3+ save model doesn't have much of an impact. And aspects obviously should have a nice set of special rules of their own.

(* GW, feel need to contact me if you need someone to write an Eldar codex. I have my second edition one right here for inspiration.)

 Crimson wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:

But if we expect that Eldar will stay t3 w1, even a 3+ means nothing. Something else must come into play.

SoB work just fine with that. Scions and Tau work with T3, Sv4+.

Wasnt the main army build for Tau in 8th mostly built around commanders and riptides, rather than infantry?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:

But if we expect that Eldar will stay t3 w1, even a 3+ means nothing. Something else must come into play.

SoB work just fine with that. Scions and Tau work with T3, Sv4+.

Wasnt the main army build for Tau in 8th mostly built around commanders and riptides, rather than infantry?

Fire warriors had a role, not a main one but a role.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:

But if we expect that Eldar will stay t3 w1, even a 3+ means nothing. Something else must come into play.

SoB work just fine with that. Scions and Tau work with T3, Sv4+.

Wasnt the main army build for Tau in 8th mostly built around commanders and riptides, rather than infantry?

Fire warriors had a role, not a main one but a role.

Anything other than being the main Line troop choice they are would mean they aren't succeeding at their main job then.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

Fire warriors had a role, not a main one but a role.

It sounds fine to me for Guardians to be in a similar position. They shouldn't even be mandatory for an Eldar force.

 Hellebore wrote:
The point being made is that GW have REMOVED all the mechanics that you COULD improve Eldar with in a lore appropriate way.

There's no initiative, there's now even less ability to reduce incoming attacks chances of hitting.

Hell back when WS was an opposed test, giving eldar good WS meant they were harder to hit in melee.

All these core mechanics that directly reflected Eldar abilities are now gone.

So people are now saying 'given the much narrower design space of 40k the only options available are toughness, wounds and saves'.

The only other way is giving them a special mechanic that breaks the core rules - like can't be hit on better than a 4+, always hit first in melee, save can't be reduced to less than 4+, ignore an incoming hit on a 4+ etc.

But the very fact you can't just give them an improved core rules shows how far the game has slid towards a very narrow design space specifically favouring marines and their equivalents

I think this is a very good point. The loss of initiative in particular seems like a heavy blow - particularly for the more glass-cannon Eldar factions and units. Before, high initiative meant they might have at least taken some foes down with them. Now, being charged is a death-sentence.

What's more, most Eldar units were not compensated for the loss of Initiative. Yes, some got slightly higher movement speeds, but an extra 1-2" is simply irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Firstly, because of how movement works in 9th. In a game like Warmachine, everything is based on a model's movement. You can move up to your model's movement, you can charge your model's movement +3" and you run twice your model's movement. And since most movement is concentrated within the 5-7" bracket (with very few outliers), an inch or two more or less movement can make a substantial difference. However, in 40k, there's a lot more randomness involved. A model can advance its movement +1d6 and charges its movement plus 2d6 (3d6 if it can advance and also charge). So the difference in charge distance between a guardsman and a "fast" Eldar model is 2d6+6 (8-18") and 2d6+7 (9-19"), respectively. In other words, almost negligible.

The second problem is that 40k has so many units and such a variety of move characteristics that these tiny increases in basic movement speed are often completely overshadowed. Let me give you another example: Archons are supposed to be very fast, so their movement is 2 higher than that of a SM Captain (8 vs. 6). However, the SM Captain can simply take a Jump Pack, which gives him M12. So with that simple upgrade, the SM Captain not only matches the Archon's movement - he leaves the Archon in the dirt.

Put simply, Eldar would need a substantial boost to movement (we're talking 12" for basic troops) in order for it to actually count for anything and be a viable replacement for initiative. Anything lower is simply overshadowed both by the randomness of Charge and Advance dice and also by the movement provided by bikes, jump packs etc. in armies that are supposed to be slower.

I imagine many people wouldn't want to see all Eldar infantry moving 12" minimum, but the alternative is for either Initiative to make a comeback or else for every non-vehicle Eldar model (barring Wraith-constructs and Coven) to get Always Strikes First.

Voss wrote:
Yeah. Space elves definitely need a buff, but throwing toughness and wounds at everything is just bad game design.

Eldar need a design space of their own. Whether that's simply being so bloody amazing everyone always has -1 to hit them that can't be mitigated by any means, or something more subtle, they need a change.

Part of that change needs to be undoing the nerf to their basic weapons. Yes, shuriken catapults were obscene in 1st and 2nd edition. That does not matter in the 9th edition world of firepower++. Putting your citizen militia at point blank range makes no sense whatsoever.

Poison also needs some design work. 4+ minimum, +1 to wound vs 5+ (or worse) armor saves, or something. More poison getting to lightly armored units. Or +1 to wound on a 6 to hit, getting an extra dose through a chink in the armor.

Currently the basic eldar units are worse (and more expensive) guardsmen, and that's an utterly ridiculous starting point for an army.

From the day I took this game up in 1998, I’ve never ever understood why the basic Eldar weapon is so short ranged.

 Waking Dreamer wrote:

 Esmer wrote:
Here's hoping they'll at least give the Grey Knights 2W, since there are apparently no plans to primarise them for now.

There's rumors all Firstborn Space Marine models will start at 2W (no image to back this up though), while I think basic Primaris will stay at 2W as well.

These drastic changes is probably partly why BA, SW, DA, DW are being compiled into Codex SM, as they can be updated altogether.

If the +1W is added to all models with Terminator Armour, this will definitely help keep GK relatively on par with Chapters with Primaris access (read: every SM chapter except for GKs). Only a total of 3 GK HQs / Characters DON'T have Terminator Amour so we might see:

- Paladins = 4W
- Librarians, Apothecary, Chaplains, Ancients = 6W
- Brother Captains, Grand Masters = 7W
- Kaldor Draigo = 8W...!

Who needs Primaris when you have a SM chapter where everyone gets their own Terminator Armour upon graduation...?! lol

Well, I'm really excited about GKSS getting 2W in the near future.
They are out core units and so GK should largely benefit from it.
I don't care about Tacticals - nobody played them in the 8th.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

Voss wrote:
Yeah. Space elves definitely need a buff, but throwing toughness and wounds at everything is just bad game design.

Eldar need a design space of their own. Whether that's simply being so bloody amazing everyone always has -1 to hit them that can't be mitigated by any means, or something more subtle, they need a change.

Part of that change needs to be undoing the nerf to their basic weapons. Yes, shuriken catapults were obscene in 1st and 2nd edition. That does not matter in the 9th edition world of firepower++. Putting your citizen militia at point blank range makes no sense whatsoever.

Poison also needs some design work. 4+ minimum, +1 to wound vs 5+ (or worse) armor saves, or something. More poison getting to lightly armored units. Or +1 to wound on a 6 to hit, getting an extra dose through a chink in the armor.

Currently the basic eldar units are worse (and more expensive) guardsmen, and that's an utterly ridiculous starting point for an army.

From the day I took this game up in 1998, I’ve never ever understood why the basic Eldar weapon is so short ranged.

According to the tails i heard, aeldar range get reduced by half but they received the ability to move after shooting that increased their suitability. But with that abillity gone and with the range of new models mainly primaris the range 12 looks super absolute.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

From the day I took this game up in 1998, I’ve never ever understood why the basic Eldar weapon is so short ranged.

Trust me, we who started before that have even harder time understanding it (they used to be 24" in the second edition.)

 Future War Cultist wrote:

Voss wrote:
Yeah. Space elves definitely need a buff, but throwing toughness and wounds at everything is just bad game design.

Eldar need a design space of their own. Whether that's simply being so bloody amazing everyone always has -1 to hit them that can't be mitigated by any means, or something more subtle, they need a change.

Part of that change needs to be undoing the nerf to their basic weapons. Yes, shuriken catapults were obscene in 1st and 2nd edition. That does not matter in the 9th edition world of firepower++. Putting your citizen militia at point blank range makes no sense whatsoever.

Poison also needs some design work. 4+ minimum, +1 to wound vs 5+ (or worse) armor saves, or something. More poison getting to lightly armored units. Or +1 to wound on a 6 to hit, getting an extra dose through a chink in the armor.

Currently the basic eldar units are worse (and more expensive) guardsmen, and that's an utterly ridiculous starting point for an army.

From the day I took this game up in 1998, I’ve never ever understood why the basic Eldar weapon is so short ranged.

It was GW nerfing the catapult into the ground in an overcompensation for their overpowered 2nd edition version. Back then it was 24" S4 -2 Sustained fire dice 1. That meant effectively 1-3 storm bolter shots per Guardian. The same sort of thing applied for the Shuriken Cannon which was 40" S5 -3 Damage d4 Sustained fire dice 2. A Guardian and Jetbike army's sheer volume of fire at a good armor save modifier was enough to delete virtually any infantry even in 2nd edition's era of layered saves, and was one of the few viable counters to the 100+ Hormagaunt horde. It didn't matter that Guardians had BS 3 as most vehicle mounted weapons had targeters (+1 to-hit) and Guardians were cheap, being only marginally more expensive than Guardsmen yet far better equipped.

So yes, the 2nd edition version needed to be reduced. But they could have done so by either reducing number of shots and/or the armor save modifier to -1. Of course, 3rd edition was the edition that had the whole all or nothing AP system.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
Likewise. Seems like "Space Marines got a resilience boost, so Eldar should too" rather misses the point of them being two entirely different armies.

100% agree. You don't fix Eldar by giving them the stats that Marines used to have. Eldar are not tough.

So there is no really point of them having higher toughness. The problem is people play to much DND and dont realize aeldar are not elfs and there is no real reason to equalize their toughness, strength and constitution to normal human.
Actually hitting SM should be much easier than hitting a guardsmen or aeldar, because they are to big and fat and SM armor is not better than the aeldars.
It`s fine, marines have 2 more wounds that make them tougher, but are not much harder to get wounded in the first place.

One idea might be doing the whole debuff angle with fate based psychic powers. I know they already have those things, but I mean making those more powerful. Like giving negative re-rolls to enemy units so they are forced to re-reoll their successes, cancelling enemy auras. It's just the idea that the Eldar mess with fate so the enemy is cursed with phenomenal "bad luck" and sub-par performance despite their training. Maybe can borrow the SoB miracle dice mechanic for granting of good fortune to units. However the problem is this would place even more weighting on the Farseers while the rest of the Eldar army is still effectively dysfunctional.

 Hellebore wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:

But if we expect that Eldar will stay t3 w1, even a 3+ means nothing. Something else must come into play.

SoB work just fine with that. Scions and Tau work with T3, Sv4+.

But they cost less. Sisters are the closest thing to a power armour horde army. And they don't do just fine with that anyway because they have their special rules that give them invulnerable saves etc.

There's a reason no one takes eldar aspects and it's because
they're too fragile to do anything before they die.

That's a core rule problems though and why IGOUGO makes it stupid for glass Cannon armies to exist.

T3 1W troop based armies (aforementioned tau, Guardians, etc) was all well and good until GW decided that some units should kick out 72 +6D6 S4 (AP-1 in 2 turns) shots from 6 dudes. This massive fire output (can also subin Cents if you wish too) just makes such units unusable. I also don't see that changing even though the game now centers around holding objectives through an enemy shooting phase. Eldar wraith units are fine (but not obsec), and fast armies with vehicles will be able to saturate objectives, but forget Guardian units (especially since the minimum sized one with weapons platform receives full on Blast rules), unless it's just the wave serpent that survives to hold the objective.
So the game for these armies now is Transport heavy...knowing the occupants cannot hold an objective through a shooting phase, but might be still alive after they escape a destroyed transport. GWs answer to this...buff the heck out of AT weapons (multi shot Meltas) which will now chew through these transports faster, so that they can get to those juicy occupants.

Going to be really interested in seeing how new Eldar operate in this new environment, but I'm thinking Wave Serpents and Falcons will be everywhere.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:

But if we expect that Eldar will stay t3 w1, even a 3+ means nothing. Something else must come into play.

SoB work just fine with that. Scions and Tau work with T3, Sv4+.

Wasnt the main army build for Tau in 8th mostly built around commanders and riptides, rather than infantry?

Fire warriors had a role, not a main one but a role.

The role they had was 3 minimum units for CP that's not a role that's just a straight up tax choice for the CP.

Most of the game's issues have to do with stat inflation. Strength, toughness, wounds, rate of fire...all of these have increased tremendously over the last couple years.

GW's solution to this problem appears to be doubling down and inflaing stats even more. This is very unlikely to address the problem, but if they really want to do it this way, they are going to have to inflate defensive stats as well one way or another for other races, even ones like eldar that are supposed to be squishy.

T3 1W 3+ save used to be a relatively reasonably resilient profile. Now it's a joke. So you have to do something about that, you can't just keep jacking up lethality and acting like the T3 1W is sacred when nothing else is.

T3 1W +3 has never been resilient. A couple of bad rolls and a ton of points go to the waste. It was only with a bunch of FNP's and psychic powers and special rules and character-tanking that you could make any kind of resilience from something like that.

Single wound models that cost more than 13-14 points have nearly always been a joke without some kind of extremely protective capability or with the hability to punch a ton of damage without any hope for retaliation, and then dying after doing their job.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Most of the game's issues have to do with stat inflation. Strength, toughness, wounds, rate of fire...all of these have increased tremendously over the last couple years.

Except rate of fire, no they have not. Statlines have been absurdly static since the Great Ork Adjustment. Most have been sacred cows since RT marines became toughness 4 in a WD article (and forevermore from 2nd edition on).

Too many shots has been the only real problem.

 Galas wrote:
T3 1W +3 has never been resilient.

Sure it is, if most stuff is shooting 1 or 2 S3 or S4 AP0 shots. It was never tough - hence why Eldar have always been considered fragile - but the resilience of a T3 3+ profile has greatly, massively diminished over the years as stat inflation has made the average shooting profile much, much deadlier than it used to be.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Most of the game's issues have to do with stat inflation. Strength, toughness, wounds, rate of fire...all of these have increased tremendously over the last couple years.

Except rate of fire, no they have not. Statlines have been absurdly static since the Great Ork Adjustment. Most have been sacred cows since RT marines became toughness 4 in a WD article (and forevermore from 2nd edition on).

Too many shots has been the only real problem.

Rate of fire is the biggest culprit, but hardly the only one. The average space marine has gone from shooting 1 or 2 24" S4 AP 0 shots to more often than not firing 2 30" S4 AP-1 or frequently AP -2 shots. Often with full rerolls, and with lots of potential to increase those values further with stratagems. All that makes a tremendous difference in the basic math of the game.

Inflation in the deadliness of basic, run-of-the-mill shooting has vastly exceeded inflation in the defensive stats of almost all basic troop choices in the game.

Voss wrote:
Yeah. Space elves definitely need a buff, but throwing toughness and wounds at everything is just bad game design.

Eldar need a design space of their own. Whether that's simply being so bloody amazing everyone always has -1 to hit them that can't be mitigated by any means, or something more subtle, they need a change.

Part of that change needs to be undoing the nerf to their basic weapons. Yes, shuriken catapults were obscene in 1st and 2nd edition. That does not matter in the 9th edition world of firepower++. Putting your citizen militia at point blank range makes no sense whatsoever.

Poison also needs some design work. 4+ minimum, +1 to wound vs 5+ (or worse) armor saves, or something. More poison getting to lightly armored units. Or +1 to wound on a 6 to hit, getting an extra dose through a chink in the armor.

Currently the basic eldar units are worse (and more expensive) guardsmen, and that's an utterly ridiculous starting point for an army.

I think they have some space to make Aeldari have thematic defense within the current rules frame work. A -1 to Hit modifier for all fast Aeldari infantry (so not Constructs and the tough Coven units) would play right into the background. Imagine something like:

Craftworld Infantry: -1 to Hit, plus descent armor
CW Constructs: High Toughness and Wounds
Drukari Kabal Infantry: -1 to Hit, poor armor, and poor FNP
Drukari Coven Infantry: Better Toughness and FNP
Drukari Cult Infantry: -1 to Hit, bad armor, variable Invulnerable Saves (I would give them 6++ all the time along with the 4++ in melee), poor FNP
Harlequin Infantry: -1 to Hit, good Invulnerable Saves

Suddenly Aeldari are hard to kill, but not because they soak damage like a Space Marine or Death Guard, but because you have a hard time getting a decent smack on them.

Only if they let the -1 bypass their own modifier cap they just brought in, otherwise it's practically meaningless in a world where 50% of people play a faction that has base BS3+ and full rerolls as often as not, and where they'll have a -1 to hit anyway plenty of the time from cover.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
T3 1W +3 has never been resilient.

Sure it is, if most stuff is shooting 1 or 2 S3 or S4 AP0 shots. It was never tough - hence why Eldar have always been considered fragile - but the resilience of a T3 3+ profile has greatly, massively diminished over the years as stat inflation has made the average shooting profile much, much deadlier than it used to be.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Most of the game's issues have to do with stat inflation. Strength, toughness, wounds, rate of fire...all of these have increased tremendously over the last couple years.

Except rate of fire, no they have not. Statlines have been absurdly static since the Great Ork Adjustment. Most have been sacred cows since RT marines became toughness 4 in a WD article (and forevermore from 2nd edition on).

Too many shots has been the only real problem.

Rate of fire is the biggest culprit, but hardly the only one. The average space marine has gone from shooting 1 or 2 24" S4 AP 0 shots to more often than not firing 2 30" S4 AP-1 or frequently AP -2 shots. Often with full rerolls, and with lots of potential to increase those values further with stratagems. All that makes a tremendous difference in the basic math of the game.

Inflation in the deadliness of basic, run-of-the-mill shooting has vastly exceeded inflation in the defensive stats of almost all basic troop choices in the game.

Yeah, that isn't what you said. No Strength or Toughness inflation happened. The wound change is about to happen. The only change to statlines has been number of shots, and those are mostly in new weapons. (Beyond a 3rd edition to what 'rapid fire' means)
A bolter is still the same. Its statline hadn't changed a bit. It arguably got worse going from AP5 in the 3rd-7th system to AP0 in the 8th/9th system.

Rerolls and doctrines aren't part of the statline, so aren't evidence of statline inflation. The only real change in the space marine bolter in 20+ years is that they can now (thanks to a special rule) shoot twice at 12-24". And that's still not a statline change.

Increases in deadliness from rerolls and stratagems are obviously stat inflation as well, and the idea that doctrines aren't is truly silly, but I've got no interest in having a pointless argument over definitions.

The point is that offensive output has inflated dramatically, meaning that what used to be standard, acceptable defensive profiles no longer have the same resilience they used to.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Increases in deadliness from rerolls and stratagems are obviously stat inflation as well, and the idea that doctrines aren't is truly silly, but I've got no interest in having a pointless argument over definitions.

The point is that offensive output has inflated dramatically, meaning that what used to be standard, acceptable defensive profiles no longer have the same resilience they used to.

Ok, now that I've whittled you down to an actually reasonably accurate 'point', where are you going with it?

Is this new defensive buff a good thing? Or are you heading somewhere else with this line of thought?

Voss wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Increases in deadliness from rerolls and stratagems are obviously stat inflation as well, and the idea that doctrines aren't is truly silly, but I've got no interest in having a pointless argument over definitions.

The point is that offensive output has inflated dramatically, meaning that what used to be standard, acceptable defensive profiles no longer have the same resilience they used to.

Ok, now that I've whittled you down to an actually reasonably accurate 'point', where are you going with it?

Is this new defensive buff a good thing? Or are you heading somewhere else with this line of thought?

Mate, you seem very preoccupied on arguing, when if you just read what was written, it'd have answered your question. I explicitly stated what my point was in the first post. Here it is again, please read it this time:

yukishiro1 wrote:


GW's solution to this problem appears to be doubling down and inflating stats even more. This is very unlikely to address the problem, but if they really want to do it this way, they are going to have to inflate defensive stats as well one way or another for other races, even ones like eldar that are supposed to be squishy.

T3 1W 3+ save used to be a relatively reasonably resilient profile. Now it's a joke. So you have to do something about that, you can't just keep jacking up lethality and acting like the T3 1W is sacred when nothing else is.

 alextroy wrote:


Craftworld Infantry: -1 to Hit, plus descent armor

-1 to hit is now a useless ability to have. All it does, at best, is allow for the enemy space marines to both advance, AND fire both profiles on their combi-weapons, without any penalty whatsoever (in the past it would have given a -3 to be hit).

CW Constructs: High Toughness and Wounds

Mostly it's fairly average toughness, apart from wraithlords. But without the invulnerable saves that other (marine) equivalents have in abundance, they still work out more fragile. Wounds are average at best too, for the points.

Drukari Kabal Infantry: -1 to Hit, poor armor, and poor FNP
Drukari Coven Infantry: Better Toughness and FNP
Drukari Cult Infantry: -1 to Hit, bad armor, variable Invulnerable Saves (I would give them 6++ all the time along with the 4++ in melee), poor FNP
Harlequin Infantry: -1 to Hit, good Invulnerable Saves

Harlequins already waste half their points on their ability to have -1 to be hit, multiple times. They can still get to -3 to be hit just with native abilities and powers. It's completely useless. 95% of the time in a game, you already have a -1 to be hit from cover anyway, and so does the enemy. But the enemy got it for free, while you spent actual points on it.

Suddenly Aeldari are hard to kill, but not because they soak damage like a Space Marine or Death Guard, but because you have a hard time getting a decent smack on them.

Suddenly, Aeldari are exactly as hard to kill after your changes, as they are right now. Which is very easy. The only difference would be they'd probably cost more.

Your solution is how Eldar worked in 8th. And it worked well. And it balanced the Marines full-rerolls meta fairly well (which is part of the problem - Marine players expect to steamroll opponents or the game isn't 'balanced'). Problem is, it only balanced Marines, the other armies like Tau and Orks were screwed over. This was fixed with the 6's always hit change, but then Eldar still got nerfed into the ground.

And so here we are with 15pt models with guardsman statlines.

The solution for 9th will have to be from saves, unless they remove the cap on modifiers for Eldar in some way. Maybe give all units an invulnerable save, for their 'reflexes', like what Harlequins have.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Increases in deadliness from rerolls and stratagems are obviously stat inflation as well

Hmm... thats like... absolutely incorrect.

Stat inflation is stat inflation. You can see it with marines going to two wounds. People is so used to stats being fixed on stone than when they change, people see them as much a bigger deal than for example, space marines losing Doctrines, or gaining/losing subfaction traits from one codex to the next.

The problem with invulns is they interact very poorly with lots of other mechanics, and you can't actually jack them up all that high without them becoming oppressive. As Asurmen shows, even putting a 4++ on aspect warriors doesn't actually make them very resilient, except to low-volume stuff like lascannons. And GW has rightly been trying to cut down on the amount of 3++s on the game, so I can't see them going that far, which is what they'd need to do if they don't want to move any of the other levers.

GW have backed themselves into a big corner with the cap on modifiers. They're going to have to either go back on that, come up with some entirely new mechanism for adding to eldar survivability, or else they're going to have to bite the bullet and admit that T3 1W profiles are out of date in 9th edition.

yukishiro1 wrote:

Voss wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Increases in deadliness from rerolls and stratagems are obviously stat inflation as well, and the idea that doctrines aren't is truly silly, but I've got no interest in having a pointless argument over definitions.

The point is that offensive output has inflated dramatically, meaning that what used to be standard, acceptable defensive profiles no longer have the same resilience they used to.

Ok, now that I've whittled you down to an actually reasonably accurate 'point', where are you going with it?

Is this new defensive buff a good thing? Or are you heading somewhere else with this line of thought?

Mate, you seem very preoccupied on arguing, when if you just read what was written, it'd have answered your question. I explicitly stated what my point was in the first post. Here it is again, please read it this time:

yukishiro1 wrote:


GW's solution to this problem appears to be doubling down and inflating stats even more. This is very unlikely to address the problem, but if they really want to do it this way, they are going to have to inflate defensive stats as well one way or another for other races, even ones like eldar that are supposed to be squishy.

T3 1W 3+ save used to be a relatively reasonably resilient profile. Now it's a joke. So you have to do something about that, you can't just keep jacking up lethality and acting like the T3 1W is sacred when nothing else is.

Well, since your initial premise was completely incorrect and so inherently flawed, it didn't seem a useful conclusion.
But ok. Since we have no idea what they're going to do to non-marine armies, we have no reason to conclude anyone is going to act like T3 1W is 'sacred.'

But... one of the real things you did bring up was in an increase in -1 AP through doctrines, we can look at a recent t3 1W 3+ army (the only post SM2.0 codex) and... oh look, they got a defensive tool to counter that. Sisters' Imagifiers. How weird.

But I still one to see some of the strength and toughness statline inflation you specifically went out of your way to mention as 'increased tremendously.'

I'm going to preface this next bit by saying I have 6 of these in my Ravenguard, 3 in Dark Angels and 3 in Deathwatch, but Aggressors need to have their double shot rule taken away. It's egregious and purely there to sell Primaris (same with the new eradicator rule). There is no reason these models should be throwing out that many dice, it's beyond ridiculous, and no real reason eradicators should fire twice...they just have a longer ranged melta, leave it at that. Or should we just make Eldar scatbikes Heavy 12 and start adjusting Xenos races accordingly with massive ROF on their platforms?
I would love to see the double shot rule removed...same with Leman Russ, executioner and Fire Prism. If you have to double the shots to make it an effective platform through an artificial method, you've got the stats wrong in the first place.

Voss wrote:


Well, since your initial premise was completely incorrect and so inherently flawed, it didn't seem a useful conclusion.
But ok. Since we have no idea what they're going to do to non-marine armies, we have no reason to conclude anyone is going to act like T3 1W is 'sacred.'

But... one of the real things you did bring up was in an increase in -1 AP through doctrines, we can look at a recent t3 1W 3+ army (the only post SM2.0 codex) and... oh look, they got a defensive tool to counter that. Sisters' Imagifiers. How weird.

But I still one to see some of the strength and toughness statline inflation you specifically went out of your way to mention as 'increased tremendously.'

Gravis armor units are one very obvious example - in this case of both toughness and wounds increasing, and doing so quite dramatically compared to prior space marine elite infantry statlines - but if it wasn't clear from the last post, I have zero interest in arguing with you about something utterly irrelevant to the overall point. If you want to argue about what "stat inflation" includes and about how it doesn't include things you don't put on the list I don't care at all. If you want to call it "inflation in offensive and defensive capabilities" instead and that makes you happier by using many more words to say the same thing, go for it. It literally doesn't matter. It's just a term. We can call it "more cauliflower" if you want.

I was responding to people reacting with horror to the idea of eldar getting added toughness or wounds, and simply pointed out that something will have to give on that front as long as GW insists on continuing down this path of inflating the numbers of the game. More shots, more deadly shots, more rerolls, more stratagems, buffed weapons, more ...these all lead one place, and they're going to have to inflate defense for non-marine races as well in some manner or another. With caps on modifiers, and a de-facto rule that 3++s shouldn't come standard, there's not really anywhere else to go besides T and W characteristics unless they want to come up with something totally new.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 bullyboy wrote:
I'm going to preface this next bit by saying I have 6 of these in my Ravenguard, 3 in Dark Angels and 3 in Deathwatch, but Aggressors need to have their double shot rule taken away. It's egregious and purely there to sell Primaris (same with the new eradicator rule). There is no reason these models should be throwing out that many dice, it's beyond ridiculous, and no real reason eradicators should fire twice...they just have a longer ranged melta, leave it at that. Or should we just make Eldar scatbikes Heavy 12 and start adjusting Xenos races accordingly with massive ROF on their platforms?
I would love to see the double shot rule removed...same with Leman Russ, executioner and Fire Prism. If you have to double the shots to make it an effective platform through an artificial method, you've got the stats wrong in the first place.

It is, but we're so far down that road now that turning back seems extremely unlikely. This was my original point re: how inflation doesn't lead good places.

The best solution to all these problems was not further inflation, it was using 9th to DEFLATE lethality in order to get out of the vicious spiral. But GW has adopted precisely the opposite approach, trying to inflate their way out of the problem instead by continuing to increase everything - more lethality, more defense, more more more. I don't think it'll work, but they seem committed to it, so it'll require reconsidering a lot of sacred cows.

There seems to be a lot of push back on the idea of having any T3 veteran units given 2 wounds.

I get that they are aren't supposed to be as tough as Marines, but thats why they are T3 rather than T4.

I think the only way of continuing to have the likes of Aspect Warriors, Incubi, Mandrakes, Celestians, Genestealers etc stand toe to toe with the 2W Marines is to increase the power of their own weapons and also up their wound count to 2W.

It's all well and good trying to come up with unique niche ways to represent a difficulty in killing veteran units from non-space marine factions but will these other methods be more valuable than simply giving them an extra Wound?

And are Sicarans (T3/2W models) standing toe-to-toe with Space Marines these days?

 AnomanderRake wrote:
And are Sicarans (T3/2W models) standing toe-to-toe with Space Marines these days?

Never seen them in action personally but after a quick glance at their datasheet their Strength 4 power swords and 3 attacks will fare far better than a 1W Eldar Banshee hitting with Strength 3 power swords and 2 attacks.

My point is that plenty of units that used to be able to stand toe to toe/annihilate Space Marines are now no longer able to do so and with Marines going to 2W models the gap will increase further.

The likes of Aspect Warriors, Incubi, Genestealers (or any number of other units that should really be capable of standing toe to toe with Marines) should be scary and i hope that they will also get appropriate treatments (whatever that may be) to make a unit of them capable of bringing down a unit of 2W marines.

Not Online!!! wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Crusaderobr wrote:
Aspect warriors have always had special armor that is extremely durable in the fluff. They need to keep them at 1 wound but give them all a 2+ save. The superior technology of Eldar aspect armor needs to be updated.

... you're joking right?

2+ is steep but for a technologically supposed advanced race a 3+ should be in it imo, especially when the speed as defence thing got curbed to the side...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

stratigo wrote:
Two plus saves have very little value in the game currently TBH, they're never worth the points premium GW puts on them

Are you sure about that? Considering terminators, especially the chaos brand, exist and do very well?

Entirely sure. The only unit that has a two plus save that is generally worth it is custodes terminators based on the value of the strategem that allows them to ignor ap 1 and 2.

Terminators have the benefit of being buffed almost every points update since 8th dropped with them almost unplayable. But their value is not in a two plus save that so many armies ignore. It's either the ability to stack invulns, or, for chaos, alpha strike with combi weapons from DS. Their save rarely matters.

Terminators are pretty good in 9th, they finally deflated their points enough to be points efficient.

You're right though that 2+ saves themselves are rarely that great.

When it comes to Eldar infantry I think that they need more movement on basic infantry. Add 1 to all their movement characteristics. Up the shuriken Catapult to 18 inch assault 3, and the aspect version to 24 inch assault 4. Dark Eldar splinter rifles should get 24 inch range, assault 2.

I think a race-wide "always fights first" rule would also help.

So I just had a thought. These new wounds and weapon profiles are in the new starter boxes ? So a new player getting into 40k will put together an army with starter boxes, point to his data sheets inside those starter box and expect to play 2W marines and 3W terminators. And then what are we supposed to tell that player? Opps, all these don't come into play until the proper codexes comes out in October?

This is confusing. And imagine knowing your old marines are going up to 2W and lots of weapons are all getting more devastating in October. Why would you even want to play your army now? Speaking as a CSM player... Its like, why would I want to play my hilariously bad 1W CSM models now when I know they are due for an upgrade by October.

Well, they'll still be hilariously bad with 2W if nothing else changes, so there's that I guess. They might even be worse, as they'll be even more anemic offensively for their points.

Remember how meh intercessors were before doctrines and superdoctrines and relic and reroll bubbles all that jazz to stack on top of their base profiles? CSM will be like that...but even worse, because they won't even have the extra attack and better gun. If all that happens is they get another W, that is.

 cuda1179 wrote:
...I think a race-wide "always fights first" rule would also help.

Would Howling Banshees get Firstest Strike?

Niiru wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Craftworld Infantry: -1 to Hit, plus descent armor

-1 to hit is now a useless ability to have. All it does, at best, is allow for the enemy space marines to both advance, AND fire both profiles on their combi-weapons, without any penalty whatsoever (in the past it would have given a -3 to be hit).

Useless? We went through a whole edition where -1 to Hit was the king of subfaction traits and now the ability is useless? I think your analysis has a strong bias in it.

CW Constructs: High Toughness and Wounds

Mostly it's fairly average toughness, apart from wraithlords. But without the invulnerable saves that other (marine) equivalents have in abundance, they still work out more fragile. Wounds are average at best too, for the points.

T5 is a fairly average Toughness? I don't know what factions you have been playing, but T5 is not that common in most factions I'm aware of.

Drukari Kabal Infantry: -1 to Hit, poor armor, and poor FNP
Drukari Coven Infantry: Better Toughness and FNP
Drukari Cult Infantry: -1 to Hit, bad armor, variable Invulnerable Saves (I would give them 6++ all the time along with the 4++ in melee), poor FNP
Harlequin Infantry: -1 to Hit, good Invulnerable Saves

Harlequins already waste half their points on their ability to have -1 to be hit, multiple times. They can still get to -3 to be hit just with native abilities and powers. It's completely useless. 95% of the time in a game, you already have a -1 to be hit from cover anyway, and so does the enemy. But the enemy got it for free, while you spent actual points on it.

Half their points? More hyperbole I see. And do you think that GW won't cook up some alternate bonuses for all Aeldari if -1 to be Hit becomes part of their core defense?

Suddenly Aeldari are hard to kill, but not because they soak damage like a Space Marine or Death Guard, but because you have a hard time getting a decent smack on them.

Suddenly, Aeldari are exactly as hard to kill after your changes, as they are right now. Which is very easy. The only difference would be they'd probably cost more.

Really? Every Aeldari has -1 to Hit all the time? I'm finding your analysis to be quite flawed by unhappiness about Space Marines.

Your solution is how Eldar worked in 8th. And it worked well. And it balanced the Marines full-rerolls meta fairly well (which is part of the problem - Marine players expect to steamroll opponents or the game isn't 'balanced'). Problem is, it only balanced Marines, the other armies like Tau and Orks were screwed over. This was fixed with the 6's always hit change, but then Eldar still got nerfed into the ground.

And so here we are with 15pt models with guardsman statlines.

The solution for 9th will have to be from saves, unless they remove the cap on modifiers for Eldar in some way. Maybe give all units an invulnerable save, for their 'reflexes', like what Harlequins have.

15 Point Models with Guardsman Statlines? What unit is that? I'm pretty sure there aren't any Aeldari unit with 6 3+ 3+ 3 3 1 1 6 5+ statline. Or are you talking about the fact that a few Aeldari units are T3 Sv5+?

You seem to be distracted by something other than how to make Aeldari seem Aeldari in the rules and a solid defensive ability because Space Marines. I'm not saying it is the best idea in the world, but it certainly isn't trash tier defense. I'm pretty sure there are worst (like a 2+/6++ or a cover save bonus when you are 7+/5++).

Eldenfirefly wrote:
So I just had a thought. These new wounds and weapon profiles are in the new starter boxes ? So a new player getting into 40k will put together an army with starter boxes, point to his data sheets inside those starter box and expect to play 2W marines and 3W terminators. And then what are we supposed to tell that player? Opps, all these don't come into play until the proper codexes comes out in October?

Let's pretend that I'll be encountering that....
If it happened? I'd just play the game & not worry about it. 2W, 3W? (shrugs) I'm already used to & fully able to win vs Primaris. New weapon profiles? (again, shrugs) What's the worst that'll happen? It'll kill my stuff more dead?
So not worth worrying about.
But yes, if the new player was confused I'd explain that the new book will match his cards.

Eldenfirefly wrote:
This is confusing. And imagine knowing your old marines are going up to 2W and lots of weapons are all getting more devastating in October. Why would you even want to play your army now?

Because I play games in the here & now. And my SW/DA/all dread armies? Those are the armies I've currently got dug out of storage.
I'm already able to have fun (and win!) with these armies. So I'm going to get on with the game & not lament that it isn't October yet..

Eldenfirefly wrote:
So I just had a thought. These new wounds and weapon profiles are in the new starter boxes ? So a new player getting into 40k will put together an army with starter boxes, point to his data sheets inside those starter box and expect to play 2W marines and 3W terminators. And then what are we supposed to tell that player? Opps, all these don't come into play until the proper codexes comes out in October?

"The datasheets in the boxes are just to get you started and give you an idea for how you want to build them (weapon profiles). Full rules are in your codex, which you should not buy right now as you get a spanking new one in less than two months. Here, let me show you some ways how to get by without a codex in the meantime (Battlescribe, Wahapedia)."

Eldenfirefly wrote:
This is confusing. And imagine knowing your old marines are going up to 2W and lots of weapons are all getting more devastating in October. Why would you even want to play your army now? Speaking as a CSM player... Its like, why would I want to play my hilariously bad 1W CSM models now when I know they are due for an upgrade by October.

If you enjoy playing your army, go and play games. If not, get another army or do something else.

 alextroy wrote:

Useless? We went through a whole edition where -1 to Hit was the king of subfaction traits and now the ability is useless? I think your analysis has a strong bias in it.

-1 to hit was the king of subfaction traits, because those armies could stack to -2 / -3 / -4, which is actually enough to counter all of the rerolls / high WS/BS that various imperial armies have access to.

This was also before -1 to hit Dense Terrain was ubiquitous.

Most recent game I played, almost every unit on the table had a -1 to hit due to terrain pretty much permanently against shooting (which is all the -1 to hit trait worked for anyway).

ALSO, -1 to hit is no longer a huge issue. If you want to get somewhere fast, then you -want- your opponent to have -1 to hit already, cos it means you don't need to make any tactical decisions between advancing and shooting, or firing all profiles on you weapons or just the most powerful one. You can advance, and fire all profiles, and you have zero detriment. It's actually a net GAIN.

T5 is a fairly average Toughness? I don't know what factions you have been playing, but T5 is not that common in most factions I'm aware of.

Custodians? Death Guard? AdMech?
You know... three of the more common armies, and all are in the top-5 armies in the current meta?

I know, they're fairly unknown options, very niche, doubt anyone's ever heard of them -.0

Half their points? More hyperbole I see. And do you think that GW won't cook up some alternate bonuses for all Aeldari if -1 to be Hit becomes part of their core defense?

More? This is the first bit of hyperbole in what I said. It is, however, a significant portion of their points cost, probably in the realm of 10-20% depending on the unit. Trusting GW to actually fix this is... a big ask, considering their track record.

Really? Every Aeldari has -1 to Hit all the time? I'm finding your analysis to be quite flawed by unhappiness about Space Marines.

Um... the whole point of the comment I was replying to, was that their suggested fix for Eldar was do give them back the -1 to hit buff (which they could already get via alaitoc) but make it more universal as a base-trait. That was... literally the WHOLE POINT of the post. So yes, all Aeldari would have -1 to hit the whole time. Because that was. the. whole. point. of. his. original. post.

Your analysis seems to be quite flawed by your inability to read/think.

15 Point Models with Guardsman Statlines? What unit is that? I'm pretty sure there aren't any Aeldari unit with 6 3+ 3+ 3 3 1 1 6 5+ statline. Or are you talking about the fact that a few Aeldari units are T3 Sv5+?

I was, quite obviously from the context, largely talking about the defensive statlines.

Rangers are 15pts each, for an S3, T3, 1W, 5+ save. And an arguably useless/niche gun. They do get a +1 to their save in cover, but that is not worth 10 points.

Avengers are 14 points each, for an S3, T3, 1W, 4+ save. They do, at least, have a somewhat respectable weapon (relatively speaking).

Guardians and storm guardians are 10 points each, for S3, T3, 1W, 5+sv. Their weapons are just bad, considering they pay 5 points each for them.

All of these units pay for their 2" more movement speed, of course. But then for half the cost, guard get orders. Which is just better, by a huge margin. It's not even close.

You seem to be distracted by something other than how to make Aeldari seem Aeldari in the rules and a solid defensive ability because Space Marines. I'm not saying it is the best idea in the world, but it certainly isn't trash tier defense. I'm pretty sure there are worst (like a 2+/6++ or a cover save bonus when you are 7+/5++).

Um... so you're saying a 2+/6++ is worse than a 5+? ... um, how? And a 5++ is, by definition, better than a 5+ as well.

Unless you're saying that the Eldar unit in your example also has a -1 to be hit, and the other units don't? Ok fine... but when does that situation come up? In a real game, on a table with properly set up terrain, the opponent will have a -1 on most of their units for a significant portion of the game. Which means its a wash, and it comes down to Toughness and Armour Saves (which eldar don't have).

I'm sure someone will respond with some pedantry, or nitpick some minor piece of hyperbole, but none of this is new information it's been well known and documented since 9th edition was released.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
...I think a race-wide "always fights first" rule would also help.

Would Howling Banshees get Firstest Strike?

Good Point..... Perhaps change the Banshees to having the ability to fight twice in any given phase, Once as a first strike and once normally.

Niiru wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

Useless? We went through a whole edition where -1 to Hit was the king of subfaction traits and now the ability is useless? I think your analysis has a strong bias in it.

-1 to hit was the king of subfaction traits, because those armies could stack to -2 / -3 / -4, which is actually enough to counter all of the rerolls / high WS/BS that various imperial armies have access to.

This was also before -1 to hit Dense Terrain was ubiquitous.

Most recent game I played, almost every unit on the table had a -1 to hit due to terrain pretty much permanently against shooting (which is all the -1 to hit trait worked for anyway).

ALSO, -1 to hit is no longer a huge issue. If you want to get somewhere fast, then you -want- your opponent to have -1 to hit already, cos it means you don't need to make any tactical decisions between advancing and shooting, or firing all profiles on you weapons or just the most powerful one. You can advance, and fire all profiles, and you have zero detriment. It's actually a net GAIN.

I appears you play on tables full of Woods, Walls, and Industrial Structures. I must assume you don't have much Obsurcing Terrain on your boards or you are using lots of custom assignment of terrain traits. Either way, seems the issue was the terrain.

T5 is a fairly average Toughness? I don't know what factions you have been playing, but T5 is not that common in most factions I'm aware of.

Custodians? Death Guard? AdMech?
You know... three of the more common armies, and all are in the top-5 armies in the current meta?

I know, they're fairly unknown options, very niche, doubt anyone's ever heard of them -.0

T5 3 Wounds is not common. Custodians are a very elite army, Death Guard are known for their resilience, and AdMech has some T5 models and a whole lot of T3 models also. So 2 out of 20ish armies are mostly T5 and other armies have some infantry units that are T5. Not exactly common.

Half their points? More hyperbole I see. And do you think that GW won't cook up some alternate bonuses for all Aeldari if -1 to be Hit becomes part of their core defense?

More? This is the first bit of hyperbole in what I said. It is, however, a significant portion of their points cost, probably in the realm of 10-20% depending on the unit. Trusting GW to actually fix this is... a big ask, considering their track record.

We will just have to disagree about how much hyperbole you are engaging in. GW isn't as bad as you seem to think. Codex Space Marines was strong, but OK. It was the Supplements turning everything to 13 that broke the game. I have my fingers crossed that they learned a lesson and are pulling back in the new Codex. Either that or pushing up Necrons to the same level. Time will tell.

15 Point Models with Guardsman Statlines? What unit is that? I'm pretty sure there aren't any Aeldari unit with 6 3+ 3+ 3 3 1 1 6 5+ statline. Or are you talking about the fact that a few Aeldari units are T3 Sv5+?

I was, quite obviously from the context, largely talking about the defensive statlines.

Rangers are 15pts each, for an S3, T3, 1W, 5+ save. And an arguably useless/niche gun. They do get a +1 to their save in cover, but that is not worth 10 points.

Avengers are 14 points each, for an S3, T3, 1W, 4+ save. They do, at least, have a somewhat respectable weapon (relatively speaking).

Guardians and storm guardians are 10 points each, for S3, T3, 1W, 5+sv. Their weapons are just bad, considering they pay 5 points each for them.

All of these units pay for their 2" more movement speed, of course. But then for half the cost, guard get orders. Which is just better, by a huge margin. It's not even close.

You cannot point to 4 stats and the point value of a unit and say the point value is wrong. There is so much more to a unit than that. There is far more to Rangers than "defense of a Guardsmen for 3x the points". I'm not saying 5 pt Guardsmen and 15 points Rangers are correct, but those 10 points get you: +1" Mv; +1 WS; +1BS; +1 Ld; Appear Unbidden; Battle Focus; Cameleonline Cloaks; Shuriken Pistols; an 'upgrade' to a S4 Sniper Rifle ; and mostly useless Ancient Doom. So yes, I'm calling your criticism of the cost value of Guardians to Guardmen a bit of hyperbole.

You seem to be distracted by something other than how to make Aeldari seem Aeldari in the rules and a solid defensive ability because Space Marines. I'm not saying it is the best idea in the world, but it certainly isn't trash tier defense. I'm pretty sure there are worst (like a 2+/6++ or a cover save bonus when you are 7+/5++).

Um... so you're saying a 2+/6++ is worse than a 5+? ... um, how? And a 5++ is, by definition, better than a 5+ as well.

Unless you're saying that the Eldar unit in your example also has a -1 to be hit, and the other units don't? Ok fine... but when does that situation come up? In a real game, on a table with properly set up terrain, the opponent will have a -1 on most of their units for a significant portion of the game. Which means its a wash, and it comes down to Toughness and Armour Saves (which eldar don't have).

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
And going by the fluff he didn't beat a single Space Marine by himself when he was a boy.

Ref for that?

During the initial rush to claim the base, Ghazghkull was hit in the head by a Bolter shell -- a shot that pulverised a large section of his cranium and turned a sizable portion of his brain to absolute mush. It was quite possible that the young and profusely bleeding Ghazghkull might have been left for dead then and there but for two circumstances.

Ghazghkull got back to his feet -- a sign of toughness and grit that any Goff respected. Also, it was widely known that a particularly addled Deathskulls Painboy was paying those who brought him fresh material to work with. The carrion birds did not feed on Ghazghkull that day, as his own mob guided him onwards. He was a stumbling wreck and had to hold his bleeding brains in with both hands, but they eventually reached the Deathskulls' outpost of Rustspike. There, his own mob traded Ghazghkull to Mad Dok Grotsnik for the sum total of three teef and a new Choppa.

That's from the warhammer Fandom WIKI. Basically, he never killed a Marine before he at least had his body reassembled by Mad Dok Grotsnik and killed an Ork Warboss which automatically elevates him to the rank of....Warboss.