So far we know:
The First Born Marines are getting another wound
Some weapons are getting improved Stat lines
Some Chapter Tactics are being toned down or adjusted to match 9th Edition
What we don't know:
Any changes to the Angels of Death rules of
*And They Shall Know No Fear
*Bolter Discipline
*Combat Doctrines
*Shock Assault
Points Changes for enhanced units and weapons
The forecast may be bad, but it's not exactly tomorrow's forecast we are looking at here.There is still a lot of information to wait for to determine if GW has struck a good balance of buffs and nerfs or pulled an Iron Hands.
CapRichard wrote: I remember when it was suggested like a bazillion times here to give two wounds to all marines... And now it's done.
So happy to have everyone have the opposite opinion than before.
Hardly anyone has the opposite opinion. Marines having 2 wounds is fine.
Marines having the most overbuffed codex in existence in 8th, and then being the only codex released in 9th, which ALSO contains a large number of significant further buffs, while every other army has to wait at least a year (some more like 3 years) before they even find out if they will be playable in 9th or not - this is what people are objecting to.
Space marine codex should have been done last. Its already more than fine now. Or all armies get a buff via chapter approved or something so the balance is instant and not dragged out.
Well, I'd disagree about it needing to be last, The real problem is the 2.0 codex and then all the stupid repetitive updates in PA books. Had they waited to do doctrines (and give them some more thought), supplements and etc until this book, knowing it and the new edition were coming when they did the 2.0 codex, it'd be much less hostile.
It might have been too much for some, but a year between books and that ridiculous procession of updates was just way too much spam.
Hopefully the codex + supplements will stick so we will never see the latter again.
It also didn't help that the chaos 'revision' was just tidying up organization and not a power up, and a lot of people expected SM 2.0 to just be the same. Adding Phobos and just tweaks.
Insectum7 wrote: Also, I'm not happy that it sometimes becomes more point effective to shoot at vehicles with small arms than at Marines. That's really wierd. Like shooting at a Predator returns a better value when engaging with a bolter. That feels very wrong.
Blame the tourney crowd on that one.
One of the rules that AoS had that they constantly whined about is how certain units can downgrade or outright ignore certain Rend or Damage values. Vehicles and Monsters would have been a perfect place for such a rule to be a bespoke rule for the unit type.
Kanluwen wrote: One of the rules that AoS had that they constantly whined about is how certain units can downgrade or outright ignore certain Rend or Damage values. Vehicles and Monsters would have been a perfect place for such a rule to be a bespoke rule for the unit type.
I'm not sure that would work out well. We have the humble Autocannon at S7 AP -1 D2, a light Anti-Tank Weapon, which would become rather weak and pointless if light tanks and monsters ignored AP -1.
And then there is the Missile Launcher, a true Anti-Tank Weapon that would also be rather weak and pointless if tanks and monsters could ignore AP -2.
Kanluwen wrote: One of the rules that AoS had that they constantly whined about is how certain units can downgrade or outright ignore certain Rend or Damage values. Vehicles and Monsters would have been a perfect place for such a rule to be a bespoke rule for the unit type.
I'm not sure that would work out well. We have the humble Autocannon at S7 AP -1 D2, a light Anti-Tank Weapon, which would become rather weak and pointless if light tanks and monsters ignored AP -1.
And then there is the Missile Launcher, a true Anti-Tank Weapon that would also be rather weak and pointless if tanks and monsters could ignore AP -2.
Ah, but you see there's the joy of things...
Y'know how we're seeing "Blast" weapons added into the game now?
Imagine, if you will, that such weapons(and let's be real here, the Missile Launcher has one anti-tank profile in the form of Krak Missiles when we're talking Imperium) could have "Ignores AP modifiers on targeted Vehicle and/or Monster models".
Autocannons aren't "light anti-tank weapons" by the by. They're anti-infantry but also effective against light vehicles and flyers. Things like Ork Buggies, Tau Piranhas, Taurox, etc would be the targets for them as vehicles.
CapRichard wrote: I remember when it was suggested like a bazillion times here to give two wounds to all marines... And now it's done.
So happy to have everyone have the opposite opinion than before.
Hardly anyone has the opposite opinion. Marines having 2 wounds is fine.
I had the opposite opinion. Or rather, I had the opinion that if Marines went to two wounds then Necrons and Orks should go to two wounds. Instead, Marines got two while even Necron Immortals stayed at one.
That's what pisses me off. As much as I love my (primary army)marines, and in particular my Tactical Squads, there's just a Marine-hur-dur about it that I really dislike.
Don't get me wrong though, I love the fact that Primaris don't totally outshine CSMs now in particular, and I love the fact that Cult Marines will go up to 2W, etc. That's all great. It's the relationship of Marines with Xenos that really, really bugs me.
Are we going to pretend that a Toughness boost back to 5 is nothing? That we don't know how Resurrection Protocols work in the new book?
Undead stuff doesn't get an extra Wound added onto it on the Fantasy side of things, despite the same mentality of "they're undying things!". They get access to bringing things back.
Not when you equip them properly. You could go full specialist close combat squad with them, 10 man in Rhino with 2 mace of contagions and 8 bubotic axes. That will mess up any elite infantry squad. Or if you wanna charge the big stuff, add powerfist, 2 meltaguns, and 2 great plage cleavers. The bonus attack from the special rules from PA really improved them alot.
LOL it really doesn't. They're a 5" unit without movement capabilities/shenanigans and then 2 attacks with zero shooting equipped like that.
Nobody will take the unit seriously even with the wound bonus. They'll charge, not kill whatever it is, and then sit pitifully.
The Rhino gives them plenty of movement. If you do not know how to use a Rhino to get a melee squad in range, then that is a player skill issue, because its pretty easy. They get 3 attacks on the charge, and you could buff them with psychic powers if you desire. We all know 30 attacks at str 5 -2 ap re rolling 1's to wound is pretty decent from a basic infantry squad. It gets even better if you add 2 Flail's of Corruption. Plague Marines also outlast most infantry, especially when they get a bonus wound in 9th codex.
Are we going to pretend that a Toughness boost back to 5 is nothing? That we don't know how Resurrection Protocols work in the new book?
Undead stuff doesn't get an extra Wound added onto it on the Fantasy side of things, despite the same mentality of "they're undying things!". They get access to bringing things back.
I'm not pretending it's nothing. But it's not 2W, and it's not the relationship Crons had with Marines for their first decade of existence. Even Necron Warriors were equal(or tougher) to Marines in toughness before any resurrection ability. My preference would have been Immortals going to T5 2W if Marines went to 2W. As it is bolters are more effective against Immortals than against Marines, and that is something that should not be.
Also, why bring up undead in Fantasy? Why do Necrons have to be undead-in-space?
And we have literally no idea where the current codex lands. If there's no tweaks to strats, points, and so on and doctrines survive as is then, yes, bitch.
If MM stay at 25 it isnt the end of the world. You then make sure a drop pod (5 devs and a pod sit over 260 now) cant get them under 12", which means W1 models who are more durable vs AP0 bolters.
HBs are already moderately more expensive and more efficient vs W2.
yukishiro1 wrote:Well, except that a unit of 10 can delete a knight with mortal wound grenades from 12" away.
Plague genades require a character to be nearby to not be inferior to just shooting your bolter. You don't cost units according to what buffs could be nearby maybe.
Not when you equip them properly. You could go full specialist close combat squad with them, 10 man in Rhino with 2 mace of contagions and 8 bubotic axes. That will mess up any elite infantry squad. Or if you wanna charge the big stuff, add powerfist, 2 meltaguns, and 2 great plage cleavers. The bonus attack from the special rules from PA really improved them alot.
The extra attack is for plague knives only and -1 to hit weapons are terrible on models with just two attacks. Bubotic axes basically turn plague marines into an unbuffed possessed with less movement and no 5++, not exactly something people have been running wild with. Not to mention that all those melee weapons would add 60-100 points to the unit's cost.
And most importantly, they could already do all that since the beginning, and yet no one is using plague marines that way. If they do, it's always blight launchers, bolters and maybe a plasmagun.
My bad, I meant to say flail of corruption, not mace of contagion, not sure why I always mix those 2 up. Also, check your codex under plague marines : vectors of death and disease : if they are armed with a plague knife and bubotic axe, increase attacks characteristic to 2 instead of 1. So 10 man in a Rhino all equipped with plague knife and bubotic axe will get 30 str 5 ap - 2 attacks on the charge, add flail of corruption if you want a little more punch. At 5 more points a model I think its worth it to make them pretty killy in CC. Flail's are optional at a slightly higher cost. They will charge and kill, then they will be harder to get rid of compared to other infantry, especially if you buff them with psychic if you so desire. I am never concerned with what other people run in their lists, ive been playing 40k since 2001, I can tell if something works and what doesn't at this point. Charging a melee squad out of a Rhino is not hard to do.
Insectum7 wrote: I'm not pretending it's nothing. But it's not 2W, and it's not the relationship Crons had with Marines for their first decade of existence. Even Necron Warriors were equal(or tougher) to Marines in toughness before any resurrection ability. My preference would have been Immortals going to T5 2W if Marines went to 2W. As it is bolters are more effective against Immortals than against Marines, and that is something that should not be.
Why should that not be?
Not trying to trap you or anything, I'd just be interested in the logic.
Also, why bring up undead in Fantasy? Why do Necrons have to be undead-in-space?
I bring up undead in Fantasy because both are supernaturally tough enemies that could have Chumbawumba's "Tubthumping" as a theme song.
Undead don't get tons of wounds on 'basic' units. They get tough-ish units that can be resurrected wholesale or that can shrug off wounds or ignore save modifiers(in the case of ghosts). Whether you agree or not, Necrons have a similar design space.
Daedalus81 wrote: And we have literally no idea where the current codex lands. If there's no tweaks to strats, points, and so on and doctrines survive as is then, yes, bitch.
If MM stay at 25 it isnt the end of the world. You then make sure a drop pod (5 devs and a pod sit over 260 now) cant get them under 12", which means W1 models who are more durable vs AP0 bolters.
HBs are already moderately more expensive and more efficient vs W2.
I don't really care about the points. I liked my Immortals at 28 points (and well worth it), and Warriors at 18, when marines were back at 15 during 3rd/4th.
If you're suggesting I'll be happy when I require a Strat to boost the resilience of Immortals you're barking up the wrong tree.
Whatever doctrines, special-rules, etc. they get had better be good.
Insectum7 wrote: I'm not pretending it's nothing. But it's not 2W, and it's not the relationship Crons had with Marines for their first decade of existence. Even Necron Warriors were equal(or tougher) to Marines in toughness before any resurrection ability. My preference would have been Immortals going to T5 2W if Marines went to 2W. As it is bolters are more effective against Immortals than against Marines, and that is something that should not be.
Why should that not be?
Not trying to trap you or anything, I'd just be interested in the logic.
Because it's never been. And because if it's going to be, it represents another step of ongoing degradation of Xenos armies/troops in comparison to marines and I'm very tired of it.
Also, why bring up undead in Fantasy? Why do Necrons have to be undead-in-space?
I bring up undead in Fantasy because both are supernaturally tough enemies that could have Chumbawumba's "Tubthumping" as a theme song.
Undead don't get tons of wounds on 'basic' units. They get tough-ish units that can be resurrected wholesale or that can shrug off wounds or ignore save modifiers(in the case of ghosts). Whether you agree or not, Necrons have a similar design space.
While similar, that doesn't mean they have to follow the same rules. Necron Warriors started out at T5 2+! and could get back up. Why do they have to be less tough than Space Marines? Their resilience was part of their original identity that I really liked. Also. . . veeeery Terminator-like. Necrons have gone from advanced alien metal to aluminum, I guess.
Also, why bring up undead in Fantasy? Why do Necrons have to be undead-in-space?
I bring up undead in Fantasy because both are supernaturally tough enemies that could have Chumbawumba's "Tubthumping" as a theme song.
Undead don't get tons of wounds on 'basic' units. They get tough-ish units that can be resurrected wholesale or that can shrug off wounds or ignore save modifiers(in the case of ghosts). Whether you agree or not, Necrons have a similar design space.
Not...really? Undead had a clear demarcation between the "basic" units that had the crappest statlines possible (Zombies in 6e were equal or worse in all stats to Skavenslaves) and the elite units that did the actual damage. Necron Warriors have always been far to the elite/expensive end of Troops and under 3e-7e Gauss rules were doing a lot of the army's damage themselves.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: ...While similar, that doesn't mean they have to follow the same rules. Necron Warriors started out at T5 3+! and could get back up. Why do they have to be less tough than Space Marines? Their resilience was part of their original identity that I really liked. Also. . . veeeery Terminator-like. Necrons have gone from advanced alien metal to aluminum, I guess.
The decline started when Immortals got moved into Troops; they got knocked back to the 4+ save to differentiate their statlines. There's also the design vision of Necrons as hordes of huge phalanxes vs. Space Marines' depiction as small strike teams, there's some conservation-of-ninjutsu going on there.
Insectum7 wrote: ...While similar, that doesn't mean they have to follow the same rules. Necron Warriors started out at T5 3+! and could get back up. Why do they have to be less tough than Space Marines? Their resilience was part of their original identity that I really liked. Also. . . veeeery Terminator-like. Necrons have gone from advanced alien metal to aluminum, I guess.
The decline started when Immortals got moved into Troops; they got knocked back to the 4+ save to differentiate their statlines. There's also the design vision of Necrons as hordes of huge phalanxes vs. Space Marines' depiction as small strike teams, there's some conservation-of-ninjutsu going on there.
Right, but it's like there's a rule stating that no other troop can be superior to a Space Marine. Move to troops? Gotta nerf it! The only real holdout off the top of my head now is Tyranid Warriors.
About the second part, the interesting thing to me is that the Necron Warrior phalanx was a pretty good build in 3rd/4th ed, when they were superior and pointed more than Space Marines. I really liked that army.
Insectum7 wrote: ...Right, but it's like there's a rule stating that no other troop can be superior to a Space Marine. Move to troops? Gotta nerf it! The only real holdout off the top of my head now is Tyranid Warriors...
Immortals didn't get nerfed on moving to Troops and they retained SM-equivalent stats and better guns until this 9e wound count buff. As to other superior-to-SM Troops Kataphrons and Custodian Guard also still exist, and Harlequins are a borderline case (their statline isn't better than a SM statline but their damage output is vastly better).
Insectum7 wrote: ...Right, but it's like there's a rule stating that no other troop can be superior to a Space Marine. Move to troops? Gotta nerf it! The only real holdout off the top of my head now is Tyranid Warriors...
Immortals didn't get nerfed on moving to Troops and they retained SM-equivalent stats and better guns until this 9e wound count buff. As to other superior-to-SM Troops Kataphrons and Custodian Guard also still exist, and Harlequins are a borderline case (their statline isn't better than a SM statline but their damage output is vastly better).
Before they moved to troops Immortals were T5 and their gun was Assault 2 24". They dropped to T4 with a Rapid Fire gun. Huge nerf.
Harlequins, fair enough. The others are still Imperial.
Insectum7 wrote: ...Right, but it's like there's a rule stating that no other troop can be superior to a Space Marine. Move to troops? Gotta nerf it! The only real holdout off the top of my head now is Tyranid Warriors...
Immortals didn't get nerfed on moving to Troops and they retained SM-equivalent stats and better guns until this 9e wound count buff. As to other superior-to-SM Troops Kataphrons and Custodian Guard also still exist, and Harlequins are a borderline case (their statline isn't better than a SM statline but their damage output is vastly better).
As insectum said, Immortals used to be T5 and their Gauss Blasters used to be Assault 2 24", but then when they become troops their toughness dropped to 4 and their weapons became Rapid Fire 1 24".
Insectum7 wrote: and Harlequins are a borderline case (their statline isn't better than a SM statline but their damage output is vastly better).
I mean I don't disagree Harlequins are good. They are the only Aeldari troops option out of all the races that is even remotely "not terrible".
But their damage is only vastly better -in melee range- which makes a pretty big difference. They are so fragile, and marines have a ton of ways of making sure they dont get into melee range. S4 bolters decimate Eldar, while elder S3/S4 barely scratches marines. (Harlequins are the exception because they are the only source of S5 attacks, but they are also 30% more expensive than marines).
vipoid wrote: ...As insectum said, Immortals used to be T5 and their Gauss Blasters used to be Assault 2 24", but then when they become troops their toughness dropped to 4 and their weapons became Rapid Fire 1 24".
The fact that they got nerfed from "much better than a Space Marine" to "slightly better than a Space Marine" doesn't really make the "no Troops can be better than a Space Marine" theory hold up, though.
vipoid wrote: ...As insectum said, Immortals used to be T5 and their Gauss Blasters used to be Assault 2 24", but then when they become troops their toughness dropped to 4 and their weapons became Rapid Fire 1 24".
The fact that they got nerfed from "much better than a Space Marine" to "slightly better than a Space Marine" doesn't really make the "no Troops can be better than a Space Marine" theory hold up, though.
I don't care if it does or doesn't, honestly.
The thing I care about is the tension with alien foes they encounter (which is why I dont count Custodes or mechanicus) I.e. if five Marines encounter five Dire Avengers, what's the threat level? 5 Necron Warriors used to be a lot more dangerous than they are now. Some gravitas is lost on the xenos side, which imo makes things less dire for the SM which incidentally winds up making SM less interesting as a result.
The basic "dudes" in the Necron book were individually better than marines at one point. That lent a certain feeling of threat that isn't there anymore.
Some Chapter Tactics are being toned down or adjusted to match 9th Edition
We know this? Where has this been released? I hadn't seen anything about traits being nerfed.
Most weren't. But the chapter tactics page is visible on the announcement article, and people played a 'zoom and enhance' trick until it was legible. They're pretty much all known (including deathwatch and the snowflake wolf angels). Alpha Ravens got adjusted to better live with 9th edition rules. It isn't awful, but if you're fighting an army that wants to get close, you might as well not have a chapter tactic.
Crusaderobr wrote: My bad, I meant to say flail of corruption, not mace of contagion, not sure why I always mix those 2 up. Also, check your codex under plague marines : vectors of death and disease : if they are armed with a plague knife and bubotic axe, increase attacks characteristic to 2 instead of 1. So 10 man in a Rhino all equipped with plague knife and bubotic axe will get 30 str 5 ap - 2 attacks on the charge, add flail of corruption if you want a little more punch. At 5 more points a model I think its worth it to make them pretty killy in CC. Flail's are optional at a slightly higher cost. They will charge and kill, then they will be harder to get rid of compared to other infantry, especially if you buff them with psychic if you so desire. I am never concerned with what other people run in their lists, ive been playing 40k since 2001, I can tell if something works and what doesn't at this point. Charging a melee squad out of a Rhino is not hard to do.
If you think that's awesome, wait till you see possessed
Flails interact with DTTFE in crazy ways, making them extremely strong against Imperium. The rest of PM melee isn't terrible but it isn't great either. The main danger is their ability to delete basically anything in the game at up to 12" range with the mortal wound grenade trick if they have the CP and the character nearby.
Insectum7 wrote: ...Right, but it's like there's a rule stating that no other troop can be superior to a Space Marine. Move to troops? Gotta nerf it! The only real holdout off the top of my head now is Tyranid Warriors...
Immortals didn't get nerfed on moving to Troops and they retained SM-equivalent stats and better guns until this 9e wound count buff. As to other superior-to-SM Troops Kataphrons and Custodian Guard also still exist, and Harlequins are a borderline case (their statline isn't better than a SM statline but their damage output is vastly better).
As insectum said, Immortals used to be T5 and their Gauss Blasters used to be Assault 2 24", but then when they become troops their toughness dropped to 4 and their weapons became Rapid Fire 1 24".
Hmm. Mass production (in-story) in order to supply enough Immortals to function as Troops appears to have led to an inferior model.
So in my head, given 10 marines and 10 immortals are the same points now, which whoever goes first wins a fight, ignoring all army wide rules since we dont know what they are yet.
Some Chapter Tactics are being toned down or adjusted to match 9th Edition
We know this? Where has this been released? I hadn't seen anything about traits being nerfed.
Most weren't. But the chapter tactics page is visible on the announcement article, and people played a 'zoom and enhance' trick until it was legible. They're pretty much all known (including deathwatch and the snowflake wolf angels). Alpha Ravens got adjusted to better live with 9th edition rules. It isn't awful, but if you're fighting an army that wants to get close, you might as well not have a chapter tactic.
CapRichard wrote: I remember when it was suggested like a bazillion times here to give two wounds to all marines... And now it's done.
So happy to have everyone have the opposite opinion than before.
Hardly anyone has the opposite opinion. Marines having 2 wounds is fine.
Marines having the most overbuffed codex in existence in 8th, and then being the only codex released in 9th, which ALSO contains a large number of significant further buffs, while every other army has to wait at least a year (some more like 3 years) before they even find out if they will be playable in 9th or not - this is what people are objecting to.
Space marine codex should have been done last. Its already more than fine now. Or all armies get a buff via chapter approved or something so the balance is instant and not dragged out.
is it really to much to ask people to get their facts right before they complain, codex necrons is coming out and roughly the same time.
Oh, thanks Brian. So that means Codex Necrons is bringing all non marine factions up to the same "power level" as their power armor brethren or do I get to ask you to pound sand
is it really to much to ask people to get their facts right before they complain, codex necrons is coming out and roughly the same time.
Ahh, pedantry. The last resort of the desperate debater.
Fine. replace -only- with -first-. Everything else still stands. They shouldn't have been released until everyone else was brought up to their level. Adding more buffs just breaks the game more than it is in their favour.
CapRichard wrote: I remember when it was suggested like a bazillion times here to give two wounds to all marines... And now it's done.
So happy to have everyone have the opposite opinion than before.
Hardly anyone has the opposite opinion. Marines having 2 wounds is fine.
Marines having the most overbuffed codex in existence in 8th, and then being the only codex released in 9th, which ALSO contains a large number of significant further buffs, while every other army has to wait at least a year (some more like 3 years) before they even find out if they will be playable in 9th or not - this is what people are objecting to.
Space marine codex should have been done last. Its already more than fine now. Or all armies get a buff via chapter approved or something so the balance is instant and not dragged out.
is it really to much to ask people to get their facts right before they complain, codex necrons is coming out and roughly the same time.
Crusaderobr wrote: My bad, I meant to say flail of corruption, not mace of contagion, not sure why I always mix those 2 up. Also, check your codex under plague marines : vectors of death and disease : if they are armed with a plague knife and bubotic axe, increase attacks characteristic to 2 instead of 1. So 10 man in a Rhino all equipped with plague knife and bubotic axe will get 30 str 5 ap - 2 attacks on the charge, add flail of corruption if you want a little more punch. At 5 more points a model I think its worth it to make them pretty killy in CC. Flail's are optional at a slightly higher cost. They will charge and kill, then they will be harder to get rid of compared to other infantry, especially if you buff them with psychic if you so desire. I am never concerned with what other people run in their lists, ive been playing 40k since 2001, I can tell if something works and what doesn't at this point. Charging a melee squad out of a Rhino is not hard to do.
If you think that's awesome, wait till you see possessed
My brother was thinking about taking a squad of 20 and footslogging them with buffs from Fabius Bile and a sorcerer
Automatically Appended Next Post: Me personally I am extremely happy with what GW is doing, we live in exciting times and the game is getting updated like never before, old units will feel fresh again, and everyone will be happy when the new codex comes out for whichever faction you play. In the mean time, enjoy those 8th edition psychic awakening games, because every army with a decent list and general behind them kick ass even in 9th.
If offensive output aka bolter discipline get's curbed especially in light of the increased bolter range , after some thought in it, i'd actually be Kind of , fine i guess , with it.
is it really to much to ask people to get their facts right before they complain, codex necrons is coming out and roughly the same time.
Ahh, pedantry. The last resort of the desperate debater.
Fine. replace -only- with -first-. Everything else still stands. They shouldn't have been released until everyone else was brought up to their level. Adding more buffs just breaks the game more than it is in their favour.
it's not pedantry. you made an inaccurate statement and I called you on it. we don't even know if Marines will be the first given necrons and marines are both noted to be "in october" In fact you could make a strong case for necrons being first (and Marines being a late october november stretched release due to the supplements)
Not Online!!! wrote: If offensive output aka bolter discipline get's curbed especially in light of the increased bolter range , after some thought in it, i'd actually be Kind of , fine i guess , with it.
I can't see this happening.
Between the slightly smaller army size and the fact that necrons are getting 'protocols' (they're mentioned in their expanded dynasty codes), doctrines won't be going unless something else replaces them.
They'll probably stick with the fixed progression of doctrines that the FAQ brought, but only because people were 'playing it wrong.'
From a CSM player perspective, I would say this is needed because I honestly don't think CSM is that good right now. Short of bringing absolutely skewed lists like I dunno, 9 obliterators lists with a whole army built around that. A balanced CSM list is honestly not in a very good place right now.
But even bringing up the wounds for a CSM army probably just puts us on a more even tier against other armies. It doesn't make us top tier (unless you count in deathguard which are now a seperate army on its own). Because with doctrines and stuff, loyalists space marines have always been stronger than CSM.
Eldenfirefly wrote: From a CSM player perspective, I would say this is needed because I honestly don't think CSM is that good right now. Short of bringing absolutely skewed lists like I dunno, 9 obliterators lists with a whole army built around that. A balanced CSM list is honestly not in a very good place right now.
But even bringing up the wounds for a CSM army probably just puts us on a more even tier against other armies. It doesn't make us top tier (unless you count in deathguard which are now a seperate army on its own). Because with doctrines and stuff, loyalists space marines have always been stronger than CSM.
Chaos are very strong right now, what kind of list are you bringing? What relics are you bringing? What stratagems are you using? It is up to the player to maximize what the codex and especially Psychic Awakening have to offer. What is this " top tier " that you speak of? There are good players in 40K, and there are bad players. Which one are you? A good player can easily win games with Chaos against Space Marines. Its up to you to max out what Chaos and PA have to offer before your 9th codex hits.
Eldenfirefly wrote: From a CSM player perspective, I would say this is needed because I honestly don't think CSM is that good right now. Short of bringing absolutely skewed lists like I dunno, 9 obliterators lists with a whole army built around that. A balanced CSM list is honestly not in a very good place right now.
But even bringing up the wounds for a CSM army probably just puts us on a more even tier against other armies. It doesn't make us top tier (unless you count in deathguard which are now a seperate army on its own). Because with doctrines and stuff, loyalists space marines have always been stronger than CSM.
Chaos are very strong right now, what kind of list are you bringing? What relics are you bringing? What stratagems are you using? It is up to the player to maximize what the codex and especially Psychic Awakening have to offer. What is this " top tier " that you speak of? There are good players in 40K, and there are bad players. Which one are you? A good player can easily win games with Chaos against Space Marines. Its up to you to max out what Chaos and PA have to offer before your 9th codex hits.
chaos lists are strong more due to essentially explotive shinnagens then actually being good. most chaos players would happily surrender that bs to just be better over all.
Chaos' advantage for a long time has been variety, it's the superfaction you can mix and match most without any disincentives from an incredibly wide range of stratagems and models. That got a bit of a hit in 9th because mixing and matching now costs you, but the faction is still alright.
Basic CSM are usually terrible, though, and putting them at 2W is not likely to change that.
yukishiro1 wrote: Chaos' advantage for a long time has been variety, it's the superfaction you can mix and match most without any disincentives from an incredibly wide range of stratagems and models. That got a bit of a hit in 9th because mixing and matching now costs you, but the faction is still alright.
Basic CSM are usually terrible, though, and putting them at 2W is not likely to change that.
They've been pretty good in 8th. I play them a lot, and have had more fun than I ever did with them in 7th. Terminators are great (now way better staying at 23 ppm and gaining a third wound) with a great variety of weapons and playstyles. Obliterators, were obviously very good to begin with, but become amazeballs when they're paired with either an Apostle or a Sorcerer. Havoks were hella fun this edition, and I'm hopeful they'll get that second wound along with T5 as they deserve. Hellbrutes were a very underrated unit in 8th as well, I loved loading mine up with Plas and double shooting for 1CP. Even the rank and file CSM were fine, nothing to write home about, but they worked well in my lists (usually bring 3 Squads of 6 (1PlasGun, 1PlasPistol + Chainsword [SGt]) and had a blast with them.
Chosen were great too, I would either go all power swords and bolt pistols, or all meltaguns in a Rhino for some run and gun fun. Or for some charge and chop fun. I really loved how the Monster vehicles worked this edition, but I don't own any so I didn't feth with them too much.
Crusaderobr wrote: Me personally I am extremely happy with what GW is doing, we live in exciting times and the game is getting updated like never before, old units will feel fresh again, and everyone will be happy when the new codex comes out for whichever faction you play. In the mean time, enjoy those 8th edition psychic awakening games, because every army with a decent list and general behind them kick ass even in 9th.
I think we can both agree on that. ;D
I'll just hope the people who came up with kustom jobs will do the ork codex, and not whoever was in charge of doing the 9th edition FAQs. The difference in quality between those is insane.
it's not pedantry. you made an inaccurate statement and I called you on it. we don't even know if Marines will be the first given necrons and marines are both noted to be "in october" In fact you could make a strong case for necrons being first (and Marines being a late october november stretched release due to the supplements)
Serious question for you, think long and hard about it: who cares?
What consolation would all the other xenos players who still have to wait before getting a codex to put them on par with Marines get if Necrons do come first? Does that detract from their point?
I'm actually glad that Marines are going up to two wounds universally because I want them to play and feel like an elite army. But I am in no way blind to the fact that Marines are the strongest army and have been since their 2.0 update, and your nitpicking just looks like a poor attempt to put a smokescreen around that fact.
Do you really find it so difficult to believe that people playing factions that are not nearly as well-supported as yours might be resentful towards Marines?
Crusaderobr wrote: Me personally I am extremely happy with what GW is doing, we live in exciting times and the game is getting updated like never before, old units will feel fresh again, and everyone will be happy when the new codex comes out for whichever faction you play. In the mean time, enjoy those 8th edition psychic awakening games, because every army with a decent list and general behind them kick ass even in 9th.
I think we can both agree on that. ;D
I'll just hope the people who came up with kustom jobs will do the ork codex, and not whoever was in charge of doing the 9th edition FAQs. The difference in quality between those is insane.
I've said many a time that when it comes time to get a codex the most important thing possiable is that the writer is passionate about the lore of the army.
Crusaderobr wrote: Me personally I am extremely happy with what GW is doing, we live in exciting times and the game is getting updated like never before, old units will feel fresh again, and everyone will be happy when the new codex comes out for whichever faction you play. In the mean time, enjoy those 8th edition psychic awakening games, because every army with a decent list and general behind them kick ass even in 9th.
I think we can both agree on that. ;D
I'll just hope the people who came up with kustom jobs will do the ork codex, and not whoever was in charge of doing the 9th edition FAQs. The difference in quality between those is insane.
I've said many a time that when it comes time to get a codex the most important thing possiable is that the writer is passionate about the lore of the army.
To bad that rumor has it that one of the developers actively hate orks and drukhari...
The last thing we need is something like Matt Ward's 7th edition ork codex, written by a person that hated orks, didn't want to write the book and still had to do it.
Crusaderobr wrote: Me personally I am extremely happy with what GW is doing, we live in exciting times and the game is getting updated like never before, old units will feel fresh again, and everyone will be happy when the new codex comes out for whichever faction you play. In the mean time, enjoy those 8th edition psychic awakening games, because every army with a decent list and general behind them kick ass even in 9th.
I think we can both agree on that. ;D
I'll just hope the people who came up with kustom jobs will do the ork codex, and not whoever was in charge of doing the 9th edition FAQs. The difference in quality between those is insane.
I've said many a time that when it comes time to get a codex the most important thing possiable is that the writer is passionate about the lore of the army.
To bad that rumor has it that one of the developers actively hate orks and drukhari...
The last thing we need is something like Matt Ward's 7th edition ork codex, written by a person that hated orks, didn't want to write the book and still had to do it.
Oh there's always some rumor about somebody hating this faction or being a huge fanboy for this other faction or blah blah blah. Who knows how many people actually get their hands on these books now. I seriously doubt one guy not liking Orkz is likely to have much affect on the book as a whole.
Crusaderobr wrote: Me personally I am extremely happy with what GW is doing, we live in exciting times and the game is getting updated like never before, old units will feel fresh again, and everyone will be happy when the new codex comes out for whichever faction you play. In the mean time, enjoy those 8th edition psychic awakening games, because every army with a decent list and general behind them kick ass even in 9th.
I think we can both agree on that. ;D
I'll just hope the people who came up with kustom jobs will do the ork codex, and not whoever was in charge of doing the 9th edition FAQs. The difference in quality between those is insane.
I've said many a time that when it comes time to get a codex the most important thing possiable is that the writer is passionate about the lore of the army.
To bad that rumor has it that one of the developers actively hate orks and drukhari...
The last thing we need is something like Matt Ward's 7th edition ork codex, written by a person that hated orks, didn't want to write the book and still had to do it.
I'm like 99% sure it wasn't Marr Ward that touched Orks.
yukishiro1 wrote: Flails interact with DTTFE in crazy ways, making them extremely strong against Imperium. The rest of PM melee isn't terrible but it isn't great either. The main danger is their ability to delete basically anything in the game at up to 12" range with the mortal wound grenade trick if they have the CP and the character nearby.
As a Marine player I'm annoyed, but for probably kind of an odd reason.
My lament for most of 8th was that I'd bought any Firstborn at all. The writing was on the wall, they're on borrowed time, they look funny next to the better proportioned Primaris, I increasingly wasn't finding a place for them in my lists, etc, etc.
If I'd read the writing on the wall right from the get-go and not bought any Firstborn I'd now be looking at those tiny old Marine models and contemplating buying a couple of boxes of Devastators, a few packs of the old-style jump packs and special weapons, and the appropriate Intercessors/Assault Intercessors/Bladeguard to use as base models for Tactical, Devastator, Assault, and Veteran squads the wouldn't look funny next to Primaris now that they're also two wounds.
That's an awful impulse to have because it sounds like a fun project that I kind of want to do anyway but it's a lot of money and I really don't like replacing models that I already own and have painted.
And on top of all that it hints at loyalist Firstborn getting new kits to match the CSM refresh (and the salt over new Marine kits coming out when so many Xenos kits are ancient is deep enough already) or the Firstborn and Primaris lines just getting rolled together at some point in the future (and that makes the argument that the Primaris should have just been a line update in the first place even more compelling because if they do it now it's the worst possible way GW could have gone about doing it from a customer's perspective). There isn't a win there.
Oh there's always some rumor about somebody hating this faction or being a huge fanboy for this other faction or blah blah blah. Who knows how many people actually get their hands on these books now. I seriously doubt one guy not liking Orkz is likely to have much affect on the book as a whole.
I enjoy the universe where GW maliciously tweaks rules for sales, but also allows one person to singleandedly sink a whole army.
yukishiro1 wrote: Flails interact with DTTFE in crazy ways, making them extremely strong against Imperium. The rest of PM melee isn't terrible but it isn't great either. The main danger is their ability to delete basically anything in the game at up to 12" range with the mortal wound grenade trick if they have the CP and the character nearby.
This was FAQd to not happen.
Where? If you mean the recent FAQ re: additional hits, that covers rules that generate additional hits on a specific hit roll, which doesn't apply to this situation.
Daedalus81 wrote: I enjoy the universe where GW maliciously tweaks rules for sales, but also allows one person to singleandedly sink a whole army.
I think GW do books by committee now, with some playtesters they may or may not ignore, so its less of an issue.
But there were undoubtedly books historically that suggested they just didn't like the faction. Usually they'd consist of unit entry after unity entry which was just "this is a guy with a gun. This is a guy with a sword. This is another guy with a slightly different gun. They all does what it says on the tin."
Then you'd get another faction (Eldar say hi) where the codex seems a letter of love. Almost every unit would have some/half a page of special rules "to represent the fluff", with the result that a small selection of units were usually sufficiently busted they could carry the faction for an edition.
I can understand GW not wanting to steal all their thunder - and they probably dislike having to reveal the Marines (and some Necron) changes this early. But it would probably be better - imo anyway - to reveal what they are going to do for everyone, if they have a plan (which, from the playtesters, you'd assume was the case.)
I think the Necron repackage leaks look good (points depending.)
But much of the Indomitus stuff by contrast... doesn't. So some big reveals would be nice.
Yeah it is absolutely true that the old, single-author books would have definite tones and agendas that varied based on how much the author cared about the faction.
They don't do that any more, the 8th edition releases are much more professional in not letting the biases of the writers show. Though the quality itself was still all over the place, particularly for the PA releases and, obviously, the SM 2.0 + supplement debacle.
Crusaderobr wrote: Me personally I am extremely happy with what GW is doing, we live in exciting times and the game is getting updated like never before, old units will feel fresh again, and everyone will be happy when the new codex comes out for whichever faction you play. In the mean time, enjoy those 8th edition psychic awakening games, because every army with a decent list and general behind them kick ass even in 9th.
I think we can both agree on that. ;D
I'll just hope the people who came up with kustom jobs will do the ork codex, and not whoever was in charge of doing the 9th edition FAQs. The difference in quality between those is insane.
I've said many a time that when it comes time to get a codex the most important thing possiable is that the writer is passionate about the lore of the army.
To bad that rumor has it that one of the developers actively hate orks and drukhari...
The last thing we need is something like Matt Ward's 7th edition ork codex, written by a person that hated orks, didn't want to write the book and still had to do it.
I'm like 99% sure it wasn't Marr Ward that touched Orks.
It wasn't. The Ward 'ork' connection is actually the 7th edition WHFB orc and goblin book. That's the book he didn't want to do. (And him saying so was apparently in a WD interview/article about it)
stratigo wrote: I'm ambivilent on most marines getting more wounds.
But I hate death guard getting another wound. It's bad for the game. Death guard were already a sleeper hit. They're pretty much number 1 now.
If Marines get a Wound -Death Guard absolutely have to have another one!
Logically, yes. It would not make sense for all marines but Death guard getting 2 wounds. The issue it that with an army wide FNP and many ways to buff it, the basic plague marine soon gets an effective 4 or more wounds a model. And this isn't taking into account their terminators. Plague marines are going to have to start costing a handful of points shy of custodes to reflect their actual value. And they won't.
It does seem problematic. It's going to be hard to tread the line between making sure they cost enough to not be overpowered, without making them so expensive that they cease to be useful as troops.
If 1W on a tactical is worth 3 points, +1W on a PM with a 5+++ has to be worth at least double that, and arguably more with the way the missions are set up right now. So you're getting up into 25ish points a model territory before any gear.
stratigo wrote: Logically, yes. It would not make sense for all marines but Death guard getting 2 wounds. The issue it that with an army wide FNP and many ways to buff it, the basic plague marine soon gets an effective 4 or more wounds a model. And this isn't taking into account their terminators. Plague marines are going to have to start costing a handful of points shy of custodes to reflect their actual value. And they won't.
There aren't "many" ways to buff their FNP, the only way they can get to an effective wound count of "4 or more" is by spending 2 CP per phase while having a specific character near them that was upgraded by a stratagem limited to a specific plague company.
And even then, they still don't do damage comparable to any other marine unit, let a lone a custodes, not to mention that they don't get an army trait that actually does anything, unlike every other loyal marine in existence.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: It does seem problematic. It's going to be hard to tread the line between making sure they cost enough to not be overpowered, without making them so expensive that they cease to be useful as troops.
If 1W on a tactical is worth 3 points, +1W on a PM with a 5+++ has to be worth at least double that, and arguably more with the way the missions are set up right now. So you're getting up into 25ish points a model territory before any gear.
Math at it's finest. A 5+++ is the equivalent of multiplying wounds by 1.5 under perfect conditions, so the extra wound should cost more than twice as much?
yukishiro1 wrote: It does seem problematic. It's going to be hard to tread the line between making sure they cost enough to not be overpowered, without making them so expensive that they cease to be useful as troops.
If 1W on a tactical is worth 3 points, +1W on a PM with a 5+++ has to be worth at least double that, and arguably more with the way the missions are set up right now. So you're getting up into 25ish points a model territory before any gear.
Math at it's finest. A 5+++ is the equivalent of multiplying wounds by 1.5 under perfect conditions, so the extra wound should cost more than twice as much?
Oh there's always some rumor about somebody hating this faction or being a huge fanboy for this other faction or blah blah blah. Who knows how many people actually get their hands on these books now. I seriously doubt one guy not liking Orkz is likely to have much affect on the book as a whole.
I enjoy the universe where GW maliciously tweaks rules for sales, but also allows one person to singleandedly sink a whole army.
the only kind of universe we should want to live in.
Math at it's finest. A 5+++ is the equivalent of multiplying wounds by 1.5 under perfect conditions, so the extra wound should cost more than twice as much?
GW makes units often pay for potential, not just raw avarges. Melee weapons for example often were costed, as if models with them always got in to melee, and got to use them. Why shouldn't GW do the same to units saves. If a unit has a, potentialy buffed, ++5 sv, then in GW eyes this very well mean they think the model just got 1/3 more resilient.
yukishiro1 wrote: It does seem problematic. It's going to be hard to tread the line between making sure they cost enough to not be overpowered, without making them so expensive that they cease to be useful as troops.
If 1W on a tactical is worth 3 points, +1W on a PM with a 5+++ has to be worth at least double that, and arguably more with the way the missions are set up right now. So you're getting up into 25ish points a model territory before any gear.
Math at it's finest. A 5+++ is the equivalent of multiplying wounds by 1.5 under perfect conditions, so the extra wound should cost more than twice as much?
1.33, surely?
It's very close to 1.5 because you can make multiple successful DR rolls for the same wound. 1.33 would imply that you only make one DR roll per wound, which is not the case.
stratigo wrote: Logically, yes. It would not make sense for all marines but Death guard getting 2 wounds. The issue it that with an army wide FNP and many ways to buff it, the basic plague marine soon gets an effective 4 or more wounds a model. And this isn't taking into account their terminators. Plague marines are going to have to start costing a handful of points shy of custodes to reflect their actual value. And they won't.
There aren't "many" ways to buff their FNP, the only way they can get to an effective wound count of "4 or more" is by spending 2 CP per phase while having a specific character near them that was upgraded by a stratagem limited to a specific plague company.
And even then, they still don't do damage comparable to any other marine unit, let a lone a custodes, not to mention that they don't get an army trait that actually does anything, unlike every other loyal marine in existence.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: It does seem problematic. It's going to be hard to tread the line between making sure they cost enough to not be overpowered, without making them so expensive that they cease to be useful as troops.
If 1W on a tactical is worth 3 points, +1W on a PM with a 5+++ has to be worth at least double that, and arguably more with the way the missions are set up right now. So you're getting up into 25ish points a model territory before any gear.
Math at it's finest. A 5+++ is the equivalent of multiplying wounds by 1.5 under perfect conditions, so the extra wound should cost more than twice as much?
That's not how unit value is determined, because that's not how the game math actually works. +1 attack on an ork boy isn't worth the same points as +1 attack on a space marine captain. Stats interact with one another.
In this case, the fact that wounds don't carry over from model to model (much less from unit to unit) has tremendous implications for how valuable a 5+++ actually is. For example, a model with a 5+++ requires a lot more 2D shots on average (I think the actual math is something like 1.75x as many) to remove as a model without the 5+++, and, almost equally importantly, it also adds further randomness to how many shots you actually need to devote to a target to remove it, requiring even further overinvestment if you absolutely must get something off an objective.
An ob-sec 2W T5 model with a 5+++ gets way more value from its second W than a T4 model without the 5+++.
Math at it's finest. A 5+++ is the equivalent of multiplying wounds by 1.5 under perfect conditions, so the extra wound should cost more than twice as much?
GW makes units often pay for potential, not just raw avarges. Melee weapons for example often were costed, as if models with them always got in to melee, and got to use them. Why shouldn't GW do the same to units saves. If a unit has a, potentialy buffed, ++5 sv, then in GW eyes this very well mean they think the model just got 1/3 more resilient.
I agree with you here. 25 points would imply a 7 point increase in costs, while tactical marines were increased by 3. As explained above, a 50% higher durability should result in a 50% higher point rise, so 23 points.
Math at it's finest. A 5+++ is the equivalent of multiplying wounds by 1.5 under perfect conditions, so the extra wound should cost more than twice as much?
I think its more complex than that.
Without buffs a W1 model has an 11% chance to survive D2.
That same model with W2 has a 55% chance to survive.
27 Dissie shots kills 10 W2 marines. Against DG its under 6, roughly. A T4 W2 model dies almost twice as often.
yukishiro1 wrote: That's not how unit value is determined, because that's not how the game math actually works. +1 attack on an ork boy isn't worth the same points as +1 attack on a space marine captain. Stats interact with one another.
In this case, the fact that wounds don't carry over from model to model (much less from unit to unit) has tremendous implications for how valuable a 5+++ actually is. For example, a model with a 5+++ requires a lot more 2D shots on average (I think the actual math is something like 1.75x as many) to remove as a model without the 5+++, and, almost equally importantly, it also adds further randomness to how many shots you actually need to devote to a target to remove it, requiring even further overinvestment if you absolutely must get something off an objective.
An ob-sec 2W T5 model with a 5+++ gets way more value from its second W than a T4 model without the 5+++.
Please show your math, because currently you're just making up numbers.
Second, your claim is that an extra wound on a plague marine is worth 2.3 times as much as on a tactical marine so even if the 1.75 you pulled out of nowhere were valid, you are wrong no matter how you put it. I suggested a 1.66 points increase, by the way.
yukishiro1 wrote: It does seem problematic. It's going to be hard to tread the line between making sure they cost enough to not be overpowered, without making them so expensive that they cease to be useful as troops.
If 1W on a tactical is worth 3 points, +1W on a PM with a 5+++ has to be worth at least double that, and arguably more with the way the missions are set up right now. So you're getting up into 25ish points a model territory before any gear.
Math at it's finest. A 5+++ is the equivalent of multiplying wounds by 1.5 under perfect conditions, so the extra wound should cost more than twice as much?
1.33, surely?
It's very close to 1.5 because you can make multiple successful DR rolls for the same wound. 1.33 would imply that you only make one DR roll per wound, which is not the case.
...How, exactly, are you making multiple DR rolls for the same wound? And how does two successful DR rolls make you less dead than one successful DR rolls? Are you pulling a GW and using "wound" for "unsaved wound against a multi-damage attack" here?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: ...In this case, the fact that wounds don't carry over from model to model (much less from unit to unit) has tremendous implications for how valuable a 5+++ actually is. For example, a model with a 5+++ requires a lot more 2D shots on average (I think the actual math is something like 1.75x as many) to remove as a model without the 5+++, and, almost equally importantly, it also adds further randomness to how many shots you actually need to devote to a target to remove it, requiring even further overinvestment if you absolutely must get something off an objective...
When we're talking about exactly D2 attacks, yes, it matters a lot, but there are a lot of weapons in the game that don't have exactly D1.
Please show your math, because currently you're just making up numbers.
Second, your claim is that an extra wound on a plague marine is worth 2.3 times as much as on a plague marine so even if the 1.75 you pulled out of nowhere were valid, you are wrong no matter how you put it. I suggested a 1.66 points increase, by the way.
40k dice roller seems to say it's 1.66x as many 2D shots, so there we go.
I said it was worth at least double. So I dunno where you get the idea that I said a wound on a PM is worth precisely 2.3 times a wound on a tactical. I said 25ish, there's a reason for the ish.
Is +1W on a guardsmen worth the same as +1W on a daemon prince? Presumably everyone agrees it isn't, right? So we need to take into account other statistics when considering value. +1W on a T5 unit is worth more than +1W on a T4 unit, just as +1W on a 5+++ is worth more than +1W without the 5+++. When you combine those two factors, it certainly seems arguable to value an additional wound on a PM at double what it's valued on a tactical, even without getting into more precise nuanced issues like the fact that adding the amount of RNG required to remove a unit is valuable even if the average remains the same, or considering the impact of the possibility of rerolling 1s or even 1s and 2s on DR rules, etc etc.
The whole point of what I wrote is that it's more difficult to value just what 1W on a 5+++ is worth, particularly on an ob-sec unit in a game about holding objectives. I mean if you want to say maybe it should be 5 points, not 6 or 7 as I suggested, maybe it should, I'm not saying that's definitively wrong. The point is it's hard to say; the only thing you can say for sure is it's far more valuable than on a T4 model without the 5+++.
It would help if you could tone down the hostility a bit, it's honestly unpleasant to interact with.
Math at it's finest. A 5+++ is the equivalent of multiplying wounds by 1.5 under perfect conditions, so the extra wound should cost more than twice as much?
I think its more complex than that.
Without buffs a W1 model has an 11% chance to survive D2.
That same model with W2 has a 55% chance to survive.
27 Dissie shots kills 10 W2 marines. Against DG its under 6, roughly. A T4 W2 model dies almost twice as often.
Sorry - I should show the old, too, to frame this.
yukishiro1 wrote: It does seem problematic. It's going to be hard to tread the line between making sure they cost enough to not be overpowered, without making them so expensive that they cease to be useful as troops.
If 1W on a tactical is worth 3 points, +1W on a PM with a 5+++ has to be worth at least double that, and arguably more with the way the missions are set up right now. So you're getting up into 25ish points a model territory before any gear.
Math at it's finest. A 5+++ is the equivalent of multiplying wounds by 1.5 under perfect conditions, so the extra wound should cost more than twice as much?
1.33, surely?
It's very close to 1.5 because you can make multiple successful DR rolls for the same wound. 1.33 would imply that you only make one DR roll per wound, which is not the case.
...How, exactly, are you making multiple DR rolls for the same wound? And how does two successful DR rolls make you less dead than one successful DR rolls? Are you pulling a GW and using "wound" for "unsaved wound against a multi-damage attack" here?
I'm using wound for wounds on the statline. Let me explain.
A plague marine as he is today has a ~33% chance to ignore a 1 damage unsaved wound. If he survives, he has another 33% percent chance to ignore the next one damage unsaved wound, after that he has another chance of 33% of ignoring a one damage unsaved wound, and so on.
So the effective number of addition wounds would be calculated by adding all those possible chains of successful saves up, so .33 + .33^2 + .33^3 + .33^4 + ... + .33^n. Eventually the chance of those chains are really close to zero and can just be ignored. The result is somewhere near 0.5
In the end if plague marines go up to 2 wounds, you could have these chains for both of them. You would effectively end up with 2+(2x0.5) wounds. Obviously the actual result on the tabletop gets muddied by overkill and dice luck.
Math at it's finest. A 5+++ is the equivalent of multiplying wounds by 1.5 under perfect conditions, so the extra wound should cost more than twice as much?
I think its more complex than that.
Without buffs a W1 model has an 11% chance to survive D2.
That same model with W2 has a 55% chance to survive.
27 Dissie shots kills 10 W2 marines. Against DG its under 6, roughly. A T4 W2 model dies almost twice as often.
Sorry - I should show the old, too, to frame this.
So unless i've done the math wrong it seems like DG get no massive increase versus D2.
D1 is where the wounds are twice as good. So, yea, I concede to a smaller increase than initially thought reasonable.
Thanks for doing the math on this
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: It would help if you could tone down the hostility a bit, it's honestly unpleasant to interact with.
If you feel like asking you to show your math and calling you out on contradictory numbers in your own argument is "hostility", I don't know what to tell you.
27*2/3*1/2*5/6=7.5. You've then got a 1/9 chance to make two 5+++ saves and keep the model alive. So we can sort of treat it as another 8/9 modifier. Giving you 6.666 dead plague marines.
Going to to two wounds it gets more complicated, because you've still got your 1/9 chance to save all damage but now you have an additional 4/9 chance to only take 1 damage. And having taken 1 damage, you eat the 2 damage shot even if both subsequently go through.
If damage wasn't wasted, I think you'd expect to lose 5 plague marines, which in turn means its probably more like 4.5~ or something.
Please show your math, because currently you're just making up numbers.
Second, your claim is that an extra wound on a plague marine is worth 2.3 times as much as on a plague marine so even if the 1.75 you pulled out of nowhere were valid, you are wrong no matter how you put it. I suggested a 1.66 points increase, by the way.
If you can't see what's hostile about this (or what was hostile about the original post, for that matter), I don't know what to tell you, to borrow your phrase. But I don't want to get sidetracked onto that. It was just a request, you don't have to be more pleasant if you don't want to be.
I explained where my numbers came from. It wasn't from nowhere. You're welcome to disagree with it if you want, though it seems you chose not to respond to it at all instead (which is also fine and up to you).
I like the change overall. I am glad that space marines are moving from the Jack-of-all-Trades faction to more of a heavy infantry style faction. My hope will be that space marines play a more kill to make up for their small numbers to control the board type faction being inherently weak at initial objective control. If that's the case, I do see some players having a bad time trying to say use static gunlines of lasguns to remove marines rather than just outnumbering them on objectives and feeding the woodchipper so to speak. Even if GW gets everything right, I can see some not being happy their armies X amount of points don't remove the like amount of marines when they should be uses all those bodies to steal points away from them.
I also think their is something to be say for the scissors (marines) vs. rock (D2 weapons) vs. 1w models (paper) game. Done right, this could further help horde armies have the numbers to win via objective attrition since any D2 weapon is overkill. I have my doubts it work out that way epscially since some of the smaller factions just don't have the options to play that rock/paper/scissors game. That, and chances are 9th is going to be at least as lethal as 8th.
I do think 2 wounds may actually hurt Thousands Sons. Certainly the D2 weapon meta is going to increase even if there aren't more D2 weapons made in 9th. Rubrics are probably going to pay extra points for that wound only be more likely to be targeted by weapons that remove All Is Dust. They may have to take Cultists and/or Gors just to have the bodies to have some ability to control a portion of the table. All the while making excellent targets for D1 weapons.
As for Death Guard. I have to agree that between the low numbers and slow speed, it's probably best to just intercept them before they can get where they want to be and tarpit them in melee. Conversely, any faction that can't be more than a speed bump is probably going to have try and outnumber/obsec them on objectives where they can.
I think for some players there is going to have to be a fundamental change in the way they view how to play 40k moving away from how to quickly do I remove my opponent's forces off the table to how do I control more of the objectives while also working toward collecting my secondaries. Especially in 9th ed, I think the one/two dimension(s) math-hammer of whose more lethal/resilient is a flawed way of assessing any given unit's value. Even though lethality has gone up, I think the ability score/deny objective points is more important than ever in 40k.
But it is still very early days of the edition and very little of the important information make these decisions is simply not available.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote: I like the change overall. I am glad that space marines are moving from the Jack-of-all-Trades faction to more of a heavy infantry style faction. My hope will be that space marines play a more kill to make up for their small numbers to control the board type faction being inherently weak at initial objective control. If that's the case, I do see some players having a bad time trying to say use static gunlines of lasguns to remove marines rather than just outnumbering them on objectives and feeding the woodchipper so to speak. Even if GW gets everything right, I can see some not being happy their armies X amount of points don't remove the like amount of marines when they should be uses all those bodies to steal points away from them.
If that's the case, I do see some players having a bad time trying to say use static gunlines of lasguns to remove marines rather than just outnumbering them on objectives and feeding the woodchipper so to speak.
stratigo wrote: Logically, yes. It would not make sense for all marines but Death guard getting 2 wounds. The issue it that with an army wide FNP and many ways to buff it, the basic plague marine soon gets an effective 4 or more wounds a model. And this isn't taking into account their terminators. Plague marines are going to have to start costing a handful of points shy of custodes to reflect their actual value. And they won't.
There aren't "many" ways to buff their FNP, the only way they can get to an effective wound count of "4 or more" is by spending 2 CP per phase while having a specific character near them that was upgraded by a stratagem limited to a specific plague company.
And even then, they still don't do damage comparable to any other marine unit, let a lone a custodes, not to mention that they don't get an army trait that actually does anything, unlike every other loyal marine in existence.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: It does seem problematic. It's going to be hard to tread the line between making sure they cost enough to not be overpowered, without making them so expensive that they cease to be useful as troops.
If 1W on a tactical is worth 3 points, +1W on a PM with a 5+++ has to be worth at least double that, and arguably more with the way the missions are set up right now. So you're getting up into 25ish points a model territory before any gear.
Math at it's finest. A 5+++ is the equivalent of multiplying wounds by 1.5 under perfect conditions, so the extra wound should cost more than twice as much?
In my estimation, death guard are, as of this change, the best army in the game bar none. No loyalist marines beat them. Not iron hands, not salamanders.
Also a squad of combat plague marines trounces custodes guard with these changes.
I'm just saying there's more involved in a unit's utility than its ability to kill.
In Aos, I play a Slaves to Darkness Chaos Undivided Warrior and Knight heavy army. It hits like a wet noodle. At the same time, it does take a bit of effort to shift. If I play to remove my opponent's forces, I will never win a game. Shifting to playing the mission and controlling the table though has me doing much better than what is regarded as a low tier faction.
If players want to try and play 9th edition like they played previous editions, I think a lot of them are going to have a bad time. I don't think it should come to much of a surprise that lasguns/autorifle don't do much to tough/well armored opponents.
Imperial Guard, like my Genestealer Cult, is going to have to prepare to use their Troop slots to hold objectives/ground maybe causing the occasional opportunity wound. I do think trying force Troop vs. Troop killing the same amount per point is the wrong way to go about things.
yukishiro1 wrote: It does seem problematic. It's going to be hard to tread the line between making sure they cost enough to not be overpowered, without making them so expensive that they cease to be useful as troops.
If 1W on a tactical is worth 3 points, +1W on a PM with a 5+++ has to be worth at least double that, and arguably more with the way the missions are set up right now. So you're getting up into 25ish points a model territory before any gear.
Math at it's finest. A 5+++ is the equivalent of multiplying wounds by 1.5 under perfect conditions, so the extra wound should cost more than twice as much?
1.33, surely?
Going from one wound to 2 wounds for a 5+++ is effectively getting 3 (very slightly more than),
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah it is absolutely true that the old, single-author books would have definite tones and agendas that varied based on how much the author cared about the faction.
They don't do that any more, the 8th edition releases are much more professional in not letting the biases of the writers show. Though the quality itself was still all over the place, particularly for the PA releases and, obviously, the SM 2.0 + supplement debacle.
it's clear even now when the folks managing a codex have a vision and passion for the army.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Let's just hope that there's someone with some passion/vision when it comes to the Tyranids.
I don't want Cruddace 4: Revenge of the Bland.
I agree completely. 'nids IMHO should be an insanely flexable army. 'nids (much like modern Marines) should be an army that you sit down to play against and won't know what you're fighting until you show up because there's so many differant avenues you can take with them
H.B.M.C. wrote: Let's just hope that there's someone with some passion/vision when it comes to the Tyranids.
I don't want Cruddace 4: Revenge of the Bland.
I agree completely. 'nids IMHO should be an insanely flexable army. 'nids (much like modern Marines) should be an army that you sit down to play against and won't know what you're fighting until you show up because there's so many differant avenues you can take with them
I can't remember too well, but didn't older editions lay it on thick with purchased upgrades / adaptations?
The ethos for Tyranid design should be about adaptability, by way of the old phrase "Anything you can do I can do better!".
[EDIT]: Sort of. The 3rd Ed Tyranid 'Dex had a whole section on customised hive fleets. It didn't really work because, like any situation where you have to "give up" things you were never intending to take in the first place, you didn't lose anything for making the most of the rules. So Tyranid custom swarms ended up having as few species as possible so as to maximise the amount of Rending Claw super-Gaunts you could take (only take three species - HT, Carnifex & Gaunts = 1 in ever 3 Gaunts can have rending claws!).
4th gave us tons of biomorph options... on the Carnifex kit. The Carnifex was the star of the show, and Phil Kelly wrote that book so that the only real way to play 'Nids was to buy the new fancy Carnifex kit and play Nidzilla.
It only got worse from there. Current 'Dex is the best in a while, but has so many flaws that it needs an overhaul like Marines are getting.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Let's just hope that there's someone with some passion/vision when it comes to the Tyranids.
I don't want Cruddace 4: Revenge of the Bland.
Completely agree. The game I am looking forward to the most is my space marines vs. a friend of mines Nidzilla army. I want a brutal game with piles of dead marines heroically chipping away at those behemoths. I don't want to have take a quarter less points to maybe make it happen though.
Games Workshop is going to have to figure out a way to my Tyranids, especially the big bugs, resilient enough to be scary. I haven't clue how they could to it though. Increasing Toughness only gets so far, and more Wounds could work if their wasn't mechanics that strip terrain buffs go over a certain amount.
Edit: I wouldn't be opposed to pre-game/Command Phase evolution adaptions (kind of like Canticles) for Tyranids to quickly adjust to their opponent's army. Hopefully, GW would make the options actual options rather than these one or two adaption are worth taking, and the rest aren't outside very corner cases or at all.
stratigo wrote: Logically, yes. It would not make sense for all marines but Death guard getting 2 wounds. The issue it that with an army wide FNP and many ways to buff it, the basic plague marine soon gets an effective 4 or more wounds a model. And this isn't taking into account their terminators. Plague marines are going to have to start costing a handful of points shy of custodes to reflect their actual value. And they won't.
There aren't "many" ways to buff their FNP, the only way they can get to an effective wound count of "4 or more" is by spending 2 CP per phase while having a specific character near them that was upgraded by a stratagem limited to a specific plague company.
And even then, they still don't do damage comparable to any other marine unit, let a lone a custodes, not to mention that they don't get an army trait that actually does anything, unlike every other loyal marine in existence.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: It does seem problematic. It's going to be hard to tread the line between making sure they cost enough to not be overpowered, without making them so expensive that they cease to be useful as troops.
If 1W on a tactical is worth 3 points, +1W on a PM with a 5+++ has to be worth at least double that, and arguably more with the way the missions are set up right now. So you're getting up into 25ish points a model territory before any gear.
Math at it's finest. A 5+++ is the equivalent of multiplying wounds by 1.5 under perfect conditions, so the extra wound should cost more than twice as much?
In my estimation, death guard are, as of this change, the best army in the game bar none. No loyalist marines beat them. Not iron hands, not salamanders.
Also a squad of combat plague marines trounces custodes guard with these changes.
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah it is absolutely true that the old, single-author books would have definite tones and agendas that varied based on how much the author cared about the faction.
They don't do that any more, the 8th edition releases are much more professional in not letting the biases of the writers show. Though the quality itself was still all over the place, particularly for the PA releases and, obviously, the SM 2.0 + supplement debacle.
it's clear even now when the folks managing a codex have a vision and passion for the army.
Supplements as well. Whoever wrote the Night Lords rules in Faith and Fury must have been taking notes straight out of ADB's trilogy. I really hope they got to write whatever rules Night Lords will be getting in the new csm codex.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote: Completely agree. The game I am looking forward to the most is my space marines vs. a friend of mines Nidzilla army. I want a brutal game with piles of dead marines heroically chipping away at those behemoths. I don't want to have take a quarter less points to maybe make it happen though.
Games Workshop is going to have to figure out a way to my Tyranids, especially the big bugs, resilient enough to be scary. I haven't clue how they could to it though. Increasing Toughness only gets so far, and more Wounds could work if their wasn't mechanics that strip terrain buffs go over a certain amount.
I want my Carnifexes to be tougher than frickin' Rhinos. I want a Hive Tyrant that doesn't vanish the moment a single tip of a claw gets seen from behind cover. I want Trygons that are worth taking. I want to bring my Toxicrene for reasons beyond "It looks cool!". I want there to be a purpose for Raveners. A purpose for Hormagaunts. For our flyers to stop sucking. For Lictors to be awesome (granted they have more of a place in 9th, but even so). I want Scything Talons to do more than give you an extra attack once you get a third/fourth claw (unlike Astartes Chainswords, which give you +1 attack just for having one).
You're right that Toughness/Wounds only goes so far, but if we are going the Toughness route, can the Mawloc/Trygon/Trygon Prime please have toughness values befitting their enormous stature?
I think Custodes vs. Death Guard could be a tough match-up. But I agree with Slayer-Fan. I think Death Guard aren't going to be the powerhouses some think they are. Unless again, players plan to go killing them over playing the objectives. It isn't going to be easy, but what fun would game be if every strategy was easy to accomplish?
stratigo wrote: Logically, yes. It would not make sense for all marines but Death guard getting 2 wounds. The issue it that with an army wide FNP and many ways to buff it, the basic plague marine soon gets an effective 4 or more wounds a model. And this isn't taking into account their terminators. Plague marines are going to have to start costing a handful of points shy of custodes to reflect their actual value. And they won't.
There aren't "many" ways to buff their FNP, the only way they can get to an effective wound count of "4 or more" is by spending 2 CP per phase while having a specific character near them that was upgraded by a stratagem limited to a specific plague company.
And even then, they still don't do damage comparable to any other marine unit, let a lone a custodes, not to mention that they don't get an army trait that actually does anything, unlike every other loyal marine in existence.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: It does seem problematic. It's going to be hard to tread the line between making sure they cost enough to not be overpowered, without making them so expensive that they cease to be useful as troops.
If 1W on a tactical is worth 3 points, +1W on a PM with a 5+++ has to be worth at least double that, and arguably more with the way the missions are set up right now. So you're getting up into 25ish points a model territory before any gear.
Math at it's finest. A 5+++ is the equivalent of multiplying wounds by 1.5 under perfect conditions, so the extra wound should cost more than twice as much?
In my estimation, death guard are, as of this change, the best army in the game bar none. No loyalist marines beat them. Not iron hands, not salamanders.
Also a squad of combat plague marines trounces custodes guard with these changes.
LOL imagine saying that with a straight face.
Every competitive gamer that's bothered to speak up has put, before this change, Death guard in their top 5 armies. Every single one. Many in their top 3, most above marines already.
Yeh if I had to predict a tier based on current rules id say
1.Marines 2. DG 3. AD mech 4. Custodes 5. Quins/Eldar
Mind you i dont know how hard these were hit by points respectively apart from how everything was hit across the board by a hike. Just going on how in my experiance they can cap and deny priamries as well as move to egt secondaries.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I want my Carnifexes to be tougher than frickin' Rhinos. I want a Hive Tyrant that doesn't vanish the moment a single tip of a claw gets seen from behind cover. I want Trygons that are worth taking. I want to bring my Toxicrene for reasons beyond "It looks cool!". I want there to be a purpose for Raveners. A purpose for Hormagaunts. For our flyers to stop sucking. For Lictors to be awesome (granted they have more of a place in 9th, but even so). I want Scything Talons to do more than give you an extra attack once you get a third/fourth claw (unlike Astartes Chainswords, which give you +1 attack just for having one).
You're right that Toughness/Wounds only goes so far, but if we are going the Toughness route, can the Mawloc/Trygon/Trygon Prime please have toughness values befitting their enormous stature?
I'm right there with you. I was shocked when I played against that Nidzilla list how few 6 to wound rolls I needed with marine bolt weapons. I assumed it would be every time. I really felt that I should have use Hellblasters, maybe even super charged, to reliably put wounds on them. Maybe a reduce X wounds/halve wounds to a mimium of 1 type rule could help.
I am less sure about the damage buffs. Not that I don't think they don't need them, just in our games the Tyranid player didn't get to hit as much of my army to know if it was good or bad. Well beyond the Swarmlord which did some work for him.
I think gaunts/gants will be fine. They might be a bit expensive, but I think as I mentioned, I think 9th is going to see horde units like them better suit to hold objectives rather than win fights generally. I'm unsure about Tyranid flyers, given the increase in terrain density for 9th they should be improved, but I don't know how much terrain rules are going to help keep them around. I haven't dealt with nid flyers enough to know where they stand.
In my estimation, death guard are, as of this change, the best army in the game bar none. No loyalist marines beat them. Not iron hands, not salamanders.
Also a squad of combat plague marines trounces custodes guard with these changes.
Death Guard Plague Marines will be okay with this change, but the real meme dream is to take an Alpha Legion Battalion with a Death Guard detachment added on (probably a spearhead). Take Plague Marines in the Alpha Legion detachment, and now you have a 20 man block of dudes with a 3+, -1 to be shot, 5+++, and two wounds while having access to both Alpha Legion stratagems and the Plague Marine ones from War of the Spider. Just for fun take Fabius Bile with a surgeon acolyte to make them toughness 6 to make guardsmen wound them on a six and Custodes wound them on a four with spears and a five with swords. Now you have an incredibly difficult to shift unit that is deadly in melee, has good board presence due to being able to make use of Alpha Legion strats like forward operatives and renascent infiltration, can use conceal to force their opponent to shoot at something chaffy like cultists, and then gain access to Death Guard stratagems like virulent rounds, putrid fecundity, trench fighters, and miasmal afflictions. Having the Plague Marines in the Alpha Legion detachment also lets you use a Dark Apostle or Chaos Marines sorcerer to buff them.
In my estimation, death guard are, as of this change, the best army in the game bar none. No loyalist marines beat them. Not iron hands, not salamanders.
Also a squad of combat plague marines trounces custodes guard with these changes.
Death Guard Plague Marines will be okay with this change, but the real meme dream is to take an Alpha Legion Battalion with a Death Guard detachment added on (probably a spearhead). Take Plague Marines in the Alpha Legion detachment, and now you have a 20 man block of dudes with a 3+, -1 to be shot, 5+++, and two wounds while having access to both Alpha Legion stratagems and the Plague Marine ones from War of the Spider. Just for fun take Fabius Bile with a surgeon acolyte to make them toughness 6 to make guardsmen wound them on a six and Custodes wound them on a four with spears and a five with swords. Now you have an incredibly difficult to shift unit that is deadly in melee, has good board presence due to being able to make use of Alpha Legion strats like forward operatives and renascent infiltration, can use conceal to force their opponent to shoot at something chaffy like cultists, and then gain access to Death Guard stratagems like virulent rounds, putrid fecundity, trench fighters, and miasmal afflictions. Having the Plague Marines in the Alpha Legion detachment also lets you use a Dark Apostle or Chaos Marines sorcerer to buff them.
The only downside is the lack of mobility.
You can probably cap and hold the 2 primaries on your side but slogging it up the board whilst removing their objectives might be tricky. But yeah I found DG hard as hell to shift with 1W msuDG and pox walkers being pests. 2W DG blobbies are going to be hella nasty to shift.
Oh there's always some rumor about somebody hating this faction or being a huge fanboy for this other faction or blah blah blah. Who knows how many people actually get their hands on these books now. I seriously doubt one guy not liking Orkz is likely to have much affect on the book as a whole.
Do you have a moment to talk about 7th edition orkz?
On a serious note, you can actually see a bit of bias if you look at releases. When was the last time Marines got a new unit that wasn't good on release or relatively quickly (by GW standards) buffed to be at the very least good? "
Now, look at Orkz. On release none of the buggies were very useful, you could make an argument that 2 of them were good but the others were border line bad and the Squig buggy was just utter crap. None got any buffs until CA and it was to give a few price cuts but didn't do much.
Do I believe 1 person has a vendetta against Orkz and that is why they suffer? no. But what I do believe is that GW doesn't have any Ork fanboyz and as such they don't receive the special attention some other factions get.
AL also lets you move then 9" pregame or even pick them up and put them down the following turn. They lose ob-sec though, so I'm not sure it's really worth it overall.
On a serious note, you can actually see a bit of bias if you look at releases. When was the last time Marines got a new unit that wasn't good on release or relatively quickly (by GW standards) buffed to be at the very least good? "
Well Reivers have never set the world on fire, but you're right that is 3 year old model. I can't really say that Incursors are 'very good' either. They're okay, but nothing stand out. At least to me. That was last year. I personally am not finding Assault Intercessors to be that good. To me they are Chaos Space Marines with Bolt Pistol and Chainsword Extra. And I never really found a role for my melee CSM. Sure, Assault Intercessors are much better with damage output, but I don't know if it is worth buying them an Impulsor or footslogging them worthwhile. Assault Intercessor certainly aren't bad. I just wouldn't rate them 'Very Good' either even in comparison to other factions.
On a serious note, you can actually see a bit of bias if you look at releases. When was the last time Marines got a new unit that wasn't good on release or relatively quickly (by GW standards) buffed to be at the very least good? "
Well Reivers have never set the world on fire, but you're right that is 3 year old model. I can't really say that Incursors are 'very good' either. They're okay, but nothing stand out. At least to me. That was last year. I personally am not finding Assault Intercessors to be that good. To me they are Chaos Space Marines with Bolt Pistol and Chainsword Extra. And I never really found a role for my melee CSM. Sure, Assault Intercessors are much better with damage output, but I don't know if it is worth buying them an Impulsor or footslogging them worthwhile. Assault Intercessor certainly aren't bad. I just wouldn't rate them 'Very Good' either even in comparison to other factions.
Incursor mines can be interesting at times. Infiltrators just piss me off though and I need to prioritize them quickly. Assault Intercessors are not amazing, but they're going to eventually sneak up on you and give you an ulcer while you're worrying about other crap.
As for lack luster releases...Aggressors, Inceptors, Redemptors, Repulsors, Reivers, Suppressors, Eliminators, Hellblasters, and the Executioner were all pretty hum drum. None of them got interesting until August 2019. Most of those models waited a very long time for that -definitely not "relatively quickly".
Invictors, Infiltrators, and Impulsors were the models that came out "good", basically because two of them came out with the codex.
In my estimation, death guard are, as of this change, the best army in the game bar none. No loyalist marines beat them. Not iron hands, not salamanders.
Also a squad of combat plague marines trounces custodes guard with these changes.
Death Guard Plague Marines will be okay with this change, but the real meme dream is to take an Alpha Legion Battalion with a Death Guard detachment added on (probably a spearhead). Take Plague Marines in the Alpha Legion detachment, and now you have a 20 man block of dudes with a 3+, -1 to be shot, 5+++, and two wounds while having access to both Alpha Legion stratagems and the Plague Marine ones from War of the Spider. Just for fun take Fabius Bile with a surgeon acolyte to make them toughness 6 to make guardsmen wound them on a six and Custodes wound them on a four with spears and a five with swords. Now you have an incredibly difficult to shift unit that is deadly in melee, has good board presence due to being able to make use of Alpha Legion strats like forward operatives and renascent infiltration, can use conceal to force their opponent to shoot at something chaffy like cultists, and then gain access to Death Guard stratagems like virulent rounds, putrid fecundity, trench fighters, and miasmal afflictions. Having the Plague Marines in the Alpha Legion detachment also lets you use a Dark Apostle or Chaos Marines sorcerer to buff them.
Sounds nasty. Know how gw could avoid that? Go back to the old ways: no marked units for Alpha Legion, Iron Warriors, or Night Lords. So no Alpha Legion Plague Marines. You want cult units? Either play the legion devoted to that particular god or roll Black Legion. A lot of a legions character comes from what it can't take. I'm hoping gw returns to this philosophy, and drops the bland "everybody's the same" view they've had for the legions since the release of the horrid 4th edition csm codex. They did for a short time with the Traitor Legions supplement at the end of 7th, and a lot of the stuff in Faith and Fury was a throwback to that. Please gw, give bring back The Legions we used to have.
Oh there's always some rumor about somebody hating this faction or being a huge fanboy for this other faction or blah blah blah. Who knows how many people actually get their hands on these books now. I seriously doubt one guy not liking Orkz is likely to have much affect on the book as a whole.
Do you have a moment to talk about 7th edition orkz?
On a serious note, you can actually see a bit of bias if you look at releases. When was the last time Marines got a new unit that wasn't good on release or relatively quickly (by GW standards) buffed to be at the very least good? "
Now, look at Orkz. On release none of the buggies were very useful, you could make an argument that 2 of them were good but the others were border line bad and the Squig buggy was just utter crap. None got any buffs until CA and it was to give a few price cuts but didn't do much.
Do I believe 1 person has a vendetta against Orkz and that is why they suffer? no. But what I do believe is that GW doesn't have any Ork fanboyz and as such they don't receive the special attention some other factions get.
Pretty much all the Primaris marine stuff fits. Most (maybe not eliminators, but I'm pretty biased against 3 man units for sheer squishy-ness) were pretty meh-to-outright bad on release. Just basic intercessors took a lot of work and multiple revisions to be worthwhile.
I'm not really following your ork example, since the buggies were buffed in less time than it took to get pretty much the entire primaris line to 'good' (that didn't really happen until codex 2.0, so pretty much all of 8th edition except the last 10 months or so.
Pretty much all the Primaris marine stuff fits. Most (maybe not eliminators, but I'm pretty biased against 3 man units for sheer squishy-ness) were pretty meh-to-outright bad on release. Just basic intercessors took a lot of work and multiple revisions to be worthwhile.
I'm not really following your ork example, since the buggies were buffed in less time than it took to get pretty much the entire primaris line to 'good' (that didn't really happen until codex 2.0, so pretty much all of 8th edition except the last 10 months or so.
And all Primaris were bumped to at the very least "good" maybe not competitive but at least "Good" relatively quickly by GW standards. In contract those buggies, most never got even that far. Their were only 2 that were marginally competitive and the buffs didn't really change that until the very end of 8th where we got almost zero game play with them due to covid teamed with how close to 9th they were released. And lets not even discuss the Mek Workshop
Daedalus81 wrote: very long time for that -definitely not "relatively quickly".
Which is why I purposely added "By GW Standards" because by GDub standards that was lightning fast.
Sure, but I don't think that's a good assessment of bias when it revolves around a single point in time. At the same time IH was the fastest to receive a nerf (3 weeks) and marines may also the quickest to get army wide nerfs -- 5 months.
Oh there's always some rumor about somebody hating this faction or being a huge fanboy for this other faction or blah blah blah. Who knows how many people actually get their hands on these books now. I seriously doubt one guy not liking Orkz is likely to have much affect on the book as a whole.
Do you have a moment to talk about 7th edition orkz?
On a serious note, you can actually see a bit of bias if you look at releases. When was the last time Marines got a new unit that wasn't good on release or relatively quickly (by GW standards) buffed to be at the very least good? "
Now, look at Orkz. On release none of the buggies were very useful, you could make an argument that 2 of them were good but the others were border line bad and the Squig buggy was just utter crap. None got any buffs until CA and it was to give a few price cuts but didn't do much.
Do I believe 1 person has a vendetta against Orkz and that is why they suffer? no. But what I do believe is that GW doesn't have any Ork fanboyz and as such they don't receive the special attention some other factions get.
Do you even play 40k? Here's a list of space marine units that were mediocre to terrible upon release:
Inceptors, Intercessors, Repulsor, Repulsor Executioner, Aggressors(don't forget that before the 2.0 dex NO ONE used aggressors), incursors, suppressors(I misread their datasheet initially and thought they had DOUBLE the number of shots they actually do and still was only so-so on them before the 2.0 dex and the points drops), Redemptors, Reivers. Special mention to Hellblasters that STARTED really good and became terrible.
It took multiple years of CA point drops and the most OP book release in all of 8th to get still only SOME of these working, and even then about half were only temporary. Once the IH nerf came in Suppresors, Redemptors, and both repulsor variants went straight back down into the "decentfor friendly games" category.
Oh there's always some rumor about somebody hating this faction or being a huge fanboy for this other faction or blah blah blah. Who knows how many people actually get their hands on these books now. I seriously doubt one guy not liking Orkz is likely to have much affect on the book as a whole.
Do you have a moment to talk about 7th edition orkz?
On a serious note, you can actually see a bit of bias if you look at releases. When was the last time Marines got a new unit that wasn't good on release or relatively quickly (by GW standards) buffed to be at the very least good? "
Now, look at Orkz. On release none of the buggies were very useful, you could make an argument that 2 of them were good but the others were border line bad and the Squig buggy was just utter crap. None got any buffs until CA and it was to give a few price cuts but didn't do much.
Do I believe 1 person has a vendetta against Orkz and that is why they suffer? no. But what I do believe is that GW doesn't have any Ork fanboyz and as such they don't receive the special attention some other factions get.
Do you even play 40k? Here's a list of space marine units that were mediocre to terrible upon release:
Inceptors, Intercessors, Repulsor, Repulsor Executioner, Aggressors(don't forget that before the 2.0 dex NO ONE used aggressors), incursors, suppressors(I misread their datasheet initially and thought they had DOUBLE the number of shots they actually do and still was only so-so on them before the 2.0 dex and the points drops), Redemptors, Reivers. Special mention to Hellblasters that STARTED really good and became terrible.
It took multiple years of CA point drops and the most OP book release in all of 8th to get still only SOME of these working, and even then about half were only temporary. Once the IH nerf came in Suppresors, Redemptors, and both repulsor variants went straight back down into the "decentfor friendly games" category.
or relatively quickly (by GW standards) buffed to be at the very least good?
You guys seem to be hell bent on ignoring that second part
Pretty much all the Primaris marine stuff fits. Most (maybe not eliminators, but I'm pretty biased against 3 man units for sheer squishy-ness) were pretty meh-to-outright bad on release. Just basic intercessors took a lot of work and multiple revisions to be worthwhile.
I'm not really following your ork example, since the buggies were buffed in less time than it took to get pretty much the entire primaris line to 'good' (that didn't really happen until codex 2.0, so pretty much all of 8th edition except the last 10 months or so.
And all Primaris were bumped to at the very least "good" maybe not competitive but at least "Good" relatively quickly by GW standards. In contract those buggies, most never got even that far. Their were only 2 that were marginally competitive and the buffs didn't really change that until the very end of 8th where we got almost zero game play with them due to covid teamed with how close to 9th they were released. And lets not even discuss the Mek Workshop
No they haven't been. As I mentioned previously, Reivers, incursors, repulsors, repulsor executioners, suppressors, and redemptors are all terrible. People forget that because of the hilariously OP 3 weeks of release Ironhands doing stuff like giving Executioners a 5++ invul and half damage and a bunch of other stuff but since the IH nerf, repulsor executioners are on the same tier as Land Raiders point for point.
Oh there's always some rumor about somebody hating this faction or being a huge fanboy for this other faction or blah blah blah. Who knows how many people actually get their hands on these books now. I seriously doubt one guy not liking Orkz is likely to have much affect on the book as a whole.
Do you have a moment to talk about 7th edition orkz?
On a serious note, you can actually see a bit of bias if you look at releases. When was the last time Marines got a new unit that wasn't good on release or relatively quickly (by GW standards) buffed to be at the very least good? "
Now, look at Orkz. On release none of the buggies were very useful, you could make an argument that 2 of them were good but the others were border line bad and the Squig buggy was just utter crap. None got any buffs until CA and it was to give a few price cuts but didn't do much.
Do I believe 1 person has a vendetta against Orkz and that is why they suffer? no. But what I do believe is that GW doesn't have any Ork fanboyz and as such they don't receive the special attention some other factions get.
Do you even play 40k? Here's a list of space marine units that were mediocre to terrible upon release:
Inceptors, Intercessors, Repulsor, Repulsor Executioner, Aggressors(don't forget that before the 2.0 dex NO ONE used aggressors), incursors, suppressors(I misread their datasheet initially and thought they had DOUBLE the number of shots they actually do and still was only so-so on them before the 2.0 dex and the points drops), Redemptors, Reivers. Special mention to Hellblasters that STARTED really good and became terrible.
It took multiple years of CA point drops and the most OP book release in all of 8th to get still only SOME of these working, and even then about half were only temporary. Once the IH nerf came in Suppresors, Redemptors, and both repulsor variants went straight back down into the "decentfor friendly games" category.
or relatively quickly (by GW standards) buffed to be at the very least good?
You guys seem to be hell bent on ignoring that second part
The part where you failed to commit to actually making a point in order to give yourself free reign to move the goalposts where the hell you feel like it once someone calls you on your nonsensical argument? Yunno the one where you can treat 3 years (the amount of time it took Inceptors to not be garbage) to be 'relatively quickly'?
Here's the part you ignored: HALF OF ALL PRIMARIS UNITS ARE STILL TERRIBLE. Hellblasters are gak, incursors suck, reivers suck, the redemptor is a fething joke compared to a contemptor, or even a standard vendread, repulsors suck, repulsor executioners suck, suppressors suck.
Inceptors came out on release of 8th and were completely worthless until THREE WEEKS AGO. Even then they're just 'okay'.
SemperMortis wrote: Now, look at Orkz. On release none of the buggies were very useful, you could make an argument that 2 of them were good but the others were border line bad and the Squig buggy was just utter crap. None got any buffs until CA and it was to give a few price cuts but didn't do much.
That Ork release was, in my mind, indicative of everything that is wrong with GW's current design ethos at the moment, from both a miniature and rules perspective.
They managed to release 6 new vehicles for the Orks that:
1. From a kit perspective, have exactly one build.
2. From a rules perspective, have exactly zero options.
Orks. The most ramshackle race in the game.
Orks. The race that builds their vehicles out of junk so that no two are exactly alike.
Orks. The race whose Trukk and Battlewagon kit can be built to look completely different to the next one with virtually no effort, and that's before you even get to kitbashing.
6 kits to represent 6 units with zero optional parts/bitz, and no options in their rules.
They've been moving away from highly customizable kits for a while now, haven't they? Seems like more and more releases are, if not technically push-fit, based on the same fixed pose, matched-part principles that push-fit is based off. Swappable heads probably, but often not a lot more than that.
I've noticed that most of the kits I like the best are stuff from between about 2010 and 2016. The stuff after that (and I have no idea if that precise date is right or not, it's just off the top of my head), while the sculpt quality is usually very high, maybe even higher quality than the kits I like best, seems to lack the options than the prior kits had, and therefore they lack the versatility and repeatability that the old stuff has.
The supreme irony being that you consider those units to be "Not good" when other armies would LOVE to have them Since you singled out Hellblasters lets take a look at them currently.
33pts for a Primaris stat line and a 30' Plasma Gun and easy access to a plethora of re-rolls so you never really have to worry about super charging. In your opinion that "sucks".
For comparison, the ork equivalent to a Hellblaster is a Flash Git which is 32pts with a Nob stat line (except BS4) and a 24' Heavy 3 Snazz gun which is S6 -2 2D. To get a reroll you have to pay 5pts for an ammo runt and can only have 2 in a 10 man unit. To keep them alive more than a single turn and have them in range you need to have them in a vehicle or deep striking which regardless lowers your BS back to standard 5+. I don't consider them competitive But I do consider them ok-goodish.
Just because you have a feth ton of other great options doesn't make them "not good" it just means you guys are spoiled for choice.
yukishiro1 wrote: They've been moving away from highly customizable kits for a while now, haven't they? Seems like more and more releases are, if not technically push-fit, based on the same fixed pose, matched-part principles that push-fit is based off. Swappable heads probably, but often not a lot more than that.
Depends. Most of the Primaris infantry kits have had five fixed torso/leg poses, but arms swappable between bodies.
The supreme irony being that you consider those units to be "Not good" when other armies would LOVE to have them Since you singled out Hellblasters lets take a look at them currently.
33pts for a Primaris stat line and a 30' Plasma Gun and easy access to a plethora of re-rolls so you never really have to worry about super charging. In your opinion that "sucks".
For comparison, the ork equivalent to a Hellblaster is a Flash Git which is 32pts with a Nob stat line (except BS4) and a 24' Heavy 3 Snazz gun which is S6 -2 2D. To get a reroll you have to pay 5pts for an ammo runt and can only have 2 in a 10 man unit. To keep them alive more than a single turn and have them in range you need to have them in a vehicle or deep striking which regardless lowers your BS back to standard 5+. I don't consider them competitive But I do consider them ok-goodish.
Just because you have a feth ton of other great options doesn't make them "not good" it just means you guys are spoiled for choice.
I think there's a bit of grass is greener going on there. Those Hellblaster re-rolls ain't free nor guaranteed safe (1 in 36 unless being affected by additional modifiers). They have to over charge to get that precious D2. They are nearly as fragile Flash Gitz but don't really have that great of transport options to hide them (Impulsor limits to 6, 5 if you want that Captain or a Repulsor) and don't really have deep strike options. Sure, they have a 30 inch range, but I haven't ever found that to be that great to keep them alive, and if they move they are down to 1 shot with the RF version.
On the other hand, I think you are short selling Flash Gitz a bit. They got the standard Ork Dakka Dakkka Dakka as well as Gun Crazy Show-Offs to potentially up their number of shots. All of which are delivering Damage 2. Snazzguns deliver enough S and AP to be reasonably scary to heavy infantry. In true Ork fashion, they can be a bit of duds or spike for crazy damage with the high variation. Probably one of the weakest things is they can't pick their Kultur.
So I think these units are closer to each other than you are making them out to be. That's before talking about Flash Gitz generally being more useful in melee than Hellblasters. Something I find happening to my Hellblasters quite a bit to shut them down to choice targets.
yep, I'd prefer the Hellblasters stats and weapons and access to buffs, but yeah, Flash Gitz are ok/goodish as i said
Which means that the Hellblasters are....ok/goodish. Context is everything. To a lot of Marine players, unless its the best thing in that slot than it is garbage. And because they have more options than anyone else, they think of a lot of stuff as garbage that other armies would take in a heart beat.
Automatically Appended Next Post: *SIDE NOTE: For your hellblasters, i'd just stick them in cover. 2+ saves are annoying as feth to play against for my orkz, especially on infantry I don't want to waste Smasha Guns on if i don't have to.
stratigo wrote: In my estimation, death guard are, as of this change, the best army in the game bar none. No loyalist marines beat them. Not iron hands, not salamanders.
Care to back up that statement? So far I'm aware of only one DG player placing in the top 4 of any GT, and he was using an illegal list to do so.
Also a squad of combat plague marines trounces custodes guard with these changes.
Just for comparison:
M WSBS S T W A LdSv 6" 2+ 2+ 5 5 3 3 8 2+/4++/6+++ vs MW 5" 3+ 3+ 4 5 2 1 7 3+/5+++ DR
Custodes get guardian spears, which are +1 S, AP-3 and d3 damage AND can shoot with rapid fire 1 24" S4 AP-1 2 damage. They can have a misericordia for an additional attack. Bubotic axes add one attack and are +1S, AP-2 and 1 damage, plague weapon and +1 attack. The two flails have 1d3 hits for each of their two attacks and are +2S, AP-2 and 2 damage, plague weapon and their damage is not lost to overkill. Neither has any shooting besides grenades.
Most importantly: Plague marines have already had this close combat ability ever since hateful blows was added to them. No one used them despite that because they were as slow melee unit without delivery mechanism and lacked the ability to kill any serious threats. Even with two flails, a unit of 10 only gets an average of 28 S5 and S6 attacks. Doubling their wounds changes nothing about this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
stratigo wrote: Every competitive gamer that's bothered to speak up has put, before this change, Death guard in their top 5 armies. Every single one. Many in their top 3, most above marines already.
You know something they don't here?
Have ever considered that most of those people gave them their ranking because of their nigh unkillable daemon engines, super-resilient terminators, tank-melting blight spawns and powerful daemon princes rather than a mediocre troops unit?
In my estimation, death guard are, as of this change, the best army in the game bar none. No loyalist marines beat them. Not iron hands, not salamanders.
Also a squad of combat plague marines trounces custodes guard with these changes.
Death Guard Plague Marines will be okay with this change, but the real meme dream is to take an Alpha Legion Battalion with a Death Guard detachment added on (probably a spearhead). Take Plague Marines in the Alpha Legion detachment, and now you have a 20 man block of dudes with a 3+, -1 to be shot, 5+++, and two wounds while having access to both Alpha Legion stratagems and the Plague Marine ones from War of the Spider. Just for fun take Fabius Bile with a surgeon acolyte to make them toughness 6 to make guardsmen wound them on a six and Custodes wound them on a four with spears and a five with swords. Now you have an incredibly difficult to shift unit that is deadly in melee, has good board presence due to being able to make use of Alpha Legion strats like forward operatives and renascent infiltration, can use conceal to force their opponent to shoot at something chaffy like cultists, and then gain access to Death Guard stratagems like virulent rounds, putrid fecundity, trench fighters, and miasmal afflictions. Having the Plague Marines in the Alpha Legion detachment also lets you use a Dark Apostle or Chaos Marines sorcerer to buff them.
Sounds nasty. Know how gw could avoid that? Go back to the old ways: no marked units for Alpha Legion, Iron Warriors, or Night Lords. So no Alpha Legion Plague Marines. You want cult units? Either play the legion devoted to that particular god or roll Black Legion. A lot of a legions character comes from what it can't take. I'm hoping gw returns to this philosophy, and drops the bland "everybody's the same" view they've had for the legions since the release of the horrid 4th edition csm codex. They did for a short time with the Traitor Legions supplement at the end of 7th, and a lot of the stuff in Faith and Fury was a throwback to that. Please gw, give bring back The Legions we used to have.
No need. AL Plague Marines are elite instead of troops, which diminishes most of their value. If you charge them, they will struggle to kill whatever attacked them and if the charging unit is objective secured, then the objective i yours.
SemperMortis wrote: Now, look at Orkz. On release none of the buggies were very useful, you could make an argument that 2 of them were good but the others were border line bad and the Squig buggy was just utter crap. None got any buffs until CA and it was to give a few price cuts but didn't do much.
That Ork release was, in my mind, indicative of everything that is wrong with GW's current design ethos at the moment, from both a miniature and rules perspective.
They managed to release 6 new vehicles for the Orks that:
1. From a kit perspective, have exactly one build. 2. From a rules perspective, have exactly zero options.
Orks. The most ramshackle race in the game. Orks. The race that builds their vehicles out of junk so that no two are exactly alike. Orks. The race whose Trukk and Battlewagon kit can be built to look completely different to the next one with virtually no effort, and that's before you even get to kitbashing.
6 kits to represent 6 units with zero optional parts/bitz, and no options in their rules.
What. The. Hell?
Hey, that's not fair. I'm pretty sure the trukk doesn't have a lot of optional bits besides glyphs and vehicle equipment like boarding planks and wreckin' balls and most of the battlewagon' optional bits are just wargear options as well.
All of the buggies besides the scrapjet are build in a way that you can easily pull apart the pipes, engines, wheels, armor plates and other gubbins and re-combine them into a completely new buggy, exactly like people have been doing for trukks and battlewagons for ages. Most of the gretchin, squigs and snotlings on can also be put in different places to change the appearance of the buggy. On the squig buggy you can even re-arrange most of the crew freely. The only thing that's new compared to other ork plastic vehicles is that you have mono-build gunners in extravagant poses, but the gunner of the KBB isn't actually more customizable than the gunner on the trukk,
If you want to customize your buggies, there is certainly just as much room to do so as there is on the trukk.
The Plague Marine talk earlier got me thinking math to figure out how much they should go up in points:
For 1 damage weapons, going to 2 wounds doubles the durability for both Tactical Marines and Plague Marines.
For 2 damage weapons, there is no improvement for Tacticals but it offers a little better than a 50% improved durability for Plague Marines. (It takes on average 1 unsaved D2 shot to kill a 1W Plague Marine, but 1.5069444444 to kill a 2W Plague Marine)
Higher damage weapons still offer no improved durability for regular marines, and a decreasing improvement to durability for plague marines (the higher the damage the more the durability increase approaches 0)
I didn't run the numbers on variable damage weapons, but they should offer a small increase in durability for regular marines, and a larger increase in durability for plague marines.
For Tacticals, a 1W increase in durability is valued at a 20% points increase
That 1W increase for Plague Marines is somewhere between 0 and 50% more valuable, which would equate to a 20-30% points increase.
At 18 points for a Plague Marine currently, that means going up by 3.6-5.4 points.
I would peg 2W Plague Marines as being worth 22-23 points per model.
Well, Tacticals will be on the level of Primaris as far as wounds are concerned.
But they have totally different weaponry with Tacticals having access to assault and heavy weapons.
Moreover, Tacticals can be transported by Razorbacks which themselves can be equipped with decent heavy weapons.
This will shift the meta slightly and we will see more Tacticals in the future.
Not a bad move by GW.
Fnp on multi wound units against multi wound weapons are amazing. Its the most valuable when wounds match the damage. A 5+++ on 2w models against 2d weapons is almost like having 70% extra wounds. 3w models vs 3d weapons it goes even higher. If you are 4w with a 5+++ and fight against a 4d smash captain its almost as if you had 100% extra wounds.
Ofc the value drops a bit when the damage is much higher than the wound total but very few weapons have that high damage. A 5+++ on something like a hive tyrant is about 50% extra wounds no matter the weapon it gets shot by since the 12w makes overkill a non factor most of the time.
Quite happy about it.
There should be no stats difference between SM and primaris SM, 15 year old army or 5 month old army. The switch to primaris was 100% pointless.
The supreme irony being that you consider those units to be "Not good" when other armies would LOVE to have them Since you singled out Hellblasters lets take a look at them currently.
33pts for a Primaris stat line and a 30' Plasma Gun and easy access to a plethora of re-rolls so you never really have to worry about super charging. In your opinion that "sucks".
For comparison, the ork equivalent to a Hellblaster is a Flash Git which is 32pts with a Nob stat line (except BS4) and a 24' Heavy 3 Snazz gun which is S6 -2 2D. To get a reroll you have to pay 5pts for an ammo runt and can only have 2 in a 10 man unit. To keep them alive more than a single turn and have them in range you need to have them in a vehicle or deep striking which regardless lowers your BS back to standard 5+. I don't consider them competitive But I do consider them ok-goodish.
Just because you have a feth ton of other great options doesn't make them "not good" it just means you guys are spoiled for choice.
I think there's a bit of grass is greener going on there. Those Hellblaster re-rolls ain't free nor guaranteed safe (1 in 36 unless being affected by additional modifiers). They have to over charge to get that precious D2. They are nearly as fragile Flash Gitz but don't really have that great of transport options to hide them (Impulsor limits to 6, 5 if you want that Captain or a Repulsor) and don't really have deep strike options. Sure, they have a 30 inch range, but I haven't ever found that to be that great to keep them alive, and if they move they are down to 1 shot with the RF version.
On the other hand, I think you are short selling Flash Gitz a bit. They got the standard Ork Dakka Dakkka Dakka as well as Gun Crazy Show-Offs to potentially up their number of shots. All of which are delivering Damage 2. Snazzguns deliver enough S and AP to be reasonably scary to heavy infantry. In true Ork fashion, they can be a bit of duds or spike for crazy damage with the high variation. Probably one of the weakest things is they can't pick their Kultur.
So I think these units are closer to each other than you are making them out to be. That's before talking about Flash Gitz generally being more useful in melee than Hellblasters. Something I find happening to my Hellblasters quite a bit to shut them down to choice targets.
Pretty much it actually is boiling down to
ANGRY MARINE NOISES
vs
CRYING ORK NOISES
All books have dud options, when did anyone ever use the anti-aircraft marine vehicles? They've been consistently trash since release, land raiders in general have struggled for a long time. Likewise the m/gorkanaught sucked ass for a long while since release compared to a lot of stuff, same with buggies which are now seeing some viability within 3 years.
Maybe my perspective was just different, but hellblasters were kind of meh on launch, and got worse. Plasma is nice, but there were many ways to get cheaper versions in other books, and having an expensive version of someone else's ability is rarely the road to meta dominance.
Aggressors by contrast were *I will end the game unless you deal with me!* but things like Ravagers/Riptides/Plasma went "okay, I'll clear you off for about a 100% points return without breaking a sweat, thanks." The ability to destroy index Orks/GSC/Daemons or weird builds without the shooting ability to handle them didn't impact the meta much.
I guess what I meant was they *they were good* but got meta-ed out.
Whereas hellblasters were always kind of meh. At least for me. There was 3 months of hype that didn't go anywhere.
At one point, all armies had something that made them stand out above other armies.
It was their defining feature that made them who they were.
Marines never fit into this though.
They were a jack of all trades army that could do shooting, mobility, combat, etc.
While they weren’t amazing at it, they had the ability to do most things to a decent standard.
Over time though, they have had options added that bumped up certain aspects of each.
So they went from a jack of all trades army to one that could do everything and to a high level.
The range is that large now and bloated that I honestly don’t think it could be balanced without imploding internal balance.
Most armies have certain units for certain tasks.
Marines now have several for each task.
By toning them down to balance they will make several options redundant as they really can’t differentiate units of the same role enough.
It’s not an excuse for them, it’s just the product of endless releases and bad design ideas for rules.
I'm not sure what you are referring to, but as stated orks have plenty of ways to handle two wound marines.
For some odd reasons people who don't know orks well are trying to come up with obscure solutions to a problem that isn't there. Those "solutions" (lootas, flash gits, shoota boyz) were bad options for handling primaris and will remain bad options to handle firstborns 2.0.
Meanwhile, anything that was doing a good job before keeps doing a good job.
I'm not sure what you are referring to, but as stated orks have plenty of ways to handle two wound marines.
For some odd reasons people who don't know orks well are trying to come up with obscure solutions to a problem that isn't there. Those "solutions" (lootas, flash gits, shoota boyz) were bad options for handling primaris and will remain bad options to handle firstborns 2.0.
Meanwhile, anything that was doing a good job before keeps doing a good job.
In other words: at this point we're all used to dealing with 2W marines, we know what kills them well and what doesn't, and most people make sure to include the stuff that does it well in their lists. More 2W marines won't make that much of a difference.
But it will be nice to finally have the ones that have spikes on a more level playing field with the ones that don't. (Now if they'd just fix those legion traits).
FrozenDwarf wrote: Quite happy about it.
There should be no stats difference between SM and primaris SM, 15 year old army or 5 month old army. The switch to primaris was 100% pointless.
Pointless for whom? Somebody with a 15 year-old army? Yes, indeed.
But Primaris has driven the sales of Marines into unimaginated heights.
yeah. I agree, Primaris was a great way for GW to introduce an entirely new range to their most popular factions in 40k. And they didn't have to end the universe and restart it again like they did in fantasy 40k either. From GW's perspective, Primaris was likely a big win.
Eldenfirefly wrote: yeah. I agree, Primaris was a great way for GW to introduce an entirely new range to their most popular factions in 40k. And they didn't have to end the universe and restart it again like they did in fantasy 40k either. From GW's perspective, Primaris was likely a big win.
Yeah, Primaris gives GW a perfect in for new players: "Starter box marines" with none of those upgrades you might glue on without realizing that your investment is now wasted, slightly improved statlines, for a higher point cost allowing newer players to build their army faster.
IanVanCheese wrote: In a meta where everyone is building to kill marines, and marines have 2W, toughness 5 is a better buff than 2W Immortals.
T5 and a better gun vs 2W, I'll take Immortals over Tacs in a fight anyday.
Yeah I think immortals are balanced vs tacs.
I just think it's weird as feth that between the two of them the distinction is: The necron immortal is more of a glass cannon vs most weapons, and is slightly better at melee. Meanwhile the tactical marine is more durable...than...the necron?
Beardedragon wrote:Unless Boyz, Chaos Space Marines, and basically all other base soldiers receives 2 wounds then no i dont like it.
Space Marines arent able to take more hits than an ork if that shot penetrates their armor.
Csm are going to 2W when we get our new codex. Boyz should too. An ork can keep fighting after it loses its head for crying out loud, they should be pretty hard to kill.
the_scotsman wrote:
IanVanCheese wrote: In a meta where everyone is building to kill marines, and marines have 2W, toughness 5 is a better buff than 2W Immortals.
T5 and a better gun vs 2W, I'll take Immortals over Tacs in a fight anyday.
Yeah I think immortals are balanced vs tacs.
I just think it's weird as feth that between the two of them the distinction is: The necron immortal is more of a glass cannon vs most weapons, and is slightly better at melee. Meanwhile the tactical marine is more durable...than...the necron?
?????
Isn't the idea that Necrons get knocked down but just get back up? Do we know if Reanimation Protocols are getting improved?
I love it, as long as xenos players are treated fairly with the releases of new codexes (I really hope they will be, so that it’ll be fun to play SM again without feeling like an OP idiot).
As long as the game is failry balanced after the releases of all new codexes and stuff, I love the fact that tactical marines can be a decent choice.
The supreme irony being that you consider those units to be "Not good" when other armies would LOVE to have them Since you singled out Hellblasters lets take a look at them currently.
33pts for a Primaris stat line and a 30' Plasma Gun and easy access to a plethora of re-rolls so you never really have to worry about super charging. In your opinion that "sucks".
For comparison, the ork equivalent to a Hellblaster is a Flash Git which is 32pts with a Nob stat line (except BS4) and a 24' Heavy 3 Snazz gun which is S6 -2 2D. To get a reroll you have to pay 5pts for an ammo runt and can only have 2 in a 10 man unit. To keep them alive more than a single turn and have them in range you need to have them in a vehicle or deep striking which regardless lowers your BS back to standard 5+. I don't consider them competitive But I do consider them ok-goodish.
Just because you have a feth ton of other great options doesn't make them "not good" it just means you guys are spoiled for choice.
I think there's a bit of grass is greener going on there. Those Hellblaster re-rolls ain't free nor guaranteed safe (1 in 36 unless being affected by additional modifiers). They have to over charge to get that precious D2. They are nearly as fragile Flash Gitz but don't really have that great of transport options to hide them (Impulsor limits to 6, 5 if you want that Captain or a Repulsor) and don't really have deep strike options. Sure, they have a 30 inch range, but I haven't ever found that to be that great to keep them alive, and if they move they are down to 1 shot with the RF version.
On the other hand, I think you are short selling Flash Gitz a bit. They got the standard Ork Dakka Dakkka Dakka as well as Gun Crazy Show-Offs to potentially up their number of shots. All of which are delivering Damage 2. Snazzguns deliver enough S and AP to be reasonably scary to heavy infantry. In true Ork fashion, they can be a bit of duds or spike for crazy damage with the high variation. Probably one of the weakest things is they can't pick their Kultur.
So I think these units are closer to each other than you are making them out to be. That's before talking about Flash Gitz generally being more useful in melee than Hellblasters. Something I find happening to my Hellblasters quite a bit to shut them down to choice targets.
Sorry, I have to poke my head into this back-and-forth to point out that Rapid Fire Hellblasters do not get two shots when they stand still, Bolter Discipline does not apply to them. Just to be sure you're on the same page you understand, not to support either side of the discussion.
Beardedragon wrote:Unless Boyz, Chaos Space Marines, and basically all other base soldiers receives 2 wounds then no i dont like it.
Space Marines arent able to take more hits than an ork if that shot penetrates their armor.
Csm are going to 2W when we get our new codex. Boyz should too. An ork can keep fighting after it loses its head for crying out loud, they should be pretty hard to kill.
the_scotsman wrote:
IanVanCheese wrote: In a meta where everyone is building to kill marines, and marines have 2W, toughness 5 is a better buff than 2W Immortals.
T5 and a better gun vs 2W, I'll take Immortals over Tacs in a fight anyday.
Yeah I think immortals are balanced vs tacs.
I just think it's weird as feth that between the two of them the distinction is: The necron immortal is more of a glass cannon vs most weapons, and is slightly better at melee. Meanwhile the tactical marine is more durable...than...the necron?
?????
Isn't the idea that Necrons get knocked down but just get back up? Do we know if Reanimation Protocols are getting improved?
No clue, but assuming that they are, let's say, improved to something like "if the whole unit is destroyed, leave the last destroyed model on the tabletop tipped over on its side. If no enemy units are within 1" of that model at the end of the turn, roll for Res Prots for the whole unit" then that still leaves the Space Marine as more durable and the immortal as more damaging vs most weaponry, accounting for the immortal getting Res Prots and the marine getting ATSKNF + Doctrines.
Like I said, it's not imbalanced, it's just weird that marines are getting set up as tanky vs the necrons glass cannons.
Marines getting to 2W base is more of an internal re-balance meant to bring classic Marines at the same level as the Primaris. Immortals have to be balanced against Necron Warriors, while Tacticals have to be balanced against Intercessors.
Who is more tanky depends on the weapon, because damage 2 isn't exactly rare.
Tyran wrote: Marines getting to 2W base is more of an internal re-balance meant to bring classic Marines at the same level as the Primaris. Immortals have to be balanced against Necron Warriors, while Tacticals have to be balanced against Intercessors.
Who is more tanky depends on the weapon, because damage 2 isn't exactly rare.
True, but everyone spamming damage 2 on absolutely everything is a consequence of the dominance of W2 MEQ. Vs a conceivable "normal meta' where people aren't stripping everything D1 out of their list as much as they can, Immortals are considerably less durable than marines.
Normal, standard Ork lists are only spamming the buggies with Flat 3 and Flat 2 damage weapons and Smasha gunz because a huge fraction of the opponent pool is currently running primaris stuff.
Ditto for Drukhari. A list of all Talos+Wracks for Obsec+All Disintegrators is not a "normal" drukhari list. A "Normal" Drukhari list would be running a ton of poison weaponry, which is 2x as effective vs Immortals than vs all MEQ. The problems rn are twofold: 1, everyone is playing marines, 2, poison weaponry is HOLY gak levels of overcosted.
Poison weaponry is arguably the worst designed rule in the game, because it is so damn strong against monsters it has to be overcosted against everything else. They should have totally redesigned it instead of trying to import it from the previous system.
Tyran wrote: Poison weaponry is arguably the worst designed rule in the game, because it is so damn strong against monsters it has to be overcosted against everything else. They should have totally redesigned it instead of trying to import it from the previous system.
That's true for a lot of things. Like giving everything that had the "Armourbane" rule -4AP and then handing invuls out like candy so anti-tank weapons can't work like they should.
Tyran wrote: Poison weaponry is arguably the worst designed rule in the game, because it is so damn strong against monsters it has to be overcosted against everything else. They should have totally redesigned it instead of trying to import it from the previous system.
That's true for a lot of things. Like giving everything that had the "Armourbane" rule -4AP and then handing invuls out like candy so anti-tank weapons can't work like they should.
Everything except Vanquisher tanks, that went from having Armorbane to having nothing.
Tyran wrote: Poison weaponry is arguably the worst designed rule in the game, because it is so damn strong against monsters it has to be overcosted against everything else. They should have totally redesigned it instead of trying to import it from the previous system.
That's true for a lot of things. Like giving everything that had the "Armourbane" rule -4AP and then handing invuls out like candy so anti-tank weapons can't work like they should.
How many things do you really think had "Armourbane"?
Tyran wrote: Poison weaponry is arguably the worst designed rule in the game, because it is so damn strong against monsters it has to be overcosted against everything else. They should have totally redesigned it instead of trying to import it from the previous system.
Yeah poison is positively ridiculous against monsters isn't it? why, if you fire a boltgun at a Carnifex, then a Splinter rifle at a carnifex, the boltgun is....well, it's better if you're at any range over 12", and it's the same if you're in Tactical doctrine because the single wound shift is canceled out by the AP....
...it only takes 32 splinter rifles in rapid fire to bring down a carnifex. A paltry 288 points of Kabalite Warriors, the cheapest splinter platform! If anything it's out of hand and needs nerfed!
Tyran wrote: Poison weaponry is arguably the worst designed rule in the game, because it is so damn strong against monsters it has to be overcosted against everything else. They should have totally redesigned it instead of trying to import it from the previous system.
That's true for a lot of things. Like giving everything that had the "Armourbane" rule -4AP and then handing invuls out like candy so anti-tank weapons can't work like they should.
Part of the reason for invulnerable saves being candy is that damage output against vehicals(more than monsters) has been overtuned for ages.
If those without invulnerable saves die in turn 1 regardless its infuriating that GW can't figure out the reason only invulnerable save vehicals work is because damage is too high, instead they just up the damage output see new multiMeltas
the_scotsman wrote: True, but everyone spamming damage 2 on absolutely everything is a consequence of the dominance of W2 MEQ. Vs a conceivable "normal meta' where people aren't stripping everything D1 out of their list as much as they can, Immortals are considerably less durable than marines.
Normal, standard Ork lists are only spamming the buggies with Flat 3 and Flat 2 damage weapons and Smasha gunz because a huge fraction of the opponent pool is currently running primaris stuff.
It's just a coincidence that ork anti-tank weapons happen to be either flat 3, flat 2 or d6 damage. Actually, one of the two most used buggies has d6 damage, and neither of the flat 2 damage buggy is particularly great at killing primaris.
Ork lists would spam the same buggies against pretty much every army - we don't have the luxury of having multiple viable options that you can move around depending on the meta.
I mean Warhammer community had an article saying they are looking at Xenos. Maybe GW will price stuff according to the marine meta, or if we are really lucky, re-evaluate and possibly fundamentally change core weapon and unit profiles for everyone? I know they have a terrible track record but it would certainly explain the quick fix and mediocre patches we have been receiving. Maybe their biggest brains were secretly overhauling the entire edition this whole time?
Tyran wrote: Poison weaponry is arguably the worst designed rule in the game, because it is so damn strong against monsters it has to be overcosted against everything else. They should have totally redesigned it instead of trying to import it from the previous system.
That's true for a lot of things. Like giving everything that had the "Armourbane" rule -4AP and then handing invuls out like candy so anti-tank weapons can't work like they should.
Everything except Vanquisher tanks, that went from having Armorbane to having nothing.
Ah, the poor Vanquisher.
The Vanquisher and the Punisher are pretty much the posterboys for how confused GW gets about their system math.
macluvin wrote: I mean Warhammer community had an article saying they are looking at Xenos. Maybe GW will price stuff according to the marine meta, or if we are really lucky, re-evaluate and possibly fundamentally change core weapon and unit profiles for everyone? I know they have a terrible track record but it would certainly explain the quick fix and mediocre patches we have been receiving. Maybe their biggest brains were secretly overhauling the entire edition this whole time?
My money is on "Not even weapons that are literally identical except for name (like Fusion Guns and Power Klaws) will get the new changes, they'll all have to wait for the slow codex crawl"
macluvin wrote: I mean Warhammer community had an article saying they are looking at Xenos. Maybe GW will price stuff according to the marine meta, or if we are really lucky, re-evaluate and possibly fundamentally change core weapon and unit profiles for everyone? I know they have a terrible track record but it would certainly explain the quick fix and mediocre patches we have been receiving. Maybe their biggest brains were secretly overhauling the entire edition this whole time?
My money is on "Not even weapons that are literally identical except for name (like Fusion Guns and Power Klaws) will get the new changes, they'll all have to wait for the slow codex crawl"
So, points to you for optimism I guess.
Admittedly I agree that it’ll be some time before we get the big picture, particularly with Xenos. In fact I bet chaos has to wait for their codex too. I figured it might be a good idea to simply release indices like they did at the start of 8th, but if they get the codices right this time around it’ll be worth the wait. I’m trying to be more optimistic this time around.
Tyran wrote: Poison weaponry is arguably the worst designed rule in the game, because it is so damn strong against monsters it has to be overcosted against everything else. They should have totally redesigned it instead of trying to import it from the previous system.
That's true for a lot of things. Like giving everything that had the "Armourbane" rule -4AP and then handing invuls out like candy so anti-tank weapons can't work like they should.
How many things do you really think had "Armourbane"?
Not sure. In my army two. It was just an example. How many things have "Poison"?
macluvin wrote: I mean Warhammer community had an article saying they are looking at Xenos. Maybe GW will price stuff according to the marine meta, or if we are really lucky, re-evaluate and possibly fundamentally change core weapon and unit profiles for everyone? I know they have a terrible track record but it would certainly explain the quick fix and mediocre patches we have been receiving. Maybe their biggest brains were secretly overhauling the entire edition this whole time?
My money is on "Not even weapons that are literally identical except for name (like Fusion Guns and Power Klaws) will get the new changes, they'll all have to wait for the slow codex crawl"
So, points to you for optimism I guess.
Admittedly I agree that it’ll be some time before we get the big picture, particularly with Xenos. In fact I bet chaos has to wait for their codex too. I figured it might be a good idea to simply release indices like they did at the start of 8th, but if they get the codices right this time around it’ll be worth the wait. I’m trying to be more optimistic this time around.
Being optimistic is admirable, the issue is a lot of people are just sick of the last of 8th being get rofl stomped by marines, followed by the pants on head CA2020 and then while GW says nothing we get marines with more powerful weapons and extra wounds.
Talk about not the way to hype up something as being great for all players.
macluvin wrote: I mean Warhammer community had an article saying they are looking at Xenos. Maybe GW will price stuff according to the marine meta, or if we are really lucky, re-evaluate and possibly fundamentally change core weapon and unit profiles for everyone? I know they have a terrible track record but it would certainly explain the quick fix and mediocre patches we have been receiving. Maybe their biggest brains were secretly overhauling the entire edition this whole time?
I also appreciate your optimism. But since GW has tried to "Fix" the Stompa now for...4 editions and hasn't succeeded...i'm not optimistic at all I especially loved how the Ork community kept telling GW that the Stompa was a big pile of garbage and about 200+pts over priced, possibly as high as 300 or more. And GW responded by giving us a 50pt price cut
Tyran wrote: Poison weaponry is arguably the worst designed rule in the game, because it is so damn strong against monsters it has to be overcosted against everything else.
Eh, I have to disagree with that.
It was strong against monsters back in 5th edition, when monsters were almost exclusively 3-4 wounds with a 3+ save at most.
But now we're in 9th edition, where most monsters have twice or even thrice the number of wounds they had in 5th, and many also have 2+ armour saves, 5+ FNP, or both. This also applies to most other targets - with units like Bikes also having their wounds doubled.
So given that Monsters became vastly more durable, how have Poison weapons improved since then? Answer: they haven't. A Splinter Rifle is no more effective than it was in 5th, and Splinter Cannons are actually worse.
Hence, rather than being overcosted against non-monsters, Poison weapons are currently overcosted against everything.
Tyran wrote: They should have totally redesigned it instead of trying to import it from the previous system.
This at least is something I could get behind.
Sadly, it would also require someone at GW to care enough about DE to put some actual thought and effort into the army. In contrast, I look forward to their 9th edition book making heavy use of Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V.
Tyran wrote: Poison weaponry is arguably the worst designed rule in the game, because it is so damn strong against monsters it has to be overcosted against everything else.
Eh, I have to disagree with that.
It was strong against monsters back in 5th edition, when monsters were almost exclusively 3-4 wounds with a 3+ save at most.
But now we're in 9th edition, where most monsters have twice or even thrice the number of wounds they had in 5th, and many also have 2+ armour saves, 5+ FNP, or both. This also applies to most other targets - with units like Bikes also having their wounds doubled.
So given that Monsters became vastly more durable, how have Poison weapons improved since then? Answer: they haven't. A Splinter Rifle is no more effective than it was in 5th, and Splinter Cannons are actually worse.
Hence, rather than being overcosted against non-monsters, Poison weapons are currently overcosted against everything.
Tyran wrote: They should have totally redesigned it instead of trying to import it from the previous system.
This at least is something I could get behind.
Sadly, it would also require someone at GW to care enough about DE to put some actual thought and effort into the army. In contrast, I look forward to their 9th edition book making heavy use of Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V.
Just pray that they don't hit Ctrl+X and then forget the Ctrl+V.
macluvin wrote: I mean Warhammer community had an article saying they are looking at Xenos. Maybe GW will price stuff according to the marine meta, or if we are really lucky, re-evaluate and possibly fundamentally change core weapon and unit profiles for everyone? I know they have a terrible track record but it would certainly explain the quick fix and mediocre patches we have been receiving. Maybe their biggest brains were secretly overhauling the entire edition this whole time?
I also appreciate your optimism. But since GW has tried to "Fix" the Stompa now for...4 editions and hasn't succeeded...i'm not optimistic at all I especially loved how the Ork community kept telling GW that the Stompa was a big pile of garbage and about 200+pts over priced, possibly as high as 300 or more. And GW responded by giving us a 50pt price cut
Better than the 37 PPM "buff" they gave Fellblades in CA2020, though I admit the Stompa is the more overpriced unit by a considerable margin.
the_scotsman wrote:
Kanluwen wrote: The reason I asked about Armourbane is I only knew of two off the top of my head: Transauranic Arquebus for Skitarii and Vanquishers.
Poison was pretty prevalent on Dark Eldar and Tyranid stuff.
Plus scattered around in odd places here and there like needle pistols, GSC weaponry, etc.
Add the Fellblade accelerator cannon's AE shells, Contemptor chainclaws, and chainfists to the list. Hmm, that's three, I forgot about chainfists.
Tyran wrote: Poison weaponry is arguably the worst designed rule in the game, because it is so damn strong against monsters it has to be overcosted against everything else. They should have totally redesigned it instead of trying to import it from the previous system.
That's true for a lot of things. Like giving everything that had the "Armourbane" rule -4AP and then handing invuls out like candy so anti-tank weapons can't work like they should.
Everything except Vanquisher tanks, that went from having Armorbane to having nothing.
Ah, the poor Vanquisher.
The Vanquisher and the Punisher are pretty much the posterboys for how confused GW gets about their system math.
Honorable Mention to the regular Battle Tank, who iirc outdamages the Vanquisher even against its intended targets, and most certainly outdamages it against everything else.
Kanluwen wrote: Yeah, but Fellblade is FW. Not everyone saw those things on the field.
Like I said, I could only think of a small sample compared to Poison which was present as a kind of 'army rule' for some.
True, but I rather enjoyed mine in 7th, unfortunately gw killed that with CA2020. Still, it was just an example of another rule that doesn't quite work right in the new rules we've had since 8th. Another would be assault vehicles. They seem to be trying to address some of these. The change to melta has definitely made it scary again.
Tyran wrote: Poison weaponry is arguably the worst designed rule in the game, because it is so damn strong against monsters it has to be overcosted against everything else.
Eh, I have to disagree with that.
It was strong against monsters back in 5th edition, when monsters were almost exclusively 3-4 wounds with a 3+ save at most.
But now we're in 9th edition, where most monsters have twice or even thrice the number of wounds they had in 5th, and many also have 2+ armour saves, 5+ FNP, or both. This also applies to most other targets - with units like Bikes also having their wounds doubled.
So given that Monsters became vastly more durable, how have Poison weapons improved since then? Answer: they haven't. A Splinter Rifle is no more effective than it was in 5th, and Splinter Cannons are actually worse.
Hence, rather than being overcosted against non-monsters, Poison weapons are currently overcosted against everything.
Tyran wrote: They should have totally redesigned it instead of trying to import it from the previous system.
This at least is something I could get behind.
Sadly, it would also require someone at GW to care enough about DE to put some actual thought and effort into the army. In contrast, I look forward to their 9th edition book making heavy use of Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V.
Just pray that they don't hit Ctrl+X and then forget the Ctrl+V.
Personally I'm a huge fan of the preview that GW is going to be including a separate unit datasheet for "Veteran Intercessors" in the new marine codex.
While I sit here with my units of Bloodbrides and Kabalite Trueborn who haven't existed since the index.
Because "OoooOOOOoooOOO not a REAL unit you just paint the kit different you expect TWO datasheets for ONE kit????"
the_scotsman wrote: Personally I'm a huge fan of the preview that GW is going to be including a separate unit datasheet for "Veteran Intercessors" in the new marine codex.
While I sit here with my units of Bloodbrides and Kabalite Trueborn who haven't existed since the index.
Because "OoooOOOOoooOOO not a REAL unit you just paint the kit different you expect TWO datasheets for ONE kit????"
Didn't we have a supposed picture of "Heavy Intercessors" running around or did I imagine that?
I'm genuinely surprised Veteran Intercessors are getting their own datasheet. We saw the Heavy Intercessors(which I personally liked as a design), but I don't recall seeing a note about the Veterans?
the_scotsman wrote: Personally I'm a huge fan of the preview that GW is going to be including a separate unit datasheet for "Veteran Intercessors" in the new marine codex.
While I sit here with my units of Bloodbrides and Kabalite Trueborn who haven't existed since the index.
Because "OoooOOOOoooOOO not a REAL unit you just paint the kit different you expect TWO datasheets for ONE kit????"
Didn't we have a supposed picture of "Heavy Intercessors" running around or did I imagine that?
Two different data sheets. Heavy intercessors appear to be troops, veteran intercessors are in the elites section. It was spotted in the preview of the codex. Also Relic Terminators, so, Cataphractii and Tartaros becoming one data sheet?
the_scotsman wrote: Personally I'm a huge fan of the preview that GW is going to be including a separate unit datasheet for "Veteran Intercessors" in the new marine codex.
While I sit here with my units of Bloodbrides and Kabalite Trueborn who haven't existed since the index.
Because "OoooOOOOoooOOO not a REAL unit you just paint the kit different you expect TWO datasheets for ONE kit????"
Didn't we have a supposed picture of "Heavy Intercessors" running around or did I imagine that?
Two different data sheets. Heavy intercessors appear to be troops, veteran intercessors are in the elites section. It was spotted in the preview of the codex. Also Relic Terminators, so, Cataphractii and Tartaros becoming one data sheet?
Apparently this is a codex preview I'm not familiar with so I demand you give links. Or else I'll be sad.
the_scotsman wrote: Personally I'm a huge fan of the preview that GW is going to be including a separate unit datasheet for "Veteran Intercessors" in the new marine codex.
While I sit here with my units of Bloodbrides and Kabalite Trueborn who haven't existed since the index.
Because "OoooOOOOoooOOO not a REAL unit you just paint the kit different you expect TWO datasheets for ONE kit????"
Didn't we have a supposed picture of "Heavy Intercessors" running around or did I imagine that?
Two different data sheets. Heavy intercessors appear to be troops, veteran intercessors are in the elites section. It was spotted in the preview of the codex. Also Relic Terminators, so, Cataphractii and Tartaros becoming one data sheet?
Apparently this is a codex preview I'm not familiar with so I demand you give links. Or else I'll be sad.
It was from the one where they flipped through the codex. People got screen shots of some of the pages and deciphered it. Pretty sure it was on dakka. Definitely on B&C.
The Newman wrote: Sorry, I have to poke my head into this back-and-forth to point out that Rapid Fire Hellblasters do not get two shots when they stand still, Bolter Discipline does not apply to them. Just to be sure you're on the same page you understand, not to support either side of the discussion.
Carry on
You're totally correct. I don't run Hellblasters often (partly because they do need a Captain or other to babysit them and your correction) and it was very warm and late when I wrote that comparison. I don't even run the Rapid Fire ones that often leaning on the Assault ones since I don't care as much about Strength as I do AP and Damage to bring down TEQs. I think they can be okay-ish as Semper was getting at.
The Newman wrote: Sorry, I have to poke my head into this back-and-forth to point out that Rapid Fire Hellblasters do not get two shots when they stand still, Bolter Discipline does not apply to them. Just to be sure you're on the same page you understand, not to support either side of the discussion.
Carry on
You're totally correct. I don't run Hellblasters often (partly because they do need a Captain or other to babysit them and your correction) and it was very warm and late when I wrote that comparison. I don't even run the Rapid Fire ones that often leaning on the Assault ones since I don't care as much about Strength as I do AP and Damage to bring down TEQs. I think they can be okay-ish as Semper was getting at.
Warm is an understatement if you're in CA right now...
The Newman wrote: Sorry, I have to poke my head into this back-and-forth to point out that Rapid Fire Hellblasters do not get two shots when they stand still, Bolter Discipline does not apply to them. Just to be sure you're on the same page you understand, not to support either side of the discussion.
Carry on
You're totally correct. I don't run Hellblasters often (partly because they do need a Captain or other to babysit them and your correction) and it was very warm and late when I wrote that comparison. I don't even run the Rapid Fire ones that often leaning on the Assault ones since I don't care as much about Strength as I do AP and Damage to bring down TEQs. I think they can be okay-ish as Semper was getting at.
Warm is an understatement if you're in CA right now...
Western Washington. We didn't hit triple digits but might as well have.
The Newman wrote: Sorry, I have to poke my head into this back-and-forth to point out that Rapid Fire Hellblasters do not get two shots when they stand still, Bolter Discipline does not apply to them. Just to be sure you're on the same page you understand, not to support either side of the discussion.
Carry on
You're totally correct. I don't run Hellblasters often (partly because they do need a Captain or other to babysit them and your correction) and it was very warm and late when I wrote that comparison. I don't even run the Rapid Fire ones that often leaning on the Assault ones since I don't care as much about Strength as I do AP and Damage to bring down TEQs. I think they can be okay-ish as Semper was getting at.
Warm is an understatement if you're in CA right now...
Western Washington. We didn't hit triple digits but might as well have.
the_scotsman wrote: Personally I'm a huge fan of the preview that GW is going to be including a separate unit datasheet for "Veteran Intercessors" in the new marine codex.
While I sit here with my units of Bloodbrides and Kabalite Trueborn who haven't existed since the index.
Because "OoooOOOOoooOOO not a REAL unit you just paint the kit different you expect TWO datasheets for ONE kit????"
The Newman wrote: Sorry, I have to poke my head into this back-and-forth to point out that Rapid Fire Hellblasters do not get two shots when they stand still, Bolter Discipline does not apply to them. Just to be sure you're on the same page you understand, not to support either side of the discussion.
Carry on
You're totally correct. I don't run Hellblasters often (partly because they do need a Captain or other to babysit them and your correction) and it was very warm and late when I wrote that comparison. I don't even run the Rapid Fire ones that often leaning on the Assault ones since I don't care as much about Strength as I do AP and Damage to bring down TEQs. I think they can be okay-ish as Semper was getting at.
Warm is an understatement if you're in CA right now...
Western Washington. We didn't hit triple digits but might as well have.
Yeah, I’m in gig harbor and 90 is miserable when you don’t have ac. We had to go buy a portable unit to keep the baby’s room liveable.
the_scotsman wrote: Personally I'm a huge fan of the preview that GW is going to be including a separate unit datasheet for "Veteran Intercessors" in the new marine codex.
While I sit here with my units of Bloodbrides and Kabalite Trueborn who haven't existed since the index.
Because "OoooOOOOoooOOO not a REAL unit you just paint the kit different you expect TWO datasheets for ONE kit????"
The codex video, though you're better off looking for breakdowns of the images. They're pretty fuzzy in the video itself (contents page, model gallery and chapter tactics/dynasty codes)
In regards to poison, I’d like to see low strength and a reroll to wound.
Pushes them above basic weapons for killing monsters but not to the point it’s insane.
I don’t want a rerun of the DE crap that slaughtered my tyranids for an edition or 2.
The fex has its toughness to save it which against poison, did nothing.
Essentially made it a no chance match up as the big critters that carry the army get gunned down at a worrying rate.
Poison is hard to balance though.
Giving it a fixed wound roll does nothing to weak creatures (which should be the most susceptible to it) but absolutely crippled the huge ones.
I think a low strength with a reroll to wound would help balance that out.
Otherwise they are paying a premium on weapons that are only useful for very specific targets only.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: So that's basically where they got the entry for Vet Intercessors being their own thing?
Bloat for the Bloat God! Rules for the Rule Throne!
I guess? Everything being equal, its actually a downgrade from Veteran Intercessors now, where the upgrade costs CP rather than points and they get Objective Secured because they're still troops.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: So that's basically where they got the entry for Vet Intercessors being their own thing?
Bloat for the Bloat God! Rules for the Rule Throne!
While I'm certainly not defending adding to loyalists already massively bloated elites choices with veteran intercessors, I find the idea of giving them another troops choice with heavy intercessors more annoying. What would that give them, six troops choices? Most armies only have two, some only one. If loyalists need that many troops options then gw should level the playing field a little by making Chosen a troops choice for csm.
Yea, but those choices dont have a ton of variety.
I dont think people would be happy with splinter pistol & blade kabs, kabs that block ds (well, maybe that), S4 18" ap1 poison kabs, kabs with 1 D2 shot, etc
Daedalus81 wrote: Yea, but those choices dont have a ton of variety.
I dont think people would be happy with splinter pistol & blade kabs, kabs that block ds (well, maybe that), S4 18" ap1 poison kabs, kabs with 1 D2 shot, etc
Maybe, but speaking as a csm player, I'd love a troops choice with +1A and leadership with the ability to take a cc weapon in addition to combi-bolters and other special weapons. Chosen are what a true Legionnaire should be. Of course, they would only be available for The Legions.
And we still don't know how "different" these heavy intercessors are going to be compared to loyalists other troops options.
Voss wrote: The codex video, though you're better off looking for breakdowns of the images. They're pretty fuzzy in the video itself (contents page, model gallery and chapter tactics/dynasty codes)
I don't know how anyone could make out the words on that contents page from that video. It's way to blurry.
As a chaos player I'm fine with chaos having just CSMs as a troop choice, so long as the basic CSMs are good. a return to the days of being able to have a bolt gun AND chain sword would be a nice start. that'd bring CSM squads up to a squad with 2 wounds 4T 4S 3+ a boltgun and 2 -1 AP melee attacks. which would feel VERY solid
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: So that's basically where they got the entry for Vet Intercessors being their own thing?
Bloat for the Bloat God! Rules for the Rule Throne!
While I'm certainly not defending adding to loyalists already massively bloated elites choices with veteran intercessors, I find the idea of giving them another troops choice with heavy intercessors more annoying. What would that give them, six troops choices? Most armies only have two, some only one. If loyalists need that many troops options then gw should level the playing field a little by making Chosen a troops choice for csm.
Oh trust me I've been all for CSM at minimum having Vet stats and for consolidation of Marine entries (frankly, nobody asked for Incursors and nobody cares about them, AND they get less mileage with caps at modifying hits anyway, so why not just...get rid of them?). Vet Intercessors was fine as a Strat as it took up super little room and was clear and concise. Making them their own entry is frankly a slap in the face to DEldar players wanting their Trueborn and Bloodbrides back.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: So that's basically where they got the entry for Vet Intercessors being their own thing?
Bloat for the Bloat God! Rules for the Rule Throne!
While I'm certainly not defending adding to loyalists already massively bloated elites choices with veteran intercessors, I find the idea of giving them another troops choice with heavy intercessors more annoying. What would that give them, six troops choices? Most armies only have two, some only one. If loyalists need that many troops options then gw should level the playing field a little by making Chosen a troops choice for csm.
Yeah seriously. Space marines had ENOUGH units. Just update rules or make new models. Example, why are eradicators their own unit, instead of just a type of aggressor? So much bloat.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: So that's basically where they got the entry for Vet Intercessors being their own thing?
Bloat for the Bloat God! Rules for the Rule Throne!
While I'm certainly not defending adding to loyalists already massively bloated elites choices with veteran intercessors, I find the idea of giving them another troops choice with heavy intercessors more annoying. What would that give them, six troops choices? Most armies only have two, some only one. If loyalists need that many troops options then gw should level the playing field a little by making Chosen a troops choice for csm.
Yeah seriously. Space marines had ENOUGH units. Just update rules or make new models. Example, why are eradicators their own unit, instead of just a type of aggressor? So much bloat.
Gw seems intent on having a different data sheet for every possible loyalist loadout. Why couldn't they just have given intercessors the option to trade their bolters for chainswords like csm instead of creating a different troops choice for assault intercessors? If you don't like this I have some bad news for you: the leaked contents page for the new Loyalist Scum codex features two data sheets for Predators, three for the new floating "not a Predator", and three for the new primaris land speeder. Seems they're doubling down on this approach.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: So that's basically where they got the entry for Vet Intercessors being their own thing?
Bloat for the Bloat God! Rules for the Rule Throne!
While I'm certainly not defending adding to loyalists already massively bloated elites choices with veteran intercessors, I find the idea of giving them another troops choice with heavy intercessors more annoying. What would that give them, six troops choices? Most armies only have two, some only one. If loyalists need that many troops options then gw should level the playing field a little by making Chosen a troops choice for csm.
Yeah seriously. Space marines had ENOUGH units. Just update rules or make new models. Example, why are eradicators their own unit, instead of just a type of aggressor? So much bloat.
Gw seems intent on having a different data sheet for every possible loyalist loadout. Why couldn't they just have given intercessors the option to trade their bolters for chainswords like csm instead of creating a different troops choice for assault intercessors? If you don't like this I have some bad news for you: the leaked contents page for the new Loyalist Scum codex features two data sheets for Predators, three for the new floating "not a Predator", and three for the new primaris land speeder. Seems they're doubling down on this approach.
because intercessors don't have chainswords in the box.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: So that's basically where they got the entry for Vet Intercessors being their own thing?
Bloat for the Bloat God! Rules for the Rule Throne!
While I'm certainly not defending adding to loyalists already massively bloated elites choices with veteran intercessors, I find the idea of giving them another troops choice with heavy intercessors more annoying. What would that give them, six troops choices? Most armies only have two, some only one. If loyalists need that many troops options then gw should level the playing field a little by making Chosen a troops choice for csm.
Yeah seriously. Space marines had ENOUGH units. Just update rules or make new models. Example, why are eradicators their own unit, instead of just a type of aggressor? So much bloat.
Gw seems intent on having a different data sheet for every possible loyalist loadout. Why couldn't they just have given intercessors the option to trade their bolters for chainswords like csm instead of creating a different troops choice for assault intercessors? If you don't like this I have some bad news for you: the leaked contents page for the new Loyalist Scum codex features two data sheets for Predators, three for the new floating "not a Predator", and three for the new primaris land speeder. Seems they're doubling down on this approach.
Which wouldn't, honestly, be an issue, were it not for the Rule of Three.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: So that's basically where they got the entry for Vet Intercessors being their own thing?
Bloat for the Bloat God! Rules for the Rule Throne!
While I'm certainly not defending adding to loyalists already massively bloated elites choices with veteran intercessors, I find the idea of giving them another troops choice with heavy intercessors more annoying. What would that give them, six troops choices? Most armies only have two, some only one. If loyalists need that many troops options then gw should level the playing field a little by making Chosen a troops choice for csm.
Yeah seriously. Space marines had ENOUGH units. Just update rules or make new models. Example, why are eradicators their own unit, instead of just a type of aggressor? So much bloat.
Gw seems intent on having a different data sheet for every possible loyalist loadout. Why couldn't they just have given intercessors the option to trade their bolters for chainswords like csm instead of creating a different troops choice for assault intercessors? If you don't like this I have some bad news for you: the leaked contents page for the new Loyalist Scum codex features two data sheets for Predators, three for the new floating "not a Predator", and three for the new primaris land speeder. Seems they're doubling down on this approach.
Which wouldn't, honestly, be an issue, were it not for the Rule of Three.
rule of 3 mind you is why this data sheet approuch is proably for the best. any army that was flexable and used the same unit for multiple roles could be really screwed over by the rule of 3.
BrianDavion wrote: ...rule of 3 mind you is why this data sheet approuch is proably for the best. any army that was flexable and used the same unit for multiple roles could be really screwed over by the rule of 3.
Yes and no. The issue here is that the Rule of 3 itself is kind of a dumb idea; the main reason it exists is to prevent HQ-spam, but what it ends up doing is unfairly punishing people whose vehicles don't come in squadrons (why are 12 Leman Russes all right but 4 Onagers not?).
BrianDavion wrote: ...rule of 3 mind you is why this data sheet approuch is proably for the best. any army that was flexable and used the same unit for multiple roles could be really screwed over by the rule of 3.
Yes and no. The issue here is that the Rule of 3 itself is kind of a dumb idea; the main reason it exists is to prevent HQ-spam, but what it ends up doing is unfairly punishing people whose vehicles don't come in squadrons (why are 12 Leman Russes all right but 4 Onagers not?).
honestly I agree. and the marines codex leaks, IMHO suggest GW is prepping to retire the rule of 3
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: So that's basically where they got the entry for Vet Intercessors being their own thing?
Bloat for the Bloat God! Rules for the Rule Throne!
While I'm certainly not defending adding to loyalists already massively bloated elites choices with veteran intercessors, I find the idea of giving them another troops choice with heavy intercessors more annoying. What would that give them, six troops choices? Most armies only have two, some only one. If loyalists need that many troops options then gw should level the playing field a little by making Chosen a troops choice for csm.
Yeah seriously. Space marines had ENOUGH units. Just update rules or make new models. Example, why are eradicators their own unit, instead of just a type of aggressor? So much bloat.
Gw seems intent on having a different data sheet for every possible loyalist loadout. Why couldn't they just have given intercessors the option to trade their bolters for chainswords like csm instead of creating a different troops choice for assault intercessors? If you don't like this I have some bad news for you: the leaked contents page for the new Loyalist Scum codex features two data sheets for Predators, three for the new floating "not a Predator", and three for the new primaris land speeder. Seems they're doubling down on this approach.
because intercessors don't have chainswords in the box.
Does the box include thunder hammers now? Because last I checked it didn't, and that doesn't seem to stop them being stuck on half of the sergeants see.
BrianDavion wrote: ...rule of 3 mind you is why this data sheet approuch is proably for the best. any army that was flexable and used the same unit for multiple roles could be really screwed over by the rule of 3.
Yes and no. The issue here is that the Rule of 3 itself is kind of a dumb idea; the main reason it exists is to prevent HQ-spam, but what it ends up doing is unfairly punishing people whose vehicles don't come in squadrons (why are 12 Leman Russes all right but 4 Onagers not?).
honestly I agree. and the marines codex leaks, IMHO suggest GW is prepping to retire the rule of 3
For specific units? Seems to favor an army with lots of redundant data sheets.
BrianDavion wrote: ...rule of 3 mind you is why this data sheet approuch is proably for the best. any army that was flexable and used the same unit for multiple roles could be really screwed over by the rule of 3.
Yes and no. The issue here is that the Rule of 3 itself is kind of a dumb idea; the main reason it exists is to prevent HQ-spam, but what it ends up doing is unfairly punishing people whose vehicles don't come in squadrons (why are 12 Leman Russes all right but 4 Onagers not?).
honestly I agree. and the marines codex leaks, IMHO suggest GW is prepping to retire the rule of 3
BrianDavion wrote: ...rule of 3 mind you is why this data sheet approuch is proably for the best. any army that was flexable and used the same unit for multiple roles could be really screwed over by the rule of 3.
Yes and no. The issue here is that the Rule of 3 itself is kind of a dumb idea; the main reason it exists is to prevent HQ-spam, but what it ends up doing is unfairly punishing people whose vehicles don't come in squadrons (why are 12 Leman Russes all right but 4 Onagers not?).
honestly I agree. and the marines codex leaks, IMHO suggest GW is prepping to retire the rule of 3
argonak wrote: Example, why are eradicators their own unit, instead of just a type of aggressor? So much bloat.
I would have to double check, but I am pretty sure Aggressors are Elites choices and Eradicators are Heavy Support. Not that I am against consolidating data sheets, just that his example might not be as sound as you think it is.
BrianDavion wrote: honestly I agree. and the marines codex leaks, IMHO suggest GW is prepping to retire the rule of 3
In order to retire it they could have just never mentioned it again, as it was never actually a rule. Thing is, they went and made it a rule in 9th, which tends to say the opposite of what you're thinking.
argonak wrote: Example, why are eradicators their own unit, instead of just a type of aggressor? So much bloat.
I would have to double check, but I am pretty sure Aggressors are Elites choices and Eradicators are Heavy Support. Not that I am against consolidating data sheets, just that his example might not be as sound as you think it is.
Well yeah, that's a good point. Been so long since I got to play I forgot about Aggressors. :(
Still seems like pointless bloat. I've never been a huge fan of this implementation of the FOC anyway.
In the end I guess it won't matter much anymore if it all goes digital.
argonak wrote: Example, why are eradicators their own unit, instead of just a type of aggressor? So much bloat.
I would have to double check, but I am pretty sure Aggressors are Elites choices and Eradicators are Heavy Support. Not that I am against consolidating data sheets, just that his example might not be as sound as you think it is.
Could just stick them in the Elite section like a consolidated Centurion profile would be heavy support.
BrianDavion wrote: honestly I agree. and the marines codex leaks, IMHO suggest GW is prepping to retire the rule of 3
In order to retire it they could have just never mentioned it again, as it was never actually a rule. Thing is, they went and made it a rule in 9th, which tends to say the opposite of what you're thinking.
And the detachment system makes abuse a little more difficult. 6 Nu-Preds is going to cost you close to a whole army on top of two detachments.
BrianDavion wrote: honestly I agree. and the marines codex leaks, IMHO suggest GW is prepping to retire the rule of 3
In order to retire it they could have just never mentioned it again, as it was never actually a rule. Thing is, they went and made it a rule in 9th, which tends to say the opposite of what you're thinking.
And the detachment system makes abuse a little more difficult. 6 Nu-Preds is going to cost you close to a whole army on top of two detachments.
depends, if for example they give a predator annialator and a preadator destructor a differant datasheet you can then take 6 predators in a single detachment no problem.
BrianDavion wrote: honestly I agree. and the marines codex leaks, IMHO suggest GW is prepping to retire the rule of 3
In order to retire it they could have just never mentioned it again, as it was never actually a rule. Thing is, they went and made it a rule in 9th, which tends to say the opposite of what you're thinking.
And the detachment system makes abuse a little more difficult. 6 Nu-Preds is going to cost you close to a whole army on top of two detachments.
I don't think it has anything to do with Rule of 3. It's just how gw is doing data sheets now. I go back to intercessors/assault intercessors, what's the point? They're troops, you can take as many as you have points to spend.
depends, if for example they give a predator annialator and a preadator destructor a differant datasheet you can then take 6 predators in a single detachment no problem.
I doubt they get the 3 for 1 treatment unless I missed something?
I don't think it has anything to do with Rule of 3. It's just how gw is doing data sheets now. I go back to intercessors/assault intercessors, what's the point? They're troops, you can take as many as you have points to spend.
Yea I think it just boils down to what's in the box. Perhaps in the future we'll have Intercessors who can freely swap into Assault or Heavy and replace the First Born loadouts..
depends, if for example they give a predator annialator and a preadator destructor a differant datasheet you can then take 6 predators in a single detachment no problem.
I doubt they get the 3 for 1 treatment unless I missed something?
.
rumor has it the predator is getting 2 datasheets in the next codex. one presumably for the destructor pattern (with the autocanon) and presumably the other with the annialator pattern (the twin las canon)
Jidmah wrote: You still only have three heavy support slots per battalion, so bringing six will cost you CP.
true I was thinking of a brigade, proably cause I've been busy working on a sisters list the past day. yeah a brigade for marines isn't likely doable, certainly not if you want a good list
1) I'm going to assume that Primaris get an additional would, taking them to 3, thereby making them still superior to the old marines
They're not.[/endquote]
Bzzt. Wrong. And so it begins:
From the GW preview today, re: their new SM Codex:
"Heavy Intercessors! And they’re called that for a reason – like their Captain, these bad-boys aren’t just heavily armed, they’re heavily armoured too, thanks to their Gravis armour. A Toughness 5 Troops unit with 3 Wounds apiece, anyone?"
1) I'm going to assume that Primaris get an additional would, taking them to 3, thereby making them still superior to the old marines
They're not.
Bzzt. Wrong.
From the GW preview today, re: their new SM Codex:
"Heavy Intercessors! And they’re called that for a reason – like their Captain, these bad-boys aren’t just heavily armed, they’re heavily armoured too, thanks to their Gravis armour. A Toughness 5 Troops unit with 3 Wounds apiece, anyone?"
1) I'm going to assume that Primaris get an additional would, taking them to 3, thereby making them still superior to the old marines
They're not.
Bzzt. Wrong.
From the GW preview today, re: their new SM Codex:
"Heavy Intercessors! And they’re called that for a reason – like their Captain, these bad-boys aren’t just heavily armed, they’re heavily armoured too, thanks to their Gravis armour. A Toughness 5 Troops unit with 3 Wounds apiece, anyone?"
And so it begins...
Huh, it's fun to see an example of someone moving the goalpost closer to themselves rather than the more traditional further away from their opponent.
"You know how Primaris are vulnerable to Plasmaguns? Let's make them not. Also give them the ability to take three variations of the Heavy Bolter for no reason."
BaconCatBug wrote: "You know how Primaris are vulnerable to Plasmaguns? Let's make them not. Also give them the ability to take three variations of the Heavy Bolter for no reason."
I Like the assault one, because why the feth not use a assault 3 s5 gun...
What did you think when all firstborn get a wound that primaris uniqueness of 2 w core Units would not be carried over / maintained by gw?
I was not expecting a Troops unit.
Tyranid Warriors better get like 5 wounds a pop, but looking at the Immortals still on 1W I'm not holding my breath.
Well the unique thing primaris had over normal marines was 2 w, when first Born then get an additional w they'd not be really unique anymore, so gw has anyways gotten it's share from primaris infantry that existed and decided to throw These heavies out.
Which are incidentially the meanest anti Elite infantry in the game and come at 3w a Pop.
I mean i had an inkling but it still is kinda a shock to See These in that state.
What did you think when all firstborn get a wound that primaris uniqueness of 2 w core Units would not be carried over / maintained by gw?
I was not expecting a Troops unit.
Tyranid Warriors better get like 5 wounds a pop, but looking at the Immortals still on 1W I'm not holding my breath.
Well the unique thing primaris had over normal marines was 2 w, when first Born then get an additional w they'd not be really unique anymore, so gw has anyways gotten it's share from primaris infantry that existed and decided to throw These heavies out.
Which are incidentially the meanest anti Elite infantry in the game and come at 3w a Pop.
I mean i had an inkling nur it still is kinda a shock to See These in that state.
I was really expecting a normalization of the Marine statline, with minor differences between the Primaris and True. Silly me!
Necron Immortal at 1W, new SM troop at 3. Sure. . . fine. . . whatever. . .
Btw, how many Bolt weapons are we going to have in this new codex now? Have we hit 30 yet?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote: I also Find it funny that the high w tyranid warriors troop, something really unique to them, now get's handed out in a better Form aswell.
It's infuriating. I await the Tyranid book to see how that plays out.
In other words: "ohh just use that new improved weapon SM get to kill those new improved SM units"
"But I don't have any Spa..."
"STFU NPC!! your opinion is infuriating. Just get on with it"
I think this Post became a prophecy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: Btw, how many Bolt weapons are we going to have in this new codex now? Have we hit 30 yet?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote: I also Find it funny that the high w tyranid warriors troop, something really unique to them, now get's handed out in a better Form aswell.
It's infuriating. I await the Tyranid book to see how that plays out.
Well intercissors have rifle and auto.
Then we have normal bolters storm bolters and heavy bolters.
Hurricanes.
Bolt sniperrifles.
Erm Bolt Desert eagels , Bolt carabines.
Special Bolt carabines for that mine layer hq that is also an infiltrator.
And then the 5 from the heavy intercissors.
Boltpistol aswell , Master crafted Versions so 18 IF i counted correctly excluding twinnvariants.at the very least....
Marines are slowly becoming a joke army, I feel like GW is pushing the limits of their customers.
- They are stealing the playstyle of other armies.
- They are no longer a "newbie" faction.
- Their fluff is laughable.
And that's my opinion, but the models that are not infantry... are just awful, that new buggy or the landspeeder look like a cruel prank.
I'm not a Marine player, but wow it feels bad for me... Marines were the hope of the humanity, really hard to create because the technology was really ancient, with weapons really hard to build... they were really cool, even for a Xenos player. Now, again, they are a cash grab joke.
Going through my codex I counted 27, not including the Combi-weapons with boltguns in them. So the additional 5 from Heavy Intercessors puts me at 32 Bolt weapons.
That count does not include "named" bolt weapons such as the Gauntlets of Ultramar, Quietus, etc.
Insectum7 wrote: Going through my codex I counted 27, not including the Combi-weapons with boltguns in them. So the additional 5 from Heavy Intercessors puts me at 32 Bolt weapons.
That count does not include "named" bolt weapons such as the Gauntlets of Ultramar, Quietus, etc.
He that were the ones i knew Off ... I am no loyalists....
It's also funny that one Profile is allready missing in the datasheet .
Looking at the profile again, what I think is the issue here is that they put "heavy auto bolt rilfe" instead of "Hellstorm bolt rifle" and "heavy stalker bolt rifle" instead of "executor bolt rilfe" in the wargear options text.
Basically there are two different names for the light anti-elite option and the light anti-horde option.
1) I'm going to assume that Primaris get an additional would, taking them to 3, thereby making them still superior to the old marines
They're not.
Bzzt. Wrong.
From the GW preview today, re: their new SM Codex:
"Heavy Intercessors! And they’re called that for a reason – like their Captain, these bad-boys aren’t just heavily armed, they’re heavily armoured too, thanks to their Gravis armour. A Toughness 5 Troops unit with 3 Wounds apiece, anyone?"
And so it begins...
And from the bit that you edited out of my post that you replied to...
That’s right – it won’t just be Primaris Marines on 2 Wounds anymore! All of a sudden, a lot of units that may have felt a bit left behind become very durable and appealing. From Battle Company units such as Assault, Devastator and Tactical Marines, to the elite Terminators of the 1st Company (who will be increased to 3 Wounds accordingly), the first born will be back to prove to their Primaris battle-brothers their great worth.
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.
Anything Marine that isn't a Scout will start at 2W.
So Terminators are going to be 3W. Gravis Armor is going to be 3W as well...it's almost like the armor is what grants the bonus wound!
Mehruuns just got more mehreeineyr, so now we have meuhreens who took a better jeanseede with better meeehreen ahrmor than the emperor's guardians. Lmfao
This edition is disgusting, no faction other than mehreeeens have anything unique anymore.
Simple question, interested to see what the data from Dakka looks like.
I'd like to see all basic troops go to two wounds(or more) and all or almost all the basic basic troop weapons go to Damage D2 (i.e. 1-3=1 damage, 4-6= 2 Damage not always doing 2 damage)
Lol wasn't expecting this thread to crop back up again, the general "Dakka" consensus back then and from the discussions seemed to be cautious optimism and now, the reveal of the Heavy Intercessors are certainly something people are taking caution with.
Still, and this may be redundant to some, it all comes down to points. As a Necron fan and player seeing T5 W3 Chad marines in comparison to Immortals T5 W1 does leave me feeling deflated, buuuuuut I'm only paying 18ppm for my troop choice. (Yeah that small comfort I know when Intercessors are 20ppm and soon to be W2 tacticals are also 18ppm).
If H Intercessors end up being 35ppm+ then all's well that ends well right? Just another unit in a bloated codex nothing to see here.
Edit:
stratigo wrote: As a custodes player I am going "Okay, so when do I get a non forgeworld shooting unit on the quality of a heavy intercessor?"
How many ppm is a Custodes? I'm not familiar with any of their units. Also do we know the new costs for Terminators which are going to be W3?
stratigo wrote: As a custodes player I am going "Okay, so when do I get a non forgeworld shooting unit on the quality of a heavy intercessor?"
As soon as Cawl can figure out how to mount that puppy on a spear
I mean, I can only hope.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mixzremixzd wrote: Lol wasn't expecting this thread to crop back up again, the general "Dakka" consensus back then and from the discussions seemed to be cautious optimism and now, the reveal of the Heavy Intercessors are certainly something people are taking caution with.
Still, and this may be redundant to some, it all comes down to points. As a Necron fan and player seeing T5 W3 Chad marines in comparison to Immortals T5 W1 does leave me feeling deflated, buuuuuut I'm only paying 18ppm for my troop choice. (Yeah that small comfort I know when Intercessors are 20ppm and soon to be W2 tacticals are also 18ppm).
If H Intercessors end up being 35ppm+ then all's well that ends well right? Just another unit in a bloated codex nothing to see here.
Edit:
stratigo wrote: As a custodes player I am going "Okay, so when do I get a non forgeworld shooting unit on the quality of a heavy intercessor?"
How many ppm is a Custodes? I'm not familiar with any of their units. Also do we know the new costs for Terminators which are going to be W3?
Around 50 per guardian, which are mostly something you don't really have much use for except standing in a corner. They have almost no effect on the board state, they are just passive points generators.
Mixzremixzd wrote: If H Intercessors end up being 35ppm+ then all's well that ends well right? Just another unit in a bloated codex nothing to see here.
Sure. Problem is power level probably puts them about 25-30.
I'm not convinced its the end of the world, but its just another obnoxious thing Marines get for... reasons.
Mixzremixzd wrote: Lol wasn't expecting this thread to crop back up again, the general "Dakka" consensus back then and from the discussions seemed to be cautious optimism and now, the reveal of the Heavy Intercessors are certainly something people are taking caution with.
Still, and this may be redundant to some, it all comes down to points. As a Necron fan and player seeing T5 W3 Chad marines in comparison to Immortals T5 W1 does leave me feeling deflated, buuuuuut I'm only paying 18ppm for my troop choice. (Yeah that small comfort I know when Intercessors are 20ppm and soon to be W2 tacticals are also 18ppm).
If H Intercessors end up being 35ppm+ then all's well that ends well right? Just another unit in a bloated codex nothing to see here.
Edit:
stratigo wrote: As a custodes player I am going "Okay, so when do I get a non forgeworld shooting unit on the quality of a heavy intercessor?"
How many ppm is a Custodes? I'm not familiar with any of their units. Also do we know the new costs for Terminators which are going to be W3?
Bladeguard veterans with a stormshield and a better power weapon are 35.
Aggressors with 60 guns taped to them are 40
There is no way the Heavy Intercessor is going to be 35 points. I'd wager around 25-28.
Ordana wrote: I wouldn't say 28 is 'fair'. Its way undercosted.
But so are all those other units...
Except those units really aren't undercosted, unless you're suggesting anything Gravis is OP. I mean it's already a 20 page debate regarding Eliminators in this subforum so there's clearly different wavelengths going on. Plus the only real issue with Aggressors was double shooting on Overwatch, which is now solved.
I suppose Heavy Intercessors would finally give my Repulsor a real job. A demi-squad can actually benefit from the speed and can hold an objective when it gets to where its going.
They certainly seem like they were intended as marine killers too with their statline.
According to the leaks I got Tyranid Warriors are 27 points with an Assault 3 S5 AP-1 24" Deathspitter with a BS of 4+. They are 3W but T4 and 4+ save. 3 attacks though.
T5 and 3+ is definitely worth more than a point or two over T4 4+. But offensively the Deathspitter helps the Warrior with its Assault 3.
Insectum7 wrote: According to the leaks I got Tyranid Warriors are 27 points with an Assault 3 S5 AP-1 24" Deathspitter with a BS of 4+. They are 3W but T4 and 4+ save. 3 attacks though.
T5 and 3+ is definitely worth more than a point or two over T4 4+. But offensively the Deathspitter helps the Warrior with its Assault 3.
I think 28 is a little low, but not too far off.
Thats assuming the Warriors were worth 27 points to begin with.
Insectum7 wrote: According to the leaks I got Tyranid Warriors are 27 points with an Assault 3 S5 AP-1 24" Deathspitter with a BS of 4+. They are 3W but T4 and 4+ save. 3 attacks though.
T5 and 3+ is definitely worth more than a point or two over T4 4+. But offensively the Deathspitter helps the Warrior with its Assault 3.
I think 28 is a little low, but not too far off.
Thats assuming the Warriors were worth 27 points to begin with.
They were 25 in 8th and pretty solid. I haven't used them in 9th, but since a bunch of stuff went up I don't see a 2 point hike being particularly damning.
Although as any owner of an ork stompa will tell you, slapping more wounds on it doesn't always make it feel tougher. Sometimes having multiple separate entities can feel more durable
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 28 would be fair. 8 additional points for the T5, W3, and S5 on the gun seems correct.
Given that they got an additional wound as leaked and assuming no other changes in their datasheet, regular terminators are 31 ppm for a 3W T4 and +2 Save with a humble power sword and a crappy storm bolter. The range weapon of a heavy intercessor is far way better than a storm bolter + a power sword. In top of that regular terminators are not op sec and heavy intercessors are op sec and troop choice
imao 31 ppm for heavy intercessors is already quite undercosted in comparative.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 28 would be fair. 8 additional points for the T5, W3, and S5 on the gun seems correct.
Given that they got an additional wound as leaked and assuming no other changes in their datasheet, regular terminators are 31 ppm for a 3W T4 and +2 Save with a humble power sword and a crappy storm bolter. The range weapon of a heavy intercessor is far way better than a storm bolter + a power sword. In top of that regular terminators are not op sec and heavy intercessors are op sec and troop choice
imao 31 ppm for heavy intercessors is already quite undercosted in comparative.
Not to mention Terminators have to pay points for Powerfists, etc. too. That adds up quick and is mandatory for a squad.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 28 would be fair. 8 additional points for the T5, W3, and S5 on the gun seems correct.
Given that they got an additional wound as leaked and assuming no other changes in their datasheet, regular terminators are 31 ppm for a 3W T4 and +2 Save with a humble power sword and a crappy storm bolter. The range weapon of a heavy intercessor is far way better than a storm bolter + a power sword. In top of that regular terminators are not op sec and heavy intercessors are op sec and troop choice
imao 31 ppm for heavy intercessors is already quite undercosted in comparative.
Terminators arent getting the 3rd wound for free. They're poised to get, at minimum, a 5 point increase. Which puts the cheapest loadout (SB + PS) at 36. If loadouts remained weird and locked, you're looking at 41 points for a Terminator.
argonak wrote: I suppose Heavy Intercessors would finally give my Repulsor a real job. A demi-squad can actually benefit from the speed and can hold an objective when it gets to where its going.
They certainly seem like they were intended as marine killers too with their statline.
.
Repulsors won’t have a job until they can live long enough to do it. Vehicles in general need a massive upgrade. They’re worse off than they were with armor facings. More guns can now hurt them, and the ones that could before can do it even easier. S9 LC’s “wounded” AV14 on 5’s. Now on 3’s. S8 wounded on 6’s, now on 4’s.
argonak wrote: I suppose Heavy Intercessors would finally give my Repulsor a real job. A demi-squad can actually benefit from the speed and can hold an objective when it gets to where its going.
They certainly seem like they were intended as marine killers too with their statline.
.
Repulsors won’t have a job until they can live long enough to do it. Vehicles in general need a massive upgrade. They’re worse off than they were with armor facings. More guns can now hurt them, and the ones that could before can do it even easier. S9 LC’s “wounded” AV14 on 5’s. Now on 3’s. S8 wounded on 6’s, now on 4’s.
And one S9 Lascannon shot could blow up a Land Raider.
Now, you need three at the ABSOLUTE minimum. On average, you'd need five failed saves, which is around 17 BS3+ Lascannons.
Before, hitting on a 3+ and glancing/penning on a 5+, you needed literally a SINGLE MORE Lascannon to kill it via HP damage. Not accounting for any penetrating hits.
Insectum7 wrote: According to the leaks I got Tyranid Warriors are 27 points with an Assault 3 S5 AP-1 24" Deathspitter with a BS of 4+. They are 3W but T4 and 4+ save. 3 attacks though.
T5 and 3+ is definitely worth more than a point or two over T4 4+. But offensively the Deathspitter helps the Warrior with its Assault 3.
I think 28 is a little low, but not too far off.
And Synapse. And Move 6, 3A and Scything talons for +1A. Heavy Intercessors do not (until we get Heavy Assault Intercessors) have 3A base, and a +1A chain sword.
And Synapse. And Move 6, 3A and Scything talons for +1A. Heavy Intercessors do not (until we get Heavy Assault Intercessors) have 3A base, and a +1A chain sword.
Heavy Intercessors explicitly do not have chainswords, or any melee weapons of any kind for that matter.
And Synapse. And Move 6, 3A and Scything talons for +1A. Heavy Intercessors do not (until we get Heavy Assault Intercessors) have 3A base, and a +1A chain sword.
Heavy Intercessors explicitly do not have chainswords, or any melee weapons of any kind for that matter.
Insectum7 wrote: According to the leaks I got Tyranid Warriors are 27 points with an Assault 3 S5 AP-1 24" Deathspitter with a BS of 4+. They are 3W but T4 and 4+ save. 3 attacks though.
T5 and 3+ is definitely worth more than a point or two over T4 4+. But offensively the Deathspitter helps the Warrior with its Assault 3.
I think 28 is a little low, but not too far off.
Warriors also have a 12 inch fearless bubble, and their shadow of the warp bubble. I could see GW deciding those traits where def worth a few points.
Insectum7 wrote: According to the leaks I got Tyranid Warriors are 27 points with an Assault 3 S5 AP-1 24" Deathspitter with a BS of 4+. They are 3W but T4 and 4+ save. 3 attacks though.
T5 and 3+ is definitely worth more than a point or two over T4 4+. But offensively the Deathspitter helps the Warrior with its Assault 3.
I think 28 is a little low, but not too far off.
And Synapse. And Move 6, 3A and Scything talons for +1A. Heavy Intercessors do not (until we get Heavy Assault Intercessors) have 3A base, and a +1A chain sword.
Like I said, they're not too far off, but I'd put a value of over a couple points on the T5 3+.
Synapse is hard to value. It isn't really an advantage for the Warriors themselves, it's more often an advantage for the units around them while making the Warriors a juicier target. Tricky comparison.
Insectum7 wrote: According to the leaks I got Tyranid Warriors are 27 points with an Assault 3 S5 AP-1 24" Deathspitter with a BS of 4+. They are 3W but T4 and 4+ save. 3 attacks though.
T5 and 3+ is definitely worth more than a point or two over T4 4+. But offensively the Deathspitter helps the Warrior with its Assault 3.
I think 28 is a little low, but not too far off.
And Synapse. And Move 6, 3A and Scything talons for +1A. Heavy Intercessors do not (until we get Heavy Assault Intercessors) have 3A base, and a +1A chain sword.
Like I said, they're not too far off, but I'd put a value of over a couple points on the T5 3+.
Synapse is hard to value. It isn't really an advantage for the Warriors themselves, it's more often an advantage for the units around them while making the Warriors a juicier target. Tricky comparison.
You’re still skipping the dual phase load Warriors have which Heavy Intercessors do not, until the 2022 Indomitus The Return box with Heavy Assault Intercessors with pistols combat shields and chain swords.
Insectum7 wrote: According to the leaks I got Tyranid Warriors are 27 points with an Assault 3 S5 AP-1 24" Deathspitter with a BS of 4+. They are 3W but T4 and 4+ save. 3 attacks though.
T5 and 3+ is definitely worth more than a point or two over T4 4+. But offensively the Deathspitter helps the Warrior with its Assault 3.
I think 28 is a little low, but not too far off.
And Synapse. And Move 6, 3A and Scything talons for +1A. Heavy Intercessors do not (until we get Heavy Assault Intercessors) have 3A base, and a +1A chain sword.
Scything Talons don't give +1A, they give re-roll 1s. Boneswords give AP-2 and +1A, but they're expensive.
And unless Shock Assault is going away, those Heavy Intercessors have the same number of attacks in melee in the first round of combat.
FWIW 27pts is the current cost of a Warrior with Deathspitter and Scything Talons, and they're generally regarded as weak unless you pump Adaptive Physiologies and Stratagems into them. 22-25pts would be a better price for their capabilities; they're pretty comparable to Intercessors. W3/4+ versus W2/3+, S5 Assault 3 at BS4+ versus S4 RF2 at BS3+ with Bolter Discipline, and nearly identical first-round performance in melee; plus Marines get Doctrines and better subfaction traits. They'll need some pretty hefty army-wide buffs to be useful at their current cost.
Insectum7 wrote: According to the leaks I got Tyranid Warriors are 27 points with an Assault 3 S5 AP-1 24" Deathspitter with a BS of 4+. They are 3W but T4 and 4+ save. 3 attacks though.
T5 and 3+ is definitely worth more than a point or two over T4 4+. But offensively the Deathspitter helps the Warrior with its Assault 3.
I think 28 is a little low, but not too far off.
And Synapse. And Move 6, 3A and Scything talons for +1A. Heavy Intercessors do not (until we get Heavy Assault Intercessors) have 3A base, and a +1A chain sword.
Scything Talons don't give +1A, they give re-roll 1s. Boneswords give AP-2 and +1A, but they're expensive.
My bad I missed the Two Pairs of... part in my first look. Point remains they have both Fight and Shoot weapon loads and that usually costs a premium.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Astartes Chainsword: Gets +1A just for existing.
Scything Talons: Need 4 of the fething things to get the same result.
I'd like to see that changed yeah, 'nids should be terrifying in close combat. maybe give em an extra attack for every 2 scything talons they have or something
argonak wrote: I suppose Heavy Intercessors would finally give my Repulsor a real job. A demi-squad can actually benefit from the speed and can hold an objective when it gets to where its going.
They certainly seem like they were intended as marine killers too with their statline.
.
Repulsors won’t have a job until they can live long enough to do it. Vehicles in general need a massive upgrade. They’re worse off than they were with armor facings. More guns can now hurt them, and the ones that could before can do it even easier. S9 LC’s “wounded” AV14 on 5’s. Now on 3’s. S8 wounded on 6’s, now on 4’s.
And one S9 Lascannon shot could blow up a Land Raider.
Now, you need three at the ABSOLUTE minimum. On average, you'd need five failed saves, which is around 17 BS3+ Lascannons.
Before, hitting on a 3+ and glancing/penning on a 5+, you needed literally a SINGLE MORE Lascannon to kill it via HP damage. Not accounting for any penetrating hits.
The marine buffs make vehicles less viable. The entire line going to 2 wounds and yet more 3w units will see a big increase in multi damage weapons being brought, which is bad for tanks surviving.
Trying to kill the new marines with 'small arms' is not a viable prospect.
Trying to kill the new marines with 'small arms' is not a viable prospect.
What's important is that 16% of 16% of 67% of the time, you could blow them up with one shot, so they weren't all that durable!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: Astartes Chainsword: Gets +1A just for existing.
Scything Talons: Need 4 of the fething things to get the same result.
The chainsword got +1A because the screwed up and didn't give assault Marines 2A like they did Hormaguants. So they gave the chainsword +1A and the talons reroll 1's. GW really kicked themselves in the junk on the Fight changes in 8e.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Astartes Chainsword: Gets +1A just for existing.
Scything Talons: Need 4 of the fething things to get the same result.
I'd like to see that changed yeah, 'nids should be terrifying in close combat. maybe give em an extra attack for every 2 scything talons they have or something
The problem isn't the units. The problem is the 8e changes to fight.
Marines should be elite, the old statline of one attack and one wound was laughable compared to how they are in the lore. That said, they should be priced accordingly. If one army is going to be overpowered the worst one for it to be is space marines.
legion traits).
