Xenomancers wrote: Complete intellectual dishonesty. Complete and utter. The SAG with proper strat useage and command rerolls had a 20% chance of doing 20 damage or more to a knight - and it was like 80 points. A nice guy laid out an excellent grid about 1.5 years ago to demonstrate on dakka. Plus yes - IG infantry have a lot of damage potential. It is part of the reason that 5 point IG infantry were way to low compare to a space marine. Yet - even then the same space marine haters refused to acknowledge how weak marines were.
yeah, can we get a source on that claim?
so 5 point guardsmen were balanced?
not on the 5pts guardsmen, on the "20% chance to do 20 damage to a knight". What were the stratagems that were used to achieve that? And more importantly, What was the average damage it did.
The average damage I can recall was 10. With a 20% chance to do over 20 damage. don't quote me on it for the average. You could probably look up the thread if you tried certain keywords.
Stratagem more dakka. Conditional command reroll to get str 10 where possible. I believe it freebootas but it could have been deathskulls I do not remmber.
I've never seen a none mechanicus knight. There is no need to ever take one. For this exact reason.
It's also completely false. Every army can reroll in some capacity. The only army really struggling in this area is tyranids as far as I can recall.
Yes let's base all arguments on a single subfaction locked strategum.
So can we now go balance Eradicators on the assumption that they are all salamanders with +1 to wound etc etc too?
Also you obviously haven't been playing knights post Engine War then as that made the decision less one sided. Not to mention taking a subfaction for a strategum you get to uses when someone fails to one round a knight. Get real marines have taken over 48 wounds of of knights in a single turn on multiple games.
Xenomancers wrote: Complete intellectual dishonesty. Complete and utter. The SAG with proper strat useage and command rerolls had a 20% chance of doing 20 damage or more to a knight - and it was like 80 points. A nice guy laid out an excellent grid about 1.5 years ago to demonstrate on dakka. Plus yes - IG infantry have a lot of damage potential. It is part of the reason that 5 point IG infantry were way to low compare to a space marine. Yet - even then the same space marine haters refused to acknowledge how weak marines were.
yeah, can we get a source on that claim?
so 5 point guardsmen were balanced?
not on the 5pts guardsmen, on the "20% chance to do 20 damage to a knight". What were the stratagems that were used to achieve that? And more importantly, What was the average damage it did.
I've never seen a none mechanicus knight. There is no need to ever take one. For this exact reason.
It's also completely false. Every army can reroll in some capacity. The only army really struggling in this area is tyranids as far as I can recall.
What are chaos knights?
And no, only marines and belisarius cawl get to reroll ALL hits and wounds of 1.
And cawl is locked to a single subfaction.
reroll 1's to wound is more rare but lots of armies can do it. DE can. Tau Can. Choas Can. Eldar can reroll all wounds. Man factions can get +1 to woudns which is often as good as a reroll.
reroll 1's to wound is more rare but lots of armies can do it. DE can. Tau Can. Choas Can. Eldar can reroll all wounds. Man factions can get +1 to woudns which is often as good as a reroll.
Ok so eldar and marines are the only ones that (at least) reroll All hits AND wound rolls of 1 without needing a specific subfaction (rerolling 1's for poison weapons as flayed skull is mostly flavor text).
Both were problematic at some point.
reroll 1's to wound is more rare but lots of armies can do it. DE can. Tau Can. Choas Can. Eldar can reroll all wounds. Man factions can get +1 to woudns which is often as good as a reroll.
Ok so eldar and marines are the only ones that (at least) reroll All hits AND wound rolls of 1 without needing a specific subfaction (rerolling 1's for poison weapons as flayed skull is mostly flavor text).
Both were problematic at some point.
Custodians too. Essentially reroll all hits. To be honest...without rerolls nothing dies. So - i think its a good thing. Access to these boost need to be universal though.
I've never seen a none mechanicus knight. There is no need to ever take one. For this exact reason.
It's also completely false. Every army can reroll in some capacity. The only army really struggling in this area is tyranids as far as I can recall.
Yes let's base all arguments on a single subfaction locked strategum.
So can we now go balance Eradicators on the assumption that they are all salamanders with +1 to wound etc etc too?
Also you obviously haven't been playing knights post Engine War then as that made the decision less one sided. Not to mention taking a subfaction for a strategum you get to uses when someone fails to one round a knight. Get real marines have taken over 48 wounds of of knights in a single turn on multiple games.
What is your argument. I shouldn't assume that an IK is not...chosen from 1 of the half of houses that have access to the best knight stratagem - which also includes the 3 best houses...tyranis/ and raven? okay...
reroll 1's to wound is more rare but lots of armies can do it. DE can. Tau Can. Choas Can. Eldar can reroll all wounds. Man factions can get +1 to woudns which is often as good as a reroll.
Ok so eldar and marines are the only ones that (at least) reroll All hits AND wound rolls of 1 without needing a specific subfaction (rerolling 1's for poison weapons as flayed skull is mostly flavor text).
Both were problematic at some point.
Custodians too. Essentially reroll all hits. To be honest...without rerolls nothing dies. So - i think its a good thing. Access to these boost need to be universal though.
I strongly disagree but i know you have more of a "kill everything" approach to the game than i do.
reroll 1's to wound is more rare but lots of armies can do it. DE can. Tau Can. Choas Can. Eldar can reroll all wounds. Man factions can get +1 to woudns which is often as good as a reroll.
Ok so eldar and marines are the only ones that (at least) reroll All hits AND wound rolls of 1 without needing a specific subfaction (rerolling 1's for poison weapons as flayed skull is mostly flavor text).
Both were problematic at some point.
Custodians too. Essentially reroll all hits. To be honest...without rerolls nothing dies. So - i think its a good thing. Access to these boost need to be universal though.
I strongly disagree but i know you have more of a "kill everything" approach to the game than i do.
reroll 1's to wound is more rare but lots of armies can do it. DE can. Tau Can. Choas Can. Eldar can reroll all wounds. Man factions can get +1 to woudns which is often as good as a reroll.
Ok so eldar and marines are the only ones that (at least) reroll All hits AND wound rolls of 1 without needing a specific subfaction (rerolling 1's for poison weapons as flayed skull is mostly flavor text).
Both were problematic at some point.
Custodians too. Essentially reroll all hits. To be honest...without rerolls nothing dies. So - i think its a good thing. Access to these boost need to be universal though.
I strongly disagree but i know you have more of a "kill everything" approach to the game than i do.
It's cause my whole group is power gamers.
I play with some powergames and i've won many games with lists that aren't focused on killing. I do find it less enjoyable than playing a game with no rerolls where dice actually matter.
Ok so eldar and marines are the only ones that (at least) reroll All hits AND wound rolls of 1 without needing a specific subfaction
Somewhat disingenuous, as it required an expensive HQ, uses up both psychic power slots on that HQ, and relies on getting both powers off, AND requires the enemy failing their denies. And it can only effect a single unit.
It's not a bad ability, but Marine players were always saying their ubiquitous rerolls were fine cos "look Eldar can do it to" but trying to compare the abilities is frankly stupid.
With the chapter master change, things have closed up a little, but the marine rerolls is still leagues ahead of what Eldar can manage. Hopefully this will change with their update, but it's anyones guess really.
What is your argument. I shouldn't assume that an IK is not...chosen from 1 of the half of houses that have access to the best knight stratagem - which also includes the 3 best houses...tyranis/ and raven? okay...
You complain when people use Chapter specific buffs on marine units because thats not fair as not everymarine is X chapter.
Yet your saying All Knights are Mechnicus and they contain the 3 best houses, yet those of us discussing trying to make them work in 9th are using custom households.
So maybe your knowledge of a faction your not trying to make work is out of date.
Also didnt you say you haven't played a single game of 9th?
Ok so eldar and marines are the only ones that (at least) reroll All hits AND wound rolls of 1 without needing a specific subfaction
Somewhat disingenuous, as it required an expensive HQ, uses up both psychic power slots on that HQ, and relies on getting both powers off, AND requires the enemy failing their denies. And it can only effect a single unit.
It's not a bad ability, but Marine players were always saying their ubiquitous rerolls were fine cos "look Eldar can do it to" but trying to compare the abilities is frankly stupid.
With the chapter master change, things have closed up a little, but the marine rerolls is still leagues ahead of what Eldar can manage. Hopefully this will change with their update, but it's anyones guess really.
I'm aware of all that, but i didnt want to start an argument that Doom/Guide isnt super strong because it is.
Ok so eldar and marines are the only ones that (at least) reroll All hits AND wound rolls of 1 without needing a specific subfaction
Somewhat disingenuous, as it required an expensive HQ, uses up both psychic power slots on that HQ, and relies on getting both powers off, AND requires the enemy failing their denies. And it can only effect a single unit.
It's not a bad ability, but Marine players were always saying their ubiquitous rerolls were fine cos "look Eldar can do it to" but trying to compare the abilities is frankly stupid.
With the chapter master change, things have closed up a little, but the marine rerolls is still leagues ahead of what Eldar can manage. Hopefully this will change with their update, but it's anyones guess really.
I'm aware of all that, but i didnt want to start an argument that Doom/Guide isnt super strong because it is.
It's a good psychic ability, but the number of times I see "oh that unit isn't overpriced at all, it gets full rerolls to hit and to wound it's amazing" and i'm like... that's not how this works. Marine players seem to think that Eldar auto-pass all psychic tests, and get farseers for free.
Ok so eldar and marines are the only ones that (at least) reroll All hits AND wound rolls of 1 without needing a specific subfaction
Somewhat disingenuous, as it required an expensive HQ, uses up both psychic power slots on that HQ, and relies on getting both powers off, AND requires the enemy failing their denies. And it can only effect a single unit.
It's not a bad ability, but Marine players were always saying their ubiquitous rerolls were fine cos "look Eldar can do it to" but trying to compare the abilities is frankly stupid.
With the chapter master change, things have closed up a little, but the marine rerolls is still leagues ahead of what Eldar can manage. Hopefully this will change with their update, but it's anyones guess really.
I'm aware of all that, but i didnt want to start an argument that Doom/Guide isnt super strong because it is.
Just ignore. Doom guide or doom guide jinx is the best damage ramp in the history of 40k. I've never played eldar in a tournament just because I'd rather play other things but my competitive eldar list is pretty much rerolling everything with most units.
Expert crafters + ignore cover or always counts in cover trait or -1 AP to shurikens at half range depending on the army..
basically MOA for marines. A reroll to hit and wound per unit. Huge for units like Vibro cannons/ D cannons/ pulse lasers.
You pretty much just bring 3 detachments of heavy supports no troops and just steam roll people.
Xenomancers wrote: Complete intellectual dishonesty. Complete and utter. The SAG with proper strat useage and command rerolls had a 20% chance of doing 20 damage or more to a knight - and it was like 80 points. A nice guy laid out an excellent grid about 1.5 years ago to demonstrate on dakka. Plus yes - IG infantry have a lot of damage potential. It is part of the reason that 5 point IG infantry were way to low compare to a space marine. Yet - even then the same space marine haters refused to acknowledge how weak marines were.
A SSAG also had a 50% chance of doing 0 damage when fired, and I'm fairly sure that a 20% chance to do 20 damage to a 4++/5++ model are just flat out made up.
Ok so eldar and marines are the only ones that (at least) reroll All hits AND wound rolls of 1 without needing a specific subfaction
Somewhat disingenuous, as it required an expensive HQ, uses up both psychic power slots on that HQ, and relies on getting both powers off, AND requires the enemy failing their denies. And it can only effect a single unit.
It's not a bad ability, but Marine players were always saying their ubiquitous rerolls were fine cos "look Eldar can do it to" but trying to compare the abilities is frankly stupid.
With the chapter master change, things have closed up a little, but the marine rerolls is still leagues ahead of what Eldar can manage. Hopefully this will change with their update, but it's anyones guess really.
I'm aware of all that, but i didnt want to start an argument that Doom/Guide isnt super strong because it is.
It's a good psychic ability, but the number of times I see "oh that unit isn't overpriced at all, it gets full rerolls to hit and to wound it's amazing" and i'm like... that's not how this works. Marine players seem to think that Eldar auto-pass all psychic tests, and get farseers for free.
Every army takes HQs to unlock their abilities. What you gonna do - not bring hqs? Not all HQ's pretty much ensure 1 unit dies per turn regardless of how tough it is. Doom is likely the best power in the game. it has a lot of contenders...mostly eldar powers - quicken is brutal. As is jinx/protect.
Xenomancers wrote: Complete intellectual dishonesty. Complete and utter. The SAG with proper strat useage and command rerolls had a 20% chance of doing 20 damage or more to a knight - and it was like 80 points. A nice guy laid out an excellent grid about 1.5 years ago to demonstrate on dakka. Plus yes - IG infantry have a lot of damage potential. It is part of the reason that 5 point IG infantry were way to low compare to a space marine. Yet - even then the same space marine haters refused to acknowledge how weak marines were.
A SSAG also had a 50% chance of doing 0 damage when fired, and I'm fairly sure that a 20% chance to do 20 damage to a 4++/5++ model are just flat out made up.
If it didn't have an invune it would just die twice as fast...SAG is AP-5...Then again - a lot of the damage is from mortal wounds. It is not made up.
Xeno, you are a clown. The chance to roll a strength of 11+ to deal mortal wounds in the first place is already as low as 8.33%, before rolling a single hit or wound roll
Xenomancers wrote: Nah but they really just hate marines. They can't acknowledge the fact marines have been bad for most the history of the game. They overstate periods when marines were actually good. So if they can't be honest about these periods - there is no way to have a real discussion about how bad the situation is now. Generally - the level marines are at right now is not even close to unprecedented.
.
The first part is actually true for me, not sure about others. Everything else? not so much.
Jidmah wrote: Xeno, you are a clown. The chance to roll a strength of 11+ to deal mortal wounds in the first place is already as low as 8.33%, before rolling a single hit or wound roll
Be is that including every possible way of rerolling the dice in any possible combination, as everyone has infinity CP and nothing better to use their rerolls on its all about the buff stack and Strategum Stack, ignore the fact its 50% of your CP for the game and includes 3 1 time reroll relics/warlord traits.
Jidmah wrote: Xeno, you are a clown. The chance to roll a strength of 11+ to deal mortal wounds in the first place is already as low as 8.33%, before rolling a single hit or wound roll
11 Strength activates the mortals. even str 5 can do significant damage if you roll a lot of shots. it is a D6 damage weapon also.
Get like 9 hits with 12 shots with the combo and you get 3 wounds on a knight (averge) Roll good you could get 6 or 7. A pred with 4 las...which costs twice as much Can't possibly wound more than 4 times.
It's whatever. You can't acknowledge how good the weapon is makes no difference to me. Marines have nothing like it. It's an example of something marines can't do.
Xenomancers wrote: Nah but they really just hate marines. They can't acknowledge the fact marines have been bad for most the history of the game. They overstate periods when marines were actually good. So if they can't be honest about these periods - there is no way to have a real discussion about how bad the situation is now. Generally - the level marines are at right now is not even close to unprecedented.
.
The first part is actually true for me, not sure about others. Everything else? not so much.
At least you're honest. I respect that. You are delusional about history but that's just hate clouding your judgement. Happens to the best of us until we let go of the hate.
Look, I hate what GW has done with Marines - and not done with other armies - with a passion that makes rabid wolverines look sedate, and I wouldn't even say that. For a variety of reasons.
1) Certainly some do feel like they should just be better, but vast majority feels like a stretch.
2) "Entitlement" meant something at some point, but these days, I don't know. I find the word leaves a bad taste in my mouth, one used to provoke arguments rather than solve them.
3) If I do say that, we're never actually going to find any common ground whatsoever with the numerous Marine mains who aren't dickbags.
Nah, look at how things went with the Kellermorph. Other factions having fun, interesting options that work on the tabletop *makes Astartes players less happy.* They see it as a zero-sum game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breton wrote: No, the rules are bad. Marines haven't changed much. Few datasheets have. Demanding datasheets be nerfed for this year's ruleset is silly. You don't change the constant, you change the variable.
The marine stats and the overall ruleset are inextricable. They're made by the same people.
Jidmah wrote: Xeno, you are a clown. The chance to roll a strength of 11+ to deal mortal wounds in the first place is already as low as 8.33%, before rolling a single hit or wound roll
11 Strength activates the mortals. even str 5 can do significant damage if you roll a lot of shots. it is a D6 damage weapon also.
Get like 9 hits with 12 shots with the combo and you get 3 wounds on a knight (averge) Roll good you could get 6 or 7. A pred with 4 las...which costs twice as much Can't possibly wound more than 4 times.
It's whatever. You can't acknowledge how good the weapon is makes no difference to me. Marines have nothing like it. It's an example of something marines can't do.
A never said anything about whether the SSAG was good or not.
I merely called you out on putting forth numbers so clearly wrong and lying about their origins.
Oh, and that "averge" you claimed above is clearly not an average, but just more making up numbers and clearly wrong as well.
So, once again, everything you write about orks is as wrong as it can be. Don't you ever get tired of making yourself look like a dunce?
Well this is coming from the man who thought squigbuggies of all things were OP so you know...
But he is right, nothing in the Marine arsenal could ever do so much damage for so little points. Luckily for them, their overall damage is way higher than that of most armies anyway so they don´t need it.
Holy gak last time I checked this thread was on page 7 where half the posts were wasted to debunking his nonsense. 4 pages later and its STILL happening. How much discussion does one person have to ruin before people realize to ignore him and move on?
Xenomancers wrote: Nah but they really just hate marines. They can't acknowledge the fact marines have been bad for most the history of the game. They overstate periods when marines were actually good. So if they can't be honest about these periods - there is no way to have a real discussion about how bad the situation is now. Generally - the level marines are at right now is not even close to unprecedented.
.
The first part is actually true for me, not sure about others. Everything else? not so much.
I actually quite like Marines, and if a discount box (because lets be honest, we'll be lucky if it is 60USD or less for a box of 5) ever comes with Heavy Intercessors, I feel I would be sorely tempted to go in on a small force of them. Then again I enjoy units with strong defense (while unfortunately not really enjoying the Nurgle aesthetic).
Also man, I remember in 7th hearing Tactical Marines and their baseline infantry units sucked. Then I looked at my guard, who at the time, were weaker in almost every way and didn't even get a save vs the basic weapon the Marines carried. I know I am a filthy casual, but it felt like even back then, the argument was that oh yes, they can hurt wipe the floor with the mainline infantry of other factions without breaking a sweat, but since they couldn't on their own hold out against Eldar Jetbikes or a Riptide list, they were trash.
So on the actual topic of the thread, what is a general playstyle Marines currently cannot do? From what I gather in the thread, Hording up seems to be the main one - they can throw out a respectable number of bodies, but not on par with a true horde, and at the cost to other aspects of their army like access to tanks and more specialized units. Which, to be fair, seems reasonable - if you are leaning into strong and flexible infantry and throwing down as many as you possibly can, you really should lose out on a few other points.
The problem people are having is that most other ways of playing Marines don't come with those costs, or at least not as heavily - leaning into a gunline, and they will still have acceptable melee to bully an opposing gunline, or a melee build will still have their ranged weapons to fall back on in a pinch/to soften up their foes. Most other armies, if they want to lean out of their niche, do so at a cost. The talk of Bullgryn earlier is a good example - the unit itself is great, and it gives the Imperial Guard a niche it didn't have before with a strong, defensive melee unit. However, to do so you are sacrificing almost 30 bodies and the firepower they bring, as well as several of the synergies the army is built around (Regimental Doctrines, Orders).
NinthMusketeer wrote: Holy gak last time I checked this thread was on page 7 where half the posts were wasted to debunking his nonsense. 4 pages later and its STILL happening. How much discussion does one person have to ruin before people realize to ignore him and move on?
sadly when one or two person comandeer most threads, ignoring them would result in there being no conversation.
* Primaris vehicles are better at doing the fast mechanized force thing than drukhari, eldar, and tau.
*
Are you talking about Impulsors?
They got nerfed hard. They no longer fly (unlike Drukhari, Eldar and Tau transports) and their invulnerable went to 5++, all while not going down in points.
Don't get me started on the trainwreck of the new Gladiators or the glorified paperweights Repulsors are right now.
Hecaton wrote: Nah, look at how things went with the Kellermorph. Other factions having fun, interesting options that work on the tabletop *makes Astartes players less happy.* They see it as a zero-sum game.
I like how projection is so strong here it makes lascannons look like flashlights. No, people had problems with this comically stupid, idiotic nonsense of a unit because of broken rules that peed all over fluff (pistols banged together from scrap stronger than necron and DAoT weaponry? yeah, whatever, let's ignore destroyed verisimilitude because my faction gets to be OP!). It would be one thing if he had plasma pistols or some special tyranid gun or something but as it is, that is one of the dumbest units ever made in 40K. Both fluff and rules.
Funny how almost no one protested hexmark, which is kelly sue made right, and is actually fun, interesting option, not pile of steaming gak that is unfun to play against and requires zero braincells to actually use. If SM actually had an unit like KM, howls about it from complainers would be unending. But alas, SM have nothing anywhere near that broken, incidentally once again proving thread title wrong
Nah, look at how things went with the Kellermorph. Other factions having fun, interesting options that work on the tabletop *makes Astartes players less happy.* They see it as a zero-sum game.
caree to show me the dozen posts a week from marine players that bitched whined and moaned about the Kellermorph? because I sure didn't see it.
Nah, look at how things went with the Kellermorph. Other factions having fun, interesting options that work on the tabletop *makes Astartes players less happy.* They see it as a zero-sum game.
caree to show me the dozen posts a week from marine players that bitched whined and moaned about the Kellermorph? because I sure didn't see it.
Pretty sure that was the guard players fearing for their flimsy characters.
Nah, look at how things went with the Kellermorph. Other factions having fun, interesting options that work on the tabletop *makes Astartes players less happy.* They see it as a zero-sum game.
caree to show me the dozen posts a week from marine players that bitched whined and moaned about the Kellermorph? because I sure didn't see it.
Pretty sure that was the guard players fearing for their flimsy characters.
Makes sense, guard are pretty reliant on their HQs and their HQs are flimsy to units like the keller morph, I know guard players where a little displeased with eliminators as well
Irbis wrote: But alas, SM have nothing anywhere near that broken, incidentally once again proving thread title wrong
Wait... more broken than the kellermorph?
I mean... that's not a short list, right? The kellermorph is... fine, in a vacuum, but SM has a bunch of stuff that outperforms it. And the kellermorph has the handicap of being GSC.
A SM player that is berating a GSC player for being too powerful is... hilarious.
"What can marines not do?" = be humble, apparently.
Irbis wrote: But alas, SM have nothing anywhere near that broken, incidentally once again proving thread title wrong
Wait... more broken than the kellermorph?
I mean... that's not a short list, right? The kellermorph is... fine, in a vacuum, but SM has a bunch of stuff that outperforms it. And the kellermorph has the handicap of being GSC.
A SM player that is berating a GSC player for being too powerful is... hilarious.
"What can marines not do?" = be humble, apparently.
Why do his cobbled together pistols have D2 and why can he fire them as fast as an autocannon? The issue isn't that the Kellermorph is good it's that it makes no sense.
Irbis wrote: But alas, SM have nothing anywhere near that broken, incidentally once again proving thread title wrong
Wait... more broken than the kellermorph?
I mean... that's not a short list, right? The kellermorph is... fine, in a vacuum, but SM has a bunch of stuff that outperforms it. And the kellermorph has the handicap of being GSC.
A SM player that is berating a GSC player for being too powerful is... hilarious.
"What can marines not do?" = be humble, apparently.
Why do his cobbled together pistols have D2 and why can he fire them as fast as an autocannon? The issue isn't that the Kellermorph is good it's that it makes no sense.
for a start because the weapons AREN'T cobbled together from junk. Codex GSCs described them as
"A favoured armament of Arbites lawkeepers and hivegangers alike,the liberator autostub is a snubrevolver chambered for extremely powerful armour-piercing slugs.It is an iconic status symbol and reliable killing tool alike"
So it's not a cobbled together weapon, no it just so happens one of the most popular pistols in the hands of hive gangers and police officers everywhere is one almsot dieally suited to killing 8 foot tall geneticly enhanced humans in tank thick armor plate and is COMPLETE over kill against well.. hive gangers etc
I mean seriously, why the hell is the guard issuing las guns etc? apparently their average hive world has better firepower!
Please note BTW I'm not saying the Kellermorphs weapon stats are the problem, the problem is they give the character a weapon better then the stuff issue'd to the guard and say "ohh yeah, it's a normal popular civilian side arm" had they instead suggested I dunno that "by time a kellermorph appers the reach of the cult is vast, and the chosen champion can be equipped with some of the best weaponry on the world. weapons that would not be out of place on the belt of governerers or high ranking officers" it'd come off as a LOT better.
Irbis wrote: But alas, SM have nothing anywhere near that broken, incidentally once again proving thread title wrong
Wait... more broken than the kellermorph?
I mean... that's not a short list, right? The kellermorph is... fine, in a vacuum, but SM has a bunch of stuff that outperforms it. And the kellermorph has the handicap of being GSC.
A SM player that is berating a GSC player for being too powerful is... hilarious.
"What can marines not do?" = be humble, apparently.
Why do his cobbled together pistols have D2 and why can he fire them as fast as an autocannon? The issue isn't that the Kellermorph is good it's that it makes no sense.
for a start because the weapons AREN'T cobbled together from junk. Codex GSCs described them as
"A favoured armament of Arbites lawkeepers and hivegangers alike,the liberator autostub is a snubrevolver chambered for extremely powerful armour-piercing slugs.It is an iconic status symbol and reliable killing tool alike"
So it's not a cobbled together weapon, no it just so happens one of the most popular pistols in the hands of hive gangers and police officers everywhere is one almsot dieally suited to killing 8 foot tall geneticly enhanced humans in tank thick armor plate and is COMPLETE over kill against well.. hive gangers etc
I mean seriously, why the hell is the guard issuing las guns etc? apparently their average hive world has better firepower!
Please note BTW I'm not saying the Kellermorphs weapon stats are the problem, the problem is they give the character a weapon better then the stuff issue'd to the guard and say "ohh yeah, it's a normal popular civilian side arm" had they instead suggested I dunno that "by time a kellermorph appers the reach of the cult is vast, and the chosen champion can be equipped with some of the best weaponry on the world. weapons that would not be out of place on the belt of governerers or high ranking officers" it'd come off as a LOT better.
The basic autostub firing normal rounds might be a civilian or Arbites firearm but the Kellermorph description says his liberator autostubs are custom pistols using special ammunition, that often costs the lives of the maker to make.
The 40K battle represented by the tabletop game is likely a pivotal moment for the GSC so the Kellermorph is being profligate with the ammunition. I could see the Kellermorph using normal ammunition for lesser conflicts, such as picking off a troublesome gang leader instead.
The basic autostub firing normal rounds might be a civilian or Arbites firearm but the Kellermorph description says his liberator autostubs are custom pistols using special ammunition, that often costs the lives of the maker to make.
The 40K battle represented by the tabletop game is likely a pivotal moment for the GSC so the Kellermorph is being profligate with the ammunition. I could see the Kellermorph using normal ammunition for lesser conflicts, such as picking off a troublesome gang leader instead.
GW and firearms fluff are always entertaining.
Marines fire caseless ammunition. So all those brass shell casings we paint on scenic bases... isn't supposed to be there. That's the "case". Which their ammunition doesn't use.
BrianDavion wrote: "A favoured armament of Arbites lawkeepers and hivegangers alike,the liberator autostub is a snubrevolver chambered for extremely powerful armour-piercing slugs.It is an iconic status symbol and reliable killing tool alike"
So it's not a cobbled together weapon, no it just so happens one of the most popular pistols in the hands of hive gangers and police officers everywhere is one almsot dieally suited to killing 8 foot tall geneticly enhanced humans in tank thick armor plate and is COMPLETE over kill against well.. hive gangers etc
I mean seriously, why the hell is the guard issuing las guns etc? apparently their average hive world has better firepower!
Please note BTW I'm not saying the Kellermorphs weapon stats are the problem, the problem is they give the character a weapon better then the stuff issue'd to the guard and say "ohh yeah, it's a normal popular civilian side arm" had they instead suggested I dunno that "by time a kellermorph appers the reach of the cult is vast, and the chosen champion can be equipped with some of the best weaponry on the world. weapons that would not be out of place on the belt of governerers or high ranking officers" it'd come off as a LOT better.
Even if that were the case it makes the Astartes seem like idiots for using bolt pistols instead of these wunder cannons that any gang off the street can obtain if they mug a space cop.
agrteed. I mean.. the person working on them spends a small lifetime making a handful of bullets before the horrid working conditions kills him.. that's not special in the IoM that's tuesday!
BrianDavion wrote: agrteed. I mean.. the person working on them spends a small lifetime making a handful of bullets before the horrid working conditions kills him.. that's not special in the IoM that's tuesday!
For you, the day Bison assigned you to bullet manufacturing, was the most important day in your life. But for me, it was Tuesday.
BrianDavion wrote: "A favoured armament of Arbites lawkeepers and hivegangers alike,the liberator autostub is a snubrevolver chambered for extremely powerful armour-piercing slugs.It is an iconic status symbol and reliable killing tool alike"
So it's not a cobbled together weapon, no it just so happens one of the most popular pistols in the hands of hive gangers and police officers everywhere is one almsot dieally suited to killing 8 foot tall geneticly enhanced humans in tank thick armor plate and is COMPLETE over kill against well.. hive gangers etc
I mean seriously, why the hell is the guard issuing las guns etc? apparently their average hive world has better firepower!
Please note BTW I'm not saying the Kellermorphs weapon stats are the problem, the problem is they give the character a weapon better then the stuff issue'd to the guard and say "ohh yeah, it's a normal popular civilian side arm" had they instead suggested I dunno that "by time a kellermorph appers the reach of the cult is vast, and the chosen champion can be equipped with some of the best weaponry on the world. weapons that would not be out of place on the belt of governerers or high ranking officers" it'd come off as a LOT better.
Even if that were the case it makes the Astartes seem like idiots for using bolt pistols instead of these wunder cannons that any gang off the street can obtain if they mug a space cop.
Astartes, (And street gangs) can get Plasma Pistols which can operate at S8 -3 D2, well beyond the Kelermorph weapons. Marines can equip whole squads with them.
Insectum7 wrote: Astartes, (And street gangs) can get Plasma Pistols which can operate at S8 -3 D2, well beyond the Kelermorph weapons. Marines can equip whole squads with them.
They can get items which have a chance of blowing them up and which are rare meaning there will never be enough to go around. One the other hand, these pistols are common among the Arbutus and aren't noted for blowing up the soldier using them. Given this scenario what in-universe reason would there be for not using these in place in place of standard bolt pistols? They're simply better.
Bosskelot wrote: That's a monumentally stupid complaint to make since LSM characters are often rocking Damage 2-4 weapons which are often Pistols.
Name a single 4 damage pistol in codex space Marines. Even in the 9th edition codex which buffed a few weapons there are no pistols that deal THAT much damage (the closest I can think of is the Neo-Volkite pistol, which is 2 damage pistol 2. but that's not a 2 damage pistol and neo-Volkite are 1: brand new and reserved only for the elite. 2: are cutting edge IoM technology)
I do indeed think it's fair to look at the stats of those pistols and say ".. that seems a bit much for civilians"
Bosskelot wrote: That's a monumentally stupid complaint to make since LSM characters are often rocking Damage 2-4 weapons which are often Pistols.
Name a single 4 damage pistol in codex space Marines. Even in the 9th edition codex which buffed a few weapons there are no pistols that deal THAT much damage (the closest I can think of is the Neo-Volkite pistol, which is 2 damage pistol 2. but that's not a 2 damage pistol and neo-Volkite are 1: brand new and reserved only for the elite. 2: are cutting edge IoM technology)
I do indeed think it's fair to look at the stats of those pistols and say ".. that seems a bit much for civilians"
Inferno Pistol. Sunwrath is also a Pistol 2 Ancient Always safe Supercharged Plasma., maybe another few Relics. Kind of sort of the Primaris Apothecary within 3". But nobody is rocking 3 of them and Gunslinger. Truth be told the problem with the Kellermorph - such as it is - is Gunslinger not the pistol. Exploding Pistol 6 Sniper 2+'s are probably a little much. Assuming the rules I'm reading are right. You're going to get 9+ hits on average. 5 out of 6 on a 2+ and exploding 2+'s into more more than 4 out of 5 extra hits 9 hits 4.5 wounds, 9 Damage. That'll put a hurt on almost any/every (basic) HQ. A Farseer is hurting if not dead (4.5 damage after a 4++ by the rough math) A Necron Lord will be less wounded by virtue of being tougher, but still almost as dead. A Tau ethereal (sans drones) is just a red mist floating in the air. Much like a Guard Colonel.
Not Online!!! wrote: Considering the pricepoint of the kellermorph neither the ethereal nor the Colonel have any buissness surviving though...
Considering the price point of the Kellermorph it has no business putting out 9 or better Sniper (ignores Look Out Sir) shots, especially in an era where command/bodyguard squads were limited at best.
Not Online!!! wrote: Considering the pricepoint of the kellermorph neither the ethereal nor the Colonel have any buissness surviving though...
Considering the price point of the Kellermorph it has no business putting out 9 or better Sniper (ignores Look Out Sir) shots, especially in an era where command/bodyguard squads were limited at best.
Disagree, because by that metric you'd have to admit that neither Bolter discipline, nor intercessors, nor aggressors are equally acceptable, same applies to eliminators.
Not Online!!! wrote: Considering the pricepoint of the kellermorph neither the ethereal nor the Colonel have any buissness surviving though...
Considering the price point of the Kellermorph it has no business putting out 9 or better Sniper (ignores Look Out Sir) shots, especially in an era where command/bodyguard squads were limited at best.
Disagree, because by that metric you'd have to admit that neither Bolter discipline, nor intercessors, nor aggressors are equally acceptable, same applies to eliminators.
Do they ignore Look Out Sir? No? Then I don't have to agree. Ratlings are the cheapest sniper unit I can think of, and they cost you an extra 20 points for 6.67 -0 D1 Look Out Sir hits as opposed to 9+ -1 D2 Look Out Sir hits. Tau Sniper Drones will net you 5 for the same price and they'll put out 5/10 shots of which 2-4 will hit. Now Eliminators DO ignore Look Out sir, and are only 10 points more than the Kellermorph, lets look at see how many shots they get. They get.... 3. at -2 D2 of which 2.5 will hit. Or they get D3 each, average 2, 6 at -0 D1. Yeah you got me there. Eliminators should absolutely not put out 9 -1 D2 Ignores Look Out Sir hits for their price point. And they don't.
Not Online!!! wrote: Considering the pricepoint of the kellermorph neither the ethereal nor the Colonel have any buissness surviving though...
Considering the price point of the Kellermorph it has no business putting out 9 or better Sniper (ignores Look Out Sir) shots, especially in an era where command/bodyguard squads were limited at best.
Disagree, because by that metric you'd have to admit that neither Bolter discipline, nor intercessors, nor aggressors are equally acceptable, same applies to eliminators.
Do they ignore Look Out Sir? No? Then I don't have to agree. Ratlings are the cheapest sniper unit I can think of, and they cost you an extra 20 points for 6.67 -0 D1 Look Out Sir hits as opposed to 9+ -1 D2 Look Out Sir hits. Tau Sniper Drones will net you 5 for the same price and they'll put out 5/10 shots of which 2-4 will hit. Now Eliminators DO ignore Look Out sir, and are only 10 points more than the Kellermorph, lets look at see how many shots they get. They get.... 3. at -2 D2 of which 2.5 will hit. Or they get D3 each, average 2, 6 at -0 D1. Yeah you got me there. Eliminators should absolutely not put out 9 -1 D2 Ignores Look Out Sir hits for their price point. And they don't.
feeling defensive are we? Is it also acceptable that eliminators ignore los and do so from far more range?
And frankly unlike the kellermorph they don't need to insta return their investments because they can sit happily outside of an enemies range and even outside LOS and plink away at your enemy...
So again, is it wierd that a stubgun is outperforming boltguns, yes, is it gamebreaking? Not more so then any of the named issues.
Nope, I'm pretty used to and entertained by your dishonest shenanigans by now.
Me: Unit A shouldn't put out that much Sniper for it's price points.
Oh yeah? What about these 4 Space Marines units that don't ignore Look Out Sir at all, and one that does?! You have to agree they shouldn't exist either, because your point about Look Out Sir has nothing to do with this at all.
Is it also acceptable that eliminators ignore los and do so from far more range?
Yes, it's OK that a sniper unit WELL within the average rate of return for a sniper unit can ignore Look Out Sir. As I pointed out, their output is well within the same range as most of the other sniper units - Ratlings are about the same, Scouts are about the same, Rangers are about the same (6 shots, 4 hits at a little under 80 points), the Sniper Drone probably needs a quality bump and is underpowered.
And frankly unlike the kellermorph they don't need to insta return their investments because they can sit happily outside of an enemies range and even outside LOS and plink away at your enemy...
So again, is it wierd that a stubgun is outperforming boltguns, yes, is it gamebreaking? Not more so then any of the named issues.
Oh look, more of your dishonest shenanigans. I didn't complain about the pistol, as the quote shows you lying about. Again.
Truth be told the problem with the Kellermorph - such as it is - is Gunslinger not the pistol.
Not Online!!! wrote: Is it also acceptable that eliminators ignore los and do so from far more range?
And frankly unlike the kellermorph they don't need to insta return their investments because they can sit happily outside of an enemies range and even outside LOS and plink away at your enemy...
Eliminators can't ignore LOS. GW changed that with the new codex. So apparently GW thought that yes a "ignores LOS sniper rifle was, in retrospect, a bad idea"
Not Online!!! wrote: Is it also acceptable that eliminators ignore los and do so from far more range?
And frankly unlike the kellermorph they don't need to insta return their investments because they can sit happily outside of an enemies range and even outside LOS and plink away at your enemy...
Eliminators can't ignore LOS. GW changed that with the new codex. So apparently GW thought that yes a "ignores LOS sniper rifle was, in retrospect, a bad idea"
I assumed he meant Ignore Look Out Sir not Line Of Sight? Eliminators can still Ignore Look Out Sir.
Although, in retrospect, you may be right. He's not exactly the most honest person on here.
Nope, I'm pretty used to and entertained by your dishonest shenanigans by now.
Me: Unit A shouldn't put out that much Sniper for it's price points.
Oh yeah? What about these 4 Space Marines units that don't ignore Look Out Sir at all, and one that does?! You have to agree they shouldn't exist either, because your point about Look Out Sir has nothing to do with this at all.
Sorry, but the ammount of shots off all these units is off, the same issue you complain about they might not ignore look out sir in many cases but are all in the same ballpark for beeing an issue...
And yes, go through your post history, you are feeling defensive that you marines are a far bigger issue, constantly downplaying.. but claiming dishonesty via semantics is something you are good in, as is you misrepresenting a point.
Is it also acceptable that eliminators ignore los and do so from far more range?
Yes, it's OK that a sniper unit WELL within the average rate of return for a sniper unit can ignore Look Out Sir. As I pointed out, their output is well within the same range as most of the other sniper units - Ratlings are about the same, Scouts are about the same, Rangers are about the same (6 shots, 4 hits at a little under 80 points), the Sniper Drone probably needs a quality bump and is underpowered.
So this is what i meant I MEAN LINE OF SIGHT, a distinct lack of condition that eliminators don't need to fullfill, outperforming therefore all units on this list but like you said
"dishonest shenanigans" , because i am frankly secure that you know what i meant with the eliminator issue.
And frankly unlike the kellermorph they don't need to insta return their investments because they can sit happily outside of an enemies range and even outside LOS and plink away at your enemy...
So again, is it wierd that a stubgun is outperforming boltguns, yes, is it gamebreaking? Not more so then any of the named issues.
Oh look, more of your dishonest shenanigans. I didn't complain about the pistol, as the quote shows you lying about. Again.
Truth be told the problem with the Kellermorph - such as it is - is Gunslinger not the pistol.
the gunslinger trait beeing associated with cost and ignoring look out sir, is a combination, found in many ways, but like the eradicator discussion in which you so ardently insist landspeeders are better, then the unit that showed up instantly after it's release i doubt it is i who is dishonest.
Nope, I'm pretty used to and entertained by your dishonest shenanigans by now.
Me: Unit A shouldn't put out that much Sniper for it's price points.
Oh yeah? What about these 4 Space Marines units that don't ignore Look Out Sir at all, and one that does?! You have to agree they shouldn't exist either, because your point about Look Out Sir has nothing to do with this at all.
Sorry, but the ammount of shots off all these units is off, the same issue you complain about they might not ignore look out sir in many cases but are all in the same ballpark for beeing an issue...
And yes, go through your post history, you are feeling defensive that you marines are a far bigger issue, constantly downplaying.. but claiming dishonesty via semantics is something you are good in, as is you misrepresenting a point.
Is it also acceptable that eliminators ignore los and do so from far more range?
Yes, it's OK that a sniper unit WELL within the average rate of return for a sniper unit can ignore Look Out Sir. As I pointed out, their output is well within the same range as most of the other sniper units - Ratlings are about the same, Scouts are about the same, Rangers are about the same (6 shots, 4 hits at a little under 80 points), the Sniper Drone probably needs a quality bump and is underpowered.
So this is what i meant I MEAN LINE OF SIGHT, a distinct lack of condition that eliminators don't need to fullfill, outperforming therefore all units on this list but like you said
"dishonest shenanigans" , because i am frankly secure that you know what i meant with the eliminator issue.
And frankly unlike the kellermorph they don't need to insta return their investments because they can sit happily outside of an enemies range and even outside LOS and plink away at your enemy...
So again, is it wierd that a stubgun is outperforming boltguns, yes, is it gamebreaking? Not more so then any of the named issues.
Oh look, more of your dishonest shenanigans. I didn't complain about the pistol, as the quote shows you lying about. Again.
Truth be told the problem with the Kellermorph - such as it is - is Gunslinger not the pistol.
I repeat. Codex Space Marines 9.0 Nerfed Eliminators, they do not have a option to Ignore LOS anymore. they now simply have a round that ignores cover. at the cost of going from 2 dmg to 1 dmg and losing a point of AP
Nope, I'm pretty used to and entertained by your dishonest shenanigans by now.
Me: Unit A shouldn't put out that much Sniper for it's price points.
Oh yeah? What about these 4 Space Marines units that don't ignore Look Out Sir at all, and one that does?! You have to agree they shouldn't exist either, because your point about Look Out Sir has nothing to do with this at all.
Sorry, but the ammount of shots off all these units is off, the same issue you complain about they might not ignore look out sir in many cases but are all in the same ballpark for beeing an issue...
And yes, go through your post history, you are feeling defensive that you marines are a far bigger issue, constantly downplaying.. but claiming dishonesty via semantics is something you are good in, as is you misrepresenting a point.
Liar says what? I'm not going to feel defensive because you can't be honest about the discussion, that's your problem not mine.
Is it also acceptable that eliminators ignore los and do so from far more range?
Yes, it's OK that a sniper unit WELL within the average rate of return for a sniper unit can ignore Look Out Sir. As I pointed out, their output is well within the same range as most of the other sniper units - Ratlings are about the same, Scouts are about the same, Rangers are about the same (6 shots, 4 hits at a little under 80 points), the Sniper Drone probably needs a quality bump and is underpowered.
So this is what i meant I MEAN LINE OF SIGHT, a distinct lack of condition that eliminators don't need to fullfill, outperforming therefore all units on this list but like you said
"dishonest shenanigans" , because i am frankly secure that you know what i meant with the eliminator issue.
No, it appears I gave you more credit than I should have.
Oh look, more of your dishonest shenanigans. I didn't complain about the pistol, as the quote shows you lying about. Again.
Truth be told the problem with the Kellermorph - such as it is - is Gunslinger not the pistol.
So why did you keep this quote tweet of you lying again?
BrianDavion wrote: I repeat. Codex Space Marines 9.0 Nerfed Eliminators, they do not have a option to Ignore LOS anymore. they now simply have a round that ignores cover. at the cost of going from 2 dmg to 1 dmg and losing a point of AP
Look out Sir and Line of Sight have the same abbreviation...
Not Online!!! wrote: Considering the pricepoint of the kellermorph neither the ethereal nor the Colonel have any buissness surviving though...
Considering the price point of the Kellermorph it has no business putting out 9 or better Sniper (ignores Look Out Sir) shots, especially in an era where command/bodyguard squads were limited at best.
Wellp, i guess i misread were instead of Where, and assumed you wanted to point to release state... My bad, but the point still stands for the price the Kellermorph is a suicide unit that either makes its pts back or dies off unlike any of the named other Sniper units..
That is indeed my bad.
However i won't take back that you feel defensive, because one can go through your ammount of Posts and find that out rather fast. Heck you can through this very thread to find some of that.
And Rule 1 still applies , calling somone outright a liar, and dishonest argumentation is imo over that point.
not to mention that as soon as someone does disagree with you, you attempt to argue that said poster " Misrepresents " or "Lies"..
BrianDavion wrote: I repeat. Codex Space Marines 9.0 Nerfed Eliminators, they do not have a option to Ignore LOS anymore. they now simply have a round that ignores cover. at the cost of going from 2 dmg to 1 dmg and losing a point of AP
Look out Sir and Line of Sight have the same abbreviation...
ahh right, derp. Anyway, I did feel it's worth noting eliminators got nerfed. looking at what the keller morph could do, and what the nerf was (basicly it effedctively got the "core keyword" treatment applied to it's aura) it'd say the nerf was about right and right now the unit is potent, potentially a game changer but yeah I don't think it's broken.
Not Online!!! wrote: Considering the pricepoint of the kellermorph neither the ethereal nor the Colonel have any buissness surviving though...
Considering the price point of the Kellermorph it has no business putting out 9 or better Sniper (ignores Look Out Sir) shots, especially in an era where command/bodyguard squads were limited at best.
Wellp, i guess i misread were instead of Where, and assumed you wanted to point to release state... My bad, but the point still stands for the price the Kellermorph is a suicide unit that either makes its pts back or dies off unlike any of the named other Sniper units..
That is indeed my bad.
However i won't take back that you feel defensive, because one can go through your ammount of Posts and find that out rather fast. Heck you can through this very thread to find some of that.
And Rule 1 still applies , calling somone outright a liar, and dishonest argumentation is imo over that point.
Did you lie about what I said? We can scroll up and see it. Do you need me to quote it again-again? And again, you're not honest enough to make me defensive. Its neither my fault or my problem you can't argue honestly.
not to mention that as soon as someone does disagree with you, you attempt to argue that said poster " Misrepresents " or "Lies"..
Just you and people who argue like you. I've disagreed with a lot of honest people on here. Maybe the difference is... you? And Again, in reply to my point about Look Out Sir, you tried to obfuscate with a bunch of non-sniper units you think are OP. You lied about what my point was about. It was right there, I said it's not the pistol, its Gunslinger. You lied and tried to mock me for complaining about the pistol I wasn't even talking about.
BrianDavion wrote: I repeat. Codex Space Marines 9.0 Nerfed Eliminators, they do not have a option to Ignore LOS anymore. they now simply have a round that ignores cover. at the cost of going from 2 dmg to 1 dmg and losing a point of AP
Look out Sir and Line of Sight have the same abbreviation...
ahh right, derp. Anyway, I did feel it's worth noting eliminators got nerfed. looking at what the keller morph could do, and what the nerf was (basicly it effedctively got the "core keyword" treatment applied to it's aura) it'd say the nerf was about right and right now the unit is potent, potentially a game changer but yeah I don't think it's broken.
Nope, you were right, I was giving him too much credit.
So this is what i meant I MEAN LINE OF SIGHT
He was trying to bring up something no longer accurate in addition to a bunch of irrelevant to Look Out Sir units.
Xenomancers wrote: You are delusional about history but that's just hate clouding your judgement. Happens to the best of us until we let go of the hate.
You sound like you are speaking from experience .
Do you mean that it happened to you before?
BrianDavion wrote: neo-Volkite are 1: brand new and reserved only for the elite. 2: are cutting edge IoM technology)
I absolutely, totally hate to see "new stuff is better" stuff in 40k. Older should mean better in the Imperium, and primaris make a mockery of this. Sad sad sad.
Imperium is now the new Tau empire.
"I absolutely, totally hate to see "new stuff is better" stuff in 40k. Older should mean better in the Imperium, and primaris make a mockery of this. Sad sad sad.
Imperium is now the new Tau empire."
Given that the real "Dark Age" was more political than technological, it breaks the suspension of disbelief that technological regression would last 10K years. It works kind of as satire, but not played straight.
Not Online!!! wrote: Considering the pricepoint of the kellermorph neither the ethereal nor the Colonel have any buissness surviving though...
Considering the price point of the Kellermorph it has no business putting out 9 or better Sniper (ignores Look Out Sir) shots, especially in an era where command/bodyguard squads were limited at best.
Wellp, i guess i misread were instead of Where, and assumed you wanted to point to release state... My bad, but the point still stands for the price the Kellermorph is a suicide unit that either makes its pts back or dies off unlike any of the named other Sniper units..
That is indeed my bad.
However i won't take back that you feel defensive, because one can go through your ammount of Posts and find that out rather fast. Heck you can through this very thread to find some of that.
And Rule 1 still applies , calling somone outright a liar, and dishonest argumentation is imo over that point.
Did you lie about what I said? We can scroll up and see it. Do you need me to quote it again-again? And again, you're not honest enough to make me defensive. Its neither my fault or my problem you can't argue honestly.
not to mention that as soon as someone does disagree with you, you attempt to argue that said poster " Misrepresents " or "Lies"..
Just you and people who argue like you. I've disagreed with a lot of honest people on here. Maybe the difference is... you? And Again, in reply to my point about Look Out Sir, you tried to obfuscate with a bunch of non-sniper units you think are OP. You lied about what my point was about. It was right there, I said it's not the pistol, its Gunslinger. You lied and tried to mock me for complaining about the pistol I wasn't even talking about.
Assuming an honest mistake for a lie, is just that which i addmited i will however not retract what i stated and instead post these here as an exemple for YOUR defensiveness and direct attacks on credibility:
here we have you, frankly misrepresenting JNA's point which is founded, whilest yours is not.
Merge the wounds and armor save into 2W and a 3+ and what have you got? Pretty close to a Primaris marine for 5 points less?
It costs more, but not enough more.
Point for point, Intercessors outfight Boys and outshoot Fire Warriors. Not against every single target in the game-but against most targets.
And what on earth do you mean by combining their profiles like that? By that logic, I have a 500 point Knight Gallant. It's combined with 20 Guardsmen, giving it an extra 20 wounds at 5 points each.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breton wrote: And no, 400 gaunts require 400 shots. 100 first born require 100 shots.
If all the shots are AP-4 and D2 or better, sure.
You didn’t understand that a Primaris Intercessor has roughly the best stat from both those models, and both their wounds for (very roughly) their combined point for point cost? And no, no matter how times you make the claim, one Primaris Intercessor does not outshoot 3 fire warriors, or out fight 2 and a half boys. Just saying “point for point” doesn’t make your NOT point for point comparison accurate.
Especially if you didn’t understand that point for point an Intercessor is an Ork Boy AND a Tau Fire Warrior. And still costs more, point for point, to boot.
I mean yes, that is true, but that involves literally mashing two separate units with different focuses together, taking their best abilities, and even then fudging their stats to match them.
It figuratively involves mashing two units with a specific focus to compare them and their discount price for that one phase focus to another unit that has a two phase focus.
Here we have Hyprocrisy , an "my bad" Moment from you, as soon someone else does that it is unaceptable and a liar:
JNAProductions wrote: An Intercessor is worth 2.2 repeating Fire Warriors, or 2.5 Boys. But yeah, three Fire Warriors would probably outshoot a single Intercessor against a decent range of targets. They also cost 35% more, and have absolute CRAP for melee. So they should.
Tell me more. I’m curious to know how 1 intercessor with 2 WS3+ S4 -0 attacks + 1 some of the time is out fighting 2.5 x 2 WS3 S4 -0 + 1 all the Time attacks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SemperMortis wrote: 3 Firewarriors is 27pts, so yeah, 1 intercessor at 20pts does not outperform 3 firewarriors,
Yeah, I was doing pre-CA, my bad. Hadn’t seen your math and thought they were one of the few that didn’t get changed.
what he does do though is outperform them on an equivalent footing. The math I did was 180pts of Firewarriors (20 of them) vs 9 Intercessors, because that is a good comparison and equal points. And yes, intercessors absolutely out shoot those firewarriors, the only thing Firewarriors excel at (slightly) is T8. In CC I compared them against genestealers but if you wanted to do Boyz than a comparison would be 10 Orkz vs 4 intercessors. I am assuming you want to give the boyz choppas.
30 attacks, 20 hits, 10 wounds 3.33 dmg, Marines lose equivalent to 33pts
intercessors get 12 attacks, 8 hits, 4 wounds for 3.33 dmg. orkz lose equivalent to 26.66pts.
Marines lost 25% unit damage capacity, orkz lost 30%.
Next round Orkz only get 21 attacks, 14 hits, 7 wounds for 1 more dead Marine.
Marines get 6 attacks 4 hits, 2 wounds for 2 more dead Orkz.
Marines are at 50% fighting strength, orkz are as well. Dmg potential, Orkz are just barely edging out the marines, so long as we don't include the pistols both sides are carrying which will skew the data in favor of the marines.
So yes, Intercessors, point for point perform as well as Ork choppa boyz and are vastly superior to Ork Shoota boyz. And at range they are significantly better. Those 4 Intercessors at range kill 2-3 boyz a turn while the ork boyz can't even return fire until they are within charge range.
I think we just moved some goalposts. Why did we do Tau and Marines shooting at Orks, but Marines and Orks are... fighting each other? Why aren’t they fighting the same target? Oh wait. I see why.
With a nice sidedish of moving goalposts to boot. Impressive.
Oh so YOU DO NOT like if you get called out but it is fine IF YOU do it... Also impressive:
Its like you enjoy lying and misrepresenting what I have said in order to try and win an argument you know you've already lost.
I know you are but what am I? Accusing me of lying and misrepresenting right after I just quote tweeted you doing it isn’t the best move you could make. He said it (the dominance) ended in 4-6 months when two specific codexes came out. You then lied about what he said to try and make a different point you could “win” at about how long it took for SOB to come out.
Yah, that is more or less your participation in this thread alone.
SecondTime wrote: "I absolutely, totally hate to see "new stuff is better" stuff in 40k. Older should mean better in the Imperium, and primaris make a mockery of this. Sad sad sad.
Imperium is now the new Tau empire."
Given that the real "Dark Age" was more political than technological, it breaks the suspension of disbelief that technological regression would last 10K years. It works kind of as satire, but not played straight.
Plus Volkite isn't new. NEO-Volkite might be, but Volkite was Heresy era stuff.
SecondTime wrote: Given that the real "Dark Age" was more political than technological, it breaks the suspension of disbelief that technological regression would last 10K years. It works kind of as satire, but not played straight.
I am against it on the basis of realism? Well, no. No I'm not. Not in my 40k . Sure, technological regression that last 10k years demands a lot of suspension of disbelief. But what we got instead? Stagnation for 10K years and then suddenly new stuff? Doesn't make the suspension of disbelief any easier, really!
Do I want my 40k played straight? Not really.
SecondTime wrote: Given that the real "Dark Age" was more political than technological, it breaks the suspension of disbelief that technological regression would last 10K years. It works kind of as satire, but not played straight.
I am against it on the basis of realism? Well, no. No I'm not. Not in my 40k . Sure, technological regression that last 10k years demands a lot of suspension of disbelief. But what we got instead? Stagnation for 10K years and then suddenly new stuff? Doesn't make the suspension of disbelief any easier, really!
Do I want my 40k played straight? Not really.
Brandon Sanderson had a great lecture on why changing the rules of a universe TOO MUCH from what we live in causes problems. Logic doesn't stop working. Science exists, and scientific outcomes are by definition, rediscoverable and reproduceable. Even if the warp also exists and is a thing, that doesn't undo all of logic and science. It it were to, then everything is arbitrary, there are no stakes and nothing to relate to. This is why a satirical setting can't be played straight, but they do it anyway.
This is also why chapter sizes are immersion breaking because we know from own wars that one thousand troopers of any quality are too few and that's only on a planetary scale. But these sizes were determined in the satire era, not the straight era.
Assuming an honest mistake for a lie, is just that which i addmited i will however not retract what i stated and instead post these here as an exemple for YOUR defensiveness and direct attacks on credibility:
To make an honest mistake, you'd have to be honest first.
So again, is it wierd that a stubgun is outperforming boltguns, yes, is it gamebreaking? Not more so then any of the named issues.
Not only were you not saying it AGAIN - you didn't have a post on the issue - it wasn't even what I said - instead I literally said the issue wasn't the pistol but the Gunslinger. In fact your first response on the issue was in reply to me pointing out SEVERAL pistols in the Marine arsenal that have similar statlines AND that the issue was Gunslinger not the pistol.
Inferno Pistol. Sunwrath is also a Pistol 2 Ancient Always safe Supercharged Plasma., maybe another few Relics. Kind of sort of the Primaris Apothecary within 3". But nobody is rocking 3 of them and Gunslinger. Truth be told the problem with the Kellermorph - such as it is - is Gunslinger not the pistol.
Why is Gunslinger an inappropriate concept for 40k? Is it any weirder than power-armored knights wielding chainswords, or fungoid humanoids with a psychic gestalt field that empowers them in groups, or anything else, really?
Because mechanically, the Kellermorph is good, but didn't exactly rock the tournament scene. And in casual games, given it's a single unit, it's easy to just ask "Can you not take a Kellermorph?" if your list is incapable of handling it.
JNAProductions wrote: Why is Gunslinger an inappropriate concept for 40k? Is it any weirder than power-armored knights wielding chainswords, or fungoid humanoids with a psychic gestalt field that empowers them in groups, or anything else, really?
Because mechanically, the Kellermorph is good, but didn't exactly rock the tournament scene. And in casual games, given it's a single unit, it's easy to just ask "Can you not take a Kellermorph?" if your list is incapable of handling it.
What do you mean inappropriate concept? Its the "problem" with the Kellermorph - again such as it is (it's not a BIG problem) - but there's nothing wrong with the concept. Cypher has had various Gunslinger concepts through the history of the game too. Exploding 2+'s are a little dicey while everyone else is on exploding 6's, but not so much so given the single model high price. Ignoring Look Out Sir by itself isn't a problem. That much Look Out Sir, on a character that I assume can get Look Out Sir itself is a little extreme especially for some armies, and especially while the bodyguard (intercept on a 2+, or cannot be targeted even with Ignoring Look Out Sir as it looks like it's going) rules are in flux and/or non-existent.
The Kellermorph is going to get about 9 S4 -1 D2 hits. In the same 70-90 points range Ratling Snipers put out 6.67 S4 -0 1D hits, and almost 2 mortal wounds for about the same price. Rangers will put out 5.36 S4 -0 D1 and most of 2 mortal wounds. Eliminators 2.52 S5 -2 D2 hits and half a mortal wound. Tau Sniper Drones are just boned and need a buff. They get 5-10 shots, most likely 5, only 1.65 or so will hit for S5 -0 1D, plus deal most of a mortal wound.
Marines already have the new bodyguard rule, characters can't be targeted even with ignores Look Out Sir. Necrons too. As near as I can tell Eldar don't even have one, nor CSM. DG do. In a twist I find absolutely hysterical Custodes - the bodyguards of the emperor - don't have a bodyguard rule. (that I can see). Mechanicus appear to not have one. Doesn't appear Orks have one.
The Warboss, Shield Captain, Tech Priest, and Chaos Lord/Daemon Prince are beefy enough it'll hurt but would need some very lucky and unlucky rolling both to get dead. The Farseer, and the Guard Colonel not so much. The Necron Lord without a bodyguard is on shaky ground too (unless he got a buff in the new codex) The Visarch is dead. Yvraine is dead. Assuming The Visarch is already dead and can't bodyguard. Without drones the Aun'shi Fireblade, Darkstrider, and Ethereal are dead - though I think because most drones can do the bodyguard thing they're the most likely army to have had some. Most of the suits live, and they're I think the common HQs.
4.4
The Company Command is probably the squishiest with the least likely bodyguard potential. 2.52 hits will be 1.68 wounds 1.13 after invulns, 2.26 damage about half, and half a mortal wound and it's closer to 75% dead. Ratling Snipers will get 6.667 hits, 4.4 wounds, 2.2 after saves and most of two mortal wounds so they'd still kill the officer too. Which probably says something about the officer
Vs the Farseer - 1.68 wounds. .84 after saves, 1.68 damage, plus half a mortal wound. Safe Farseer. Vs Ratlings, 4.4 wounds 2.2 damage, plus most of 2 mortal wounds, still a safe farseer. But less so than vs Eliminators.
SM have a sniper relic you can stick on a caracter. S5 -2 D3 +1MW on every successful wound (not sure if that's before or after armor save, I assume before) Don't even need to do the math to know just about everyone but the Guard Colonel and the Ethereal is safe.
Like I said it's not a big problem, and the places where it is it's not the ONLY problem. If I were writing the book, I'd split Gunslinger and you could pick either Ignore Lookout Sir, or Exploding 2+'s.
I lost a couple smash captains to them because I'm bad a storm shield rolls, but I didn't find them to be that outrageous. I guess anything that takes out spess mahreen heroes gets the evil eye.
Make that Ignore Look Out Sir! and Mortal wounds on somethings.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: 12” range too. Don’t forget that!
And on a squishy T3 5++ body.
With Look Out Sir protection of it's own and exploding 2+'s on non-character models. Other snipers don't have near the utility shooting at "just dudes". All those armies can also counter battery the other snipers. Not so much the Character Kelermorph.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SecondTime wrote: I lost a couple smash captains to them because I'm bad a storm shield rolls, but I didn't find them to be that outrageous. I guess anything that takes out spess mahreen heroes gets the evil eye.
As I and others mentioned, the Space Marines aren't the ones especially vulnerable. Any of T5+. T4+ and 3+ armor or a T4+ and 4++ with 5+ wounds is fairly safe with average rolls. The more of that they have, the safer they are. The guard commander is T3 4W and 5++ - none of the above, which is why he's a red mist. The Farseer is T3 5W with a 4++ which is why they're borderline.
As I and others mentioned, the Space Marines aren't the ones especially vulnerable. Any of T5+. T4+ and 3+ armor or a T4+ and 4++ with 5+ wounds is fairly safe with average rolls. The more of that they have, the safer they are.
You ain't going to have more marine characters then marines ones, with the way HQ slots work in 9th and by the sole fact that unlike lets say IG characters, the marine often cost more then 2 units of other factions.
SecondTime wrote: Guard commanders don't much matter, though. They are very , very cheap. IG can afford redundancy.
not really, they're still limited by HQ slots after all. look, this whole conversation started because someone insisted Marines where up in arms over kellermorphs. I think one person has tried to argue that yeah Kellermorphs are cheeky, MOST people have said "eh their nerf was about right they're fine these days and most of the issues with them where people who played other armies with flimsier HQs"
ohh and some of us admitted the weapons stats where a bit silly considering...
SecondTime wrote: Guard commanders don't much matter, though. They are very , very cheap. IG can afford redundancy.
not really, they're still limited by HQ slots after all.
Can't they just buy more force orgs? That's the whole point to them, really. You can't ever kill anything meaningful in an IG army because nothing's meaningful in the first place. Points-wise I mean.
SecondTime wrote: Guard commanders don't much matter, though. They are very , very cheap. IG can afford redundancy.
not really, they're still limited by HQ slots after all.
Can't they just buy more force orgs? That's the whole point to them, really. You can't ever kill anything meaningful in an IG army because nothing's meaningful in the first place. Points-wise I mean.
buying extra detachments means CPs spent on that rather then on other things.
look, someone commented that marine players where pup in arms over the kellermorph, someone else noted that "it's really guard and eldar who have the most trouble with it"
SecondTime wrote: Guard commanders don't much matter, though. They are very , very cheap. IG can afford redundancy.
not really, they're still limited by HQ slots after all.
Can't they just buy more force orgs? That's the whole point to them, really. You can't ever kill anything meaningful in an IG army because nothing's meaningful in the first place. Points-wise I mean.
First and foremost they just plain need a boost. They and Ethereals both. Maybe some others. As mentioned the Kelermorph wasn't the only problem in that situation. The loss of the command squad around the Company Commander/Colonel hurt Guard quite a bit.
As I and others mentioned, the Space Marines aren't the ones especially vulnerable. Any of T5+. T4+ and 3+ armor or a T4+ and 4++ with 5+ wounds is fairly safe with average rolls. The more of that they have, the safer they are.
You ain't going to have more marine characters then marines ones, with the way HQ slots work in 9th and by the sole fact that unlike lets say IG characters, the marine often cost more then 2 units of other factions.
Not sure what you mean, I think you have a typo. More marine characters than marine ones?
SecondTime wrote: Brandon Sanderson had a great lecture on why changing the rules of a universe TOO MUCH from what we live in causes problems.
I don't think you get what I am saying.
Previously, 40k was unrealistic AND characterful, unique and interesting.
Now, 40k is unrealistic AND dumb.
Pfft, next you are going to tell me that idiots writing codex's for GW are breaking the fluff by inventing "NEW" Marines, or having Grey Knights slaughter Sisters of Battle to soak their weapons in their blood...which somehow makes them better.
Or hell, you are going to tell me that the biggest baddest ork since the Orkz invaded Terra was defeated by some rando Space Wolf Captain.
Breton wrote: Make that Ignore Look Out Sir! and Mortal wounds on somethings.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: 12” range too. Don’t forget that!
And on a squishy T3 5++ body.
With Look Out Sir protection of it's own and exploding 2+'s on non-character models. Other snipers don't have near the utility shooting at "just dudes". All those armies can also counter battery the other snipers. Not so much the Character Kelermorph.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SecondTime wrote: I lost a couple smash captains to them because I'm bad a storm shield rolls, but I didn't find them to be that outrageous. I guess anything that takes out spess mahreen heroes gets the evil eye.
As I and others mentioned, the Space Marines aren't the ones especially vulnerable. Any of T5+. T4+ and 3+ armor or a T4+ and 4++ with 5+ wounds is fairly safe with average rolls. The more of that they have, the safer they are. The guard commander is T3 4W and 5++ - none of the above, which is why he's a red mist. The Farseer is T3 5W with a 4++ which is why they're borderline.
If you get LOS on the Keller, you’re deep striking 9” away. If you can’t screen important stuff 3”, you need to get better.
If you want to mitigate the 12” range, you DS at 3” with a stratagem. So you have no protection.
And this unit will not, on average, kill a SM Captain.
The Kelermorph is mediocre at best, and as far as I can tell it just upsets people that there's a decent chance you can pop an important character, although at the consequence of giving an incredibly easy to kill character and a bunch of CP.
SecondTime wrote: Guard commanders don't much matter, though. They are very , very cheap. IG can afford redundancy.
You only get one warlord.
And they're needed for the Voice of Command.
This is true, but surely it's also easier to focus on protecting a single HQ? The Kelermorph only has a 12" range, after all.
Though even if a guard HQ does die, the GSC player is still spending 80pts to kill a character that costs less than half that.
I don't know, maybe I'm in the minority, but when I build an IG army my philosophy is 'everything is expendable'. No unit is the cornerstone to my strategy. If a unit dies, another will take its place. If I lose an entire flank, I'll redeploy my centre squads. I a character - even my warlord - dies, then another will (at least figuratively) take command.
Don't get me wrong - I understand full well that it can suck to have a character - especially a favourite character - sniped out from under you. However, at the same time, I simply don't plan around a T3 5++ character surviving.
SecondTime wrote: Brandon Sanderson had a great lecture on why changing the rules of a universe TOO MUCH from what we live in causes problems.
I don't think you get what I am saying.
Previously, 40k was unrealistic AND characterful, unique and interesting.
Now, 40k is unrealistic AND dumb.
Pfft, next you are going to tell me that idiots writing codex's for GW are breaking the fluff by inventing "NEW" Marines, or having Grey Knights slaughter Sisters of Battle to soak their weapons in their blood...which somehow makes them better.
Or hell, you are going to tell me that the biggest baddest ork since the Orkz invaded Terra was defeated by some rando Space Wolf Captain.
Ragnar wasn't just some random character man. for feth's sake this has been explained eneugh when SOTB came out that if you don't know that by now I can only assume you're willfully ignoring that
BrianDavion wrote: Ragnar wasn't just some random character man. for feth's sake this has been explained eneugh when SOTB came out that if you don't know that by now I can only assume you're willfully ignoring that
Don't you understand Space Wolves are exactly the same as Codex: Space Marines, your unique units should be genericized so other factions can claim that design space, and your special characters aren't special because nobody read those books.
BrianDavion wrote: Ragnar wasn't just some random character man. for feth's sake this has been explained eneugh when SOTB came out that if you don't know that by now I can only assume you're willfully ignoring that
Don't you understand Space Wolves are exactly the same as Codex: Space Marines, your unique units should be genericized so other factions can claim that design space, and your special characters aren't special because nobody read those books.
yeah I mean Ragnar's only appered in 7 novels, was the first space wolf character and has been the posterboy for space wolves from day 1! he's totally a nobody!
BrianDavion wrote: Ragnar wasn't just some random character man. for feth's sake this has been explained eneugh when SOTB came out that if you don't know that by now I can only assume you're willfully ignoring that
Don't you understand Space Wolves are exactly the same as Codex: Space Marines, your unique units should be genericized so other factions can claim that design space, and your special characters aren't special because nobody read those books.
yeah I mean Ragnar's only appered in 7 novels, was the first space wolf character and has been the posterboy for space wolves from day 1! he's totally a nobody!
ahh, well hell, if hes been in 7 novels than I can understand how he would kill an Ork slightly less powerful than a fething Primarch. Can we expect Primarch Ragnar soon?
SemperMortis wrote: ahh, well hell, if hes been in 7 novels than I can understand how he would kill an Ork slightly less powerful than a fething Primarch. Can we expect Primarch Ragnar soon?
Isn't Ghazy still around both in rules and fluff? If so how did Ragnar kill him?
SemperMortis wrote: ahh, well hell, if hes been in 7 novels than I can understand how he would kill an Ork slightly less powerful than a fething Primarch. Can we expect Primarch Ragnar soon?
Isn't Ghazy still around both in rules and fluff? If so how did Ragnar kill him?
Well, for most people, getting your head chopped off is usually lethal, but since GW just pushed out a new model for him his plot armor was just thick enough to allow him to survive long enough to get his head sewn back on.
BrianDavion wrote: Ragnar wasn't just some random character man. for feth's sake this has been explained eneugh when SOTB came out that if you don't know that by now I can only assume you're willfully ignoring that
Don't you understand Space Wolves are exactly the same as Codex: Space Marines, your unique units should be genericized so other factions can claim that design space, and your special characters aren't special because nobody read those books.
yeah I mean Ragnar's only appered in 7 novels, was the first space wolf character and has been the posterboy for space wolves from day 1! he's totally a nobody!
ahh, well hell, if hes been in 7 novels than I can understand how he would kill an Ork slightly less powerful than a fething Primarch. Can we expect Primarch Ragnar soon?
Just because Ork players THINK Ghaz was equal to a primarch does not make him so.
SemperMortis wrote: Well, for most people, getting your head chopped off is usually lethal, but since GW just pushed out a new model for him his plot armor was just thick enough to allow him to survive long enough to get his head sewn back on.
Ghazzy's entire shtick is that his head gets damaged and that makes him more powerful. It's literally a running joke at this stage.
Semper, please go dig up one of the old threads on this (I think beardeddragon started one of them). I've taken apart the story multiple times for people claiming the same things you do, and you are 100% wrong on this.
In short, Space Wolves got their asses handed in SotB by the orks in every way possible, Thrakka is nowhere as close to a primork as your headcanon makes him out to be. Ragnar is both one of the strongest fighters among all space marines, an extremely famous character and still didn't stand a chance against Thrakka before he got his new suit of armor and ran from the second duel.
The only reason why you could claim that Thrakka was decapitated by a random space marine captain is because you didn't concern yourself with the story at all - at which point you also have no right to complain about it.
@BrianDavion: Semper is not the same as "ork players".
BrianDavion wrote: Ragnar wasn't just some random character man. for feth's sake this has been explained eneugh when SOTB came out that if you don't know that by now I can only assume you're willfully ignoring that
SecondTime wrote: Brandon Sanderson had a great lecture on why changing the rules of a universe TOO MUCH from what we live in causes problems. Logic doesn't stop working. Science exists, and scientific outcomes are by definition, rediscoverable and reproduceable. Even if the warp also exists and is a thing, that doesn't undo all of logic and science. It it were to, then everything is arbitrary, there are no stakes and nothing to relate to. This is why a satirical setting can't be played straight, but they do it anyway.
This is also why chapter sizes are immersion breaking because we know from own wars that one thousand troopers of any quality are too few and that's only on a planetary scale. But these sizes were determined in the satire era, not the straight era.
The issue is, the very idea of "progress" is a subjective human idea, and at various points in human history the zeitgeist has been "things are bad now, they were better and more advanced in the past." The whole point of 40k is that the humans in 40k do not have modern values; they do not think that human rights, or artistic expression, or freedom of thought, or technological progress have any inherent value. There are people like this in the real world right now, but they're a minority the countries where Warhammer is predominantly played. Having people change their opinion on this topic in-universe without a massive philosophical realignment beggars belief.
Pfft, next you are going to tell me that idiots writing codex's for GW are breaking the fluff by inventing "NEW" Marines, or having Grey Knights slaughter Sisters of Battle to soak their weapons in their blood...which somehow makes them better.
I mean Grey Knights historically have a hardon for teamkilling, so they don't even really need a justification.
Don't you understand Space Wolves are exactly the same as Codex: Space Marines, your unique units should be genericized so other factions can claim that design space, and your special characters aren't special because nobody read those books.
Space Marines have legitimately intruded into other factions' design space in a way like none other, though. It's a unique situation.
JNAProductions wrote: You can do 94 bodies (90 Tacs, 4 HQs) in a 2k list. That's a horde to me.
MW Spam, true! Though who does that better?
sure you can run 90 tac marines and some HQs but that lists proably going to have some serious issues, Orks meanwhile can run more guys and have eneugh points left over to take heavy support, fast attack etc back up.
you can do Hoard with Marines, depending on how you define it, I suppose, but I'd argue you can't do it WELL.
Well, 90 Tac Marines, Turn 1 kill 50ish Ork boyz without rerolls or buffs of any kind. ATM that is 400pts dead, or about a 25-30% return on investment. In CC right now those Tac Marines are punching above their weight class, being able to kill the equivalent of 50 Ork boyz in CC as well, again, no buffs. Ironically, a Space Marine Tac Horde would do really well Vs. Ork hordes.
I believe the Ork "horde" right now is only about 120ish Boyz or 960pts, once you add in the required buffs like a warboss, painboy, weirdboy etc you have about 700-800pts left over for other things, but this is usually made up of specialists, either Kommandos/stormboyz etc rather than fast attack buggies or even heavy support, mostly due to 9th editions tournament requirements as far as scoring is concerned.
so what you're saying is a list with nothing but anti-infantry weapons is highly effective against an infantry army?!
NO WAY!?!
Ork Boyz are also anti infantry and they are against an entire infantry army. By your logic it should be even better for them.
Please try to think just the tiniest bit about what you’re saying, before seeing a thread about Marines and rushing in to downplay them.
The best part about this ( or worst) is that dakka posters suggested the extra wound years ago and were considered absolutelty insane. What did we get? Extra wound plus all the mary sue doctrines and such. And double shoot melta. But dakka posters are consideres extreme lol. Probably 95% of proposed marine changes are less extreme than what gw did.
SecondTime wrote: The best part about this ( or worst) is that dakka posters suggested the extra wound years ago and were considered absolutelty insane. What did we get? Extra wound plus all the mary sue doctrines and such. And double shoot melta. But dakka posters are consideres extreme lol. Probably 95% of proposed marine changes are less extreme than what gw did.
That doesn't make those suggestions less insane, it only makes GW's implementation more insane.
Plus those were suggested in an era where weapons only did 1 damage, ever, whether it was a lascannon or a lasgun. That was part of the problem with Monstrous Creatures, actually.
SecondTime wrote: The best part about this ( or worst) is that dakka posters suggested the extra wound years ago and were considered absolutelty insane. What did we get? Extra wound plus all the mary sue doctrines and such. And double shoot melta. But dakka posters are consideres extreme lol. Probably 95% of proposed marine changes are less extreme than what gw did.
I would think you would be quite happy about the buffs to melta weapons, as well as all fw dreads going to BS/WS3. Didn't those used to be at the top of your wishlist? The extra wound on terminators should be right up your alley as well.
SecondTime wrote: The best part about this ( or worst) is that dakka posters suggested the extra wound years ago and were considered absolutelty insane. What did we get? Extra wound plus all the mary sue doctrines and such. And double shoot melta. But dakka posters are consideres extreme lol. Probably 95% of proposed marine changes are less extreme than what gw did.
I would think you would be quite happy about the buffs to melta weapons, as well as all fw dreads going to BS/WS3. Didn't those used to be at the top of your wishlist? The extra wound on terminators should be right up your alley as well.
1) The buff to melta weapons was the worst possible implementation. Double shots is hamfisted and has many unintended consequences, and only MAHREENS get it, and on a single unit to boot.
2) Yes, FW changes were quite good for BS/WS. Too bad they left the ven dread. It never felt right to me.
3) In general, I oppose giving the oldbois extra wounds. It is more appropriate for terminators than for the power armor guys though.
SecondTime wrote: The best part about this ( or worst) is that dakka posters suggested the extra wound years ago and were considered absolutelty insane. What did we get? Extra wound plus all the mary sue doctrines and such. And double shoot melta. But dakka posters are consideres extreme lol. Probably 95% of proposed marine changes are less extreme than what gw did.
I would think you would be quite happy about the buffs to melta weapons, as well as all fw dreads going to BS/WS3. Didn't those used to be at the top of your wishlist? The extra wound on terminators should be right up your alley as well.
1) The buff to melta weapons was the worst possible implementation. Double shots is hamfisted and has many unintended consequences, and only MAHREENS get it, and on a single unit to boot.
Eradicators would be ok if they just costed at least 50% more. Otherwise I'm cool with the change to meltas.
2) Yes, FW changes were quite good for BS/WS. Too bad they left the ven dread. It never felt right to me.
Agreed on ven dreads "just being better", especially compared to the relic dreads. I'd be fine with the changes to the fw dreads if they'd remove the 1CP tax on chaos Contemptors (it makes some sense for the others), gave Leviathans T8 back (seriously, just look at the things), and gave Contemptors back +1 attack for having two cc weapons. I like my dreadnoughts punchy, not as walking artillery pieces, and that should be encouraged.
3) In general, I oppose giving the oldbois extra wounds. It is more appropriate for terminators than for the power armor guys though.
I think it's more a consequence of bringing csm more up to par with loyalists, its just that loyalists are getting all of the benefits right now. And terminators needed something.
Eradicators would be ok if they just costed at least 50% more. Otherwise I'm cool with the change to meltas.
If that was the case, people would not be taking them, and the anti tank would take the form of spamed units of primaris and regular attack bikes, and Multi Melta devastators in drop pods.
Eradicators would be ok if they just costed at least 50% more. Otherwise I'm cool with the change to meltas.
If that was the case, people would not be taking them, and the anti tank would take the form of spamed units of primaris and regular attack bikes, and Multi Melta devastators in drop pods.
Most of which still cost more points than eradicators do currently.
Heck a dev with a multi melta costs 38 points take a -1 to hit if it moves and fires, has -1W, -1T a T4 3+ Save wound GW just told us is worth 3 points a T5 3+ save wound is definitely worth more than 3 points to to mention those origonal 2 wounds go from T4 to T5.
The worst part is Multi Melta devistators are actually cheaper than most other Codex's options for anti tank the fact they eradicators have rendered them meh to trash in Marine players minds highlights the massive issue.
50% of the game is playing a totally incomparable game in terms of costing and powerlevel.
Well, aside for marines and necrons no one has a 9th ed codex or rule set. And still armies like harlequin, custodes or orks have high win %, much higher then some of the marine sub faction for sure. Although it is going to be interesting to see if 5 erdictors as troop choice in a DW army, teleporting in termintor style, are going to help the DW rise their low win ratios.
Aside for hard squating my army, GW can not do anything worse to me they did through out most of 8th. Making 9th actualy enjoyable to play. Well on top of people with good armies having bad time now, but this is a local thing to enjoy. I doubt many non polish people would understand it.
Eradicators would be ok if they just costed at least 50% more. Otherwise I'm cool with the change to meltas.
If that was the case, people would not be taking them, and the anti tank would take the form of spamed units of primaris and regular attack bikes, and Multi Melta devastators in drop pods.
Any of those units are easier to deal with and are currently better balanced than 40 PPM eradicators. But they're still a little too cheap, just like most loyalist units. 60 PPM eradicators wouldn't be bad, they'd just be bad by the current standards of loyalists, any other faction would be thrilled to have a unit with those stats and abilities for 60 PPM.
And could you please give the schadenfreude stuff a rest?
Karol wrote: Well, aside for marines and necrons no one has a 9th ed codex or rule set.
What are you talking about? There's more factions to play than Astartes or Necrons. GW already adjusted points with the new edition. This is the game state as it is now, and Eradicators are vastly undercosted.
Karol wrote: Well, aside for marines and necrons no one has a 9th ed codex or rule set.
What are you talking about? There's more factions to play than Astartes or Necrons. GW already adjusted points with the new edition. This is the game state as it is now, and Eradicators are vastly undercosted.
Legaly play other factions, yes you can do that. But you are not going to tell me that armies like GSC, tau or knights fit anywhere inside the core rules of 9th ed. And it ain't anything new, 8th had armies that had rules that didn't fit the 8th ed paradigma too.
Point adjustments can help or hinder an army, but unless knights start running around costing 200pts each they are not going to interact with the 9th rules that all seem to be centered around taking and holding objectives, getting first turn and not giving up easy secondaries.
Karol wrote: Legaly play other factions, yes you can do that. But you are not going to tell me that armies like GSC, tau or knights fit anywhere inside the core rules of 9th ed. And it ain't anything new, 8th had armies that had rules that didn't fit the 8th ed paradigma too.
Point adjustments can help or hinder an army, but unless knights start running around costing 200pts each they are not going to interact with the 9th rules that all seem to be centered around taking and holding objectives, getting first turn and not giving up easy secondaries.
Well, the whole point is that the game is unbalanced (and Eradicators are part of that imbalance). You're just agreeing here... but you claim you're not.
GW does not get a pass on balance because they haven't put out a given codex yet. They rewrote the 9e rules and adjusted points values at the same time.
Teh game is always unbalanced, GW isn't interested in writing balanced rules, people that work or worked for them clearly said that.
So yeah some armies are good and some armies are bad, asking people that they should want or support the nerfing of their armies when they are actualy nice and fun to play, is a stupid thing to do. Specialy when it comes from people that played armies which were historicaly powerful, and often designed to be marine killers, making them very unfun to play against as space marine player.
My dudes don't have erdictors. I don't play marines. But the idea of asking or wanting GW to nerf someone else armies, just so later I can get a book that makes my army better or even more powerful is something that I don't get.
What do people want ? SM the way they were start of 8th ed, where only gulliman lists were played. Or sm being the 15scouts+2smash hammers+ 1200pts of ally in a supposed sm 2000pts army ? And on top of that they want rules for klans, septs, craftworlds, corsairs, chaos IG etc Realy that is what people want? well they can, it is their right. But it boggles my mind that they somehow are suprised that marine players do not want it.
I always have problems with understanding other people feelings. But I don't think a DA players whose army was kind of a bad all through out 8th ed, is happy that people who don't play marines, call out in every thread that marines should not be getting books, have weapon and unit options squated, And that their good units should be nerfed. But who knows, maybe I am wrong.
Karol wrote: Teh game is always unbalanced, GW isn't interested in writing balanced rules, people that work or worked for them clearly said that.
So yeah some armies are good and some armies are bad, asking people that they should want or support the nerfing of their armies when they are actualy nice and fun to play, is a stupid thing to do. Specialy when it comes from people that played armies which were historicaly powerful, and often designed to be marine killers, making them very unfun to play against as space marine player.
My dudes don't have erdictors. I don't play marines. But the idea of asking or wanting GW to nerf someone else armies, just so later I can get a book that makes my army better or even more powerful is something that I don't get.
What do people want ? SM the way they were start of 8th ed, where only gulliman lists were played. Or sm being the 15scouts+2smash hammers+ 1200pts of ally in a supposed sm 2000pts army ? And on top of that they want rules for klans, septs, craftworlds, corsairs, chaos IG etc Realy that is what people want? well they can, it is their right. But it boggles my mind that they somehow are suprised that marine players do not want it.
I always have problems with understanding other people feelings. But I don't think a DA players whose army was kind of a bad all through out 8th ed, is happy that people who don't play marines, call out in every thread that marines should not be getting books, have weapon and unit options squated, And that their good units should be nerfed. But who knows, maybe I am wrong.
Marines do have different Chapters.
There are singular Marine Chapters that have more unique datasheets than my Nurgle Daemons.
And no one is saying "Marines should get NOTHING! They deserve to be squatted!" What's being said is "Marines get way too much attention, relative to the other factions, and are also OP right now." The two aren't wholly unrelated, but aren't directly connected either.
Ah and regerding the 2 9th ed codex, it doesn't matter what kind of rules GW writes. But is kind of hard to compare armies with rules writen and ment for 9th ed, and armies that are writen for 8th. If marines were to be balanced vs lets say tau or knights, then it just means they would have to be worse then those armies when they get their 9th ed codex. And while I understand that this is a good thing, if you don't happen to play marines. Because large pool of armies weaker then yours means easier wins and more fun, it is kind of a strange to expect it both from GW and from the marine players.
Or even the necrons who have. In fact in don't really get the ultra hate against just marines. there armies with better win ratios in 9th then marines, yet somehow no on is asking for an imidiated nerf to harlequins or ork skew lists.
Karol wrote: Teh game is always unbalanced, GW isn't interested in writing balanced rules, people that work or worked for them clearly said that.
So yeah some armies are good and some armies are bad, asking people that they should want or support the nerfing of their armies when they are actualy nice and fun to play, is a stupid thing to do. Specialy when it comes from people that played armies which were historicaly powerful, and often designed to be marine killers, making them very unfun to play against as space marine player.
No. Balance is a good thing; you are wrong. If you think unbalanced games are better, that's literally a personal failing.
Karol wrote: My dudes don't have erdictors. I don't play marines. But the idea of asking or wanting GW to nerf someone else armies, just so later I can get a book that makes my army better or even more powerful is something that I don't get.
Apparently. You seem to not understand the idea of fairness as something laudable or worth pursuing.
Karol wrote: What do people want ? SM the way they were start of 8th ed, where only gulliman lists were played. Or sm being the 15scouts+2smash hammers+ 1200pts of ally in a supposed sm 2000pts army ? And on top of that they want rules for klans, septs, craftworlds, corsairs, chaos IG etc Realy that is what people want? well they can, it is their right. But it boggles my mind that they somehow are suprised that marine players do not want it.
Who says they want that? Nobody does. You're just blatantly lying.
Karol wrote: I always have problems with understanding other people feelings. But I don't think a DA players whose army was kind of a bad all through out 8th ed, is happy that people who don't play marines, call out in every thread that marines should not be getting books, have weapon and unit options squated, And that their good units should be nerfed. But who knows, maybe I am wrong.
You're wrong both factually and morally. You seem to be the kind of person who is only happy when your army is overpowered, when you have an unfair advantage, and don't understand why anyone would want it any other way.
GW might not be looking for a balanced game but that doesnt mean we can't comment on it.
Personally, i hate playing top tier armies because i have empathy for my opponent, getting assblasted from across the map isnt fun for anyone.
I stopped playing admech because at the level where i play, their strong firepower and strong melee was too much for people to handle. I started playing Night Lords, Demons, Craftworld Wraith Host and actual Thousand sons because i didnt enjoy blasting people away.
The main reason i wouldnt play marines is because theyre too easy and overtuned at the moment, it feels bad to play against.
Karol wrote: Ah and regerding the 2 9th ed codex, it doesn't matter what kind of rules GW writes. But is kind of hard to compare armies with rules writen and ment for 9th ed, and armies that are writen for 8th. If marines were to be balanced vs lets say tau or knights, then it just means they would have to be worse then those armies when they get their 9th ed codex. And while I understand that this is a good thing, if you don't happen to play marines. Because large pool of armies weaker then yours means easier wins and more fun, it is kind of a strange to expect it both from GW and from the marine players.
Or even the necrons who have. In fact in don't really get the ultra hate against just marines. there armies with better win ratios in 9th then marines, yet somehow no on is asking for an imidiated nerf to harlequins or ork skew lists.
Karol what is not to get? It is incessant. They do not care about the actual results - they will ignore the results they don't like an focus on a 2 month history in a 2 year period. All I can say is welcome to Dakka. Where everyone hates marines. Marine players don't really exist on Dakka. They all went to other forums because they don't want every other topic to be about marine bashing. Me - I like to get all sorts of perspectives. I've got my few gaming groups and dakka and can look at tournament data all the time. In the end GW is so unpredictable it's anyones guess as to whos on the right track. My personal experience which is usually spot on has identified the issues with the marine book. These issues have nothing to do with how 9th edd is played though - simply evaluating unit power per price eradicators are to strong. Dreads -1 damage is to strong. Plus core keyword is on way too many units and not influencing unit cost. Where as opposed to unit cost. Core keyword is rare and units that don't have it could use some points reductions or get core keyword.
I like how GW could have mined any number of reasonable marine tweaks off the internet, but this is what we get. I don't hate marines, I hate power armor saturation. And its so much worse now that marines are overtuned. I do hate SW, but that's irrelevant to this analysis.
VladimirHerzog wrote: GW might not be looking for a balanced game but that doesnt mean we can't comment on it.
Personally, i hate playing top tier armies because i have empathy for my opponent, getting assblasted from across the map isnt fun for anyone.
I stopped playing admech because at the level where i play, their strong firepower and strong melee was too much for people to handle. I started playing Night Lords, Demons, Craftworld Wraith Host and actual Thousand sons because i didnt enjoy blasting people away.
The main reason i wouldn't play marines is because theyre too easy and overtuned at the moment, it feels bad to play against.
For sure - stopped playing marines against my friends a while ago unless they got a top tier army. That is the way the game should be played.
-"Wanna fool around or have a cutt throat battle?" This game is not designed for tournament play.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SecondTime wrote: I like how GW could have mined any number of reasonable marine tweaks off the internet, but this is what we get. I don't hate marines, I hate power armor saturation. And its so much worse now that marines are overtuned. I do hate SW, but that's irrelevant to this analysis.
They aren't anymore overtunned than any army is when they get a new codex or update. Or historically they aren't more overtunned than say...eldar wraithknights or scatter bikes. It is a middling level of overtunned except for erradicators. They simply to do not math out in anyway. If I was a TO - I would ban them.
Xenomancers wrote: That is just flat out untrue. I am often right with ether predictions or opinions. They sure come after me or take me out of context anytime I say something that ruffles their feathers. Like..."Stompa is not the worse unit in the game" or "Ork buggies are super strong" or "you know - people actually cheat at things if they can get away with it"...To most people it's common sense but on Dakka they will fight you for having common sense. So it's fun to me anyways.
I'm talking about how you hold different factions to different standards.
Some people do cheat at things if they can get away with it. But not everyone's a cheater. Most cheaters *think* that everyone's a cheater, so if everyone's doing it, what's wrong for them to do it?
SecondTime wrote: "They aren't anymore overtunned than any army is when they get a new codex or update"
Tell that to Necrons.
Well not all armies get overtunned. Some get undertunned. On the previous page I literally point out how crons got left in the dust compared to the marines here.
Xenomancers wrote: They aren't anymore overtunned than any army is when they get a new codex or update. Or historically they aren't more overtunned than say...eldar wraithknights or scatter bikes.
Which were among some of the most heinous examples of awful balance that in the game's history and were immediately called out as such and railed against for the lifespan of the edition and heavily dominated tournament results. That said, not every army that gets a new codex or update shoots up to such levels of power, not by any means. It's generally held true for Eldar in all fairness, but certainly not for many others, who have often had new codex books drop and routinely may drop in competitiveness or just rejigger what works without enhancing their actual power level.
SecondTime wrote: "They aren't anymore overtunned than any army is when they get a new codex or update"
Tell that to Necrons.
Well not all armies get overtunned. Some get undertunned. On the previous page I literally point out how crons got left in the dust compared to the marines here.
So why are you upset when *other* people point out this unfairness?
This codex is even more outrageous than the marines in 3rd. The near universality of CORE, free AP, and ubiquity of 2W models are just soul crushing.
Maybe I was more thirsty for revenge in 3rd, but after having "won" with BA towards the end of 8th with an abusive rule, I'm not really feeling like MOAR abusive rules.
Xenomancers wrote: That is just flat out untrue. I am often right with ether predictions or opinions. They sure come after me or take me out of context anytime I say something that ruffles their feathers. Like..."Stompa is not the worse unit in the game" or "Ork buggies are super strong" or "you know - people actually cheat at things if they can get away with it"...To most people it's common sense but on Dakka they will fight you for having common sense. So it's fun to me anyways.
I'm talking about how you hold different factions to different standards.
Some people do cheat at things if they can get away with it. But not everyone's a cheater. Most cheaters *think* that everyone's a cheater, so if everyone's doing it, what's wrong for them to do it?
Seriously I am not going to get into that.
In regards to different faction standards...sure. I attack the false narratives. It has nothing to do with factions.
Xenomancers wrote: They aren't anymore overtunned than any army is when they get a new codex or update. Or historically they aren't more overtunned than say...eldar wraithknights or scatter bikes.
Which were among some of the most heinous examples of awful balance that in the game's history and were immediately called out as such and railed against for the lifespan of the edition and heavily dominated tournament results. That said, not every army that gets a new codex or update shoots up to such levels of power, not by any means. It's generally held true for Eldar in all fairness, but certainly not for many others, who have often had new codex books drop and routinely may drop in competitiveness or just rejigger what works without enhancing their actual power level.
True - some called them out.
I detected almost and equal reaction to defend them.
I've had to delete multiple posts for breaking rule 1, any further such instances will incur warnings and suspensions. Let's please cool off or put people on ignore and move on or something, thanks!
SecondTime wrote: This codex is even more outrageous than the marines in 3rd. The near universality of CORE, free AP, and ubiquity of 2W models are just soul crushing.
Maybe I was more thirsty for revenge in 3rd, but after having "won" with BA towards the end of 8th with an abusive rule, I'm not really feeling like MOAR abusive rules.
I didn't play 3rd ed so I can't comment. 2 wound marines is not really an issue though. As evidence just look at 8th eddition marines before the 8.5 codex. How many lists even included primaris marines?
SecondTime wrote: This codex is even more outrageous than the marines in 3rd. The near universality of CORE, free AP, and ubiquity of 2W models are just soul crushing.
Maybe I was more thirsty for revenge in 3rd, but after having "won" with BA towards the end of 8th with an abusive rule, I'm not really feeling like MOAR abusive rules.
I didn't play 3rd ed so I can't comment. 2 wound marines is not really an issue though. As evidence just look at 8th eddition marines before the 8.5 codex. How many lists even included primaris marines?
Who cares? Those weren't THESE 2W marines. Devastators with 2W? DC with 2W?
Karol wrote: Ah and regerding the 2 9th ed codex, it doesn't matter what kind of rules GW writes. But is kind of hard to compare armies with rules writen and ment for 9th ed, and armies that are writen for 8th. If marines were to be balanced vs lets say tau or knights, then it just means they would have to be worse then those armies when they get their 9th ed codex. And while I understand that this is a good thing, if you don't happen to play marines. Because large pool of armies weaker then yours means easier wins and more fun, it is kind of a strange to expect it both from GW and from the marine players.
Or even the necrons who have. In fact in don't really get the ultra hate against just marines. there armies with better win ratios in 9th then marines, yet somehow no on is asking for an imidiated nerf to harlequins or ork skew lists.
GW started 9th by giving points changes to basically everything. That was their opportunity to balance the game. Instead they chose to unbalance the game. Balance is not based upon receiving a codex and any edition of 40k has proven that. Hell, Orkz went 2 full editions without even getting a codex, SoB went like 5 lol.
Balance could have been solved by simply giving non-codex armies a significant price reduction until their codex comes out and receives buffs....and then you can increase their points value.
I detected almost and equal reaction to defend them.
Than you need to go fix your detection software because the ONLY people defending the Eldar 7th edition shenanigans were a handful of Eldar players....kind of like how only a handful of Marine players are currently defending the SM book.
I detected almost and equal reaction to defend them.
Than you need to go fix your detection software because the ONLY people defending the Eldar 7th edition shenanigans were a handful of Eldar players....kind of like how only a handful of Marine players are currently defending the SM book.
Yeah, I joined Dakka around 7th edition, and I don't recall anyone at all defending Wraithknights or Scatterbikes.
SecondTime wrote: This codex is even more outrageous than the marines in 3rd. The near universality of CORE, free AP, and ubiquity of 2W models are just soul crushing.
Maybe I was more thirsty for revenge in 3rd, but after having "won" with BA towards the end of 8th with an abusive rule, I'm not really feeling like MOAR abusive rules.
I didn't play 3rd ed so I can't comment. 2 wound marines is not really an issue though. As evidence just look at 8th eddition marines before the 8.5 codex. How many lists even included primaris marines?
Who cares? Those weren't THESE 2W marines. Devastators with 2W? DC with 2W?
The issue is the weapons are to cheap then. Not the wounds. Which I can totally agree with ESP in the case of melta and grav...compared to las and heavy bolter...completely out of wack.
I detected almost and equal reaction to defend them.
Than you need to go fix your detection software because the ONLY people defending the Eldar 7th edition shenanigans were a handful of Eldar players....kind of like how only a handful of Marine players are currently defending the SM book.
Yeah, I joined Dakka around 7th edition, and I don't recall anyone at all defending Wraithknights or Scatterbikes.
I do. They were there. But far less than the "wait and see" crowd.
SecondTime wrote: This codex is even more outrageous than the marines in 3rd. The near universality of CORE, free AP, and ubiquity of 2W models are just soul crushing.
Maybe I was more thirsty for revenge in 3rd, but after having "won" with BA towards the end of 8th with an abusive rule, I'm not really feeling like MOAR abusive rules.
I didn't play 3rd ed so I can't comment. 2 wound marines is not really an issue though. As evidence just look at 8th eddition marines before the 8.5 codex. How many lists even included primaris marines?
Who cares? Those weren't THESE 2W marines. Devastators with 2W? DC with 2W?
The issue is the weapons are to cheap then. Not the wounds. Which I can totally agree with ESP in the case of melta and grav...compared to las and heavy bolter...completely out of wack.
Or perhaps the weapons are too cheap because of the wounds. And yes the weapons are terribly balanced against each other.
I detected almost and equal reaction to defend them.
Than you need to go fix your detection software because the ONLY people defending the Eldar 7th edition shenanigans were a handful of Eldar players....kind of like how only a handful of Marine players are currently defending the SM book.
Yeah, I joined Dakka around 7th edition, and I don't recall anyone at all defending Wraithknights or Scatterbikes.
I do. They were there. But far less than the "wait and see" crowd.
Maybe not the best example. How about AM when they first came out in 8.0...or people who legit defended 5 point infantry all edition? I think in general most people just defend the army they want to play. Which I get that and I probably do that same for space marines to some degree. I am not perfect but I can still see the big picture and give perspective.
Maybe not the best example. How about AM when they first came out in 8.0...or people who legit defended 5 point infantry all edition? I think in general most people just defend the army they want to play. Which I get that and I probably do that same for space marines to some degree. I am not perfect but I can still see the big picture and give perspective.
Guard in 8th were fine with 5ppm guardsmen. The issue was CP batteries. The guardsmen themselves weren't accomplishing a whole lot.
Maybe not the best example. How about AM when they first came out in 8.0...or people who legit defended 5 point infantry all edition? I think in general most people just defend the army they want to play. Which I get that and I probably do that same for space marines to some degree. I am not perfect but I can still see the big picture and give perspective.
Guard in 8th were fine with 5ppm guardsmen. The issue was CP batteries. The guardsmen themselves weren't accomplishing a whole lot.
No, they were accomplishing quite a bit. Existing for starters. The CP was gravy, honestly. But that's not the issue here.
Maybe not the best example. How about AM when they first came out in 8.0...or people who legit defended 5 point infantry all edition? I think in general most people just defend the army they want to play. Which I get that and I probably do that same for space marines to some degree. I am not perfect but I can still see the big picture and give perspective.
Guard in 8th were fine with 5ppm guardsmen. The issue was CP batteries. The guardsmen themselves weren't accomplishing a whole lot.
No, they were accomplishing quite a bit. Existing for starters. The CP was gravy, honestly. But that's not the issue here.
No, I agree, I am saying they weren't OP because they were killing things, they were just great at area denial and being a CP battery for better units
Maybe not the best example. How about AM when they first came out in 8.0...or people who legit defended 5 point infantry all edition? I think in general most people just defend the army they want to play. Which I get that and I probably do that same for space marines to some degree. I am not perfect but I can still see the big picture and give perspective.
Guard in 8th were fine with 5ppm guardsmen. The issue was CP batteries. The guardsmen themselves weren't accomplishing a whole lot.
No, they were accomplishing quite a bit. Existing for starters. The CP was gravy, honestly. But that's not the issue here.
It is the issue here though. AM infantry at 5 points were extremely OP. yet we have half of dakka saying its okay or not a big deal. I bet you if you looked at tournament placings - the winner of 8th edition was the IG infantryman. Almost all those infantryman defenders are anti marine now...the coin just keeps flipping. Haves and have nots.
It is the issue here though. AM infantry at 5 points were extremely OP. yet we have half of dakka saying its okay or not a big deal. I bet you if you looked at tournament placings - the winner of 8th edition was the IG infantryman.
They were OP, not because they were good. but because they fed good units CP. Nobody was winning LVO with a guard horde. They were winning by taking battalions of Loyal 32 to feed CP into Knights, smash captains etc.
It is the issue here though. AM infantry at 5 points were extremely OP. yet we have half of dakka saying its okay or not a big deal. I bet you if you looked at tournament placings - the winner of 8th edition was the IG infantryman.
They were OP, not because they were good. but because they fed good units CP. Nobody was winning LVO with a guard horde. They were winning by taking battalions of Loyal 32 to feed CP into Knights, smash captains etc.
Nobody is an exaggeration. Most were using IG to feed their soup with CP. Which also makes them OP as they are almost worth their value in just command points. IG horde won warzone Atlanta one year and also IG horde was a pretty standard front line for lots of army builds cause it was so cheap - they might not have won tournments but they sure won lots of games - I'm talking about armies taking close to or over 1000 points of IG in competitive. Then we had command tanks...
Is this a bad time to point out guardsmen were 4 points in 8th edition? My memory at least was wall to wall declarations that they were too good with just a few usual suspects disagreeing.
Also people did run lots of guard. This idea it was the loyal 32 only isn't true. See the lists that came top in 2019's LVO for instance - I mean "1400~ points of Guard+Castelan" won the whole thing. Other variants with fewer Guard points and more other things obviously existed - but just shy of half the points was still in Guard, not 180 or so points.
Tyel wrote: Is this a bad time to point out guardsmen were 4 points in 8th edition? My memory at least was wall to wall declarations that they were too good with just a few usual suspects disagreeing.
Also people did run lots of guard. This idea it was the loyal 32 only isn't true. See the lists that came top in 2019's LVO for instance - I mean "1400~ points of Guard+Castelan" won the whole thing. Other variants with fewer Guard points and more other things obviously existed - but just shy of half the points was still in Guard, not 180 or so points.
Thanks for clarification - they were actually 4 points. Still OP at 5 even IMO. Then again a 2 wound 20 point space marine...that is over the top?
Tyel wrote: Is this a bad time to point out guardsmen were 4 points in 8th edition? My memory at least was wall to wall declarations that they were too good with just a few usual suspects disagreeing.
Also people did run lots of guard. This idea it was the loyal 32 only isn't true. See the lists that came top in 2019's LVO for instance - I mean "1400~ points of Guard+Castelan" won the whole thing. Other variants with fewer Guard points and more other things obviously existed - but just shy of half the points was still in Guard, not 180 or so points.
Thanks for clarification - they were actually 4 points. Still OP at 5 even IMO. Then again a 2 wound 20 point space marine...that is over the top?
No, intercessors were crap at that price point in 8th.
Intercessors were crap at the outset of 8th because they didn't have bolter discipline, hateful assault, doctrines, super doctrines, various stratagems and the generally boosted Chapter Tactics (recently just nerfed in some cases).
Metawise various 2 damage things were also nerfed which made them more survivable too.
Tyel wrote: Intercessors were crap at the outset of 8th because they didn't have bolter discipline, hateful assault, doctrines, super doctrines, various stratagems and the generally boosted Chapter Tactics (recently just nerfed in some cases).
Metawise various 2 damage things were also nerfed which made them more survivable too.
Tyel wrote: Is this a bad time to point out guardsmen were 4 points in 8th edition? My memory at least was wall to wall declarations that they were too good with just a few usual suspects disagreeing.
Also people did run lots of guard. This idea it was the loyal 32 only isn't true. See the lists that came top in 2019's LVO for instance - I mean "1400~ points of Guard+Castelan" won the whole thing. Other variants with fewer Guard points and more other things obviously existed - but just shy of half the points was still in Guard, not 180 or so points.
Thanks for clarification - they were actually 4 points. Still OP at 5 even IMO. Then again a 2 wound 20 point space marine...that is over the top?
No, intercessors were crap at that price point in 8th.
So we can agree then. It is not 2 wounds that is the issue. For the most part - it is horde infantry for armies whos codex hasn't been released for 9th ed their troops are just bad in comparison per point.
Oh, no. There's a lot more going on now. 2W has to be looked in light of all the other garbage marines have access to now. Intercessors had almost nothing going for them in the first place OTHER than 2W and then they dropped codex: disintegrator.
I had debated Insectum many times about putting expensive gear on oldbois in 8th. But now? It's a not brainer with how much protection that gear has now.
Tyel wrote: Is this a bad time to point out guardsmen were 4 points in 8th edition? My memory at least was wall to wall declarations that they were too good with just a few usual suspects disagreeing.
Also people did run lots of guard. This idea it was the loyal 32 only isn't true. See the lists that came top in 2019's LVO for instance - I mean "1400~ points of Guard+Castelan" won the whole thing. Other variants with fewer Guard points and more other things obviously existed - but just shy of half the points was still in Guard, not 180 or so points.
Thanks for clarification - they were actually 4 points. Still OP at 5 even IMO. Then again a 2 wound 20 point space marine...that is over the top?
No, intercessors were crap at that price point in 8th.
So we can agree then. It is not 2 wounds that is the issue. For the most part - it is horde infantry for armies whos codex hasn't been released for 9th ed.
No, it's the buffs after buffs that Marines have gotten.
Again-if GW wanted to ramp up the power, they should've ALSO increased the points costs to match the new power. But they didn't. And, hell, Necrons HAVE a new Codex, and aren't nearly as good.
SecondTime wrote: I had debated Insectum many times about putting expensive gear on oldbois in 8th. But now? It's a not brainer with how much protection that gear has now.
Can confirm on both accounts.
The only thing Intercessors really have going for them imo is that they can be played incredibly lazily, since they can start the game Rapid Firing at stuff 30" away.
SecondTime wrote: I had debated Insectum many times about putting expensive gear on oldbois in 8th. But now? It's a not brainer with how much protection that gear has now.
Can confirm on both accounts.
The only thing Intercessors really have going for them imo is that they can be played incredibly lazily, since they can start the game Rapid Firing at stuff 30" away.
They punch marginally better, but that's so... weak even for BA. If I want to punch, I can send like one of what 5? CC specialist units?
Assault intercessors do get the coveted fight twice, but that is much weaker with the nerfs to tripoint.
It is the issue here though. AM infantry at 5 points were extremely OP. yet we have half of dakka saying its okay or not a big deal. I bet you if you looked at tournament placings - the winner of 8th edition was the IG infantryman.
They were OP, not because they were good. but because they fed good units CP. Nobody was winning LVO with a guard horde. They were winning by taking battalions of Loyal 32 to feed CP into Knights, smash captains etc.
Nobody is an exaggeration. Most were using IG to feed their soup with CP. Which also makes them OP as they are almost worth their value in just command points. IG horde won warzone Atlanta one year and also IG horde was a pretty standard front line for lots of army builds cause it was so cheap - they might not have won tournments but they sure won lots of games - I'm talking about armies taking close to or over 1000 points of IG in competitive. Then we had command tanks...
Funniest part about this is you citing The Vostroyan list that won Warzone as evidence...his list was illegal LOL. I won't assume his intent, could have been an accident, but yeah, totally illegal. And even with all those guard squads...they weren't the ones doing the heavy lifting, it was the quadruple Manticore batteries with full rerolls doing the work. And of course, this list relied exclusively on....CP. Which is why the other relic they took was to regen CP.
Models that cheap cause all kinds of unintended consequences. I'm very wary of them in 9th, still. Especially because they can jam up an even smaller board.
I think my view is colored by how much better they were than early 8th MARINES, not the field. Drukhari could fly over them, etc. But even in 8.5, I basically had to chain tripoint the squads to survive against them.
Again-if GW wanted to ramp up the power, they should've ALSO increased the points costs to match the new power. But they didn't. And, hell, Necrons HAVE a new Codex, and aren't nearly as good.
Can I just take a second to laugh at how the goal posts have moved so much.
Normal People: Marines are Too Powerful.
SM Defenders: You have to wait and see!
Normal People: Alright dude we waited, they are OP as hell.
SM Defenders: You have to wait, Not everyone has a codex, Necrons are just as good.
Normal People: Seriously, Necrons are getting destroyed by Marines, Space Marines are OP!
SM Defenders: You have to wait, not everyone has a codex, and Necrons not being as good isn't proof that SM are OP.
This has gone on now for like 2 months lol and the same characters keep coming in defending Codex: SMOP and finding new and more hilarious excuses for why SM's aren't OP.
But don't let statistics or insulting everybody who is not following your opinion as "not normal" get in your way. Push that post count up, boy.
p.s.
Haven't seen a single winning list on Goonhammer that spammed Eradicator. But vehicles are dead, don't let you tell otherwise.
I'm just kind of curious here, do they break down win rate vs specific armies as well as winrate as a whole? After all, Marine vs Marine shadow matches could easily skew the data by showing how each chapter fairs against other Marines, but not necessarily against other factions.
But don't let statistics or insulting everybody who is not following your opinion as "not normal" get in your way. Push that post count up, boy.
p.s.
Haven't seen a single winning list on Goonhammer that spammed Eradicator. But vehicles are dead, don't let you tell otherwise.
Comparing two side-by-side codexes does not start and end with tournament results. A faction can win tournaments but still be considered unenjoyable by a lot of it's player base. Dissapointing options, underperforming units, hum-drum WL traits, only a few viable competitive builds, etc.
By many accounts, although the Cron book is much more playable than it was, certain comparisons against the marine book still smack of heavy marine favoritism by the design department.
Yes. I mean I love the Goonhammer analysis but such stats have to be interpreted. Win rates being low due to lots of weaker players playing a popular faction (whatever is currently considered the best) don't make a faction balanced. See Eldar in 7th etc.
It will be interesting for instance to see if more people move to Harlequins, Slaanesh Daemons and Custodes due to their percieved power- and in doing so bring down their win rates.
We'll also see more evidence of the new codexes over the next 3 months rather than a couple of weeks.
Eradicators would be ok if they just costed at least 50% more. Otherwise I'm cool with the change to meltas.
If that was the case, people would not be taking them, and the anti tank would take the form of spamed units of primaris and regular attack bikes, and Multi Melta devastators in drop pods.
I feel like someone already predicted it would switch to MM ABs and speeders a while ago.
The main reason i wouldn't play marines is because theyre too easy and overtuned at the moment, it feels bad to play against.
For sure - stopped playing marines against my friends a while ago unless they got a top tier army. That is the way the game should be played.
-"Wanna fool around or have a cutt throat battle?" This game is not designed for tournament play.
I’ve had my Ultras for 20+ years, and I make the same basic army as various units slot in and out with a comparable unit so every “unit” gets a turn on the table every so often. Few changes are based on what’s good or not so much as what hasn’t been used in a while.
I’m not using Repulsors/Land Raiders now - I didn’t use Dreads way back when MC’s got a lot better rules than Dreads even though they’re different window dressing on the same thing. I forget when... 4th ed?
kurhanik wrote: I'm just kind of curious here, do they break down win rate vs specific armies as well as winrate as a whole? After all, Marine vs Marine shadow matches could easily skew the data by showing how each chapter fairs against other Marines, but not necessarily against other factions.
How is citing single placements even a counter argument for you? Did I ever say Marines don't make top 3 anymore? Did I ever say Necrons are making top 3 constantly now? Don't forget to laugh while you move your goalpost.
Assuming "Eradicator squad" without a number to it to be 3 guys, as otherwise you would have pointed out there being 12 Eradicator in a list... having a little more than two min sized Eradicator units (6,4) on average in each Marine list is spam?
Tyel wrote: Yes. I mean I love the Goonhammer analysis but such stats have to be interpreted. Win rates being low due to lots of weaker players playing a popular faction (whatever is currently considered the best) don't make a faction balanced. See Eldar in 7th etc.
It will be interesting for instance to see if more people move to Harlequins, Slaanesh Daemons and Custodes due to their percieved power- and in doing so bring down their win rates.
We'll also see more evidence of the new codexes over the next 3 months rather than a couple of weeks.
I'd have to double check but based on number of games played I'm fairly sure custodes were the second most played codex after Marine's but they're only about 4/9 the number of games of Marines.
Slaneshy list is like 2% of the marine games played, they don't list the players names but I'm.fairly sure it's only like 2-3 peoplewho genuinely know their lists that are taking that list.
kurhanik wrote: I'm just kind of curious here, do they break down win rate vs specific armies as well as winrate as a whole? After all, Marine vs Marine shadow matches could easily skew the data by showing how each chapter fairs against other Marines, but not necessarily against other factions.
How is citing single placements even a counter argument for you? Did I ever say Marines don't make top 3 anymore? Did I ever say Necrons are making top 3 constantly now? Don't forget to laugh while you move your goalpost.
Assuming "Eradicator squad" without a number to it to be 3 guys, as otherwise you would have pointed out there being 12 Eradicator in a list... having a little more than two min sized Eradicator units (6,4) on average in each Marine list is spam?
When it's 2 out of your 3 heavy support choices it certainly is, not to mention that is rarely varies regadless of chapter or otherwise.
1 Dev squad and 2 eradicators seemed to be very standard fair for marines.
When they effectively making taking vehicals a liability that's not good for the game.
Also marines are definataly still a head of a lot of codex's solidly and considering they account for more than double the number of games of the next most popular faction the mirror matchups are going to be supressing that ratio.
When it's 2 out of your 3 heavy support choices it certainly is, not to mention that is rarely varies regadless of chapter or otherwise.
1 Dev squad and 2 eradicators seemed to be very standard fair for marines.
When they effectively making taking vehicals a liability that's not good for the game.
Taking vehicles were a liability before they released. You’re blaming the egg, when Marine players already know it doesn’t matter if the chicken or the egg came first, we’re all drowning in omelettes.
If we go sheet by sheet of the other pre 9th stuff:
Eliminators are too small for a limit 3 slot. 90 points, 3 model limit means you can’t pack enough in 1/3 of HS.
Cent Devs I have no experience with, but the changes to Bolter Drill doesn’t bode well for them.
Devs have the benefit of variation/options.
TF Cannon is similar to Eliminators and need their strategic round effects like subterranean blast - they pay too much for a techmarine.
When it's 2 out of your 3 heavy support choices it certainly is, not to mention that is rarely varies regadless of chapter or otherwise.
1 Dev squad and 2 eradicators seemed to be very standard fair for marines.
When they effectively making taking vehicals a liability that's not good for the game.
Taking vehicles were a liability before they released. You’re blaming the egg, when Marine players already know it doesn’t matter if the chicken or the egg came first, we’re all drowning in omelettes.
If we go sheet by sheet of the other pre 9th stuff:
Eliminators are too small for a limit 3 slot. 90 points, 3 model limit means you can’t pack enough in 1/3 of HS.
Cent Devs I have no experience with, but the changes to Bolter Drill doesn’t bode well for them.
Devs have the benefit of variation/options.
TF Cannon is similar to Eliminators and need their strategic round effects like subterranean blast - they pay too much for a techmarine.
Everything else is a vehicle.
just because the meta has shifted due to size creep and therefore beeing hostile to vehicles in general since 8th doesn't make eradicators not an issue.
The fact that despite the obvious lack of vehicles bar knights and other superheavies / invul spam / other extremely durable options they see play is paramount to their position as a solid issue in unit form.(infact they are probably the closest we got back to the oldshool oblit spam...since a long time) The other two big exceptions with custodes and quins have also far less neutralising mirrors to exclude from, and atleast against custodes which seem to have risen quite well in player popularity the eradicators also do their job quite well because they start bleeding over against other heavy infantry in their capabilities.
just because the meta has shifted due to size creep and therefore beeing hostile to vehicles in general since 8th doesn't make eradicators not an issue.
The fact that despite the obvious lack of vehicles bar knights and other superheavies / invul spam / other extremely durable options they see play is paramount to their position as a solid issue in unit form.(infact they are probably the closest we got back to the oldshool oblit spam...since a long time) The other two big exceptions with custodes and quins have also far less neutralising mirrors to exclude from, and atleast against custodes which seem to have risen quite well in player popularity the eradicators also do their job quite well because they start bleeding over against other heavy infantry in their capabilities.
Say what? Are you trying to move the goalposts here or something? Erads make vehicles bad. Even though they were bad before Erads. But this proves Erads are bad because Marines aren’t taking vehicles, because Erads make vehicles bad even before they were available to be taken?
Ice_can wrote: I'd have to double check but based on number of games played I'm fairly sure custodes were the second most played codex after Marine's but they're only about 4/9 the number of games of Marines.
Slaneshy list is like 2% of the marine games played, they don't list the players names but I'm.fairly sure it's only like 2-3 peoplewho genuinely know their lists that are taking that list.
True. I think its already happened with Custodes. Given they are still performing so well would expect nerfs to follow.
On Eradicators and just as importantly 2 shot MMs they make the meta even worse for vehicles than it was already.
Really don't see how GW puts the toothpaste back in on that one. Double all vehicle/monster wounds, but simultaneously buff every anti-tank gun to MM levels in order to compensate? It was a terrible way of releasing rules.
just because the meta has shifted due to size creep and therefore beeing hostile to vehicles in general since 8th doesn't make eradicators not an issue.
The fact that despite the obvious lack of vehicles bar knights and other superheavies / invul spam / other extremely durable options they see play is paramount to their position as a solid issue in unit form.(infact they are probably the closest we got back to the oldshool oblit spam...since a long time) The other two big exceptions with custodes and quins have also far less neutralising mirrors to exclude from, and atleast against custodes which seem to have risen quite well in player popularity the eradicators also do their job quite well because they start bleeding over against other heavy infantry in their capabilities.
Say what? Are you trying to move the goalposts here or something? Erads make vehicles bad. Even though they were bad before Erads. But this proves Erads are bad because Marines aren’t taking vehicles, because Erads make vehicles bad even before they were available to be taken?
Vehicles were bad in 8th because the sizecreep lead to a prevalence in AT. Sizecreep introduced by let's be honest underpriced superheavies such as the castellan fuelled by f.e. 32 guardsmen.
This lead to a reaction: that increased AT in basically all lists
This lead to vehicles which have neither an Invul or FNP back up mechanic beeing comparatively worse because they get pushed out by the higher ammount of AT now in the meta.
Now they have been eliminated more or less, however even though they technically WOULD BE the preffered target for melta (including eradicators) because they have no Invul back up to flat out ignore the melta shot /s eradicators still see play. Partly because their firepower is still failsave ignoring enough through ROF against the former super durables whilest also seemingly good enough to target Heavy infantry which got with custodes (and other marines let's be honest) basically nearly allways a matchup served where they can do their job basically allways.
Basically it came closest to beeing the Obi-hörnchen aka it can do everything, well nearly. (still not as completly bonkers as old school oblits but 2/3 for a supposedly highly specialist unit with such a price tag is still pretty fething nuts)
Ice_can wrote: When it's 2 out of your 3 heavy support choices it certainly is, not to mention that is rarely varies regadless of chapter or otherwise.
1 Dev squad and 2 eradicators seemed to be very standard fair for marines.
When they effectively making taking vehicals a liability that's not good for the game.
Also marines are definataly still a head of a lot of codex's solidly and considering they account for more than double the number of games of the next most popular faction the mirror matchups are going to be supressing that ratio.
I disagree on the definition of spam based on slot occupation. Is taking two Suppressor Squads (6 guys in total) spam because they take up 2 of my 3 Fast Attack slots? Is taking a single 10 man squad less spam than taking 2x5 because I only use one slot?
Spam - for me - feels like it means total amount of models compared to what is on the field. 6 Eradicator in a 500p game? Spam. 6 Eradicator in a 5000p game? Not so much.
I agree that the balance between vehicles & monsters and vehicle removal units is not good at the moment. Eradicator are as much of a problem as vehicle prices/defenses imho.
I also agree that Marines are ahead of many other factions. Never argued otherwise. Just that they aren't alone at the top
Eradicators are uniquely broken. They not only have bordering on top tier AT for their points cost, they're also far more durable than the units that could contest the former claim while having access to better force-multiplying effects. Eradicators are simply pointed far too well for what they do.
I did forget Hellblasters. The guys who pay about 13 extra points per model for a plasma gun that gets half the Special Issue treatment Sternguard get on their bolt gun.
Sternguard pay 2 points for +1A, 6” of range, and an extra AP.
Hellblasters pay 13 points for a 10 point plasma gun, and 6 inches of range, and and extra AP
Maybe. MAYBE they see more play if a new boxed set - where they’re practically a freebie throw in - comes with an ETB or Full Kit people can then use to make the Heavy Incinerator version after just about everyone made the rapid fire version.
But they’re too expensive with the Rapid Fire Incinerator, and I’m not buying another new kit just to change weapons when I’ve got “free” Erads in the current boxed set(s), and a dozen or more Devs - including four+ of just about every option- from the past 20 years.
The assault and Heavy incinerators have some interesting applications now, but they came too late after most of us picked a weapon option already.
At the X ppm they are now, all options cost the same - aside from the sgt pistol upgrade -
so the assault version stayed the same price but got better,
The RF 1 version stayed the same price and was too high
The heavy version went down, and got better, but probably not quite enough, while any more might be too much.
I'm honestly not sure how to nerf them without making them useless. Making them have baseline Marine durability is unfortunately off the tables because they're in Gravis armour and as such have to have the stupid Gravis profile, otherwise that's where I'd at least start.
a_typical_hero wrote: It would be alot better if we'd get T8 and T9 on more vehicles for a playable price.
gw technically has just increased S on specifc AT weaponry massive, vanquisher says hello...
T values could be increased to grant durability back to vehicles but would be also in need of a wound table reform... unless you think a lasgun/bolter should have the same to wound chance as a melta...
i do wonder what was wrong with the old to wound chart though because the new one as it stands has due to it's nature wierd break points where a certain treshold profits massively whilest others don't (f.e. 7-8 and 8-9 ) for specific S weapons. It would also curb the potentcy of +1 to wound stratagems or abilities .
Void__Dragon wrote: I'm honestly not sure how to nerf them without making them useless. Making them have baseline Marine durability is unfortunately off the tables because they're in Gravis armour and as such have to have the stupid Gravis profile, otherwise that's where I'd at least start.
They don't need to be nerfed. 2 Melta shots for 40 points isn't outside the norm.
Per 45ish Points a Landspeeder Tornado will have 1 MM, and 3 Assault Cannon Shots.
Per 40 points an attack bike has about 1 and a half MM shots, and 3 bolter shots.
Devs and Tactical Heavies are also just under 40 points for 2 MM Shots.
The most expensive per-Melta is probably the ATV everyone was flagellating themselves over because a Medic COULD heal it IF everything worked out exactly right at 1 Melta and 3 Bolter shots per just over 40.
Until Recently you were better with:
Scouts over Eliminators because you could take 10 scouts in a slot you already had to take something in - didn't "Cost" you more in any way.
Anything over vehicles. Still are. At least for the large ones.
Erads over Hellblasters (The changes to Hellblasters may change things on paper, but it's going to take a while for that to shake out given the waiting list on painting tables)
Erads aren't underpriced (at least not substantially so) but they're being taken because Hellblasters are slightly overpriced (in the configuration most of us have them in) and aren't in a point in the model release/build/buy fill-ins cycle to replace the ones we already have. If some full kit Hellbalsters (or ETB versions with Assautl or Heavy) showed up, we might start seeing Hellblasters again. Especially the Assault Versions. Some Assault versions in an Impulsor is really growing on me. 5 of them are 150-175 points, they're throwing down 15 S6 -4 D1 shots, add a cap to overcharge if you want to, but its still hard to OC 30-35 points into Instant Death.
a_typical_hero wrote: It would be alot better if we'd get T8 and T9 on more vehicles for a playable price.
Sadly GW just demoted the T9 vehicals down to T8 so that definataly will not be happening.
Sadly we are stuck with a broken mess people who say eradicators are over costed even at 40ppm, people who can't believe how OP they are (compaired to other factions).
People who would like to have some ability to play something bigger than basic infantry without it being 1 rounded by a unit costing less.
Like seriously who actually thinks the current rules are good Balanced rules?
The issue is that a MM for 40 points *is* highly unusual outside the Marine codex - outside of say Retributors it doesn't exist. Most other faction comparisons are considerably more expensive.
So pointing out "aha, if you nerf Eradicators, I'll just take Attack Bikes" is fine - but it really just means MM attack bikes *should be nerfed as well* - and so on.
Basically GW have screwed things by arbitrarily saying MMs should be about 3 times as good as they were before. Which is fine, but where does that leave everyone else?
Tyel wrote: The issue is that a MM for 40 points *is* highly unusual outside the Marine codex - outside of say Retributors it doesn't exist. Most other faction comparisons are considerably more expensive.
I said Melta not MM - but outside of Retributors you already excluded, which other factions get a man portable multi Melta? Fire Dragons are about 20 points a Melta shot, but they don’t have multi Melta. So since you changed the paradigm, which other infantry can take a multi Melta and claim it’s more expensive there?
Tyel wrote: The issue is that a MM for 40 points *is* highly unusual outside the Marine codex - outside of say Retributors it doesn't exist. Most other faction comparisons are considerably more expensive.
I said Melta not MM - but outside of Retributors you already excluded, which other factions get a man portable multi Melta? Fire Dragons are about 20 points a Melta shot, but they don’t have multi Melta. So since you changed the paradigm, which other infantry can take a multi Melta and claim it’s more expensive there?
Well none. But you can compare with comparable weapons.
To which someone usually turns up to claim their long ranged lascannons are totally worth doing 1/3rd the damage or so.
Fire Dragons are 23 points and have a 12" range, so significantly worse.
Tyel wrote: The issue is that a MM for 40 points *is* highly unusual outside the Marine codex - outside of say Retributors it doesn't exist. Most other faction comparisons are considerably more expensive.
I said Melta not MM - but outside of Retributors you already excluded, which other factions get a man portable multi Melta? Fire Dragons are about 20 points a Melta shot, but they don’t have multi Melta. So since you changed the paradigm, which other infantry can take a multi Melta and claim it’s more expensive there?
Heck I'd take a 24 inch range melta comparison aswell.
Crisis suits with 2 fusion blasters which are the equivalent of 1 eradicator are 30 points base for BS4+, T5 3w 3+Sv.
(For those interested they have 2A at 5+ in CC)
Their Fusion Blasters are 18 inch range and 15 points each, thats 60 points for -6 inch range hitting on 4+, not 3+.
Okay Crisis suits are not in a good place but even assuming you spend the CP to make them BS3+, Which is limited to 1 unit because GW logic. You can now reserve the eradicators for the same cost of CP but your still compairing 120 of eradicators vrs 180 points of crisis suits who have less range, not doctorines/super doctorines.
Please can you explain how any of that is remotely balanced?
Tyel wrote: The issue is that a MM for 40 points *is* highly unusual outside the Marine codex - outside of say Retributors it doesn't exist. Most other faction comparisons are considerably more expensive.
I said Melta not MM - but outside of Retributors you already excluded, which other factions get a man portable multi Melta? Fire Dragons are about 20 points a Melta shot, but they don’t have multi Melta. So since you changed the paradigm, which other infantry can take a multi Melta and claim it’s more expensive there?
Well none. .
So you want to discount everyone that can actually take a Multimelta then claim everyone else who can take a multimelta has to pay more? That’s... one way to do it.
Do firedragons get a Melta shot per approximately 20 points?
Does a special weapons Guard squad get 3 Melta shots per 45 or so points?
Oh, I see Adeptus Mechanicus can take 4 servitors with 2 MM’s for between 60 and 70 points. How much is that per Melta shot?
Tyel wrote: The issue is that a MM for 40 points *is* highly unusual outside the Marine codex - outside of say Retributors it doesn't exist. Most other faction comparisons are considerably more expensive.
I said Melta not MM - but outside of Retributors you already excluded, which other factions get a man portable multi Melta? Fire Dragons are about 20 points a Melta shot, but they don’t have multi Melta. So since you changed the paradigm, which other infantry can take a multi Melta and claim it’s more expensive there?
Well none. .
So you want to discount everyone that can actually take a Multimelta then claim everyone else who can take a multimelta has to pay more? That’s... one way to do it.
Do firedragons get a Melta shot per approximately 20 points?
Does a special weapons Guard squad get 3 Melta shots per 45 or so points?
Oh, I see Adeptus Mechanicus can take 4 servitors with 2 MM’s for between 60 and 70 points. How much is that per Melta shot?
We just ignoring that servitors are BS5+ not BS3+
Yeah Firedragons are 23 points per shot on a T3 1W platform thats still more than the 20 points per shot on a T5 3W platform that eradicator pay. Ignoring that Firedragons have 12 inch range vrs 24.
Melta needed to ignore invuln and/or go to S16 in melta range, NOT get extra shots. GW doesn't understand how to add consistency without moar dice apparently.
SecondTime wrote: Melta needed to ignore invuln and/or go to S16 in melta range, NOT get extra shots. GW doesn't understand how to add consistency without moar dice apparently.
But... melta doesn't get extra shots in half range? They get extra damage. They just boosted the multi-melta to have two shots
SecondTime wrote: Melta needed to ignore invuln and/or go to S16 in melta range, NOT get extra shots. GW doesn't understand how to add consistency without moar dice apparently.
But... melta doesn't get extra shots in half range? They get extra damage.
They just boosted the multi-melta to have two shots
And eradicators. The extra damage is only slightly better than the old reroll.
Yeah Firedragons are 23 points per shot on a T3 1W platform thats still more than the 20 points per shot on a T5 3W platform that eradicator pay. Ignoring that Firedragons have 12 inch range vrs 24.
Are they more expensive? The claim was units that can take Multimelta are more expensive not counting Retributors. Why Retributors don’t count, I don’t know. Other than anything that disproves the narrative can’t be allowed to count. And now, neither do the Servitors. Or the guard special weapons. Or the firedragons. Or anything else that gets on Melta shot per 20 or so points.
I said they don’t need to be nerfed, someone said facts do t matter, they stopped listening.
I pointed out a number of units getting a Melta shot per 20 or so points to prove it.
Those don’t count because some fictional unit that isn’t Retributtors have to pay more for their Multimelta shots.
I ask which fictional unit this is - the answer is none, but that isn’t important.
I point out more units getting a Melta shot per 20 or so points and we see even more “that doesn’t count because reasons unrelated to the claim”.
SecondTime wrote: That would be more convincing if eradicators didn't have T5 and double the range.
Nobody seems to be able to find these mysterious Melta units that cost more. But they sure can find new Reasons any unit that disproves the claim doesn’t count.
Eradicators are broken because they’re the only Melta unit with a model whose left boot is larger than the right boot manufactured in June after 2019 but before 2021, while being eligible to be painted in two different shades of green and two different shades of blue. Totally not because it’s a marine unit and very inline with price points.
They aren't even consistent with other marine units for the most part, though. The whole point of melta is that its low rate of fire and short range but very lethal to armor and heavy infantry once within range. Increasing its rate of fire should never have been on the table.
SecondTime wrote: They aren't even consistent with other marine units for the most part, though. The whole point of melta is that its low rate of fire and short range but very lethal to armor and heavy infantry once within range. Increasing its rate of fire should never have been on the table.
They should have just handed out multimeltas base and given them an "ignore the penalty for moving and shooting". But they wanted variability in the kit.
Eradicators and multimeltas are obviously superior to all other forms of anti tank. Either they will be hugely buffed, or MMs and Eradicators will be nerfed.
In the former, you have an incredibly hostile meta for vehicles/monsters etc, so the later seems more likely.
Anyone who thinks eradicators are fine "cos servitors" isn't seriously arguing, they are just playing the internet.
SecondTime wrote: They aren't even consistent with other marine units for the most part, though. The whole point of melta is that its low rate of fire and short range but very lethal to armor and heavy infantry once within range. Increasing its rate of fire should never have been on the table.
Bolter : Rapid Fire 1
Heavy Bolter: Heavy 3 +1S +1AP
Plasma Gun: Rapid Fire 1
Plasma Canon Heavy D3 Blast
Grav Gun: Rapid Fire 1
Grav Cannon + Amp Heavy 4
Meltagun Assault 1
Multimelta Heavy 2
Flamer assault D6 Heavy Flamer Heavy D6 +1s +1AP
Which part of that is it supposed to be consistent with? I mean the trend - such as it is - is the heavy version averages double the number of shots for everything but the heavy flamer.
I'm talking about total eradication ability. The multimelta used to be a blast weapon, so this is not very jarring. Maybe its too cheap now. Comparing eradicators to hellblasters just makes me very sad.
Eradicators and multimeltas are obviously superior to all other forms of anti tank..
All evidence to the contrary.
Anyone who thinks eradicators are fine "cos servitors" isn't seriously arguing, they are just playing the internet.
Says the guy lying about the claim. The claim was others pay more for Melta shots. The the claim was well those don’t count. And neither do those. Or those. Or those. And now the claim isn’t cost at all. The problem is we can scroll up and see where you’re lying.
Got to admit that Meltas should be something which cripples or kills a target if it connects. It should be high strength and huge damage, but short range. Multimeltas should have the same short range but more shots, and both should be doing D6 damage, flat 6 if in half range, and should be at least S14.
SecondTime wrote: I'm talking about total eradication ability. The multimelta used to be a blast weapon, so this is not very jarring. Maybe its too cheap now. Comparing eradicators to hellblasters just makes me very sad.
They’re all there. Which trend didn’t the Melta vs Multimelta not follow?
SecondTime wrote: They aren't even consistent with other marine units for the most part, though. The whole point of melta is that its low rate of fire and short range but very lethal to armor and heavy infantry once within range. Increasing its rate of fire should never have been on the table.
Bolter : Rapid Fire 1
Heavy Bolter: Heavy 3 +1S +1AP
Plasma Gun: Rapid Fire 1
Plasma Canon Heavy D3 Blast
Grav Gun: Rapid Fire 1
Grav Cannon + Amp Heavy 4
Meltagun Assault 1
Multimelta Heavy 2
Flamer assault D6 Heavy Flamer Heavy D6 +1s +1AP
Which part of that is it supposed to be consistent with? I mean the trend - such as it is - is the heavy version averages double the number of shots for everything but the heavy flamer.
I'm not talking about the multimelta stat line. I'm talking about its cost and the total eradication ability of eradicators. The prices for these items aren't consistent with other marine costs. That's what I'm talking about. Not heavy weapon trends.
2 Melta shots for 40 points isn't outside the norm.
I think it's not just the 2 Melta shots for 40 points, it's a combination of the 2 Melta Shots, at 24'' range on a BS3+ basis, on a T5, W3, 3+ durability profile...
Note that the units you compare them to are (if I'm not mistaken) all Marine Units.
SecondTime wrote: I'm not talking about the multimelta stat line. I'm talking about its cost and the total eradication ability of eradicators. The prices for these items aren't consistent with other marine costs. That's what I'm talking about. Not heavy weapon trends.
Obviously.
SecondTime wrote: They aren't even consistent with other marine units for the most part, though. The whole point of melta is that its low rate of fire and short range but very lethal to armor and heavy infantry once within range. Increasing its rate of fire should never have been on the table.
That’s why your expanded thought is about Melta instead of Total Eradication. And why we’re backpedaling our claim. Especially as someone else just made the unintentional point the increase of MM to 2 shots is a far delayed reaction to the removal of templates.
2 Melta shots for 40 points isn't outside the norm.
I think it's not just the 2 Melta shots for 40 points, it's a combination of the 2 Melta Shots, at 24'' range on a BS3+ basis, on a T5, W3, 3+ durability profile...
Note that the units you compare them to are (if I'm not mistaken) all Marine Units.
Yeah, I’ve pointed out a few times how ridiculous the changing claim has gotten. Other people pay more. Except they don’t. But you’re getting us closer to that model with a left boot larger than the right boot while sacrificing a goat at midnight criteria. Guard special weapons get it cheaper. But don’t count. Retributors get it cheaper. But don’t count. AM Servitors get it cheaper. But don’t count. Fire Dragons get it cheaper, but don’t count.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SecondTime wrote: Multimeltas have always had intermediate max range.
Well, seems like we aren't agreeing about this. I think its as simple as eradicators and multimeltas (particularly on attack bikes) are undercosted at the present time.
SecondTime wrote: Well, seems like we aren't agreeing about this. I think its as simple as eradicators and multimeltas (particularly on attack bikes) are undercosted at the present time.
Which this? You trying to imply the range of Melta has changed? Your attempt to say your paragraph about Melta - I mean Total Wradication that didn’t even mention Total Eradication but didn’t mention Melta - was actually about Total Eradication?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SecondTime wrote: Well, seems like we aren't agreeing about this. I think its as simple as eradicators and multimeltas (particularly on attack bikes) are undercosted at the present time.
They cost the same there as everywhere else in the list.
I think a lot of people hate them because they’re marine and new, not based on any rational, factual, mathematical basis.
The math DOES get a little wonky when they take a MM upgrade instead of their special rule being their MM upgrade. They’re not my preference, but comparing them to a lot of different units comes out pretty similar. The list is above. In many cases the difference is personal preference between speed, delivery method etc.
I think if you took other units that can’t take a MM but used it and the army wide cost, they’d fit in this pattern too. A Sentinel with a Multimelta isn’t “legal”, but would slot in pretty similar to the attack bike and speeder on price which is similar to the eradicators.
I think they’re getting a double whammy bonus with changes to MM and being first in the update cycle that will smooth out as more factions get their update.
I think every edition has an “element” flavor of the month/edition, and this time it’s Melta.
I think there are bigger problems resulting from that theory than 40 point eradicators - Orks, Nids etc not having any Melta at all for example. Tanks still being dead weight for another.
Finally I think this is another example of wanting to nerf a marine datasheet not fix the problem that sheet is a symptom/example of.
I think a lot of people hate them because they’re marine and new, not based on any rational, factual, mathematical basis.
The math DOES get a little wonky when they take a MM upgrade instead of their special rule being their MM upgrade. They’re not my preference, but comparing them to a lot of different units comes out pretty similar. The list is above. In many cases the difference is personal preference between speed, delivery method etc.
I think if you took other units that can’t take a MM but used it and the army wide cost, they’d fit in this pattern too. A Sentinel with a Multimelta isn’t “legal”, but would slot in pretty similar to the attack bike and speeder on price which is similar to the eradicators.
I think they’re getting a double whammy bonus with changes to MM and being first in the update cycle that will smooth out as more factions get their update.
I think every edition has an “element” flavor of the month/edition, and this time it’s Melta.
I think there are bigger problems resulting from that theory than 40 point eradicators - Orks, Nids etc not having any Melta at all for example. Tanks still being dead weight for another.
Finally I think this is another example of wanting to nerf a marine datasheet not fix the problem that sheet is a symptom/example of.
Can you name a unit that has similar damage output and durability?
Because 125 points of Melta Chosen gets you 5 Melta Shots at 12", on five T4 W1 3+ bodies.
For 5 more points, they get one less shot, at half the range, on a less durable body.
Edit I should've specified, a non-Marine unit. I'm aware Marines have other broken gak.
I think 52-56 is a more fair price for eradicators. That, or make them 30-34 and take away total eradication.
They seem to have removed melta for BA ASM, so that's one fewer point of comparison. I guess tactical guys can get melta, but its hard to use without a drop pod.
Your claim that BS 5+ vrs BS 3+ or BS4+ is arguing in extremely bad faith.
It takes on avarage dice without rerolls 3 shots at BS 3 to achieve 2 hits
It takes 4 shots at BS4+, to achieve 2 hits
It takes 6 shots at BS5+ to achieve 2 hits.
Assuming S T Sv etc are all the same for the same damage output. A BS 5+ weapon should cost 3/6 or 1/2 what it does for a BS3+ unit.
A BS 4+ weapon should cost 3/4 of the same weapon on a BS 3+ platform.
This works fairly well for Shooting but I will admit has some quirks if you try and apply it to WS. Also made a tad more complicated when you have to price in a basic weapon thats traded out.
Thankfully neither of these quirks apply to eradicators.
An eradicator with MultiMelta costs 50 points.
MultiMeltas for marines cost 20 points.
So the eradicator without weapon costs 30 points for a T5 3W BS3+ model with double shoot ability.
Assuming double shoot is priced at the cost of the weapon that puts eradicators at 20ppm for T5 3W aka 0 points more than an intercessor is +1W and +1T realy worth the same as a boltrifle and obsec? Dont think so.
Servitor with MultiMelta is 27 points even assuming they were paying the "fair points of 10 points for MultiMelta but they can be BS4 with a techpriest so even saying 15 points that means GW thinks a Servitor is worth 12 points for 1W T3 and 4+Sv
Double shoot is hard to cost. Double shoot on a bolter? Super meh. Double shoot on melta? That's probably the strongest possible beneficiary.
The other problem being single shot melta is EXTREMELY anemic at S8 with T8 out there and a plethora of invulns. This is why strength bonuses and/or invuln penetration is a better solution to me. MOAR shots invalidates non-invuln targets even harder and allows them to be efficient vs more targets than a buffed single shot.
a Str 6-7 weapon that has 3+ shots and has an AP2 or better with D2 or higher is , if such weapon exists, the best target for shoting a second time. Specialy if it can be spamed on a single target. Just as good as a twice shoting melta vs most tanks, and much better vs infantry of all kinds.
Karol wrote: a Str 6-7 weapon that has 3+ shots and has an AP2 or better with D2 or higher is , if such weapon exists, the best target for shoting a second time. Specialy if it can be spamed on a single target. Just as good as a twice shoting melta vs most tanks, and much better vs infantry of all kinds.
I believe you're describing the Accelerator Autocannon.
It got an AP nerf, though with an extra shot. I guess that's a buff, but there are cases (like salamanders) where its an issue. In general, I feel much better with -2 AP over -1 AP.
Can you name a unit that has similar damage output and durability?
Because 125 points of Melta Chosen gets you 5 Melta Shots at 12", on five T4 W1 3+ bodies.
For 5 more points, they get one less shot, at half the range, on a less durable body.
You mean like Fire Dragons that get two 3+ Wounds on 2 models? That are faster and have more delivery options? Let me guess. That doesn’t count.
How about guard special weapons squads that get three Melta shots for 5 points more than Erads pay for 2, and thee ablative wound models, and are faster (but less so) and have delivery options? Don’t count?
The attack bike is T5, 4W, for a small price increase. And almost 3x faster.
The land speeder tornado is T6 W6 while trading one Melta shot for 3 AssCan shots per 45ish points.
A 5 man Dev Squad with 3 MM and 2 ablative 2W bodies Is in this zone.
The Stormspeeder Hammer strike is in the parking lot outside the ballpark but hard to compare because it’s got more going on.
Karol wrote: a Str 6-7 weapon that has 3+ shots and has an AP2 or better with D2 or higher is , if such weapon exists, the best target for shoting a second time. Specialy if it can be spamed on a single target. Just as good as a twice shoting melta vs most tanks, and much better vs infantry of all kinds.
I believe you're describing the Accelerator Autocannon.
I don’t think he’s talking about the Accellerator - it’s -1 and AP2 is/was usually -4 depending on how you’re using the AP scale:
Not to take anything away from Suppressors. And Firestrike Turrets, but Suppressors are the way to go there. You pay almost as much for one turret as you do three suppressors.
And - somewhat - the Assault Incinerator I mentioned above but everyone glossed over. Hellblasters got a nice boost, but it’s going to take a while to shake out because most people built the one version of the three that didn’t. Assault 3, S6 -4 D1 with plasma/overcharge rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ice_can wrote: .
So the eradicator without weapon costs 30 points for a T5 3W BS3+ model with double shoot ability.
Assuming double shoot is priced at the cost of the weapon that puts eradicators at 20ppm for T5 3W aka 0 points more than an intercessor
Somethings totally wrong there.
You mean like you not accounting for the 10-ish point base weapon they have? Or “assuming” the cost of a double shoot that isn’t used all the time every time is the same cost as the first shoot ability I.e. the weapon? Thank God one of us argues in bad faith.
Can you name a unit that has similar damage output and durability?
Because 125 points of Melta Chosen gets you 5 Melta Shots at 12", on five T4 W1 3+ bodies.
For 5 more points, they get one less shot, at half the range, on a less durable body.
You mean like Fire Dragons that get two 3+ Wounds on 2 models? That are faster and have more delivery options? Let me guess. That doesn’t count.
How about guard special weapons squads that get three Melta shots for 5 points more than Erads pay for 2, and thee ablative wound models, and are faster (but less so) and have delivery options? Don’t count?
The attack bike is T5, 4W, for a small price increase. And almost 3x faster.
The land speeder tornado is T6 W6 while trading one Melta shot for 3 AssCan shots per 45ish points.
A 5 man Dev Squad with 3 MM and 2 ablative 2W bodies Is in this zone.
The Stormspeeder Hammer strike is in the parking lot outside the ballpark but hard to compare because it’s got more going on.
Fire Dragons are immensely less durable. T3 W1 3+ is nowhere close to T5 W3 3+. (The extra wound on the Exarch will usually help-but not NEARLY enough.)
Special Weapon Squads get 3 Melta Shots for 45 points, at 12". On 6 T3 W1 5+ bodies. It takes 11 AP-1 Bolter hits to kill them all-that same firepower will do one or two wounds to an Eradicator. Once again, they might have similar firepower, but nowhere near the durability.
The last four ones are all Marine units-saying "Marines aren't broken! Look at other powerful Marine options!" doesn't really help your case.
Yeah, I’ve pointed out a few times how ridiculous the changing claim has gotten. Other people pay more. Except they don’t. But you’re getting us closer to that model with a left boot larger than the right boot while sacrificing a goat at midnight criteria. Guard special weapons get it cheaper. But don’t count. Retributors get it cheaper. But don’t count. AM Servitors get it cheaper. But don’t count. Fire Dragons get it cheaper, but don’t count.
Special weapons squads have bs4+, so they get 2 12" Melta Hits for 60 points (4 SWS gunners+4 normal ones +4 meltaguns
Eradicators have BS3+ and get 2 hits for 60 points. So exactly the same price but at twice the range and much sturdier.
@ Servitors: I'm not sure what the new MM cost, it was 35 points for two shots, right? + the 14 for two Servitors with BS 5+ (4+ with a techpriest). So 98 points for two hits. 68 should MM stay at 20 points for Ad mech. Again: not cheaper.
Yeah, I’ve pointed out a few times how ridiculous the changing claim has gotten. Other people pay more. Except they don’t. But you’re getting us closer to that model with a left boot larger than the right boot while sacrificing a goat at midnight criteria. Guard special weapons get it cheaper. But don’t count. Retributors get it cheaper. But don’t count. AM Servitors get it cheaper. But don’t count. Fire Dragons get it cheaper, but don’t count.
Special weapons squads have bs4+, so they get 2 12" Melta Hits for 60 points (4 SWS gunners+4 normal ones +4 meltaguns
Eradicators have BS3+ and get 2 hits for 60 points. So exactly the same price but at twice the range and much sturdier.
@ Servitors: I'm not sure what the new MM cost, it was 35 points for two shots, right? + the 14 for two Servitors with BS 5+ (4+ with a techpriest). So 98 points for two hits. 68 should MM stay at 20 points for Ad mech. Again: not cheaper.
Excellent point, yeah. 30 points on the SWS to Melta HIT, whereas Eradicators pay the same 30 points, but with greater range and durability.
Fire dragons die to bolter fire, and every wound lost is a shot less.
Fire dragons have 12" range. Eradicators 24".
Fire dragons have the wave serpent/falcon. Eradicators just outflank or walk up the middle of the table to reach any target.
120 pts of Fire dragons get 5 shots. 120 Pts of eradicators get 6 (or 8 with the bigger gun)
JNAProductions wrote: Excellent point, yeah. 30 points on the SWS to Melta HIT, whereas Eradicators pay the same 30 points, but with greater range and durability.
From the HS not the Elite... I know. Doesn’t count. With ablative 4+ wounds. Doesn’t count. In multiple models and multiple squads because for each individual Erad model you’re getting an entire squad. In an already target saturated t3 4+ target bracket. I know. Doesn’t count. The models left boot is not larger than the right boot! Doesn’t count!
JNAProductions wrote: Excellent point, yeah. 30 points on the SWS to Melta HIT, whereas Eradicators pay the same 30 points, but with greater range and durability.
From the HS not the Elite... I know. Doesn’t count. With ablative 4+ wounds. Doesn’t count. In multiple models and multiple squads because for each individual Erad model you’re getting an entire squad. In an already target saturated t3 4+ target bracket. I know. Doesn’t count. The models left boot is not larger than the right boot! Doesn’t count!
Breton wrote: How about guard special weapons squads that get three Melta shots for 5 points more than Erads pay for 2, and thee ablative wound models, and are faster (but less so) and have delivery options? Don’t count?
45pts gets you 6 T3/5+ wounds with three melta shots at 12", at BS4+ averaging 1.5 hits.
40pts gets you 3 T5/3+ wounds with two melta shots at 24", at BS3+ averaging 1.33 hits.
When you adjust for points, both the SWS and the Eradicator average the same number of hits. Except the Eradicator has double the range. And is hurt less by negative modifiers. And has greater access to re-rolls. And when within the SWS's range, inflicts significantly more damage.
Then you look at durability, where that one Eradicator is significantly harder to kill. SWS get 3 T3/5+ ablative wounds before they start losing firepower; the Eradicator has 2 T5/3+ ablative wounds. The Eradicator has double the save and higher T at the cost of half the wounds- the Eradicator is nearly as hard to kill with Heavy Bolters, let alone with anything D1.
Yes, the SWS are an entire inch faster. Yes, they have delivery options. Neither of these are relevant if you can hit enemy vehicles turn 1 with no delivery needed and the durability to not die instantly if you don't get the first turn. Special Weapon Squads are so fragile and short-ranged that they outright need a delivery option to be at all useful, while Eradicators do not, and you're trying to frame that as an advantage to the SWS.
I really don't understand how you can set up these comparisons and not recognize just how bad Eradicators make virtually every other anti-tank unit look in comparison. If they had the range limitation of SWSes, or the fragility of SWSes, or just didn't have that double-shoot mechanic (they'd probably even be deserving of a points drop in that case!), there wouldn't be complaining.
Inb4 the inevitable 'well SWS suck and nobody uses them so it's okay if Eradicators are way better'.
SecondTime wrote: Snark doesn't support your position. Rather than these comparisons, I'm just going with simple recosting. Recostings you don't agree with, obviously.
"You guys are hillarious."
I guess everyone is when you think you are the smartest guy in the room.
Who’s even trying to support a position any more? What point is there? This all started (today)with a guy who refused to read supporting evidence to protect his narrative bubble. I don’t have to be the smartest guy in the room to predict all the “That doesn’t count” replies. Having someone make such a reply while I’m simultaneously predicting it’s imminent arrival is funny.
SecondTime wrote: Snark doesn't support your position. Rather than these comparisons, I'm just going with simple recosting. Recostings you don't agree with, obviously.
"You guys are hillarious."
I guess everyone is when you think you are the smartest guy in the room.
Who’s even trying to support a position any more? What point is there? This all started (today)with a guy who refused to read supporting evidence to protect his narrative bubble. I don’t have to be the smartest guy in the room to predict all the “That doesn’t count” replies. Having someone make such a reply while I’m simultaneously predicting it’s imminent arrival is funny.
Damn, you're so much smarter than the rest. I totally didnt take into account that we could disregard the range and resilience of eradicators when comparing them to other non-marine anti tank infantry.
SecondTime wrote: Snark doesn't support your position. Rather than these comparisons, I'm just going with simple recosting. Recostings you don't agree with, obviously.
"You guys are hillarious."
I guess everyone is when you think you are the smartest guy in the room.
Who’s even trying to support a position any more? What point is there? This all started (today)with a guy who refused to read supporting evidence to protect his narrative bubble. I don’t have to be the smartest guy in the room to predict all the “That doesn’t count” replies. Having someone make such a reply while I’m simultaneously predicting it’s imminent arrival is funny.
Damn, you're so much smarter than the rest. I totally didnt take into account that we could disregard the range and resilience of eradicators when comparing them to other non-marine anti tank infantry.
Don't forget the free Double tap. But that is also irrelevant , because can in some cases be compensated by massive cp investment
Breton, like, are you even aware that the units you're comparing Eradicators to aren't used because they're generally considered bad, while 3x3 Eradicators are regularly showing up in tournament-winning lists?
Do you think all these Guard and Eldar players are just sleeping on some of the best anti-tank available?
Or do you think these Marine players have no idea what they're doing and are taking a crap unit?
Like if you really think these units are comparable, how do you explain the fact that Eradicators are used competitively and SWSes and Fire Dragons aren't?
Yes, the SWS are an entire inch faster. Yes, they have delivery options. Neither of these are relevant if you can hit enemy vehicles turn 1 with no delivery needed and the durability to not die instantly if you don't get the first turn. Special Weapon Squads are so fragile and short-ranged that they outright need a delivery option to be at all useful, while Eradicators do not, and you're trying to frame that as an advantage to the SWS.
So you’re saying a unit with 24 inch guns are going to be in range on all those not within 24” deployment boards chocked with terrain and LOS blockers that they make SWS not count?
Yes, the SWS are an entire inch faster. Yes, they have delivery options. Neither of these are relevant if you can hit enemy vehicles turn 1 with no delivery needed and the durability to not die instantly if you don't get the first turn. Special Weapon Squads are so fragile and short-ranged that they outright need a delivery option to be at all useful, while Eradicators do not, and you're trying to frame that as an advantage to the SWS.
So you’re saying a unit with 24 inch guns are going to be in range on all those not within 24” deployment boards chocked with terrain and LOS blockers that they make SWS not count?
Not all boards are like that. Many boards are primarily cover, even with the new terrain rules. Range matters. A lot.
catbarf wrote: Breton, like, are you even aware that the units you're comparing Eradicators to aren't used because they're generally considered bad, while 3x3 Eradicators are regularly showing up in tournament-winning lists?
I’m aware we’ve had people already point out 3x3 aren’t showing up in tournament lists anymore - in fact someone earlier said it was 2x3 and a Dev squad, but you’re still claiming they are.
I’m aware when other Marine AT options are mentioned people laugh and say some version “that just proves more units are broken” but when you say Guard Eldar and others are finding other better anti-tank in their army, apparent it...
Ice_can wrote: And the mods wonder why people loose the plot when people keep posting utter rubbish and ignore facts when the inconsistencies are called out.
Mods should be romoving posts that are flat out incorrect, not complaining that people don't play nice with liers.
I’d certainly miss your posts.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SecondTime wrote: Well apparently, range doesn't count to you because of terrain that may or may not exist.
Amazing how often Planet Bowling Ball makes a comeback when it’s convenient.
Not within 24 -5 inch movement, - 6” advance is still not within Melta bonus range. Even on Planet Bowling Ball, going first, deployed directly across from a juicy target.
I know, I know it doesn’t count. Unless we’re talking about Melta Tacs in a Drop Pod.
You are missing the difference between Unit A has x,y,z properties that make its current cost not fair compared to Unit B with i,j,k properties and Unit B "doesn't count".
"Amazing how often Planet Bowling Ball makes a comeback when it’s convenient."
It's not planet bowling ball if a great deal of the terrain doesn't function as LoS blocking despite the table looking quite good. This happens a lot.
Well, they can both get a ride.
They can both be spammed easier in an army that’s far cheaper in other places.
They’ll require more shots by virtue of being immune to multi damage weapons.
But none of that counts.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SecondTime wrote: You are missing the difference between Unit A has x,y,z properties that make its current cost not fair compared to Unit B with i,j,k properties and Unit B "doesn't count".
"Amazing how often Planet Bowling Ball makes a comeback when it’s convenient."
It's not planet bowling ball if a great deal of the terrain doesn't function as LoS blocking despite the table looking quite good. This happens a lot.
"still not within Melta bonus range."
What if I don't care about or need that?
In other news 24+ inches - 11 inches is still more than 12 inches. But that still doesn’t count.
And if you don’t care or need it, you don’t need or care about Melta. Not that that counts or anything.
Getting a ride requires extra points-and Erads can get a ride too.
Cheaper=/=better, when they’re not cheap enough.
And they require far less dedicated firepower to take down-SWS can die to a single 5-man Intercessor squad throwing chip fire at them. Fire Dragons require a bit more, but a 10-man should do them in just fine, taking out a five-man with an Exarch
JNAProductions wrote: Getting a ride requires extra points-and Erads can get a ride too.
Cheaper=/=better, when they’re not cheap enough.
And they require far less dedicated firepower to take down-SWS can die to a single 5-man Intercessor squad throwing chip fire at them. Fire Dragons require a bit more, but a 10-man should do them in just fine, taking out a five-man with an Exarch
JNAProductions wrote: Getting a ride requires extra points-and Erads can get a ride too.
They sure can. In Repulsors. Is that the argument you want to make?
Cheaper=/=better, when they’re not cheap enough.
And they require far less dedicated firepower to take down-SWS can die to a single 5-man Intercessor squad throwing chip fire at them.
so 100 points of Intercessors kill 45 points of SWS and the other 90 points of SWS take down.. the three Eradicators. This is fun.
Also 10*.67*.67*.67 is only 3.00763. AKA the Ablative wounds.
Fire Dragons require a bit more, but a 10-man should do them in just fine, taking out a five-man with an Exarch
The overall package is a lot worse.
20*.67*.67*.5 is only 4 and change damage, but sure.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SecondTime wrote: What if it really *doesn't* count? This is getting really philosophical. But there's the real chance you're just trolling at this point.
Oh I’m not trolling, but I’m not taking you/this seriously either.
A) Whining in Dakka isn’t going to change a GW rulebook.
B) whining on Dakka not backed up with math and evidence REALLY isn’t going to do it.
C) it only counts when it’s a marine model with a left boot slightly larger than the right boot. And we hate the unit because it’s new and decent
Y priced.
Lets move on please, any further posts just going back and forth just dismissing whatever someone else posted and saying "doesn't count" or the like will be treated as spam. If you're not going to engage in the conversation in good faith, please leave it.
JNAProductions wrote: Getting a ride requires extra points-and Erads can get a ride too.
They sure can. In Repulsors. Is that the argument you want to make?
Cheaper=/=better, when they’re not cheap enough.
And they require far less dedicated firepower to take down-SWS can die to a single 5-man Intercessor squad throwing chip fire at them.
so 100 points of Intercessors kill 45 points of SWS and the other 90 points of SWS take down.. the three Eradicators. This is fun.
Also 10*.67*.67*.67 is only 3.00763. AKA the Ablative wounds.
Fire Dragons require a bit more, but a 10-man should do them in just fine, taking out a five-man with an Exarch
The overall package is a lot worse.
20*.67*.67*.5 is only 4 and change damage, but sure.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SecondTime wrote: What if it really *doesn't* count? This is getting really philosophical. But there's the real chance you're just trolling at this point.
Oh I’m not trolling, but I’m not taking you/this seriously either.
A) Whining in Dakka isn’t going to change a GW rulebook.
B) whining on Dakka not backed up with math and evidence REALLY isn’t going to do it.
C) it only counts when it’s a marine model with a left boot slightly larger than the right boot. And we hate the unit because it’s new and decent
Y priced.
Unless there's a rule that says "Fire Dragons get a free Wave Serpent," you need to account for the cost.
And they need a transport more than Eradicators-both because they're more fragile and shorter ranged.
AP-1 on Bolt Rifles, or 15 shots on AutoBolt. And add an extra point of AP Turns 2 and 3.
Moreover, how are you getting the SWS in range of the Eradicators? Are you taking a transport? In which case, they now cost a lot more, and the transport is very vulnerable to Eradicators.
Do you honestly believe SWS or Fire Dragons are on par with Eradicators?
Darsath wrote: All this chat about Eradicators and no one is mentioning how absurd the new Redemptor is for its points.
It's very good, but undone by said eradicators pretty easily. 2 damage weapons are best used vs the marines, leaving massive damage and 1 damage chipping to use vs the redemptor.
Darsath wrote: All this chat about Eradicators and no one is mentioning how absurd the new Redemptor is for its points.
It's very good, but undone by said eradicators pretty easily. 2 damage weapons are best used vs the marines, leaving massive damage and 1 damage chipping to use vs the redemptor.
Isn't it T8 now? So most 1 damage weapons aren't as good anymore versus it.
Darsath wrote: All this chat about Eradicators and no one is mentioning how absurd the new Redemptor is for its points.
It's very good, but undone by said eradicators pretty easily. 2 damage weapons are best used vs the marines, leaving massive damage and 1 damage chipping to use vs the redemptor.
Isn't it T8 now? So most 1 damage weapons aren't as good anymore versus it.
wait, so they upped the redemptor to T8 but dropped the leviathan to T7??
SecondTime wrote: Nope redemptor is still T7. It's a wave serpent that punches. T7 13W, -1 damage.
Oh, ok i was about to be even sadder about my WIP leviathan if that was the case.
Still, giving so much stuff serpent shields seems strange, its always been one of the strongest defensive abilities you could give to a unit.
SecondTime wrote: Nope redemptor is still T7. It's a wave serpent that punches. T7 13W, -1 damage.
Oh, ok i was about to be even sadder about my WIP leviathan if that was the case.
Still, giving so much stuff serpent shields seems strange, its always been one of the strongest defensive abilities you could give to a unit.
SecondTime wrote: Nope redemptor is still T7. It's a wave serpent that punches. T7 13W, -1 damage.
Oh, ok i was about to be even sadder about my WIP leviathan if that was the case.
Still, giving so much stuff serpent shields seems strange, its always been one of the strongest defensive abilities you could give to a unit.
It's less true now than it was in 8th.
Because of the many new buffed heavy weapons? Its still strong even if youre getting shot at with damage 6 weapons. But yes, not AS good as before
JNAProductions wrote: Unless there's a rule that says "Fire Dragons get a free Wave Serpent," you need to account for the cost.
For what wave serpent? There wasn’t a wave serpent in any of the math I did?
And they need a transport more than Eradicators-both because they're more fragile and shorter ranged.
And Eradicators are slower, and less spammable.
Moreover, how are you getting the SWS in range of the Eradicators? Are you taking a transport? In which case, they now cost a lot more, and the transport is very vulnerable to Eradicators.
And the SWS pile out and torch the Eradicators. Mostly I was going to do it the same way the Eradicators were in range of not-within 24 stuff. I don’t know how, but I’ve been told it’s possible.
Do you honestly believe SWS or Fire Dragons are on par with Eradicators?
SWS is a resounding yes, Fire Dragons not quite yet, but I suspect they will be. MUCH cheaper troops and delivery choices, combined with the Elites instead of Heavy Support slot make them much easier to leverage.
I hope I don't overstretch it and apologize if I do, but regarding Bretons point that other units can be spammed easier: IG can have 3 SWS max. That's 9 BS4+ meltashots (135 points). Lets be generous and add 3 command squads with another 12 meltashots (256 points) 3 full sized Scion (390 points) and Scion Command Squads (240 points) with 12 each. All combined IG can "spam" 45 × 12" Melta shots (9 of those with BS4+) for 931 points.
Eradicators alone (3×9) have 54 × 24" shots for EDIT 27×40= 1080 points.
Pyroalchi wrote: I hope I don't overstretch it and apologize if I do, but regarding Bretons point that other units can be spammed easier: IG can have 3 SWS max. That's 9 BS4+ meltashots (135 points). Lets be generous and add 3 command squads with another 12 meltashots (256 points) 3 full sized Scion (390 points) and Scion Command Squads (240 points) with 12 each. All combined IG can "spam" 45 × 12" Melta shots for 931 points)
Eradicators alone (3×9) have 54 × 24" shots for 18×40= 760 points.
Eradicators cap at 6, not 9.
So that's 3*6=18 Eradicators. Admittedly, you can take two MultiMeltas per squad of 6, so that's 8 shots (before double shoot) per 3 man Combat Squad, for a total of 48 24" Melta Shots.
SecondTime wrote: Nope redemptor is still T7. It's a wave serpent that punches. T7 13W, -1 damage.
All Dreads (or almost all depending on how technical you want to get post FW book) got that. I’m not sure the Redemptor is the top beneficiary though, especially now that “bespoke” chapters can Storm Raven old Dreads. We’ve been making jokes about shoving Bjorn out the back for a while now, but a Storm Raven can drop a:
Furioso
DC Dred
Bjorn
Murderfang
Wulfen Dread
And some support characters, warlord traits and/or chapter tactics etc plus some sort of a Vanguard Vet unit to boost the charge range/fight damage/etc for a real bomb.
I feel Redemptors are very solid, but I'm not sure they are appearing in top lists. This might be due to the fact its still early.
The other argument is that if you took 3 they open up a reasonable number of points in Bring It Down if they do die, which isn't something Marines usually worry about. Really though I think its Eradicators and friends. Could be the new Lokhust, but not sure its making it into lists right now as a result of its fragility and high chance to just do nothing in a turn with only 1 shot. (Pay 75% more than an Eradicator for 1 more wound.)
All Dreads (or almost all depending on how technical you want to get post FW book) got that. I’m not sure the Redemptor is the top beneficiary though, especially now that “bespoke” chapters can Storm Raven old Dreads. .
I wish GW updated all dreads the changed all the marine dreads exept for the GK ones.
JNAProductions wrote: SWS can advance and shoot, though.
And Erads don't get doubleshoot if they advance.
SWS are garbage compared to Eradicators, yeah, but there's no need to get rules wrong to make them worse than they are.
Yeah, my bad on the SWS, for some reason i had the meltas as heavy in my mind.
And since when can't eradicators advance and double shoot? was that changed in the codex?
JNAProductions wrote: SWS can advance and shoot, though.
And Erads don't get doubleshoot if they advance.
SWS are garbage compared to Eradicators, yeah, but there's no need to get rules wrong to make them worse than they are.
Yeah, my bad on the SWS, for some reason i had the meltas as heavy in my mind.
And since when can't eradicators advance and double shoot? was that changed in the codex?
Yup.
I'll still take a 29" 6 shot threat range over an 18" 3 shot threat range.
Do you honestly believe SWS or Fire Dragons are on par with Eradicators?
SWS is a resounding yes, . . .
WAT?
Like not even close. 24" range covers so much more area than 12".
And how many units shoot them? How many units shoot the Eradicators?
Death by a thousand paper cuts still leaves you dead. A bunch of cheap little Melta squads running around all over the place when MEQ prices have what 9- 10 (2 5 man Intercessors when you need both for a 6 man guard squad is one unit for these purposes) Non character units max? And still have to play the mission? And deal with whatever is in the Guard HS slots? Even six squads can get a lot of work done if the Marine (etc) player just doesn’t have enough units to go around.
I’m not sure yet. Sure, it’s Repulsor priced, but it’s Hard a To Hit, and transports a Dread, plus a Land Raider’s worth of dudes. Not worth it for DA, or Codex, but SW/BA might be able to work it. Especially BA, between Red Thirst and Melee Dreads without Shields.
A SWS is 6 Guardsmen. 6.
It doesn't take a lot of fire power to kill them. They're regular humans walking around in paper mache.
Meanwhile Eradicators are running about with their 3 T5 Wounds and a 3+ save each. Pretty much the perfect spot, where regular anti infantry weapons stuggle while anti-tank weapons are overkill.
Also how is the Guard player getting 6 units of SWS when the Rule of 3 exists?
Most 40KAT guns are pretty efficient vs gravis due to the lack of invuln. To be fair. Targets that require AT profiles and yet sport invulns are the ones that cause the problems.
Do you honestly believe SWS or Fire Dragons are on par with Eradicators?
SWS is a resounding yes, . . .
WAT?
Like not even close. 24" range covers so much more area than 12".
And how many units shoot them? How many units shoot the Eradicators?
Death by a thousand paper cuts still leaves you dead. A bunch of cheap little Melta squads running around all over the place when MEQ prices have what 9- 10 (2 5 man Intercessors when you need both for a 6 man guard squad is one unit for these purposes) Non character units max? And still have to play the mission? And deal with whatever is in the Guard HS slots? Even six squads can get a lot of work done if the Marine (etc) player just doesn’t have enough units to go around.
I dare you to play Guard, take a bunch of Melta Squads and see what happens.
My prediction is that they will mostly die without hurting anything.
My VV with storm shields will go pay them a visit for sure. Gearing up guardsmen like that is probably not the wisest usage of points. Back to the one wound model with gear problem again. Same as 1W oldboi marines, except I don't AP or mortals to wipe them up. Or, for my VV, I don't need to overload their plasma pistols.
How is citing single placements even a counter argument for you? Did I ever say Marines don't make top 3 anymore? Did I ever say Necrons are making top 3 constantly now? Don't forget to laugh while you move your goalpost.
Assuming "Eradicator squad" without a number to it to be 3 guys, as otherwise you would have pointed out there being 12 Eradicator in a list... having a little more than two min sized Eradicator units (6,4) on average in each Marine list is spam?
How is it a counter to your argument? Simple. You said
Since their codex release Necrons went up from winning 37.7% of their games to 54.4%. With the exception of DA and UM all Marines went down in winrate, some significantly.
in response to me calling the SM codex OP and the Necron codex sub-par compared to the Marine Codex. So you are citing W/L rate as evidence that the Necron codex are at least as good as the Marine Codex, that or you are just randomly typing for no purpose. If I am misstating your argument by all means correct me.
I was pointing out that In the last 5 Majors, Marines have 5 lists winning the 1st or 2nd place prize while Necrons had 1 list that won 3rd place. Same time frame, significantly different results. Also those Marine lists were spaced out over several different colors of Marines. So have I moved the goal posts? No. My position has been that Marines are OP and are not balanced Vs. the only other faction that has a codex atm, which is an argument you seem to have been attempting to make by showing their W/L rate in 9th edition.
Now, as far as Spamming eradicators, I never argued they were getting spammed, I did mention they got spammed in 1 list, taking 11 of them is a hefty investment into a single model where the MAX you can take is I believe 18. With upgrades they accounted for about 25-30% of the Marine list. What I did do though was show that Marines are heavily utilizing a couple of units that have already been designated as being "problematic" in nature...translation: OP. Blade Guard, Eradicators and even post nerf, Aggressors. If you felt like I was saying they were spammed in general, sorry for the confusion, but that was not my claim, that was your assumption.
Void__Dragon wrote: I'm honestly not sure how to nerf them without making them useless. Making them have baseline Marine durability is unfortunately off the tables because they're in Gravis armour and as such have to have the stupid Gravis profile, otherwise that's where I'd at least start.
They don't need to be nerfed. 2 Melta shots for 40 points isn't outside the norm.
Per 45ish Points a Landspeeder Tornado will have 1 MM, and 3 Assault Cannon Shots.
Per 40 points an attack bike has about 1 and a half MM shots, and 3 bolter shots.
Devs and Tactical Heavies are also just under 40 points for 2 MM Shots.
The most expensive per-Melta is probably the ATV everyone was flagellating themselves over because a Medic COULD heal it IF everything worked out exactly right at 1 Melta and 3 Bolter shots per just over 40.
Until Recently you were better with:
Scouts over Eliminators because you could take 10 scouts in a slot you already had to take something in - didn't "Cost" you more in any way.
Anything over vehicles. Still are. At least for the large ones.
Erads over Hellblasters (The changes to Hellblasters may change things on paper, but it's going to take a while for that to shake out given the waiting list on painting tables)
Erads aren't underpriced (at least not substantially so) but they're being taken because Hellblasters are slightly overpriced (in the configuration most of us have them in) and aren't in a point in the model release/build/buy fill-ins cycle to replace the ones we already have. If some full kit Hellbalsters (or ETB versions with Assautl or Heavy) showed up, we might start seeing Hellblasters again. Especially the Assault Versions. Some Assault versions in an Impulsor is really growing on me. 5 of them are 150-175 points, they're throwing down 15 S6 -4 D1 shots, add a cap to overcharge if you want to, but its still hard to OC 30-35 points into Instant Death.
Breton...i'll actually agree with you. When compared internally I believe you are correct. The only problem I have with your well thought out analysis (Serious no sarcasm) is that it doesn't account for external balance. The issue is that the Marine codex right now has ridiculous power levels to the point where if Eradicators got nerfed, there are many other choices readily available that are almost as good. This doesn't mean eradicators are fine where they are, it means the entire Codex is OP. Now, give it 2 years and maybe every codex goes to that power level, personally I hope that isn't the case because I already feel like the game is far to lethal (things die to quickly).
Are they more expensive? The claim was units that can take Multimelta are more expensive not counting Retributors. Why Retributors don’t count, I don’t know. Other than anything that disproves the narrative can’t be allowed to count. And now, neither do the Servitors. Or the guard special weapons. Or the firedragons. Or anything else that gets on Melta shot per 20 or so points.
I said they don’t need to be nerfed, someone said facts do t matter, they stopped listening.
I pointed out a number of units getting a Melta shot per 20 or so points to prove it.
Those don’t count because some fictional unit that isn’t Retributtors have to pay more for their Multimelta shots.
I ask which fictional unit this is - the answer is none, but that isn’t important
I point out more units getting a Melta shot per 20 or so points and we see even more “that doesn’t count because reasons unrelated to the claim”.
And I will disagree with this. Yes your point is well made but you are arguing semantically instead of taking the intent of the argument to heart. At the moment an Eradicator is 40pts (45 likely W/upgrade) And gets 1 melta shot per 20pts at BS3. On a toughness 5 3+ save model with 3 wounds. Yes I am factoring in the double shot if they don't split fire. No other faction can get that level of damage output on a model that is remotely close to that tough. You mention Guard special weapon squads, and I agree they are criminally underpriced. But talk about a difference in durability. a 45pt Special weapons squad can have 3 Melta guns, but they have 1/2 the range of Eradicators, they are BS4 instead of BS3 and most importantly. they are T3 6W 5+ save. An eradicator takes 54 lasgun shots,
about 40-41 bolter shots to kill. That guard squad takes 36 lasgun shots or 20-21 bolter shots to kill. So half the range and about twice as vulnerable to small arms fire.
If you want you can compare this to a Tankbusta unit for orkz. Generally orkz roll with 5-10 of them in a Trukk. Lets ignore the trukk for now though and stick with just dmg potential. 5 tankbustas at 85pts get 5 shots, for just shy of 2 hits. Against a Grav armor primaris (probably their best target to shoot at thanks to Flat 3 Dmg) they get 1.33 wounds at -2AP for about an 88% chance to kill 1 Grav Marine. Against a T8 Vehicle (3+) they get 5 shots, for 3.2ish hits (full rerolls vs vehicles) 1.6ish wounds against a 5+ save about 1 goes through for about 3dmg total. For the same price, Eradicators can have 2 marines, 1 with upgraded rifle. So thats 2 normal shots and 2 upgraded shots. 1.33 hits each. .66 chance to wound for each one, no saves allowed so the normal one averages 2.3 dmg a turn and the upgraded one averages 4.3dmg a turn. Total about 6.6dmg, more than DOUBLE what the Tankbustas get. This obviously goes up if the erads get closer (By 4dmg). Durability wise, its not looking good. Those 5 tankbustas take 18 Bolter or 35 lasgun shots to get wiped out compared to the Eradicators 40-41bolter and 54 lasgun shots. So The eradicators are significantly more durable vs most small arms fire.
I personally want everyone's damage potential dropped. The game has gotten to the silly level of killing. When entire vehicle formations die turn 1 and a horde of infantry are gunned down before they even get to do anything, the game has gone too far. Eradicators are just the newest, and most obvious example of how far the game has gone. 45pts nets you 2 S8 -4AP D6+2 shots on a T5 3W 3+ save model. That is honestly bonkers, add in the bonuses they can get, rerolls etc and yeah, vehicles are basically not going to be able to function unless they can reliably stay out of range for most of the game.
SWS, Firedragons, Tankbustas, none of these come close to the damage potential AND durability of Eradicators.
SecondTime wrote: That would be more convincing if eradicators didn't have T5 and double the range.
Nobody seems to be able to find these mysterious Melta units that cost more. But they sure can find new Reasons any unit that disproves the claim doesn’t count.
Eradicators are broken because they’re the only Melta unit with a model whose left boot is larger than the right boot manufactured in June after 2019 but before 2021, while being eligible to be painted in two different shades of green and two different shades of blue. Totally not because it’s a marine unit and very inline with price points.
Sorry I missed all this fun today. But since you've already thrown a units durability out of equation and are just looking for price per melta shot: Land Raider Achilles. 360 PPM with 2 twin multi- meltas once the Imperial Armour Compendium drops. That's 8 shots, so 45 points per shot. And I don't want to hear anything about those 16 T8 2+ 5++ wounds.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Sorry I missed all this fun today. But since you've already thrown a units durability out of equation and are just looking for price per melta shot: Land Raider Achilles. 360 PPM with 2 twin multi- meltas once the Imperial Armour Compendium drops. That's 8 shots, so 45 points per shot.
I like this dishonesty. Yeah, it's not like it has quad launcher, which for most intents and purposes acts as a third quad melta, so 12 shots/30 pts. Oops
JNAProductions wrote: And they require far less dedicated firepower to take down-SWS can die to a single 5-man Intercessor squad throwing chip fire at them. Fire Dragons require a bit more, but a 10-man should do them in just fine, taking out a five-man with an Exarch
Far less? Even in 8th edition, stupid proliferation of D2 guns made W2 stat almost meaningless. Now that GW doubled down on that and also started pumping out D3 weapons? Even gravis starts to look like a paper tiger, yes, technically it's "stronger" than W1 but I am strangely sure once Eldar and Tau books came out with their usual broken nonsense we will see guns spammed that will be autodeleting not just base SM, but gravis too. Just like Intercessors are now after 8th.
Funnily enough, some armies are even making the "weak" W1 a virtue, sidestepping D2/3 spam with cheap bodies (made even more cheap by points enemies wasted on bigger guns). So let's not act like gravis is always better, because in a lot of matchups it's worse.
catbarf wrote: Breton, like, are you even aware that the units you're comparing Eradicators to aren't used because they're generally considered bad, while 3x3 Eradicators are regularly showing up in tournament-winning lists?
Ah, yes, let's see. Out of curiosity I looked at most recent tournament on Goonhammer to see if anything changed:
Apparently these guys have no idea what they are doing, because GREAT STRAWMAN, the 3x3 Eradicators shows up a grand total of ZERO times in 1-20. Oh, wait, WS in 5th place have 2x, I guess. There is also Raven Guard with 1x. Three total SM armies in top 20, four if we expand it to top 30. Maybe you guys should inform them they would instantly win if they just brought 3x3 Eradicators?
It's funny how not only 26 armies in top 30 had no problems beating SM, but the SM armies that did well somehow didn't bothered to bring 3x3, endless wails it's supposedly the best unit in the game notwithstanding. If facts contradict theory, the worse for the facts, eh?
By the way, I had no idea games are now played on completely flat circle 24 inches in diameter. Is it some new rule added in 9th, seeing Eradicators somehow can target everything on the board at once without moving, judging by the above posts?
Gadzilla666 wrote: Sorry I missed all this fun today. But since you've already thrown a units durability out of equation and are just looking for price per melta shot: Land Raider Achilles. 360 PPM with 2 twin multi- meltas once the Imperial Armour Compendium drops. That's 8 shots, so 45 points per shot.
I like this dishonesty. Yeah, it's not like it has quad launcher, which for most intents and purposes acts as a third quad melta, so 12 shots/30 pts. Oops
You're always so entertaining. S8, AP-2, D3 VS S8, AP-4, Dd6/d6+2 within half range, so no, not quite 4 melta shots. At best maybe 2, but even with your assumed 30 points per shot that's 50% more expensive, and that's all we were looking for, wasn't it? Something that pays more than 20 points per shot of melta? Would you like to compare what a 360 PPM Achilles, including the quad launcher, can do compared to 360 points of eradicators? It would definitely put a damper on your whole "fw is too OP!" spiel.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Sorry I missed all this fun today. But since you've already thrown a units durability out of equation and are just looking for price per melta shot: Land Raider Achilles. 360 PPM with 2 twin multi- meltas once the Imperial Armour Compendium drops. That's 8 shots, so 45 points per shot.
I like this dishonesty. Yeah, it's not like it has quad launcher, which for most intents and purposes acts as a third quad melta, so 12 shots/30 pts. Oops
JNAProductions wrote: And they require far less dedicated firepower to take down-SWS can die to a single 5-man Intercessor squad throwing chip fire at them. Fire Dragons require a bit more, but a 10-man should do them in just fine, taking out a five-man with an Exarch
Far less? Even in 8th edition, stupid proliferation of D2 guns made W2 stat almost meaningless. Now that GW doubled down on that and also started pumping out D3 weapons? Even gravis starts to look like a paper tiger, yes, technically it's "stronger" than W1 but I am strangely sure once Eldar and Tau books came out with their usual broken nonsense we will see guns spammed that will be autodeleting not just base SM, but gravis too. Just like Intercessors are now after 8th.
Funnily enough, some armies are even making the "weak" W1 a virtue, sidestepping D2/3 spam with cheap bodies (made even more cheap by points enemies wasted on bigger guns). So let's not act like gravis is always better, because in a lot of matchups it's worse.
catbarf wrote: Breton, like, are you even aware that the units you're comparing Eradicators to aren't used because they're generally considered bad, while 3x3 Eradicators are regularly showing up in tournament-winning lists?
Ah, yes, let's see. Out of curiosity I looked at most recent tournament on Goonhammer to see if anything changed:
Apparently these guys have no idea what they are doing, because GREAT STRAWMAN, the 3x3 Eradicators shows up a grand total of ZERO times in 1-20. Oh, wait, WS in 5th place have 2x, I guess. There is also Raven Guard with 1x. Three total SM armies in top 20, four if we expand it to top 30. Maybe you guys should inform them they would instantly win if they just brought 3x3 Eradicators?
It's funny how not only 26 armies in top 30 had no problems beating SM, but the SM armies that did well somehow didn't bothered to bring 3x3, endless wails it's supposedly the best unit in the game notwithstanding. If facts contradict theory, the worse for the facts, eh?
By the way, I had no idea games are now played on completely flat circle 24 inches in diameter. Is it some new rule added in 9th, seeing Eradicators somehow can target everything on the board at once without moving, judging by the above posts?
The link you shared just shows top 1-5 places from this weekend with ravenguard being no1 and white scars no5.. I asusme its the latest event or something ?
Apparently these guys have no idea what they are doing, because GREAT STRAWMAN, the 3x3 Eradicators shows up a grand total of ZERO times in 1-20. Oh, wait, WS in 5th place have 2x, I guess. There is also Raven Guard with 1x. Three total SM armies in top 20, four if we expand it to top 30. Maybe you guys should inform them they would instantly win if they just brought 3x3 Eradicators?
I pointed out that Eradicators have regularly featured in tournament-winning lists, and your rebuttal is to point out that... in a single tournament they only show up a couple of times in the top placing lists? With the overall winner bringing a trio of Eradicators? Yeah? Well, that's a nice straw man you've got there; if anyone said 'any list that brings 9 Eradicators is undefeatable!!1!1!1' you might have had a point.
Anyways, let's see how often Eradicators show up at the high levels of other tournaments:
Now please, by all means, comb through high-placing Astra Militarum lists and tell me how many Special Weapons Squads appeared, so that you can refute my actual argument- which was that Eradicators are played in tournaments, and SWS aren't. I'm dying to see all the triple melta Special Weapon Squads that Breton is so convinced are just as viable as Eradicators.
(Given that Irbis only ever seems to make drive-by shitpost-y attacks I'm not holding my breath for a good-faith response, this is more for the benefit of the peanut gallery)
Yeah agreed with catbarf, what an ridiculous post. The levels of condescension in that post are way too high for someone who clearly doesn’t understand what they are even discussing. Imagine thinking that Eradicators can’t be OP because people aren’t taking 3x3 of them? WHY would you take that many Eradicators? The entire reason they are OP is because a single unit or two can utterly decimate even Knights for such a minor investment. Filling your entire HS slots doesn’t seem optimal for anything other than if you’re expecting a very specific meta, and as you said, even 3x3 STILL makes regular showings.
His entire argument just boils down to a perspective of “being good at Warhammer means spamming OP unit!” and it’s such a low level understanding of 40k and Eradicators are a unit that display why. These things aren’t 6th Ed Wraithknights, they have a highly specialised role that they overperform at, that’s what makes them OP, not cramming as much of them as you can in a list.
And on top of that, yeah you were just saying that they featured commonly, 1 event doesn’t disprove that. I can’t understand the thought process that drives someone to make the post he just did.
Lol in general that we now have people saying SWS are as good as Erads, what a meme. God the SM community sometimes makes me embarrassed of my collection.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Lol he’s acting like Eradicators aren’t any tankier than literal guardsmen aha. Are these people on a payroll or something? It feels like paid propaganda because of how blatantly absurd it is.
And I will disagree with this. Yes your point is well made but you are arguing semantically instead of taking the intent of the argument to heart.
Look at the entire argument. Retributors don't count because No Reason. Arguing Semantically was the "rules" of the argument. Even you're about to do it. T3 5+ that isn't shot at is a lot more durable than T5 3+ that is. I already pointed out a MEQ priced army could have (generally at best) 10 units to "act" (read shoot/fight) opposing units. With 12 Infantry squads on objectives, and 6 little melta units running around, something isn't being shot at. Well except for the guy who thinks his Vanguard Vet unit is going to be running around 6 different places wiping out 6 different units all at once.
When the premise of the argument is to change 20 points per melta shot to everyone else pays more for Multi Meltas - except for the only other unit he can think of that can take Multi Meltas so honestly there are no other candidates - How else BUT semantically is this argument supposed to play out? My little joke about left boots being larger than right boots and "doesn't count" was about this exact thing - using semantics and laser focused cherry picking to so limit the paradigm. No other T5 3+ Melta unit is as cheap as Erads because Erads are the only T5 3+ melta unit
At the moment an Eradicator is 40pts (45 likely W/upgrade) And gets 1 melta shot per 20pts at BS3. On a toughness 5 3+ save model with 3 wounds. Yes I am factoring in the double shot if they don't split fire.
And SWS are 1 Melta shot per 20ish points(less if you don't count the ablative wound), on a BS4 body nobody is shooting at because they're drowning in T3 1W 5+ bodies. There's more than one road to durability.
No other faction can get that level of damage output on a model that is remotely close to that tough. You mention Guard special weapon squads, and I agree they are criminally underpriced. But talk about a difference in durability. a 45pt Special weapons squad can have 3 Melta guns, but they have 1/2 the range of Eradicators, they are BS4 instead of BS3 and most importantly. they are T3 6W 5+ save. An eradicator takes 54 lasgun shots,
about 40-41 bolter shots to kill. That guard squad takes 36 lasgun shots or 20-21 bolter shots to kill. So half the range and about twice as vulnerable to small arms fire.
12 Infantry Squads, 3 SWS and 3 Command Squads require 18 units to shoot at them. That's a special kind of durability all its own.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nitro Zeus wrote: The levels of condescension in that post are way too high for someone who clearly doesn’t understand
@ Breton: honest question: why do you think nobody would shoot at SWS because "they are drowning in T3 5+ bodies"?
If you are facing lots of T3 5+, isn't it pretty obvious that you should shoot at the dudes holding meltas (and trying to get into 12" range) first?
Why should anyone think he should better clear the lasgun holding infantry squads first?
EDIT: and please take BS into account when comparing price/Melta shot.
Pyroalchi wrote: @ Breton: honest question: why do you think nobody would shoot at SWS because "they are drowning in T3 5+ bodies"?
If you are facing lots of T3 5+, isn't it pretty obvious that you should shoot at the dudes holding meltas (and trying to get into 12" range) first?
Why should anyone think he should better clear the lasgun holding infantry squads first?
EDIT: and please take BS into account when comparing price/Melta shot.
Well sure, you could shoot the meltas first. But you give up the Objectives and VPs. Who here isn't willing to trade 45 points for 5 VP?
Pyroalchi wrote: But, by that same logic why shoot at the Eradicators and not the SM troops holding objectives?
I mean either both are priority targets or none?
As soon as Marines have more units to shoot at than you have to shoot at them, it might force such a decision. How many units does a guard army have? even if they start with 12 Infantry squads that's only a third of their army or so. Another 6 of those cheap little Meltas and are we even at half? And they've got 18 shooters. At 200 points a 10 man Intercessor pop, Marines have 9 units and two characters. As soon as they start adding things like Aggressors and Erads they lose Intercessors a lot faster than Guard are going to lose Infantry Squads. God Forbid they start adding things like Land Raiders and Repulsors.
I sometimes wonder how people’s opinion of certain units is so extremely different to ours that they find Special weapons Squads as powerful as Eradicators, but after reading how they are playing against it, everything becomes a lot clearer.
@ Breton: again: IG can take maximum 3 SWS. Not 6. So Maximum 9 meltas with BS 4+ and 12'' range. Which transfers to 4.5 hits at 12'' range for 135 points.
3 Eradicators with the normal rifles score 4 hits for 120 points at 24'' range or (with the MM) 5.33 hits for 140 points (MM was +20, right? I'm not sure).
I'm willing to engage in an honest discussion and am open to be convinced with compelling arguments, but it should be based on the rules and not inflate the number of Units an army can take.
Pyroalchi wrote: @ Breton: again: IG can take maximum 3 SWS. Not 6.
I'll take Command Squads for 45 Alex. SWS are just one of the small Melta Squads that can be running around. Hell someone else already pointed out there could be 9 of the things running around if you mix and match Tempestus.
is one of the dumbest units ever made in 
