the_scotsman wrote: Chapter Tactics were the sole providence of the marines for nearly two editions
The Imperial Guard's Regimental Doctrines disagrees with this, unless you're arguing only for the time after GW removed them from the Guard. But the point is, Guard had the equivalent of chapter tactics back in fourth edition.
sennacherib wrote: There is no good justification for chaos not having assault cannons or a host of other wargear available to their loyalist counterparts, since we loot the corpses of the lap dogs servants whenever we win a battle. But GW rights the rules and the fluff. If you don’t like it. There’s not much you can do besides either whining about it here, getting a job at GW so you can change the rules, or accepting it.
Or maybe you should just stick with admech! Given that you have been complaining about space marines since May of last year I suggest you move on buddy.
You get assault cannons - we get autocannons? Sound good?
But you already have access to autocannons, and in fact your autocannons have "Marine-itis", inexplicably having 2d3 instead of 2 shots and 3 damage instead of 2.
They say, in a thread where people are begging to have the same rules and complaining they don't have the same equipment.
Find me arguing for that.
Why?
When people are asking for "Consistency" they're doing it as a veiled attempt at saying "This army has rules that mine doesn't."
The type of "consistency" you're defending does, in fact, mean giving each army the same rules and equipment.
No. My consistency of design philosophy is each army being given tools to compete. That does not require the tools be identical. Tyranids don't need lascannons if they have big monsters which can destroy tanks and the means to get those monsters into close combat with enemy vehicles. That could be through having fast big monsters or weapons capable of slowing enemy units down (say, an arachnid-themed unit which can infiltrate in with weapons which fire sticky webs, gluing infantry in place and slowing vehicles down for a turn).
If you can find any posts of me calling for homogeneity then by all means, go ahead and quote them.
I don't need posts of you arguing for homogeneity.
Someone claimed "Consistency" meant "all armies get the same <thingymabobber goes here>."
Someone else called them out on that.
Then you stepped in and said, to person number 2: "No, you're wrong, consistency doesn't mean all armies get the same tools."
I feel like you should have agreed with person number 2, but instead got all pissed about them because they believed consistency is something other than what the first person claimed it was.
This.
You already have the tools to compete. Your army has lots of tools to compete that other armies lack. A point I have consistently made. Chaos has to pay cp to infiltrate units using the alpha legion trait. We don’t have scouts. We do not have flying transports loaded with psychic dreads and armed with assault cannons, nor do we have flying gunboats, assassins, 3++ save wargear we can hand out like candy, means to shut down opposing psykers. Etc. I’m not whining about it. I’m just pointing out how inconsistent this is. you just want more shiny new rules. There has never been consistency in rules creation between codex in the history of 40k to the best of my knowledge.
As for why space marines are not doing so well in tournament games. Pretty much imbalanced FW units like the malific lord being spammed. If you want to spend 20 pages whining about something, let’s whine about spamming OP cheese, not about how someone else got shiny new toys you want to play with.
sennacherib wrote: 2. Consistency. Might as well only play marine on marine then. Where are the storm shields for chaos, grav, assault cannons, chaos landspeededs. Your whole consistency argument is so flawed. They are different armies so there doesn’t have to be any consistency between codex. Flat out. Do you expect marines to have all the same bonus as tyranids? Space elves should be the same as genetically altered humans. Should they be consistent. Fundamentally flawed argument. Is that all you have.
Previous posts include complaining that marines are not good enough over a year ago, to more recent whining about bolt guns needing to be better. Sounds like your win button isn’t big enough.
You see...you are confusing having options. With having choices. Plus it's not like you don't have options that loyalists don't - Like daemon princes (which is better than literally every unit in the space marine codex - minus Guilliman). This is a discussion about power / not options. Nether chaos or loyalist have any shortage of options compared to other armies - it doesn't make those options good or bad though.
sennacherib wrote: There is no good justification for chaos not having assault cannons or a host of other wargear available to their loyalist counterparts, since we loot the corpses of the lap dogs servants whenever we win a battle. But GW rights the rules and the fluff. If you don’t like it. There’s not much you can do besides either whining about it here, getting a job at GW so you can change the rules, or accepting it.
Or maybe you should just stick with admech! Given that you have been complaining about space marines since May of last year I suggest you move on buddy.
You get assault cannons - we get autocannons? Sound good?
But you already have access to autocannons, and in fact your autocannons have "Marine-itis", inexplicably having 2d3 instead of 2 shots and 3 damage instead of 2.
He's talking about on terminators. That predator autocannon has always been just an autocannon. In this eddition they bumped it's price up to 11 and made it a pretty good weapon. It's also the only place we could put an autocannon outside of a dread. Never been able to have a marine hold an auto-cannon like a chaos marine. I'm not even complaining about this. It's always gone both ways.
the_scotsman wrote: Chapter Tactics were the sole providence of the marines for nearly two editions
The Imperial Guard's Regimental Doctrines disagrees with this, unless you're arguing only for the time after GW removed them from the Guard.
I think he meant "nearly two editions" as in 6th and 7th editions - doctrines and chapter tactics co-existed in 3rd.
And in 3rd the Guard ones could apply to tanks and the Marine ones couldn't and no one said a damn thing... *muses*
In 3rd edition, none of the Guard ones could apply to tanks. I've got the Doctrines book sitting right in front of me and they all say "Infantry Squads" with the exception of some allowing for Sentinel Squadrons(Xeno-Fighters and Hardened Fighters) or Rough Rider Squadrons(Die-Hards, Cyber-Enhancement, Carapace Armor), or even Conscript Squads.
You already have the tools to compete. Your army has lots of tools to compete that other armies lack. A point I have consistently made. Chaos has to pay cp to infiltrate units using the alpha legion trait. We don’t have scouts. We do not have flying transports loaded with psychic dreads and armed with assault cannons, nor do we have flying gunboats, assassins, 3++ save wargear we can hand out like candy, means to shut down opposing psykers. Etc. I’m not whining about it. I’m just pointing out how inconsistent this is. you just want more shiny new rules. There has never been consistency in rules creation between codex in the history of 40k to the best of my knowledge.
As for why space marines are not doing so well in tournament games. Pretty much imbalanced FW units like the malific lord being spammed. If you want to spend 20 pages whining about something, let’s whine about spamming OP cheese, not about how someone else got shiny new toys you want to play with.
I play Tau. I started in 4th and carried on all the way through 5th. I own no Riptides, Ghostkeels, Stormsurges. My Broadsides are the metal/plastic kits with railguns. My army has often been butchered by GWs failure to understand the differences in how armies are meant to play and the way that the rules determine that. GWs inability to understand that a tank with an anti-tank main gun and infantry support secondary weapons must be able to split fire to work effectively (removal of vehicle target locks in 6th and 7th edition), who didn't understand the importance of mobility in an army meant to play as a mechanised, mobile force (removal of vehicle multi-trackers - fire after moving as if a fast vehicle - in 6th and 7th edition), etc.
On the other hand, Imperium and Chaos both got given safe plasma guns, previously a Tau specialty, although they got it without having to sacrifice any strength of the gun and even got a more powerful statline added to boot.
You already have the tools to compete. Your army has lots of tools to compete that other armies lack. A point I have consistently made. Chaos has to pay cp to infiltrate units using the alpha legion trait. We don’t have scouts. We do not have flying transports loaded with psychic dreads and armed with assault cannons, nor do we have flying gunboats, assassins, 3++ save wargear we can hand out like candy, means to shut down opposing psykers. Etc. I’m not whining about it. I’m just pointing out how inconsistent this is. you just want more shiny new rules. There has never been consistency in rules creation between codex in the history of 40k to the best of my knowledge.
As for why space marines are not doing so well in tournament games. Pretty much imbalanced FW units like the malific lord being spammed. If you want to spend 20 pages whining about something, let’s whine about spamming OP cheese, not about how someone else got shiny new toys you want to play with.
I play Tau. I started in 4th and carried on all the way through 5th. I own no Riptides, Ghostkeels, Stormsurges. My Broadsides are the metal/plastic kits with railguns. My army has often been butchered by GWs failure to understand the differences in how armies are meant to play and the way that the rules determine that.
On the other hand, Imperium and Chaos both got given safe plasma guns, previously a Tau specialty, although they got it without having to sacrifice any strength of the gun and even got a more powerful statline added to boot.
It's really hard to feel sorry for the Tau after 6th/7th; sorry. Also, there is little functional difference between S6 and S7 in 8th.
the_scotsman wrote: Chapter Tactics were the sole providence of the marines for nearly two editions
The Imperial Guard's Regimental Doctrines disagrees with this, unless you're arguing only for the time after GW removed them from the Guard.
I think he meant "nearly two editions" as in 6th and 7th editions - doctrines and chapter tactics co-existed in 3rd.
And in 3rd the Guard ones could apply to tanks and the Marine ones couldn't and no one said a damn thing... *muses*
In 3rd edition, none of the Guard ones could apply to tanks. I've got the Doctrines book sitting right in front of me and they all say "Infantry Squads" with the exception of some allowing for Sentinel Squadrons(Xeno-Fighters and Hardened Fighters) or Rough Rider Squadrons(Die-Hards, Cyber-Enhancement, Carapace Armor), or even Conscript Squads.
And I've got the Armoured Company list in front of me, and they all say "Leman Russ Tanks" with the exception of Siege Regiment which allowed for Basilisks.
So.... yes you could get doctrines on IG tanks in 3rd and 4th (because I played them).
I didn't hear a peep from Space Marine players back then.
Xenomancers wrote: daemon princes (which is better than ;literally every unit in the space marine codex)
ITT: Daemon Princes "literally better" than Guilliman.
Guilliman is a lord or war only available to ultra marines. Don't be obtuse - you know what I mean - and i am right - fixed it for you so it's more clear.
the_scotsman wrote: Chapter Tactics were the sole providence of the marines for nearly two editions
The Imperial Guard's Regimental Doctrines disagrees with this, unless you're arguing only for the time after GW removed them from the Guard.
I think he meant "nearly two editions" as in 6th and 7th editions - doctrines and chapter tactics co-existed in 3rd.
And in 3rd the Guard ones could apply to tanks and the Marine ones couldn't and no one said a damn thing... *muses*
In 3rd edition, none of the Guard ones could apply to tanks. I've got the Doctrines book sitting right in front of me and they all say "Infantry Squads" with the exception of some allowing for Sentinel Squadrons(Xeno-Fighters and Hardened Fighters) or Rough Rider Squadrons(Die-Hards, Cyber-Enhancement, Carapace Armor), or even Conscript Squads.
And I've got the Armoured Company list in front of me, and they all say "Leman Russ Tanks" with the exception of Siege Regiment which allowed for Basilisks.
So.... yes you could get doctrines on IG tanks in 3rd and 4th (because I played them).
I didn't hear a peep from Space Marine players back then.
Not from the Codex you couldn't. You either had to go FW or Index Astartes.
Maybe that's why you "didn't hear a peep from Space Marine players back then" because in both cases it was "Opponent's permission".
the_scotsman wrote: Chapter Tactics were the sole providence of the marines for nearly two editions
The Imperial Guard's Regimental Doctrines disagrees with this, unless you're arguing only for the time after GW removed them from the Guard.
I think he meant "nearly two editions" as in 6th and 7th editions - doctrines and chapter tactics co-existed in 3rd.
And in 3rd the Guard ones could apply to tanks and the Marine ones couldn't and no one said a damn thing... *muses*
In 3rd edition, none of the Guard ones could apply to tanks. I've got the Doctrines book sitting right in front of me and they all say "Infantry Squads" with the exception of some allowing for Sentinel Squadrons(Xeno-Fighters and Hardened Fighters) or Rough Rider Squadrons(Die-Hards, Cyber-Enhancement, Carapace Armor), or even Conscript Squads.
And I've got the Armoured Company list in front of me, and they all say "Leman Russ Tanks" with the exception of Siege Regiment which allowed for Basilisks.
So.... yes you could get doctrines on IG tanks in 3rd and 4th (because I played them).
I didn't hear a peep from Space Marine players back then.
Not from the Codex you couldn't. You either had to go FW or Index Astartes.
Maybe that's why you "didn't hear a peep from Space Marine players back then" because in both cases it was "Opponent's permission".
The Armoured Company list from Chapter Approved was allowed in 'Ard Boys until 5e dropped, and every tournament I went to at the time I played it without concern or care. (FW didn't have control over the tank list until 5e when it was called "Armoured Battlegroup" instead of Armoured Company, and it never was in Index Astartes because it has nothing to do with Astartes).
And "opponent's permission" is meaningless drivel, as you need "opponent's permission" for anything and everything, including his permission to even play the game with him in the first place!
Still: There was once a time when Imperial Guard Leman Russ Tanks had access to Doctrines, and this was official and allowed at every GW tournament, and Space Marine players said nothing.
You already have the tools to compete. Your army has lots of tools to compete that other armies lack. A point I have consistently made. Chaos has to pay cp to infiltrate units using the alpha legion trait. We don’t have scouts. We do not have flying transports loaded with psychic dreads and armed with assault cannons, nor do we have flying gunboats, assassins, 3++ save wargear we can hand out like candy, means to shut down opposing psykers. Etc. I’m not whining about it. I’m just pointing out how inconsistent this is. you just want more shiny new rules. There has never been consistency in rules creation between codex in the history of 40k to the best of my knowledge.
As for why space marines are not doing so well in tournament games. Pretty much imbalanced FW units like the malific lord being spammed. If you want to spend 20 pages whining about something, let’s whine about spamming OP cheese, not about how someone else got shiny new toys you want to play with.
I play Tau. I started in 4th and carried on all the way through 5th. I own no Riptides, Ghostkeels, Stormsurges. My Broadsides are the metal/plastic kits with railguns. My army has often been butchered by GWs failure to understand the differences in how armies are meant to play and the way that the rules determine that.
On the other hand, Imperium and Chaos both got given safe plasma guns, previously a Tau specialty, although they got it without having to sacrifice any strength of the gun and even got a more powerful statline added to boot.
It's really hard to feel sorry for the Tau after 6th/7th; sorry. Also, there is little functional difference between S6 and S7 in 8th.
Until you want to shoot at something which is T6/7, such as most monstrous creatures. And the ability to increase the strength to 8 and the damage to 2, potentially making the gun twice as lethal.
the_scotsman wrote: Chapter Tactics were the sole providence of the marines for nearly two editions
The Imperial Guard's Regimental Doctrines disagrees with this, unless you're arguing only for the time after GW removed them from the Guard.
I think he meant "nearly two editions" as in 6th and 7th editions - doctrines and chapter tactics co-existed in 3rd.
And in 3rd the Guard ones could apply to tanks and the Marine ones couldn't and no one said a damn thing... *muses*
In 3rd edition, none of the Guard ones could apply to tanks. I've got the Doctrines book sitting right in front of me and they all say "Infantry Squads" with the exception of some allowing for Sentinel Squadrons(Xeno-Fighters and Hardened Fighters) or Rough Rider Squadrons(Die-Hards, Cyber-Enhancement, Carapace Armor), or even Conscript Squads.
And I've got the Armoured Company list in front of me, and they all say "Leman Russ Tanks" with the exception of Siege Regiment which allowed for Basilisks.
So.... yes you could get doctrines on IG tanks in 3rd and 4th (because I played them).
I didn't hear a peep from Space Marine players back then.
Not from the Codex you couldn't. You either had to go FW or Index Astartes.
Maybe that's why you "didn't hear a peep from Space Marine players back then" because in both cases it was "Opponent's permission".
The Armoured Company list from Chapter Approved was allowed in 'Ard Boys until 5e dropped, and every tournament I went to at the time I played it without concern or care. (FW didn't have control over the tank list until 5e when it was called "Armoured Battlegroup" instead of Armoured Company, and it never was in Index Astartes because it has nothing to do with Astartes).
And "opponent's permission" is meaningless drivel, as you need "opponent's permission" for anything and everything, including his permission to even play the game with him in the first place!
Still: There was once a time when Imperial Guard Leman Russ Tanks had access to Doctrines, and this was official and allowed at every GW tournament, and Space Marine players said nothing.
Excuse me for forgetting it was called "Chapter Approved".
In any regards, "Opponent's Permission" did actually use to have a meaning and there was a time where it was actually considered reasonable to inform people before dropping stuff like an all-tank list on them.
Kanluwen wrote: Excuse me for forgetting it was called "Chapter Approved".
In any regards, "Opponent's Permission" did actually use to have a meaning and there was a time where it was actually considered reasonable to inform people before dropping stuff like an all-tank list on them.
And who cares what a tournament allowed for?
I did usually inform people before dropping stuff like an all-tank list on them, and I still do? And no, it doesn't have any more meaning then than if I did now. If I said "I'm bringing 15 Baneblades" and someone turned down a game, that's them revoking 'opponent's permission', regardless of whether or not the 'dex has any wording to that effect.
As for tournaments - well, they're the only things I play in where I don't talk the list over with my opponent until we deploy, so it's the only situation where they'd have had an opportunity to say "I don't give my 'opponent's permission'." and have it actually 'mean something', as you say. And do you know what GW's answer was? "Tough luck, it's allowed." Because 'ard boyz was an official GW tournament, not some third party thing.
So it really puts the kabosh on your inane "opponent's permission" argument.
Xenomancers wrote: daemon princes (which is better than ;literally every unit in the space marine codex)
ITT: Daemon Princes "literally better" than Guilliman.
Guilliman is a lord or war only available to ultra marines. Don't be obtuse - you know what I mean - and i am right.
If you meant something other than what you said, perhaps you should think before you type.
Because iirc Guilliman is a unit in the SM codex. I can find the page number if you want.
ROFL
Daemonprinces have their uses. I fail to see how they are better than a storm raven.
Almost 0 chance of being destroyed first turn. With wings and warp time they can assault turn 1 easily. They can kill almost anything that isn't a super heavy that they charge. Can be spammed without losing the game automatically due to having no units on the table. Don't take my word for it though - just look at all the choas list placing high at big events. Daemon princes are almost always included in their list.
Xenomancers wrote: daemon princes (which is better than ;literally every unit in the space marine codex)
ITT: Daemon Princes "literally better" than Guilliman.
Guilliman is a lord or war only available to ultra marines. Don't be obtuse - you know what I mean - and i am right.
If you meant something other than what you said, perhaps you should think before you type.
Because iirc Guilliman is a unit in the SM codex. I can find the page number if you want.
ROFL
Daemonprinces have their uses. I fail to see how they are better than a storm raven.
Almost 0 chance of being destroyed first turn. With wings and warp time they can assault turn 1 easily. They can kill almost anything that isn't a super heavy that they charge. Can be spammed without losing the game automatically due to having no units on the table. Don't take my word for it though - just look at all the choas list placing high at big events. Daemon princes are almost always included in their list.
Interesting and anecdotally, a game this weekend included a Daemon Prince who charged Wulfen and promptly got utterly annihilated - I was on the Space Wolf player's team that game.
But yes, Daemon Princes are good, even though they can sometimes be a victim of the dice.
Xenomancers wrote: daemon princes (which is better than ;literally every unit in the space marine codex)
ITT: Daemon Princes "literally better" than Guilliman.
Guilliman is a lord or war only available to ultra marines. Don't be obtuse - you know what I mean - and i am right.
If you meant something other than what you said, perhaps you should think before you type.
Because iirc Guilliman is a unit in the SM codex. I can find the page number if you want.
ROFL
Daemonprinces have their uses. I fail to see how they are better than a storm raven.
Almost 0 chance of being destroyed first turn. With wings and warp time they can assault turn 1 easily. They can kill almost anything that isn't a super heavy that they charge. Can be spammed without losing the game automatically due to having no units on the table. Don't take my word for it though - just look at all the choas list placing high at big events. Daemon princes are almost always included in their list.
Interesting and anecdotally, a game this weekend included a Daemon Prince who charged Wulfen and promptly got utterly annihilated - I was on the Space Wolf player's team that game.
But yes, Daemon Princes are good, even though they can sometimes be a victim of the dice.
You should never charge wolfen. They attack back even if you kill them. You shoot Wolfen. They are t4 with 2 wounds...how hard is that to shoot off the table. Tell your team mate to use his brain next time and have some patients!
Xenomancers wrote: daemon princes (which is better than ;literally every unit in the space marine codex)
ITT: Daemon Princes "literally better" than Guilliman.
Guilliman is a lord or war only available to ultra marines. Don't be obtuse - you know what I mean - and i am right.
If you meant something other than what you said, perhaps you should think before you type.
Because iirc Guilliman is a unit in the SM codex. I can find the page number if you want.
ROFL
Daemonprinces have their uses. I fail to see how they are better than a storm raven.
Almost 0 chance of being destroyed first turn. With wings and warp time they can assault turn 1 easily. They can kill almost anything that isn't a super heavy that they charge. Can be spammed without losing the game automatically due to having no units on the table. Don't take my word for it though - just look at all the choas list placing high at big events. Daemon princes are almost always included in their list.
Interesting and anecdotally, a game this weekend included a Daemon Prince who charged Wulfen and promptly got utterly annihilated - I was on the Space Wolf player's team that game.
But yes, Daemon Princes are good, even though they can sometimes be a victim of the dice.
You should never charge wolfen. They attack back even if you kill them. You shoot Wolfen. They are t4 with 2 wounds...how hard is that to shoot off the table. Tell your team mate to use his brain next time and have some patients!
I was on the SW player's team, not the Chaos' player's.
And there is a whole variety of reasons why the Daemon Prince charged the wulfen but suffice to say: they were deliberate tactical choices on our part that forced his hand; his only other option was to stand there and twiddle his daemonic thumbs until they wiped the Wulfen out, which would have taken at least a turn and would have won us the game.
In fact, experiences like that (from actually playing the game) that make me distrust "mathhammer" and some of the proposed "easy solutions."
Xenomancers wrote: daemon princes (which is better than ;literally every unit in the space marine codex)
ITT: Daemon Princes "literally better" than Guilliman.
Guilliman is a lord or war only available to ultra marines. Don't be obtuse - you know what I mean - and i am right.
If you meant something other than what you said, perhaps you should think before you type.
Because iirc Guilliman is a unit in the SM codex. I can find the page number if you want.
ROFL
Daemonprinces have their uses. I fail to see how they are better than a storm raven.
Almost 0 chance of being destroyed first turn. With wings and warp time they can assault turn 1 easily. They can kill almost anything that isn't a super heavy that they charge. Can be spammed without losing the game automatically due to having no units on the table. Don't take my word for it though - just look at all the choas list placing high at big events. Daemon princes are almost always included in their list.
As a chaos player I can safely say that they do not destroy everything they charge.
On average a daemonprince with a sword does 5.49 wounds to a tank. With claws they only kill about 4.8 guardsman equivalent models in melee. There is just no truth in the argument that they can kill almost anything in the charge.
Stormravens on the other hand are so good they had to be nerfed. No such nerf happened to princes because they simply are not that good. Otherwise GW would nerf them. They also don’t put out nearly the same damage as a storm raven, nor do they act as a transport. Either way, we can at least agree that marines have some very good codex options. I just don’t agree that they NEED to have every shiny new rule that comes out just to be consistent. That’s a flawed argument.
Someone asked earlier what Legion traits I would trade for Regimental doctrines:
I'd probably trade Iron Warriors for Cadian six days a week and twice on Sunday.
I'd trade the Word Bearers for Any other Regimental doctrine, pick one, I don't care. I'd probably also trade Night Lords, while I recognize it could be good, the setup is just too complicated to be consistently applied in game.
I could do this all day honestly.
Yes, there are fluffy reasons why the decision to only apply Legion/Chapter traits to Infantry/Dreads bothers me. However, the real reasons, as someone pointed out earlier is that in theory, this should make non-vehicle units more attractive, but it really doesn't, it leads to very specialized combinations of very specific units. Quite frankly, outside of transports, it leaves the rest of the vehicles in the codex out in the cold. I'm ignoring the Malefic Lord, since I agree it's a broken unit that will probably get heavily adjusted (I feel like I need to add this sentence to every post).
Why would I take a Maulerfiend, Forgefiend, or Defiler? They're garbage for the points. I could take a Predator Annihilator, but that's expensive and it's probably better to just take a Land Raider or a Storm Eagle and deliver a squad of infantry while sporting better firepower and durability. There are bad units in every codex, but SM/CSM have basically been saddled with an entire class of units that lack synergy with the rest of the army because of what appears to be a completely arbitrary decision.
Chaos lists are placing in tournaments by virtue of a single broken FW unit currently, we all know that's going to change. There's a school of thought which suggests that this will inspire the more creative employment of the units at the disposal of CSM players, but there's no way to know right now. I hope the impending nerf to the Malefic Lord leads to a renaissance of CSM army builds, but the jaded cynic in me that's usually right is not optimistic.
Also, seriously, what's with the whole "You were awesome in edition X, therefore you should suck now" line of arguments, how is that relevant at all?
Xenomancers wrote: daemon princes (which is better than ;literally every unit in the space marine codex)
ITT: Daemon Princes "literally better" than Guilliman.
Guilliman is a lord or war only available to ultra marines. Don't be obtuse - you know what I mean - and i am right.
If you meant something other than what you said, perhaps you should think before you type.
Because iirc Guilliman is a unit in the SM codex. I can find the page number if you want.
ROFL
Daemonprinces have their uses. I fail to see how they are better than a storm raven.
Almost 0 chance of being destroyed first turn. With wings and warp time they can assault turn 1 easily. They can kill almost anything that isn't a super heavy that they charge. Can be spammed without losing the game automatically due to having no units on the table. Don't take my word for it though - just look at all the choas list placing high at big events. Daemon princes are almost always included in their list.
As a chaos player I can safely say that they do not destroy everything they charge.
On average a daemonprince with a sword does 5.49 wounds to a tank. With claws they only kill about 4.8 guardsman equivalent models in melee. There is just no truth in the argument that they can kill almost anything in the charge.
Stormravens on the other hand are so good they had to be nerfed. No such nerf happened to princes because they simply are not that good. Otherwise GW would nerf them. They also don’t put out nearly the same damage as a storm raven, nor do they act as a transport. Either way, we can at least agree that marines have some very good codex options. I just don’t agree that they NEED to have every shiny new rule that comes out just to be consistent. That’s a flawed argument.
Saying something "can" kill something. Doesn't mean they 1 shot it every time they assault. This is a dice game. Much like a las cannon averages something like 1.2 wounds vs a tank with 4+ to hit. Is it wrong to say that las cannons "can" kill tanks - is it even wrong to say they are great at killing tanks?
Martel732 wrote: Mathhammer is always true, but not always applicable in a given situation.
Right, so if the mathhammer doesn't favour you, then change the situation instead of complaining about the mathhammer.
Not always possible. And sometimes the mathhammer is overwhelming.
If it's not possible, then that is good play on your opponent's part because now he is forcing you into an uncomfortable situation, much like you are trying to force him. Yay tactics!
And... no? I mean, if you don't get to use the mathhammer at all, then it's not overwhelming. This is my biggest issue with Guard artillery: because it ignores LOS, there's little counterplay, and they always get to bring their mathhammer to bear on certain targets. The challenge then becomes to offer them a variety of valuable targets and plan around one being destroyed.
As an example from my last game against the local Guard artillery player, I brought a Malcador Infernus, Malcador Annihilator, and a gak load of footslogging sisters. The Manticores eventually chose to focus the Annihilator until the Infernus was in range (in it's range, not the Manticore's; it was always in range of the Manticores), and then focused on the Infernus, leaving the Annihilator alive with ~6 wounds left IIRC. The problem was that Manticores are incredibly inefficient against tanks - but shooting at the Sisters would have been a waste as well, as they don't "do" anything, except exist. It'd've been like shooting conscripts.
sennacherib wrote: 2. Consistency. Might as well only play marine on marine then. Where are the storm shields for chaos, grav, assault cannons, chaos landspeededs. Your whole consistency argument is so flawed. They are different armies so there doesn’t have to be any consistency between codex. Flat out. Do you expect marines to have all the same bonus as tyranids? Space elves should be the same as genetically altered humans. Should they be consistent. Fundamentally flawed argument. Is that all you have.
Previous posts include complaining that marines are not good enough over a year ago, to more recent whining about bolt guns needing to be better. Sounds like your win button isn’t big enough.
Actually I agree that Renegade chapters aren't entirely well represented.
Do you also agree that your argument that apples and oranges should be the same for consistency sake is irrelevant in any context. Space elf rules and Demi human rules do not need ever be the same for consistency sake.
Design philosophies need to be consistent though. That's the issue here.
They never were before so why should they now? Space elves are a different army as are Guard. There is no long standing design philosophy anywhere that states that everything has to be consistent across the board. I didn’t hear any space marines talking about other armies needing grav or Demi companies. Your aurgument is hogwash. You just want more shiny rulez.
Design Philosophy is not the same as same equipment. I'd love for you to find me saying as such. Go ahead. Do it.
Or you could deny it and just pretend it's the same thing.
It's easier for codices with access to cheaper models, for sure.
"This is my biggest issue with Guard artillery: because it ignores LOS, there's no counterplay, and they always get to bring their mathhammer to bear on certain targets"
That's what I meant. And yes, I've quit bringing any single unit over 200 pts for this reason. There is no play at all involved with this.
Sometimes it is good play, but there are plenty of situations where in-game choices are meaningless because of mathhammer.
Martel732 wrote: It's easier for codices with access to cheaper models, for sure.
"This is my biggest issue with Guard artillery: because it ignores LOS, there's no counterplay, and they always get to bring their mathhammer to bear on certain targets"
That's what I meant. And yes, I've quit bringing any single unit over 200 pts for this reason. There is no play at all involved with this.
Sometimes it is good play, but there are plenty of situations where in-game choices are meaningless because of mathhammer.
Ironically, my solution to manticores is to bring >2 units of over 300 points that they're inefficient against, and then a bunch of "cheap" models (though 9ppm is hardly cheap, imo).
Your last sentence is not entirely correct - "there are in-game situations where choices are meaningless because of mathhammer" is true, but is not what you said.
That means the in-game choices you made failed to put you in an situation where you could leverage your mathhammer, and your opponent's in-game choices were in fact well done and he is leveraging his mathhammer.
If you're in a situation where their mathhhammer clearly overpowers yours - then you were put in that situation by other choices.
" then you were put in that situation by other choices."
Not necessarily. Take the case of 7th ed scatterbikes or 5th ed leaf blower. The decisions were made in list building and you either could counter-list build or you couldn't. GW basically made a bunch of decisions for me and others.
True. But saying a daemonprince can destroy anything short of a super heavy on the charge is simply false. A unit of 10 space marines vs a sword wielding prince will loose 3 battle brothers on average and no more than 5. That hardly destroys the unit unless you roll really bad with your moral test. You will still have at least a Sargent and a special weapon left even in the worst case scenario.
However a storm raven would likely do as much I’d not more damage to a unit of 10 marines, all while transporting units across the field to strike the enemy in their rear lines. This does not however mean that every shiny rule another faction gets should be given to marines for consistency sake.
Martel732 wrote: " then you were put in that situation by other choices."
Not necessarily. Take the case of 7th ed scatterbikes or 5th ed leaf blower. The decisions were made in list building and you either could counter-list build or you couldn't. GW basically made a bunch of decisions for me and others.
I think it is, but you are obviously limited by what GW lets you do. I'm dependent upon GW allowing me to make the choices to counter a given meta. BA have been lacking meta counters for a long time now, for example. GK as well. I think your point is more valid in something like Starcraft. Starcraft is basically 100% decisions and ability to click fast enough to keep up.
Martel732 wrote: I think it is, but you are obviously limited by what GW lets you do. I think your point is more valid in something like Starcraft.
Surely if one list is dominating them all and you want to win, then you just play that list? After all, what army you play is part of the "Game" as well, and so your choices there are in-game choices, at least if you include listbuilding as part of the game.
Note: I don't actually like this model, and think the game should be fairly balanced so that all armies have strengths and weaknesses, as well as the ability for play (e.g., deployment and movement during the game) should be able to mitigate those weaknesses and reinforce the strengths. But it's not always been that way (though I'm happy now as I think it is).
I'll say it's closer. But there are still quite a few mathematical hiccups to be exploited.
As I said, it's much easier to switch to a presumably dominant build order in Starcraft than switch to the new 40K hotness. Of course, a dominant build order can get solved in a weekend. Not so lucky with 40K.
Martel732 wrote: It's easier for codices with access to cheaper models, for sure.
"This is my biggest issue with Guard artillery: because it ignores LOS, there's no counterplay, and they always get to bring their mathhammer to bear on certain targets"
That's what I meant. And yes, I've quit bringing any single unit over 200 pts for this reason. There is no play at all involved with this.
Sometimes it is good play, but there are plenty of situations where in-game choices are meaningless because of mathhammer.
Ironically, my solution to manticores is to bring >2 units of over 300 points that they're inefficient against, and then a bunch of "cheap" models (though 9ppm is hardly cheap, imo).
Your last sentence is not entirely correct - "there are in-game situations where choices are meaningless because of mathhammer" is true, but is not what you said.
That means the in-game choices you made failed to put you in an situation where you could leverage your mathhammer, and your opponent's in-game choices were in fact well done and he is leveraging his mathhammer.
If you're in a situation where their mathhhammer clearly overpowers yours - then you were put in that situation by other choices.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Right, so if the mathhammer doesn't favour you, then change the situation instead of complaining about the mathhammer.
But that takes effort, and thought, and maybe even a little bit of talent!
Pfft, if anyone told a Guard player that in 6th/7th you'd have a hissyfit.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Very hypocritical but I don't expect much else.
I never "threw a hissy fit" when someone told me to put effort, thought, and possibly talent into my play in 6th/7th, despite being a guard player.
Though you're welcome to look for when I did.
I'm more talking to Melissia who has a habit of doing crap like that as the stereotypical Sisters player.
That said, it wouldn't have been fair to a Chaos Marine player, Dark Angel player, Guard player, etc, to simply tell them they're not playing correctly. They had bad Codices.
Martel732 wrote: I'll say it's closer. But there are still quite a few mathematical hiccups to be exploited.
As I said, it's much easier to switch to a presumably dominant build order in Starcraft than switch to the new 40K hotness. Of course, a dominant build order can get solved in a weekend. Not so lucky with 40K.
Quite so. Most hardcore tournament players I know are perfectly happy to army-hop to try out their new ideas, and are quite good painters (I have no idea how they manage to get such armies done so quickly when I can barely finish my casual ones!). In fact, I know some that have been playing for so long they essentially have 1 of everything already (since the top armies tend to rotate between a few, e.g. IG, SM, Chaos, Eldar, Tau, if you look back to the beginning of 3rd, and not in any specific order).
As soon as you (like me!) start putting restrictions on your choices for the sake of something other than winning (e.g. I like my fluff-themed lists) then of course you increase your chances of losing: you're making it considerably easier for an opponent to leverage his mathhammer against you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: That said, it wouldn't have been fair to a Chaos Marine player, Dark Angel player, Guard player, etc, to simply tell them they're not playing correctly. They had bad Codices.
They did, and I think bad codices are sad things. That said, I think 8th edition is a breath of fresh air: No army lacks the choices it requires to succeed (though some of those choices may come in the form of allies, I should note!).
Martel732 wrote: I'll say it's closer. But there are still quite a few mathematical hiccups to be exploited.
As I said, it's much easier to switch to a presumably dominant build order in Starcraft than switch to the new 40K hotness. Of course, a dominant build order can get solved in a weekend. Not so lucky with 40K.
Quite so. Most hardcore tournament players I know are perfectly happy to army-hop to try out their new ideas, and are quite good painters (I have no idea how they manage to get such armies done so quickly when I can barely finish my casual ones!). In fact, I know some that have been playing for so long they essentially have 1 of everything already (since the top armies tend to rotate between a few, e.g. IG, SM, Chaos, Eldar, Tau, if you look back to the beginning of 3rd, and not in any specific order).
As soon as you (like me!) start putting restrictions on your choices for the sake of something other than winning (e.g. I like my fluff-themed lists) then of course you increase your chances of losing: you're making it considerably easier for an opponent to leverage his mathhammer against you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: That said, it wouldn't have been fair to a Chaos Marine player, Dark Angel player, Guard player, etc, to simply tell them they're not playing correctly. They had bad Codices.
They did, and I think bad codices are sad things. That said, I think 8th edition is a breath of fresh air: No army lacks the choices it requires to succeed (though some of those choices may come in the form of allies, I should note!).
And I agree things in 8th are better, but there's still a few serious internal balance issues with some of the Codices (Mutilators are still garbage after all, Tactical and Chaos Marines have no place, etc), and then some pretty bad external issues (Grey Knights and AdMech are easily the worst offenders in terms of being crap, but Guard without that Errata would've been ridiculous. Though I will say that wasn't the approach to fixing the Commisar I would've done).
I don’t honestly think anyone really thinks that SM are th worst codex, and I totallly understand how some players get butt hurt when eldar get cool rules. After all they have been broke for quite a while and some balance would be nice for the game as a whole. However space marines not being top tier is likely a shock to some of the newer players. Just wait till you get your point drops in chapter approved. Everything will be fine.
Martel732 wrote: I'll say it's closer. But there are still quite a few mathematical hiccups to be exploited.
As I said, it's much easier to switch to a presumably dominant build order in Starcraft than switch to the new 40K hotness. Of course, a dominant build order can get solved in a weekend. Not so lucky with 40K.
Quite so. Most hardcore tournament players I know are perfectly happy to army-hop to try out their new ideas, and are quite good painters (I have no idea how they manage to get such armies done so quickly when I can barely finish my casual ones!). In fact, I know some that have been playing for so long they essentially have 1 of everything already (since the top armies tend to rotate between a few, e.g. IG, SM, Chaos, Eldar, Tau, if you look back to the beginning of 3rd, and not in any specific order).
As soon as you (like me!) start putting restrictions on your choices for the sake of something other than winning (e.g. I like my fluff-themed lists) then of course you increase your chances of losing: you're making it considerably easier for an opponent to leverage his mathhammer against you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: That said, it wouldn't have been fair to a Chaos Marine player, Dark Angel player, Guard player, etc, to simply tell them they're not playing correctly. They had bad Codices.
They did, and I think bad codices are sad things. That said, I think 8th edition is a breath of fresh air: No army lacks the choices it requires to succeed (though some of those choices may come in the form of allies, I should note!).
And I agree things in 8th are better, but there's still a few serious internal balance issues with some of the Codices (Mutilators are still garbage after all, Tactical and Chaos Marines have no place, etc), and then some pretty bad external issues (Grey Knights and AdMech are easily the worst offenders in terms of being crap, but Guard without that Errata would've been ridiculous. Though I will say that wasn't the approach to fixing the Commisar I would've done).
Internal balance is a problem, yes.
External balance I think you don't understand what I am saying: GK and Admech can still make choices that allow them to succeed. Those choices may be derided as "unfluffy" or "Not My Army!" but from a tournament-playing perspective, they have the tools and choices they need to make to win.
Guard without the Errata would have been fine, I think, honestly. I'm not sure they got enough playtime with the codex to truly know, but either way, that's a discussion for another thread.
"Quite so. Most hardcore tournament players I know are perfectly happy to army-hop to try out their new ideas, and are quite good painters (I have no idea how they manage to get such armies done so quickly when I can barely finish my casual ones!). In fact, I know some that have been playing for so long they essentially have 1 of everything already (since the top armies tend to rotate between a few, e.g. IG, SM, Chaos, Eldar, Tau, if you look back to the beginning of 3rd, and not in any specific order).
As soon as you (like me!) start putting restrictions on your choices for the sake of something other than winning (e.g. I like my fluff-themed lists) then of course you increase your chances of losing: you're making it considerably easier for an opponent to leverage his mathhammer against you."
Fair enough. I don't expect to be top tier with mono-BA. Middle tier would be nice, though.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Actually AdMech are pretty bad off in terms of needing to compete. You've clearly not seen the army if you really believe that.
Also spamming one unit for Grey Knights isn't having choices to compete in the same way Tyranids did well the last two editions because of Flyrants.
By choices I mean the ability to ally other Imperial armies, just in case that is unclear.
And FWIW my superheavy tank company at NOVA got tabled by an AdMech brigade and it was before their codex (or mine). So that's just an anecdote from the past but there you go!
Martel732 wrote:"Quite so. Most hardcore tournament players I know are perfectly happy to army-hop to try out their new ideas, and are quite good painters (I have no idea how they manage to get such armies done so quickly when I can barely finish my casual ones!). In fact, I know some that have been playing for so long they essentially have 1 of everything already (since the top armies tend to rotate between a few, e.g. IG, SM, Chaos, Eldar, Tau, if you look back to the beginning of 3rd, and not in any specific order).
As soon as you (like me!) start putting restrictions on your choices for the sake of something other than winning (e.g. I like my fluff-themed lists) then of course you increase your chances of losing: you're making it considerably easier for an opponent to leverage his mathhammer against you."
Fair enough. I don't expect to be top tier with mono-BA. Middle tier would be nice, though.
Yeah.
To bring up another topic that's been bugging me: why are we still talking about mono armies being in tiers? I'm not sure how to define a "mono-" army. I play an army with 1 mono-Inquisition detachment, 1 soup detachment, and another soup detachment. Is that an "Inquisition" army? Should an "Inquisition" army be able to be put on the tier list? It's certainly possible to build a mono-inquisition army, so at least they're better than mono-Assassins.
Because some people still field mono-codex lists. I'm not buying inquisition or sisters or guard, so soup discussions mean little to me other than how to counter them.
Martel732 wrote: Because some people still field mono-codex lists.
Yes, they do, but why is that relevant? It's an aberration, like someone fielding an all-tank list (me) with only one unit type, or someone fielding an all-infantry list (this one is more common). It's certainly a thing, but not sure why it is talked about by people who are talking purely about winrates.
I mean, if we're complaining about mono-dex armies, surely mono-Inquisition is worse than Blood Angels?
Martel732 wrote: Because some people still field mono-codex lists.
Yes, they do, but why is that relevant? It's an aberration, like someone fielding an all-tank list (me) with only one unit type, or someone fielding an all-infantry list (this one is more common). It's certainly a thing, but not sure why it is talked about by people who are talking purely about winrates.
I mean, if we're complaining about mono-dex armies, surely mono-Inquisition is worse than Blood Angels?
Martel732 wrote: Because some people still field mono-codex lists.
Yes, they do, but why is that relevant? It's an aberration, like someone fielding an all-tank list (me) with only one unit type, or someone fielding an all-infantry list (this one is more common). It's certainly a thing, but not sure why it is talked about by people who are talking purely about winrates.
I mean, if we're complaining about mono-dex armies, surely mono-Inquisition is worse than Blood Angels?
I wouldn't bet on that atm.
Really? I can't even think of what ranged anti-tank the Inquisition have. Plasma gun, spam, I guess? But they can only field six man squads, so a mono-Inquisition army that buys all plasma guns will a load of 21-point plasma-gun armed T3 5+ save models with no real upfield movement options. I think they'd get creamed by tanks before they could even get in rapid-fire range.
Martel732 wrote: Because some people still field mono-codex lists.
Yes, they do, but why is that relevant? It's an aberration, like someone fielding an all-tank list (me) with only one unit type, or someone fielding an all-infantry list (this one is more common). It's certainly a thing, but not sure why it is talked about by people who are talking purely about winrates.
I mean, if we're complaining about mono-dex armies, surely mono-Inquisition is worse than Blood Angels?
I wouldn't bet on that atm.
Really? I can't even think of what ranged anti-tank the Inquisition have. Plasma gun, spam, I guess? But they can only field six man squads, so a mono-Inquisition army that buys all plasma guns will a load of 21-point plasma-gun armed T3 5+ save models with no real upfield movement options. I think they'd get creamed by tanks before they could even get in rapid-fire range.
Mono...
Inquisition...
You realize that never, at any point, in game or rules, were inqusition a real stand-alone army?
An inquisitor, and maybe a few of his henchmen with a vehicle, airplane or whatnot to carry them around is "joining" an existing force, or more often "conscripts" and existing force to help his mission.
Martel732 wrote: Because some people still field mono-codex lists.
Yes, they do, but why is that relevant? It's an aberration, like someone fielding an all-tank list (me) with only one unit type, or someone fielding an all-infantry list (this one is more common). It's certainly a thing, but not sure why it is talked about by people who are talking purely about winrates.
I mean, if we're complaining about mono-dex armies, surely mono-Inquisition is worse than Blood Angels?
I wouldn't bet on that atm.
Really? I can't even think of what ranged anti-tank the Inquisition have. Plasma gun, spam, I guess? But they can only field six man squads, so a mono-Inquisition army that buys all plasma guns will a load of 21-point plasma-gun armed T3 5+ save models with no real upfield movement options. I think they'd get creamed by tanks before they could even get in rapid-fire range.
Mono...
Inquisition...
You realize that never, at any point, in game or rules, were inqusition a real stand-alone army?
An inquisitor, and maybe a few of his henchmen with a vehicle, airplane or whatnot to carry them around is "joining" an existing force, or more often "conscripts" and existing force to help his mission.
Inquisition was monobuild in 3rd and 4th, though they had the option for allies (though I definitely saw armies that never used them).
Martel732 wrote: Because some people still field mono-codex lists.
Yes, they do, but why is that relevant? It's an aberration, like someone fielding an all-tank list (me) with only one unit type, or someone fielding an all-infantry list (this one is more common). It's certainly a thing, but not sure why it is talked about by people who are talking purely about winrates.
I mean, if we're complaining about mono-dex armies, surely mono-Inquisition is worse than Blood Angels?
I wouldn't bet on that atm.
Really? I can't even think of what ranged anti-tank the Inquisition have. Plasma gun, spam, I guess? But they can only field six man squads, so a mono-Inquisition army that buys all plasma guns will a load of 21-point plasma-gun armed T3 5+ save models with no real upfield movement options. I think they'd get creamed by tanks before they could even get in rapid-fire range.
Mono...
Inquisition...
You realize that never, at any point, in game or rules, were inqusition a real stand-alone army?
An inquisitor, and maybe a few of his henchmen with a vehicle, airplane or whatnot to carry them around is "joining" an existing force, or more often "conscripts" and existing force to help his mission.
Inquisition was monobuild in 3rd and 4th, though they had the option for allies (though I definitely saw armies that never used them).
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Actually AdMech are pretty bad off in terms of needing to compete. You've clearly not seen the army if you really believe that.
Also spamming one unit for Grey Knights isn't having choices to compete in the same way Tyranids did well the last two editions because of Flyrants.
By choices I mean the ability to ally other Imperial armies, just in case that is unclear.
And FWIW my superheavy tank company at NOVA got tabled by an AdMech brigade and it was before their codex (or mine). So that's just an anecdote from the past but there you go!
Martel732 wrote:"Quite so. Most hardcore tournament players I know are perfectly happy to army-hop to try out their new ideas, and are quite good painters (I have no idea how they manage to get such armies done so quickly when I can barely finish my casual ones!). In fact, I know some that have been playing for so long they essentially have 1 of everything already (since the top armies tend to rotate between a few, e.g. IG, SM, Chaos, Eldar, Tau, if you look back to the beginning of 3rd, and not in any specific order).
As soon as you (like me!) start putting restrictions on your choices for the sake of something other than winning (e.g. I like my fluff-themed lists) then of course you increase your chances of losing: you're making it considerably easier for an opponent to leverage his mathhammer against you."
Fair enough. I don't expect to be top tier with mono-BA. Middle tier would be nice, though.
Yeah.
To bring up another topic that's been bugging me: why are we still talking about mono armies being in tiers? I'm not sure how to define a "mono-" army. I play an army with 1 mono-Inquisition detachment, 1 soup detachment, and another soup detachment. Is that an "Inquisition" army? Should an "Inquisition" army be able to be put on the tier list? It's certainly possible to build a mono-inquisition army, so at least they're better than mono-Assassins.
Having seen your list I'm actually still shocked that happened even without screening units. The army is basically Cawl + 3-6 Robots + some Dune Crawlers and then some screening.
However, to tell people to ally in better units is rubbish because not every army can ally. I'm a Necron player. What do you want ME to do?
Also I do think a mono-Inquisition army should at least be functional. To really say Assassins are their own codex though really buys into the blatant cash grab they did last edition.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Actually AdMech are pretty bad off in terms of needing to compete. You've clearly not seen the army if you really believe that.
Also spamming one unit for Grey Knights isn't having choices to compete in the same way Tyranids did well the last two editions because of Flyrants.
By choices I mean the ability to ally other Imperial armies, just in case that is unclear.
And FWIW my superheavy tank company at NOVA got tabled by an AdMech brigade and it was before their codex (or mine). So that's just an anecdote from the past but there you go!
Martel732 wrote:"Quite so. Most hardcore tournament players I know are perfectly happy to army-hop to try out their new ideas, and are quite good painters (I have no idea how they manage to get such armies done so quickly when I can barely finish my casual ones!). In fact, I know some that have been playing for so long they essentially have 1 of everything already (since the top armies tend to rotate between a few, e.g. IG, SM, Chaos, Eldar, Tau, if you look back to the beginning of 3rd, and not in any specific order).
As soon as you (like me!) start putting restrictions on your choices for the sake of something other than winning (e.g. I like my fluff-themed lists) then of course you increase your chances of losing: you're making it considerably easier for an opponent to leverage his mathhammer against you."
Fair enough. I don't expect to be top tier with mono-BA. Middle tier would be nice, though.
Yeah.
To bring up another topic that's been bugging me: why are we still talking about mono armies being in tiers? I'm not sure how to define a "mono-" army. I play an army with 1 mono-Inquisition detachment, 1 soup detachment, and another soup detachment. Is that an "Inquisition" army? Should an "Inquisition" army be able to be put on the tier list? It's certainly possible to build a mono-inquisition army, so at least they're better than mono-Assassins.
Having seen your list I'm actually still shocked that happened even without screening units. The army is basically Cawl + 3-6 Robots + some Dune Crawlers and then some screening.
However, to tell people to ally in better units is rubbish because not every army can ally. I'm a Necron player. What do you want ME to do?
Also I do think a mono-Inquisition army should at least be functional. To really say Assassins are their own codex though really buys into the blatant cash grab they did last edition.
I think Necrons are solidly middle-of-the-road with an Index list.
The main reason it happened were the 4 Neutron Onagers, which could delete a Stormhammer per turn (and the big tanks are not easily hidden).
Mono-Inquisition atm I think are worse than mono-anything else, and mono-Assassins is literally unplayable in a Matched Play game, despite them having had their own codex.
The issue with the idea of soup is that unless books that don't get that option (Orks, Crons, Tau) are designed to be powerful as stand alone armies they cannot compete with the options available to soup armies. Imperium literally makes up 1/2 of the game, so trying to compete with that level of options is tough for smaller factions. Throw in FW and it only exacerbates the problem of a few factions having far more options than others. Just my opinion but I would love GW to do away with "allies" in matched play or at least in tournaments, then if certain factions are soup armies (inquisition, Ynnari etc) restrictions can be placed on those armies for the sake of balance.
I’d be fine with allies only being for narrative/open play. It’s basically game breaking in my eyes for marched play but thankfully no one I play with likes soup.
Breng77 wrote: The issue with the idea of soup is that unless books that don't get that option (Orks, Crons, Tau) are designed to be powerful as stand alone armies they cannot compete with the options available to soup armies. Imperium literally makes up 1/2 of the game, so trying to compete with that level of options is tough for smaller factions. Throw in FW and it only exacerbates the problem of a few factions having far more options than others. Just my opinion but I would love GW to do away with "allies" in matched play or at least in tournaments, then if certain factions are soup armies (inquisition, Ynnari etc) restrictions can be placed on those armies for the sake of balance.
I agree with this.
Declare your faction, you can have an allied detachment, but i can be no more than 500 points. Boom. So you get 3 detachments, 2 primary faction, 1 allied if you want. All detachments must be mono-faction.
I'd be thrilled to play only monofaction armies. Allies havent worked right ever since they were introduced in 6E. The armies arent built or balanced with allies in mind, and the availability to different armies is too inconsistent. Allies was a cool idea on paper to allow people more freedom and imagination, but in practice it overwhelmingly turns into just an extra grab bag of tricks and unintended synergies.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Actually AdMech are pretty bad off in terms of needing to compete. You've clearly not seen the army if you really believe that.
Also spamming one unit for Grey Knights isn't having choices to compete in the same way Tyranids did well the last two editions because of Flyrants.
By choices I mean the ability to ally other Imperial armies, just in case that is unclear.
And FWIW my superheavy tank company at NOVA got tabled by an AdMech brigade and it was before their codex (or mine). So that's just an anecdote from the past but there you go!
Martel732 wrote:"Quite so. Most hardcore tournament players I know are perfectly happy to army-hop to try out their new ideas, and are quite good painters (I have no idea how they manage to get such armies done so quickly when I can barely finish my casual ones!). In fact, I know some that have been playing for so long they essentially have 1 of everything already (since the top armies tend to rotate between a few, e.g. IG, SM, Chaos, Eldar, Tau, if you look back to the beginning of 3rd, and not in any specific order).
As soon as you (like me!) start putting restrictions on your choices for the sake of something other than winning (e.g. I like my fluff-themed lists) then of course you increase your chances of losing: you're making it considerably easier for an opponent to leverage his mathhammer against you."
Fair enough. I don't expect to be top tier with mono-BA. Middle tier would be nice, though.
Yeah.
To bring up another topic that's been bugging me: why are we still talking about mono armies being in tiers? I'm not sure how to define a "mono-" army. I play an army with 1 mono-Inquisition detachment, 1 soup detachment, and another soup detachment. Is that an "Inquisition" army? Should an "Inquisition" army be able to be put on the tier list? It's certainly possible to build a mono-inquisition army, so at least they're better than mono-Assassins.
Having seen your list I'm actually still shocked that happened even without screening units. The army is basically Cawl + 3-6 Robots + some Dune Crawlers and then some screening.
However, to tell people to ally in better units is rubbish because not every army can ally. I'm a Necron player. What do you want ME to do?
Also I do think a mono-Inquisition army should at least be functional. To really say Assassins are their own codex though really buys into the blatant cash grab they did last edition.
I think Necrons are solidly middle-of-the-road with an Index list.
The main reason it happened were the 4 Neutron Onagers, which could delete a Stormhammer per turn (and the big tanks are not easily hidden).
Mono-Inquisition atm I think are worse than mono-anything else, and mono-Assassins is literally unplayable in a Matched Play game, despite them having had their own codex.
Yeah I know what Onagers do. It's still something that's unlikely to happen, but your list didn't help entirely either.
Also you really have no idea what's going on if you think Necrons are middle of the road. They're easily one of the worst index armies, and the highest we had a placing for in the last big tournament that happened was 42. Or that was the previous one and we didn't even have a placing.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also you really have no idea what's going on if you think Necrons are middle of the road. They're easily one of the worst index armies, and the highest we had a placing for in the last big tournament that happened was 42. Or that was the previous one and we didn't even have a placing.
Oh you meant tournaments.
Yeah I have no idea how to help 'crons. Hopefully their codex will bring some needed buffs.
Locally we have 2 Necron players and they're doing fairly well, I'd say. One of them is on the opposing team in the local campaign and I think he actually fought our Adeptus Mechanicus player to a standstill a few weeks ago, though the game ended early.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also you really have no idea what's going on if you think Necrons are middle of the road. They're easily one of the worst index armies, and the highest we had a placing for in the last big tournament that happened was 42. Or that was the previous one and we didn't even have a placing.
Oh you meant tournaments.
Yeah I have no idea how to help 'crons. Hopefully their codex will bring some needed buffs.
Locally we have 2 Necron players and they're doing fairly well, I'd say. One of them is on the opposing team in the local campaign and I think he actually fought our Adeptus Mechanicus player to a standstill a few weeks ago, though the game ended early.
Literally anyone can do anything in a casual setting because nobody cares. Otherwise there's no point to the Tactics Subforum, to be frank.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also you really have no idea what's going on if you think Necrons are middle of the road. They're easily one of the worst index armies, and the highest we had a placing for in the last big tournament that happened was 42. Or that was the previous one and we didn't even have a placing.
Oh you meant tournaments.
Yeah I have no idea how to help 'crons. Hopefully their codex will bring some needed buffs.
Locally we have 2 Necron players and they're doing fairly well, I'd say. One of them is on the opposing team in the local campaign and I think he actually fought our Adeptus Mechanicus player to a standstill a few weeks ago, though the game ended early.
Literally anyone can do anything in a casual setting because nobody cares. Otherwise there's no point to the Tactics Subforum, to be frank.
Nobody cares? I daresay that's bordering on an insult. I take my games very seriously!
And yeah, I don't go to the tactics subform for just that reason: I find it pointless and unhelpful. I'll be like "what variant of the Leman Russ is best?" and they're like "the Manticore."
I like my mixed Imperium army with SoS, Custodes, Ogryns, Celestine, Tempestus and Sisters of Battle
As always, when a problem arise the solution is "Just destroy the sistem!" instead of fixing the problems. Keywords where a great add-on to the game to stop from allied shenanigans.
Why don't we fix the allies system instead of just destroying it? Allies are like Flyers and Superheaveis, they are here to stay, so we can try to fix them or keep moaning on internet about the good old days.
I also still like the idea of playing highlander matches to keep spam at bay. That’s just me though.
Insert a slew of Sisters players screaming that highlander is the worst game mode ever, despite the fact that it's super fun. We do allow multiple troop squads of the same name, though.
Nearly most of my armies are pseudo Highlander because I like to buy one box of everything of a faction, and normally I have no duplicates besides some transports, troops and elite units that I really like (As my 20 sisters of silence, a ton of terminators, 9 Bullgryns, 3 sentinels, etc...)
Galas wrote: I like my mixed Imperium army with SoS, Custodes, Ogryns, Celestine, Tempestus and Sisters of Battle
As always, when a problem arise the solution is "Just destroy the sistem!" instead of fixing the problems. Keywords where a great add-on to the game to stop from allied shenanigans.
Why don't we fix the allies system instead of just destroying it? Allies are like Flyers and Superheaveis, they are here to stay, so we can try to fix them or keep moaning on internet about the good old days.
So how would you fix a system that requires some factions to be balanced assuming the inclusion of allies? It literally means that in competitive play those factions can never be optimized on their own because they must assume the ability to take out of faction choices that would make their army stronger. My only thought was to disallow any "chapter" specific rules if you have any non-chapter models in your army. But most people don't like that idea.
I suppose you could add increasing benefits the more narrow your focus, but that still pisses people off because they feel like they are losing out on something. Lets put it this way, I'm fine with allies as long as taking them requires sacrificing other advantages, if not there is literally no reason not to optimize other than fluff. Given that the allies system can never be both fluffy and balanced I think it is a poor system and the easiest way to fix it would be to throw it out. When I mentioned previously "lose chapter specific relics, strategems, and tactics if you take allies." in another thread almost universally I got the response "I shouldn't be penalized for wanting allies." The result of which is people not taking allies will be penalized because their army is suboptimal.
Give them to everyone. Have a group called "mercenaries" that are essentially just 'trope units' e.g. A Generic Screening Unit, A Generic Infantry Squad, A Generic CC Squad, whatever. Like Tactical Marines without chapter tactics (or something).
Then, don't make a model and allow people to customize their own "mercenary forces".
Then, let everyone hire mercenaries. Don't give them stratagems or anything, but it still allows armies to cover their weaknesses.
Oh, your SM don't have screens and you don't like IG? Well, that's fine, hire these mercenaries! Or whatever.
Give them to everyone. Have a group called "mercenaries" that are essentially just 'trope units' e.g. A Generic Screening Unit, A Generic Infantry Squad, A Generic CC Squad, whatever. Like Tactical Marines without chapter tactics (or something).
Then, don't make a model and allow people to customize their own "mercenary forces".
Then, let everyone hire mercenaries. Don't give them stratagems or anything, but it still allows armies to cover their weaknesses.
Oh, your SM don't have screens and you don't like IG? Well, that's fine, hire these mercenaries! Or whatever.
At which point the response will be, "you've eliminated allies, I cannot make my army any more because I cannot have these exact rules I used to have, or cannot take x tank I always use etc."
either that or the generic units will all be too powerful and people will always take them.
Further GW has been pretty clear it will never release rules without models any more.
Bit like Dogs of War in Fantasy Battles, you mean? That would probably be the best way to do it, really, if they kept it generic so they could be PDF or Tarellian Dog Soldiers or Rak'Gol or whatever, depending on your army. You'd still get people using it to cover their army's weaknesses (I remember a lot of complaining about Bretonnian players taking mercenary cannon, for example...), but it'd be much easier to balance for.
I think that's the point - use it to cover your army's weaknesses.
If Space Marines were having trouble screening, use the A Generic Screening Unit with whatever you wanted, and call them "Chapter Serfs."
If Tau were having trouble being stabbed, use A Generic Assault Unit and call them Kroot mercenaries.
If Necrons are having trouble capturing objectives, call in the A Generic Cheapo Infantry and name them the "we'll deal with you later, allies!" brigade.
etc. etc.
Then you can just leave in existing allies as well, so that Inquisition can still use Leman Russ tanks or Land Raiders instead of A Generic Tank or A Generic Transport, but Tau now actually have something they can use as allies as well.
Fair! I guess it's a different way of looking at things.
Either that, or it was just too much fun to talk crap at Bret players
If they did that, honestly, I'd almost rather they cut out the ally mechanic we have now, and leave Imperial Soup (fluffy as it is!) for the big multi-player games. Since the whole point is to bring back mono-book armies and keep things balanced...
Galas wrote: I like my mixed Imperium army with SoS, Custodes, Ogryns, Celestine, Tempestus and Sisters of Battle
As always, when a problem arise the solution is "Just destroy the sistem!" instead of fixing the problems. Keywords where a great add-on to the game to stop from allied shenanigans.
Why don't we fix the allies system instead of just destroying it? Allies are like Flyers and Superheaveis, they are here to stay, so we can try to fix them or keep moaning on internet about the good old days.
So how would you fix a system that requires some factions to be balanced assuming the inclusion of allies? It literally means that in competitive play those factions can never be optimized on their own because they must assume the ability to take out of faction choices that would make their army stronger. My only thought was to disallow any "chapter" specific rules if you have any non-chapter models in your army. But most people don't like that idea.
I suppose you could add increasing benefits the more narrow your focus, but that still pisses people off because they feel like they are losing out on something. Lets put it this way, I'm fine with allies as long as taking them requires sacrificing other advantages, if not there is literally no reason not to optimize other than fluff. Given that the allies system can never be both fluffy and balanced I think it is a poor system and the easiest way to fix it would be to throw it out. When I mentioned previously "lose chapter specific relics, strategems, and tactics if you take allies." in another thread almost universally I got the response "I shouldn't be penalized for wanting allies." The result of which is people not taking allies will be penalized because their army is suboptimal.
I like the Age of Sigmar system. In 2k point games, you can have up to 400 points in allies. More than that, you lost all of your faction bonuses.
Faction bonuses shouldn't be for Soup lists. And yes I know "But why a Salamander marine forgot how salamanders tactics work when he fights with imperial guardsmen?" And I'll say: Balance>Fluff in "Matched Play"
Except that you still get CPs for detachments, and pure detachments can still use their regiment/chapter/hivefleet/legion/craftworld rules. And you pay points.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I think that's the point - use it to cover your army's weaknesses.
If Space Marines were having trouble screening, use the A Generic Screening Unit with whatever you wanted, and call them "Chapter Serfs."
If Tau were having trouble being stabbed, use A Generic Assault Unit and call them Kroot mercenaries.
If Necrons are having trouble capturing objectives, call in the A Generic Cheapo Infantry and name them the "we'll deal with you later, allies!" brigade.
etc. etc.
Then you can just leave in existing allies as well, so that Inquisition can still use Leman Russ tanks or Land Raiders instead of A Generic Tank or A Generic Transport, but Tau now actually have something they can use as allies as well.
So it becomes Imperium gets the good allies, but here is a bone for you other armies with these crappy generic allies? No thanks, but then I think armies should have weaknesses and the issue with soup armies for me is that those gaps get plugged.
Except that you still get CPs for detachments, and pure detachments can still use their regiment/chapter/hivefleet/legion/craftworld rules. And you pay points.
Okay, so you're suggesting every list should be imperial guard + malefic lords, and a couple other chaos highlights.
Galas wrote: I like my mixed Imperium army with SoS, Custodes, Ogryns, Celestine, Tempestus and Sisters of Battle
As always, when a problem arise the solution is "Just destroy the sistem!" instead of fixing the problems. Keywords where a great add-on to the game to stop from allied shenanigans.
Why don't we fix the allies system instead of just destroying it? Allies are like Flyers and Superheaveis, they are here to stay, so we can try to fix them or keep moaning on internet about the good old days.
So how would you fix a system that requires some factions to be balanced assuming the inclusion of allies? It literally means that in competitive play those factions can never be optimized on their own because they must assume the ability to take out of faction choices that would make their army stronger. My only thought was to disallow any "chapter" specific rules if you have any non-chapter models in your army. But most people don't like that idea.
I suppose you could add increasing benefits the more narrow your focus, but that still pisses people off because they feel like they are losing out on something. Lets put it this way, I'm fine with allies as long as taking them requires sacrificing other advantages, if not there is literally no reason not to optimize other than fluff. Given that the allies system can never be both fluffy and balanced I think it is a poor system and the easiest way to fix it would be to throw it out. When I mentioned previously "lose chapter specific relics, strategems, and tactics if you take allies." in another thread almost universally I got the response "I shouldn't be penalized for wanting allies." The result of which is people not taking allies will be penalized because their army is suboptimal.
I like the Age of Sigmar system. In 2k point games, you can have up to 400 points in allies. More than that, you lost all of your faction bonuses.
Faction bonuses shouldn't be for Soup lists. And yes I know "But why a Salamander marine forgot how salamanders tactics work when he fights with imperial guardsmen?" And I'll say: Balance>Fluff in "Matched Play"
I'd be fine with allies being that restricted because then it isn't as much of an obvious choice. I'd still prefer their to be an additional bonus for no allies at all, I think similar to old Warmahordes theme lists where there were levels of benefits for taking more restrictive lists.
Except that you still get CPs for detachments, and pure detachments can still use their regiment/chapter/hivefleet/legion/craftworld rules. And you pay points.
Okay, so you're suggesting every list should be imperial guard + malefic lords, and a couple other chaos highlights.
No? Because Malefic Lords and "other chaos highlights" aren't generic, and neither are Imperial Guard.
Breng77 wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote: I think that's the point - use it to cover your army's weaknesses.
If Space Marines were having trouble screening, use the A Generic Screening Unit with whatever you wanted, and call them "Chapter Serfs."
If Tau were having trouble being stabbed, use A Generic Assault Unit and call them Kroot mercenaries.
If Necrons are having trouble capturing objectives, call in the A Generic Cheapo Infantry and name them the "we'll deal with you later, allies!" brigade.
etc. etc.
Then you can just leave in existing allies as well, so that Inquisition can still use Leman Russ tanks or Land Raiders instead of A Generic Tank or A Generic Transport, but Tau now actually have something they can use as allies as well.
So it becomes Imperium gets the good allies, but here is a bone for you other armies with these crappy generic allies? No thanks, but then I think armies should have weaknesses and the issue with soup armies for me is that those gaps get plugged.
Yes? Because the idea behind allies is you plug gaps. If you want to plug gaps, you need allies, so you get allies. The fact that these random mercenaries don't have "Mercenary Quirks" or something is so that the mono-versions of the other factions don't get outshined (i.e. you'd want a Leman Russ to be better than A Generic Tank).
Galas wrote: I like my mixed Imperium army with SoS, Custodes, Ogryns, Celestine, Tempestus and Sisters of Battle
As always, when a problem arise the solution is "Just destroy the sistem!" instead of fixing the problems. Keywords where a great add-on to the game to stop from allied shenanigans.
Why don't we fix the allies system instead of just destroying it? Allies are like Flyers and Superheaveis, they are here to stay, so we can try to fix them or keep moaning on internet about the good old days.
So how would you fix a system that requires some factions to be balanced assuming the inclusion of allies? It literally means that in competitive play those factions can never be optimized on their own because they must assume the ability to take out of faction choices that would make their army stronger. My only thought was to disallow any "chapter" specific rules if you have any non-chapter models in your army. But most people don't like that idea.
I suppose you could add increasing benefits the more narrow your focus, but that still pisses people off because they feel like they are losing out on something. Lets put it this way, I'm fine with allies as long as taking them requires sacrificing other advantages, if not there is literally no reason not to optimize other than fluff. Given that the allies system can never be both fluffy and balanced I think it is a poor system and the easiest way to fix it would be to throw it out. When I mentioned previously "lose chapter specific relics, strategems, and tactics if you take allies." in another thread almost universally I got the response "I shouldn't be penalized for wanting allies." The result of which is people not taking allies will be penalized because their army is suboptimal.
I like the Age of Sigmar system. In 2k point games, you can have up to 400 points in allies. More than that, you lost all of your faction bonuses.
Faction bonuses shouldn't be for Soup lists. And yes I know "But why a Salamander marine forgot how salamanders tactics work when he fights with imperial guardsmen?" And I'll say: Balance>Fluff in "Matched Play"
I'd be fine with allies being that restricted because then it isn't as much of an obvious choice. I'd still prefer their to be an additional bonus for no allies at all, I think similar to old Warmahordes theme lists where there were levels of benefits for taking more restrictive lists.
To be honest the 400 points of allies without losing your faction bonuses is more of a band-aid because in Age of Sigmar theres a TON of factions without a purpose so you can't have a Giant with your orcs without losing your Greenskin bonuses (I know, madness), or even a Manticore with your Chaos Warriors or Beastmen army.
In 40K theres no need for that because the factions are much more clear and you don't have something like Firebellys that is literally a Faction with one model. So it could be that having allies just don't allow you to have any kind of faction bonuses. I'll be totally fine with that. I know the strenght of my mixed imperium army is how flexible they are. They don't need on top of that faction bonuses by putting all my tempestus, for example, on one detachment.
Breng77 wrote: Yes, but if I plug my gap with generic tank x, and you plug yours with a Leman russ because IMPERIUM. That isn't really a fair and balanced system
It is if the Leman Russ costs more points than A Generic Tank because it is better. That's the point of points costs - you can have a worse unit that fulfills the same role, and it's okay because it also costs less.
Breng77 wrote: Yes, but if I plug my gap with generic tank x, and you plug yours with a Leman russ because IMPERIUM. That isn't really a fair and balanced system
It is if the Leman Russ costs more points than A Generic Tank because it is better. That's the point of points costs - you can have a worse unit that fulfills the same role, and it's okay because it also costs less.
That won't work very well because if a leman russ is costed appropriately for filling gaps in other forces it is likely not appropriately costed for not filling gaps in other armies. Further codex units have a lot of built in advantages that are not accounted for in points costs (stratagems, tactics). So it is likely not ok.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also you really have no idea what's going on if you think Necrons are middle of the road. They're easily one of the worst index armies, and the highest we had a placing for in the last big tournament that happened was 42. Or that was the previous one and we didn't even have a placing.
Oh you meant tournaments.
Yeah I have no idea how to help 'crons. Hopefully their codex will bring some needed buffs.
Locally we have 2 Necron players and they're doing fairly well, I'd say. One of them is on the opposing team in the local campaign and I think he actually fought our Adeptus Mechanicus player to a standstill a few weeks ago, though the game ended early.
Literally anyone can do anything in a casual setting because nobody cares. Otherwise there's no point to the Tactics Subforum, to be frank.
Nobody cares? I daresay that's bordering on an insult. I take my games very seriously!
And yeah, I don't go to the tactics subform for just that reason: I find it pointless and unhelpful. I'll be like "what variant of the Leman Russ is best?" and they're like "the Manticore."
Except you do get told which Russ variants are the best, you're just also told why to take Manticores instead. To be honest I think you're missing the point in purpose.
Breng77 wrote: Yes, but if I plug my gap with generic tank x, and you plug yours with a Leman russ because IMPERIUM. That isn't really a fair and balanced system
It is if the Leman Russ costs more points than A Generic Tank because it is better. That's the point of points costs - you can have a worse unit that fulfills the same role, and it's okay because it also costs less.
That won't work very well because if a leman russ is costed appropriately for filling gaps in other forces it is likely not appropriately costed for not filling gaps in other armies. Further codex units have a lot of built in advantages that are not accounted for in points costs (stratagems, tactics). So it is likely not ok.
What? No, the Leman Russ will be costed assuming it gets Codex Buffs (stratagems and regiment traits) and A Generic Tank would not be.
If you're taking a Russ without codex traits, then you are overpaying for A Generic Tank anyways, essentially.
Breng77 wrote: Yes, but if I plug my gap with generic tank x, and you plug yours with a Leman russ because IMPERIUM. That isn't really a fair and balanced system
It is if the Leman Russ costs more points than A Generic Tank because it is better. That's the point of points costs - you can have a worse unit that fulfills the same role, and it's okay because it also costs less.
That won't work very well because if a leman russ is costed appropriately for filling gaps in other forces it is likely not appropriately costed for not filling gaps in other armies. Further codex units have a lot of built in advantages that are not accounted for in points costs (stratagems, tactics). So it is likely not ok.
What? No, the Leman Russ will be costed assuming it gets Codex Buffs (stratagems and regiment traits) and A Generic Tank would not be.
If you're taking a Russ without codex traits, then you are overpaying for A Generic Tank anyways, essentially.
Except because all the traits are different it is a safe assumption that the Russ is not really pointed at all based on said tactics, other than very minimally. The same is obvious between many units between index and codex. Even if so that doesn't answer to the leman russ filling holes in armies changing its inherent value. Point of fact either units are balanced assuming they can be used with all other available units, or they are not. It cannot be both ways, so if a russ is balanced in mono-guard, it is inherently unbalanced in the role of a gap filler in an army that doesn't have a unit that fills said role.
A better example is Chaff units, space marines are either balanced competitively assuming they will take chaff, or they are not. If they are balanced assuming chaff, and the best available chaff, you will always need to take said chaff to have an optimal list. Essentially forcing allies. This is not the case if there are benefits to forgoing said chaff, currently these do not exist.
My opinion is that I would rather see things that encourage a variety of builds rather than having all builds amount to everyone taking the same "allies' to fill their holes.
Breng77 wrote: Yes, but if I plug my gap with generic tank x, and you plug yours with a Leman russ because IMPERIUM. That isn't really a fair and balanced system
It is if the Leman Russ costs more points than A Generic Tank because it is better. That's the point of points costs - you can have a worse unit that fulfills the same role, and it's okay because it also costs less.
That won't work very well because if a leman russ is costed appropriately for filling gaps in other forces it is likely not appropriately costed for not filling gaps in other armies. Further codex units have a lot of built in advantages that are not accounted for in points costs (stratagems, tactics). So it is likely not ok.
What? No, the Leman Russ will be costed assuming it gets Codex Buffs (stratagems and regiment traits) and A Generic Tank would not be.
If you're taking a Russ without codex traits, then you are overpaying for A Generic Tank anyways, essentially.
Except because all the traits are different it is a safe assumption that the Russ is not really pointed at all based on said tactics, other than very minimally. The same is obvious between many units between index and codex. Even if so that doesn't answer to the leman russ filling holes in armies changing its inherent value. Point of fact either units are balanced assuming they can be used with all other available units, or they are not. It cannot be both ways, so if a russ is balanced in mono-guard, it is inherently unbalanced in the role of a gap filler in an army that doesn't have a unit that fills said role.
A better example is Chaff units, space marines are either balanced competitively assuming they will take chaff, or they are not. If they are balanced assuming chaff, and the best available chaff, you will always need to take said chaff to have an optimal list. Essentially forcing allies. This is not the case if there are benefits to forgoing said chaff, currently these do not exist.
My opinion is that I would rather see things that encourage a variety of builds rather than having all builds amount to everyone taking the same "allies' to fill their holes.
I disagree.
I think there is a price at which the LRBT is costed appropriately to work with mono-Guard and would be slightly overcosted if it was taken outside of an IG detachment.
This would mean that armies which wish to cover their weaknesses have fewer points to reinforce their strengths, whereas an army that embraced its weaknesses and brought no allies would be able to also reinforce its strengths. A good player would naturally do this, as I imagine they would very quickly learn how to mitigate the weaknesses without just crutching them with allies, and therefore their strengths would blow away the opposition, being so much stronger due to not wasting points on junk.
GW could just designate specific units from a codex that can ally with a specific set of other armies with a different point cost than the mono codex cost.
For example (and I'm just making this up) the entry for the chimera might say that it can be used by AM but the cost is 90 points as opposed to the IG cost of 75. So the AM can have their transports but they pay a premium for it and SM can't have any chimeras since they are not listed as an available ally.
Didn't you get the memo? If you have the ability to take imperial guard as an ally with your force, then your army is simply not intended to be played as a standalone faction.
I think it should be handled in Matchrd Play by giving escalating benefits for being closer to a mono build. For example, having three levels of keyword: Allegiance, Faction (i.e. Codex book) and Sub-Faction (e.g. Imperium, Adeptus Astartes, Ultramarines).
If your entire army (not just Detachment) has a common Allegiance, it can be Battle-Forged.
If your entire army has a common Allegiance and Faction, you gain access to your Codex Stratagems, Warlord Traits and Relics.
If your entire army has a common Allegiance, Faction and Sub-Faction, you gain access to Chapter(/equivalent) Tactics and Chapter-specific Stratagems, Warlord Traits and Relics.
The only real change here is that the restrictions are on the entire army rather than just Detachment. It would need a few caveats - for example that for Grey Knights/Blood Angels/Space Wolves/Dark Angels/Death Guard/Thousand Sons both their Faction and Sub-Faction would be the same, and that the various Guard elements such as Navy and Prefectus would need exceptions (that they already sort of have).
Ultimately this gives you three options: stick to a mono build meaning you have built-in weaknesses but get a pile of powerful bonuses, cherry-pick an army that has no weaknesses but lacks the powerful bonuses, or cut somewhere down the middle. And as anyone who’s ever used a Tactical Squad will tell you, the competitive meta will gravitate toward the highly specialised armies and play around their weaknesses. Souping should be an option, but you shouldn’t be able to have your soup and eat it too - you should have to give something up to be able to cover your weaknesses.
Not sure what to do about Orks, Necrons and Tau though. Maybe give them Xenos as their Allegiance so they can soup up with each other.
If the balance between sub-faction bonuses and cherrypicking is well made, Tau, Orks and Necrons don't need allies. Yeah. they will be less flexible than Imperium, but they should be at the same level competitively.
Didn't you get the memo? If you have the ability to take imperial guard as an ally with your force, then your army is simply not intended to be played as a standalone faction.
Let me know when you are finished tearing up that strawman so we can have a real discussion.
Galas wrote: If the balance between sub-faction bonuses and cherrypicking is well made, Tau, Orks and Necrons don't need allies. Yeah. they will be less flexible than Imperium, but they should be at the same level competitively.
Problem is that's not going to happen. It's pretty much impossible to have so that say:
necron vs imperium is balanced
necron vs IG is balanced
necron vs space marines is balanced
If Imperium can pick up things at will they can become more powerful than the individuals would be together. For necron to be able to combat that they then need power up. But what happens when you play part of Imperium that does not ally? They are then screwed.
Galas wrote: If the balance between sub-faction bonuses and cherrypicking is well made, Tau, Orks and Necrons don't need allies. Yeah. they will be less flexible than Imperium, but they should be at the same level competitively.
Problem is that's not going to happen. It's pretty much impossible to have so that say:
necron vs imperium is balanced
necron vs IG is balanced
necron vs space marines is balanced
If Imperium can pick up things at will they can become more powerful than the individuals would be together. For necron to be able to combat that they then need power up. But what happens when you play part of Imperium that does not ally? They are then screwed.
That is why faction bonuses should be tied to how strict you stick to faction. If Space Marines only got chapter tactics if they stuck to a single chapter, it could be designed to be the balancing factor.
Breng77 wrote: Yes, but if I plug my gap with generic tank x, and you plug yours with a Leman russ because IMPERIUM. That isn't really a fair and balanced system
It is if the Leman Russ costs more points than A Generic Tank because it is better. That's the point of points costs - you can have a worse unit that fulfills the same role, and it's okay because it also costs less.
That won't work very well because if a leman russ is costed appropriately for filling gaps in other forces it is likely not appropriately costed for not filling gaps in other armies. Further codex units have a lot of built in advantages that are not accounted for in points costs (stratagems, tactics). So it is likely not ok.
What? No, the Leman Russ will be costed assuming it gets Codex Buffs (stratagems and regiment traits) and A Generic Tank would not be.
If you're taking a Russ without codex traits, then you are overpaying for A Generic Tank anyways, essentially.
Except because all the traits are different it is a safe assumption that the Russ is not really pointed at all based on said tactics, other than very minimally. The same is obvious between many units between index and codex. Even if so that doesn't answer to the leman russ filling holes in armies changing its inherent value. Point of fact either units are balanced assuming they can be used with all other available units, or they are not. It cannot be both ways, so if a russ is balanced in mono-guard, it is inherently unbalanced in the role of a gap filler in an army that doesn't have a unit that fills said role.
A better example is Chaff units, space marines are either balanced competitively assuming they will take chaff, or they are not. If they are balanced assuming chaff, and the best available chaff, you will always need to take said chaff to have an optimal list. Essentially forcing allies. This is not the case if there are benefits to forgoing said chaff, currently these do not exist.
My opinion is that I would rather see things that encourage a variety of builds rather than having all builds amount to everyone taking the same "allies' to fill their holes.
I disagree.
I think there is a price at which the LRBT is costed appropriately to work with mono-Guard and would be slightly overcosted if it was taken outside of an IG detachment.
This would mean that armies which wish to cover their weaknesses have fewer points to reinforce their strengths, whereas an army that embraced its weaknesses and brought no allies would be able to also reinforce its strengths. A good player would naturally do this, as I imagine they would very quickly learn how to mitigate the weaknesses without just crutching them with allies, and therefore their strengths would blow away the opposition, being so much stronger due to not wasting points on junk.
This only works if the LRBT has abilities within guard that it cannot get in other factions. Right now this is not the case.
Galas wrote: If the balance between sub-faction bonuses and cherrypicking is well made, Tau, Orks and Necrons don't need allies. Yeah. they will be less flexible than Imperium, but they should be at the same level competitively.
Problem is that's not going to happen. It's pretty much impossible to have so that say:
necron vs imperium is balanced
necron vs IG is balanced
necron vs space marines is balanced
If Imperium can pick up things at will they can become more powerful than the individuals would be together. For necron to be able to combat that they then need power up. But what happens when you play part of Imperium that does not ally? They are then screwed.
As Breng77 said, if by playing Imperium you lose access to all Stratagems, Chapter/Regiment/Etc Tactics, Relics, Warlord Traits, and you need to use generic ones, the game can be balanced. The problem is with how, right now, you don't have to sacrifice anything of that playing soup. Put everything in their own detachment and you are good to go.
This thread reminds me of the time I proved 1 = 2 to the Calc teacher.
I overheard him saying something one day as I was leaving (another class, never had him, hadn't talked to him before). Asked him a few questions. He showed me some cool things about math I never knew. One was that the area under a point is basically 0.
I got his proof. Understood what he was saying. Saw the logic. But the area under the point couldn't be zero. I proved that if it was, then 1 = 2. Came back to him the next day with that proof. He showed me where one of my premises - that the area under a point was 0 was wrong. It was *virtually* 0, as in infintesimal.
It accomplished what it was supposed to. I didn't think I cleverly showed 1 = 2, or anything like that. It's a common technique for disproving something - by using it as an assumption and showing it not to be true. But to do so, you need to be very careful that each supporting argument is valid.
This is what this thread is all about. Some 'proof' gets bandied about with some faulty premises and flawed logic. It doesn't matter if the conclusion is accurate (seeing as there are exactly as many worse than them as better, not accurate at all, but not relevant). The faulty premises should be exposed. The flawed logic should be refuted.
Didn't you get the memo? If you have the ability to take imperial guard as an ally with your force, then your army is simply not intended to be played as a standalone faction.
Let me know when you are finished tearing up that strawman so we can have a real discussion.
It's kinda an exaggeration of what you've said, but the premise itself is in the spirit of your argument.
Bharring wrote: This thread reminds me of the time I proved 1 = 2 to the Calc teacher.
I overheard him saying something one day as I was leaving (another class, never had him, hadn't talked to him before). Asked him a few questions. He showed me some cool things about math I never knew. One was that the area under a point is basically 0.
I got his proof. Understood what he was saying. Saw the logic. But the area under the point couldn't be zero. I proved that if it was, then 1 = 2. Came back to him the next day with that proof. He showed me where one of my premises - that the area under a point was 0 was wrong. It was *virtually* 0, as in infintesimal.
It accomplished what it was supposed to. I didn't think I cleverly showed 1 = 2, or anything like that. It's a common technique for disproving something - by using it as an assumption and showing it not to be true. But to do so, you need to be very careful that each supporting argument is valid.
This is what this thread is all about. Some 'proof' gets bandied about with some faulty premises and flawed logic. It doesn't matter if the conclusion is accurate (seeing as there are exactly as many worse than them as better, not accurate at all, but not relevant). The faulty premises should be exposed. The flawed logic should be refuted.
This, right here. People like to call me out as some kind of "guard fanboy" or "marine hater" or something, when all I really hate is crappy arguments and hyperbolic crap. You'll find me in the conscript thread arguing against people screaming "Commissars are dead! They're useless and there's no reason to ever use them again GW screwed us because the whiny marine players!" and in the marine thread saying that it's only fair that Marine factions get chapter tactics on their vehicles because it just makes sense to keep it consistent.
Just don't make arguments that are dumb and run around screaming that the sky is falling and everyone and GW are out to get your hobby and its all a vast conspiracy.
This, right here. People like to call me out as some kind of "guard fanboy" or "marine hater" or something, when all I really hate is crappy arguments and hyperbolic crap. You'll find me in the conscript thread arguing against people screaming "Commissars are dead! They're useless and there's no reason to ever use them again GW screwed us because the whiny marine players!" and in the marine thread saying that it's only fair that Marine factions get chapter tactics on their vehicles because it just makes sense to keep it consistent.
Just don't make arguments that are dumb and run around screaming that the sky is falling and everyone and GW are out to get your hobby and its all a vast conspiracy.
We all know Andy Chambers got sacked for trying to protect the Orks (and probably Squats), GW hates greenskins (and probably Squats).
Pure AM list won Warzone followed by chaos monster mash list. No SM in top 15 for the second large tournament in a row. This seems to be the hardest "proof" that SM are in a bad place competitively.
AdMech is supposedly getting some new Forged World goodies to help them. The newest codices seem to outclass what SM can offer (Eldar at least Ynnari and Nids).
GK and SM seem to be in a tough place. Deathguard at least have Morty to keep them in the mix although they probably require soup to compete but we are now seeing SM dropped out of the soup as well. Hell even GK have a role in soup armies that SM are quickly seeing themselves phased out of.
Didn't you get the memo? If you have the ability to take imperial guard as an ally with your force, then your army is simply not intended to be played as a standalone faction.
Let me know when you are finished tearing up that strawman so we can have a real discussion.
It's kinda an exaggeration of what you've said, but the premise itself is in the spirit of your argument.
Is it?
Did I ever say Space Marines, Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Adeptus Mechanicus, or Sisters of Battle were not intended to be played as a standalone faction?
I did say that about Grey Knights and Deathwatch, but that's because I believe they're very much like Inquisition; i.e. capable of being played standalone within the detachment structure of the game, but certainly not in possession of all the options to do so.
Certain armies (i.e. Inquisition) can, but probably shouldn't, be standalone armies.
I'm reminded of that line in Jurassic Park: "You were so obsessed with whether or not you could you forgot to stop and think if you should!"
I mean heck I'm building a 2000 point Inquisition army, but I am stealing bits from other armies too because Acolytes, Jokaero, Daemonhosts, Inquisitorial Land Raider Prometheuses, and Inquisitors do not a whole army make, even if I could fill an number of Spearhead, Vanguard, or Supreme Command detachments to the brim!
Pure AM list won Warzone followed by chaos monster mash list. No SM in top 15 for the second large tournament in a row. This seems to be the hardest "proof" that SM are in a bad place competitively.
AdMech is supposedly getting some new Forged World goodies to help them. The newest codices seem to outclass what SM can offer (Eldar at least Ynnari and Nids).
GK and SM seem to be in a tough place. Deathguard at least have Morty to keep them in the mix although they probably require soup to compete but we are now seeing SM dropped out of the soup as well. Hell even GK have a role in soup armies that SM are quickly seeing themselves phased out of.
It's curiously absent from the spiky bits link, but that AM list took an invalid relic on the psyker in each of its games.
Pure AM list won Warzone followed by chaos monster mash list. No SM in top 15 for the second large tournament in a row. This seems to be the hardest "proof" that SM are in a bad place competitively.
AdMech is supposedly getting some new Forged World goodies to help them. The newest codices seem to outclass what SM can offer (Eldar at least Ynnari and Nids).
GK and SM seem to be in a tough place. Deathguard at least have Morty to keep them in the mix although they probably require soup to compete but we are now seeing SM dropped out of the soup as well. Hell even GK have a role in soup armies that SM are quickly seeing themselves phased out of.
I wonder seeing these results:
how many GK did the third place use?
Lots of Chaos, Ynnari and AM doesn't really tell you anything bedsides those having the top builds curently tough.
Didn't you get the memo? If you have the ability to take imperial guard as an ally with your force, then your army is simply not intended to be played as a standalone faction.
Let me know when you are finished tearing up that strawman so we can have a real discussion.
It's kinda an exaggeration of what you've said, but the premise itself is in the spirit of your argument.
Is it?
Did I ever say Space Marines, Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Adeptus Mechanicus, or Sisters of Battle were not intended to be played as a standalone faction?
I did say that about Grey Knights and Deathwatch, but that's because I believe they're very much like Inquisition; i.e. capable of being played standalone within the detachment structure of the game, but certainly not in possession of all the options to do so.
Certain armies (i.e. Inquisition) can, but probably shouldn't, be standalone armies.
I'm reminded of that line in Jurassic Park: "You were so obsessed with whether or not you could you forgot to stop and think if you should!"
I mean heck I'm building a 2000 point Inquisition army, but I am stealing bits from other armies too because Acolytes, Jokaero, Daemonhosts, Inquisitorial Land Raider Prometheuses, and Inquisitors do not a whole army make, even if I could fill an number of Spearhead, Vanguard, or Supreme Command detachments to the brim!
I'm ABSOLUTELY certain you made mention that evaluating mono-codex was pointless because of allies.
Pure AM list won Warzone followed by chaos monster mash list. No SM in top 15 for the second large tournament in a row. This seems to be the hardest "proof" that SM are in a bad place competitively.
AdMech is supposedly getting some new Forged World goodies to help them. The newest codices seem to outclass what SM can offer (Eldar at least Ynnari and Nids).
GK and SM seem to be in a tough place. Deathguard at least have Morty to keep them in the mix although they probably require soup to compete but we are now seeing SM dropped out of the soup as well. Hell even GK have a role in soup armies that SM are quickly seeing themselves phased out of.
Are you referring to Fires of Cyraxus as the "Admech goodies" that are coming "soon"?
*looks over at dusty Thallax, Thanatar, Magos Dominus, Castellax, Vorax and Triaros which have been sitting on a shelf since the last 30k game in the area dried up*
I'm putting "fires of cyraxus actually happens" behind "sisters of battle plastic release" in my catalogue of things that are likely actually coming soon. Think about that.
A trajectory of a bool each generation after 2 generations isn't the safest bet. And the following generation has a 50/50 chance of going your way if the truth is independent of what you say. Further, it's suggested that Nids are better, but how long has that codex been out?
Bharring wrote: A trajectory of a bool each generation after 2 generations isn't the safest bet. And the following generation has a 50/50 chance of going your way if the truth is independent of what you say. Further, it's suggested that Nids are better, but how long has that codex been out?
I don't need games played for the Nids. I read it once, and could immediately see how it dominates marines. Obviously, we can't say with CERTAINTY, but my prediction stands without games played.
Bharring wrote: A trajectory of a bool each generation after 2 generations isn't the safest bet. And the following generation has a 50/50 chance of going your way if the truth is independent of what you say. Further, it's suggested that Nids are better, but how long has that codex been out?
Which is a good point. Every codex that comes out needs a couple of months or so for everyone to get used to it. That said, no real internal balance issues were blatantly obvious and there's some real killer traits and Strategems there.
I am excited for the Nids codex. The 8th Nids index proved to be a huge buildup for nothing but suck, epic amounts of suck. To date the best Nids lists have used the standard 1k points of imperial guard. I mean WTF is that. (Insert Guard players saying "Nids aren't meant to be a standalone army.")
I think it's a bit early to claim Nids are going to do well. The codex literally just dropped. They were doing AWFUL pre-codex, worse than Space Marines, Grey Knights, Orks, everybody.
Grey Knights are back to being codex: Dreadknight but at least it's a use. I refuse to buy the imperial guard needed to play my Grey Knights, so they're on the shelf.
Space marines by themselves are a middle of the road army. Solid, good saves and a huge range. Great for newbies since they are easy to paint and they have tools to at least damage any army they face. They don’t require as much skill to play as many armies since they rely on their stats, unlike more specialized finesse armies. Hordes on the other hand are even more forgiving due to weight of numbers. So they fall victim to being generic and middle of the road. An army tooled up for melee like chaos will always beat them in melee. A tooled up shooting army like guard will always outshoot them. Since their strength lies is being jack of all trades it makes them easy to pick up and play but difficult to win with unless their given some kind of buff or they ally in the specialists that they need. Thus the huge range. The problem with buffing their stats so that newbies have a good chance of winning with them is that in the hands of a skilled opponent they become pretty hard to beat.
Just my opinion. I feel like anyone who plays marines and is a good player should branch out to a different army that better suites their play style. This will allow them more growth as a player. Or at least incorporate more of the 300+ models in the range of imperials available so you can hone your list to a more conducive play style. By just falling back to the give us more special rules fix, it leads to considerable imbalance in the game.
Marmatag wrote: I am excited for the Nids codex. The 8th Nids index proved to be a huge buildup for nothing but suck, epic amounts of suck. To date the best Nids lists have used the standard 1k points of imperial guard. I mean WTF is that. (Insert Guard players saying "Nids aren't meant to be a standalone army.")
I think it's a bit early to claim Nids are going to do well. The codex literally just dropped. They were doing AWFUL pre-codex, worse than Space Marines, Grey Knights, Orks, everybody.
Grey Knights are back to being codex: Dreadknight but at least it's a use. I refuse to buy the imperial guard needed to play my Grey Knights, so they're on the shelf.
You sure Nidz being that bad? How about Trygon hole Genestealer supported by Swarmlord? Flyrants / Hive Crone supported by Swarmlord and psychic power? All those "move twice" ability??? The latter one would be even more threathening since they can just jump over the screen units and charge those Devastators or tanks sitting at the back to silence them for the entire game from Turn 1!!!!
You think they lack shooting ability? Just eat 12 Bio-plasma shots from that Exocrine, eat 9 mortal wound barrage from those Biovores.
I am not saying they are OP even before their codex drops. But I believe a proper built Nidz army would be on par against SM army that already with Codex, due to the fact that the survivability of marine units are just too low for their points costs. Buffed by Guilliman the marines firepower can be awesome and hardhitting, no doubt on that. However a dead unit would just have zero firepower output.
After the publication of Nidz Codex, I do think any Space Marine army should consider themselves lucky if they do not loss more than 40% of their number or effective firepower in Nidz 1st turn.
The Nids index looked really good on paper when the game launched but the fact of the matter is they were nowhere to be seen in the competitive scene, even before codexes started cropping up.
the_scotsman wrote: when all I really hate is crappy arguments and hyperbolic crap.
it's only fair that Marine factions get chapter tactics on their vehicles because it just makes sense to keep it consistent.
But that is a crappy argument
Firstly because not every other codex released so far has its chapter tactics equivalent on all units.(nevermind the codexes we haven't seen yet)
In fact, we have four codexes where they apply to infantry and selected other models, one where it's everything except knights, one where it's everything but they have no vehicles, one where it's everything except aircraft, some other stuff and sometimes suoerheavies and one where it's everything.
I don't see this consistency that you think Marines are lacking.
Secondly because even if that premise were correct the simple fact of Marines being in some way inconsistent compared to the other codexes doesn't mean that a change is needed or desirable.
All <Forge World> models get dogmas, all <Regiment> models get doctrines, all <Craftworld> models get attributes, all <Hive Fleet> models get adaptations... Only <Chapter> and <Legion> are inconsistent here.
That's a great deflection - given that other codexes have models that don't get that keyword it's thoroughly disingenuous. You'd be fine with having it apply to all <chapter> models but we take <chapter> away from everything except infantry and dreads?
Also, not true - <regiment> units in a super heavy auxiliary detachment don't get their bonus.
Scott-S6 wrote: That's a great deflection - given that other codexes have models that don't get that keyword it's thoroughly disingenuous. You'd be fine with having it apply to all <chapter> models but we take <chapter> away from some stuff?
Also, not true - <regiment> units in a super heavy auxiliary detachment don't get their bonus.
That was my argument right up until Craftworld Eldar threw it out the window. All of the Auxilia crap that Guard has is just arbitrary; I would certainly hope you'd agree that Valkyries not getting doctrines while Hemlocks get attributes has nothing to do with balance.
Arachnofiend wrote: All <Forge World> models get dogmas, all <Regiment> models get doctrines, all <Craftworld> models get attributes, all <Hive Fleet> models get adaptations... Only <Chapter> and <Legion> are inconsistent here.
This is the inconsistency I'm referring to. You could either, as you say, remove the <chapter> and <legion> tags if you were looking at a marine rebalance, or you could add chapter tactics.
The existence of an inconsistency does not necessarily require a rebalance.
What does is evidence that Marines (and when I refer to Marines I mean space Marines grey knights and chaos Marines) are underperforming in a similar manner to the earliest AoS battletomes, which got a rebalance after a few more battletomes came out.
If we weren't getting the release of a gamewide rebalance book in a month, and if they weren't actually underperforming, my assessment would be different. But we are and they are, and the devs are likely looking for good small blanket buffs to apply to the army. Chapter tactics on vehicles make good sense as a way to do that, because there is arguably only one marine vehicle in one legacy wargear combinstion that's in any way problematic for balance.
That is the combination of factors that go into my hoping we see CTs on vehicles. It's a more interesting to give a customizable buff to different chapters/legions than just adjust points.
I'm not personally a marine fan. That doesn't mean I base my balancing opinions on spite. If all the remaining power armor dexes are based on codex space Marines they will all be underperforming.
Its about hating whiny marine players who can't stand that another faction might have access to something that marines don't. Marines already get more than everybody else. 'Balance' does not mean "Give the faction with the most even more."
This.
As a marine player, would it have been cooler to have vehicles with Chapter Tactics ? Sure.
Would it have been a balanced and good move ? I don't believe so.
After reading all the pages on this thread, I think its safe to say that Space Marines aren't the worst army, but they sure are mid-tier... As for the argument on whether we should have chapter traits on our vehicles...I'm 50/50 on. Let me sum up my thoughts:
Reasons for:
-Vehicles are important for space marines, especially certain chapters that are renowned for having great armour (iron hands/ iron warriors). As a space marine player I was confused on why Iron Hands dont get their traits on vehicles. Im not asking for anything OP I'm just asking for something to distinguish between and Iron Hands Predator and an Imperial Fists Predator, besides their paint job.
-The consistency argument is a bit off to me. I remember when GW or Frontline Gaming (cant remember) promised the game would be balanced (ish) if they made the game consistent. This means that if one book has vehicle traits and infantry traits all the other books should have too. Its not an argument of space marine players wanting everything, its about having the same set of rules for all armies to make them balanced against each other. Oh and we space marine players are also advocating for our traitor brethren to have their traits too. There was a player here screaming about his Iron Warriors but most of them shut him out as another whiny space marine player.
Reasons against:
-Now I see the traits on vehicles as a valid argument, however, every time this comes up... I ask myself "was this what GW intended?". Let me explain, maybe space marines don't need to have everything because they designed them to be able to take other things from the imperium. For example, why have our scouts as chaff? When we get conscripts instead? Perhaps GW designed Space Marines as a codex that would use the imperium rather than be mono-build. Now, whether thats a smart design choice or not is up to you, but, we have to deal with it.
-As much as I hate to say this but.... I think the idea of having vehicle traits isnt going to buff our tanks. I believe that if we have price reductions and more stratagems or auras that buff vehicles is the right way about doing it.
So obviously I'm confused as to which side I lean more towards, hopefully I wasnt too biased regarding my opinions, but I think all of us need to be a bit mature about this and not go into hyperbolic territory.
The original solid argument for Chapter Tactics only being on actual Marine models worked, as it was special rules for a special force, which used everything but Marines as just support.
That was fine while their rules were unique. If all other factions also had unique rules (with the exception of reflecting most SM Chapter Tactics to their Legion counterpoint), it would still be valid.
But the Craftworld Attributes and Regimentals and such are also frequently just reflections of Chapter Tactics. And it'd be very weird to only give it to Infantry/Biker CWE models, becuase there's no fluff for that. So, we either need to have fluff-ignoring rules to balance (CT on Preds and such, or no CTs on Serpents and such), or the rules need to be asymetric.
Asymetry can work well. But when the rules are carbon copies like IH/Uthwe (6+++), the asymatries will be very, very hard to balance (and always leaving people complaining). Other asymetric rules work. Look at Iyanden's rule. IG would kill for that rule. CWE (or SM) wouldn't touch it. CWE would love the UltraMarine CT, but IG wouldn't care for it.
So asymetry can work, but needs better-written rules than they currently use.
I'd actually be just fine if they dropped Craftworld attributes. They don't feel necessary. I like Chapter (/legion) Tactics, but shoehorning that into other factions just feels like a "Me Too" (even though they've had it previously) that hasn't added anything to the game. Just IMO.
Bharring wrote: The original solid argument for Chapter Tactics only being on actual Marine models worked, as it was special rules for a special force, which used everything but Marines as just support.
That was fine while their rules were unique. If all other factions also had unique rules (with the exception of reflecting most SM Chapter Tactics to their Legion counterpoint), it would still be valid.
But the Craftworld Attributes and Regimentals and such are also frequently just reflections of Chapter Tactics. And it'd be very weird to only give it to Infantry/Biker CWE models, becuase there's no fluff for that. So, we either need to have fluff-ignoring rules to balance (CT on Preds and such, or no CTs on Serpents and such), or the rules need to be asymetric.
Asymetry can work well. But when the rules are carbon copies like IH/Uthwe (6+++), the asymatries will be very, very hard to balance (and always leaving people complaining). Other asymetric rules work. Look at Iyanden's rule. IG would kill for that rule. CWE (or SM) wouldn't touch it. CWE would love the UltraMarine CT, but IG wouldn't care for it.
So asymetry can work, but needs better-written rules than they currently use.
I'd actually be just fine if they dropped Craftworld attributes. They don't feel necessary. I like Chapter (/legion) Tactics, but shoehorning that into other factions just feels like a "Me Too" (even though they've had it previously) that hasn't added anything to the game. Just IMO.
I don't feel like any of the regiment rules are the same as any of the chapter tactics. Like, 0.
It's really not a stretch of the brain to see that not every copy and paste trait is as useful for every army. However - since there are 6+ copy and paste traits that every army seems to be getting access to - what it really comes down to is what units can use it. If some armies have all their units having access - all armies should have all units having access. This is not debatable. To defend the position is literally defending unbalance. Which is mostly attributable to what army you play and what advantages you want over the other armies.
Bharring wrote: The original solid argument for Chapter Tactics only being on actual Marine models worked, as it was special rules for a special force, which used everything but Marines as just support.
That was fine while their rules were unique. If all other factions also had unique rules (with the exception of reflecting most SM Chapter Tactics to their Legion counterpoint), it would still be valid.
But the Craftworld Attributes and Regimentals and such are also frequently just reflections of Chapter Tactics. And it'd be very weird to only give it to Infantry/Biker CWE models, becuase there's no fluff for that. So, we either need to have fluff-ignoring rules to balance (CT on Preds and such, or no CTs on Serpents and such), or the rules need to be asymetric.
Asymetry can work well. But when the rules are carbon copies like IH/Uthwe (6+++), the asymatries will be very, very hard to balance (and always leaving people complaining). Other asymetric rules work. Look at Iyanden's rule. IG would kill for that rule. CWE (or SM) wouldn't touch it. CWE would love the UltraMarine CT, but IG wouldn't care for it.
So asymetry can work, but needs better-written rules than they currently use.
I'd actually be just fine if they dropped Craftworld attributes. They don't feel necessary. I like Chapter (/legion) Tactics, but shoehorning that into other factions just feels like a "Me Too" (even though they've had it previously) that hasn't added anything to the game. Just IMO.
I don't feel like any of the regiment rules are the same as any of the chapter tactics. Like, 0.
No AM is strictly better - they got custom army traits that affect their infantry and tanks differently. Cadian triat show up in the nid book as the kronos army trait.
Bharring wrote: The original solid argument for Chapter Tactics only being on actual Marine models worked, as it was special rules for a special force, which used everything but Marines as just support.
That was fine while their rules were unique. If all other factions also had unique rules (with the exception of reflecting most SM Chapter Tactics to their Legion counterpoint), it would still be valid.
But the Craftworld Attributes and Regimentals and such are also frequently just reflections of Chapter Tactics. And it'd be very weird to only give it to Infantry/Biker CWE models, becuase there's no fluff for that. So, we either need to have fluff-ignoring rules to balance (CT on Preds and such, or no CTs on Serpents and such), or the rules need to be asymetric.
Asymetry can work well. But when the rules are carbon copies like IH/Uthwe (6+++), the asymatries will be very, very hard to balance (and always leaving people complaining). Other asymetric rules work. Look at Iyanden's rule. IG would kill for that rule. CWE (or SM) wouldn't touch it. CWE would love the UltraMarine CT, but IG wouldn't care for it.
So asymetry can work, but needs better-written rules than they currently use.
I'd actually be just fine if they dropped Craftworld attributes. They don't feel necessary. I like Chapter (/legion) Tactics, but shoehorning that into other factions just feels like a "Me Too" (even though they've had it previously) that hasn't added anything to the game. Just IMO.
I don't feel like any of the regiment rules are the same as any of the chapter tactics. Like, 0.
That's true. All the regiment rules are different from Space Marine chapter tactics, AFAIK. Also, no Craftworld Attributes are the same as Tyranid Hive Fleet rules. But there IS a chapter trait that's the same as a Craftworld Attribute... and a Hive Fleet rule that's the same as a CSM legion trait...and a CSM legion trait that's the same as an Admech Dogma...hmm.....could this mean....
It *is* debateable. If an army's units were pointed such that Infantry were upcharged for a rule and Tanks weren't, and another army upcharged everything for it, clearly it would be unfair for both armies to have it on everything (or both to only have it on Infantry). Not not saying that's what's happening here, but to state such an opinion, not back it up, then claim it's not debatable gets us nowhere (productive).
As I stated, I wouldn't mind if CWE - my main faction - lost *ALL* it's Attributes. So, clearly, we're not all just arguing in support of our own factions simply being better than other factions.
The flaw in your premise is asymetry. Would you be cool if SMs got their traits on all vehicles, for balance, but traits all turned into stuff like "Infantry can never be wounded on less than a 4+, Tanks can fire 1 weapon a turn at full BS after moving", with no points or other rules changes? Clearly, that rule is much, much better for CWE than SM. Does that not prove that symetric CTs/Attributes and their application is not necessarily balanced?
Again, would you be totally fine if IG could field Iyanden's trait (free pre-nerf Comissars on all squads for free, and tanks don't degrade nearly as quickly)? Or would you think it'd be OP on all those CWE squads that, when you kill 3 or 4 models, lose 1 model on a 6 instead of 1 model on a 6? That rule simply would be much more powerful on IG than CWE.
Further, look at RG/AL's Infiltrate. That thing rocks on Berzerkers. CSM can make great use of it. Loyalists can do good things with it, but nothing on that level. Now imagine giving that stratagem to CWE. First turn Scythegaurd to the face (among other shenanigans). If the armies aren't symetric, then symetric buffs aren't necessarily balanced.
Yes, it is. I think it's fine for stuff that doesn't currently get army traits (Vulture Gunship, Predators, and the like) to get them, if their price goes up correspondingly.
For example, you could give a Vulture Gunship the Tallarn regimental rule, so it effectively hits ground units on a 2+ even if it doesn't hover, as long as it pays however much army traits should cost. (+5 points?) And you could give a Predator the ability to Ignore Cover for the same price!
Bharring wrote: It *is* debateable. If an army's units were pointed such that Infantry were upcharged for a rule and Tanks weren't, and another army upcharged everything for it, clearly it would be unfair for both armies to have it on everything (or both to only have it on Infantry). Not not saying that's what's happening here, but to state such an opinion, not back it up, then claim it's not debatable gets us nowhere (productive).
As I stated, I wouldn't mind if CWE - my main faction - lost *ALL* it's Attributes. So, clearly, we're not all just arguing in support of our own factions simply being better than other factions.
The flaw in your premise is asymetry. Would you be cool if SMs got their traits on all vehicles, for balance, but traits all turned into stuff like "Infantry can never be wounded on less than a 4+, Tanks can fire 1 weapon a turn at full BS after moving", with no points or other rules changes? Clearly, that rule is much, much better for CWE than SM. Does that not prove that symetric CTs/Attributes and their application is not necessarily balanced?
Again, would you be totally fine if IG could field Iyanden's trait (free pre-nerf Comissars on all squads for free, and tanks don't degrade nearly as quickly)? Or would you think it'd be OP on all those CWE squads that, when you kill 3 or 4 models, lose 1 model on a 6 instead of 1 model on a 6? That rule simply would be much more powerful on IG than CWE.
Further, look at RG/AL's Infiltrate. That thing rocks on Berzerkers. CSM can make great use of it. Loyalists can do good things with it, but nothing on that level. Now imagine giving that stratagem to CWE. First turn Scythegaurd to the face (among other shenanigans). If the armies aren't symetric, then symetric buffs aren't necessarily balanced.
I am ofc assuming that every armies points are naturally balanced with their abilities (haha funny I know). That is the way it should be. Safe to say that marine tanks which are excluded from having army traits affect them aren't some special brand of points efficiency that should exclude them - heck - they are even increasing the cost of our two best vehicals (ASSBACK and Stormraven) and they still have no access to army traits. To your point also - it would be better if armies got traits more catered to their units rather than this copy and paste stuff.
But why give Predator traits such as ignore cover, when devs get it anyway and do it better? The extra price of the pred comes with its durability. Even then... if you give traits to tanks, what stopping them from taking 2 razorbacks with lascannons for the price of one (about) pred?
Like I said... preds are not that good, giving them traits wont help them as much, its better to just reduce their cost and perhaps spend points like techmarine gunners where their BS goes up or something like that.
Balance CAN be consistency. Consistency is a bit of a crutch, really. That's why Warcraft II was easy to balance; most units were mirror images of each other. But for Starcraft I, the math got a LOT more difficult. Maps also have to be drawn in RTS games to be balanced. Too many choke points, and zerg are at a disadvantage. Too many cliffs, and marines are too good, etc..
Automatically Appended Next Post:
-v10mega wrote: Like I said... preds are not that good, giving them traits wont help them as much, its better to just reduce their cost and perhaps spend points like techmarine gunners where their BS goes up or something like that.
That could be balanced, if game, point system & mechanics made it so.
A balanced game is something a game designer creates with lots of levers in place, like points, scenarios, army rules etc.
Was that guided towards me?
It was guided towards anyone who thinks balance is a direct correlation to one single lever (Aka if everything is consistent, it's balanced) because it's just not true.
If you balance the armies to their abilities, though, you might find that giving +1 to the FrogDogs Troops and Tanks reflex save would benefit them just as much as giving +1 to the SeaMonkeys Troops reflex save alone. Because of asymetries in the game make it a much bigger deal for the super dodgy SeaMonkeys than the super durable FrogDogs.
That could be balanced, if game, point system & mechanics made it so.
A balanced game is something a game designer creates with lots of levers in place, like points, scenarios, army rules etc.
I agree - but if all falcons get -1 to hit and all predators get NOTHING - how can that possibly be balanced - unless a predator is significantly cheaper than a falcon - WHICH it is not - in fact - its 50 points more expensive on average - with less wounds - less movement - less options - less upgrades.
That could be balanced, if game, point system & mechanics made it so.
A balanced game is something a game designer creates with lots of levers in place, like points, scenarios, army rules etc.
I agree - but if all falcons get -1 to hit and all predators get NOTHING - how can that possibly be balanced - unless a predator is significantly cheaper than a falcon - WHICH it is not - in fact - its 50 points more expensive on average - with less wounds - less movement - less options - less upgrades.
I think the argument is that marines make it back elsewhere.
And, even with the points increase, doesn't that Assault Cannon Razorback still outperform the Samm-Hain Wave Serpent?
One of the problems GW has with special traits for everyone is that people complain when they aren't identical. The main reason is lazyness, but these "they aren't identical!" complaints are problematic, too.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The Pred also gets 4 shots to the BL Falcons 3.
The Pred is S9 to the BL Faclons S8.
The Pred has 4 shots at 48" range. The Falcon has 2 at 48", 1 at 36"
The Alaitoc trait is quite nice. But the Pred has much, much better shooting. And you're taking it for it's shooting.
Automatically Appended Next Post: (Also, only Alaitoc Falcons outside 12" get it. That's probably most Falcons, but it's a lot easier to close in on a Falcon with it's shorter range than a Pred.)
That could be balanced, if game, point system & mechanics made it so.
A balanced game is something a game designer creates with lots of levers in place, like points, scenarios, army rules etc.
I agree - but if all falcons get -1 to hit and all predators get NOTHING - how can that possibly be balanced - unless a predator is significantly cheaper than a falcon - WHICH it is not - in fact - its 50 points more expensive on average - with less wounds - less movement - less options - less upgrades.
Perhaps the Predator has access to more buffs?
Perhaps the Predator has more and better guns?
Perhaps the Predator's role in the army is different than that of a Falcon?
Perhaps the stratagems available exclusively to Predators (e.g. Killshot) are different than the ones available exclusively to Falcons (e.g. none?)?
Perhaps there are more Warlord Traits that can affect Predators than can affect Falcons?
Perhaps the Predators have better access to repairs than Falcons?
etc. etc.
There's a lot going on in this game, so comparing one thing to one other thing with so many moving parts is like ripping a tiny piston out of some huge machine and comparing it to a log and being like "gee, this tiny piston is so small and less flexible than this huge log, how could it possibly match in importance!" while the machine explodes in the background because you ripped a piece out of it.
That could be balanced, if game, point system & mechanics made it so.
A balanced game is something a game designer creates with lots of levers in place, like points, scenarios, army rules etc.
I agree - but if all falcons get -1 to hit and all predators get NOTHING - how can that possibly be balanced - unless a predator is significantly cheaper than a falcon - WHICH it is not - in fact - its 50 points more expensive on average - with less wounds - less movement - less options - less upgrades.
I think the argument is that marines make it back elsewhere.
Prove it then. What makes space marine vehicals so good that they shouldn't get the free traits every other army gets?
-v10mega wrote: ^^ Having traits available to all units for every codex is not balanced.
This ...
Is every unit in the game could use alpha legion traits or nightlords traits there could be some serious problems. Don’t get me wrong. Infiltrating a close combat defiler into the enemy lines, backed by lines of tanks screened by infantry that are all -1 to hit would be great for chaos players. As A deathguard player, being able to move and fire with no penalty on hw would make my armor a lot more powerful. Nightlords where everything generated -1 to moral tests. Sounds awesome.
All these arguments demanding consistency are flawed from the get go. Consistency is checkers or chess. Warhammer 40k represents wildly divergent factions like Demi humans, space elves, alien hive minds. There is no need, Merrit, preexisting statute that states consistency. There has never been consistency.
Maybe the game designers 2anted to emphasize infantry dreads and bikes role on the battle field.
Bharring wrote: And, even with the points increase, doesn't that Assault Cannon Razorback still outperform the Samm-Hain Wave Serpent?
One of the problems GW has with special traits for everyone is that people complain when they aren't identical. The main reason is lazyness, but these "they aren't identical!" complaints are problematic, too.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The Pred also gets 4 shots to the BL Falcons 3.
The Pred is S9 to the BL Faclons S8.
The Pred has 4 shots at 48" range. The Falcon has 2 at 48", 1 at 36"
The Alaitoc trait is quite nice. But the Pred has much, much better shooting. And you're taking it for it's shooting.
Automatically Appended Next Post: (Also, only Alaitoc Falcons outside 12" get it. That's probably most Falcons, but it's a lot easier to close in on a Falcon with it's shorter range than a Pred.)
Yeah...it also costs more and is only better in certain situations - the falcon is better vs 3 wound models because the pulse laser does flat 3 damage and it's shuriken cannon gives it the edge against meq. The pred also costs more and is less durable. I'm really not seeing any discrepancy to deny the pred access to an army trait which the falcon has access to.
"Prove it then. What makes space marine vehicals so good that they shouldn't get the free traits every other army gets?"
Its not what makes the vehicles in the space marines so good. Its what you give them that makes your army so good. The codex is obviously build with the idea that your hqs buff your units. When you have a chapter master and a lieutenant supporting one predator, your marginal utility is low. And thats dumb if you do it like that. However, if you have a chapter master and a lieutenant surrounded by multiple preds and some tac marines your marginal utility goes up by a crap ton. The falcon is made to be independent thats why its faster, and has better upgrades but it pales when you have a pred that has killshot and and buffs. Now, you may say these buffs come at the cost of the Lt and the Chapter Master but they also benefit the rest of the army too. Eldar seems to work independent from each other, each unit is a machine. The space marines are each a specific cog in one big machine.
Automatically Appended Next Post: oh the Pred is made to kill big things thats why it has lascannons, you want to talk infantry killing? take an as-back at a cheaper price and let it rip hordes apart
Bharring wrote: And, even with the points increase, doesn't that Assault Cannon Razorback still outperform the Samm-Hain Wave Serpent?
One of the problems GW has with special traits for everyone is that people complain when they aren't identical. The main reason is lazyness, but these "they aren't identical!" complaints are problematic, too.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The Pred also gets 4 shots to the BL Falcons 3.
The Pred is S9 to the BL Faclons S8.
The Pred has 4 shots at 48" range. The Falcon has 2 at 48", 1 at 36"
The Alaitoc trait is quite nice. But the Pred has much, much better shooting. And you're taking it for it's shooting.
Automatically Appended Next Post: (Also, only Alaitoc Falcons outside 12" get it. That's probably most Falcons, but it's a lot easier to close in on a Falcon with it's shorter range than a Pred.)
Yeah...it also costs more and is only better in certain situations - the falcon is better vs 3 wound models because the pulse laser does flat 3 damage and it's shuriken cannon gives it the edge against meq. The pred also costs more and is less durable. I'm really not seeing any discrepancy to deny the pred access to an army trait which the falcon has access to.
You can't say the Falcon is better vs 3 wound models. It could be, if you roll all 1s and 2s for the predator, or it could not be, if you roll all 3+s. But since we can use mathammer, we know that over 100 games, the Predator's damage will be a fairly consistent 3-4, and the Falcon's damage will never exceed 3. So no, the Falcon is not better vs 3 wound models.
The Falcon may have a small edge vs MEQ, but it is very very small.
Durability wise: yes, the Pred is less durable - but the Predator has easy access to repairs, as well as a stratagem specifically designed to buff it, while the Falcon does not (the Bonesinger is a limited-time-only thing without rules in the 'dex). So depending on your repair roles the Predator might have more durability - that said, then you have to include part of the points cost of the Techmarine (whatever the Techmarine pays to be able to repair tanks) and so on and so forth.
Really they're just very different vehicles, and imo that's a good thing. Access (or not!) to army traits is just one of myriad small differences.
The Current argument might make SM players sound a little less entitled if it was reframed to address the sense that space elves are still getting the slightly OP treatment they have been for the last 2 codex. I would agree very much that I would like space elves to be more on an even playing field as everyone else in terms of internal game balance.
The current argument sounds like “they have something shinny and cool and we wants it.” Give us a bigger win button.
Bharring wrote: And, even with the points increase, doesn't that Assault Cannon Razorback still outperform the Samm-Hain Wave Serpent?
One of the problems GW has with special traits for everyone is that people complain when they aren't identical. The main reason is lazyness, but these "they aren't identical!" complaints are problematic, too.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The Pred also gets 4 shots to the BL Falcons 3.
The Pred is S9 to the BL Faclons S8.
The Pred has 4 shots at 48" range. The Falcon has 2 at 48", 1 at 36"
The Alaitoc trait is quite nice. But the Pred has much, much better shooting. And you're taking it for it's shooting.
Automatically Appended Next Post: (Also, only Alaitoc Falcons outside 12" get it. That's probably most Falcons, but it's a lot easier to close in on a Falcon with it's shorter range than a Pred.)
Yeah...it also costs more and is only better in certain situations - the falcon is better vs 3 wound models because the pulse laser does flat 3 damage and it's shuriken cannon gives it the edge against meq. The pred also costs more and is less durable. I'm really not seeing any discrepancy to deny the pred access to an army trait which the falcon has access to.
You can't say the Falcon is better vs 3 wound models. It could be, if you roll all 1s and 2s for the predator, or it could not be, if you roll all 3+s. But since we can use mathammer, we know that over 100 games, the Predator's damage will be a fairly consistent 3-4, and the Falcon's damage will never exceed 3. So no, the Falcon is not better vs 3 wound models.
The Falcon may have a small edge vs MEQ, but it is very very small.
Durability wise: yes, the Pred is less durable - but the Predator has easy access to repairs, as well as a stratagem specifically designed to buff it, while the Falcon does not (the Bonesinger is a limited-time-only thing without rules in the 'dex). So depending on your repair roles the Predator might have more durability - that said, then you have to include part of the points cost of the Techmarine (whatever the Techmarine pays to be able to repair tanks) and so on and so forth.
Really they're just very different vehicles, and imo that's a good thing. Access (or not!) to army traits is just one of myriad small differences.
A pulse laser kills a 3 wound model 100% of the time with a failed save. Where as a las cannon kills a 3 wound model with a failed save only 66% of the time. IT IS BETTER. THIS IS FACT.
Bharring wrote: And, even with the points increase, doesn't that Assault Cannon Razorback still outperform the Samm-Hain Wave Serpent?
One of the problems GW has with special traits for everyone is that people complain when they aren't identical. The main reason is lazyness, but these "they aren't identical!" complaints are problematic, too.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The Pred also gets 4 shots to the BL Falcons 3.
The Pred is S9 to the BL Faclons S8.
The Pred has 4 shots at 48" range. The Falcon has 2 at 48", 1 at 36"
The Alaitoc trait is quite nice. But the Pred has much, much better shooting. And you're taking it for it's shooting.
Automatically Appended Next Post: (Also, only Alaitoc Falcons outside 12" get it. That's probably most Falcons, but it's a lot easier to close in on a Falcon with it's shorter range than a Pred.)
Yeah...it also costs more and is only better in certain situations - the falcon is better vs 3 wound models because the pulse laser does flat 3 damage and it's shuriken cannon gives it the edge against meq. The pred also costs more and is less durable. I'm really not seeing any discrepancy to deny the pred access to an army trait which the falcon has access to.
You can't say the Falcon is better vs 3 wound models. It could be, if you roll all 1s and 2s for the predator, or it could not be, if you roll all 3+s. But since we can use mathammer, we know that over 100 games, the Predator's damage will be a fairly consistent 3-4, and the Falcon's damage will never exceed 3. So no, the Falcon is not better vs 3 wound models.
The Falcon may have a small edge vs MEQ, but it is very very small.
Durability wise: yes, the Pred is less durable - but the Predator has easy access to repairs, as well as a stratagem specifically designed to buff it, while the Falcon does not (the Bonesinger is a limited-time-only thing without rules in the 'dex). So depending on your repair roles the Predator might have more durability - that said, then you have to include part of the points cost of the Techmarine (whatever the Techmarine pays to be able to repair tanks) and so on and so forth.
Really they're just very different vehicles, and imo that's a good thing. Access (or not!) to army traits is just one of myriad small differences.
A pulse laser kills a 3 wound model 100% of the time with a failed save. Where as a las cannon kills a 3 wound model with a failed save only 66% of the time. IT IS BETTER. THIS IS FACT.
Oh I forgot you were xenomancers and prone to hyperbole. Do you think autocannons are better against two wound models than lascannons?
I know I'd sweat my dick off if a lascannon was shooting my bike more than an autocannon...
Oh right, the Predator autocannon also does 3 damage, because their autocannon is a special snowflake Marine autocannon. Hold on, let me exercise my ability to be Xenomancers:
OMG the Baneblade autocannon is completely gakky compared to the Predator autocannon.
For the sake of consistency please, give the Baneblade's autocannon 2d3 shots and 3 flat damage! It's only consistent across the design space and the Baneblade certainly pays for it!
I mean, it's better than a lascannon, because mumble mumble 3 wounds models mumble.
sennacherib wrote: The Current argument might make SM players sound a little less entitled if it was reframed to address the sense that space elves are still getting the slightly OP treatment they have been for the last 2 codex. I would agree very much that I would like space elves to be more on an even playing field as everyone else in terms of internal game balance.
The current argument sounds like “they have something shinny and cool and we wants it.” Give us a bigger win button.
Pretty standard response from a marine hater actually. Marines point out obvious unbalance and get accused of wanting free wins. You are also in complete denial if you think marines have had a good codex since like 3rd eddition. It's been hands down one of the worst in every edition (if you actually look at it). Then in 7th when they had a brief time in the sun because they were the first army to get a 7.5 codex and formations. Then they settled out real quickly. Once heretic rules came out and demonic incursion. Those were the real OP armies of 7th. OH AND WHAT DO YOU KNOW - they are back at it again. Also - do you remember soulburst? How do you think ynnari panned out against gladius? Most the people I knew stopped playing once ynnari came out because it was literally unbeatable unless you were playing daemons.
Bharring wrote: And, even with the points increase, doesn't that Assault Cannon Razorback still outperform the Samm-Hain Wave Serpent?
One of the problems GW has with special traits for everyone is that people complain when they aren't identical. The main reason is lazyness, but these "they aren't identical!" complaints are problematic, too.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The Pred also gets 4 shots to the BL Falcons 3.
The Pred is S9 to the BL Faclons S8.
The Pred has 4 shots at 48" range. The Falcon has 2 at 48", 1 at 36"
The Alaitoc trait is quite nice. But the Pred has much, much better shooting. And you're taking it for it's shooting.
Automatically Appended Next Post: (Also, only Alaitoc Falcons outside 12" get it. That's probably most Falcons, but it's a lot easier to close in on a Falcon with it's shorter range than a Pred.)
Yeah...it also costs more and is only better in certain situations - the falcon is better vs 3 wound models because the pulse laser does flat 3 damage and it's shuriken cannon gives it the edge against meq. The pred also costs more and is less durable. I'm really not seeing any discrepancy to deny the pred access to an army trait which the falcon has access to.
You can't say the Falcon is better vs 3 wound models. It could be, if you roll all 1s and 2s for the predator, or it could not be, if you roll all 3+s. But since we can use mathammer, we know that over 100 games, the Predator's damage will be a fairly consistent 3-4, and the Falcon's damage will never exceed 3. So no, the Falcon is not better vs 3 wound models.
The Falcon may have a small edge vs MEQ, but it is very very small.
Durability wise: yes, the Pred is less durable - but the Predator has easy access to repairs, as well as a stratagem specifically designed to buff it, while the Falcon does not (the Bonesinger is a limited-time-only thing without rules in the 'dex). So depending on your repair roles the Predator might have more durability - that said, then you have to include part of the points cost of the Techmarine (whatever the Techmarine pays to be able to repair tanks) and so on and so forth.
Really they're just very different vehicles, and imo that's a good thing. Access (or not!) to army traits is just one of myriad small differences.
A pulse laser kills a 3 wound model 100% of the time with a failed save. Where as a las cannon kills a 3 wound model with a failed save only 66% of the time. IT IS BETTER. THIS IS FACT.
Oh I forgot you were xenomancers and prone to hyperbole. Do you think autocannons are better against two wound models than lascannons?
I know I'd sweat my dick off if a lascannon was shooting my bike more than an autocannon...
Wait... autocannon turret and lascannon sponsons do better vs. space marine bikes than the 4 lascannon variant
The autocannon is the whip in my opinion. AND it might get a price drop in Chapter Approved. $$$ Predator itself is super generic and could use a bit of a price drop, too.
Bharring wrote: And, even with the points increase, doesn't that Assault Cannon Razorback still outperform the Samm-Hain Wave Serpent?
One of the problems GW has with special traits for everyone is that people complain when they aren't identical. The main reason is lazyness, but these "they aren't identical!" complaints are problematic, too.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The Pred also gets 4 shots to the BL Falcons 3.
The Pred is S9 to the BL Faclons S8.
The Pred has 4 shots at 48" range. The Falcon has 2 at 48", 1 at 36"
The Alaitoc trait is quite nice. But the Pred has much, much better shooting. And you're taking it for it's shooting.
Automatically Appended Next Post: (Also, only Alaitoc Falcons outside 12" get it. That's probably most Falcons, but it's a lot easier to close in on a Falcon with it's shorter range than a Pred.)
Yeah...it also costs more and is only better in certain situations - the falcon is better vs 3 wound models because the pulse laser does flat 3 damage and it's shuriken cannon gives it the edge against meq. The pred also costs more and is less durable. I'm really not seeing any discrepancy to deny the pred access to an army trait which the falcon has access to.
You can't say the Falcon is better vs 3 wound models. It could be, if you roll all 1s and 2s for the predator, or it could not be, if you roll all 3+s. But since we can use mathammer, we know that over 100 games, the Predator's damage will be a fairly consistent 3-4, and the Falcon's damage will never exceed 3. So no, the Falcon is not better vs 3 wound models.
The Falcon may have a small edge vs MEQ, but it is very very small.
Durability wise: yes, the Pred is less durable - but the Predator has easy access to repairs, as well as a stratagem specifically designed to buff it, while the Falcon does not (the Bonesinger is a limited-time-only thing without rules in the 'dex). So depending on your repair roles the Predator might have more durability - that said, then you have to include part of the points cost of the Techmarine (whatever the Techmarine pays to be able to repair tanks) and so on and so forth.
Really they're just very different vehicles, and imo that's a good thing. Access (or not!) to army traits is just one of myriad small differences.
A pulse laser kills a 3 wound model 100% of the time with a failed save. Where as a las cannon kills a 3 wound model with a failed save only 66% of the time. IT IS BETTER. THIS IS FACT.
Oh I forgot you were xenomancers and prone to hyperbole. Do you think autocannons are better against two wound models than lascannons?
I know I'd sweat my dick off if a lascannon was shooting my bike more than an autocannon...
Wait... autocannon turret and lascannon sponsons do better vs. space marine bikes than the 4 lascannon variant
That's true, actually, though I think it's partly due to the completely design inconsistent and inexplicable autocannon changes for the special-snowflake Marines who keep getting rules that no one else has. I mean, just try to have some consistency GW!
Unit1126PLL wrote: Oh right, the Predator autocannon also does 3 damage, because their autocannon is a special snowflake Marine autocannon. Hold on, let me exercise my ability to be Xenomancers:
OMG the Baneblade autocannon is completely gakky compared to the Predator autocannon.
For the sake of consistency please, give the Baneblade's autocannon 2d3 shots and 3 flat damage! It's only consistent across the design space and the Baneblade certainly pays for it!
I mean, it's better than a lascannon, because mumble mumble 3 wounds models mumble.
It's been a standard autocannon for 7 editions. It's normally been excessively cheap now they charge you as much as 2 las cannons for it. In order to charge you 49 points for something - it needed to be a little better didn't it? I fail to see the special snowflake argument here. Marines have 2 main guns on their MBT but guard have 3 times as many...IMO that is special snow flake. How many armies do you see today with their MBT running around with all these different cannons?
Let me put this another way. The predator with 48" guns is WAY better than anything my CC-oriented chapter can do in CC. Ultramarines can Bobby G buff their predators. Maybe it's not as good as razorbacks, but sometimes its better.
sennacherib wrote: The Current argument might make SM players sound a little less entitled if it was reframed to address the sense that space elves are still getting the slightly OP treatment they have been for the last 2 codex. I would agree very much that I would like space elves to be more on an even playing field as everyone else in terms of internal game balance.
The current argument sounds like “they have something shinny and cool and we wants it.” Give us a bigger win button.
Pretty standard response from a marine hater actually. Marines point out obvious unbalance and get accused of wanting free wins. You are also in complete denial if you think marines have had a good codex since like 3rd eddition. It's been hands down one of the worst in every edition (if you actually look at it). Then in 7th when they had a brief time in the sun because they were the first army to get a 7.5 codex and formations. Then they settled out real quickly. Once heretic rules came out and demonic incursion. Those were the real OP armies of 7th. OH AND WHAT DO YOU KNOW - they are back at it again. Also - do you remember soulburst? How do you think ynnari panned out against gladius? Most the people I knew stopped playing once ynnari came out because it was literally unbeatable unless you were playing daemons.
Wait wait wait.... Marines sucked in 6th? Hello deathstars? Marines had a lot of time under the sun in 7th...actually up until the very end...and even then deathstars made that codex amazing. Oh and what do you know? DA battle company won second place in the LVO and took best overall for ITC....so....?
Martel732 wrote: The autocannon is the whip in my opinion. AND it might get a price drop in Chapter Approved. $$$ Predator itself is super generic and could use a bit of a price drop, too.
I think they drop it 9 points. Makes no sense. All the changes you can make and you take probably one of the most balanced weapons and drop it's price...ODD. What needed to happen was the base pred needed a price drop. The basic pred shoud start at the same cost as a rhino and whatever they want to charge for 1 wound and -10 transport capacity. It's literally a plus 1 wound rhino without weapons and no transport.
TBF rather than giving Preds chapter tactics and Grinding Advance, I actually would be comfortable with a price drop.
I'm not sure they're overpriced right now (really I'm not, I have no data) but if they're being outperformed by a dedicated transport option, then they certainly need a drop. I suppose one can infer that they're overpriced from that datum alone, so they probably are.
sennacherib wrote: The Current argument might make SM players sound a little less entitled if it was reframed to address the sense that space elves are still getting the slightly OP treatment they have been for the last 2 codex. I would agree very much that I would like space elves to be more on an even playing field as everyone else in terms of internal game balance.
The current argument sounds like “they have something shinny and cool and we wants it.” Give us a bigger win button.
Pretty standard response from a marine hater actually. Marines point out obvious unbalance and get accused of wanting free wins. You are also in complete denial if you think marines have had a good codex since like 3rd eddition. It's been hands down one of the worst in every edition (if you actually look at it). Then in 7th when they had a brief time in the sun because they were the first army to get a 7.5 codex and formations. Then they settled out real quickly. Once heretic rules came out and demonic incursion. Those were the real OP armies of 7th. OH AND WHAT DO YOU KNOW - they are back at it again. Also - do you remember soulburst? How do you think ynnari panned out against gladius? Most the people I knew stopped playing once ynnari came out because it was literally unbeatable unless you were playing daemons.
Wait wait wait.... Marines sucked in 6th? Hello deathstars? Marines had a lot of time under the sun in 7th...actually up until the very end...and even then deathstars made that codex amazing. Oh and what do you know? DA battle company won second place in the LVO and took best overall for ITC....so....?
That DA battle company didn't have a pack of 50 ferensian wolves and a wolf lord in it did it? Wait...it did.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Oh right, the Predator autocannon also does 3 damage, because their autocannon is a special snowflake Marine autocannon. Hold on, let me exercise my ability to be Xenomancers:
OMG the Baneblade autocannon is completely gakky compared to the Predator autocannon.
For the sake of consistency please, give the Baneblade's autocannon 2d3 shots and 3 flat damage! It's only consistent across the design space and the Baneblade certainly pays for it!
I mean, it's better than a lascannon, because mumble mumble 3 wounds models mumble.
I'd understand your complaint if it weren't one of two Autocannons in the entire codex. Second one is on Dreads, which is TL but still has the appropriate stats (and is also only in the Index, for what it's worth to ya).
And come to think of it, Autocannons don't pop up much for CSM either. Basic power armor can grab it (Chaos Marines can get up to 2, Chosen get 1, and Havocs up to 4), but after that you got the Predator one and that's it.
Oh and space marines dont function by having an MBT thats a guard thing. Plus the Pred had 2 main guns... the lascannon and the autocannon... Guard has the battlecannon, lascannon, and HB thats not 3x as many thats one extra.
-v10mega wrote: Oh and space marines dont function by having an MBT thats a guard thing. Plus the Pred had 2 main guns... the lascannon and the autocannon... Guard has the battlecannon, lascannon, and HB thats not 3x as many thats one extra.
I think they meant main-gun options; as in, the Leman Russ has ~12 (I think) variants.
And to be fair to them, they're right. The Imperial Guard has more options for their superheavies than the SM have for their predators, until you include FW (and I CBF to look at FW but I'd say there's a good bet even if you include it the Guard have more superheavy options than the marines have MBT options).
sennacherib wrote: The Current argument might make SM players sound a little less entitled if it was reframed to address the sense that space elves are still getting the slightly OP treatment they have been for the last 2 codex. I would agree very much that I would like space elves to be more on an even playing field as everyone else in terms of internal game balance.
The current argument sounds like “they have something shinny and cool and we wants it.” Give us a bigger win button.
Pretty standard response from a marine hater actually. Marines point out obvious unbalance and get accused of wanting free wins. You are also in complete denial if you think marines have had a good codex since like 3rd eddition. It's been hands down one of the worst in every edition (if you actually look at it). Then in 7th when they had a brief time in the sun because they were the first army to get a 7.5 codex and formations. Then they settled out real quickly. Once heretic rules came out and demonic incursion. Those were the real OP armies of 7th. OH AND WHAT DO YOU KNOW - they are back at it again. Also - do you remember soulburst? How do you think ynnari panned out against gladius? Most the people I knew stopped playing once ynnari came out because it was literally unbeatable unless you were playing daemons.
Wait wait wait.... Marines sucked in 6th? Hello deathstars? Marines had a lot of time under the sun in 7th...actually up until the very end...and even then deathstars made that codex amazing. Oh and what do you know? DA battle company won second place in the LVO and took best overall for ITC....so....?
That DA battle company didn't have a pack of 50 ferensian wolves and a wolf lord in it did it? Wait...it did.
Ya and most of his army was? What? Space marines? would you look at that...
Unit1126PLL wrote: TBF rather than giving Preds chapter tactics and Grinding Advance, I actually would be comfortable with a price drop.
I'm not sure they're overpriced right now (really I'm not, I have no data) but if they're being outperformed by a dedicated transport option, then they certainly need a drop. I suppose one can infer that they're overpriced from that datum alone, so they probably are.
I'm not even saying that the preditor is outperfoming a falcon. They are about even IMO granted the pred costs more. However - the falcon gets an army trait - this pushes it over the edge.
-v10mega wrote: Oh and space marines dont function by having an MBT thats a guard thing. Plus the Pred had 2 main guns... the lascannon and the autocannon... Guard has the battlecannon, lascannon, and HB thats not 3x as many thats one extra.
I think they meant main-gun options; as in, the Leman Russ has ~12 (I think) variants.
And to be fair to them, they're right. The Imperial Guard has more options for their superheavies than the SM have for their predators, until you include FW (and I CBF to look at FW but I'd say there's a good bet even if you include it the Guard have more superheavy options than the marines have MBT options).
If thats the case I read it wrong... But are space marines known for their tanks? When you think of the codex, is the most iconic unit the pred? Or is it the tac marine/dreadnough/termies that all get traits. IG are known for their tanks, there are countless memes and stories about it.
Unit1126PLL wrote: TBF rather than giving Preds chapter tactics and Grinding Advance, I actually would be comfortable with a price drop.
I'm not sure they're overpriced right now (really I'm not, I have no data) but if they're being outperformed by a dedicated transport option, then they certainly need a drop. I suppose one can infer that they're overpriced from that datum alone, so they probably are.
I'm not even saying that the preditor is outperfoming a falcon. They are about even IMO granted the pred costs more. However - the falcon gets an army trait - this pushes it over the edge.
I'm not sure that pushes it over the edge. Some army traits are comparatively pointless for a Falcon, like the Saim-Hann one.
sennacherib wrote: The Current argument might make SM players sound a little less entitled if it was reframed to address the sense that space elves are still getting the slightly OP treatment they have been for the last 2 codex. I would agree very much that I would like space elves to be more on an even playing field as everyone else in terms of internal game balance.
The current argument sounds like “they have something shinny and cool and we wants it.” Give us a bigger win button.
Pretty standard response from a marine hater actually. Marines point out obvious unbalance and get accused of wanting free wins. You are also in complete denial if you think marines have had a good codex since like 3rd eddition. It's been hands down one of the worst in every edition (if you actually look at it). Then in 7th when they had a brief time in the sun because they were the first army to get a 7.5 codex and formations. Then they settled out real quickly. Once heretic rules came out and demonic incursion. Those were the real OP armies of 7th. OH AND WHAT DO YOU KNOW - they are back at it again. Also - do you remember soulburst? How do you think ynnari panned out against gladius? Most the people I knew stopped playing once ynnari came out because it was literally unbeatable unless you were playing daemons.
Wait wait wait.... Marines sucked in 6th? Hello deathstars? Marines had a lot of time under the sun in 7th...actually up until the very end...and even then deathstars made that codex amazing. Oh and what do you know? DA battle company won second place in the LVO and took best overall for ITC....so....?
That DA battle company didn't have a pack of 50 ferensian wolves and a wolf lord in it did it? Wait...it did.
Ya and most of his army was? What? Space marines? would you look at that...
Pretty sure the invisble wolf star that obliterated his opponents by tying up the entire enemy force by turn 2 played a much bigger factor than the free razorbacks. They were just objective secured after thoughs that took up space. 7th eddition as a whole should just be forgotten anyways. Death-stars were an absolute joke. Imperial armies and daemons did deathstars the best I am not going to argue that - I really don't care about that though. Invisibility and 2++ rerolls were the champion of 7th eddition - nothing else was.
Unit1126PLL wrote: TBF rather than giving Preds chapter tactics and Grinding Advance, I actually would be comfortable with a price drop.
I'm not sure they're overpriced right now (really I'm not, I have no data) but if they're being outperformed by a dedicated transport option, then they certainly need a drop. I suppose one can infer that they're overpriced from that datum alone, so they probably are.
I'm not even saying that the preditor is outperfoming a falcon. They are about even IMO granted the pred costs more. However - the falcon gets an army trait - this pushes it over the edge.
I'm not sure that pushes it over the edge. Some army traits are comparatively pointless for a Falcon, like the Saim-Hann one.
Really? It would be pretty useful in a fight against a predator considering it has the fly keyword and the marine one doesn't. I have actually done this in game - with a serpent though - the reroll charge would make it even more effective.
Xenomancers wrote: Really? It would be pretty useful in a fight against a predator considering it has the fly keyword and the marine one doesn't. I have actually done this in game - with a serpent though - the reroll charge would make it even more effective.
If you say so. To be frank, my Baneblades are more afraid of Predator Annihilators than Falcons, even if the Falcon gets the army trait of re-rolling charge distances.
In fact, so are my Inquisition. And my SoB are more afraid of Predator Destructors than Falcons, eve if the Falcon gets said army trait.
I'm not sure it "puts it over the top" when compared to a Pred. I'm just not.
Though I do agree the base Predator could use a price drop; perhaps make it cost the same as a base Razorback? (unless they already do, then derp!)
-v10mega wrote: Oh and space marines dont function by having an MBT thats a guard thing. Plus the Pred had 2 main guns... the lascannon and the autocannon... Guard has the battlecannon, lascannon, and HB thats not 3x as many thats one extra.
I think they meant main-gun options; as in, the Leman Russ has ~12 (I think) variants.
And to be fair to them, they're right. The Imperial Guard has more options for their superheavies than the SM have for their predators, until you include FW (and I CBF to look at FW but I'd say there's a good bet even if you include it the Guard have more superheavy options than the marines have MBT options).
sennacherib wrote: The Current argument might make SM players sound a little less entitled if it was reframed to address the sense that space elves are still getting the slightly OP treatment they have been for the last 2 codex. I would agree very much that I would like space elves to be more on an even playing field as everyone else in terms of internal game balance.
The current argument sounds like “they have something shinny and cool and we wants it.” Give us a bigger win button.
Pretty standard response from a marine hater actually. Marines point out obvious unbalance and get accused of wanting free wins. You are also in complete denial if you think marines have had a good codex since like 3rd eddition. It's been hands down one of the worst in every edition (if you actually look at it). Then in 7th when they had a brief time in the sun because they were the first army to get a 7.5 codex and formations. Then they settled out real quickly. Once heretic rules came out and demonic incursion. Those were the real OP armies of 7th. OH AND WHAT DO YOU KNOW - they are back at it again. Also - do you remember soulburst? How do you think ynnari panned out against gladius? Most the people I knew stopped playing once ynnari came out because it was literally unbeatable unless you were playing daemons.
Wait wait wait.... Marines sucked in 6th? Hello deathstars? Marines had a lot of time under the sun in 7th...actually up until the very end...and even then deathstars made that codex amazing. Oh and what do you know? DA battle company won second place in the LVO and took best overall for ITC....so....?
That DA battle company didn't have a pack of 50 ferensian wolves and a wolf lord in it did it? Wait...it did.
Ya and most of his army was? What? Space marines? would you look at that...
Pretty sure the invisble wolf star that obliterated his opponents by tying up the entire enemy force by turn 2 played a much bigger factor than the free razorbacks. They were just objective secured after thoughs that took up space. 7th eddition as a whole should just be forgotten anyways. Death-stars were an absolute joke. Imperial armies and daemons did deathstars the best I am not going to argue that - I really don't care about that though. Invisibility and 2++ rerolls were the champion of 7th eddition - nothing else was.
Unit1126PLL wrote: TBF rather than giving Preds chapter tactics and Grinding Advance, I actually would be comfortable with a price drop.
I'm not sure they're overpriced right now (really I'm not, I have no data) but if they're being outperformed by a dedicated transport option, then they certainly need a drop. I suppose one can infer that they're overpriced from that datum alone, so they probably are.
I'm not even saying that the preditor is outperfoming a falcon. They are about even IMO granted the pred costs more. However - the falcon gets an army trait - this pushes it over the edge.
I'm not sure that pushes it over the edge. Some army traits are comparatively pointless for a Falcon, like the Saim-Hann one.
Really? It would be pretty useful in a fight against a predator considering it has the fly keyword and the marine one doesn't. I have actually done this in game - with a serpent though - the reroll charge would make it even more effective.
Problem being that you want to forget having a really solid codex for years. Your last edition codex, everything was at least decent, most things were good. Many tournaments were won with this allegedly bad codex. I played marines since 4th ed. They have remained consistently good. When 7th rolled around with 2+ fnp, every Vehicle being free, grav just sidelining many armies they were pretty great. But let’s just forget that. Fast forward to now when they are THE WORST and everyone else is a hater because they don’t understand how marines need more special rules and more special wargear.
Xenomancers wrote: Really? It would be pretty useful in a fight against a predator considering it has the fly keyword and the marine one doesn't. I have actually done this in game - with a serpent though - the reroll charge would make it even more effective.
If you say so. To be frank, my Baneblades are more afraid of Predator Annihilators than Falcons, even if the Falcon gets the army trait of re-rolling charge distances.
In fact, so are my Inquisition. And my SoB are more afraid of Predator Destructors than Falcons, eve if the Falcon gets said army trait.
I'm not sure it "puts it over the top" when compared to a Pred. I'm just not.
Though I do agree the base Predator could use a price drop; perhaps make it cost the same as a base Razorback? (unless they already do, then derp!)
In all fairness. All super heavies struggle in this eddition. With the exception of the shadowsword - none of them are problematic and most probably pay too many points for how easy they are to kill. The shadowsword is a big problem though.
Well, marines have at least 1 good unit they can use. Shadowswords. Just ally that in and bam. 1 good unit. To bad the other 300 imperial units are all garbage compared to the eldar tanks.
Xenomancers wrote: Really? It would be pretty useful in a fight against a predator considering it has the fly keyword and the marine one doesn't. I have actually done this in game - with a serpent though - the reroll charge would make it even more effective.
If you say so. To be frank, my Baneblades are more afraid of Predator Annihilators than Falcons, even if the Falcon gets the army trait of re-rolling charge distances.
In fact, so are my Inquisition. And my SoB are more afraid of Predator Destructors than Falcons, eve if the Falcon gets said army trait.
I'm not sure it "puts it over the top" when compared to a Pred. I'm just not.
Though I do agree the base Predator could use a price drop; perhaps make it cost the same as a base Razorback? (unless they already do, then derp!)
In all fairness. All super heavies struggle in this eddition. With the exception of the shadowsword - none of them are problematic and most probably pay too many points for how easy they are to kill. The shadowsword is a big problem though.
Really? I've essentially stopped playing my superheavies in the local area because of how too-good they are - right now, building an Inquisition list that's trying to be as close to mono-inquisition as possible (though unlike some players I acknowledge that a completely mono-list is essentially impossible).
@senn I was a chaos player all my life and made the switch in 8th ed, so I understand your pain when marine players refuse to ally in things when they've been telling us to ally when CSM was hot garbage
Also, with the 3W infantry argument is quite limited.
It's 2 3W weapons for 100% chance vs 3W models, and 1 d6 weapon, for same chance as a LC (lower S and range, though).
The Pred gets 4 d6 shots.
So for the Falcon to be better, 2 3W weapons need to outperform 3 D6 weapons. Last I checked, 3x66% was the same as 2.
But if you look at *any* other wound level, the Lascannon is simply better. Sure, you might do 1 or 2 wounds to a tank. .But you do an EV of 3.5 wounds/hit (and can CP It). Also, you get an additional hit.
Assuming they're both in range, and the target isn't T8+, and they both moved - a lot of assumptions in the Pred's favor - it's 4x(1/2)(2/3)(d6) vs 2x(1/2)(2/3)(3) + 1x(1/2)(2/3)(d6). Maths outs to an EV of 14/3 vs 19/6. So a 28:19 disadvantage in firepower vs fairly-big targets. In the best case for the Falcon. About 3:2 in favor of the vehicle that costs 4:3 - or 50% more firepower for 33% more cost on the Pred. Factor in Attribute, and it seems quite fair.
The Falcon can upgrade to a Shuriken Cannon - which is basically half an Assault Cannon. And Assault Cannons are good. THe Pred can upgrade to Storm Bolter + 1-use missile. WHich is better is debateable.
sennacherib wrote: The Current argument might make SM players sound a little less entitled if it was reframed to address the sense that space elves are still getting the slightly OP treatment they have been for the last 2 codex. I would agree very much that I would like space elves to be more on an even playing field as everyone else in terms of internal game balance.
The current argument sounds like “they have something shinny and cool and we wants it.” Give us a bigger win button.
Pretty standard response from a marine hater actually. Marines point out obvious unbalance and get accused of wanting free wins. You are also in complete denial if you think marines have had a good codex since like 3rd eddition. It's been hands down one of the worst in every edition (if you actually look at it).
Wat?
No, absolutely false. They were a competitive and top end army in 4th (did you forget chapter traits, asscannon rending spam, and las/plas?). They were a competitive army in 5th that was only overshadowed by *other* marine books got even sillier toys. Marines did very solidly in 6th (certainly better consistently than Orks, Sisters, DE, IG, BA, Nids, DA, etc) and were heavily dominant throughout 7th with multiple different builds. No, they weren't Eldar where they get to be #1 almost *all* the time, but they weren't too far behind, and certainly were never reached the levels of awful some armies have, nor been out in the doghouse as other armies have. They have always been capable of competing at the high ends in some form and have never languished for years or multiple editions at the bottom tournament tables.
The claim that Marines havent had a good codex since 3rd, or that they were one of the worst throughout these editions, is pure fantasy based on nothing to be found in reality. They certainly have faced the challenges armies such as Orks, DE, IG, Tyranids, or Sisters have in the competitive realm over many editions.
What's more, Marines have consistently had one of the most expansive, detailed, and well supported books, rulesets and model lines, and have actually gotten a codex in every single edition, unlike many other armies.
A pulse laser kills a 3 wound model 100% of the time with a failed save. Where as a las cannon kills a 3 wound model with a failed save only 66% of the time. IT IS BETTER. THIS IS FACT.
A Lascannon has a higher strength than a Pulse Laser, meaning it can wound T8 models on a 3+. A Lascannon averages 3.5 wounds, which is re-rollable with a command point, while a Pulse Laser maxes out at 3. A Predator has not one, not two, but access to FOUR Lascannons, while a Falcon can only have ONE Pulse Laser. FOUR IS BETTER THAN ONE. THIS IS FACT.
*All Pulse Laser Stats based off Index, I don't have Codex.
Poor Marines. They don’t have any tools to get the job done. Seriously, your argument would be way more valid if you were arguing that eldar needed to be nerfed a bit instead of railing for better rules for yourselves. That just comes off as needy.
Insectum - the Pulse Lasers get 2 shots, and the Falcon can add a heavy weapon such as the Bright Lance (which is S8 36" range d6 damage - it's the CWE Lascannon, trading damage and range for Lance and being on Relentless platforms [neither of which are true anymore]).
Xenomancers wrote: Really? It would be pretty useful in a fight against a predator considering it has the fly keyword and the marine one doesn't. I have actually done this in game - with a serpent though - the reroll charge would make it even more effective.
If you say so. To be frank, my Baneblades are more afraid of Predator Annihilators than Falcons, even if the Falcon gets the army trait of re-rolling charge distances.
In fact, so are my Inquisition. And my SoB are more afraid of Predator Destructors than Falcons, eve if the Falcon gets said army trait.
I'm not sure it "puts it over the top" when compared to a Pred. I'm just not.
Though I do agree the base Predator could use a price drop; perhaps make it cost the same as a base Razorback? (unless they already do, then derp!)
In all fairness. All super heavies struggle in this eddition. With the exception of the shadowsword - none of them are problematic and most probably pay too many points for how easy they are to kill. The shadowsword is a big problem though.
Really? I've essentially stopped playing my superheavies in the local area because of how too-good they are - right now, building an Inquisition list that's trying to be as close to mono-inquisition as possible (though unlike some players I acknowledge that a completely mono-list is essentially impossible).
Well there is a difference between taking 3 and 1. 1 can be focused down in a single turn. 3 is overloading your opponent anti tank ability and making 50% of his firepower useless. Try just taking one and you might see what I mean.
Bharring wrote: Also, with the 3W infantry argument is quite limited.
It's 2 3W weapons for 100% chance vs 3W models, and 1 d6 weapon, for same chance as a LC (lower S and range, though).
The Pred gets 4 d6 shots.
So for the Falcon to be better, 2 3W weapons need to outperform 3 D6 weapons. Last I checked, 3x66% was the same as 2.
But if you look at *any* other wound level, the Lascannon is simply better. Sure, you might do 1 or 2 wounds to a tank. .But you do an EV of 3.5 wounds/hit (and can CP It). Also, you get an additional hit.
Assuming they're both in range, and the target isn't T8+, and they both moved - a lot of assumptions in the Pred's favor - it's 4x(1/2)(2/3)(d6) vs 2x(1/2)(2/3)(3) + 1x(1/2)(2/3)(d6). Maths outs to an EV of 14/3 vs 19/6. So a 28:19 disadvantage in firepower vs fairly-big targets. In the best case for the Falcon. About 3:2 in favor of the vehicle that costs 4:3 - or 50% more firepower for 33% more cost on the Pred. Factor in Attribute, and it seems quite fair.
The Falcon can upgrade to a Shuriken Cannon - which is basically half an Assault Cannon. And Assault Cannons are good. THe Pred can upgrade to Storm Bolter + 1-use missile. WHich is better is debateable.
A pulse laser kills a 3 wound model 100% of the time with a failed save. Where as a las cannon kills a 3 wound model with a failed save only 66% of the time. IT IS BETTER. THIS IS FACT.
A Lascannon has a higher strength than a Pulse Laser, meaning it can wound T8 models on a 3+. A Lascannon averages 3.5 wounds, which is re-rollable with a command point, while a Pulse Laser maxes out at 3. A Predator has not one, not two, but access to FOUR Lascannons, while a Falcon can only have ONE Pulse Laser. FOUR IS BETTER THAN ONE. THIS IS FACT.
*All Pulse Laser Stats based off Index, I don't have Codex.
The statement was refering to pulse lasers and shooting at 3 wound models. As a counter claim that las cannons were better against t8 targets....WOW. Context people. Are you really claiming that a lascannon is better at killing 3 wound models than a pulse laser? Because you automatically lose this argument because of math.
Poor Marines. They don’t have any tools to get the job done. Seriously, your argument would be way more valid if you were arguing that eldar needed to be nerfed a bit instead of railing for better rules for yourselves. That just comes off as needy.
I believe that the ideal way to do this would be for all the Craftworld/Legion/Chapters, etc... tactics to be like the Imperial Guard Regiment ones. With most of them having two buffs, one for Infantry/Cavalry and other for Vehicles. And no bonuses for Flyers or Superheavies. A squad of Guardians with -1 to hit is ok. A Wraithknight with it no. Even less a Flyer.
Quick reminder about Xenomancers perception of balance; XM actually, genuinely believes and has stated the 7th edition Marine codex was the single worst codex in the edition.
Xeno also just doubled down by stating they've had terrible codices since 3rd, which as every sane and rational person knows, is patently false.
Keep this in mind when debating about 'balance'. Literally one of the strongest codices in 7th is considered the worst by this poster.
Xenomancers wrote: Really? It would be pretty useful in a fight against a predator considering it has the fly keyword and the marine one doesn't. I have actually done this in game - with a serpent though - the reroll charge would make it even more effective.
If you say so. To be frank, my Baneblades are more afraid of Predator Annihilators than Falcons, even if the Falcon gets the army trait of re-rolling charge distances.
In fact, so are my Inquisition. And my SoB are more afraid of Predator Destructors than Falcons, eve if the Falcon gets said army trait.
I'm not sure it "puts it over the top" when compared to a Pred. I'm just not.
Though I do agree the base Predator could use a price drop; perhaps make it cost the same as a base Razorback? (unless they already do, then derp!)
In all fairness. All super heavies struggle in this eddition. With the exception of the shadowsword - none of them are problematic and most probably pay too many points for how easy they are to kill. The shadowsword is a big problem though.
Really? I've essentially stopped playing my superheavies in the local area because of how too-good they are - right now, building an Inquisition list that's trying to be as close to mono-inquisition as possible (though unlike some players I acknowledge that a completely mono-list is essentially impossible).
Well there is a difference between taking 3 and 1. 1 can be focused down in a single turn. 3 is overloading your opponent anti tank ability and making 50% of his firepower useless. Try just taking one and you might see what I mean.
I do see what you mean - the reason I started taking 3 is taking 1 is essentially just asking for it to get alpha-struck, which means if I actually want to play with the superheavy, instead of seeing it sit on the table for one enemy movement phase and a portion of the enemy shooting phase, I'd better bring more!
Blacksails wrote: Quick reminder about Xenomancers perception of balance; XM actually, genuinely believes and has stated the 7th edition Marine codex was the single worst codex in the edition.
Xeno also just doubled down by stating they've had terrible codices since 3rd, which as every sane and rational person knows, is patently false.
Keep this in mind when debating about 'balance'. Literally one of the strongest codices in 7th is considered the worst by this poster.
Is very hard to try to argument about the real problems that Space Marines have (Every Codex has them. Or are anyone saying that GW are perfect at ruleswritting? ), when you are dumped in the same group as that kind of unreasonable and hyperbolic people
They don't autolose that argument. Depends on context. One pulse laser + 1 Brightlance vs 4 Lascannons is the context. Sure, the Pulse Laser outperforms 2 LasCannons in a contrived example, but the package does not outperform 4 Lascannons, even with the contrived example.
For every 3W unit out there, there's a T8+ unit. And scores of 4W+ units. And even more 2-or-less-W units. And what about the 3W units with FnP of some sort?
THere is a technically correct statement of 1 Pulse Laser outperforming 2 LasCannons vs 3W no-FNP T7-or-less units at the same rate to hit, but that is an extremely specific case. If that were the context, you'd be technically correct. But even in the 3W argument, the context was Falcon vs Pred - 3 shots vs 4.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Slayer,
THe math I showed was the quad-Las Pred vs the BL Falcon, not the Autocannon. I've seen a *LOT* more of those than Autocannon Preds.
The math is quite clear that, even against 3W no-FNP T7-or-less units in the Falcon's best case, the Pred still outkills it, per model and per point.
A pulse laser kills a 3 wound model 100% of the time with a failed save. Where as a las cannon kills a 3 wound model with a failed save only 66% of the time. IT IS BETTER. THIS IS FACT.
A Lascannon has a higher strength than a Pulse Laser, meaning it can wound T8 models on a 3+. A Lascannon averages 3.5 wounds, which is re-rollable with a command point, while a Pulse Laser maxes out at 3. A Predator has not one, not two, but access to FOUR Lascannons, while a Falcon can only have ONE Pulse Laser. FOUR IS BETTER THAN ONE. THIS IS FACT.
*All Pulse Laser Stats based off Index, I don't have Codex.
The statement was refering to pulse lasers and shooting at 3 wound models. As a counter claim that las cannons were better against t8 targets....WOW. Context people. Are you really claiming that a lascannon is better at killing 3 wound models than a pulse laser? Because you automatically lose this argument because of math.
Well you are talking about the effectiveness of shooting pulse lasers at 3w models vs. lascannons... I agree with you the pulse laser wins but then ask yourself this:
-What about models with 2w? 4w? and more?
-What about toughness? saves? You ignored everything but wounds
-What model besides oblits have 3w, that you see in comp?
-What about the autocannon and lascannon sponson pred? Doesnt it beat the falcon?
-Why are you shooting 3w models with lascannons when its meant to shoot at bigger things? Leave that to your plasma and ass-cannons
Blacksails wrote: Quick reminder about Xenomancers perception of balance; XM actually, genuinely believes and has stated the 7th edition Marine codex was the single worst codex in the edition.
Xeno also just doubled down by stating they've had terrible codices since 3rd, which as every sane and rational person knows, is patently false.
Keep this in mind when debating about 'balance'. Literally one of the strongest codices in 7th is considered the worst by this poster.
Is very hard to try to argument about the real problems that Space Marines have (Every Codex has them. Or are anyone saying that GW are perfect at ruleswritting? ), when you are dumped in the same group as that kind of unreasonable and hyperbolic people
Most people are happy to have this discussion with most other marine players. I don't dismiss groups of people, I just dismiss the ramblings of those who demonstrate a lack of understanding on the topic.
There's a good argument to be made that a good chunk of the Marine book could use some help so that top tables aren't dependent on a handful of units - but this is the same issue that plagues most other codices anyways. It doesn't help any when the title of the thread is as ridiculous as this one. If someone had a thread like, say, Vindicators could use Grinding Advance, well that's a sensible buff and something worth discussing.
If the Chapter Approved rumours are true, it seems like most of the Primaris line will get a decent buff.
Bharring wrote: @Galas,
I know what you mean. I still get some flakk for defending DAs in 6th and 7th becasue Serpents and Spiders and Scatbikes, Oh My.
sennacherib wrote: The Current argument might make SM players sound a little less entitled if it was reframed to address the sense that space elves are still getting the slightly OP treatment they have been for the last 2 codex. I would agree very much that I would like space elves to be more on an even playing field as everyone else in terms of internal game balance.
The current argument sounds like “they have something shinny and cool and we wants it.” Give us a bigger win button.
Pretty standard response from a marine hater actually. Marines point out obvious unbalance and get accused of wanting free wins. You are also in complete denial if you think marines have had a good codex since like 3rd eddition. It's been hands down one of the worst in every edition (if you actually look at it). Then in 7th when they had a brief time in the sun because they were the first army to get a 7.5 codex and formations. Then they settled out real quickly. Once heretic rules came out and demonic incursion. Those were the real OP armies of 7th. OH AND WHAT DO YOU KNOW - they are back at it again. Also - do you remember soulburst? How do you think ynnari panned out against gladius? Most the people I knew stopped playing once ynnari came out because it was literally unbeatable unless you were playing daemons.
Xenomancers wrote: daemon princes (which is better than ;literally every unit in the space marine codex)
ITT: Daemon Princes "literally better" than Guilliman.
ITT Daemon princes are better than guilliman and the SM codex has been Hands down the worst IN EVERY EDITION ROFL.
Man dude. You are delusional. Funny but delusional.
Blacksails wrote: Quick reminder about Xenomancers perception of balance; XM actually, genuinely believes and has stated the 7th edition Marine codex was the single worst codex in the edition.
Xeno also just doubled down by stating they've had terrible codices since 3rd, which as every sane and rational person knows, is patently false.
Keep this in mind when debating about 'balance'. Literally one of the strongest codices in 7th is considered the worst by this poster.
Well it was...if we are talking about mono faction - which you people seem to not understand what that is. When you say a codex is bad - you are referring to is mono faction ability. Not it's ability to mix and match with allies. You also have to keep in context of time. When you look back on an eddition - you don't look at it chronologically. You look at it in it's final form. Space marine armies in 7th were exceptionally trash - when compared to the later 7th eddition army rules. Heratics- daemons - ynnari - it might have been a short lived final version of the game but that is what I am referring to.
Unless monofaction means Rhinos and Tac Marines are not in the same faction, SM monofaction out performed most monofactions - even most soup factions - in 7E.
Gladius was winning tournies without soup. Grav Cents backed by pure SM was winning tournies. Scout spam was single faction. SM didn't just regularly place well monofaction. It did so with many different builds in 7E.
Sure, ScatBikes were better. Demons, too, sometimes. But that still leaves you top 3.
So many other armies have seen what Trash really was. Even CWE did for over half of 6th before GW fixed the game with their codex.
sennacherib wrote: The Current argument might make SM players sound a little less entitled if it was reframed to address the sense that space elves are still getting the slightly OP treatment they have been for the last 2 codex. I would agree very much that I would like space elves to be more on an even playing field as everyone else in terms of internal game balance.
The current argument sounds like “they have something shinny and cool and we wants it.” Give us a bigger win button.
Pretty standard response from a marine hater actually. Marines point out obvious unbalance and get accused of wanting free wins. You are also in complete denial if you think marines have had a good codex since like 3rd eddition. It's been hands down one of the worst in every edition (if you actually look at it). Then in 7th when they had a brief time in the sun because they were the first army to get a 7.5 codex and formations. Then they settled out real quickly. Once heretic rules came out and demonic incursion. Those were the real OP armies of 7th. OH AND WHAT DO YOU KNOW - they are back at it again. Also - do you remember soulburst? How do you think ynnari panned out against gladius? Most the people I knew stopped playing once ynnari came out because it was literally unbeatable unless you were playing daemons.
Xenomancers wrote: daemon princes (which is better than ;literally every unit in the space marine codex)
ITT: Daemon Princes "literally better" than Guilliman.
ITT Daemon princes are better than guilliman and the SM codex has been Hands down the worst IN EVERY EDITION ROFL.
Man dude. You are delusional. Funny but delusional.
Since you are going back in this thread looking for ways to discredit me - you might want to notice that I retracted that statement to not include Guilliman. However - I think you'll see a lot more daemon princes than guilliman showing up at final tables in recent and future tournaments than you will guilliman. So maybe it's wasn't that crazy of a statement after all.
Blacksails wrote: Quick reminder about Xenomancers perception of balance; XM actually, genuinely believes and has stated the 7th edition Marine codex was the single worst codex in the edition.
Xeno also just doubled down by stating they've had terrible codices since 3rd, which as every sane and rational person knows, is patently false.
Keep this in mind when debating about 'balance'. Literally one of the strongest codices in 7th is considered the worst by this poster.
Well it was...if we are talking about mono faction - which you people seem to not understand what that is. When you say a codex is bad - you are referring to is mono faction ability. Not it's ability to mix and match with allies. You also have to keep in context of time. When you look back on an eddition - you don't look at it chronologically. You look at it in it's final form. Space marine armies in 7th were exceptionally trash - when compared to the later 7th eddition army rules. Heratics- daemons - ynnari - it might have been a short lived final version of the game but that is what I am referring to.
This is some extreme revisionism and deliberate ignorance. 7th was the realm of the Gladius, a distinctly mono-Marine detachment and army. There were at least half a dozen factions that were legitimate trash tier - Orks notably were awful, who benefited neither from a powerful mega formation, nor from any other smaller formations or strong individual units. Marines had a half a dozen strong support formations and an incredibly strong, edition defining mega formation in the Gladius. Marines were consistently topping tournaments throughout the edition.
Your claim they were trash is laughable and the stuff of fiction.
Again, you seem to have a poor understanding of all of this if you seriously and honestly think marines have been trash tier for several codices. This really does not lend any credibility to your arguments about how strong or weak marines are if you can't identify when they were among the top 3 in an edition that wasn't even a year ago.
Blacksails wrote: Quick reminder about Xenomancers perception of balance; XM actually, genuinely believes and has stated the 7th edition Marine codex was the single worst codex in the edition.
Xeno also just doubled down by stating they've had terrible codices since 3rd, which as every sane and rational person knows, is patently false.
Keep this in mind when debating about 'balance'. Literally one of the strongest codices in 7th is considered the worst by this poster.
Well it was...if we are talking about mono faction - which you people seem to not understand what that is. When you say a codex is bad - you are referring to is mono faction ability. Not it's ability to mix and match with allies. You also have to keep in context of time. When you look back on an eddition - you don't look at it chronologically. You look at it in it's final form. Space marine armies in 7th were exceptionally trash - when compared to the later 7th eddition army rules. Heratics- daemons - ynnari - it might have been a short lived final version of the game but that is what I am referring to.
OK, I dont even know...You have drifted into fairy tale land where GW is good at rules and sisters are the poster girls of the 40k universe. Let me try to understand what you just said...
1. You dont look at the edition as a whole, but only at the very end? So by that same logic...Chaos was busted in 7th because of what they got at the end? Not what they had through the ENITRE edition
2. And by that same logic...white scars battle company and Iron hands deathstar demi company (which were monobuild) werent busted because they didnt do well in tournies?
3. and finally by using your logic, if you think the space marine codex is bad doesnt that make you a hypocrite? Cause you only measure how good a codex is at the end of the edition, and we are at the beginning of ours?
Bharring wrote: Unless monofaction means Rhinos and Tac Marines are not in the same faction, SM monofaction out performed most monofactions - even most soup factions - in 7E.
Gladius was winning tournies without soup. Grav Cents backed by pure SM was winning tournies. Scout spam was single faction. SM didn't just regularly place well monofaction. It did so with many different builds in 7E.
Sure, ScatBikes were better. Demons, too, sometimes. But that still leaves you top 3.
So many other armies have seen what Trash really was. Even CWE did for over half of 6th before GW fixed the game with their codex.
Again you are thinking chronologically and not final form. Lots of armies didn't even get 7.5 codex updates. They are naturally excluded from the discussion. Just as armies that don't have a codex are not included in this one.
sennacherib wrote: The Current argument might make SM players sound a little less entitled if it was reframed to address the sense that space elves are still getting the slightly OP treatment they have been for the last 2 codex. I would agree very much that I would like space elves to be more on an even playing field as everyone else in terms of internal game balance.
The current argument sounds like “they have something shinny and cool and we wants it.” Give us a bigger win button.
Pretty standard response from a marine hater actually. Marines point out obvious unbalance and get accused of wanting free wins. You are also in complete denial if you think marines have had a good codex since like 3rd eddition. It's been hands down one of the worst in every edition (if you actually look at it). Then in 7th when they had a brief time in the sun because they were the first army to get a 7.5 codex and formations. Then they settled out real quickly. Once heretic rules came out and demonic incursion. Those were the real OP armies of 7th. OH AND WHAT DO YOU KNOW - they are back at it again. Also - do you remember soulburst? How do you think ynnari panned out against gladius? Most the people I knew stopped playing once ynnari came out because it was literally unbeatable unless you were playing daemons.
Xenomancers wrote: daemon princes (which is better than ;literally every unit in the space marine codex)
ITT: Daemon Princes "literally better" than Guilliman.
ITT Daemon princes are better than guilliman and the SM codex has been Hands down the worst IN EVERY EDITION ROFL.
Man dude. You are delusional. Funny but delusional.
Since you are going back in this thread looking for ways to discredit me - you might want to notice that I retracted that statement to not include Guilliman. However - I think you'll see a lot more daemon princes than guilliman showing up at final tables in recent and future tournaments than you will guilliman. So maybe it's wasn't that crazy of a statement after all.
Do you even play marines. Jk.
Seriously, if this is really how you feel maybe you should try a different army. I mean if you’ve been struggling with poor little bottom tier space marines since 3rd edition, you should probably try something better. Like ad mech.
Bharring wrote: Unless monofaction means Rhinos and Tac Marines are not in the same faction, SM monofaction out performed most monofactions - even most soup factions - in 7E.
Gladius was winning tournies without soup. Grav Cents backed by pure SM was winning tournies. Scout spam was single faction. SM didn't just regularly place well monofaction. It did so with many different builds in 7E.
Sure, ScatBikes were better. Demons, too, sometimes. But that still leaves you top 3.
So many other armies have seen what Trash really was. Even CWE did for over half of 6th before GW fixed the game with their codex.
Again you are thinking chronologically and not final form. Lots of armies didn't even get 7.5 codex updates. They are naturally excluded from the discussion. Just as armies that don't have a codex are not included in this one.
Like CSM. They got no 7.5 bump. But why are they naturally excluded from discussion. If they played in 7th then they played in 7th. Marines was so much better than CSM it was ridiculous.
Blacksails wrote: Quick reminder about Xenomancers perception of balance; XM actually, genuinely believes and has stated the 7th edition Marine codex was the single worst codex in the edition.
Xeno also just doubled down by stating they've had terrible codices since 3rd, which as every sane and rational person knows, is patently false.
Keep this in mind when debating about 'balance'. Literally one of the strongest codices in 7th is considered the worst by this poster.
Well it was...if we are talking about mono faction - which you people seem to not understand what that is. When you say a codex is bad - you are referring to is mono faction ability. Not it's ability to mix and match with allies. You also have to keep in context of time. When you look back on an eddition - you don't look at it chronologically. You look at it in it's final form. Space marine armies in 7th were exceptionally trash - when compared to the later 7th eddition army rules. Heratics- daemons - ynnari - it might have been a short lived final version of the game but that is what I am referring to.
This is some extreme revisionism and deliberate ignorance. 7th was the realm of the Gladius, a distinctly mono-Marine detachment and army. There were at least half a dozen factions that were legitimate trash tier - Orks notably were awful, who benefited neither from a powerful mega formation, nor from any other smaller formations or strong individual units. Marines had a half a dozen strong support formations and an incredibly strong, edition defining mega formation in the Gladius. Marines were consistently topping tournaments throughout the edition.
Your claim they were trash is laughable and the stuff of fiction.
Again, you seem to have a poor understanding of all of this if you seriously and honestly think marines have been trash tier for several codices. This really does not lend any credibility to your arguments about how strong or weak marines are if you can't identify when they were among the top 3 in an edition that wasn't even a year ago.
How can you compare armies that didn't get 7.5 codex codex- with decurian formations against armies that never got those updates? Why would you? It's not genuine. There is a reason they called it 7.5 - because it was a different game. GW pulled the plug on it and started 8th and here we are.
Bharring wrote: Insectum - the Pulse Lasers get 2 shots, and the Falcon can add a heavy weapon such as the Bright Lance (which is S8 36" range d6 damage - it's the CWE Lascannon, trading damage and range for Lance and being on Relentless platforms [neither of which are true anymore]).
Same stats between Index and Codex.
(Doesn't refute your argument, though.)
Oh for sure, that's all true. And thanks for the stat confirmation.
But to continue with the unfortunate theme: FOUR IS STILL A BIGGER NUMBER THAN THREE
Marines have been up and down. I think many posters on here severely overrate their 5th ed incarnation, but that leaves 4th and 6th as decent showings.
Xenomancers wrote: How can you compare armies that didn't get 7.5 codex codex- with decurian formations against armies that never got those updates? Why would you? It's not genuine.
In very typical fashion, I notice you're shifting goalposts and ignoring every point you can't shift or make an excuse for.
I can compare any faction in the edition. That's the idea here. The player created, completely arbitrary 7.5 only reinforces the point that marines got an excellent, powerful codex and other factions didn't. Its as genuine as any other comparison.
The point sitll remains that no matter how you try and shift the goal posts, Marines were a very, very powerful faction in the top 3 that consistently won tournaments with a variety of mono faction builds.
If you're going to claim that marines had the worst codex, you can't them shift the goal post to "except for the factions that didn't get a book after a certain period, and ignoring everything except for the last month of the edition" and somehow claim you're right. Everyone reading this thread sees through the nonsense, and the more you claim it, the more people will call you out on it and think less of your ability to see and identify balance and power among factions.
If you define '7.5' chonologically, there are obvious counterexamples, and it's a huge selection bias.
If you define '7.5' conceptually, it's tautalogical: the armies that got OP codecies are OP.
In either case, SM came out on top of everything but CWE and Chaos, came out at on the same level as those two, and Chaos was frequently Soup, which you discount anyways.
In none of those aspects does the argument appear to be true, and in each of those, even if it were, the constraints would have made the argument pointless. Even if it were the bottom of the top ~5 specific books out of ~20 (which is clearly not true), it'd still put you near the top. Yet they were in the top 3 books of the edition.
Remember that time that space marines had the only 7.5 codex and were spanking people with gladius. Marines were so OP then. Then Ynnari came out and could chain reaction kill the entire army of free razor backs in 2 turns and the tables turned.
Somehow this is a flawed reasoning to only think about the end result rather than before then before other armies reached their peak strength.
A pulse laser kills a 3 wound model 100% of the time with a failed save. Where as a las cannon kills a 3 wound model with a failed save only 66% of the time. IT IS BETTER. THIS IS FACT.
A Lascannon has a higher strength than a Pulse Laser, meaning it can wound T8 models on a 3+. A Lascannon averages 3.5 wounds, which is re-rollable with a command point, while a Pulse Laser maxes out at 3. A Predator has not one, not two, but access to FOUR Lascannons, while a Falcon can only have ONE Pulse Laser. FOUR IS BETTER THAN ONE. THIS IS FACT.
*All Pulse Laser Stats based off Index, I don't have Codex.
The statement was refering to pulse lasers and shooting at 3 wound models. As a counter claim that las cannons were better against t8 targets....WOW. Context people. Are you really claiming that a lascannon is better at killing 3 wound models than a pulse laser? Because you automatically lose this argument because of math.
Context Xeno, context. Before you razored it down to the highly specialized 3W models, you guys were comparing tanks.
And arguably, the Predator can be better against 3 wound models in the end.
Xenomancers wrote: Remember that time that space marines had the only 7.5 codex and were spanking people with gladius. Marines were so OP then. Then Ynnari came out and could chain reaction kill the entire army of free razor backs in 2 turns and the tables turned.
Somehow this is a flawed reasoning to only think about the end result rather than before then before other armies reached their peak strength.
Reminder for you and everyone: You claimed literally that Marines had the single worst codex of 7th.
Marines were a top 3 book, the entire way through the edition.
You are blatantly, utterly, and completely incorrect on every level of everything you've claimed.
Xenomancers wrote: How can you compare armies that didn't get 7.5 codex codex- with decurian formations against armies that never got those updates? Why would you? It's not genuine.
In very typical fashion, I notice you're shifting goalposts and ignoring every point you can't shift or make an excuse for.
I can compare any faction in the edition. That's the idea here. The player created, completely arbitrary 7.5 only reinforces the point that marines got an excellent, powerful codex and other factions didn't. Its as genuine as any other comparison.
The point sitll remains that no matter how you try and shift the goal posts, Marines were a very, very powerful faction in the top 3 that consistently won tournaments with a variety of mono faction builds.
If you're going to claim that marines had the worst codex, you can't them shift the goal post to "except for the factions that didn't get a book after a certain period, and ignoring everything except for the last month of the edition" and somehow claim you're right. Everyone reading this thread sees through the nonsense, and the more you claim it, the more people will call you out on it and think less of your ability to see and identify balance and power among factions.
I've shifted the goal post to the relevant topic. Obviously space marines were better than armies that didn't get a 7.5 codex. I just assume when talking to intelligent people that my statements should only be taken in the context of what is relevant. If you want to talk about 7th edition before formations. My statement stands - space marines were the worst mono faction in the game.
I prefer to think of every incarnation of marines in these terms: "How do they overcome the tactical marine THIS edition?"
Tactical marines are NOT cost effective. Some posters disagree, but I think this is largely a empirically true statement due to minimizing of this unit over the editions.
Consequently, I see marines as a whole built on a very shaky foundation. Sometimes, GW gives marines bling to stabilize the house like 7th. Other times, like 5th, marines don't get much to help with the problem of being a marine and things don't go so well.
What I'll say about the current marine dex is that I think it will be eclipsed by every xeno codex because no xeno codex is burdened by the tactical marine problem.
Xenomancers wrote: How can you compare armies that didn't get 7.5 codex codex- with decurian formations against armies that never got those updates? Why would you? It's not genuine.
In very typical fashion, I notice you're shifting goalposts and ignoring every point you can't shift or make an excuse for.
I can compare any faction in the edition. That's the idea here. The player created, completely arbitrary 7.5 only reinforces the point that marines got an excellent, powerful codex and other factions didn't. Its as genuine as any other comparison.
The point sitll remains that no matter how you try and shift the goal posts, Marines were a very, very powerful faction in the top 3 that consistently won tournaments with a variety of mono faction builds.
If you're going to claim that marines had the worst codex, you can't them shift the goal post to "except for the factions that didn't get a book after a certain period, and ignoring everything except for the last month of the edition" and somehow claim you're right. Everyone reading this thread sees through the nonsense, and the more you claim it, the more people will call you out on it and think less of your ability to see and identify balance and power among factions.
I've shifted the goal post to the relevant topic. Obviously space marines were better than armies that didn't get a 7.5 codex. I just assume when talking to intelligent people that my statements should only be taken in the context of what is relevant. If you want to talk about 7th edition before formations. My statement stands - space marines were the worst mono faction in the game.
Yep. Poor space marines. Just because eldar could beat you that makes you the worst army.
So this is how your perceived ranking of armies goes.
Martel732 wrote: I prefer to think of every incarnation of marines in these terms: "How do they overcome the tactical marine THIS edition?"
Tactical marines are NOT cost effective. Some posters disagree, but I think this is largely a empirically true statement due to minimizing of this unit over the editions.
Consequently, I see marines as a whole built on a very shaky foundation. Sometimes, GW gives marines bling to stabilize the house like 7th. Other times, like 5th, marines don't get much to help with the problem of being a marine and things don't go so well.
What I'll say about the current marine dex is that I think it will be eclipsed by every xeno codex because no xeno codex is burdened by the tactical marine problem.
How, you don't even have to take them.
Just to make clear the tone of my statement. "Elaborate" Because I think I know what youre talking about.
The first big 7E tourny was won by SM monobuild ObSec spam. SM lists were one of the armies to beat. It wasn't the only top dex then, but it was certainly one of the best. In 7E before formations, SM were better than, for example:
-Necrons (one of the first formations)
-Orkz (one of the last reasonable 7E codecies)
-IG -DE -Harlies
-CSM -Nids
-BA -DA -SW -GK
Just to name a few.
The context of worst faction at any point is all factions, not "the best factions". Arguing the-worst-of-the-best is one of the least likely intetional discussions.
No, you shifted them you shown to be wrong in a pitiful attempt to salvage some shred of your argument. It wasn't very effective.
Obviously space marines were better than armies that didn't get a 7.5 codex.
And better than most armies with a 7.5 codex. Again, top 3 book. That means there were only 2 possible books better than marines.
I just assume when talking to intelligent people that my statements should only be taken in the context of what is relevant.
No, you were shown to be wrong when your statements were taken at face value because we assumed you were intelligent to write what you meant. And even when you tried to 'clarify', it was still shown to be blatantly false.
If you want to talk about 7th edition before formations.
You said 7th edition. No caveats. I simply followed suit. If anything, making the distinction further reinforces that not only were marines not the worst, they were one of the best.
My statement stands - space marines were the worst mono faction in the game.
Based on? Your imagination? Fiction? There is literally zero supporting evidence for this and tons that run exactly counter.
You can think what you like, but know that not only is it incorrect, it undermines your credibility when making any other claims about how terrible marines are or any other balance concerns.
THe focus on previous was because of the argument "Of course they're worst, they've always been". WE should probably not go too far down that road.
At any rate, I think it's clear LasPred vs Falcon is yet another piece of evidence purported to show SM inferiority that did nothing of the sort. If anything, it showed the Falcon needs the Attribute to compete.
Martel732 wrote: I prefer to think of every incarnation of marines in these terms: "How do they overcome the tactical marine THIS edition?"
Tactical marines are NOT cost effective. Some posters disagree, but I think this is largely a empirically true statement due to minimizing of this unit over the editions.
Consequently, I see marines as a whole built on a very shaky foundation. Sometimes, GW gives marines bling to stabilize the house like 7th. Other times, like 5th, marines don't get much to help with the problem of being a marine and things don't go so well.
What I'll say about the current marine dex is that I think it will be eclipsed by every xeno codex because no xeno codex is burdened by the tactical marine problem.
You mean like every infantry in your army pays a high price for defensive stats that are largely irrelevant? Yeah - it's a pretty big hurdle to overcome.
Martel732 wrote: I prefer to think of every incarnation of marines in these terms: "How do they overcome the tactical marine THIS edition?"
Tactical marines are NOT cost effective. Some posters disagree, but I think this is largely a empirically true statement due to minimizing of this unit over the editions.
Consequently, I see marines as a whole built on a very shaky foundation. Sometimes, GW gives marines bling to stabilize the house like 7th. Other times, like 5th, marines don't get much to help with the problem of being a marine and things don't go so well.
What I'll say about the current marine dex is that I think it will be eclipsed by every xeno codex because no xeno codex is burdened by the tactical marine problem.
How, you don't even have to take them.
Just to make clear the tone of my statement. "Elaborate" Because I think I know what youre talking about.
The problems of the tac marine trickle down to many marine units. Paying for stats they can't use. Paying for gear they can't use. In previous editions, common, cheap weapons that ignored the toughness, common weapons that ignored their armor, etc. The game has ALWAYS rewarded specialists, EXCEPT in cases like 5th ed GK, who were massively undercosted.
Again, BA have done a maginificent job of showing how good the basis of marines truly is: not good.BA have been SM without the required bling for two editions, have been the list that Xeno is describing.
Bharring wrote: I don't know it's that high a price when you've got a 5-man in cover with a Lascannon.
Their damage output is in the same league per point as plenty of troops with worse durability, if you give them a special/heavy and/or combi.
Not on a per point basis after equipment. The equipment is killer. 5 man tac squads with a lascannon are a joke against Eldar and Nids now. Too much bling bling on the Xenos.
Xenomancers wrote: Lets focus on 8th though guys. There is no point in arguing about past editions anyways.
You mean the same edition you claimed Marines were worse off than GK and Ad Mech?
I'm sure your analysis of the 8th power levels is as spot on as your analysis of 7th.
GK are better than marines IMO. I have both armies - GK are really my main army. They are higher skill cap for sure. Standing around guilliman and shooting people with assault cannons is easy mode. With GK you have almost unlimited mobility - a skilled player can make it work better. AD mech IDK. They are pretty good against marines and GK but will get destroyed by nid/eldar than can just shove units into your lines with no real counter.
Xenomancers wrote: Lets focus on 8th though guys. There is no point in arguing about past editions anyways.
You mean the same edition you claimed Marines were worse off than GK and Ad Mech?
I'm sure your analysis of the 8th power levels is as spot on as your analysis of 7th.
GK are better than marines IMO. I have both armies - GK are really my main army. They are higher skill cap for sure. Standing around guilliman and shooting people with assault cannons is easy mode. With GK you have almost unlimited mobility - a skilled player can make it work better. AD mech IDK. They are pretty good against marines and GK but will get destroyed by nid/eldar than can just shove units into your lines with no real counter.
No they don't, imo. They give up too many points too quickly.
The Assault Cannon ignores neither their toughness nor their armor. The Reaper Launcher negates their T advantage, but not their armor advantage. THe Lasgun ignores neither their armor nor their toughness.
If you field them as IG, you're ignoring their advantages. From what I've seen, most people find a use for them.
Xenomancers wrote: Lets focus on 8th though guys. There is no point in arguing about past editions anyways.
You mean the same edition you claimed Marines were worse off than GK and Ad Mech?
I'm sure your analysis of the 8th power levels is as spot on as your analysis of 7th.
GK are better than marines IMO. I have both armies - GK are really my main army. They are higher skill cap for sure. Standing around guilliman and shooting people with assault cannons is easy mode. With GK you have almost unlimited mobility - a skilled player can make it work better. AD mech IDK. They are pretty good against marines and GK but will get destroyed by nid/eldar than can just shove units into your lines with no real counter.
Tournament data shows that Marines are dramatically outperforming GK. Skill isn't a good argument because we tend to assume the top table at tournaments will have skilled players.
GK and Ad Mech have vastly lower tournament standings and results. Your own anecdotal evidence doesn't count for much.
Look.
You have the largest faction in the game. Imperial soup includes 300+ unique entries covering the gamut of possible buffs, special rules and wargear. This gives your faction the greatest tactical flexibility.
Let’s assume you REFUSE to play imperial soup and then GW buffs space marines just for you becuase your argument is so poignant. Mono faction SM need a buff to be better. Ok.
Then everyone else who Utilises imperial soup gets a massive buff. Hmmmm.
Bharring wrote: The Assault Cannon ignores neither their toughness nor their armor. The Reaper Launcher negates their T advantage, but not their armor advantage. THe Lasgun ignores neither their armor nor their toughness.
If you field them as IG, you're ignoring their advantages. From what I've seen, most people find a use for them.
From what I've seen, people avoid them whenever possible. Old tournament lists support this. The BA wardex supports this. It was an meq codex that didn't have to take tacs. How many tacs were seen in 5th ed BA lists? Zero,because they could.
sennacherib wrote: Look.
You have the largest faction in the game. Imperial soup includes 300+ unique entries covering the gamut of possible buffs, special rules and wargear. This gives your faction the greatest tactical flexibility.
Let’s assume you REFUSE to play imperial soup and then GW buffs space marines just for you becuase your argument is so poignant. Mono faction SM need a buff to be better. Ok.
Then everyone else who Utilises imperial soup gets a massive buff. Hmmmm.
For what its worth, I've long been a proponent of dramatically overhauling allies. I'd much prefer the game go back to mono-faction as the norm, with some minor sub factions being granted limited ability to ally with specified factions.
Imperial soup wouldn't matter if units were costed correctly to being with. It matters a lot right now because IG are better at 8th than other Imperials.
sennacherib wrote: Look.
You have the largest faction in the game. Imperial soup includes 300+ unique entries covering the gamut of possible buffs, special rules and wargear. This gives your faction the greatest tactical flexibility.
Let’s assume you REFUSE to play imperial soup and then GW buffs space marines just for you becuase your argument is so poignant. Mono faction SM need a buff to be better. Ok.
Then everyone else who Utilises imperial soup gets a massive buff. Hmmmm.
For what its worth, I've long been a proponent of dramatically overhauling allies. I'd much prefer the game go back to mono-faction as the norm, with some minor sub factions being granted limited ability to ally with specified factions.
I’m with you to some extent. Nids And Orks get no allies. Half of the codex out there are imperials. I do like being able to ally daemons into my army in death Guard and CSM though. Still, if you rolled all of chaos into one dex it would still provide less options than just the SM codex.
Bu I digress. We have Daemon princes and those are better than guilliman.
Blacksails wrote: Quick reminder about Xenomancers perception of balance; XM actually, genuinely believes and has stated the 7th edition Marine codex was the single worst codex in the edition.
Xeno also just doubled down by stating they've had terrible codices since 3rd, which as every sane and rational person knows, is patently false.
Keep this in mind when debating about 'balance'. Literally one of the strongest codices in 7th is considered the worst by this poster.
It was certainly the worst written. That had nothing to do with its performance though.
Forgot about them. Those are an amazing ally. I guess orks should be able to ally with space marines so thethat can sit at the bottom of the pile together.
Blacksails wrote: For what its worth, I've long been a proponent of dramatically overhauling allies. I'd much prefer the game go back to mono-faction as the norm, with some minor sub factions being granted limited ability to ally with specified factions.
It was certainly easier to find a balance with mono-factions. Unfortunately, due to the cynical exigencies of modern capitalist systems, this will not happen, allies sells models and books. To be completely honest I'd rather they continue the slow grind of tackling the balancing complexities of the allies system anyways, I think it makes the game more interesting.
Black Templars (as an example) don't have their own codex because quite frankly, the model catalog doesn't support it currently, they don't have a Baal Predator or a Dark Angel Fortress, etc. They use all the same models as pretty much every other SM Chapter.
Blacksails wrote: Quick reminder about Xenomancers perception of balance; XM actually, genuinely believes and has stated the 7th edition Marine codex was the single worst codex in the edition.
Xeno also just doubled down by stating they've had terrible codices since 3rd, which as every sane and rational person knows, is patently false.
Keep this in mind when debating about 'balance'. Literally one of the strongest codices in 7th is considered the worst by this poster.
It was certainly the worst written. That had nothing to do with its performance though.
He actually said that spade marines have been”hands down one of the worst in every edition.” Just saying.
Blacksails wrote: For what its worth, I've long been a proponent of dramatically overhauling allies. I'd much prefer the game go back to mono-faction as the norm, with some minor sub factions being granted limited ability to ally with specified factions.
It was certainly easier to find a balance with mono-factions. Unfortunately, due to the cynical exigencies of modern capitalist systems, this will not happen, allies sells models and books. To be completely honest I'd rather they continue the slow grind of tackling the balancing complexities of the allies system anyways, I think it makes the game more interesting.
Oh I agree. Cat's out of the bag and all that. Shame really.
I also agree that some amount of allies makes the game more interesting. Some of the Imperial agents (assassins, inquisitors) are cool, fun additions to IG and Marine armies. I'd just like for them to be a lot more restrictive than the current system of nearly free form list creation from half a dozen books (for Chaos and Imperium).
I don't think restriction is necessary. Proper costing is. Access to more units in a GW game just increases your odds of finding an undercosted one. Get rid of undercosted units and this no longer matters.
sennacherib wrote: Look.
You have the largest faction in the game. Imperial soup includes 300+ unique entries covering the gamut of possible buffs, special rules and wargear. This gives your faction the greatest tactical flexibility.
Let’s assume you REFUSE to play imperial soup and then GW buffs space marines just for you becuase your argument is so poignant. Mono faction SM need a buff to be better. Ok.
Then everyone else who Utilises imperial soup gets a massive buff. Hmmmm.
Almost everyone would argue that Soup shouldn't exist like it does.
sennacherib wrote: Focusing on 8th ed in a vacu,e and ignoring your previous statements then.
General consensus has it that grey knight, adeptus mechanicus And death Guard are all worse than space marines.
I think, even if Death Guard are worse than marines because Guilliman, they have a better internal balance than Space Marines. So personally for me Death Guard is a better codex. From a pure competitive point of view where one measures Codex based in if they have a OP build that win tournaments or not, yeah they are worse.
I think the space marine isnt the worst codex, even mono build they do fine with Boby and razorbacks. I think Admech and GK have less utility and pale in comparison to SM.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Almost everyone would argue that Soup shouldn't exist like it does.
I think soup is fine and interesting and fun, the problem is that GW keeps piling on to the Imperium soup and to a lesser extent Chaos soup. Most of the people I play with/against like soup lists, so I'm not sure how entirely accurate this statement is, might be more anecdotal than you think.
Eldar and Tyranids started getting some soup the past few editions and will now have a pretty decent soup list once all their codices are out.
Tau, Orks, Necrons, have no real soup these days. Orks used to have looted vehicles, which gave them an easy soup option that didn't require new books and models, that would be fairly easy to reintroduce.
Custom vehicle rules in Chapter Approved may actually address the lack of soup for some armies, but that's a wait and see possibility and has just as much chance of taking already powerful soup lists and just making them better.
Yeah, is obvious that Space Marines isn't the worst one. So probably we would be better having this conversation in a thread without a click-bait title
I’ve been enjoying playing my DG. In the last 7 games I have won 3 and lost 4.
Wins vs tau 2x but tau had about 12% more points to help balance them.
Win vs space wolves 1x but sw had 12% more points to balance them.
Lost to DG Lost to eldar 2x
Lost to ..... Space marines. The worst codex of them all.
sennacherib wrote: I’ve been enjoying playing my DG. In the last 7 games I have won 3 and lost 4.
Wins vs tau 2x but tau had about 12% more points to help balance them. Win vs space wolves 1x but sw had 12% more points to balance them. Lost to DG Lost to eldar 2x Lost to ..... Space marines. The worst codex of them all.
I know...but they still do really well, on top of that other things are getting buffs and aggressors are looking good. Can SM compare to GK or Admech....i dont think they can
We'll see. Power armor melee being absolutely crippled takes away one of the aspects of marines that is supposed to balance them out against shootier factions. That's why I think marines just get worse and worse as Xeno codices drop. Xenomancers isn't correct right now, but by the end of 8th I suspect he'll be close. It will just be a giant shooting gallery of power armor victims.
including 2 armies in your total army should deactivate your army traits just like they currently would do if you included different armies in a detachment. With the exception of things like an assassin that are literally designed to fit into an imperial force as an ally. Or in the case of ynnari because that is what they are designed to do or any similar case.
Martel732 wrote: I prefer to think of every incarnation of marines in these terms: "How do they overcome the tactical marine THIS edition?"
Tactical marines are NOT cost effective. Some posters disagree, but I think this is largely a empirically true statement due to minimizing of this unit over the editions.
Consequently, I see marines as a whole built on a very shaky foundation. Sometimes, GW gives marines bling to stabilize the house like 7th. Other times, like 5th, marines don't get much to help with the problem of being a marine and things don't go so well.
What I'll say about the current marine dex is that I think it will be eclipsed by every xeno codex because no xeno codex is burdened by the tactical marine problem.
How, you don't even have to take them.
Just to make clear the tone of my statement. "Elaborate" Because I think I know what youre talking about.
The problems of the tac marine trickle down to many marine units. Paying for stats they can't use. Paying for gear they can't use. In previous editions, common, cheap weapons that ignored the toughness, common weapons that ignored their armor, etc. The game has ALWAYS rewarded specialists, EXCEPT in cases like 5th ed GK, who were massively undercosted.
Again, BA have done a maginificent job of showing how good the basis of marines truly is: not good.BA have been SM without the required bling for two editions, have been the list that Xeno is describing.
So, I understand that sentiment. Especially in the light of swapping to the Tyranids codex and looking at their cheap, specialized units. And it's terrifying when I think about "How would my marines deal with X" or whatever. (To which my first answer is usually "Muddle through with moar marines." or some such.)
My own sentiment about marines in particular uses the modification: "Paying for stats they don't use." Not can't, but don't. Not that a Tac marine can't use his WS 3+, just that they are often not using it. Usually when I see Tacticals on the table, and I mentioned this maybe in another thread, they're just hanging back and camping an objective throwing pot-shots. And I argue that's just not the way to get the most out of your models. I like to ram them up close (certainly depending on the opponent), and imo that's how to make them the most effective.
With the move to 8th edition we lost our AP 5 bolters against chaff units, which meant that in earlier editions our basic guys could gun down guardsmen in the open with ease. Buuuut. With 8th we gained the ability to assault after Rapid-Firing, and we gained the ability to move and shoot with Heavy Weapons with a limited downside and assault after firing those as well. (Plus we gained unlimited Combi-weapon use). Also, more dependent on list, we gained more re-rolls. I'm not talking G-man either, Captains/Generic Chapter Master and Lieutenant are available to everyone using the main Codex.
My belief is that the style of playing marines has changed a bit, and requires more aggression from most units than before. I know this can sound like a 'Get Gud', but try to think about this approach from the more abstracted standpoint of: "How do I use all my stats to their fullest?"
And maybe they're pointed correctly, and maybe they aren't. It's not under my control, and I'm happy to work with them as is for a while. The important bit is really the question above.
Edit: Regarding 'trickle down'. That's one of the reasons I don't like assault specialists, they often can't do anything in the shooting phase. For my marines I prefer units that can act in both phases, even if their assault strength isn't so hot. Just having the option to do something in the assault phase is better than not being able to do anything in the shooting phase, imo. Though my opinion differs on that when it comes to other armies.
You can be aggressive, but you hit chaff units, and end up trading 100 pts for 40 pts. Rinse and repeat for the chaff army until all marines are dead.
I have BA. I've tried to do as you describe, but I just run out of bodies way too fast. So now I just cower and shoot back. Doesn't usually work, but sometimes I can squeeze out maelstrom points at least.
Marines just lose the game of Screenhammer 40K. Because they have no screens.
Martel732 wrote: We'll see. Power armor melee being absolutely crippled takes away one of the aspects of marines that is supposed to balance them out against shootier factions. That's why I think marines just get worse and worse as Xeno codices drop. Xenomancers isn't correct right now, but by the end of 8th I suspect he'll be close. It will just be a giant shooting gallery of power armor victims.
Of course you are correct - though space wolves are probably going to get the ability to automatically assault first turn with wolfen or thunderwolves and they will be the best marine faction by far. No surprise there when it actually happens - it's expected.
That won't matter. They'll be assaulting guardsmen or termagants (banelings now, I hear). 40K did NOT need banelings with no micro.
" That's one of the reasons I don't like assault specialists, they often can't do anything in the shooting phase. For my marines I prefer units that can act in both phases, even if their assault strength isn't so hot. Just having the option to do something in the assault phase is better than not being able to do anything in the shooting phase, imo. Though my opinion differs on that when it comes to other armies."
), when you are dumped in the same group as that kind of unreasonable and hyperbolic people 