Daedalus81 wrote: It's a bit early to do the analysis when we don't have datasheets and points for the new codex. Using old information is prone to error.
No idea about sob in the past, but most armies weren't very different from what they were in their index. Only a few got a full overhaul. I doubt a rank and file sob suddenly ends up costing 20pts.
Am not saying the new mechanics wont be able to influence armies a lot. If GW suddenly decides stratagems should work of a units size, it could be huge. Specially as those armies with the new stratagems would be facing against armies who were not designed with such rules in mind. Plus who knows if after 2-3 book GW doesn't suddenly decide it is too limiting, and when they update eldar, those suddenly don't have those limitations. Having build in limits, based on knee jerk reaction do not end well for armies that suffer from them.
That is not true about GW stratagem design. GK have a psychic ammo stratagem that costs 2, and it does not give 2CP fire power boost. So there can very well exist a 2CP stratagem for another army that gives a fire power boost more kin to a 1CP stratagem, or even less.
fraser1191 wrote: I think just having all point values in CA would be easier than checking to see which ones changed
Here, here! I think that's a great idea.
That would also make it worth paying for as you could see what other armies pay for, even if you don't know what their units do specifically
-
On top of that let's have all the units organized by FoC slot!
That's how I know how the codexes are written by different teams, marines had the first codex, all units organized by slot but Eldar do not. So disorganized...
fraser1191 wrote: I think just having all point values in CA would be easier than checking to see which ones changed
Here, here! I think that's a great idea.
That would also make it worth paying for as you could see what other armies pay for, even if you don't know what their units do specifically
-
On top of that let's have all the units organized by FoC slot!
That's how I know how the codexes are written by different teams, marines had the first codex, all units organized by slot but Eldar do not. So disorganized...
Book layout has been weak across GW but that is nothing to do with the writers.
Daedalus81 wrote: It's a bit early to do the analysis when we don't have datasheets and points for the new codex. Using old information is prone to error.
No idea about sob in the past, but most armies weren't very different from what they were in their index. Only a few got a full overhaul. I doubt a rank and file sob suddenly ends up costing 20pts.
Am not saying the new mechanics wont be able to influence armies a lot. If GW suddenly decides stratagems should work of a units size, it could be huge. Specially as those armies with the new stratagems would be facing against armies who were not designed with such rules in mind. Plus who knows if after 2-3 book GW doesn't suddenly decide it is too limiting, and when they update eldar, those suddenly don't have those limitations. Having build in limits, based on knee jerk reaction do not end well for armies that suffer from them.
Even small adjustments can have a huge impact. A change to the wording of Brotherhood of Sorcerers changed the Thousand Sons from a mediocre army that can't do anything other than drop bad bloodletters from the sky to a psychic murder machine that plays completely differently from every other faction.
I gak you not there will be a points increase to Grand Masters in Nemesis Dread Knights and our rites of banishment will now only affect daemons and be reduced to 6" range. Because GW really loves GK.
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: I gak you not there will be a points increase to Grand Masters in Nemesis Dread Knights and our rites of banishment will now only affect daemons and be reduced to 6" range. Because GW really loves GK.
Maybe they'll get Matt Ward to write the changes for CA
Daedalus81 wrote: It's a bit early to do the analysis when we don't have datasheets and points for the new codex. Using old information is prone to error.
No idea about sob in the past, but most armies weren't very different from what they were in their index. Only a few got a full overhaul. I doubt a rank and file sob suddenly ends up costing 20pts.
Am not saying the new mechanics wont be able to influence armies a lot. If GW suddenly decides stratagems should work of a units size, it could be huge. Specially as those armies with the new stratagems would be facing against armies who were not designed with such rules in mind. Plus who knows if after 2-3 book GW doesn't suddenly decide it is too limiting, and when they update eldar, those suddenly don't have those limitations. Having build in limits, based on knee jerk reaction do not end well for armies that suffer from them.
Even small adjustments can have a huge impact. A change to the wording of Brotherhood of Sorcerers changed the Thousand Sons from a mediocre army that can't do anything other than drop bad bloodletters from the sky to a psychic murder machine that plays completely differently from every other faction.
Well, it made the HQs great, and the goats slightly better as the shaman is better.
But the supposed core of the army (rubrics and scarabs) are still bad. hopefully that would be fixed (either by a point reduction, or by giving real smites)
AdmirableGoal wrote: ...(arguably, maybe) comparable amount of special weapons fire that Dark Angels currently spend 212 points and 2 CP for.
The Dark Angels are firing a total of 12x S6 AP-1 shots (or 4 plasma), and optionally 4x S8 missiles.
The sisters are firing a pair of plasma pistol shots and 8x S3 AP- flamer attacks.
If you want a 1 CP stratagem you have to expect to only get 1 CP of firepower out of it.
Not even 8d3 hand flamer shots, it's only 4d3 as the range is only increased for the initial Deep Strike attack - it's still only 8" in the shooting phase.
AdmirableGoal wrote: ...(arguably, maybe) comparable amount of special weapons fire that Dark Angels currently spend 212 points and 2 CP for.
The Dark Angels are firing a total of 12x S6 AP-1 shots (or 4 plasma), and optionally 4x S8 missiles.
The sisters are firing a pair of plasma pistol shots and 8x S3 AP- flamer attacks.
If you want a 1 CP stratagem you have to expect to only get 1 CP of firepower out of it.
Not even 8d3 hand flamer shots, it's only 4d3 as the range is only increased for the initial Deep Strike attack - it's still only 8" in the shooting phase.
Correct, I think he assumed they can all have the flamers.
In reality, its 2 plasma pistol, 4d3 hand flamer shots and 4 bolt pistol shots from the strat, then 2 plasma pistol and 4 bolt pistols in regular shooting.
AdmirableGoal wrote: ...(arguably, maybe) comparable amount of special weapons fire that Dark Angels currently spend 212 points and 2 CP for.
The Dark Angels are firing a total of 12x S6 AP-1 shots (or 4 plasma), and optionally 4x S8 missiles.
The sisters are firing a pair of plasma pistol shots and 8x S3 AP- flamer attacks.
If you want a 1 CP stratagem you have to expect to only get 1 CP of firepower out of it.
Not even 8d3 hand flamer shots, it's only 4d3 as the range is only increased for the initial Deep Strike attack - it's still only 8" in the shooting phase.
Correct, I think he assumed they can all have the flamers.
In reality, its 2 plasma pistol, 4d3 hand flamer shots and 4 bolt pistol shots from the strat, then 2 plasma pistol and 4 bolt pistols in regular shooting.
You're better off taking all bolt pistols. (Though the Seraphim Superior may get value out of Plasma...)
I picked up Dark Angels after 15 years out of the hobby. There were other reasons I picked them, but their Terminators were one of them.
I don’t have a ton of experience with Sisters, so forgive me if this comparison is a little too apples to oranges. There are presumably other units who might be able to use sky strike after the codex is released, of course, but I assume that a Seraphim squad is who this is meant for, yes? If so, I just did some quick math on this because it jumped out at me.
For a roughly maxed out Seraphim Squad, it’s:
8x Seraphim – 14 bolt pistols
+
1x seraphim superior – 1 bolt pistol, 1 plasma pistol
+
2x seraphim with special weapons – 4x hand flamers
=
Under current points costs this is 129 points for 15 bolt shots, 1 plasma shots, and 4d3 hand flamer shots that can hit at 12” for a turn.
For 1 more CP, it’s 30 bolt shots, 2 plasma shots, and 8d3 hand flamer shots that can hit at 12” for a turn.
VS.
For 5-man Terminator squad with a heavy weapon, it’s:
3x terminators – 3 storm bolters
+
1x terminator sgt with no melee upgrade – 1 storm bolter
+
1 heavy weapon terminator – 1x assault cannon. You could also use a plasma cannon here, but not the heavy flamer.
=
Under current points costs this is 212 points for 16 bolt shots and 6 assault cannon shots/1d3 plasma shots (-1 point).
For 2 more CP, it’s 32 bolt shots and 12 assault cannon shots/2d3 plasma shots (-1 point).
Under current points costs, this is 212 points for
I really want the long-suffering Sisters players to get an awesome new codex and a whole range of great new models. I have always liked the faction and think that they deserve a strong treatment. This isn’t a knock on them at all. I also fully realize that codices don’t exist in a vacuum, and there are other considerations that might make this strat and combo key to making sisters work, let alone to making my army work.
But man, is it frustrating that I’m currently expected to pay 2 CP and an extra 83 points for an extra 2 bolter shots and some heavy weapons that I had to shell out more than a few points for, or 3 CP if I take more terminators. I worry more than a little about the power creep that this indicates, but I also worry that it's too much to expect Terminators to get the boost they'd need to compete with this in CA, or that the strat’s cost might reduced. Or both, though I don’t actually want GW to go overboard and overpower us, I just want to feel like I’m not playing with weird restrictions placed on my army that I can’t make sense of. I guess another way to ask might be - am I wrong to be concerned that it might just make way more sense to take a Sisters detachment for the same relative effect, at least for shooting twice out of reserves? (Don't worry, as strong as that Sisters CC strat could be, I'm not going to argue that it's somehow as good as Terminators with powerfists )
TL;DR – Sisters get to pay 1 CP on a 129 point squad for about the same number of bolter shots and an (arguably, maybe) comparable amount of special weapons fire that Dark Angels currently spend 212 points and 2 CP for.**
*Note - I left the 50-point missile launcher out for now because I actually felt it might artificially inflate the points cost for my argument, and I wanted the lower cost terminator v. Sisters squad point to stand on its own, though I will fully admit that shooting twice with the missile launcher is certainly nothing to sneeze at, even if it is an extra 50 points.
** - as overcosted and crummy as this strat/unit combo can feel sometimes, I recognize that DA are still lucky to have it and that many marines can’t even do stuff like this!
That's not actually right.
Hand flamers have piss-for-range, so with the strategem it's 28 bolt pistol shots, 2 plasma pistol shots, and 4d3 hand flamer shots. Which assumes you have hand flamers, because hand flamers are really bad right now. It notably doesn't work on Inferno Pistol shots, which are 6" range, and generally the weapon Seraphim carry.
And if your stratgem lets you fire all your special weapons, that's a big advantage. That's a bunch of assault cannons and missiles, which are leagues ahead of the hand flamers, and ours doesn't work on our good special weapon.
I think this stratgem is going to remain safely unused.
Lemondish wrote: Or they could enter this century and provide the bloody data sheets and points costs via an app...
Might even give them an opportunity to update more than just points for balance purposes.
That'd be fine so long as there are physical copies for those of us who are fine living in the last century and prefer the game technology free. The ebooks still cost as much as the real books, I'd prefer not to have to buy a tablet too.
-
Ew, I certainly was not advocating for eBooks. That's a horrid half step. You guys also need to jump into the future, it seems.
No. I'm imagining data sheets from an app on your phone. Searchable, indexed, complete, constantly updated alongside errata and FAQs, and most importantly - freely available whether you have the codex for that faction or not. Then include points costs in the same app via a complete army builder tool that allows you to quickly share with other users prior to a game. Could even go a step further and take some hints at various game companion apps in the videogame space for insight on features and design. I'm thinking several steps ahead of just eBooks, which totally wouldn't actually solve anything.
Codexes can still include the fluff, the special army rules like tactics, warlord traits, stratagems, and relics, alongside a reinvigorated hobby section. There's honestly not enough focus on that in today's codex releases, imho.
But data sheets and points costs can exist from a single online source. Think battlescribe, but actually sanctioned by GW, and controlled by then to the extent that they could make direct changes to data sheets whenever they do their balance passes.
Lemondish wrote: Or they could enter this century and provide the bloody data sheets and points costs via an app...
Might even give them an opportunity to update more than just points for balance purposes.
That'd be fine so long as there are physical copies for those of us who are fine living in the last century and prefer the game technology free. The ebooks still cost as much as the real books, I'd prefer not to have to buy a tablet too.
-
Ew, I certainly was not advocating for eBooks. That's a horrid half step. You guys also need to jump into the future, it seems.
No. I'm imagining data sheets from an app on your phone. Searchable, indexed, complete, constantly updated alongside errata and FAQs, and most importantly - freely available whether you have the codex for that faction or not. Then include points costs in the same app via a complete army builder tool that allows you to quickly share with other users prior to a game. Could even go a step further and take some hints at various game companion apps in the videogame space for insight on features and design. I'm thinking several steps ahead of just eBooks, which totally wouldn't actually solve anything.
Codexes can still include the fluff, the special army rules like tactics, warlord traits, stratagems, and relics, alongside a reinvigorated hobby section. There's honestly not enough focus on that in today's codex releases, imho.
But data sheets and points costs can exist from a single online source. Think battlescribe, but actually sanctioned by GW, and controlled by then to the extent that they could make direct changes to data sheets whenever they do their balance passes.
Eww. I hate phone apps for things. Having to load up apps on my phone and looks at everything on the phone screen with swipes would be unbearable.
I'd take a PDF e-book over anything mobile any day of the week.
I like my rock. It's warm and well decorated under here.
I picked up Dark Angels after 15 years out of the hobby. There were other reasons I picked them, but their Terminators were one of them.
I don’t have a ton of experience with Sisters, so forgive me if this comparison is a little too apples to oranges. There are presumably other units who might be able to use sky strike after the codex is released, of course, but I assume that a Seraphim squad is who this is meant for, yes? If so, I just did some quick math on this because it jumped out at me.
For a roughly maxed out Seraphim Squad, it’s:
8x Seraphim – 14 bolt pistols
+
1x seraphim superior – 1 bolt pistol, 1 plasma pistol
+
2x seraphim with special weapons – 4x hand flamers
=
Under current points costs this is 129 points for 15 bolt shots, 1 plasma shots, and 4d3 hand flamer shots that can hit at 12” for a turn.
For 1 more CP, it’s 30 bolt shots, 2 plasma shots, and 8d3 hand flamer shots that can hit at 12” for a turn.
VS.
For 5-man Terminator squad with a heavy weapon, it’s:
3x terminators – 3 storm bolters
+
1x terminator sgt with no melee upgrade – 1 storm bolter
+
1 heavy weapon terminator – 1x assault cannon. You could also use a plasma cannon here, but not the heavy flamer.
=
Under current points costs this is 212 points for 16 bolt shots and 6 assault cannon shots/1d3 plasma shots (-1 point).
For 2 more CP, it’s 32 bolt shots and 12 assault cannon shots/2d3 plasma shots (-1 point).
Under current points costs, this is 212 points for
I really want the long-suffering Sisters players to get an awesome new codex and a whole range of great new models. I have always liked the faction and think that they deserve a strong treatment. This isn’t a knock on them at all. I also fully realize that codices don’t exist in a vacuum, and there are other considerations that might make this strat and combo key to making sisters work, let alone to making my army work.
But man, is it frustrating that I’m currently expected to pay 2 CP and an extra 83 points for an extra 2 bolter shots and some heavy weapons that I had to shell out more than a few points for, or 3 CP if I take more terminators. I worry more than a little about the power creep that this indicates, but I also worry that it's too much to expect Terminators to get the boost they'd need to compete with this in CA, or that the strat’s cost might reduced. Or both, though I don’t actually want GW to go overboard and overpower us, I just want to feel like I’m not playing with weird restrictions placed on my army that I can’t make sense of. I guess another way to ask might be - am I wrong to be concerned that it might just make way more sense to take a Sisters detachment for the same relative effect, at least for shooting twice out of reserves? (Don't worry, as strong as that Sisters CC strat could be, I'm not going to argue that it's somehow as good as Terminators with powerfists )
TL;DR – Sisters get to pay 1 CP on a 129 point squad for about the same number of bolter shots and an (arguably, maybe) comparable amount of special weapons fire that Dark Angels currently spend 212 points and 2 CP for.**
*Note - I left the 50-point missile launcher out for now because I actually felt it might artificially inflate the points cost for my argument, and I wanted the lower cost terminator v. Sisters squad point to stand on its own, though I will fully admit that shooting twice with the missile launcher is certainly nothing to sneeze at, even if it is an extra 50 points.
** - as overcosted and crummy as this strat/unit combo can feel sometimes, I recognize that DA are still lucky to have it and that many marines can’t even do stuff like this!
If you want to compare the two stratagems, please do a full comparison:
For 1 CP, a 10 model Seraphim Squad including 2 Hand Flamer Sisters and Superior with Plasma Pistol (129) gets:
Movement Phase: 1 Plasma Pistol Shot, 4d3 Hand Flamer Shots, and 14 Bolt Pistol shots
Shooting Phase: 1 Plasma Pistol Shot, 0 Hand Flamer Shots, and 14 Bolt Pistol shots
Total Shooting: 2 Plasma Pistol Shots, 4d3 Hand Flamer Shots, and 28 Bolt Pistol shots
For 2 CP, a 5 model Deathwing Terminator Squad with Cyclone Missile Launcher (242 points) gets:
Movement Phase: 20 Bolter Shots and either 2 Krak Missiles or 2d6 Frag Missile shots
Shooting Phase: 20 Bolter Shots and either 2 Krak Missiles or 2d6 Frag Missile shots
Shooting Phase: 40 Bolter Shots and either 4 Krak Missiles or 4d6 Frag Missile shots
One might wonder why the Stratagem that gives more additional shots with a better weapons options is worth more points? And one can only hope that Terminators will get a point break in Chapter Approved since everyone knows they are too expensive.
Reading the latest White Dwarf, page 133, it says the kustom orky vehicle bonanza will include three types: a Looted Kart for transport, a Looted Wagon of Leman Russ or Predator size and a Baneblade sized Battle Fortress.
That was how players THOUGHT it would be as that would be only reason that makes sense in having points at back rather than at the datasheet which would be most player friendly.
Instead GW went for most unplayer friendly version. Probably so that they can force you to buy ALL chapter approveds and keep them until the oldest one has no more points not replaced by another chapter approved/codex.
CA2018 will include every instance where points change from a Codex.
Warhammer 40,000 Facebook Page wrote:Q. The big question is will it include all the current points changes from the available codexs or do I need to find a copy of chapter approved 2017 to play my army at the right point cost
A. If there are any differences in points values from those printed in a Codex, they will be included in Chapter Approved 2018.
Lemondish wrote: Or they could enter this century and provide the bloody data sheets and points costs via an app...
Might even give them an opportunity to update more than just points for balance purposes.
That'd be fine so long as there are physical copies for those of us who are fine living in the last century and prefer the game technology free. The ebooks still cost as much as the real books, I'd prefer not to have to buy a tablet too.
-
Ew, I certainly was not advocating for eBooks. That's a horrid half step. You guys also need to jump into the future, it seems.
No. I'm imagining data sheets from an app on your phone. Searchable, indexed, complete, constantly updated alongside errata and FAQs, and most importantly - freely available whether you have the codex for that faction or not. Then include points costs in the same app via a complete army builder tool that allows you to quickly share with other users prior to a game. Could even go a step further and take some hints at various game companion apps in the videogame space for insight on features and design. I'm thinking several steps ahead of just eBooks, which totally wouldn't actually solve anything.
Codexes can still include the fluff, the special army rules like tactics, warlord traits, stratagems, and relics, alongside a reinvigorated hobby section. There's honestly not enough focus on that in today's codex releases, imho.
But data sheets and points costs can exist from a single online source. Think battlescribe, but actually sanctioned by GW, and controlled by then to the extent that they could make direct changes to data sheets whenever they do their balance passes.
Eww. I hate phone apps for things. Having to load up apps on my phone and looks at everything on the phone screen with swipes would be unbearable.
I'd take a PDF e-book over anything mobile any day of the week.
I like my rock. It's warm and well decorated under here.
Agreed, searching for things on a phone app may be convenient for some, but good gods does it take FOREVER to do. Seriously, I have tested this. I have yet to have anyone "beat" me to a rule when flipping through a physical book compared to using a phone.
My brain is the only app I need.
But I'm not saying it shouldn't be available for those who prefer it, just that physical books should also always be provided too. Or at the very least, updates should be available for the player to PRINT if they desire a physical copy.
GW can do both, ya know
Lemondish wrote: Or they could enter this century and provide the bloody data sheets and points costs via an app...
Might even give them an opportunity to update more than just points for balance purposes.
That'd be fine so long as there are physical copies for those of us who are fine living in the last century and prefer the game technology free. The ebooks still cost as much as the real books, I'd prefer not to have to buy a tablet too.
-
Ew, I certainly was not advocating for eBooks. That's a horrid half step. You guys also need to jump into the future, it seems.
No. I'm imagining data sheets from an app on your phone. Searchable, indexed, complete, constantly updated alongside errata and FAQs, and most importantly - freely available whether you have the codex for that faction or not. Then include points costs in the same app via a complete army builder tool that allows you to quickly share with other users prior to a game. Could even go a step further and take some hints at various game companion apps in the videogame space for insight on features and design. I'm thinking several steps ahead of just eBooks, which totally wouldn't actually solve anything.
Codexes can still include the fluff, the special army rules like tactics, warlord traits, stratagems, and relics, alongside a reinvigorated hobby section. There's honestly not enough focus on that in today's codex releases, imho.
But data sheets and points costs can exist from a single online source. Think battlescribe, but actually sanctioned by GW, and controlled by then to the extent that they could make direct changes to data sheets whenever they do their balance passes.
Eww. I hate phone apps for things. Having to load up apps on my phone and looks at everything on the phone screen with swipes would be unbearable.
I'd take a PDF e-book over anything mobile any day of the week.
I like my rock. It's warm and well decorated under here.
Lemondish wrote: Or they could enter this century and provide the bloody data sheets and points costs via an app...
Might even give them an opportunity to update more than just points for balance purposes.
That'd be fine so long as there are physical copies for those of us who are fine living in the last century and prefer the game technology free. The ebooks still cost as much as the real books, I'd prefer not to have to buy a tablet too.
-
Ew, I certainly was not advocating for eBooks. That's a horrid half step. You guys also need to jump into the future, it seems.
No. I'm imagining data sheets from an app on your phone. Searchable, indexed, complete, constantly updated alongside errata and FAQs, and most importantly - freely available whether you have the codex for that faction or not. Then include points costs in the same app via a complete army builder tool that allows you to quickly share with other users prior to a game. Could even go a step further and take some hints at various game companion apps in the videogame space for insight on features and design. I'm thinking several steps ahead of just eBooks, which totally wouldn't actually solve anything.
Codexes can still include the fluff, the special army rules like tactics, warlord traits, stratagems, and relics, alongside a reinvigorated hobby section. There's honestly not enough focus on that in today's codex releases, imho.
But data sheets and points costs can exist from a single online source. Think battlescribe, but actually sanctioned by GW, and controlled by then to the extent that they could make direct changes to data sheets whenever they do their balance passes.
Eww. I hate phone apps for things. Having to load up apps on my phone and looks at everything on the phone screen with swipes would be unbearable.
I'd take a PDF e-book over anything mobile any day of the week.
I like my rock. It's warm and well decorated under here.
Agreed, searching for things on a phone app may be convenient for some, but good gods does it take FOREVER to do. Seriously, I have tested this. I have yet to have anyone "beat" me to a rule when flipping through a physical book compared to using a phone.
My brain is the only app I need.
But I'm not saying it shouldn't be available for those who prefer it, just that physical books should also always be provided too. Or at the very least, updates should be available for the player to PRINT if they desire a physical copy.
GW can do both, ya know
-
Absolutely agreed. I was not advocating for a REPLACEMENT of books, just to finally enter the digital age so they can do things they may be reluctant to do mid-edition, like change unit data sheets to update unit stats. Paper book users would just be forced to download and print the PDF.
For the record, I could type the word "Inceptor" into a search bar on my phone before you even pick up the book, I can guarantee that Could even use active suggestions while typing and then BOOM three letters and a click to see the full data sheet. Launch the app and tap share list to type in a fellow user's name and boom, they have your full army list in a standard format before you even get to the store if you so choose.
Apps can be a dream to use, but its all about features and quality of UX design. A well designed 40k companion app, perhaps supported by a small subscription fee, could be an absolute game changer.
But enough about that. CA 2018! Do the points from Blackstone suggest upcoming CA point updates? The traitor guardsmen are 5ppm, which is what we all expect real guardsmen to become. The Black Legionnaires are 13 ppm, which is the same as current space marines, no? Might mean marine changes are coming via another route, like special rules, or there aren't any changes at all.
Or could just be wild speculation and coincidence.
Even small adjustments can have a huge impact. A change to the wording of Brotherhood of Sorcerers changed the Thousand Sons from a mediocre army that can't do anything other than drop bad bloodletters from the sky to a psychic murder machine that plays completely differently from every other faction.
Ok, but GW already said they don't want to give GK normal smite, plus GK lack the resiliance and the good HQs that can carry a 1ksons list. It would require them to rewrite the whole codex, and people already said that GW doesn't do that in FAQs or CA. Plus there is the fact that the sob index is going to be in CA, there just going to be enough space for a GK codex update. I would love it if they did it, but there is no info about it. On the last seminar they had they talked about a lot of stuff for CA, but didn't even mention GK, and they went over some really obscure stuff like open play rules for orc boom wagons etc.
But I'm not saying it shouldn't be available for those who prefer it, just that physical books should also always be provided too. Or at the very least, updates should be available for the player to PRINT if they desire a physical copy.
GW can do both, ya know
How about doing this, a cheaper version as some sort of pdf and then having a real book with some sort of code inside that lets you download a digital version of the codex.
But enough about that. CA 2018! Do the points from Blackstone suggest upcoming CA point updates? The traitor guardsmen are 5ppm, which is what we all expect real guardsmen to become. The Black Legionnaires are 13 ppm, which is the same as current space marines, no? Might mean marine changes are coming via another route, like special rules, or there aren't any changes at all.
Or could just be wild speculation and coincidence.
Traitor Guardsmen are 4ppm, +7 points for the mandatory flamer.
There's not much reason to assume that Blackstone Fortresses rules were designed with the latest updates in mind. The big boxed game was probably late in design long before the final proof of Chapter Approved 2018 was signed off.
I think we're going to see point drops across power armor and terminator armor. It's not hard to see that both of those are taken only by armies that are forced to, and then in bare minimum. Death guard may be the only exception, but +1T and DR is pretty dang awesome.
I'd love to see more adjustments to reserves. Drop pods remain a relic of last editions and the reserves rules have become pretty confusing on what you can and cannot do. Personally I'd rather see 1st turn drops back, and a penalty given on hit rolls for those units, or something along those lines.
Mostly I want to see if GW does anything about castle armies. I seriously doubt they will, but I think they are the bane of casual play and people who are new to the hobby.
Eww. I hate phone apps for things. Having to load up apps on my phone and looks at everything on the phone screen with swipes would be unbearable.
I'd take a PDF e-book over anything mobile any day of the week.
I like my rock. It's warm and well decorated under here.
Agreed, searching for things on a phone app may be convenient for some, but good gods does it take FOREVER to do. Seriously, I have tested this. I have yet to have anyone "beat" me to a rule when flipping through a physical book compared to using a phone.
My brain is the only app I need.
But I'm not saying it shouldn't be available for those who prefer it, just that physical books should also always be provided too. Or at the very least, updates should be available for the player to PRINT if they desire a physical copy.
GW can do both, ya know
-
Absolutely agreed. I was not advocating for a REPLACEMENT of books, just to finally enter the digital age so they can do things they may be reluctant to do mid-edition, like change unit data sheets to update unit stats. Paper book users would just be forced to download and print the PDF.
For the record, I could type the word "Inceptor" into a search bar on my phone before you even pick up the book, I can guarantee that Could even use active suggestions while typing and then BOOM three letters and a click to see the full data sheet. Launch the app and tap share list to type in a fellow user's name and boom, they have your full army list in a standard format before you even get to the store if you so choose.
Apps can be a dream to use, but its all about features and quality of UX design. A well designed 40k companion app, perhaps supported by a small subscription fee, could be an absolute game changer.
But enough about that. CA 2018! Do the points from Blackstone suggest upcoming CA point updates? The traitor guardsmen are 5ppm, which is what we all expect real guardsmen to become. The Black Legionnaires are 13 ppm, which is the same as current space marines, no? Might mean marine changes are coming via another route, like special rules, or there aren't any changes at all.
Or could just be wild speculation and coincidence.
Phone apps suck because they're on my phone.
A printable and corss-indexed computer PDF would be fine, but anything that I have to download onto my damn phone will make me quite corss. Reading anything on my phone screen is a chore, typing with a touchscreen is a special kind of hell. Also, on my computer or with printed pages I can lay them all out across the table or monitors in front of me, with my phone its this little itty bitty thing that I have scroll with my fingers.
I could be absolutely fine with a big PDF full of the points costs. Anything mobile would be a step backwards.
Updating GK codex units and rules would take about 30 minutes too long compared to what GW is willing to put into CA.
Xenomancers wrote: Plus we all know GK are a good army and we are just playing them wrong anyways.
I wouldn't go that far. It takes a lot of practice & patience to use an army with severe limitations well. You're going to lose a lot of games in the meantime.
And the reward for all that is.... you'll lose less often than you were.
I wouldn't go that far. It takes a lot of practice & patience to use an army with severe limitations well. You're going to lose a lot of games in the meantime.
And the reward for all that is.... you'll lose less often than you were.
That's a weird way of saying knowledge and familiarity of your army helps you win more games.
I wouldn't go that far. It takes a lot of practice & patience to use an army with severe limitations well. You're going to lose a lot of games in the meantime.
And the reward for all that is.... you'll lose less often than you were.
how often should GK armies win then on avarge in GWs opinion? Because they can go in depth about army tactics on their twitch channel, when they talk about armies like eldar. Their articles about GK are full of cool, awesome and other words, but no real ways how to play a good GK army. Plus most of their articles about armies were writen by people playing the actual armies, in GK case it was some guy, if I remember right, who wasn't a desinger and started GK a few weeks before that wrote the write up for "how to GK" on their community site.
So either everyone playing GK is stupid or GK should at least tell people how they thought GK should have been build as an army, even if the army ended not working as intended in the end. I even read and watched some of the stuff the army testers said about the codex, and ignoring most of the grunts and funny faces, the whole good stuff came down to NDKs chapter masters and deep striking stuff turn1. So if the codex was designed to work with turn one deep strike in mind, GW should have done something to replace the rule, if they were taking it away from everyone. BA lost their deep strike stuff too, and I do feel for them, but at least they can still stock up on scouts, razorbacks and devastators. They do end up a weaker version of other marines, but at least the build works, it just works better with other marines.
With GK there is no mechanic to replace the turn one deep strike or turn one shunt. Without scouts or some other cheap troop, they can't even build a gunline with re-rolls.
Hope you detected the sarcasm in that post.
Not really, but in have problems in general to notice stuff like that. So no hard feelings on my part. Wouldn't change my view on the anwser either.
I just hope there was some world class GK player that knew how to build a working GK list that wins at least 50/50 against armies being played around right now.
I think we'll see a big point reduction in various Astartes units across all books. Particularly the Grey Knights.
The Space Marine in GK codex in particular have really fallen behind. Things like Centurions need to have their points reduced to a third of what they currently are.
If we're lucky we might see some new universal stratagems.
I expect we'll see a hike in certain Imperial Knights, Eldar units and cheap hordes across he various books. There's currently a disparity in the rules and cheap infantry is favoured ahead of elite units.
Ideally armies should all have a win ratio between 45 - 55%. Currently Eldar are winning 75% of the time, Grey Knights around 20% (Based on FLG tournament data)
Karol wrote: I just hope there was some world class GK player that knew how to build a working GK list that wins at least 50/50 against armies being played around right now.
One issue is world class players in tournaments are not aiming for 50/50 so they would go for factions that allow better than that.
Karol wrote: I just hope there was some world class GK player that knew how to build a working GK list that wins at least 50/50 against armies being played around right now.
One issue is world class players in tournaments are not aiming for 50/50 so they would go for factions that allow better than that.
Well they had to have someone who is good at playing GK to write the codex or at least test the rules. I fully understand that being good at playing GK, is not going to give the same as being good at playing eldar. But there has to be some people that are good at it, at least at the design studio there should be people or at least a person that knows how they should work. I mean they seem to get some factions fine or even more then fine. I don't know who they have to write and test eldar rules, but that dude has to be a great. And am not just talking here in terms of power, but how the various options fit in to other options. Imperial soups seem very cumbersome, maybe even random, while something like DE is plain created with the idea in mind that there should be an ally eldar farseer in that army. You can even see it in to how the points click, no stupid left overs or over spils.
Karol wrote: I just hope there was some world class GK player that knew how to build a working GK list that wins at least 50/50 against armies being played around right now.
One issue is world class players in tournaments are not aiming for 50/50 so they would go for factions that allow better than that.
Well they had to have someone who is good at playing GK to write the codex or at least test the rules. I fully understand that being good at playing GK, is not going to give the same as being good at playing eldar. But there has to be some people that are good at it, at least at the design studio there should be people or at least a person that knows how they should work. I mean they seem to get some factions fine or even more then fine. I don't know who they have to write and test eldar rules, but that dude has to be a great. And am not just talking here in terms of power, but how the various options fit in to other options. Imperial soups seem very cumbersome, maybe even random, while something like DE is plain created with the idea in mind that there should be an ally eldar farseer in that army. You can even see it in to how the points click, no stupid left overs or over spils.
Ummm...Who says they have good GK player writing rules? They don't have 1 writer per faction.
Well the writer doesn't have to be good at just GK. But from little I understand about doing work for hire, they have to pick the best person for the job.
And a person who knows well how to play an army is the best person to writes it the rules. As I said just looking at something like eldar rules, one clearly sees that the person who wrote those had a very good idea what he, or maybe even she, wants the army to work, and how the army is suppose to end up working in various eldar soups.
GW don't care about having a good player writing their books. They'd possibly would struggle to recognise a good player in the first place. There's never been any requirement that the developers are actually any good at the game. GW are much more concerned with the background and flavour of an army than its performance on the tabletop.
That said, it probably helps to have a big advocate for an army on the design staff as they'll probably put more effort into writing those rules, even if only subconsciously.
Slipspace wrote: GW don't care about having a good player writing their books. They'd possibly would struggle to recognise a good player in the first place. There's never been any requirement that the developers are actually any good at the game. GW are much more concerned with the background and flavour of an army than its performance on the tabletop.
That said, it probably helps to have a big advocate for an army on the design staff as they'll probably put more effort into writing those rules, even if only subconsciously.
Karol wrote: Well the writer doesn't have to be good at just GK. But from little I understand about doing work for hire, they have to pick the best person for the job.
And a person who knows well how to play an army is the best person to writes it the rules. As I said just looking at something like eldar rules, one clearly sees that the person who wrote those had a very good idea what he, or maybe even she, wants the army to work, and how the army is suppose to end up working in various eldar soups.
BWAHAHAHA. You serious? GW game designers are basically enthusiastic amateurs who have no idea of even basics of game design. That's how you end up with overexcited fanboy of faction creating total bonker good rules and then come faction no interest gets suck.
Add to that GW's policy of no balance so that people keep buying newest hotness and there you go.
Slipspace wrote: GW don't care about having a good player writing their books. They'd possibly would struggle to recognise a good player in the first place. There's never been any requirement that the developers are actually any good at the game. GW are much more concerned with the background and flavour of an army than its performance on the tabletop.
That said, it probably helps to have a big advocate for an army on the design staff as they'll probably put more effort into writing those rules, even if only subconsciously.
Perhaps in the past but not now.
Only thing that has changed is more PR. Smoke&mirror.
Slipspace wrote: GW don't care about having a good player writing their books. They'd possibly would struggle to recognise a good player in the first place. There's never been any requirement that the developers are actually any good at the game. GW are much more concerned with the background and flavour of an army than its performance on the tabletop.
That said, it probably helps to have a big advocate for an army on the design staff as they'll probably put more effort into writing those rules, even if only subconsciously.
If they didn't care about writing books all of their stuff would be totaly random. Which is not the case. They clearly knew what they wanted to achive with books like custodes or knights or all the eldar ones, even with BA they seemed tohave know what to do, they just errated it later one and now the codex doesn't really work.
BWAHAHAHA. You serious? GW game designers are basically enthusiastic amateurs who have no idea of even basics of game design. That's how you end up with overexcited fanboy of faction creating total bonker good rules and then come faction no interest gets suck.
Add to that GW's policy of no balance so that people keep buying newest hotness and there you go.
I don't know what the benchmark for profesional is that you are using. And while am not advocating the your paid, so your are a pro point of view, the people at the studio seem to be working there for many years and many editions. You can't be an amatuer if you work at some place for 20 years and you never get fired. Same like you can't re enter university league just because you suddenly decied to go back to school when your 38. I understand that something may have gone wrong durning the creating the book process. Stuff happens, a guy at my store, and I know how much weight a guy-at-my-store type of argument has weight, told me that in AoS a full new updated plastic faction got removed, because someone forgot to add them. Maybe someone forgot to add an important rule GK were suppose to have, and now GW is now not willing to say what it was. Am cool with that, and it is not like w40k is a car engine that may blow up and kill people. But it would be nice if GW explained how they think . In the FAQ I found it nice that they did explain why they think some stuff has to be changed. It sucked to GK players to not get any FAQ, so no explanation. But they could have at least write an article. They have a web site, a communit page etc it takes max a few hours to write one and get it approved by who ever is boss there.
I don't know what the benchmark for profesional is that you are using. And while am not advocating the your paid, so your are a pro point of view, the people at the studio seem to be working there for many years and many editions. You can't be an amatuer if you work at some place for 20 years and you never get fired. Same like you can't re enter university league just because you suddenly decied to go back to school when your 38. I understand that something may have gone wrong durning the creating the book process. Stuff happens, a guy at my store, and I know how much weight a guy-at-my-store type of argument has weight, told me that in AoS a full new updated plastic faction got removed, because someone forgot to add them. Maybe someone forgot to add an important rule GK were suppose to have, and now GW is now not willing to say what it was. Am cool with that, and it is not like w40k is a car engine that may blow up and kill people. But it would be nice if GW explained how they think . In the FAQ I found it nice that they did explain why they think some stuff has to be changed. It sucked to GK players to not get any FAQ, so no explanation. But they could have at least write an article. They have a web site, a communit page etc it takes max a few hours to write one and get it approved by who ever is boss there.
Ohhh boi, duration of employment does not equate competency, infact in terms of rules it leads to a fossilization of these, and that's one of the core problems 40k has.
Add to that GW's policy of no balance so that people keep buying newest hotness and there you go.
Surely balance changes like the Rule of 3 make it more difficult for GW to sell people lots of stuff?
Maybee they saw that gak went south to an unbearable level and they'd end up with a 7th ed 2.0 ?
I memeber the Malefic spam, i shudder to imagine what would've happened if they would not have thrown out that band-aid.
I don't know what the benchmark for profesional is that you are using. And while am not advocating the your paid, so your are a pro point of view, the people at the studio seem to be working there for many years and many editions. You can't be an amatuer if you work at some place for 20 years and you never get fired. Same like you can't re enter university league just because you suddenly decied to go back to school when your 38. I understand that something may have gone wrong durning the creating the book process. Stuff happens, a guy at my store, and I know how much weight a guy-at-my-store type of argument has weight, told me that in AoS a full new updated plastic faction got removed, because someone forgot to add them. Maybe someone forgot to add an important rule GK were suppose to have, and now GW is now not willing to say what it was. Am cool with that, and it is not like w40k is a car engine that may blow up and kill people. But it would be nice if GW explained how they think . In the FAQ I found it nice that they did explain why they think some stuff has to be changed. It sucked to GK players to not get any FAQ, so no explanation. But they could have at least write an article. They have a web site, a communit page etc it takes max a few hours to write one and get it approved by who ever is boss there.
Ohhh boi, duration of employment does not equate competency, infact in terms of rules it leads to a fossilization of these, and that's one of the core problems 40k has.
This is 100% not the case, but an additional point to take into account.
Due to employment law etc over here in the UK, it is INCREDIBLY difficult to fire someone on simply “incompetence” grounds.
I think the problem we are currently seeing with the codex creep is the same as it’s been for years at GW. Hell, I even called out codex creep 100% going to happen shortly after the Marines Dex came out, even though everyone, at that point, was on the “most play tested edition ever etc” bandwagon (even I was…). All this does is imply that somewhere along the line, GW are getting things very wrong when it comes to professional game design. They are however getting incredible business results off the back of it though.
GW have shown, this edition, that they have no issues with changing things they got wrong. If something big was accidently missed out of the GK codex, then, they’d simply just errata it, like they did with the SWWL traits. Sure, it gives us all another thing to moan about for a couple of weeks, but, at least they seem to be rolling with it most of the time.
The early codices were simply just not done with a view to the future. Whether this was intentional, or later on they got more license to do things for the other dexs, who knows. All we can do is wait for them to fix it, whilst providing continuous feedback on the issues.
The early codices were simply just not done with a view to the future. Whether this was intentional, or later on they got more license to do things for the other dexs, who knows. All we can do is wait for them to fix it, whilst providing continuous feedback on the issues.
I have had a suspicion that they were more cautious with the monodex powerlevels at the start. Maybee from their perspective they thought that people would not soup as much and therefore missed some rather nasty combinations of the early 8th edition.
As for my point above, you still have some of the skirmish nature of the rogue trader days, and often times they just built up on the editions (5th-7th ) were in essence quite similar in their basic function, and ofcourse suffering from some of the same problems.
I agree however that their CA policy, whilest also a cashgrab, atleast shows that they are willingly working to get a certain level of balance.
The early codices were simply just not done with a view to the future. Whether this was intentional, or later on they got more license to do things for the other dexs, who knows. All we can do is wait for them to fix it, whilst providing continuous feedback on the issues.
I have had a suspicion that they were more cautious with the monodex powerlevels at the start. Maybee from their perspective they thought that people would not soup as much and therefore missed some rather nasty combinations of the early 8th edition.
As for my point above, you still have some of the skirmish nature of the rogue trader days, and often times they just built up on the editions (5th-7th ) were in essence quite similar in their basic function, and ofcourse suffering from some of the same problems.
I agree however that their CA policy, whilest also a cashgrab, atleast shows that they are willingly working to get a certain level of balance.
I think that Games Workshop really needs to use this Chapter Approved as a showcase for how much they are willing to change. It's the perfect opportunity to prove that they are willing to make alterations and fix their past mistakes. We'll see when we start getting hints as to what's to come.
Lemondish wrote: This thread seems to have devolved into armchair games design again.
Everyone's a critic.
Probably.
But A: i am a customer, i pay they provide, if the product is bad i am allowed to complain/ provide Feedback.(bad rules, unbalanced, etc. Are valid points for criticism)
This is the core principle of a market, just as when they don't change i can go to another Provider, problem there though is that Gw got the market monopoly to a degree atleast.
Slipspace wrote: GW don't care about having a good player writing their books. They'd possibly would struggle to recognise a good player in the first place. There's never been any requirement that the developers are actually any good at the game. GW are much more concerned with the background and flavour of an army than its performance on the tabletop.
That said, it probably helps to have a big advocate for an army on the design staff as they'll probably put more effort into writing those rules, even if only subconsciously.
If they didn't care about writing books all of their stuff would be totaly random. Which is not the case. They clearly knew what they wanted to achive with books like custodes or knights or all the eldar ones, even with BA they seemed tohave know what to do, they just errated it later one and now the codex doesn't really work.
I didn't say they didn't care. There's obviously a design brief for each Codex, with certain play styles they want to promote. That doesn't mean they're successful at promoting those styles, or even that those styles are worth promoting in the first place. Grey Knights, for example, definitely fit the basic brief they would have had for the army: more elite than even Space Marines and psychically strong. The problem is the balance of the Codex in comparison to others is terrible. That's where you need playtesters and designers who are actually good enough at the game to understand it on a more fundamental level than GW's designers seem to.
BWAHAHAHA. You serious? GW game designers are basically enthusiastic amateurs who have no idea of even basics of game design. That's how you end up with overexcited fanboy of faction creating total bonker good rules and then come faction no interest gets suck.
Add to that GW's policy of no balance so that people keep buying newest hotness and there you go.
I don't know what the benchmark for profesional is that you are using. And while am not advocating the your paid, so your are a pro point of view, the people at the studio seem to be working there for many years and many editions. You can't be an amatuer if you work at some place for 20 years and you never get fired. Same like you can't re enter university league just because you suddenly decied to go back to school when your 38. I understand that something may have gone wrong durning the creating the book process. Stuff happens, a guy at my store, and I know how much weight a guy-at-my-store type of argument has weight, told me that in AoS a full new updated plastic faction got removed, because someone forgot to add them. Maybe someone forgot to add an important rule GK were suppose to have, and now GW is now not willing to say what it was. Am cool with that, and it is not like w40k is a car engine that may blow up and kill people. But it would be nice if GW explained how they think . In the FAQ I found it nice that they did explain why they think some stuff has to be changed. It sucked to GK players to not get any FAQ, so no explanation. But they could have at least write an article. They have a web site, a communit page etc it takes max a few hours to write one and get it approved by who ever is boss there.
Professionalism isn't just about being paid to do something, it's about the approach to the process too. GW's biggest problem has always been a lack of direction for each edition. Even when they had people like Gav Thorpe in charge of WH or Andy Chambers in charge of 40k, you never get the impression they have a proper vision for the system. That's how you end up with things like Formations appearing halfway through 7th edition. If they had proper design briefs and goals things like that wouldn't happen. Sure, you can make mistakes, but I feel like a lot of GW's bigger problems come from a lack of oversight of the process as a whole.
I wouldn't go that far. It takes a lot of practice & patience to use an army with severe limitations well. You're going to lose a lot of games in the meantime. And the reward for all that is.... you'll lose less often than you were.
The reward is it makes you a better player faster if you stick with it. I started in 5th edition with Eldar (coincidentally probably the only time Eldar were a low tier army in their entire history, Eldar kept their 4th edition codex all through 5th edition, and the reign of terror did not begin until the 6th edition book was released). As an army, Eldar were easily out-shot and out-fought by Space Marines due to the high cost per unit and low average durability. But they could still win through clean play, careful target priority, and using maneuverability to pick fights that favored them. There is a certain appeal to high movement precision armies that require precise play to win, its why I played Bretonnia through 8th edition Fantasy.
Starting with Eldar in 5th caused a lot of trouble early on while I was getting the ropes of the game down, as every mistake I made, and as a new player I made a fair few! Was heavily punished by the precision nature of my army. When every mistake you made is amplified and has devastating consequences for your army you are more easily able to identify what those mistakes are and make a mental note not to do so again in the future. A player using a more forgiving army may not notice a mistake, and thus may not ever have an opportunity to fix that. After 6th edition came around, I fell out of love with Eldar, and largely migrated to my Emperor's Children as my primary army which felt more fun to play and wasn't as frustrating for my opponents.
Anyway, GK are currently in a similar position. Frankly, @Karol, you don't have a good army, winning with Grey Knights requires a huge degree of precision play, making smart decisions with target priority and using the tools at your disposal effectively and efficiently. It requires capitalizing on your opponents mistakes and not making mistakes of your own. Its like training with a weighted vest. You are putting yourself in a situation where you can only win through good play, thus teaching you what good play is faster. If you were to get to a 51% win rate with GK for instance, then switched to Drukhari... you would probably be surprised at your level of play.
Now of course, this doesn't really do any good if you are already a good player , which is why tournament top tier players change armies frequently to keep up with the meta. They already know what good play is, if a player is winning major GTs chances are they are not making mistakes either. They don't need or want to get good "faster" so if they play GK, its for a fun one off game or to give themselves a challenge or a handicap. Also, keep in mind that GK were great once, and could be again. GK were top dogs at the tail end of 5th edition before their fall from grace, and it is entirely possible for them to rise to power again in the future. I wouldn't rule it out.
Wasn't they good for like 6 months in 30 years of w40k? I hope, I won't have to wait another 30 years for GW to make them good. who knows if the game is going to alive then, or even if I am going to be alive.
I still don't understand the arguments people rise that GW is incommpetent in their writing . They clearly knew how to write the codex eldar, dark eldar, harlis if someone wanted to soup them, and Inari are plain great and combining all 3 of those.
But it isn't just eldar. The BA codex, when it did come out was fun and powerful. The SW codex may not be powerful, but it clearly is fun to play with. DW are a great way to play starter set primaris.
Knights, custodes and IG seem to be fine too.
I don't know about other factions as no one plays them here.
But even if all of them are bad, even as bad as GK, which I doubt is the case, the majority of book still seem to be writen well enough. Now am not going in to FAQ killing BAs, but they seem to get at least some of the stuff right.
What could be seen as incompetance is one person messing up something with the GK codex. Some people said that GW bases their changes on feed back from tournaments. And they are able to go in to instant reaction mode, if they see something they hate, like the 0" charge. I just think that maybe, because no one plays GK there, they don't even know that something is missing from the codex, that should have been there. I wouldn't even be suprised if that is why GK didn't get a FAQ like everyone else.
Add to that GW's policy of no balance so that people keep buying newest hotness and there you go.
Surely balance changes like the Rule of 3 make it more difficult for GW to sell people lots of stuff?
Logic does not apply here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: Wasn't they good for like 6 months in 30 years of w40k? I hope, I won't have to wait another 30 years for GW to make them good. who knows if the game is going to alive then, or even if I am going to be alive.
Perspective. In prior editions the wait could have been 4 to 6 years.
If GW doesn't throw GK a bone in this CA THEN you riot and get their attention to get in for March FAQ.
There are tools available to communicate with GW and multiple opportunities for them to make the changes - and they HAVE been making changes.
What could be seen as incompetance is one person messing up something with the GK codex. Some people said that GW bases their changes on feed back from tournaments. And they are able to go in to instant reaction mode, if they see something they hate, like the 0" charge. I just think that maybe, because no one plays GK there, they don't even know that something is missing from the codex, that should have been there. I wouldn't even be suprised if that is why GK didn't get a FAQ like everyone else.
Part of the problem GK has had is they have very low unit diversity on the whole. Arguably the issue has come from the separation of GK from Inquisition, and before 5th edition, they were linked with Sisters of Battle. Inquisitors and their henchmen gave GK much needed access to troop diversity, war gear accessories, and chaff- all of which would greatly help them this edition. This lack of diversity- especially in wargear- has been the primary thing holding GK back.
GK aren't unsalvagable, they just need to be buffed. They need 2 attacks base on all of their models to make their expensive force weapons worthwhile and allow players to branch out from over reliance on falcions. Psybolt Ammo needs to be baked into their bolter weapons, giving their base storm bolters s5 all the time. Their price needs to go down to reflect that at the end of the day they are still just a 1 wound power armor model. (but this is a change that needs to happen to marines across the board). Change their Rights of Banishment to scale up similar to Warlock's Smite (d3 at 7+ men,) Change Psycannons to d2 so they can legitimately threaten vehicles. Let GK re-roll all failed saving throws against codex daemons to counter the respawn strategem. (sacred armor rule)
I doubt space marines are gonna receive the point reductions people is hoping, and I doubt the units people expect to go up in points will go up in points, at least not in enough numbers for people to be sattisfied.
Galas wrote: I doubt space marines are gonna receive the point reductions people is hoping, and I doubt the units people expect to go up in points will go up in points, at least not in enough numbers for people to be sattisfied.
People are expecting more than what they are realistically going to get. I think the game needs some bigger changes, but we're not gonna get it in Chapter Approved. It's already hit the printers about a month ago after all.
Galas wrote: I doubt space marines are gonna receive the point reductions people is hoping, and I doubt the units people expect to go up in points will go up in points, at least not in enough numbers for people to be sattisfied.
I'm more than happy to be done with 8th ed, then. Tired of ig auto-wins.
Galas wrote: I doubt space marines are gonna receive the point reductions people is hoping, and I doubt the units people expect to go up in points will go up in points, at least not in enough numbers for people to be sattisfied.
I agree people won't get what they want, but they might get what they need - slow deliberate changes that don't immediately cause new issues (other than uncovering issues from other sources).
You can go look at GW's job openings right now, on their own website, and it will say right there in the application form that they do not hire based on skill.
lord_blackfang wrote: You can go look at GW's job openings right now, on their own website, and it will say right there in the application form that they do not hire based on skill.
Could you show me where, because I see this :
"We select candidates for interview based on what they tell us in their letter or video."
The game has game issues that need to be addressed, and then faction issues.
I’d love to see game issues addressed, Particularly Horde durability, soup viability, HTH lack of sparkle.
But I think the main thing they could make the game better is to make a clear organized play section, for Tourney and such. And I hate to say it, but they should be a little draconian in it, perhaps going as far as limiting thing like No Forgeworld, and perhaps even some factions.
This clear delineation would help with the toxic problems from multiple sides by allowing each to stand or fall on their own merits.
Reemule wrote: The game has game issues that need to be addressed, and then faction issues.
I’d love to see game issues addressed, Particularly Horde durability, soup viability, HTH lack of sparkle.
But I think the main thing they could make the game better is to make a clear organized play section, for Tourney and such. And I hate to say it, but they should be a little draconian in it, perhaps going as far as limiting thing like No Forgeworld, and perhaps even some factions.
This clear delineation would help with the toxic problems from multiple sides by allowing each to stand or fall on their own merits.
I kind of agree. If organized event play is truly limited, it would have less of a trickle-down affect on casual play.
Things like: No FW, No allies, etc, would not translate well into casual play.
As it is now, however, competitively paly restrictions are often the standard even for casual play
As it is now, however, competitively paly restrictions are often the standard even for casual play
-
And that is one of the issues you see most on Dakka dakka, you have casuals telling you not to nerf or buff something cause "its fine in my basement play with Jeorge"
This could solve that.
but really, it won't be there, as this is mostly a Dakka Dakka only issue.
As it is now, however, competitively paly restrictions are often the standard even for casual play
-
And that is one of the issues you see most on Dakka dakka, you have casuals telling you not to nerf or buff something cause "its fine in my basement play with Jeorge"
This could solve that.
but really, it won't be there, as this is mostly a Dakka Dakka only issue.
You get the opposite on dakka usually. Competitive players telling you everything is fine. Saying things like - "oh, it's the best but it's not OP" or "It's not overpowered, it's just undercosted a bit".
Casuals are usually more like. "my tactical squads do good work against unoptimized list" or something like that.
Soup lists are currently just using (especially in imperial soup lists) where guardsmen are used as cheap batteries for all the expensive units that raises the viability of too many powerful factions. Either limit the amount of cp that an Allied Detachment can get or remove CP Sharing between factions.
At our store we are struggling to have space marine players play at all competitively, our other lists are just outperforming them significantly.
As it is now, however, competitively paly restrictions are often the standard even for casual play
-
And that is one of the issues you see most on Dakka dakka, you have casuals telling you not to nerf or buff something cause "its fine in my basement play with Jeorge"
This could solve that.
but really, it won't be there, as this is mostly a Dakka Dakka only issue.
You get the opposite on dakka usually. Competitive players telling you everything is fine. Saying things like - "oh, it's the best but it's not OP" or "It's not overpowered, it's just undercosted a bit".
Casuals are usually more like. "my tactical squads do good work against unoptimized list" or something like that.
Which is actually misleading here?
Nope. That's not what I see. I see "As you can see in the scope of the latest GT X model continues to not show. I hope its changed"
Random Casual "NO MY FRIEND JIM WINS ALL TIMES WITH 40X UNIT" Or otherwise freely expressing an opinion when they also admit they haven't been to a tournament in 4 years.
By default casual and tournament play can't really be compared. My BT lists do far better against my local gaming group than what they should be doing according to Dakka. I haven't played in a tournament, but I imagine I would get slaughtered from what I see posted.
There's a lot of unreasonable hate in this topic. People need to compose themselves.
GW are making real efforts with 8th and are doing basically everything the community has asked of them over the years. Their stock performance indicates how happy the vast majority are.
Also, we haven't seen the latest Chapter Approved. If it fails to address army balances THEN we can complain about them letting us down.
Bingo. I find it hard to believe GW will completely ignore community feedback. (They actually responded to one of my friends who sent an email with stuff he and around 40 other Tau players wanted GW to go over and decide on possible changes.)
I think it's best to wait and see the results than wish or complain about what might be.
We prefer pre-complaining about things on Dakka Dakka
But seriously, the problem I keep seeing on this thread is people expecting more from Chapter Approved then they have any reason to expect. I expect CA2018 will look a lot like CA2017. And that is what they have promised so far:
Farsight Enclaves: The Eight
Ork Looted Wagons
Sisters of Battle Beta Codex
These all seem to replace various non-codex rules from CA2017 like Custom Land Raiders, updated Fortification rules, and Faction Rules for unpublished codexes.
That means absolutely no rules changes for any published Codex outside of Points Adjustments. This is totally reasonable. Such changes should either be in the FAQ/Errata document or in a future publication of the Codex.
alextroy wrote: We prefer pre-complaining about things on Dakka Dakka
But seriously, the problem I keep seeing on this thread is people expecting more from Chapter Approved then they have any reason to expect. I expect CA2018 will look a lot like CA2017. And that is what they have promised so far:
Farsight Enclaves: The Eight
Ork Looted Wagons
Sisters of Battle Beta Codex
These all seem to replace various non-codex rules from CA2017 like Custom Land Raiders, updated Fortification rules, and Faction Rules for unpublished codexes.
That means absolutely no rules changes for any published Codex outside of Points Adjustments. This is totally reasonable. Such changes should either be in the FAQ/Errata document or in a future publication of the Codex.
Gonna have to agree.
And I mean, if we don't start hoping for GW to make the hugest changes in CA, how can we be disappointed and complain about them not doing that?
alextroy wrote: We prefer pre-complaining about things on Dakka Dakka
But seriously, the problem I keep seeing on this thread is people expecting more from Chapter Approved then they have any reason to expect. I expect CA2018 will look a lot like CA2017. And that is what they have promised so far:
Farsight Enclaves: The Eight
Ork Looted Wagons
Sisters of Battle Beta Codex
These all seem to replace various non-codex rules from CA2017 like Custom Land Raiders, updated Fortification rules, and Faction Rules for unpublished codexes.
That means absolutely no rules changes for any published Codex outside of Points Adjustments. This is totally reasonable. Such changes should either be in the FAQ/Errata document or in a future publication of the Codex.
The last CA had a dozen pages to add stratagems to index armies. They can and probably will have rule updates including tweaks to beta rules.
Nov 18th last year is when they started previewing the book, so not this week, but the week after we'll know more.
Karthicus wrote: By default casual and tournament play can't really be compared. My BT lists do far better against my local gaming group than what they should be doing according to Dakka. I haven't played in a tournament, but I imagine I would get slaughtered from what I see posted.
Dakka focuses on (usually) the best armies. It is a vacuum where hypothetically you are going to fight the meta armies or skew lists. That does not mean everyone plays those lists, there are GK, Ork, BT, and Tau players + more here. That doesn't mean there are not actual cutthroat scenes out there, but you need to apply a slider on your scale of expectations if you do read the advice of theorycrafting that goes on here.
Daedalus81 wrote: The last CA had a dozen pages to add stratagems to index armies. They can and probably will have rule updates including tweaks to beta rules.
Hang on - didn't the beta rules just get tweaked in the Autumn FAQ? I really doubt there was enough time between the FAQ going live and CA2018 going to the printers for additional changes tot hose rules to be a factor.
The FAQ version might get printed in CA2018, but I doubt they'll've changed further.
Galas wrote: I doubt space marines are gonna receive the point reductions people is hoping, and I doubt the units people expect to go up in points will go up in points, at least not in enough numbers for people to be sattisfied.
I'm more than happy to be done with 8th ed, then. Tired of ig auto-wins.
Well, hopefully we'll see you in the eventual 9th edition, then.
I also hope that by then you will have found something about the game to be positive about, unlike the last 17 months...
The last CA had a lot of small point changes, which is exactly what we need right now. Huge sweeping changes are harmful for the game and frankly unneded. The game is finally close to being well balanced, no reason to apply huge swings now.
The only huge blow needed is stopping CP sharing so that soup problems are fixed, everything else can be done with little pushes here and there.
Karthicus wrote: By default casual and tournament play can't really be compared. My BT lists do far better against my local gaming group than what they should be doing according to Dakka. I haven't played in a tournament, but I imagine I would get slaughtered from what I see posted.
Dakka focuses on (usually) the best armies. It is a vacuum where hypothetically you are going to fight the meta armies or skew lists. That does not mean everyone plays those lists, there are GK, Ork, BT, and Tau players + more here. That doesn't mean there are not actual cutthroat scenes out there, but you need to apply a slider on your scale of expectations if you do read the advice of theorycrafting that goes on here.
To be fair Dakka tends to focus on only the top 5 winners at each tournament. If your army can't enter top 5 then it is "literally" trash according to some.
lord_blackfang wrote: You can go look at GW's job openings right now, on their own website, and it will say right there in the application form that they do not hire based on skill.
Could you show me where, because I see this :
"We select candidates for interview based on what they tell us in their letter or video."
Which is very different from what you're saying.
Anecdotal - but my local GW just hired a new casual who has never played any GW based games before. When I walked in the manager was giving him a demo game of AOS. At first I thought it was just some newbie who wondered into the store but nope, new staff member and everything.
I've heard first hand from several GW staff over the years, especially recently, that hiring is mostly based on attitude and customer service. Everything else can be taught.
lord_blackfang wrote: You can go look at GW's job openings right now, on their own website, and it will say right there in the application form that they do not hire based on skill.
Could you show me where, because I see this :
"We select candidates for interview based on what they tell us in their letter or video."
Which is very different from what you're saying.
Anecdotal - but my local GW just hired a new casual who has never played any GW based games before. When I walked in the manager was giving him a demo game of AOS. At first I thought it was just some newbie who wondered into the store but nope, new staff member and everything.
I've heard first hand from several GW staff over the years, especially recently, that hiring is mostly based on attitude and customer service. Everything else can be taught.
I mean that's pretty much true. If a new employee doesn't know enough about the major factions in terms of playstyle and lore to give advice to a customer then they can learn those things in a pretty short amount of time. If the new hire is an donkey-cave? That's a lot more difficult to fix, and in most cases will be far worse!
Anecdotal - but my local GW just hired a new casual who has never played any GW based games before. When I walked in the manager was giving him a demo game of AOS. At first I thought it was just some newbie who wondered into the store but nope, new staff member and everything.
I've heard first hand from several GW staff over the years, especially recently, that hiring is mostly based on attitude and customer service. Everything else can be taught.
If they are hiring for the store then I would say that the requirements don't need to be excessive. Would someone who knows the game help in the store? Sure, but at the same time it won't be a dealbreaker. It's an aspect that in store business would be categorized as "nice to have". In a brick and mortar store you want someone who presents well, can move product, and you can most likely pay a rather low wage too(this is a sad reality of those who work in most stores).
Now that I am thinking about it, why are we even talking about who works and who doesn't in a brick and store business? I don't think anyone would discuss this much about employees at Barnes & Noble or 7-11.
Karol wrote: I just hope there was some world class GK player that knew how to build a working GK list that wins at least 50/50 against armies being played around right now.
One issue is world class players in tournaments are not aiming for 50/50 so they would go for factions that allow better than that.
Well they had to have someone who is good at playing GK to write the codex or at least test the rules. I fully understand that being good at playing GK, is not going to give the same as being good at playing eldar. But there has to be some people that are good at it, at least at the design studio there should be people or at least a person that knows how they should work. I mean they seem to get some factions fine or even more then fine. I don't know who they have to write and test eldar rules, but that dude has to be a great. And am not just talking here in terms of power, but how the various options fit in to other options. Imperial soups seem very cumbersome, maybe even random, while something like DE is plain created with the idea in mind that there should be an ally eldar farseer in that army. You can even see it in to how the points click, no stupid left overs or over spils.
One of the main reason they implemented the second turn deep strike rule was the gray knights. After all its not fun getting destroyed first turn, but that really hurt the army strength.
There is design problem in the GK codex and now they have to thing of some elegant and non broken way to fix it.
Reemule wrote: The game has game issues that need to be addressed, and then faction issues.
I’d love to see game issues addressed, Particularly Horde durability, soup viability, HTH lack of sparkle.
But I think the main thing they could make the game better is to make a clear organized play section, for Tourney and such. And I hate to say it, but they should be a little draconian in it, perhaps going as far as limiting thing like No Forgeworld, and perhaps even some factions.
This clear delineation would help with the toxic problems from multiple sides by allowing each to stand or fall on their own merits.
Lol. Limit FW when it's GW codex with more broken stuff.
Also in practice what would happen is what happened with matched organized play rules NOW and they become de facto standard so basically if you were to create official tournament pack with "no FW" for example it would translate into no FW period so if you have FW model you would like to use "tough luck".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ishagu wrote: There's a lot of unreasonable hate in this topic. People need to compose themselves.
GW are making real efforts with 8th and are doing basically everything the community has asked of them over the years. Their stock performance indicates how happy the vast majority are.
Also, we haven't seen the latest Chapter Approved. If it fails to address army balances THEN we can complain about them letting us down.
They are good at PR and they are making real effort to randomly change balance upside down so that what sold before goes to no sale(no worries because all have them anyway) and what didnt' sell sell now(nobody had them so time to put them into good).
Only thing happened is that GW realized they can accelerate that process from codex to codex to FAQ to FAQ. End result is still same. No balance. It's not in their goal. They don't WANT balance as it hurts the balance of their checkbooks. Less profits for the big bosses.
Only thing happened is that GW realized they can accelerate that process from codex to codex to FAQ to FAQ. End result is still same. No balance. It's not in their goal. They don't WANT balance as it hurts the balance of their checkbooks. Less profits for the big bosses.
Pure conjecture. Plus, there is nothing that indicates balance is bad for the checkbooks. If anything less balance would hurt the checkbooks as it drives people away from the game. Hell, by your standards Death Guard and Primaris should be the strongest armies around as those are completely new models and people would be forced to buy their armies from scratch. Since neither of those things are happening and some of the strongest armies are armies that have existed for over a decade - which means a lot of people own a ton of these models - we can assume you are wrong about this. I think the only army that is new and powerful are the Imperial Knights. Imperial Guard, Craftworlds, and Drukhari are, however, lines that have been around for some time.
However, I will not deny they are having a hard problem balancing the game and there are several reasons. Since I have a semi-captive audience I am going to go over a few points.
First, this is the first time they are actively trying to balance the game in a few decades This means taking several decades worth of product and trying to balance it all around each other. This is a non-trivial task. We are talking about at least 23 factions where each faction has multiple entries and some are quite large. Adding to the complexity there are also some old snowflake models that they don't sell anymore but still provide support for in their indices. This is a large undertaking for any studio.
Truth be told they are going through a unique problem where they quite literally have to learn as they go and that is bloody difficult. Now, they could have taken an easier turn and just reset the game completely by removing ton of entries and kept every faction normalized in relation to other factions, but then everybody would be up in arms.
However, for the sake of posterity I would mention that they need to take a few pages from FFG. They really need to double the point value of all units(like they did in X-Wing) just to give themselves more granularity. I mean, the amount of discussion over 1 point on Guardsmen and Kabalites shows well how their point values are scored way too low. They also need to have an app that updates points on a more regular basis. This would give them unprecedented flexibility as the current structure of a CA book once a year isn't really flexible nor feasible for such a large and unwieldy game.
On top of all of this you have tournaments creating their own unique mission structure that creates even more issues.
I would also mention something about GW I've noticed that I experienced at my company around 10 years ago. GW is going through substantive growth and success which means that they probably need to hire more people for their internal processes(and if they are hiring to Nottingham it is going to be difficult to get people to relocate there). Problem is that it takes a lot of time to get new employees up and running and to make them as productive as older veterans. Wouldn't be surprised if they are also playing around with restructuring of their processes still(Agile, Scrum, all that jazz).
I apologize for the long answer, I just get tired when people assume that people have no passion for their work and are just some lackeys trying to earn gold for their masters. It's a dishonest accusation that dehumanizes people as well as demonizes.
lord_blackfang wrote: You can go look at GW's job openings right now, on their own website, and it will say right there in the application form that they do not hire based on skill.
Could you show me where, because I see this :
"We select candidates for interview based on what they tell us in their letter or video."
Which is very different from what you're saying.
Anecdotal - but my local GW just hired a new casual who has never played any GW based games before. When I walked in the manager was giving him a demo game of AOS. At first I thought it was just some newbie who wondered into the store but nope, new staff member and everything.
I've heard first hand from several GW staff over the years, especially recently, that hiring is mostly based on attitude and customer service. Everything else can be taught.
To be fair, that's a retail employee. I doubt that he will be writing rules next week
Eldarsif wrote: I think the only army that is new and powerful are the Imperial Knights. Imperial Guard, Craftworlds, and Drukhari are, however, lines that have been around for some time.
Ishagu wrote: There's a lot of unreasonable hate in this topic. People need to compose themselves.
GW are making real efforts with 8th and are doing basically everything the community has asked of them over the years. Their stock performance indicates how happy the vast majority are.
Also, we haven't seen the latest Chapter Approved. If it fails to address army balances THEN we can complain about them letting us down.
Ok, but a year ago people were saying the same thing. Best edition, most are happy, wait for CA. CA fixed nothing, but people still went on how to people shouldn't be negative, best edition of w40k, stock are high and wait for FAQ. GK didn't get their own FAQ and the general one nerfed them only God knows why. And here we see again people saying the same thing again. Where is the proof that they will actually fix stuff and not the cool stuff GK should be happy about ends up a scenario for open play?
And please don't say it is GW saying GK players should be happy after the CA, because on their twitch channel they said the same before every FAQ.
With sob you can actually trust them to change stuff. Some WIP models, some rules etc. I mean if GW bases its rules writing reaction on tournament data, and the books are set in stone months ago. Then the fix to GK maybe something crazy, like some anti deep strike stratagem, because 3-4 months ago deep strike was strong.
One of the main reason they implemented the second turn deep strike rule was the gray knights. After all its not fun getting destroyed first turn, but that really hurt the army strength.
That would be insane. For GK deep strike was a movment mechanic, same as infiltration or jetbikes for other armies. It was never used the way BA used it aka to charge stuff, because 1A doesn't make you a good melee unit. Their firepower was also nothing like sternguard or deep striking dark reapers that shot twice with soul burst. I can't imagine an army that could get destroyed on the first turn, from GK shoting. The dice would have to roll nothing but 1&2s for the non GK player.
Quick question. If GW struggles with having enough people doing the rules testing, why don't they do an open beta test and a more limited alfa? The number of people playing the game goes , probably tens of thousends, and with that many people there is no chance people would miss stuff like malific lords or the old soulburst&dark reaper combos. They would save money and time, people would see the rules and could adjust their buying to the armies they like the game play. It would be a nice PR move too, because no one could be able to say that GW is doing some shady stuff with buffing one faction over and over again. Errors would be picked up, before people buy models or the books go to printers. And all for free, because people would love to play with beta rules for GW.
Quick question. If GW struggles with having enough people doing the rules testing, why don't they do an open beta test and a more limited alfa? The number of people playing the game goes , probably tens of thousends, and with that many people there is no chance people would miss stuff like malific lords or the old soulburst&dark reaper combos. They would save money and time, people would see the rules and could adjust their buying to the armies they like the game play. It would be a nice PR move too, because no one could be able to say that GW is doing some shady stuff with buffing one faction over and over again. Errors would be picked up, before people buy models or the books go to printers. And all for free, because people would love to play with beta rules for GW.
That's a horrible idea because the 40k playerbase consists of just too many crybabies who are either never ever happy, or completely blind to any actual balance (see point where I argued people all through 6th and 7th that the riptide wasn't nearly as broken as they thought at the only issue was specifically the ion accelerator blast profile, and later the riptide wing-backed by mathematical proof that the HBC variant, or the IA without the non-NOVA blast was actually a pretty bad dakka platform)
And GW knows it. they know that any "beta" they could do will be muddied by people who just CANNOT BE PLEASED. they will whine about things in their favorite faction being under-powered even when its mathematically just fine or even slightly above curve, and will whine about things being outright OP even when math proves they are in the lower end of the curve if they come from a faction they dislike.
Its impossible to please everyone and trying to do so only makes things worse.
NOW, back to the question of GK-yes, they are having a serious issue.
But the issue is NOT in power level, or point costs, or unit variety or any of these. these are the symptoms and not the actual issue.
The issue-the real issue-is that they have an identity crisis.
On one hand, its supposed to be an anti-daemon specialist taskforce.
On the other, they are trying to make it a TAC "standard" army (because people demand it)
And the two just CANNOT co-exist. they can be either anti-daemon specialists, or a "TAC magic marine" army. any attempt to do both will result in disaster, either its just WAY too good against daemons and fine against all else, or fine (with a decent yet not overwhelming advantage) against daemons yet utterly underpowered anywhere else.
TAC wants to be "fair against everyone", but then you threw the flavor of anti-daemon specialists out the window.
Specialists wants to be the best at one thing and not good at others.
Both is impossible.
On my opinion? the only way GK are getting "fixed", is if they decide to either throw away the fluff and make them generic "magic marines", or embrace the long-standing age of IoM being the army rather than individual codex and give them true specialist abilities-GREAT against daemons, but weak otherwise. let them be the specialists they are meant to be.
No IoM "codex" has to be stand-alone viable these days. it just needs a reason to exist by having teamups that makes it viable. even if GK are only viable as a secondary force to a bigger IoM army-they are still a thing. a tool in the IoM toolbox.
As for the rest of the rant.
Yes, there IS a lot of unreasonable hate.
GW are not gods, and making a perfectly balanced game is not hard, its outright impossible.
CA2018 fixed a LOT, and improved MUCH. claiming it fixed nothing is being dishoest.
And yes, it didn't fix everything. heck it barely changed anything from the codcies and was mostly index changes-BECUASE IT WAS PRINTED LONG BEFORE MOST CODCIES WERE RELEASED.
If anyone thought, for a second, that CA17 is going to fix GK, he was a fool. there was barely any time, if any, from the release of the GK codex to the printing of CA. and the GK codex-when standing alone in front of the "first four", was totally fine-its the later codcies that showed just how troubled the GK codex was, and by THAT point, it was FAR too late. and CA17 had a lot of ground to cover anyway.
And no, they wont FAQ fix it. you don't do sweeping changes in an FAQ unless something is inherently broken. being weak is not breaking the game. even on the strong scale of things they only made small adjustments because doing otherwise is insane.
The general FAQ did not "nerf" the GK. they were adversely effected by changes that were overall very healthy to the game. the fact they got weaker from it was an unintended side effect of fixing glaring issues that GK happened to be using, but heck other armies made FAR more use of these anyway. comparatively speaking, GK got improved by others taking bigger blows.
Now, will CA18 "fix" GK?
I doubt it. its just not the place to make sweeping changes, and as said point costs CANNOT fix the inherit problem of GK. there simply isn't a point level that could make them fair.
The next iritation of their codex, who I expect to hit at least a year away from now if not two, THAT could fix. because by that point GW had a lot of time to learn how 8th works in the actual field, and experiment with other marine variants to have a better idea what sticks, what doesn't and how to work the numbers and playstyles. at that point GW might be able to give GK a new outlook that might work.
But they are probably afraid to do so, because if you shift towards TAC, you anger the fluff faction that like their GK to be anti-daemon, and if you go the specialists route you anger the "everything must TAC!" crowd. there is just no way to please everyone and they WILL be faced with backlash either way they go, quite possibly more backlash than simply doing nothing (and doing nothing is CHEAP)
Thats a very well reasoned argument as to why GK don't work and won't work without a fundamental change.
However even making that fundamental change is even more complicated now by the existence of Deathwatch as a standalone codex, which are the true TAC marine +1 faction. Custodes are Marines +2 GK's no longer have a marine + area to play in. They have to go back to being either the loyalist Thousand sons (mass protection focused Pshycic powers or dedicated anti choas.
Before someone suggest making them anti psycher that's SoS thing so you anti doing that either as a specialisation.
Quick question. If GW struggles with having enough people doing the rules testing, why don't they do an open beta test and a more limited alfa? The number of people playing the game goes , probably tens of thousends, and with that many people there is no chance people would miss stuff like malific lords or the old soulburst&dark reaper combos. They would save money and time, people would see the rules and could adjust their buying to the armies they like the game play. It would be a nice PR move too, because no one could be able to say that GW is doing some shady stuff with buffing one faction over and over again. Errors would be picked up, before people buy models or the books go to printers. And all for free, because people would love to play with beta rules for GW.
That's a horrible idea because the 40k playerbase consists of just too many crybabies who are either never ever happy, or completely blind to any actual balance (see point where I argued people all through 6th and 7th that the riptide wasn't nearly as broken as they thought at the only issue was specifically the ion accelerator blast profile, and later the riptide wing-backed by mathematical proof that the HBC variant, or the IA without the non-NOVA blast was actually a pretty bad dakka platform)
And GW knows it. they know that any "beta" they could do will be muddied by people who just CANNOT BE PLEASED. they will whine about things in their favorite faction being under-powered even when its mathematically just fine or even slightly above curve, and will whine about things being outright OP even when math proves they are in the lower end of the curve if they come from a faction they dislike.
Its impossible to please everyone and trying to do so only makes things worse.
NOW, back to the question of GK-yes, they are having a serious issue.
But the issue is NOT in power level, or point costs, or unit variety or any of these. these are the symptoms and not the actual issue.
The issue-the real issue-is that they have an identity crisis.
On one hand, its supposed to be an anti-daemon specialist taskforce.
On the other, they are trying to make it a TAC "standard" army (because people demand it)
And the two just CANNOT co-exist. they can be either anti-daemon specialists, or a "TAC magic marine" army. any attempt to do both will result in disaster, either its just WAY too good against daemons and fine against all else, or fine (with a decent yet not overwhelming advantage) against daemons yet utterly underpowered anywhere else.
TAC wants to be "fair against everyone", but then you threw the flavor of anti-daemon specialists out the window.
Specialists wants to be the best at one thing and not good at others.
Both is impossible.
On my opinion? the only way GK are getting "fixed", is if they decide to either throw away the fluff and make them generic "magic marines", or embrace the long-standing age of IoM being the army rather than individual codex and give them true specialist abilities-GREAT against daemons, but weak otherwise. let them be the specialists they are meant to be.
No IoM "codex" has to be stand-alone viable these days. it just needs a reason to exist by having teamups that makes it viable. even if GK are only viable as a secondary force to a bigger IoM army-they are still a thing. a tool in the IoM toolbox.
As for the rest of the rant.
Yes, there IS a lot of unreasonable hate.
GW are not gods, and making a perfectly balanced game is not hard, its outright impossible.
CA2018 fixed a LOT, and improved MUCH. claiming it fixed nothing is being dishoest.
And yes, it didn't fix everything. heck it barely changed anything from the codcies and was mostly index changes-BECUASE IT WAS PRINTED LONG BEFORE MOST CODCIES WERE RELEASED.
If anyone thought, for a second, that CA17 is going to fix GK, he was a fool. there was barely any time, if any, from the release of the GK codex to the printing of CA. and the GK codex-when standing alone in front of the "first four", was totally fine-its the later codcies that showed just how troubled the GK codex was, and by THAT point, it was FAR too late. and CA17 had a lot of ground to cover anyway.
And no, they wont FAQ fix it. you don't do sweeping changes in an FAQ unless something is inherently broken. being weak is not breaking the game. even on the strong scale of things they only made small adjustments because doing otherwise is insane.
The general FAQ did not "nerf" the GK. they were adversely effected by changes that were overall very healthy to the game. the fact they got weaker from it was an unintended side effect of fixing glaring issues that GK happened to be using, but heck other armies made FAR more use of these anyway. comparatively speaking, GK got improved by others taking bigger blows.
Now, will CA18 "fix" GK?
I doubt it. its just not the place to make sweeping changes, and as said point costs CANNOT fix the inherit problem of GK. there simply isn't a point level that could make them fair.
The next iritation of their codex, who I expect to hit at least a year away from now if not two, THAT could fix. because by that point GW had a lot of time to learn how 8th works in the actual field, and experiment with other marine variants to have a better idea what sticks, what doesn't and how to work the numbers and playstyles. at that point GW might be able to give GK a new outlook that might work.
But they are probably afraid to do so, because if you shift towards TAC, you anger the fluff faction that like their GK to be anti-daemon, and if you go the specialists route you anger the "everything must TAC!" crowd. there is just no way to please everyone and they WILL be faced with backlash either way they go, quite possibly more backlash than simply doing nothing (and doing nothing is CHEAP)
sounds like you are one of those people. Riptide was so much more than just a gun. Even with the IAC he was better than most every other MC out there. Such a slanted view to say this variation had less firepower so it's fine. Nope, it's just broken in one less category.
Quick question. If GW struggles with having enough people doing the rules testing, why don't they do an open beta test and a more limited alfa?
Alpha is limited to a certain circle of people outside GW, and now they are going to hand us a beta codex in CA2018 so they are technically doing everything you are asking for.
I think the more apparent reason for slipups is that they have been releasing codexes at an unprecedented rate and for me that is one of the big reason things are as they are. The release schedule has been crazy and I imagine that both internal testers and outside "alpha" testers don't have enough time to fully test out things. I even wonder if some of the alpha testers have enough models to test out the extremes(although the rule of 3 should reign that in a bit). I mean, you've just started testing the Necron codex when the Drukhari codex hits, and since alpha testers are often free labor they are not going to find as much time testing as people who get paid to do so 8-10 hours five days a week.
Which brings me to the point I am very excited about. When they've finished releasing the big update to the entire line they can start to tweak things and that's when we'll see how serious they are about balance. CA2018 is the first Chapter Approved that comes out when a lot of units are in a place where they are no longer in an index(except for GSC and SoB).
tneva82 wrote:Only thing happened is that GW realized they can accelerate that process from codex to codex to FAQ to FAQ. End result is still same. No balance. It's not in their goal. They don't WANT balance as it hurts the balance of their checkbooks. Less profits for the big bosses.
I'm going to ask again where the Rule of 3 fits in with this theory? Because it effectively limits how many of any given kit a competitive player is likely to buy.
tneva82 wrote:Only thing happened is that GW realized they can accelerate that process from codex to codex to FAQ to FAQ. End result is still same. No balance. It's not in their goal. They don't WANT balance as it hurts the balance of their checkbooks. Less profits for the big bosses.
I'm going to ask again where the Rule of 3 fits in with this theory? Because it effectively limits how many of any given kit a competitive player is likely to buy.
I'm not saying I agree with the theory the GW is just out to make people keep buying stuff to by making X worthless in the game, so you have to buy Y, BUUUUUUT...
...I could see the rule of 3 limiting how many of X a player buys so that they HAVE to buy Y to fill out their army. And If X is really good right now, in a few months an FAQ might make it not so good and you'll have to got out and buy 3 of Z to replace it.
Again, not saying I agree, but that's how it fits into the theory
Reemule wrote: I kind of liked BOLS idea that all adeptus astarts gain reroll Armor save rolls of 1.
That would certainly help Tacs and Termies, but if they don't also apply it to Chaos Marines, it would not go over well.
The thing about the Rule of 3 is that it sets a hard limit on how much you need of any unit before you don't have to ever buy more of those ever again. For somebody like me who spends too much money on plastic dolls this rule was a god send.
Reemule wrote: I kind of liked BOLS idea that all adeptus astarts gain reroll Armor save rolls of 1.
That would certainly help Tacs and Termies, but if they don't also apply it to Chaos Marines, it would not go over well.
-
I don't feel that its a problem for it to be on heretic astartes. I realize that its REALLY good on Deathguard, and Rubric, but perhaps they get some point adjustment.
Reality though keeps coming back to that the game Has to fix the value proposition of the Hordes durability issue. This basic flaw in the rules continues to screw over any real chance of fixing some models through point revamp.
Galef wrote: I'm not saying I agree with the theory the GW is just out to make people keep buying stuff to by making X worthless in the game, so you have to buy Y, BUUUUUUT...
...I could see the rule of 3 limiting how many of X a player buys so that they HAVE to buy Y to fill out their army. And If X is really good right now, in a few months an FAQ might make it not so good and you'll have to got out and buy 3 of Z to replace it.
But you could sell more of X, Y or Z if there was no limit on how many a player could have in their army. Surely enough competitive players chasing meta would hop from X to Y to Z with every meta shift to make it worthwhile, so why effectively limit how much of each you're gonna sell to those players?
Or you accept that the basic SM chassis needs a points decrease across all codices that use it.. 11 ppm for base and adjust the specials (weapons/ unit abilities ) as needed.
I haven't read all the thread so don't know if this has been covered before but the Ork codex may give us a few pointers to some changes ahead.
Firstly Boyz have gone up a point, I'm hoping this is part of GW realising that masses of cheap bodies is really powerful and means they may raise guardsmen, cultists, Tzaangors,Zombies and maybe some of the eldar/darkeldar and daemon cheap infantry by a point.
The Orky Killsaw is the same as a chainfist (actually slightly better as they can be used in pairs for +1A) but only costs 15 points. Obviously similar things in different books may be costed differently but the powerclaw which is the same as a powerfist costs 13pts, which is 1pt higher than a fist but orks have an additional attack over marines so it is slightly more effective in their hands. I'm hoping this means a 14pt chainfist.
The basic Meganob before gear is only 20pts, obviously a little different than a terminator with no invuln, slower, worse BS but they do have an extra wound and all the orky rules like re-rolling charges so I'm hoping this may indicate a lowering of the terminators base cost.
Just a few observations, may mean nothing but hopefully.....
Galef wrote: I'm not saying I agree with the theory the GW is just out to make people keep buying stuff to by making X worthless in the game, so you have to buy Y, BUUUUUUT...
...I could see the rule of 3 limiting how many of X a player buys so that they HAVE to buy Y to fill out their army. And If X is really good right now, in a few months an FAQ might make it not so good and you'll have to got out and buy 3 of Z to replace it.
But you could sell more of X, Y or Z if there was no limit on how many a player could have in their army. Surely enough competitive players chasing meta would hop from X to Y to Z with every meta shift to make it worthwhile, so why effectively limit how much of each you're gonna sell to those players?
Probably because GW know "meta chasers" don't buy from them directly anyway, often going for after-market sellers. Or those same "meta-chasers" sell their old X, Y or Z meaning less players overall buy X, Y or Z directly from GW. So by limiting those players to only want to buy 3 of anything, they have less to sell off when it gets a nerf, thereby limiting the amount of after-market models are available to players and indirectly increasing the amount of players directly buying from GW (because less of X, Y and Z are being sold second hand)
Just a guess. Alternatively, GW could genuinely care about balance and not every rule is meant to increase their bottom line. Which in the long run, increases their bottom line
Reemule wrote: I kind of liked BOLS idea that all adeptus astarts gain reroll Armor save rolls of 1.
Pretty sure the issue with power armor is taking a 5+ or no save in far too many situations in which reroll saves of 1 is worthless. Literally - worthless.
If you are taking a 5+ save with reroll 1's you chance of success goes up 1/24. Meanwhile - if you are taking a 2+ save in cover you only fail 1/36 wounds (basically a unit of intercessors would become immortal vs bolt guns.)
Galef wrote: Probably because GW know "meta chasers" don't buy from them directly anyway, often going for after-market sellers. Or those same "meta-chasers" sell their old X, Y or Z meaning less players overall buy X, Y or Z directly from GW.
So by limiting those players to only want to buy 3 of anything, they have less to sell off when it gets a nerf, thereby indirectly limiting the amount of after-market models are available to players.
Can you clarify what you mean by after-market sellers? Do you mean like other retailers or getting stuff second hand? Just wanna make sure I have the right end of the stick before I reply!
Reemule wrote: I kind of liked BOLS idea that all adeptus astarts gain reroll Armor save rolls of 1.
That would certainly help Tacs and Termies, but if they don't also apply it to Chaos Marines, it would not go over well.
-
I don't feel that its a problem for it to be on heretic astartes. I realize that its REALLY good on Deathguard, and Rubric, but perhaps they get some point adjustment.
Reality though keeps coming back to that the game Has to fix the value proposition of the Hordes durability issue. This basic flaw in the rules continues to screw over any real chance of fixing some models through point revamp.
I don’t know about Rubrics, but do Deathguard really need that Armour benefit? I mean, aren’t most of the new DG plague Marine models amour’s comprised, with their intestines hanging out?
Reemule wrote: I kind of liked BOLS idea that all adeptus astarts gain reroll Armor save rolls of 1.
Pretty sure the issue with power armor is taking a 5+ or no save in far too many situations in which reroll saves of 1 is worthless. Literally - worthless.
If you are taking a 5+ save with reroll 1's you chance of success goes up 1/24. Meanwhile - if you are taking a 2+ save in cover you only fail 1/36 wounds (basically a unit of intercessors would become immortal vs bolt guns.)
It's the wrong way to go.
Agree and disagree.
As you say, rerolling ones makes power armour really too much hard against small arms, not to mention termies.
Disagree on the problem being the 5+ saves, that's a problem with dissies, which should be resolved on its own.
I don't have a problem when plasma fires into marines, they are supposed to die to that. I have a problem when there are vehicles at 120 points who can delete a tac squad in a single phase.
Automatically Appended Next Post: By the way, 1 reroll one on a 5+ is a 9% increase in durability.
Earth127 wrote: Or you accept that the basic SM chassis needs a points decrease across all codices that use it.. 11 ppm for base and adjust the specials (weapons/ unit abilities ) as needed.
But the problem goes back in the race to the base is horde durability issue again comes up.
Not to mention all the problems with 11 point marines invalidate 11 point scouts, so they get repointed to 8 points, that cause scions to get repointed to 6, that cause guards to get repointed to 4, that cause conscripts to get repointed to -1 and you gain points for taking conscripts.
That last line is some snark, but it really is the problem.
GW needs to correct the hordes durability problem. Or Do a double or triple point of the game. Double pointing is where you now play 4K games, and a unit that is now 500, cost 1000 points.
Reemule wrote: I kind of liked BOLS idea that all adeptus astarts gain reroll Armor save rolls of 1.
That would certainly help Tacs and Termies, but if they don't also apply it to Chaos Marines, it would not go over well.
-
I don't feel that its a problem for it to be on heretic astartes. I realize that its REALLY good on Deathguard, and Rubric, but perhaps they get some point adjustment.
Reality though keeps coming back to that the game Has to fix the value proposition of the Hordes durability issue. This basic flaw in the rules continues to screw over any real chance of fixing some models through point revamp.
I don’t know about Rubrics, but do Deathguard really need that Armour benefit? I mean, aren’t most of the new DG plague Marine models amour’s comprised, with their intestines hanging out?
Deathguard don't. But the idea is that the majority of power armors do, and so your looking for a comprehensive rule that solves the issue, as well as makes sense in the universe. Its not a good idea to have "astartes Training" that affects all astartes, well except the Deathguard for some reason.
Reemule wrote: I kind of liked BOLS idea that all adeptus astarts gain reroll Armor save rolls of 1.
Pretty sure the issue with power armor is taking a 5+ or no save in far too many situations in which reroll saves of 1 is worthless. Literally - worthless.
If you are taking a 5+ save with reroll 1's you chance of success goes up 1/24. Meanwhile - if you are taking a 2+ save in cover you only fail 1/36 wounds (basically a unit of intercessors would become immortal vs bolt guns.)
It's the wrong way to go.
For clarity, your saying Terminators would be immortal right?
And they would. You'd be losing 1 wound 1 out of 36 wounding shots onto them that didn't have an AP modifier of some kind. Intercessors would gain some survivability versus small arms, but not like terminators.
Galef wrote: Probably because GW know "meta chasers" don't buy from them directly anyway, often going for after-market sellers. Or those same "meta-chasers" sell their old X, Y or Z meaning less players overall buy X, Y or Z directly from GW. So by limiting those players to only want to buy 3 of anything, they have less to sell off when it gets a nerf, thereby indirectly limiting the amount of after-market models are available to players.
Can you clarify what you mean by after-market sellers? Do you mean like other retailers or getting stuff second hand? Just wanna make sure I have the right end of the stick before I reply!
Like eBay. GW gains nothing from models sold and resold on eBay. With the Rule of 3, people who trade in armies whenever the meta changes are more likely to buy a variety of models and when the sell them, it takes less away from GW, especially since eBay buyers may not want units X or Y and are only looking for Z. If they can't find Z by itself on eBay (because meta chasers are trying to get rid of X Y and Z), they are more likely to buy from GW directly (or from an LGS that gets it from GW)
Galef wrote: Like eBay. GW gains nothing from models sold and resold on eBay. With the Rule of 3, people who trade in armies whenever the meta changes are more likely to buy a variety of models and when the sell them, it takes less away from GW, especially since eBay buyers may not want units X or Y and are only looking for Z.
If they can't find Z by itself on eBay (because meta chasers are trying to get rid of X Y and Z), they are more likely to buy from GW directly (or from an LGS that gets it from GW)
-
There's less on eBay and there is also less the other person needs to buy.
You're jumping through a bunch of silly hoops to make a post hoc justification.
Galef wrote: Like eBay. GW gains nothing from models sold and resold on eBay. With the Rule of 3, people who trade in armies whenever the meta changes are more likely to buy a variety of models and when the sell them, it takes less away from GW, especially since eBay buyers may not want units X or Y and are only looking for Z. If they can't find Z by itself on eBay (because meta chasers are trying to get rid of X Y and Z), they are more likely to buy from GW directly (or from an LGS that gets it from GW)
-
There's less on eBay and there is also less the other person needs to buy. Stop trying to justify nonsense.
Not trying to justify anything. Just pointing out potential (if far fetched) reasons why the Rule of 3 does not necessarily hurt GWs bottom line. Players are still gonna buy plenty of minis, just not more than 3 of any non-Troop unit.
Earth127 wrote: Or you accept that the basic SM chassis needs a points decrease across all codices that use it.. 11 ppm for base and adjust the specials (weapons/ unit abilities ) as needed.
But the problem goes back in the race to the base is horde durability issue again comes up.
Not to mention all the problems with 11 point marines invalidate 11 point scouts, so they get repointed to 8 points, that cause scions to get repointed to 6, that cause guards to get repointed to 4, that cause conscripts to get repointed to -1 and you gain points for taking conscripts.
That last line is some snark, but it really is the problem.
GW needs to correct the hordes durability problem. Or Do a double or triple point of the game. Double pointing is where you now play 4K games, and a unit that is now 500, cost 1000 points.
Reemule wrote: I kind of liked BOLS idea that all adeptus astarts gain reroll Armor save rolls of 1.
That would certainly help Tacs and Termies, but if they don't also apply it to Chaos Marines, it would not go over well.
-
I don't feel that its a problem for it to be on heretic astartes. I realize that its REALLY good on Deathguard, and Rubric, but perhaps they get some point adjustment.
Reality though keeps coming back to that the game Has to fix the value proposition of the Hordes durability issue. This basic flaw in the rules continues to screw over any real chance of fixing some models through point revamp.
I don’t know about Rubrics, but do Deathguard really need that Armour benefit? I mean, aren’t most of the new DG plague Marine models amour’s comprised, with their intestines hanging out?
Deathguard don't. But the idea is that the majority of power armors do, and so your looking for a comprehensive rule that solves the issue, as well as makes sense in the universe. Its not a good idea to have "astartes Training" that affects all astartes, well except the Deathguard for some reason.
Reemule wrote: I kind of liked BOLS idea that all adeptus astarts gain reroll Armor save rolls of 1.
Pretty sure the issue with power armor is taking a 5+ or no save in far too many situations in which reroll saves of 1 is worthless. Literally - worthless.
If you are taking a 5+ save with reroll 1's you chance of success goes up 1/24. Meanwhile - if you are taking a 2+ save in cover you only fail 1/36 wounds (basically a unit of intercessors would become immortal vs bolt guns.)
It's the wrong way to go.
For clarity, your saying Terminators would be immortal right?
And they would. You'd be losing 1 wound 1 out of 36 wounding shots onto them that didn't have an AP modifier of some kind. Intercessors would gain some survivability versus small arms, but not like terminators.
The issue with marines is not surviving small arms - they are really effective against small arms (probably a little to costly for the protection you get from it) the issue is -ap weapons. Reroll 1's of saves does not address this because it scales backwards with -ap weapons. The best thing to do is lower cost or increase wounds as this give an overall flat suriviability increase.
Well, when most of the things built to withstand small arms dies too quickly to anything with AP-1/-2, because they're too common/cheap, perhaps the problem is more the AP-1/-2 and less the defensive properties of the units built to withstand small arms fire?
Earth127 wrote: Or you accept that the basic SM chassis needs a points decrease across all codices that use it.. 11 ppm for base and adjust the specials (weapons/ unit abilities ) as needed.
But the problem goes back in the race to the base is horde durability issue again comes up.
Not to mention all the problems with 11 point marines invalidate 11 point scouts, so they get repointed to 8 points, that cause scions to get repointed to 6, that cause guards to get repointed to 4, that cause conscripts to get repointed to -1 and you gain points for taking conscripts.
That last line is some snark, but it really is the problem.
GW needs to correct the hordes durability problem. Or Do a double or triple point of the game. Double pointing is where you now play 4K games, and a unit that is now 500, cost 1000 points.
Hordes being too durable is an old dakka meme who has been proven mathematically false times and times again.
Take guardsmen at 4 points out of the picture, and you magically discover that no one has issues killing hormagaunts in an efficent way.
A bolter is more efficent against an hormagaunt than against a tac marine, and we are talking about a model that is commonly considered overpriced for it's durability.
If you consider S3 weapons then the comparison becomes ludicrous.
Cultist fair a bit better, but are butchered by morale.
Bharring wrote: Well, when most of the things built to withstand small arms dies too quickly to anything with AP-1/-2, because they're too common/cheap, perhaps the problem is more the AP-1/-2 and less the defensive properties of the units built to withstand small arms fire?
Ehh - the cost of 3+ armor protection being to expensive is the main problem.
The issue is practically any weapon kills more points of MEQ than GEQ (even 5 point gaurdsmen). It only gets worse with -ap.
The way I see it -
The cost of a W needs to go up and the cost of Armor Saves needs to go down.
or
-AP needs to go up in cost or reduced in effectiveness
Really - ether would work and I don't care how it is addressed.
Space Elves are actually *bad* at clearing hordes compared to Space Nazis or Space Crazies or Space Bugs. Or even Space Evil Robot Aliens. So if Hordes really were the problem, wouldn't we see less Space Elf supremacy?
Also think the problem arent marines themselves. They are on a pretty solid ground and where balance should go in my opinion. Just increase the cost on the units everyone plays (cheap standards, Ravagers, Neurotropes, ...) and reduce the cost on stuff no one ever plays (Grey Knights, Bloodcrushers, Tyranid Warriors, Terminators, ...) and we should get there. Maybe takes more than one iteration, but that cant be avoided anyway.
Hordes being too durable is an old dakka meme who has been proven mathematically false times and times again.
Take guardsmen at 4 points out of the picture, and you magically discover that no one has issues killing hormagaunts in an efficent way.
A bolter is more efficent against an hormagaunt than against a tac marine, and we are talking about a model that is commonly considered overpriced for it's durability.
If you consider S3 weapons then the comparison becomes ludicrous.
Cultist fair a bit better, but are butchered by morale.
No one really has trouble killing models.
The issue is that the units don't flee. Cultists have terrible morale, but are almost always pinned up by Abaddon.
People can take weapons that chew through them quickly, but then those weapons go through marines even faster than that.
So, what then is the incentive for using marines?
Note that I'm not taking a stance here, but just clarifying the points.
Hordes being too durable is an old dakka meme who has been proven mathematically false times and times again.
Take guardsmen at 4 points out of the picture, and you magically discover that no one has issues killing hormagaunts in an efficent way.
A bolter is more efficent against an hormagaunt than against a tac marine, and we are talking about a model that is commonly considered overpriced for it's durability.
If you consider S3 weapons then the comparison becomes ludicrous.
Cultist fair a bit better, but are butchered by morale.
No one really has trouble killing models.
The issue is that the units don't flee. Cultists have terrible morale, but are almost always pinned up by Abaddon.
People can take weapons that chew through them quickly, but then those weapons go through marines even faster than that.
So, what then is the incentive for using marines?
Note that I'm not taking a stance here, but just clarifying the points.
Hordes being too durable is an old dakka meme who has been proven mathematically false times and times again.
Take guardsmen at 4 points out of the picture, and you magically discover that no one has issues killing hormagaunts in an efficent way.
A bolter is more efficent against an hormagaunt than against a tac marine, and we are talking about a model that is commonly considered overpriced for it's durability.
If you consider S3 weapons then the comparison becomes ludicrous.
Cultist fair a bit better, but are butchered by morale.
No one really has trouble killing models.
The issue is that the units don't flee. Cultists have terrible morale, but are almost always pinned up by Abaddon.
People can take weapons that chew through them quickly, but then those weapons go through marines even faster than that.
So, what then is the incentive for using marines?
Note that I'm not taking a stance here, but just clarifying the points.
Yes - exactly my point.
I dont think we will see a fix for this in in CA2018. I see a lot of people say that tac's need to be cheaper, but SM isn't supposed to be a horde army.
The idea of making some weapons getting more shots against larger groups (like the demolisher cannon) would be an interesting approach if that mechanic was pushed out to more weapons.... but would that balance out or just nuke horde armies into oblivion?
Hordes being too durable is an old dakka meme who has been proven mathematically false times and times again.
Take guardsmen at 4 points out of the picture, and you magically discover that no one has issues killing hormagaunts in an efficent way.
A bolter is more efficent against an hormagaunt than against a tac marine, and we are talking about a model that is commonly considered overpriced for it's durability.
If you consider S3 weapons then the comparison becomes ludicrous.
Cultist fair a bit better, but are butchered by morale.
No one really has trouble killing models.
The issue is that the units don't flee. Cultists have terrible morale, but are almost always pinned up by Abaddon.
People can take weapons that chew through them quickly, but then those weapons go through marines even faster than that.
So, what then is the incentive for using marines?
Note that I'm not taking a stance here, but just clarifying the points.
Yes - exactly my point.
Except that this is simply not true.
Those weapons kill more points of hordes than of marines, that's the common misconception that you see around. Hordes are more durable than marines only when you go full dakkadakka and say that hordes=guardsmen, because only guardsmen suffer from a bolter less than a marine.
Seriously, run the math against the common cheap infantries like kabalites, guardians, hormagaunts, boyz, fire warriors and so on. They all suffer from the bolter more than a tac marine, and tac marines suck!
Also, saying "Cultists are immune to morale because there is always Abaddon", is like saying "Tac marines are fine because there is always GMan".
I dunno.
1 13ppm model vs 3 8ppm models isn't close.
1 13ppm model vs 2 12ppm models isn't close.
1 13ppm model vs 3 4ppm models *is* close - but that's the worst it gets: guardsmen.
Those weapons kill more points of hordes than of marines, that's the common misconception that you see around. Hordes are more durable than marines only when you go full dakkadakka and say that hordes=guardsmen, because only guardsmen suffer from a bolter less than a marine.
Seriously, run the math against the common cheap infantries like kabalites, guardians, hormagaunts, boyz, fire warriors and so on. They all suffer from the bolter more than a tac marine, and tac marines suck!
Also, saying "Cultists are immune to morale because there is always Abaddon", is like saying "Tac marines are fine because there is always GMan".
You're materially correct about bolters. Also, doing this exercise makes me thing IS should be 6 points ( )
I think it comes down to the density of weapons.
5 point IS bring 26 lasguns and kill 19 points of tacs -- doubled in half -- doubled again for FRFSRF.
10 tacs bring 10 bolters and kill 15 points of 5 point IS -- doubled in half.
6 point IS bring 22 lasguns and kill 16 points of tacs.
10 tacs kill 18 points of 6 point IS -- doubled in half.
18 shootas kill 30 points of marines.
10 tacs kill 19 points of boyz.
That's a horrible idea because the 40k playerbase consists of just too many crybabies who are either never ever happy, or completely blind to any actual balance (see point where I argued people all through 6th and 7th that the riptide wasn't nearly as broken as they thought at the only issue was specifically the ion accelerator blast profile, and later the riptide wing-backed by mathematical proof that the HBC variant, or the IA without the non-NOVA blast was actually a pretty bad dakka platform)
And GW knows it. they know that any "beta" they could do will be muddied by people who just CANNOT BE PLEASED. they will whine about things in their favorite faction being under-powered even when its mathematically just fine or even slightly above curve, and will whine about things being outright OP even when math proves they are in the lower end of the curve if they come from a faction they dislike.
Its impossible to please everyone and trying to do so only makes things worse.
NOW, back to the question of GK-yes, they are having a serious issue.
But the issue is NOT in power level, or point costs, or unit variety or any of these. these are the symptoms and not the actual issue.
The issue-the real issue-is that they have an identity crisis.
On one hand, its supposed to be an anti-daemon specialist taskforce.
On the other, they are trying to make it a TAC "standard" army (because people demand it)
And the two just CANNOT co-exist. they can be either anti-daemon specialists, or a "TAC magic marine" army. any attempt to do both will result in disaster, either its just WAY too good against daemons and fine against all else, or fine (with a decent yet not overwhelming advantage) against daemons yet utterly underpowered anywhere else.
TAC wants to be "fair against everyone", but then you threw the flavor of anti-daemon specialists out the window.
Specialists wants to be the best at one thing and not good at others.
Both is impossible.
On my opinion? the only way GK are getting "fixed", is if they decide to either throw away the fluff and make them generic "magic marines", or embrace the long-standing age of IoM being the army rather than individual codex and give them true specialist abilities-GREAT against daemons, but weak otherwise. let them be the specialists they are meant to be.
No IoM "codex" has to be stand-alone viable these days. it just needs a reason to exist by having teamups that makes it viable. even if GK are only viable as a secondary force to a bigger IoM army-they are still a thing. a tool in the IoM toolbox.
As for the rest of the rant.
Yes, there IS a lot of unreasonable hate.
GW are not gods, and making a perfectly balanced game is not hard, its outright impossible.
CA2018 fixed a LOT, and improved MUCH. claiming it fixed nothing is being dishoest.
And yes, it didn't fix everything. heck it barely changed anything from the codcies and was mostly index changes-BECUASE IT WAS PRINTED LONG BEFORE MOST CODCIES WERE RELEASED.
If anyone thought, for a second, that CA17 is going to fix GK, he was a fool. there was barely any time, if any, from the release of the GK codex to the printing of CA. and the GK codex-when standing alone in front of the "first four", was totally fine-its the later codcies that showed just how troubled the GK codex was, and by THAT point, it was FAR too late. and CA17 had a lot of ground to cover anyway.
And no, they wont FAQ fix it. you don't do sweeping changes in an FAQ unless something is inherently broken. being weak is not breaking the game. even on the strong scale of things they only made small adjustments because doing otherwise is insane.
The general FAQ did not "nerf" the GK. they were adversely effected by changes that were overall very healthy to the game. the fact they got weaker from it was an unintended side effect of fixing glaring issues that GK happened to be using, but heck other armies made FAR more use of these anyway. comparatively speaking, GK got improved by others taking bigger blows.
Now, will CA18 "fix" GK?
I doubt it. its just not the place to make sweeping changes, and as said point costs CANNOT fix the inherit problem of GK. there simply isn't a point level that could make them fair.
The next iritation of their codex, who I expect to hit at least a year away from now if not two, THAT could fix. because by that point GW had a lot of time to learn how 8th works in the actual field, and experiment with other marine variants to have a better idea what sticks, what doesn't and how to work the numbers and playstyles. at that point GW might be able to give GK a new outlook that might work.
But they are probably afraid to do so, because if you shift towards TAC, you anger the fluff faction that like their GK to be anti-daemon, and if you go the specialists route you anger the "everything must TAC!" crowd. there is just no way to please everyone and they WILL be faced with backlash either way they go, quite possibly more backlash than simply doing nothing (and doing nothing is CHEAP
Points and rules aren't the problem, but identity is Really that is the GK problem. Give me NDKS that are costed like a castellan with support stratagems, and no GK player will any identity problems.
General FAQ didn't nerf GK? Are you serious. look up all the articles or what the testers for GK said about the codex durning review. The thing that comes back over and over again is the ability to deep strike turn 1, shunt turn one etc. The razorback and storm raven nerfs were put there to kill the guillman list right? well GK didn't have anything like him, they were not winning any tournaments. And saying that other armies got hit harder, is a bogus argument to make. A BA army can still build a gunline, it will be worse then a loyalist or DA gunline. But it will work, it won't win huge tournaments, but it will work. A GK army does not work. I don't know what GW were thinking when they worked on weapon costs for GK gear. The nemezi weapons on models with so few A, and no real way to buff speed should be 0pts. The psycannons are describe as super powerful weapons that blast demon princes, and they are d1 with few shots and are -1to hit if you move lol.
And the argument that they can't make a faction powerful or good, because it will break game balance is laughable considering they are doing nothing with eldar. They don't even nerf their OP units, they just change them a bit, but they still get used. The rule of 3 was put there to stop reaper spam, only when it went live, eldar players were already running 2-3 such units.
Ah and about the supposed super influencial GK fluff faction of people, that want their GK bad, have you ever actually seen one of those people, even online? Or are they like the iluminati?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Earth127 wrote: I think most GK players would be fine with them being "TS loyalists" gameplay Wise. Lean into the psychics.
I think they would not care what the army does as long as it doesn't require two things 3000$ and FW models to run them, AND the army is good. It could be a spam list based around 15 NDKs of different types, and if it worked people would be happier then what there is now.
Please give Lukas access to a Jump Pack!
Lukas only ever kills one thing then gets left behind with his 6” movement. I’d be delighted to cough up the extra to have Lukas mobile.
Speaking of options, options for Primaris units would be cool.
Reemule wrote: That goes back to where the game needed to have weapons that scale that don't hurt marines as much.
Like if Flamers were 1d6 shots per 5 models in the target unit.
+1 to wound mechanics exist in this game, is there any reason why power armor couldn't apply a -1 to wound rolls if the weapon is say S4 or lower? Thus more accurately representing the marines of the fluff.
Wounding marines on a 6+
Lasguns
Autoguns
All S3 Melee attacks
And reducing S4 Chainswords and combat blades, as well as other bolters to a 5+ to wound, rather than a 4+?
Reemule wrote: That goes back to where the game needed to have weapons that scale that don't hurt marines as much.
Like if Flamers were 1d6 shots per 5 models in the target unit.
+1 to wound mechanics exist in this game, is there any reason why power armor couldn't apply a -1 to wound rolls if the weapon is say S4 or lower? Thus more accurately representing the marines of the fluff.
Wounding marines on a 6+
Lasguns
Autoguns
All S3 Melee attacks
And reducing S4 Chainswords and combat blades, as well as other bolters to a 5+ to wound, rather than a 4+?
Alright, so what about hot-shot lasguns? Those are supposed to be armour killers. But that make this much harder.
Reemule wrote: That goes back to where the game needed to have weapons that scale that don't hurt marines as much.
Like if Flamers were 1d6 shots per 5 models in the target unit.
+1 to wound mechanics exist in this game, is there any reason why power armor couldn't apply a -1 to wound rolls if the weapon is say S4 or lower? Thus more accurately representing the marines of the fluff.
Wounding marines on a 6+
Lasguns
Autoguns
All S3 Melee attacks
And reducing S4 Chainswords and combat blades, as well as other bolters to a 5+ to wound, rather than a 4+?
Alright, so what about hot-shot lasguns? Those are supposed to be armour killers. But that make this much harder.
Not at all, they're still AP-3, ignoring armor, which is what they're supposed to do.
I don't think Space Marine tacticals need to be harder to wound.
They just need to be cheaper. 1 or 2 points would improve their firepower/toughness density to acceptable levels [or more precisely, save 5-10 points on a 5-wound Lascannon].
Really, I don't feel that the tacticals need a lot of change. I'd like to see buffs to the support assets, like Predators, Vindicators, and Whirlwinds so that they can do the heavy lifting they should.
The basic Marine in power armour is okay defensively (I think it should be 12 points but ymmv) - but he has the shooting of a unit which costs half as much. So he is crap. The more marines with bolters in your army, the worse it is.
A marine carrying a plasma gun or something similar actually has okay (still not great due to codex creep, but okay) damage - but now he is 25-40 points per wound in a game where there are countless things that will mow him down with ease. You get the GK issue. A strike marine's offensive output is probably worth 21 points - but he has the defensive abilities of a 12 point unit. Consequently they are far too fragile.
Boosting power armour may help the above - but it will not make basic tacticals/CSM/assault marines etc who have crap offensive abilities any more viable.
I recently realized that the ork codex 'gets hot' equivalent weapons only ever cause mortal wounds on a UNMODIFIED roll of 1.
So, I wouldn't be at all surprised if that gets incorporated into all weapons game-wide. Because it's frankly silly that your plasma guns get more unreliable if its dark out of if your opponent is fast.
Kap'n Krump wrote: I recently realized that the ork codex 'gets hot' equivalent weapons only ever cause mortal wounds on a UNMODIFIED roll of 1.
So, I wouldn't be at all surprised if that gets incorporated into all weapons game-wide. Because it's frankly silly that your plasma guns get more unreliable if its dark out of if your opponent is fast.
Kap'n Krump wrote: I recently realized that the ork codex 'gets hot' equivalent weapons only ever cause mortal wounds on a UNMODIFIED roll of 1.
So, I wouldn't be at all surprised if that gets incorporated into all weapons game-wide. Because it's frankly silly that your plasma guns get more unreliable if its dark out of if your opponent is fast.
That's an interesting find, and would certainly shake things up. Dark Angels 3 & 4 damage plasma would suddenly become pretty solid.
Those weapons kill more points of hordes than of marines, that's the common misconception that you see around. Hordes are more durable than marines only when you go full dakkadakka and say that hordes=guardsmen, because only guardsmen suffer from a bolter less than a marine.
Seriously, run the math against the common cheap infantries like kabalites, guardians, hormagaunts, boyz, fire warriors and so on. They all suffer from the bolter more than a tac marine, and tac marines suck!
Also, saying "Cultists are immune to morale because there is always Abaddon", is like saying "Tac marines are fine because there is always GMan".
You're materially correct about bolters. Also, doing this exercise makes me thing IS should be 6 points ( )
I think it comes down to the density of weapons.
5 point IS bring 26 lasguns and kill 19 points of tacs -- doubled in half -- doubled again for FRFSRF.
10 tacs bring 10 bolters and kill 15 points of 5 point IS -- doubled in half.
6 point IS bring 22 lasguns and kill 16 points of tacs.
10 tacs kill 18 points of 6 point IS -- doubled in half.
18 shootas kill 30 points of marines.
10 tacs kill 19 points of boyz.
I've been saying for a long time that 6 ppm guardsmen is not crazy.
Kap'n Krump wrote: I recently realized that the ork codex 'gets hot' equivalent weapons only ever cause mortal wounds on a UNMODIFIED roll of 1.
So, I wouldn't be at all surprised if that gets incorporated into all weapons game-wide. Because it's frankly silly that your plasma guns get more unreliable if its dark out of if your opponent is fast.
That's an interesting find, and would certainly shake things up. Dark Angels 3 & 4 damage plasma would suddenly become pretty solid.
Indeed. My Redemptor Dreadnought would be happy as well to be able to move and fire his plasma without burning himself. And yes most importantly my Hellblasters would be way more dangerous against those -1 or more to hit units.
That's a horrible idea because the 40k playerbase consists of just too many crybabies who are either never ever happy, or completely blind to any actual balance (see point where I argued people all through 6th and 7th that the riptide wasn't nearly as broken as they thought at the only issue was specifically the ion accelerator blast profile, and later the riptide wing-backed by mathematical proof that the HBC variant, or the IA without the non-NOVA blast was actually a pretty bad dakka platform)
And GW knows it. they know that any "beta" they could do will be muddied by people who just CANNOT BE PLEASED. they will whine about things in their favorite faction being under-powered even when its mathematically just fine or even slightly above curve, and will whine about things being outright OP even when math proves they are in the lower end of the curve if they come from a faction they dislike.
Its impossible to please everyone and trying to do so only makes things worse.
NOW, back to the question of GK-yes, they are having a serious issue.
But the issue is NOT in power level, or point costs, or unit variety or any of these. these are the symptoms and not the actual issue.
The issue-the real issue-is that they have an identity crisis.
On one hand, its supposed to be an anti-daemon specialist taskforce.
On the other, they are trying to make it a TAC "standard" army (because people demand it)
And the two just CANNOT co-exist. they can be either anti-daemon specialists, or a "TAC magic marine" army. any attempt to do both will result in disaster, either its just WAY too good against daemons and fine against all else, or fine (with a decent yet not overwhelming advantage) against daemons yet utterly underpowered anywhere else.
TAC wants to be "fair against everyone", but then you threw the flavor of anti-daemon specialists out the window.
Specialists wants to be the best at one thing and not good at others.
Both is impossible.
On my opinion? the only way GK are getting "fixed", is if they decide to either throw away the fluff and make them generic "magic marines", or embrace the long-standing age of IoM being the army rather than individual codex and give them true specialist abilities-GREAT against daemons, but weak otherwise. let them be the specialists they are meant to be.
No IoM "codex" has to be stand-alone viable these days. it just needs a reason to exist by having teamups that makes it viable. even if GK are only viable as a secondary force to a bigger IoM army-they are still a thing. a tool in the IoM toolbox.
As for the rest of the rant.
Yes, there IS a lot of unreasonable hate.
GW are not gods, and making a perfectly balanced game is not hard, its outright impossible.
CA2018 fixed a LOT, and improved MUCH. claiming it fixed nothing is being dishoest.
And yes, it didn't fix everything. heck it barely changed anything from the codcies and was mostly index changes-BECUASE IT WAS PRINTED LONG BEFORE MOST CODCIES WERE RELEASED.
If anyone thought, for a second, that CA17 is going to fix GK, he was a fool. there was barely any time, if any, from the release of the GK codex to the printing of CA. and the GK codex-when standing alone in front of the "first four", was totally fine-its the later codcies that showed just how troubled the GK codex was, and by THAT point, it was FAR too late. and CA17 had a lot of ground to cover anyway.
And no, they wont FAQ fix it. you don't do sweeping changes in an FAQ unless something is inherently broken. being weak is not breaking the game. even on the strong scale of things they only made small adjustments because doing otherwise is insane.
The general FAQ did not "nerf" the GK. they were adversely effected by changes that were overall very healthy to the game. the fact they got weaker from it was an unintended side effect of fixing glaring issues that GK happened to be using, but heck other armies made FAR more use of these anyway. comparatively speaking, GK got improved by others taking bigger blows.
Now, will CA18 "fix" GK?
I doubt it. its just not the place to make sweeping changes, and as said point costs CANNOT fix the inherit problem of GK. there simply isn't a point level that could make them fair.
The next iritation of their codex, who I expect to hit at least a year away from now if not two, THAT could fix. because by that point GW had a lot of time to learn how 8th works in the actual field, and experiment with other marine variants to have a better idea what sticks, what doesn't and how to work the numbers and playstyles. at that point GW might be able to give GK a new outlook that might work.
But they are probably afraid to do so, because if you shift towards TAC, you anger the fluff faction that like their GK to be anti-daemon, and if you go the specialists route you anger the "everything must TAC!" crowd. there is just no way to please everyone and they WILL be faced with backlash either way they go, quite possibly more backlash than simply doing nothing (and doing nothing is CHEAP
Points and rules aren't the problem, but identity is Really that is the GK problem. Give me NDKS that are costed like a castellan with support stratagems, and no GK player will any identity problems.
General FAQ didn't nerf GK? Are you serious. look up all the articles or what the testers for GK said about the codex durning review. The thing that comes back over and over again is the ability to deep strike turn 1, shunt turn one etc. The razorback and storm raven nerfs were put there to kill the guillman list right? well GK didn't have anything like him, they were not winning any tournaments. And saying that other armies got hit harder, is a bogus argument to make. A BA army can still build a gunline, it will be worse then a loyalist or DA gunline. But it will work, it won't win huge tournaments, but it will work. A GK army does not work. I don't know what GW were thinking when they worked on weapon costs for GK gear. The nemezi weapons on models with so few A, and no real way to buff speed should be 0pts. The psycannons are describe as super powerful weapons that blast demon princes, and they are d1 with few shots and are -1to hit if you move lol.
And the argument that they can't make a faction powerful or good, because it will break game balance is laughable considering they are doing nothing with eldar. They don't even nerf their OP units, they just change them a bit, but they still get used. The rule of 3 was put there to stop reaper spam, only when it went live, eldar players were already running 2-3 such units.
Ah and about the supposed super influencial GK fluff faction of people, that want their GK bad, have you ever actually seen one of those people, even online? Or are they like the iluminati?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Earth127 wrote: I think most GK players would be fine with them being "TS loyalists" gameplay Wise. Lean into the psychics.
I think they would not care what the army does as long as it doesn't require two things 3000$ and FW models to run them, AND the army is good. It could be a spam list based around 15 NDKs of different types, and if it worked people would be happier then what there is now.
*sigh*
Quote from the Daemonhunters Codex, p 21."Note that it is entirely possible to form an army base purely around Grey Knights, if you so wish, by sticking to the Grey Knights units available to the army. This will make for a characterful but rather challenging force to play. With such dedication you'll certainly have the Emperor watching over you!"
That's a really important quote that explains a lot about Grey Knights players. There are a lot of people angry that their army just doesn't work well stand alone. The way to understand their complaints is: "I'm very angry that Matt Ward no longer works for GW and this is no longer 5th edition."
It's very unlikely those complaints will ever be dealt with via a rules change. What I hope CA does to fix this class of problem is:
1) Include that same disclaimer, in large bold letters, on the first page of the book.
2) Add a pre-game phase for games of Warhammer 40k to confirm both players have read and understand that statement before placing units on the table.
There's another class of Grey Knights player, someone a little more reasonable and less prone to anger over nostalgia. That player looks at the mechanics of the army to see what can be improved. That person would probably be satisfied if CA did the following:
1) Gave GK full smite instead of baby smite.
2) Made the heavy weapons more powerful, because right now they are not worth taking.
3) Restored Parry and other rules for Nemesis Force Weapons.
4) Made Terminator invulnerable saves rerollable.
5) Made Vortex of Doom able to target any model in 18 inches.
6) Made that Daemon stratagem that allows a Daemon to return from the warp once per game.
I'd be very happy if Chapter Approved gave us that.
GK need more than that. They'd still get run over with those changes. Although targeted Vortex would make Voldus an include in the typical supreme command librarian force.
Karol you have completely and utterly missed the point in my post.
ALL of them.
And inserted a few points that are not there.
techsoldaten you are also missing a vital point there, and are trying to handle the sympoms rather than the issue.
GK, as they are, are not fixable.
They CANT have a fair point cost, they are either overcosted, or the erase daemons (and much of CSM/TS/DG) off the game by virtue of being just as good as marines, except bitch-slapping any daemon units.
If they are fair against eldar (or orks, or nids, whatever-its a random example), they are outright broken against chaos factions because of how they are designed.
The only way to fix THAT is to make them not any better against daemons than against anything else-but at that point they shouldn't EXIST, as their entire shtick is supposed to be counter-daemon specialist taskforce.
The entire codex needs to be written up from the ground up, and a desicion HAS to be made-are they specialist or not. you cant manage a Schrodinger scenario.
Grey Knights should never have been a stand alone codex. That was a mistake. They should have stayed as Daemonhunters. That way you could have your super-specialized demon killers supported by more generalist elements. Grey Knights becoming stand alone is an example of why you shouldn't always listen to fans, along with Super Heavy Vehicles in normal games and aircraft. I'm sure some group of players along the line thought how cool it would be to have common access to those units. I remember people from my old FLGS saying stuff like that, years before 6th showed up.
Quickjager wrote: Specialized models that literally cannot even do their niche are not why they suck.
It's the rule writers.
But if they are specialized and niche then they will fail against 90% armies, as they would be bad matchups. There's no point building an entire army that's good against killing demons when you aren't fighting demons. Either they are demon hunters or generalists. And the latter are already Space Marines.
There should really be an Inquisition Codex or something, that folds all of these minor "specialist" factions together. Something that bundles together GK, Custodes, Sisters of Silence, Deathwatch, etc.
The basic Marine in power armour is okay defensively (I think it should be 12 points but ymmv) - but he has the shooting of a unit which costs half as much. So he is crap. The more marines with bolters in your army, the worse it is.
A marine carrying a plasma gun or something similar actually has okay (still not great due to codex creep, but okay) damage - but now he is 25-40 points per wound in a game where there are countless things that will mow him down with ease. You get the GK issue. A strike marine's offensive output is probably worth 21 points - but he has the defensive abilities of a 12 point unit. Consequently they are far too fragile.
Boosting power armour may help the above - but it will not make basic tacticals/CSM/assault marines etc who have crap offensive abilities any more viable.
Exactly, this is the real problem. Durability is fine on marines, it's just that bolters are a terrible weapons for a 13 point model! I made many suggestions about this, but they were always submerged by comments about marines being too fragile.
Marine durability is fine against most anti-troop weapons. It's their offense that is the problem. They don't do enough damage. They need something like rapid fire 2 to be worth their current points.
You can't compare marines the guardsmen because EVERYTHING compares poorly to guardsmen.
Its widely accepted that they should be 5ppm at the very least.
When Guardians are nearly half the cost and their weapons are AP-3 on 6's it makes Tac's with boltguns seem pointless. It's why you see SM lists with the min amount needed of actual marines. (granted Shuriken weapons are effective half the range but the point difference is well worth it)
GK, as they are, are not fixable.
They CANT have a fair point cost, they are either overcosted, or the erase daemons (and much of CSM/TS/DG) off the game by virtue of being just as good as marines, except bitch-slapping any daemon units.
If they are fair against eldar (or orks, or nids, whatever-its a random example), they are outright broken against chaos factions because of how they are designed.
The only way to fix THAT is to make them not any better against daemons than against anything else-but at that point they shouldn't EXIST, as their entire shtick is supposed to be counter-daemon specialist taskforce.
The entire codex needs to be written up from the ground up, and a desicion HAS to be made-are they specialist or not. you cant manage a Schrodinger scenario.
You do know that GK are so "good" vs demons that they make demons play better? Plus why should they be priced fair, non of the good armies are priced fair and people playing those, even go around saying their CWE are underpowered. A chaos player should fear the GK match up it should be a chaos hard counter. Same way tyranids, pre tyrant nerf, were countering eldar.
Why can't GK be both specialist and good vs everything at the same time. Eldar can have it, their dark reaper don't suddenly get bubble guns, if they face something else then marines. All their good stuff works always. If they have a good gun, it is good vs everything. If they have a specialist gun, it is not just good vs something like tanks or flyers, no it is good vs everything that has a wound stat. Their psychic powers don't work only on demons or stuff like that, they work always, to a point where DE start list by picking up a farseer.
Grey Knights should never have been a stand alone codex. That was a mistake. They should have stayed as Daemonhunters. That way you could have your super-specialized demon killers supported by more generalist elements.
Why didn't GW give them proper rules for each unit then. Interceptors were ok a few months ago, 1-2 extra rules or 5 pts less and they would have been good. If GK heavy weapons were good, or if GK psychic powers were good other GK units could be interesting. Even the power armor vs terminators thing could be fixed easily. Make the power armor guys the shoty ones, as for same points you get twice as many stormbolters, and make the termintors the melee specialists 3-4A each, then paladins could be the evocators of GK, with each wound they do generating a mortal wound on a +4. they could even stay with the same point cost they have now.
suddenly ancients would be dangerous to charge, because even if they kill with stratagems they will attack anyway, so the Mortal Wounds get a chance to proc no matter what.
Quote from the Daemonhunters Codex, p 21."Note that it is entirely possible to form an army base purely around Grey Knights, if you so wish, by sticking to the Grey Knights units available to the army. This will make for a characterful but rather challenging force to play. With such dedication you'll certainly have the Emperor watching over you!"
That's a really important quote that explains a lot about Grey Knights players. There are a lot of people angry that their army just doesn't work well stand alone. The way to understand their complaints is: "I'm very angry that Matt Ward no longer works for GW and this is no longer 5th edition."
It's very unlikely those complaints will ever be dealt with via a rules change. What I hope CA does to fix this class of problem is:
1) Include that same disclaimer, in large bold letters, on the first page of the book.
2) Add a pre-game phase for games of Warhammer 40k to confirm both players have read and understand that statement before placing units on the table.
There's another class of Grey Knights player, someone a little more reasonable and less prone to anger over nostalgia. That player looks at the mechanics of the army to see what can be improved. That person would probably be satisfied if CA did the following:
1) Gave GK full smite instead of baby smite.
2) Made the heavy weapons more powerful, because right now they are not worth taking.
3) Restored Parry and other rules for Nemesis Force Weapons.
4) Made Terminator invulnerable saves rerollable.
5) Made Vortex of Doom able to target any model in 18 inches.
6) Made that Daemon stratagem that allows a Daemon to return from the warp once per game.
I'd be very happy if Chapter Approved gave us that.
It is not 5th ed. Everyone keeps saying that 8th is suppose to be new stuff. Who cares what GW design team though about GK 3 editions ago. I haven't played 3 editions ago. I want to play now, and have fun with my army now. Not travel to the past somehow to have fun with the army.
Non of the changes fixs the thing that a high cost models like any GK model is, is not going to reach melee, or do good in it with its 1A. The changes to the hvy weapons would have to be ground breaking, like giving psycannons 4-5 shots each or something crazy like that, and even then GK would then be just a DA clone without the Buff characters, cheaper cost, and support units.
The inv thing could be good, if GK had access to something like stormshields or at least had custodes invs. re-rolling saves on a +5, does not help much when the weapons hiting the termintors do 2D each hit. It would also do nothing to all the power armored units.
GK, as they are, are not fixable.
They CANT have a fair point cost, they are either overcosted, or the erase daemons (and much of CSM/TS/DG) off the game by virtue of being just as good as marines, except bitch-slapping any daemon units.
If they are fair against eldar (or orks, or nids, whatever-its a random example), they are outright broken against chaos factions because of how they are designed.
The only way to fix THAT is to make them not any better against daemons than against anything else-but at that point they shouldn't EXIST, as their entire shtick is supposed to be counter-daemon specialist taskforce.
The entire codex needs to be written up from the ground up, and a desicion HAS to be made-are they specialist or not. you cant manage a Schrodinger scenario.
You do know that GK are so "good" vs demons that they make demons play better? Plus why should they be priced fair, non of the good armies are priced fair and people playing those, even go around saying their CWE are underpowered. A chaos player should fear the GK match up it should be a chaos hard counter. Same way tyranids, pre tyrant nerf, were countering eldar.
Some might say anyone taking a Grey Knights detachment is making their opponent's list better.
Karol wrote: Why can't GK be both specialist and good vs everything at the same time. Eldar can have it, their dark reaper don't suddenly get bubble guns, if they face something else then marines. All their good stuff works always. If they have a good gun, it is good vs everything. If they have a specialist gun, it is not just good vs something like tanks or flyers, no it is good vs everything that has a wound stat. Their psychic powers don't work only on demons or stuff like that, they work always, to a point where DE start list by picking up a farseer.
Have you thought about the fact Grey Knights were one of the first Codexes for 8th edition? There weren't Codexes for any of the armies you mention when their Codex was released.
The entire army is elite heavy infantry. Grey Knights should be 'good' against anything that elite heavy infantry is good against. They should not be generalists like Eldar, who have an answer to everything they face.
Grey Knights should never have been a stand alone codex. That was a mistake. They should have stayed as Daemonhunters. That way you could have your super-specialized demon killers supported by more generalist elements.
Why didn't GW give them proper rules for each unit then. Interceptors were ok a few months ago, 1-2 extra rules or 5 pts less and they would have been good. If GK heavy weapons were good, or if GK psychic powers were good other GK units could be interesting. Even the power armor vs terminators thing could be fixed easily. Make the power armor guys the shoty ones, as for same points you get twice as many stormbolters, and make the termintors the melee specialists 3-4A each, then paladins could be the evocators of GK, with each wound they do generating a mortal wound on a +4. they could even stay with the same point cost they have now.
suddenly ancients would be dangerous to charge, because even if they kill with stratagems they will attack anyway, so the Mortal Wounds get a chance to proc no matter what.
I don't understand that response to the point that Grey Knights should not have a stand alone Codex.
I mean, yeah, sure, someone could tweak the rules to make them a well-rounded set of generalists. But that's not who GKs are, and that's not really who they have ever been.
5th edition Grey Knights are a fluke, every other edition had them as an ally in a larger army. People that have built their expectations around them being good as a standalone force are being unrealistic. Even Deathwing players have had to get over the fact that army is never going to fly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: It is not 5th ed. Everyone keeps saying that 8th is suppose to be new stuff. Who cares what GW design team though about GK 3 editions ago. I haven't played 3 editions ago. I want to play now, and have fun with my army now. Not travel to the past somehow to have fun with the army.
Non of the changes fixs the thing that a high cost models like any GK model is, is not going to reach melee, or do good in it with its 1A. The changes to the hvy weapons would have to be ground breaking, like giving psycannons 4-5 shots each or something crazy like that, and even then GK would then be just a DA clone without the Buff characters, cheaper cost, and support units.
The inv thing could be good, if GK had access to something like stormshields or at least had custodes invs. re-rolling saves on a +5, does not help much when the weapons hiting the termintors do 2D each hit. It would also do nothing to all the power armored units.
You want to have fun with the army with a set of expectations built on a Codex from 3 editions ago. That's not realistic.
You're right, none of the changes I proposed would make them more than a support detachment in an Inquisition force. As they should be.
Whenever GW gets around to rewriting Codex Grey Knights, they need to properly use the design space they gave themselves to build a fully functional codex.
How you ask?
Step 1: While totally ignoring how effective they are against daemons, build a Psychically-based Marine Codex that has units that functions well in the game.
Step 2: Add a good mix of Stratagems that are both very effective against Daemons but still useful against other armies.
For example, a Stratagem that makes their attacks more likely to defeat Invulnerable Saves would be great against daemons but still effective against many armies.
And the beauty of that is that Stratagems you choose to not use against one army don't make your army weaker. It's only if you have no useful Stratagems that you get a lackluster codex.
GK, as they are, are not fixable.
They CANT have a fair point cost, they are either overcosted, or the erase daemons (and much of CSM/TS/DG) off the game by virtue of being just as good as marines, except bitch-slapping any daemon units.
If they are fair against eldar (or orks, or nids, whatever-its a random example), they are outright broken against chaos factions because of how they are designed.
The only way to fix THAT is to make them not any better against daemons than against anything else-but at that point they shouldn't EXIST, as their entire shtick is supposed to be counter-daemon specialist taskforce.
The entire codex needs to be written up from the ground up, and a desicion HAS to be made-are they specialist or not. you cant manage a Schrodinger scenario.
You do know that GK are so "good" vs demons that they make demons play better? Plus why should they be priced fair, non of the good armies are priced fair and people playing those, even go around saying their CWE are underpowered. A chaos player should fear the GK match up it should be a chaos hard counter. Same way tyranids, pre tyrant nerf, were countering eldar.
Why can't GK be both specialist and good vs everything at the same time. Eldar can have it, their dark reaper don't suddenly get bubble guns, if they face something else then marines. All their good stuff works always. If they have a good gun, it is good vs everything. If they have a specialist gun, it is not just good vs something like tanks or flyers, no it is good vs everything that has a wound stat. Their psychic powers don't work only on demons or stuff like that, they work always, to a point where DE start list by picking up a farseer.
Grey Knights should never have been a stand alone codex. That was a mistake. They should have stayed as Daemonhunters. That way you could have your super-specialized demon killers supported by more generalist elements.
Why didn't GW give them proper rules for each unit then. Interceptors were ok a few months ago, 1-2 extra rules or 5 pts less and they would have been good. If GK heavy weapons were good, or if GK psychic powers were good other GK units could be interesting. Even the power armor vs terminators thing could be fixed easily. Make the power armor guys the shoty ones, as for same points you get twice as many stormbolters, and make the termintors the melee specialists 3-4A each, then paladins could be the evocators of GK, with each wound they do generating a mortal wound on a +4. they could even stay with the same point cost they have now.
suddenly ancients would be dangerous to charge, because even if they kill with stratagems they will attack anyway, so the Mortal Wounds get a chance to proc no matter what.
There's a difference between Eldar being effective and Grey Knights being a canned counter. Eldar are not deliberately designed with the intent of kicking a specific faction in the balls, they just have effective units with effective weaponry. Eldar having a weapon that is effective against T4 3+ armor saves is not the same as Eldar having a rule that says "if a unit with the <Adeptus Astartes> keyword is on the battlefield, remove it at the end of your psychic phase".
If you want Grey Knights to be generally effective like Eldar are you're going to need to accept that Grey Knights being designed with the specific intent of being too strong against daemons is an undesirable game state.
Eldarsif wrote: The thing about the Rule of 3 is that it sets a hard limit on how much you need of any unit before you don't have to ever buy more of those ever again.
Well, until the next time the rules change. And there WILL be a next time.
Quickjager wrote: Specialized models that literally cannot even do their niche are not why they suck.
It's the rule writers.
But if they are specialized and niche then they will fail against 90% armies, as they would be bad matchups.
There's no point building an entire army that's good against killing demons when you aren't fighting demons.
Either they are demon hunters or generalists. And the latter are already Space Marines.
There should really be an Inquisition Codex or something, that folds all of these minor "specialist" factions together. Something that bundles together GK, Custodes, Sisters of Silence, Deathwatch, etc.
If they are specialized and niche, and fail to do their ONE fething job; then it's the rules writers and has gak to do with them failing because they never should have been a full army.
Eldarsif wrote: The thing about the Rule of 3 is that it sets a hard limit on how much you need of any unit before you don't have to ever buy more of those ever again.
Well, until the next time the rules change. And there WILL be a next time.
highly unlikely that Rule of 3 ever goes anywhere. Certainly not as certain as you imply.
Arachnofiend wrote: There's a difference between Eldar being effective and Grey Knights being a canned counter. Eldar are not deliberately designed with the intent of kicking a specific faction in the balls, they just have effective units with effective weaponry. Eldar having a weapon that is effective against T4 3+ armor saves is not the same as Eldar having a rule that says "if a unit with the <Adeptus Astartes> keyword is on the battlefield, remove it at the end of your psychic phase".
If you want Grey Knights to be generally effective like Eldar are you're going to need to accept that Grey Knights being designed with the specific intent of being too strong against daemons is an undesirable game state.
Well, I'm not sure anyone wants Grey Knights to be "generally effective."
I think the consensus is they need to be the best psychic chapter in the Imperium. The fact they kick daemon butt is just part and parcel.
GK, as they are, are not fixable.
They CANT have a fair point cost, they are either overcosted, or the erase daemons (and much of CSM/TS/DG) off the game by virtue of being just as good as marines, except bitch-slapping any daemon units.
If they are fair against eldar (or orks, or nids, whatever-its a random example), they are outright broken against chaos factions because of how they are designed.
The only way to fix THAT is to make them not any better against daemons than against anything else-but at that point they shouldn't EXIST, as their entire shtick is supposed to be counter-daemon specialist taskforce.
The entire codex needs to be written up from the ground up, and a desicion HAS to be made-are they specialist or not. you cant manage a Schrodinger scenario.
You do know that GK are so "good" vs demons that they make demons play better? Plus why should they be priced fair, non of the good armies are priced fair and people playing those, even go around saying their CWE are underpowered. A chaos player should fear the GK match up it should be a chaos hard counter. Same way tyranids, pre tyrant nerf, were countering eldar.
Why can't GK be both specialist and good vs everything at the same time. Eldar can have it, their dark reaper don't suddenly get bubble guns, if they face something else then marines. All their good stuff works always. If they have a good gun, it is good vs everything. If they have a specialist gun, it is not just good vs something like tanks or flyers, no it is good vs everything that has a wound stat. Their psychic powers don't work only on demons or stuff like that, they work always, to a point where DE start list by picking up a farseer.
Grey Knights should never have been a stand alone codex. That was a mistake. They should have stayed as Daemonhunters. That way you could have your super-specialized demon killers supported by more generalist elements.
Why didn't GW give them proper rules for each unit then. Interceptors were ok a few months ago, 1-2 extra rules or 5 pts less and they would have been good. If GK heavy weapons were good, or if GK psychic powers were good other GK units could be interesting. Even the power armor vs terminators thing could be fixed easily. Make the power armor guys the shoty ones, as for same points you get twice as many stormbolters, and make the termintors the melee specialists 3-4A each, then paladins could be the evocators of GK, with each wound they do generating a mortal wound on a +4. they could even stay with the same point cost they have now.
suddenly ancients would be dangerous to charge, because even if they kill with stratagems they will attack anyway, so the Mortal Wounds get a chance to proc no matter what.
There's a difference between Eldar being effective and Grey Knights being a canned counter. Eldar are not deliberately designed with the intent of kicking a specific faction in the balls, they just have effective units with effective weaponry. Eldar having a weapon that is effective against T4 3+ armor saves is not the same as Eldar having a rule that says "if a unit with the <Adeptus Astartes> keyword is on the battlefield, remove it at the end of your psychic phase".
If you want Grey Knights to be generally effective like Eldar are you're going to need to accept that Grey Knights being designed with the specific intent of being too strong against daemons is an undesirable game state.
Hey dude, don't you know that in 2018 the Grey Knight is being stomped really hard by Daemon? A decently built Daemon army will crush even the most strong built GK, as they out fight and out last the GK. And whenever an important Daemon unit like a Daemon Prince, a 9 stronger Flamer or a 30 strong Bloodletter bomb is killed by Grey Knight, they will just come back and kill the GK in return without any difficulty.
OK, how about the GK army just reduce those important Daemon units down to their last few models or last couple wounds in the case of Daemon MC? Come on, as long as they still have enough CP, any decent Daemon players will charge that heavily depleted unit into your Daemon Hunter to get them killed, so they can come back at full strength.
TBH, in 8th edition, Grey Knight is one of the worst choice to fight Daemon in the game!!!
All this talk about marines (although justified) but my Necrons are still a dead faction (no pun here)...
Although I agree with some posters that the 40k community is a bit whiney (myself included...sometimes). Till today I still see people writing in forums/chats „RP is so broken“.
My BIGGEST fix Id wish for would be to make „competitive play“ more or less detached from the rest of the game...I know there is „Open play“ for that but when GW is doing more of those FAQs and CAs and the direct influence for them are tourneys and tourney players I guess this would be the best solution...(similar to VALVE with CSGO or Magic with its formats etc.).
Arachnofiend wrote: There's a difference between Eldar being effective and Grey Knights being a canned counter. Eldar are not deliberately designed with the intent of kicking a specific faction in the balls, they just have effective units with effective weaponry. Eldar having a weapon that is effective against T4 3+ armor saves is not the same as Eldar having a rule that says "if a unit with the <Adeptus Astartes> keyword is on the battlefield, remove it at the end of your psychic phase".
If you want Grey Knights to be generally effective like Eldar are you're going to need to accept that Grey Knights being designed with the specific intent of being too strong against daemons is an undesirable game state.
Well, I'm not sure anyone wants Grey Knights to be "generally effective."
I think the consensus is they need to be the best psychic chapter in the Imperium. The fact they kick daemon butt is just part and parcel.
Karol wrote:Why can't GK be both specialist and good vs everything at the same time.
Eldarsif wrote: The thing about the Rule of 3 is that it sets a hard limit on how much you need of any unit before you don't have to ever buy more of those ever again.
Well, until the next time the rules change. And there WILL be a next time.
highly unlikely that Rule of 3 ever goes anywhere. Certainly not as certain as you imply.
We'll see. BTW, I don't have to be right on this only in the context of 8th. The rule can change come 9th+ Like I said, there WILL be a next time.
Eldarsif wrote: The thing about the Rule of 3 is that it sets a hard limit on how much you need of any unit before you don't have to ever buy more of those ever again.
Well, until the next time the rules change. And there WILL be a next time.
highly unlikely that Rule of 3 ever goes anywhere. Certainly not as certain as you imply.
People thought that about allies as well. Things change. GW changes their policies and eventually GW will decide this limits their sales too much.
Quickjager wrote: Specialized models that literally cannot even do their niche are not why they suck.
It's the rule writers.
But if they are specialized and niche then they will fail against 90% armies, as they would be bad matchups.
There's no point building an entire army that's good against killing demons when you aren't fighting demons.
Either they are demon hunters or generalists. And the latter are already Space Marines.
There should really be an Inquisition Codex or something, that folds all of these minor "specialist" factions together. Something that bundles together GK, Custodes, Sisters of Silence, Deathwatch, etc.
If they are specialized and niche, and fail to do their ONE fething job; then it's the rules writers and has gak to do with them failing because they never should have been a full army.
Removed - Rule #1 please
Yes, that's bad, but if they did do their job they would still be bad as most of their specialization would be wasted against everything that wasn't a demon.
Also I wish for a severe point reduction for Sisters of Silence and a way to field them without handicapping yourself, that is, in a Inquisition Vanguard with a HQ. Right now they're so unplayable I believe the whole playerbase have forgotten their existence.
Eldarsif wrote: The thing about the Rule of 3 is that it sets a hard limit on how much you need of any unit before you don't have to ever buy more of those ever again.
Well, until the next time the rules change. And there WILL be a next time.
highly unlikely that Rule of 3 ever goes anywhere. Certainly not as certain as you imply.
People thought that about allies as well. Things change. GW changes their policies and eventually GW will decide this limits their sales too much.
GW already introduced ways of getting around it by making different data sheets for the same unit. In the ork codex there are 3 variations of battlewagons. They all use the battlewagon kit, but as they are different datasheets you aren't really restricted by the rule of 3. You can legally field 9 battlewagons, as long as they are 3 of each variant.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Aaranis wrote: Also I wish for a severe point reduction for Sisters of Silence and a way to field them without handicapping yourself, that is, in a Inquisition Vanguard with a HQ. Right now they're so unplayable I believe the whole playerbase have forgotten their existence.
Codex Inquisition would be great. Making all of these small elite armies stand alone was a terrible idea.
Eldarsif wrote: The thing about the Rule of 3 is that it sets a hard limit on how much you need of any unit before you don't have to ever buy more of those ever again.
Well, until the next time the rules change. And there WILL be a next time.
highly unlikely that Rule of 3 ever goes anywhere. Certainly not as certain as you imply.
People thought that about allies as well. Things change. GW changes their policies and eventually GW will decide this limits their sales too much.
Also that it's a stupid lazy band-aid rule that fails utterly to do any of the things it's intended to do while also creating ADDITIONAL issues.
Eldarsif wrote: The thing about the Rule of 3 is that it sets a hard limit on how much you need of any unit before you don't have to ever buy more of those ever again.
Well, until the next time the rules change. And there WILL be a next time.
highly unlikely that Rule of 3 ever goes anywhere. Certainly not as certain as you imply.
People thought that about allies as well. Things change. GW changes their policies and eventually GW will decide this limits their sales too much.
Also that it's a stupid lazy band-aid rule that fails utterly to do any of the things it's intended to do while also creating ADDITIONAL issues.
Considering that i don't see 12x PBC lists or crap like that around means that the rule is working wonderfully.
The game as it is now would be broken for many many reasons if it wasn't for that rule. Without it, the existence of just one single overpowered model breaks the game. Can you imagine DE with more than 3 ravagers? There are some models right now that are clearly undercosted, and the game would be unplayable without the rule of 3, it's one of the best rules we have been given.
Arachnofiend wrote: There's a difference between Eldar being effective and Grey Knights being a canned counter. Eldar are not deliberately designed with the intent of kicking a specific faction in the balls, they just have effective units with effective weaponry. Eldar having a weapon that is effective against T4 3+ armor saves is not the same as Eldar having a rule that says "if a unit with the <Adeptus Astartes> keyword is on the battlefield, remove it at the end of your psychic phase".
If you want Grey Knights to be generally effective like Eldar are you're going to need to accept that Grey Knights being designed with the specific intent of being too strong against daemons is an undesirable game state.
Well, I'm not sure anyone wants Grey Knights to be "generally effective."
I think the consensus is they need to be the best psychic chapter in the Imperium. The fact they kick daemon butt is just part and parcel.
Why can't GK be both specialist and good vs everything at the same time.
You ask for the moon. It would be nice to get it, but I would settle for a flashlight at this point.
NurglesR0T wrote: When Guardians are nearly half the cost and their weapons are AP-3 on 6's it makes Tac's with boltguns seem pointless. It's why you see SM lists with the min amount needed of actual marines. (granted Shuriken weapons are effective half the range but the point difference is well worth it)
Defender Guardians also have better move and can run without suffering a -1. That mobility makes up for the short range although it does make them more susceptible to a counter-attack in return.
What I would like to see:
Point decreases: Greater deamons, marines across the board, crisis suits, Deamon engines, most pure CC units especially ones that have to run up the board(exluding units like smash captains), whatever units necron players want to play with for the next year. More fw stuff then I can list to at least make them playable.
Get rid of the 1 commander per detachment, update how Knight relics work to make the relics and warlord traits a little worse/harder to get. (I dont want castellan point increase)
Point Increases: none
What I expect to happen, castellan +120 points, valiant up 30 points, dark reapers, eldar psykers, shining spears, eldar flyers all up slightly. Possible change to -1 hit tactics, potentially only the unconditional ones (not raven guard and alpha basically). mortars up to 6 points, change to ion bulwark.
Each faction getting another stratagem or two, possibly a new relic (More incentive for everyone to buy it).
The eight will suck except for the riptide
Eldarsif wrote: The thing about the Rule of 3 is that it sets a hard limit on how much you need of any unit before you don't have to ever buy more of those ever again.
Well, until the next time the rules change. And there WILL be a next time.
highly unlikely that Rule of 3 ever goes anywhere. Certainly not as certain as you imply.
People thought that about allies as well. Things change. GW changes their policies and eventually GW will decide this limits their sales too much.
Also that it's a stupid lazy band-aid rule that fails utterly to do any of the things it's intended to do while also creating ADDITIONAL issues.
Considering that i don't see 12x PBC lists or crap like that around means that the rule is working wonderfully.
The game as it is now would be broken for many many reasons if it wasn't for that rule. Without it, the existence of just one single overpowered model breaks the game. Can you imagine DE with more than 3 ravagers? There are some models right now that are clearly undercosted, and the game would be unplayable without the rule of 3, it's one of the best rules we have been given.
In one of my local GW stores, the tournaments are 1500 points and ignore the rule of 3. An army fielding 6 PBC has been taking home all the prices for weeks now.
tneva82 wrote: People thought that about allies as well. Things change. GW changes their policies and eventually GW will decide this limits their sales too much.
GW already introduced ways of getting around it by making different data sheets for the same unit. In the ork codex there are 3 variations of battlewagons. They all use the battlewagon kit, but as they are different datasheets you aren't really restricted by the rule of 3. You can legally field 9 battlewagons, as long as they are 3 of each variant.
Rule of 3 is not going anywhere.
The datasheet issue doesn't matter. Most of the times, there's no sense in taking more than 3 of the same unit. Who wants 9 battlewagons? It's the 7 Flyrants that were the issue.
The one exception I can think of is Daemon Princes. 9 of them are tough. But not at the level of Ye Olde Flying Circus, there's no way to buff each one to create a juggernaut. It's a problem, but it's not a huge problem.
Only one of those battlewagon is worth spamming though, the bonebreaka. The regular battlewagon is basically a big rhino (you can spam those!), and the gunwagon is for when you feel like spending 155 points on a gun that's outperformed by one you can get for 31.
Jidmah wrote: Only one of those battlewagon is worth spamming though, the bonebreaka. The regular battlewagon is basically a big rhino (you can spam those!), and the gunwagon is for when you feel like spending 155 points on a gun that's outperformed by one you can get for 31.
BUT BUT BUT durability?
Sometimes i am surprised by how much it costs for anyone.
Jidmah wrote: Only one of those battlewagon is worth spamming though, the bonebreaka. The regular battlewagon is basically a big rhino (you can spam those!), and the gunwagon is for when you feel like spending 155 points on a gun that's outperformed by one you can get for 31.
The standard battlewagon can be built the same way as a bonebreaker for cheaper, iirc, you just don't have the special ramming effect. The gunwagon isn't great, but its still a T8 vehicle with a lot of wounds and can lay down some fire. Its not as good at the others, but it still has its uses and a trio of them would still be hard to remove.
That's besides the point though, the point is that GW has already introduced ways to circumvent the rule of 3 and to sell more of the same kit. Its still 9 battlewagon kits being sold, if one is so inclined to field them. Those vehicles may have different names with slight differences in rules and loadout, but they are basically the same unit.
tneva82 wrote: People thought that about allies as well. Things change. GW changes their policies and eventually GW will decide this limits their sales too much.
GW already introduced ways of getting around it by making different data sheets for the same unit.
In the ork codex there are 3 variations of battlewagons. They all use the battlewagon kit, but as they are different datasheets you aren't really restricted by the rule of 3.
You can legally field 9 battlewagons, as long as they are 3 of each variant.
Rule of 3 is not going anywhere.
The datasheet issue doesn't matter. Most of the times, there's no sense in taking more than 3 of the same unit. Who wants 9 battlewagons? It's the 7 Flyrants that were the issue.
The one exception I can think of is Daemon Princes. 9 of them are tough. But not at the level of Ye Olde Flying Circus, there's no way to buff each one to create a juggernaut. It's a problem, but it's not a huge problem.
Nothing stays permanent. How you can be sure rule of 3 doesn't go away in 9th ed? 10? 11? 12?
Allies were removed from game. Stayed same. Ork shooting has been crappy for 5 editions straight yet can one shot Magnus now with one unit with nothing Tzeentch can do about that if orks go first.
Even if GW was aiming for balance things would change. And since they actively don't WANT balance and just change rules to sell models...
Jidmah wrote: Only one of those battlewagon is worth spamming though, the bonebreaka. The regular battlewagon is basically a big rhino (you can spam those!), and the gunwagon is for when you feel like spending 155 points on a gun that's outperformed by one you can get for 31.
The standard battlewagon can be built the same way as a bonebreaker, you just lose the special ramming effect.
The special ramming effect is what makes it good, as opposed to the battlewagon who only gets d6 attacks after degrading once.
The gunwagon isn't great, but its still a T8 vehicle with a lot of wounds and can lay down some fire. Its not as good at the others, but it still has its uses and a trio of them would still be hard to remove.
The same thing can be said for vindicators, which also have stratagem to support them and a better gun and armor save. Vindicators see zero play.
That's besides the point though, the point is that GW has already introduced ways to circumvent the rule of 3 and to sell more of the same kit. Its still 9 battlewagon kits being sold, if one is so inclined to field them.
I'm sure you can find plenty of instances where units are circumvention other rules as well. Circumvention rules by itself is not a problem in general.
GW also required ork players to buy 5 wagons for their Great Waagh! formations in 7th, forcing all those player to trash two 60+ EUR models would probably have some publicity backlash.
I did a poll recently where I asked whether battlewagons should be dedicated transports. The result was 98% of the people on dakkadakka voting "yes". I fail to see how having three datasheets for them is any different.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Those vehicles may have different names with slight differences in rules and loadout, but they are basically the same unit.
They are as much "basically the same unit" as all MEQ are.
ITT: Marines should only be able to field 3 infantry units because they are circumventing the rule of 3.
Yes, that's bad, but if they did do their job they would still be bad as most of their specialization would be wasted against everything that wasn't a demon.
Exactly, specialized units have a place in the game. But they only have a place if they actually can do it for a low cost which GK cannot do. On top of that most people in this hobby agree one faction utterly stomping one other faction is foolish from a gameplay perspective, which is why they should transition GK to generalist. This has already been discussed to death.
Yes, that's bad, but if they did do their job they would still be bad as most of their specialization would be wasted against everything that wasn't a demon.
Exactly, specialized units have a place in the game. But they only have a place if they actually can do it for a low cost which GK cannot do. On top of that most people in this hobby agree one faction utterly stomping one other faction is foolish from a gameplay perspective, which is why they should transition GK to generalist. This has already been discussed to death.
But if they were generalists, they wouldn't be demon hunters now would they? They'd just be marines with different gear. From a practical stand point, yes, becoming true generalists would be overall healthier. From a flavor, fluff and identity standpoint though? Not sure that would be wise, as they risk becoming bland and no different from vanilla marines. And if they were better than vanilla marines, that would be overall unhealthy for the game, as why would you ever take marines when you could take grey knights instead?
Its why I'm in favor of bringing back Daemonhunters. That way you can make the grey knights strong specialists, and leave the generalist work to other elements, such as inquisitorial stormtroopers. That way you get a healthy army that's still fair against most matchups whilst still retaining its identity.
niv-mizzet wrote: @jidmah
That’d be doing a favor to those marine players that don’t grasp how much the basic marine infantry is bringing down their list power!
I thought they already did that by not fielding eldar?
BTW, aspect warriors should also be limited to 3. Striking Scorpions, Warp Spiders and Dark Reapers are basically the same unit.
Arachnofiend wrote: There's a difference between Eldar being effective and Grey Knights being a canned counter. Eldar are not deliberately designed with the intent of kicking a specific faction in the balls, they just have effective units with effective weaponry. Eldar having a weapon that is effective against T4 3+ armor saves is not the same as Eldar having a rule that says "if a unit with the <Adeptus Astartes> keyword is on the battlefield, remove it at the end of your psychic phase".
If you want Grey Knights to be generally effective like Eldar are you're going to need to accept that Grey Knights being designed with the specific intent of being too strong against daemons is an undesirable game state.
Well, I'm not sure anyone wants Grey Knights to be "generally effective."
I think the consensus is they need to be the best psychic chapter in the Imperium. The fact they kick daemon butt is just part and parcel.
Why can't GK be both specialist and good vs everything at the same time.
You ask for the moon. It would be nice to get it, but I would settle for a flashlight at this point.
That was a quote from Karol, the person I was arguing with in the first place
You can tell because I put it in a quote box that indicates "Karol wrote"
Please at least try to read the arguments before you attempt a counterpoint
Yes, that's bad, but if they did do their job they would still be bad as most of their specialization would be wasted against everything that wasn't a demon.
Exactly, specialized units have a place in the game. But they only have a place if they actually can do it for a low cost which GK cannot do. On top of that most people in this hobby agree one faction utterly stomping one other faction is foolish from a gameplay perspective, which is why they should transition GK to generalist. This has already been discussed to death.
But if they were generalists, they wouldn't be demon hunters now would they? They'd just be marines with different gear. From a practical stand point, yes, becoming true generalists would be overall healthier. From a flavor, fluff and identity standpoint though? Not sure that would be wise, as they risk becoming bland and no different from vanilla marines. And if they were better than vanilla marines, that would be overall unhealthy for the game, as why would you ever take marines when you could take grey knights instead?
Its why I'm in favor of bringing back Daemonhunters. That way you can make the grey knights strong specialists, and leave the generalist work to other elements, such as inquisitorial stormtroopers. That way you get a healthy army that's still fair against most matchups whilst still retaining its identity.
If you actually care about living the faction's fantasy out then come talk to me after SM of all varieties have been given S5 T5 W4 A4 and Rapid-Fire 4 Bolters with an AP value.
This is a game, there is no argument good enough that will convince any large portion of the player base that a faction is better off in the dumps. We have Deathwatch, we have Sisters of Battle, we have the bananas of Terra themselves CUSTODES, saying they wouldn't be Daemonhunters at this point is being willingly ignorant to a degree on a point easily dismissed. You can argue one way all you want that is fine and its possible to see merit to your ideas. But you ignore the key point, that at their core GK are simply SM with better equipment and therefore should be directly better. Which is exactly what the current TT does in regards to their basic troops, but fails because the SM stat/point ratio is still screwed up.
The basic Marine in power armour is okay defensively (I think it should be 12 points but ymmv) - but he has the shooting of a unit which costs half as much. So he is crap. The more marines with bolters in your army, the worse it is.
A marine carrying a plasma gun or something similar actually has okay (still not great due to codex creep, but okay) damage - but now he is 25-40 points per wound in a game where there are countless things that will mow him down with ease. You get the GK issue. A strike marine's offensive output is probably worth 21 points - but he has the defensive abilities of a 12 point unit. Consequently they are far too fragile.
Boosting power armour may help the above - but it will not make basic tacticals/CSM/assault marines etc who have crap offensive abilities any more viable.
Exactly, this is the real problem. Durability is fine on marines, it's just that bolters are a terrible weapons for a 13 point model! I made many suggestions about this, but they were always submerged by comments about marines being too fragile.
GW should just make a basic formula with BS, WS, Wounds, Save, Invul save, S, T,... then they can just adjust the "weight" of a certain Stat if they feel the game is too meele-centric, or to shooty and all points costs for all models changes automatically and are perfectly balanced
Then you make another formula for weapons, how much AP/S/Range is worth and add that to the cost and congratulations you just fixed balance in a basic way.
Then of course you have speed, stratagems, special rules which you use to make the game exiting and make units unique.
The basic Marine in power armour is okay defensively (I think it should be 12 points but ymmv) - but he has the shooting of a unit which costs half as much. So he is crap. The more marines with bolters in your army, the worse it is.
A marine carrying a plasma gun or something similar actually has okay (still not great due to codex creep, but okay) damage - but now he is 25-40 points per wound in a game where there are countless things that will mow him down with ease. You get the GK issue. A strike marine's offensive output is probably worth 21 points - but he has the defensive abilities of a 12 point unit. Consequently they are far too fragile.
Boosting power armour may help the above - but it will not make basic tacticals/CSM/assault marines etc who have crap offensive abilities any more viable.
Exactly, this is the real problem. Durability is fine on marines, it's just that bolters are a terrible weapons for a 13 point model! I made many suggestions about this, but they were always submerged by comments about marines being too fragile.
GW should just make a basic formula with BS, WS, Wounds, Save, Invul save, S, T,... then they can just adjust the "weight" of a certain Stat if they feel the game is too meele-centric, or to shooty and all points costs for all models changes automatically and are perfectly balanced
Then you make another formula for weapons, how much AP/S/Range is worth and add that to the cost and congratulations you just fixed balance in a basic way.
Then of course you have speed, stratagems, special rules which you use to make the game exiting and make units unique.
Yeah, except this doesn't work. Some stats are worth more based on other stats. A unit with more mobility is more likely to get in melee, making the WS and A attacks worth more, but if the unit is shooting it gives less benefits.
Eldarsif wrote: The thing about the Rule of 3 is that it sets a hard limit on how much you need of any unit before you don't have to ever buy more of those ever again.
Well, until the next time the rules change. And there WILL be a next time.
highly unlikely that Rule of 3 ever goes anywhere. Certainly not as certain as you imply.
We'll see. BTW, I don't have to be right on this only in the context of 8th. The rule can change come 9th+ Like I said, there WILL be a next time.
Well, at what point does your statement become wrong? Because you're suggesting something extremely unlikely and just saying "one day" and saying that your statement can never be proven wrong. Sure but that doesn't mean it should be listened to.
Eldarsif wrote: The thing about the Rule of 3 is that it sets a hard limit on how much you need of any unit before you don't have to ever buy more of those ever again.
Well, until the next time the rules change. And there WILL be a next time.
highly unlikely that Rule of 3 ever goes anywhere. Certainly not as certain as you imply.
People thought that about allies as well. Things change. GW changes their policies and eventually GW will decide this limits their sales too much.
Lol which idiot thought that the allies ruleset which changes every edition was never going to change again?
Arachnofiend wrote: There's a difference between Eldar being effective and Grey Knights being a canned counter. Eldar are not deliberately designed with the intent of kicking a specific faction in the balls, they just have effective units with effective weaponry. Eldar having a weapon that is effective against T4 3+ armor saves is not the same as Eldar having a rule that says "if a unit with the <Adeptus Astartes> keyword is on the battlefield, remove it at the end of your psychic phase".
If you want Grey Knights to be generally effective like Eldar are you're going to need to accept that Grey Knights being designed with the specific intent of being too strong against daemons is an undesirable game state.
Well, I'm not sure anyone wants Grey Knights to be "generally effective."
I think the consensus is they need to be the best psychic chapter in the Imperium. The fact they kick daemon butt is just part and parcel.
Why can't GK be both specialist and good vs everything at the same time.
You ask for the moon. It would be nice to get it, but I would settle for a flashlight at this point.
That was a quote from Karol, the person I was arguing with in the first place
You can tell because I put it in a quote box that indicates "Karol wrote"
Please at least try to read the arguments before you attempt a counterpoint
Oh, I've already argued with Karol. Not sure if my other points bear repeating.
But if they were generalists, they wouldn't be demon hunters now would they? They'd just be marines with different gear.
From a practical stand point, yes, becoming true generalists would be overall healthier.
From a flavor, fluff and identity standpoint though? Not sure that would be wise, as they risk becoming bland and no different from vanilla marines.
And if they were better than vanilla marines, that would be overall unhealthy for the game, as why would you ever take marines when you could take grey knights instead?
Its why I'm in favor of bringing back Daemonhunters. That way you can make the grey knights strong specialists, and leave the generalist work to other elements, such as inquisitorial stormtroopers.
That way you get a healthy army that's still fair against most matchups whilst still retaining its identity.
A good gun or a good melee ability is always good. You don't see shining spears being good only against demons of slanesh or dark reapers being good only vs tanks.
But I did ask around people that play longer then me about the demon hunter codex. I was told two things, first it was so unplayable, that even when there were no ally in the game and they had the ally rule no one was taking them. And that the non GK part of the demon hunters was mostly a variation on the IG theam. So if GW were to turn GK in to demon hunters two things could happen, maybe even at the same time. They could end up even worse then they are now or the GK in the demon hunter codex would be as often used as chaos space marines are in chaos space marines armies. So a person with GK models or wanting to play GK in their army would be punished twice, first by having copy past aka bad units from prior codex, and being told by everyone that either it is the role of GK to be always bad, or being told that GK may suck, but demon hunters are just fine. Just don't use GK in your GK army and are is going to be well.
And people can do that right now, take demon hunter IG and say their castellan is an upsided nemezis dreadnought or a GK psytitan that is still growing. GW wouldn't even have to put out a demon hunters codex to give people a fix like that. It is already there.
The basic Marine in power armour is okay defensively (I think it should be 12 points but ymmv) - but he has the shooting of a unit which costs half as much. So he is crap. The more marines with bolters in your army, the worse it is.
A marine carrying a plasma gun or something similar actually has okay (still not great due to codex creep, but okay) damage - but now he is 25-40 points per wound in a game where there are countless things that will mow him down with ease. You get the GK issue. A strike marine's offensive output is probably worth 21 points - but he has the defensive abilities of a 12 point unit. Consequently they are far too fragile.
Boosting power armour may help the above - but it will not make basic tacticals/CSM/assault marines etc who have crap offensive abilities any more viable.
Exactly, this is the real problem. Durability is fine on marines, it's just that bolters are a terrible weapons for a 13 point model! I made many suggestions about this, but they were always submerged by comments about marines being too fragile.
I noticed that too. The loss of AP5 is a 33% loss of damage. Marines being effected by AP-1 is only a 16% drop in durability. Not sure how many AP-2 weapons were AP3 in 7th, but they result in a 33% loss of durability which is equal to the loss of firepower. The lack of cost effective transportation could also be why they feel more vulnerable. Reworked drop-pods could also solve problems. Allowing T1 deepstrike and/or heavily dropping their cost.
I know this has been discussed to death, so I'm sure this suggestion has come up before, but here's how I would fix marines.
I'd give them a bolter drill rule that meant they can shoot bolt weapons twice at half range, and drop cost of rhino/drop pod/LR. Applies to all astartes and chaos astartes. Cannot be used in conjunction with any other fire twice ability.
As people have mentioned, durability isn't great for the cost of the mini, but its made much worse by the lack of offensive output.
This also encourages marines to get up close, making them the shock force they are supposed to be. Boosting the normal profile of their weapons just makes it one more mathhammer calculation and castle-fest. It might be worth dropping 10 tacticals up close in a cheaper drop pod if you get 40 shots.
Would boost regular plague marines and rubrics too, and terminators. Sternguard and their stratagem become quite threatening.
Not sure how it would work with death watch, might be too much. It would also make flamers even more pointless than they currently are.
Exactly. Marine durability outside the Vets is...not garbage for the lack of a better word. They have absolutely no bite though. The old school 1 Special 1 Heavy at ten dudes needs to die and be let go for a new loadout type. That's not even to mention that we need fix the Bolter as the damage output is worse than previous editions.
Marines being affected by AP-1 is actually a 50% increase in casualties. It takes 3 AP0 wounds to average 1 kill. It takes 2 AP-1 wounds. So the shooter needs 50% more AP0 attacks than AP-1. Conversely, if you want to look at it that way, going from AP-1 to AP0 is a 33% reduction in casualties taken. Either way you look at it, reducing a better save by 1 is more impactful than reducing a worse save by 1.
Marines didn't lose 33% of their damage so much as GEQ gained 33% survivability vs AP0. Against Sv4+ or better, the Boltgun is unchanged. They did not lose AP5 - AP5 in 6E/7E translates into AP0 in 8E. A couple things actually got AP-1 that were AP5, but those were clearly buffs to those weapons, not straight conversions.
AP-1 on the boltgun hoses Marines badly.
Marines need 11ppm, +1A, and for most AP-1/-2 weapons in the game to go down an AP.
Automatically Appended Next Post: For specialization: look at how CWE does it.
Spears specialize in killing heavy infantry.
Fire Dragons specialise in melting heavy tanks.
Wraithnoun guns specialize in melting superhard targets.
Note that none of these care what *faction* the model is (except for Slanesh, to a very minor degree, which has impacted me once in the last 3 editions).
Likewise, if you want GK to specialise, it should be "Pskyer fighters" and/or "MC Hunters", instead of "Chaos-killers". Make their rules tailored to the type of enemies they want to engage, not the specific book.
Intercessors are good baseline marines. They have good durability against small arms and better bolters. They're still too expensive though and there are too many cheap damage weapons in the game. But both of those can be fixed by simple point adjustments. It is futile to try to fix tactical marines, they're just not viable elite infantry in this edition without complete overhaul, and such an overhaul would just result them gaining the stats that the Intercessors already have.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Exactly. Marine durability outside the Vets is...not garbage for the lack of a better word. They have absolutely no bite though. The old school 1 Special 1 Heavy at ten dudes needs to die and be let go for a new loadout type. That's not even to mention that we need fix the Bolter as the damage output is worse than previous editions.
I would start with making the bolter a scary weapon, and then see what happens.
Add a rule to all loyal and not astartes which gives bonuses to bolter fire depending on the number of marines in the squad. This is even fluffy, since marines in squads organize their fire in patterns to maximize the effects. The bonuses should go from reroll 1's to hit and wound to full rerolls on both (for bolters). This way they are less dependant on castling, while keeping the rerolls theme. Also, apoths techs and chaplains should be buffed. Apoths should automatically revive troops, chaplains should allow charges to be rerolled, techs should give an additional +1 save to infantry in cover.
Man...you people who say marines need damage buffs not durability buffs just have no idea what they are talking about. Literally no idea. They really need both because damage per point is often very low. Surviability against practically every weapon is poor compared to cheaper units and when special weapons start getting used (like seriously 80% of firepower in armies is at this level) it is a travesty how bad a marine is.
Crimson wrote: Intercessors are good baseline marines. They have good durability against small arms and better bolters. They're still too expensive though and there are too many cheap damage weapons in the game. But both of those can be fixed by simple point adjustments. It is futile to try to fix tactical marines, they're just not viable elite infantry in this edition without complete overhaul, and such an overhaul would just result them gaining the stats that the Intercessors already have.
Crimson wrote: Intercessors are good baseline marines. They have good durability against small arms and better bolters. They're still too expensive though and there are too many cheap damage weapons in the game. But both of those can be fixed by simple point adjustments. It is futile to try to fix tactical marines, they're just not viable elite infantry in this edition without complete overhaul, and such an overhaul would just result them gaining the stats that the Intercessors already have.
They have terrible offense.
For their points. But they need a point cut. People were clamouring for better bolters, Intercessors already have that. They were also clamouring for more durability, Intercessors have that too. Sure, they pay too much for both, but that's fixable. I think they would be pretty decent at 15 points (and some D2 weapons getting a point increase.)
Xenomancers wrote: Man...you people who say marines need damage buffs not durability buffs just have no idea what they are talking about. Literally no idea.
The data I presented a page back or so sort of indicates the opposite - sort of.
Now you can drop the points of a marine which by way of math increases both their relative durability and damage output, but not likely damage to a comparable number that other models have.
BobbyG is still a thing, of course, but lots of marines do not have him as an option.
alextroy wrote: Whenever GW gets around to rewriting Codex Grey Knights, they need to properly use the design space they gave themselves to build a fully functional codex.
How you ask?
Step 1: While totally ignoring how effective they are against daemons, build a Psychically-based Marine Codex that has units that functions well in the game.
Step 2: Add a good mix of Stratagems that are both very effective against Daemons but still useful against other armies.
For example, a Stratagem that makes their attacks more likely to defeat Invulnerable Saves would be great against daemons but still effective against many armies.
And the beauty of that is that Stratagems you choose to not use against one army don't make your army weaker. It's only if you have no useful Stratagems that you get a lackluster codex.
This may be the most level-headed post in the last three pages.
Xenomancers wrote: Man...you people who say marines need damage buffs not durability buffs just have no idea what they are talking about. Literally no idea.
The data I presented a page back or so sort of indicates the opposite - sort of.
Now you can drop the points of a marine which by way of math increases both their relative durability and damage output, but not likely damage to a comparable number that other models have.
BobbyG is still a thing, of course, but lots of marines do not have him as an option.
The problem is almost everything in the codex assumes they are under Bobby G aura in their points while GW have just repeatedly jacked up his points to borderline unplayable against competitive lists.
Fundamentally Bobby G needs reworked but thats GW's screw up
Look at the buff DW had to get to be mildly playable
Xenomancers wrote: Man...you people who say marines need damage buffs not durability buffs just have no idea what they are talking about. Literally no idea.
The data I presented a page back or so sort of indicates the opposite - sort of.
Now you can drop the points of a marine which by way of math increases both their relative durability and damage output, but not likely damage to a comparable number that other models have.
BobbyG is still a thing, of course, but lots of marines do not have him as an option.
Marines in general have access to good auras. Reroll all hits is very common. Often reroll wounds of some sort. Not to mention across the board solid BS. Offense is not the issue. I can take 10 hellblasters and merk pratically everything by sitting in in auras. The number of units that wipe that squad getting like 50%+ return on points per turn is astounding though.
I can take 3 plasma inceptors and put out insane firepower - but I'll probably kill 1-2 inceptors in the process and have a 2 wound model remaining after 175 points of expenditure.
The issue is defense. Even for intercessors. Their DPP is low but you can nearly double it with auras - what can't you do? Stop a ravager or battle cannon from removing 50ish points everytime they shoot at you. Again - defense is the issue.
Also - is it any surprise that the best marine faction - is the one with the least offense and the most defense. DG.
Xenomancers wrote: Also - is it any surprise that the best marine faction - is the one with the least offense and the most defense. DG.
How many regular plague marines do you see though?
Really its two issues - as said. Basic tactical marines have terrible offensive power. They are crap at shooting. They are crap in melee. They are however "tough enough" for their points.
The same for basic cheapo intercessors.
A devastator squad - or hellblasters - has okay damage output. They can be buffed up. They are however fragile for their points. They die in droves to moderate strength and AP weapons, D2 weapons and Mortal wounds.
A tactical marine/assault marine/CSM is still going to suck even if he can reroll his armour save. He doesn't kill anything. 24/7 Guilliman aura? Okay he's reasonable now. But Bobby-G is an albatross that needs to go.
Xenomancers wrote: Also - is it any surprise that the best marine faction - is the one with the least offense and the most defense. DG.
How many regular plague marines do you see though?
Really its two issues - as said. Basic tactical marines have terrible offensive power. They are crap at shooting. They are crap in melee. They are however "tough enough" for their points.
The same for basic cheapo intercessors.
A devastator squad - or hellblasters - has okay damage output. They can be buffed up. They are however fragile for their points. They die in droves to moderate strength and AP weapons, D2 weapons and Mortal wounds.
A tactical marine/assault marine/CSM is still going to suck even if he can reroll his armour save. He doesn't kill anything. 24/7 Guilliman aura? Okay he's reasonable now. But Bobby-G is an albatross that needs to go.
How are they tough enough for their points if - they expose themselves to be viable targets for special and heavy weapons BUT don't even have impressive numbers compared to cheaper infantry units against small arms?
I agree Gman is an albatross though. I'd be happy to remove him from my case if the rest of the codex got fixed.
Agree. This game would be a lot more fun if Auras were only present for those it's their schtick (Synapse). How can you play Marines like Marines when they're dependent on castling to be effective? How can they not be dependent on castling when auras are the only way to make them effective.
I think the IG style orders are way better system. Thy affect the set amount of units and you actually need to make some choices which order to use on which unit. Easier to balance, more interesting gameplay. I wish marines had orders instead of auras.
Xenomancers wrote: Man...you people who say marines need damage buffs not durability buffs just have no idea what they are talking about. Literally no idea.
The data I presented a page back or so sort of indicates the opposite - sort of.
Now you can drop the points of a marine which by way of math increases both their relative durability and damage output, but not likely damage to a comparable number that other models have.
BobbyG is still a thing, of course, but lots of marines do not have him as an option.
Marines in general have access to good auras. Reroll all hits is very common. Often reroll wounds of some sort. Not to mention across the board solid BS. Offense is not the issue. I can take 10 hellblasters and merk pratically everything by sitting in in auras. The number of units that wipe that squad getting like 50%+ return on points per turn is astounding though.
I can take 3 plasma inceptors and put out insane firepower - but I'll probably kill 1-2 inceptors in the process and have a 2 wound model remaining after 175 points of expenditure.
The issue is defense. Even for intercessors. Their DPP is low but you can nearly double it with auras - what can't you do? Stop a ravager or battle cannon from removing 50ish points everytime they shoot at you. Again - defense is the issue.
Also - is it any surprise that the best marine faction - is the one with the least offense and the most defense. DG.
You're getting a little too apples and oranges.
Hellblasters with full rerolls are great.
I think the focus is more on how useless the bog standard marine feels when put up against other standard no frills units.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: I think the IG style orders are way better system. Thy affect the set amount of units and you actually need to make some choices which order to use on which unit. Easier to balance, more interesting gameplay. I wish marines had orders instead of auras.
It sounds nice, but then commanders are dirt cheap compared to marine HQs. The marines would need to buff four units instead of two, which is probably the average that they do currently.
The aura issue is exactly why I said the new independent character system is garbage right from day one.
Everyone was complaining about super friends armies and Death Stars. Yeah...all they needed to do was to make special rules only work for units with certain key words. Bam, I just fixed your problem.
Instead we got bs auras that only exacerbate the issue, now instead of one unit getting all the buffs, it’s the hold damn army. And now characters are being used for the opposite purpose to how they were initially intended. People don’t use commanders to get into the front lines, they’re just buffers that sit in the back now. How fething boring and unfluffy can you get?
That’s not even mentioning the janky character targeting rules that make no sense and are constantly being changed because they can’t figure out what to do with them.
Crimson wrote: I think the IG style orders are way better system. Thy affect the set amount of units and you actually need to make some choices which order to use on which unit. Easier to balance, more interesting gameplay. I wish marines had orders instead of auras.
It sounds nice, but then commanders are dirt cheap compared to marine HQs. The marines would need to buff four units instead of two, which is probably the average that they do currently.
But at the same time, each marine unit is worth more than a guard squad. A captain buffing 20 marines is buffing 260pts worth of models, while a CC only buffs 80pts of models. Even if marines go down in price to 12 pts and guard go up to 5 pts, that's still 240 pts vs 100 pts.
Crimson wrote: I think the IG style orders are way better system. Thy affect the set amount of units and you actually need to make some choices which order to use on which unit. Easier to balance, more interesting gameplay. I wish marines had orders instead of auras.
It sounds nice, but then commanders are dirt cheap compared to marine HQs. The marines would need to buff four units instead of two, which is probably the average that they do currently.
But at the same time, each marine unit is worth more than a guard squad. A captain buffing 20 marines is buffing 260pts worth of models, while a CC only buffs 80pts of models. Even if marines go down in price to 12 pts and guard go up to 5 pts, that's still 220 pts vs 100 pts.
More points but not the same output.
Auras are almost exclusively offense based, which means nothing for a large part of the cost of marines, which is durability.
Xenomancers wrote: Man...you people who say marines need damage buffs not durability buffs just have no idea what they are talking about. Literally no idea.
The data I presented a page back or so sort of indicates the opposite - sort of.
Now you can drop the points of a marine which by way of math increases both their relative durability and damage output, but not likely damage to a comparable number that other models have.
BobbyG is still a thing, of course, but lots of marines do not have him as an option.
Marines in general have access to good auras. Reroll all hits is very common. Often reroll wounds of some sort. Not to mention across the board solid BS. Offense is not the issue. I can take 10 hellblasters and merk pratically everything by sitting in in auras. The number of units that wipe that squad getting like 50%+ return on points per turn is astounding though.
I can take 3 plasma inceptors and put out insane firepower - but I'll probably kill 1-2 inceptors in the process and have a 2 wound model remaining after 175 points of expenditure.
The issue is defense. Even for intercessors. Their DPP is low but you can nearly double it with auras - what can't you do? Stop a ravager or battle cannon from removing 50ish points everytime they shoot at you. Again - defense is the issue.
Also - is it any surprise that the best marine faction - is the one with the least offense and the most defense. DG.
The problem you are highlighting is not that marines have low durability, but the fact that marines have low damage except on a few glasscannon models, so marines list tend to use a lot of these and feel fragile as a consequence. If tac marines and intercessors had ok damage, you would use a lot of those and greatly increase the average durability of the lists.
Brutus_Apex wrote: The aura issue is exactly why I said the new independent character system is garbage right from day one.
Everyone was complaining about super friends armies and Death Stars. Yeah...all they needed to do was to make special rules only work for units with certain key words. Bam, I just fixed your problem.
Instead we got bs auras that only exacerbate the issue, now instead of one unit getting all the buffs, it’s the hold damn army. And now characters are being used for the opposite purpose to how they were initially intended. People don’t use commanders to get into the front lines, they’re just buffers that sit in the back now. How fething boring and unfluffy can you get?
That’s not even mentioning the janky character targeting rules that make no sense and are constantly being changed because they can’t figure out what to do with them.
What? People don't use characters to get into the front lines?
Guess Smash Captains aren't a thing where you play.
When I said that I wish that marines had orders instead of auras, I din't mean they would necessarily have the exact same orders as the IG, merely that the system worked that way. It's just a better mechanic.
Crimson wrote: I think the IG style orders are way better system. Thy affect the set amount of units and you actually need to make some choices which order to use on which unit. Easier to balance, more interesting gameplay. I wish marines had orders instead of auras.
It sounds nice, but then commanders are dirt cheap compared to marine HQs. The marines would need to buff four units instead of two, which is probably the average that they do currently.
But at the same time, each marine unit is worth more than a guard squad. A captain buffing 20 marines is buffing 260pts worth of models, while a CC only buffs 80pts of models. Even if marines go down in price to 12 pts and guard go up to 5 pts, that's still 240 pts vs 100 pts.
Just want to fix this for you it is only ever going to be 10 marines in 2 units even with orders marines cost too much for anything but msu.
So its 130 pts of marines to 80 pts of guard or 120 pts of marines to 100 points of guard. Marines would still loose.
Crimson wrote: I think the IG style orders are way better system. Thy affect the set amount of units and you actually need to make some choices which order to use on which unit. Easier to balance, more interesting gameplay. I wish marines had orders instead of auras.
It sounds nice, but then commanders are dirt cheap compared to marine HQs. The marines would need to buff four units instead of two, which is probably the average that they do currently.
But at the same time, each marine unit is worth more than a guard squad. A captain buffing 20 marines is buffing 260pts worth of models, while a CC only buffs 80pts of models. Even if marines go down in price to 12 pts and guard go up to 5 pts, that's still 220 pts vs 100 pts.
More points but not the same output.
Auras are almost exclusively offense based, which means nothing for a large part of the cost of marines, which is durability.
Is that a problem with the orders or just with marines in general?
Besides, right now 20 marines can put out 40*2/3*2/3*2/3= 12 W against GEQ,
20 Guard can put out 40*1/2*1/2*2/3 = 6.6 W against GEQ. So in order to match the output of Marines, the Guard need to take 2 squads per full marine squad, which means that a Captain buffing 2 marine squads is buffing 4 Infantry Squads worth of firepower. (more or less)
Of course, the fact that marines only have 2x the firepower and 2.5x the durability of guardsmen (against boltguns, because against plasma marines have only marginally better durability) is bad since they are 3x the cost.
Brutus_Apex wrote: The aura issue is exactly why I said the new independent character system is garbage right from day one.
Everyone was complaining about super friends armies and Death Stars. Yeah...all they needed to do was to make special rules only work for units with certain key words. Bam, I just fixed your problem.
Instead we got bs auras that only exacerbate the issue, now instead of one unit getting all the buffs, it’s the hold damn army. And now characters are being used for the opposite purpose to how they were initially intended. People don’t use commanders to get into the front lines, they’re just buffers that sit in the back now. How fething boring and unfluffy can you get?
That’s not even mentioning the janky character targeting rules that make no sense and are constantly being changed because they can’t figure out what to do with them.
What? People don't use characters to get into the front lines?
Guess Smash Captains aren't a thing where you play.
Personally I'm holding mine back as long as possible now. They really cant get to the targets anymore.
Crimson wrote: I think the IG style orders are way better system. Thy affect the set amount of units and you actually need to make some choices which order to use on which unit. Easier to balance, more interesting gameplay. I wish marines had orders instead of auras.
It sounds nice, but then commanders are dirt cheap compared to marine HQs. The marines would need to buff four units instead of two, which is probably the average that they do currently.
But at the same time, each marine unit is worth more than a guard squad. A captain buffing 20 marines is buffing 260pts worth of models, while a CC only buffs 80pts of models. Even if marines go down in price to 12 pts and guard go up to 5 pts, that's still 240 pts vs 100 pts.
Just want to fix this for you it is only ever going to be 10 marines in 2 units even with orders marines cost too much for anything but msu.
So its 130 pts of marines to 80 pts of guard or 120 pts of marines to 100 points of guard. Marines would still loose.
Hypothetically, if Marines were good and the orders were worthwhile, would you still only bring MSU, or would you try to max squads to get more benefits? At the very least there's some incentive to bring max squads for a change whereas right now max squads are always worse.
Also, there's nothing stopping Captains from having 3 orders or whatever due to their cost.
Crimson wrote: I think the IG style orders are way better system. Thy affect the set amount of units and you actually need to make some choices which order to use on which unit. Easier to balance, more interesting gameplay. I wish marines had orders instead of auras.
It sounds nice, but then commanders are dirt cheap compared to marine HQs. The marines would need to buff four units instead of two, which is probably the average that they do currently.
But at the same time, each marine unit is worth more than a guard squad. A captain buffing 20 marines is buffing 260pts worth of models, while a CC only buffs 80pts of models. Even if marines go down in price to 12 pts and guard go up to 5 pts, that's still 240 pts vs 100 pts.
Just want to fix this for you it is only ever going to be 10 marines in 2 units even with orders marines cost too much for anything but msu.
So its 130 pts of marines to 80 pts of guard or 120 pts of marines to 100 points of guard. Marines would still loose.
Hypothetically, if Marines were good and the orders were worthwhile, would you still only bring MSU, or would you try to max squads to get more benefits? At the very least there's some incentive to bring max squads for a change whereas right now max squads are always worse.
Also, there's nothing stopping Captains from having 3 orders or whatever due to their cost.
If marines ever had strategums worth playing yeah you would still probably be stuck on MSU as double battalion is 400 points in HQ's add in some anti armour and your in almost 1k add the msu and your 400 ish points thats still pretty bad given you can get the same CP from 400 points of guard and a castellan for the rest of that 1k even with 5ppm guard and a 700 point castellen I would still say marines will need something to be worth while taking over msu.
Custodes show this very problem as it stands and a custodian guard squad is much better than 5 tacs
If marines ever had strategums worth playing yeah you would still probably be stuck on MSU as double battalion is 400 points in HQ's add in some anti armour and your in almost 1k add the msu and your 400 ish points thats still pretty bad given you can get the same CP from 400 points of guard and a castellan for the rest of that 1k even with 5ppm guard and a 700 point castellen I would still say marines will need something to be worth while taking over msu.
Could you break that down a bit? Right now it's kind of hard to read, so I'm not 100% sure what you're saying.
Xenomancers wrote: Man...you people who say marines need damage buffs not durability buffs just have no idea what they are talking about. Literally no idea.
The data I presented a page back or so sort of indicates the opposite - sort of.
Now you can drop the points of a marine which by way of math increases both their relative durability and damage output, but not likely damage to a comparable number that other models have.
BobbyG is still a thing, of course, but lots of marines do not have him as an option.
Marines in general have access to good auras. Reroll all hits is very common. Often reroll wounds of some sort. Not to mention across the board solid BS. Offense is not the issue. I can take 10 hellblasters and merk pratically everything by sitting in in auras. The number of units that wipe that squad getting like 50%+ return on points per turn is astounding though.
I can take 3 plasma inceptors and put out insane firepower - but I'll probably kill 1-2 inceptors in the process and have a 2 wound model remaining after 175 points of expenditure.
The issue is defense. Even for intercessors. Their DPP is low but you can nearly double it with auras - what can't you do? Stop a ravager or battle cannon from removing 50ish points everytime they shoot at you. Again - defense is the issue.
Also - is it any surprise that the best marine faction - is the one with the least offense and the most defense. DG.
You're getting a little too apples and oranges.
Hellblasters with full rerolls are great.
I think the focus is more on how useless the bog standard marine feels when put up against other standard no frills units.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: I think the IG style orders are way better system. Thy affect the set amount of units and you actually need to make some choices which order to use on which unit. Easier to balance, more interesting gameplay. I wish marines had orders instead of auras.
It sounds nice, but then commanders are dirt cheap compared to marine HQs. The marines would need to buff four units instead of two, which is probably the average that they do currently.
No I think you are looking at it the wrong way. A hell-blaster is just an intercessor with a better gun. A devastator is just a tactical marine. So on and so forth.
People who are suggesting marines would be fine with an offense boost need to realize - you'd have to buff every weapon in the codex to actually do that. You'd then have to buff every special snowflakes marines weapons too. Wouldn't it just be easier to drop the points of the base marine? Or give everything in power armor a special rule?
Crimson wrote: I think the IG style orders are way better system. Thy affect the set amount of units and you actually need to make some choices which order to use on which unit. Easier to balance, more interesting gameplay. I wish marines had orders instead of auras.
It sounds nice, but then commanders are dirt cheap compared to marine HQs. The marines would need to buff four units instead of two, which is probably the average that they do currently.
But at the same time, each marine unit is worth more than a guard squad. A captain buffing 20 marines is buffing 260pts worth of models, while a CC only buffs 80pts of models. Even if marines go down in price to 12 pts and guard go up to 5 pts, that's still 240 pts vs 100 pts.
Just want to fix this for you it is only ever going to be 10 marines in 2 units even with orders marines cost too much for anything but msu.
So its 130 pts of marines to 80 pts of guard or 120 pts of marines to 100 points of guard. Marines would still loose.
Hypothetically, if Marines were good and the orders were worthwhile, would you still only bring MSU, or would you try to max squads to get more benefits? At the very least there's some incentive to bring max squads for a change whereas right now max squads are always worse.
Also, there's nothing stopping Captains from having 3 orders or whatever due to their cost.
I bring full 10 man intercessors because it makes it easier to spread around auras. Ancient banner makes you fearless anyways - and it gives you the best overwatch (which with reroll all hits actually puts out decent damage.)
You people need to accept that Marines are impossible to fix because Marines aren't the cause of the issue. The cause is the insane leap in power of shooty units over the last 3 editions. Consider that a combat squad with a lascannon and a plasma gun used to be the top cheese that power gamers spammed. How laughable is that unit now when every new model has more guns on it than a Land Raider? This is an issue with the core vision (or lack thereof) of game design at GW and no amount of stats or points tweaks will fix it.
lord_blackfang wrote: You people need to accept that Marines are impossible to fix because Marines aren't the cause of the issue. The cause is the insane leap in power of shooty units over the last 3 editions. Consider that a combat squad with a lascannon and a plasma gun used to be the top cheese that power gamers spammed. How laughable is that unit now when every new model has more guns on it than a Land Raider? This is an issue with the core vision (or lack thereof) of game design at GW and no amount of stats or points tweaks will fix it.
That was never cheese - it was just the best option available. Salamanders landspeeders with 2x MM in 5th ed- that was cheese. Look how good that unit is now? The standard marine has always sucked. In literally every eddition I've played (started in 4th). I think my first post on dakka was asking why marines aren't better. I was like 16 or something. Almost 20 years later here we are. The marine still sucks. It's not power creep - it's brainlessness. Before in other edditions you were kinda forced to bring min squads of marines to play the army. Now you can just skip them. Guess what - everyone skips them.
Is that a problem with the orders or just with marines in general?
Besides, right now 20 marines can put out 40*2/3*2/3*2/3= 12 W against GEQ,
20 Guard can put out 40*1/2*1/2*2/3 = 6.6 W against GEQ. So in order to match the output of Marines, the Guard need to take 2 squads per full marine squad, which means that a Captain buffing 2 marine squads is buffing 4 Infantry Squads worth of firepower. (more or less)
Of course, the fact that marines only have 2x the firepower and 2.5x the durability of guardsmen (against boltguns, because against plasma marines have only marginally better durability) is bad since they are 3x the cost.
You're not analyzing that correctly. In fact I find that to be a really bizarre method.
Even if you added a captain to those marines they're not coming anywhere close to that efficiency.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
No I think you are looking at it the wrong way. A hell-blaster is just an intercessor with a better gun. A devastator is just a tactical marine. So on and so forth.
People who are suggesting marines would be fine with an offense boost need to realize - you'd have to buff every weapon in the codex to actually do that. You'd then have to buff every special snowflakes marines weapons too. Wouldn't it just be easier to drop the points of the base marine? Or give everything in power armor a special rule?
That's...not true.
A hellblaster is not an intercessor. They have two different slots and weapon options. Tac marines are also not devastators who can take 4 heavies as opposed to one.
The same base cost does not make them the same unit.
And I fail to see why other weapons would need to be buffed to accomplish the goal.
lord_blackfang wrote: You people need to accept that Marines are impossible to fix because Marines aren't the cause of the issue. The cause is the insane leap in power of shooty units over the last 3 editions. Consider that a combat squad with a lascannon and a plasma gun used to be the top cheese that power gamers spammed. How laughable is that unit now when every new model has more guns on it than a Land Raider? This is an issue with the core vision (or lack thereof) of game design at GW and no amount of stats or points tweaks will fix it.
lord_blackfang wrote: You people need to accept that Marines are impossible to fix because Marines aren't the cause of the issue. The cause is the insane leap in power of shooty units over the last 3 editions. Consider that a combat squad with a lascannon and a plasma gun used to be the top cheese that power gamers spammed. How laughable is that unit now when every new model has more guns on it than a Land Raider? This is an issue with the core vision (or lack thereof) of game design at GW and no amount of stats or points tweaks will fix it.
That was never cheese - it was just the best option available. Salamanders landspeeders with 2x MM in 5th ed- that was cheese. Look how good that unit is now? The standard marine has always sucked. In literally every eddition I've played (started in 4th). I think my first post on dakka was asking why marines aren't better. I was like 16 or something. Almost 20 years later here we are. The marine still sucks. It's not power creep - it's brainlessness. Before in other edditions you were kinda forced to bring min squads of marines to play the army. Now you can just skip them. Guess what - everyone skips them.
Crimson wrote: When I said that I wish that marines had orders instead of auras, I din't mean they would necessarily have the exact same orders as the IG, merely that the system worked that way. It's just a better mechanic.
I could get behind this.
Each faction gets orders/free strategems for having certain units on the board. You could even have to be the first 1-3 X strategems each game are free for each you have on the board. Limit the free stuff to mono faction so there is some kind of incentive against soup. For example, for each ethereal you control on the board, you get a single free use of "Uplinked Markerlight" per game.
Cost reduction is another route. If you a Ghostkeel drone within X inches of a Commander, Neuroweb System Jammer costs 1 less. It could even increase the discount depending on how many of a specific unit you control. For each Ghostkeel within X inches of a Commander, Neuroweb System Jammer costs 1 less. It may or may not be capped at a minimum cost. Wouldn't work without the 1 use per turn on each strategem keeping free strategems in check.
Is that a problem with the orders or just with marines in general?
Besides, right now 20 marines can put out 40*2/3*2/3*2/3= 12 W against GEQ,
20 Guard can put out 40*1/2*1/2*2/3 = 6.6 W against GEQ. So in order to match the output of Marines, the Guard need to take 2 squads per full marine squad, which means that a Captain buffing 2 marine squads is buffing 4 Infantry Squads worth of firepower. (more or less)
Of course, the fact that marines only have 2x the firepower and 2.5x the durability of guardsmen (against boltguns, because against plasma marines have only marginally better durability) is bad since they are 3x the cost.
You're not analyzing that correctly. In fact I find that to be a really bizarre method.
Even if you added a captain to those marines they're not coming anywhere close to that efficiency.
Points efficiency is beside the point since we are looking at orders on a squad by squad basis (besides, it's disingenuous and muddies the water since we know that guardsmen are already more point efficient than marines).
A single captain with 2 orders can buff 20 marines, those 20 marines have twice the firepower of 20 guardsmen. Assuming the orders are the same, a single captain will have the same multiplicative effect as 2 IG commanders. So no, the Captain does not need 4 orders to be roughly equivalent to the effect of an IG commander.
Look at it this way: (assuming 12 pt marines and 5 pt guard because other wise the efficiency of Guard will render this moot)
Assuming the use of the same order (in this case reroll ones to hit) and shooting GEQ:
- Marines: 40*(2/3+1/6*2/3)*2/3*2/3= 14 W (70 pts)
- Guard: 80*(1/2+1/6*1/2)*1/2*2/3= 15.5 W (77.5 pts)
Now against MEQ:
- Marines: 40*(2/3+1/6*2/3)*1/2*1/3= 6 W (72 pts)
- Guard: 80*(1/2+1/6*1/2)*1/3*1/3= 5.2 W (62.4 pts)
Well, look at that, offensive output is pretty similar. Maybe adjust the points on the HQs a bit to better match but even so, the marine captain is more combat effective than the IG commanders so that still needs to be considered. And no, we can't compare FRFSRF to reroll 1s because you're not comparing like things together, and then we aren't considering any unique orders the marines could get.
If marines ever had strategums worth playing yeah you would still probably be stuck on MSU as double battalion is 400 points in HQ's add in some anti armour and your in almost 1k add the msu and your 400 ish points thats still pretty bad given you can get the same CP from 400 points of guard and a castellan for the rest of that 1k even with 5ppm guard and a 700 point castellen I would still say marines will need something to be worth while taking over msu.
Could you break that down a bit? Right now it's kind of hard to read, so I'm not 100% sure what you're saying.
Strategums need CP usually the best way to generate CP is via Battalions. Usually 2 off as a starting target for sufficient CP post Regen nerf(Thankyou Astra Millicheese)
You need 2 HQ and 3 troops per battalion
Even at 12 ppm marine battalions with Power Armour at MSU are 180 points base troops(thats afull Guard battalion). Add in a captain and LT and your in between 150 and 200 points so your in almost 400 points per battalion just getting useful tax units.
Bring intercessors and it gets worse as they are 90 points per 5, so 2 units of 5 model intercessors and 5 scouts is 235 points add HQ's and your again another 200 points so this battalion is 450 ish points with some basic wargear options.
You still have no anti armour and either multiple predators (because why not make 3 mandatory or such and thats 500 points gone or you bring a couple of units of hellblasters. Again for lots of points.
Given 2 loyal 32 battalions plus Castellan even at 5ppm Guardsmen and 700 points are still a better way to spend 1100 points than marine's.
Marines don't work and won't work in 8th without some of the fundamental mechanics being changed.
Like CP being linked to detachments.
Other armies having acess to throwing enough dice to just buteforce any situation.
Points efficiency is beside the point since we are looking at orders on a squad by squad basis (besides, it's disingenuous and muddies the water since we know that guardsmen are already more point efficient than marines).
A single captain with 2 orders can buff 20 marines, those 20 marines have twice the firepower of 20 guardsmen. Assuming the orders are the same, a single captain will have the same multiplicative effect as 2 IG commanders. So no, the Captain does not need 4 orders to be roughly equivalent to the effect of an IG commander.
Look at it this way: (assuming 12 pt marines and 5 pt guard because other wise the efficiency of Guard will render this moot)
Assuming the use of the same order (in this case reroll ones to hit) and shooting GEQ:
- Marines: 40*(2/3+1/6*2/3)*2/3*2/3= 14 W (70 pts)
- Guard: 80*(1/2+1/6*1/2)*1/2*2/3= 15.5 W (77.5 pts)
Now against MEQ:
- Marines: 40*(2/3+1/6*2/3)*1/2*1/3= 6 W (72 pts)
- Guard: 80*(1/2+1/6*1/2)*1/3*1/3= 5.2 W (62.4 pts)
Well, look at that, offensive output is pretty similar. Maybe adjust the points on the HQs a bit to better match but even so, the marine captain is more combat effective than the IG commanders so that still needs to be considered. And no, we can't compare FRFSRF to reroll 1s because you're not comparing like things together, and then we aren't considering any unique orders the marines could get.
You've missed the mark again. First. that IG force is almost 80% the points of the marine one.
320 points of marines do 14 wounds. That means it took 22.9 points to score a wound. The IG took 16.8 points to do that same - even in your uneven imaginary scenario they are markedly more efficient.
And, yes, you HAVE TO compare FRFSRF to reroll 1s, because that is what is in the game.
Strategums need CP usually the best way to generate CP is via Battalions. Usually 2 off as a starting target for sufficient CP post Regen nerf(Thankyou Astra Millicheese)
Just so we're clear here, I'm talking about replacing auras with IG style orders. So stratagems aren't really what I'm looking at.
Strategums need CP usually the best way to generate CP is via Battalions. Usually 2 off as a starting target for sufficient CP post Regen nerf(Thankyou Astra Millicheese)
Just so we're clear here, I'm talking about replacing auras with IG style orders. So stratagems aren't really what I'm looking at.
But your not looking at how the current CP system forces you to structure units. This was my point, marines will never be in units of 10 they are too expensive to build CP at 10 model units.
1 battalion would be 390 points in troops plus 200 points in HQ's just to qualify as a battalion I can get 2 Guard battalions and change from those points.
Also 10 marines are more points than 20 Guardsmen even at 5ppm guard.
Points efficiency is beside the point since we are looking at orders on a squad by squad basis (besides, it's disingenuous and muddies the water since we know that guardsmen are already more point efficient than marines).
A single captain with 2 orders can buff 20 marines, those 20 marines have twice the firepower of 20 guardsmen. Assuming the orders are the same, a single captain will have the same multiplicative effect as 2 IG commanders. So no, the Captain does not need 4 orders to be roughly equivalent to the effect of an IG commander.
Look at it this way: (assuming 12 pt marines and 5 pt guard because other wise the efficiency of Guard will render this moot)
Assuming the use of the same order (in this case reroll ones to hit) and shooting GEQ:
- Marines: 40*(2/3+1/6*2/3)*2/3*2/3= 14 W (70 pts)
- Guard: 80*(1/2+1/6*1/2)*1/2*2/3= 15.5 W (77.5 pts)
Now against MEQ:
- Marines: 40*(2/3+1/6*2/3)*1/2*1/3= 6 W (72 pts)
- Guard: 80*(1/2+1/6*1/2)*1/3*1/3= 5.2 W (62.4 pts)
Well, look at that, offensive output is pretty similar. Maybe adjust the points on the HQs a bit to better match but even so, the marine captain is more combat effective than the IG commanders so that still needs to be considered. And no, we can't compare FRFSRF to reroll 1s because you're not comparing like things together, and then we aren't considering any unique orders the marines could get.
You've missed the mark again. First. that IG force is almost 80% the points of the marine one.
320 points of marines do 14 wounds. That means it took 22.9 points to score a wound. The IG took 16.8 points to do that same - even in your uneven imaginary scenario they are markedly more efficient.
I'm starting to think we aren't on the same page. You claimed that a Marine Captain would need 4 Orders to be equivalent (in buffs) to an IG commander. That's what I'm disputing. According to my math, the multiplicative effect of 1 Captain is equal to the multiplicative effect 2 IG commanders (roughly speaking). Why? Because a marine squad has 2x the firepower of a guard squad, so each marine order is worth 2 guard orders, because they are simply multiplying a larger base value.
And, yes, you HAVE TO compare FRFSRF to reroll 1s, because that is what is in the game.
Now you're assuming that marines don't get their own unique order. Since it hasn't been specified, we can't compare it to FRFSRF. But let's suppose that Marines don't get a unique order, then that should be reflected in the point cost of both the IG and Marines. We're talking about changing fundamental game mechanics anyway, so adjusting point costs to accommodate a better mechanic is worth it.
Watch this: IG commander cost up 10 pts
Marine captain down 10 pts:
Now the spread is:
310 pts of marines vs 280 pts of guard.
Is it ideal? IDK because I haven't tested it. But at least in the scenario given above, the marines were actually more efficient at killing guard than guard were at killing marines.
I'm starting to think we aren't on the same page. You claimed that a Marine Captain would need 4 Orders to be equivalent (in buffs) to an IG commander. That's what I'm disputing. According to my math, the multiplicative effect of 1 Captain is equal to the multiplicative effect 2 IG commanders (roughly speaking). Why? Because a marine squad has 2x the firepower of a guard squad, so each marine order is worth 2 guard orders, because they are simply multiplying a larger base value.
A marine squad is 3 times the cost (and also not double the firepower). We're not on the same page, because you're randomly applying different measures to get the result you want at each stage.
Now you're assuming that marines don't get their own unique order.
They wouldn't, because the problem stated was that auras cause units to be costed improperly to which my reply was that "marine orders" would have to cover about the same number of units that orders do just by way of marine HQs being so expensive.
But we've drifted too far from the original point of the discussion so i'll disengage from this piece of it.
I'm starting to think we aren't on the same page. You claimed that a Marine Captain would need 4 Orders to be equivalent (in buffs) to an IG commander. That's what I'm disputing. According to my math, the multiplicative effect of 1 Captain is equal to the multiplicative effect 2 IG commanders (roughly speaking). Why? Because a marine squad has 2x the firepower of a guard squad, so each marine order is worth 2 guard orders, because they are simply multiplying a larger base value.
A marine squad is 3 times the cost (and also not double the firepower). We're not on the same page, because you're randomly applying different measures to get the result you want at each stage.
um, on a model by model basis, a marine kills twice as much as a guardsman (just under actually). Therefore, the 10 man marine squad has twice the firepower of a 10 man guard squad. So let's say I have a stratagem that lets a single unit shoot twice, and it can be given to either a guard squad or a marine squad: who do I give it to?
Obviously I'd give it to the marines because I get more output for my single use stratagem. It doesn't really matter that guard are overall more efficient than marines in this case because 40 pts of guard doesn't output as much as 130 pts of marines in absolute terms even though it's more point efficient.
So because a 10 man marine squad has twice the damage output as a 10 man infantry squad, any order given to the marines will be twice as effective as the same order given to the guard.
Example: shoot twice order
10 marines go from killing 6 GEQ to killing 12
10 Guard go from killing 3.3 GEQ to killing 6.6 GEQ.
In absolute terms, the Marines killed an additional 6 GEQ, while the Guard only killed an additional 3.3 due to the order. This means that the order itself is almost twice as effective on the marine squad regardless of the point cost, because you only have the one order and because the 10 marines have almost twice the firepower. You're just multiplying a larger base number with marines.
Therefore, a single Captain's order is worth more than a single IG commander's order provided that the orders are the same. Which means that a Captain does not need 4 orders to match the effect of a single IG commander. And by effect I mean the actual absolute increase from the original value.
If; however, the orders were different then this would not be the case and could be reflected in the point cost or by adjusting the number of orders.
Strategums need CP usually the best way to generate CP is via Battalions. Usually 2 off as a starting target for sufficient CP post Regen nerf(Thankyou Astra Millicheese)
Just so we're clear here, I'm talking about replacing auras with IG style orders. So stratagems aren't really what I'm looking at.
But your not looking at how the current CP system forces you to structure units. This was my point, marines will never be in units of 10 they are too expensive to build CP at 10 model units.
1 battalion would be 390 points in troops plus 200 points in HQ's just to qualify as a battalion I can get 2 Guard battalions and change from those points.
Also 10 marines are more points than 20 Guardsmen even at 5ppm guard.
But why would you need to have full marine squads all the time? A mix of min and max squads would be more flexible while also allowing you to get more effect from your stratagems (assuming they were good). So long as there is some incentive to bring some max squads it's fine, right? So, for the double battalion, you only bring 1-2 10-man teams while the rest are 5-man, that way your hypothetical good stratagem can be used to more effect on the larger squads.
First, I don't think that the CA 2018 is going to improve any unit stats (i.e. increase St or T or # of shots) as GW has not done that in any FAQ or the previous CA 2017 and only made those kind of changes with new Codex changes (correct me if I am wrong as I don't play every army). So really the only change to existing units (not Sisters who are getting a codex in it) will probably only be point changes. Of course there will be Ork looted wagon rules, they will codify some of the FAQ beta rules etc., Sister Codex, probably missions, and I think I read that some only 7th edition special units (the Tau unit of characters) is coming, but the points is the only thing I really care about.
My hopes for the CA 2018 really are simple.
1. I want Terminators to get the price decrease that they need badly. Then I can bring my SoT and not feel like I am handcuffing myself. Everyone can argue about the amount they need to decrease, but I don't think anyway thinks that they should stay the same price. If they don't fix terminator costs again in this CA, then I will be angry.
2. I would really like Rubric Marines to go down a point or two and this this may happen. If it does not happen I would not be really mad about it, but I think it would help make Rubrics more viable in the Meta, and maybe let Thousand Sons armies field, you know, thousand sons in their lists and not feel like you are gimping yourself (for competitive, I always field one unit in my Thousand Sons list for pick up games etc.)
3. It would be nice to get a point or two off the Enlightened, as I use them all the time, and their survival rate is really low and damage output mediocre for how much they are, but I really don't expect GW to fix this.
4. There are other units that are not popular that I like that could use a small point decrease like Screamers, the Tzeentch Chariot, Warp Talons and some others. I really don't think we will see a whole lot change for most units.
And if CA 2017 is any indicator I think everyone should expect price increases on everything that is popular right now. I am not arguing for or against any of these but I would expect to see the new Knight Variants go up, Jump pack characters go up, TS daemon princes and Ahriman go up (sucks for me), Dark Eldar units and Eldar can probably expect an increase on a lot of stuff, and anything else that is popular. In CA 2017 they increased assault cannons, Storm Ravens, Gully all things that were the hotness the summer and fall before. I would expect the same.
I do guarantee one thing though, even after CA 2018, with what ever rule changes it makes, there will be broken units that are under costed, units that will be over costed, competitive list builds that will dominate competitive events, and certain rules or stratagems that can and will be abused. Why do I make this prediction? Well I have been Warhammer since 1995 and these things were true of every point in every edition ever. So I doubt it will change now.
To some extent you can solve a problem by making a unit very tough - but I suspect basic tacticals would have to have crazy defensive stats to justify having about half the offensive capability for their points when compared with comparable units. We are talking Terminator stats - 5++, 2W. You would say that's crazy (and what would intercessors get, 5++, 3W?) but this is the road you go down.
I think it is much easier to buff the damage output of marines. I realise this increases 40ks "everything's a glass hammer, you go or you a dead" but thats kind of the game. Otherwise you need as above crazy increases in resilience, or to nerf the shooting of almost every codex in the game.
A Terminator is basically two normal Marines with a power fist and combat shield between them, bolted together. Oddly, the cost of a Terminator almost exactly matches the cost of two Marines with a power fist and combat shield between them. And yet, how often do you see a squad of termies replacing two Tac squads in a list?
To be fair, everything in the entire marine book needs to be 15%-30% cheaper, and quite a few vanilla marine strategems and psychic powers are junk compared to what is available in later books.
To be fair, everything in the entire marine book needs to be 15%-30% cheaper
That is a very strong overstatement, I think.
It's really not.
I can think of a few exceptions. Scout bikes are probably properly costed. Stalkers are about right. Some characters are about right but most are overcosted.
You got any examples other than what I listed that aren't at least 15% over?
The problem with terminators over marines is two wounds is not as good as two models due to damage in 8th. Two wounds for basically all units is so over priced.
Eldarsif wrote: The thing about the Rule of 3 is that it sets a hard limit on how much you need of any unit before you don't have to ever buy more of those ever again.
Well, until the next time the rules change. And there WILL be a next time.
highly unlikely that Rule of 3 ever goes anywhere. Certainly not as certain as you imply.
We'll see. BTW, I don't have to be right on this only in the context of 8th. The rule can change come 9th+ Like I said, there WILL be a next time.
Well, at what point does your statement become wrong? Because you're suggesting something extremely unlikely and just saying "one day" and saying that your statement can never be proven wrong. Sure but that doesn't mean it should be listened to.
My statement will become wrong if 40k, as a product, ended before they changed the rule again. I'll even count that as happening should GW pull an AoS stunt.
Eldarsif wrote: The thing about the Rule of 3 is that it sets a hard limit on how much you need of any unit before you don't have to ever buy more of those ever again.
Well, until the next time the rules change. And there WILL be a next time.
highly unlikely that Rule of 3 ever goes anywhere. Certainly not as certain as you imply.
People thought that about allies as well. Things change. GW changes their policies and eventually GW will decide this limits their sales too much.
Lol which idiot thought that the allies ruleset which changes every edition was never going to change again?
Asks the man arguing that the Rule of Three won't change in the future....
Yes, thats literally the comparison being made in the last two responses in that chain, try to keep up.
Rule of 3 has been changed once in the lifetime of the game, to an overwhelmingly positive response and seems very unlikely to be changed anytime. Not impossible. But at the very least, nowhere near as certain as you claim it is.
Allies is a complex set of interactions that change literally every edition.
The logic that "because one thing changed that means Rule of 3 is going to be removed" is so unbelievably elementary I'm even sure how to respond like that.
Youve made an incredible declaration that cannot be falsified, one of the definitive signs of pseudoscience https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability, and you are claiming that some point between now and the heat death of the universe, Rule of 3 will be removed. I mean... Maybe? You have nothing at all to substantiate that and are just waving around the fact that it cant be disproved, which is the best indicator that your point is kinda empty and doesn't really have any relevance to any sort of productive discussion.
Rule of 3 could change for any number of reasons. I think the idea is that declaring it'll never change when the game has changed so much over the years is silly.
I agree, maybe it will change, maybe it won't. Declaring that it DEFINITELY is going to be removed, as ccs did, or that it DEFINITELY isn't going to be removed (as nobody has yet), is where you cross into nonsense. Thats far from certain. Very good chance it never changes.
I could see it changing before the end of 2019 honestly. Different number of datasheets for different unit types, giving certain armies more or less leeway, etc.
cole1114 wrote: I could see it changing before the end of 2019 honestly. Different number of datasheets for different unit types, giving certain armies more or less leeway, etc.
might happen, but my money is on minor tweaks at best, and no direct chqnge that allows for more than 3 of most models in matched play.
I'd be very surprised if the rule of 3 was gone by the end of next year.
I think the change would be going through datasheets and deciding how many "take 1-6 of this unit, they count as one datasheet, but operate as individual models" should be there, and whether there need to be some additions or removals. Mainly because it feels weird that certain factions can take squadrons of vehicles or monsters etc but others can't. Then again I don't think its breaking the game, so there is little motivation for GW to curate things that closely.
I can think of a few exceptions. Scout bikes are probably properly costed. Stalkers are about right. Some characters are about right but most are overcosted.
You got any examples other than what I listed that aren't at least 15% over?
I dunno - 15% seems severe as the bare minimum for the entire codex.
I can think of a few exceptions. Scout bikes are probably properly costed. Stalkers are about right. Some characters are about right but most are overcosted.
You got any examples other than what I listed that aren't at least 15% over?
I dunno - 15% seems severe as the bare minimum for the entire codex.
Let me be a little less snarky. A 15% discount would mean that Marines would get the equivalent of 2330 points for a 2000 point list. Is another 330 points going to be enough to let a Marine list compete with 2000 points of one of the good forces?
It's not unusual for a Marine army to get tabled on turn 3 without inflicting even 50% casualties in return against one of the good forces. 330 points would help, but not enough to fix that.
To be fair, everything in the entire marine book needs to be 15%-30% cheaper
That is a very strong overstatement, I think.
It's really not.
I can think of a few exceptions. Scout bikes are probably properly costed. Stalkers are about right. Some characters are about right but most are overcosted.
You got any examples other than what I listed that aren't at least 15% over?
As an aside - why do you rate the Stalker?
I keep thinking it should be the answer to say Ravagers - but it just isn't really. Not for that many points.
Let me be a little less snarky. A 15% discount would mean that Marines would get the equivalent of 2330 points for a 2000 point list. Is another 330 points going to be enough to let a Marine list compete with 2000 points of one of the good forces?
It's not unusual for a Marine army to get tabled on turn 3 without inflicting even 50% casualties in return against one of the good forces. 330 points would help, but not enough to fix that.
Depends on the list. 330 points is pretty close to an entire BobbyG.
Let me be a little less snarky. A 15% discount would mean that Marines would get the equivalent of 2330 points for a 2000 point list. Is another 330 points going to be enough to let a Marine list compete with 2000 points of one of the good forces?
It's not unusual for a Marine army to get tabled on turn 3 without inflicting even 50% casualties in return against one of the good forces. 330 points would help, but not enough to fix that.
Depends on the list. 330 points is pretty close to an entire BobbyG.
Orkz got a 15% INCREASE on the price of Boyz. We went from taking 180+ in a 2,000pt game to today where I took only 60 and I honestly think I would have been better off taking 0 and just 60 grotz as a tax.
Automatically Appended Next Post: point being, 15% can be a make or break for a unit
Let me be a little less snarky. A 15% discount would mean that Marines would get the equivalent of 2330 points for a 2000 point list. Is another 330 points going to be enough to let a Marine list compete with 2000 points of one of the good forces?
It's not unusual for a Marine army to get tabled on turn 3 without inflicting even 50% casualties in return against one of the good forces. 330 points would help, but not enough to fix that.
Depends on the list. 330 points is pretty close to an entire BobbyG.
Orkz got a 15% INCREASE on the price of Boyz. We went from taking 180+ in a 2,000pt game to today where I took only 60 and I honestly think I would have been better off taking 0 and just 60 grotz as a tax.
Automatically Appended Next Post: point being, 15% can be a make or break for a unit
I agree with you in principal, but entirely disagree with you about Boyz.
lord_blackfang wrote: You can go look at GW's job openings right now, on their own website, and it will say right there in the application form that they do not hire based on skill.
Could you show me where, because I see this :
"We select candidates for interview based on what they tell us in their letter or video."
Which is very different from what you're saying.
Anecdotal - but my local GW just hired a new casual who has never played any GW based games before. When I walked in the manager was giving him a demo game of AOS. At first I thought it was just some newbie who wondered into the store but nope, new staff member and everything.
I've heard first hand from several GW staff over the years, especially recently, that hiring is mostly based on attitude and customer service. Everything else can be taught.
I had a former manager tell me when I was interviewing that they hire based on sales ability and attitude/enthusiasm. They don't care that I've been building, painting, playing, and teaching other people the game for 20 years. They hired a guy who used to work at CarMax and had never built/painted a model or played a GW game in his life because he had more experience than I did in commission based sales jobs. He lasted 3 months because he tried to make all kinds of crazy house rules for the events at the store, and they always made things worse because he barely understood how the core game worked. By that time, I had a job in marketing for a Fortune 500 company that I still have today. I guess I'm cut out to work in marketing for one of the largest companies in North America, but not cut out to sell models that I have 20+ years of experience with.
tneva82 wrote:Only thing happened is that GW realized they can accelerate that process from codex to codex to FAQ to FAQ. End result is still same. No balance. It's not in their goal. They don't WANT balance as it hurts the balance of their checkbooks. Less profits for the big bosses.
I'm going to ask again where the Rule of 3 fits in with this theory? Because it effectively limits how many of any given kit a competitive player is likely to buy.
It also forces people to buy kits they might not otherwise buy. GW spends just as much creating an infantry kit as they do with something like a riptide. It's better for them if people are buying lots of different kits instead of 2k points of 1 or 2 kits. That is not an indication that they care more about balance than selling models.
Let me be a little less snarky. A 15% discount would mean that Marines would get the equivalent of 2330 points for a 2000 point list. Is another 330 points going to be enough to let a Marine list compete with 2000 points of one of the good forces?
It's not unusual for a Marine army to get tabled on turn 3 without inflicting even 50% casualties in return against one of the good forces. 330 points would help, but not enough to fix that.
Depends on the list. 330 points is pretty close to an entire BobbyG.
Orkz got a 15% INCREASE on the price of Boyz. We went from taking 180+ in a 2,000pt game to today where I took only 60 and I honestly think I would have been better off taking 0 and just 60 grotz as a tax.
Automatically Appended Next Post: point being, 15% can be a make or break for a unit
And 15% can also be just enough to make a bad unit viable. Or it could fall short on fixing something ridiculously over-priced like Centurions. "Thing X is too much on unit A" is only meaningful to the discussion of what is too much for Marines if "unit A" is in about the same place as a basic Marine.
Not to say that an Ork Boy isn't in about the same place as a basic Marine in the contex of the Ork codex, but you'd have to make that case.
@ Daedalus81: I'm playing Raven Guard, Girlyman doesn't look like such a good investment from where I'm sitting.
A redemptor dread would still be at 170. Still worse than an armiger, provided they don't give it another rule of course.
T8, or a 5++ would help but I'd rather T8 since he's a big boy.
It is kinda weird how Ironclad gets T8 but Redemptor doesn't.
That's why I said 15%-30%, I recognize that it's not all the same level of gak. As evidenced by my continual harping on how poorly Centurions are priced.
There are admittedly some things where it feels like the price isn't the issue though. The Redemptor is one of them, both for T7 and for having a much worse set of weapon options than an Armiger. The Vindicator also comes to mind, it feels like it needs Grinding Advance more than any points adjustment.
To be fair, everything in the entire marine book needs to be 15%-30% cheaper
That is a very strong overstatement, I think.
It's really not.
I can think of a few exceptions. Scout bikes are probably properly costed. Stalkers are about right. Some characters are about right but most are overcosted.
You got any examples other than what I listed that aren't at least 15% over?
As an aside - why do you rate the Stalker?
I keep thinking it should be the answer to say Ravagers - but it just isn't really. Not for that many points.
Dono if there is a better option in the game for killing ravagers at range to be honest. So I can't claim that it's overcosted. Though it is situational and the max ap-1 really hurts it. The hunter though - it's probably more than 30% overcosted. A single reroll to hit las cannon on a tough chassie - seems like about a 65 point model to me.
Yeah I just don't want to see Orkz at 7ppm and Space Marines being reduced to 11 or even 10. At that point you can basically just kiss Ork boyz goodby and say hello to MSU Grot spam to fill up troop slots and have the Ork codex rely on Gimmicky CP Spam units and mass deep strike.
A redemptor dread would still be at 170. Still worse than an armiger, provided they don't give it another rule of course.
T8, or a 5++ would help but I'd rather T8 since he's a big boy.
Which armiger? Because the Redemptor has a fist and the Helverin does not, which makes direct comparison difficult especially since the Redemptor is more for killing infantry.
If it's the Warglaive - the Redemptor goes to S14 instead of 12, which is helpful and has a heck of a lot more (anti-infantry) shooting than a couple multi-melta shots. It also doesn't need it's own LoW detachment to exist. Yes, it's slow. Yes, it has no invuln. But if you drop it too low you open the window to spam them and others with RG, which means the cost of RG needs to go up and he becomes unusable without those specific units.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SemperMortis wrote: Yeah I just don't want to see Orkz at 7ppm and Space Marines being reduced to 11 or even 10. At that point you can basically just kiss Ork boyz goodby and say hello to MSU Grot spam to fill up troop slots and have the Ork codex rely on Gimmicky CP Spam units and mass deep strike.
lord_blackfang wrote: You can go look at GW's job openings right now, on their own website, and it will say right there in the application form that they do not hire based on skill.
Could you show me where, because I see this :
"We select candidates for interview based on what they tell us in their letter or video."
Which is very different from what you're saying.
Anecdotal - but my local GW just hired a new casual who has never played any GW based games before. When I walked in the manager was giving him a demo game of AOS. At first I thought it was just some newbie who wondered into the store but nope, new staff member and everything.
I've heard first hand from several GW staff over the years, especially recently, that hiring is mostly based on attitude and customer service. Everything else can be taught.
I had a former manager tell me when I was interviewing that they hire based on sales ability and attitude/enthusiasm. They don't care that I've been building, painting, playing, and teaching other people the game for 20 years. They hired a guy who used to work at CarMax and had never built/painted a model or played a GW game in his life because he had more experience than I did in commission based sales jobs. He lasted 3 months because he tried to make all kinds of crazy house rules for the events at the store, and they always made things worse because he barely understood how the core game worked. By that time, I had a job in marketing for a Fortune 500 company that I still have today. I guess I'm cut out to work in marketing for one of the largest companies in North America, but not cut out to sell models that I have 20+ years of experience with.
tneva82 wrote:Only thing happened is that GW realized they can accelerate that process from codex to codex to FAQ to FAQ. End result is still same. No balance. It's not in their goal. They don't WANT balance as it hurts the balance of their checkbooks. Less profits for the big bosses.
I'm going to ask again where the Rule of 3 fits in with this theory? Because it effectively limits how many of any given kit a competitive player is likely to buy.
It also forces people to buy kits they might not otherwise buy. GW spends just as much creating an infantry kit as they do with something like a riptide. It's better for them if people are buying lots of different kits instead of 2k points of 1 or 2 kits. That is not an indication that they care more about balance than selling models.
Could this be why Militarum Tempestus didn’t get a Codex?
To be fair, everything in the entire marine book needs to be 15%-30% cheaper
That is a very strong overstatement, I think.
It's really not.
I can think of a few exceptions. Scout bikes are probably properly costed. Stalkers are about right. Some characters are about right but most are overcosted.
You got any examples other than what I listed that aren't at least 15% over?
As an aside - why do you rate the Stalker?
I keep thinking it should be the answer to say Ravagers - but it just isn't really. Not for that many points.
Dono if there is a better option in the game for killing ravagers at range to be honest. So I can't claim that it's overcosted. Though it is situational and the max ap-1 really hurts it. The hunter though - it's probably more than 30% overcosted. A single reroll to hit las cannon on a tough chassie - seems like about a 65 point model to me.
Hunter is probably the only proper costed vehicle in the SM arsenal. If you want to show how overpriced are SM vehicles you have much better examples.
To be fair, everything in the entire marine book needs to be 15%-30% cheaper
That is a very strong overstatement, I think.
It's really not.
I can think of a few exceptions. Scout bikes are probably properly costed. Stalkers are about right. Some characters are about right but most are overcosted.
You got any examples other than what I listed that aren't at least 15% over?
As an aside - why do you rate the Stalker?
I keep thinking it should be the answer to say Ravagers - but it just isn't really. Not for that many points.
Dono if there is a better option in the game for killing ravagers at range to be honest. So I can't claim that it's overcosted. Though it is situational and the max ap-1 really hurts it. The hunter though - it's probably more than 30% overcosted. A single reroll to hit las cannon on a tough chassie - seems like about a 65 point model to me.
Hunter is probably the only proper costed vehicle in the SM arsenal. If you want to show how overpriced are SM vehicles you have much better examples.
Very few units worst than the hunter in the whole of the game. True though - lots of them are in the space marine codex. Centurians - Landraiders - landspeeders. All garbage level.
A redemptor dread would still be at 170. Still worse than an armiger, provided they don't give it another rule of course.
T8, or a 5++ would help but I'd rather T8 since he's a big boy.
Which armiger? Because the Redemptor has a fist and the Helverin does not, which makes direct comparison difficult especially since the Redemptor is more for killing infantry.
If it's the Warglaive - the Redemptor goes to S14 instead of 12, which is helpful and has a heck of a lot more (anti-infantry) shooting than a couple multi-melta shots. It also doesn't need it's own LoW detachment to exist. Yes, it's slow. Yes, it has no invuln. But if you drop it too low you open the window to spam them and others with RG, which means the cost of RG needs to go up and he becomes unusable without those specific units.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SemperMortis wrote: Yeah I just don't want to see Orkz at 7ppm and Space Marines being reduced to 11 or even 10. At that point you can basically just kiss Ork boyz goodby and say hello to MSU Grot spam to fill up troop slots and have the Ork codex rely on Gimmicky CP Spam units and mass deep strike.
If anything GW will move them 1 point tops.
200 point models without invun saves don't make it to close combat. Plus has reduced shooting efficiency on the move - unlike an armiger.
Drop the land raider's cost to lower than a knight gallant and let it shoot after falling back, give the redemptor T8 and make it cost less than an armiger, and I'll be closer to happy.
But then you still have vanguard vets with hammers/shields/melta costing 200 points for five models and all kinds of other stuff costing too much... it's gonna take more than chapter approved for me to be happy with marines.
There are admittedly some things where it feels like the price isn't the issue though. The Redemptor is one of them, both for T7 and for having a much worse set of weapon options than an Armiger. The Vindicator also comes to mind, it feels like it needs Grinding Advance more than any points adjustment.
Terminators, too. For 13 points more than a Custodian Guard, you get an assault cannon/power fist Terminator that is slower, has fewer wounds, worse BS/WS, lower toughness, strength, and attacks, and does marginally more damage to GEQ past 12" if stationary. Oh, but it can deep strike.
It should be 50% it's current price, but it can't be, because its wargear is half the damn point cost.
There are admittedly some things where it feels like the price isn't the issue though. The Redemptor is one of them, both for T7 and for having a much worse set of weapon options than an Armiger. The Vindicator also comes to mind, it feels like it needs Grinding Advance more than any points adjustment.
Terminators, too. For 13 points more than a Custodian Guard, you get an assault cannon/power fist Terminator that is slower, has fewer wounds, worse BS/WS, lower toughness, strength, and attacks, and does marginally more damage to GEQ past 12" if stationary. Oh, but it can deep strike.
It should be 50% it's current price, but it can't be, because its wargear is half the damn point cost.
Whats more a custodian guard isn't even very good for it's points. No wonder they see 0 competitive play.
There are admittedly some things where it feels like the price isn't the issue though. The Redemptor is one of them, both for T7 and for having a much worse set of weapon options than an Armiger. The Vindicator also comes to mind, it feels like it needs Grinding Advance more than any points adjustment.
Terminators, too. For 13 points more than a Custodian Guard, you get an assault cannon/power fist Terminator that is slower, has fewer wounds, worse BS/WS, lower toughness, strength, and attacks, and does marginally more damage to GEQ past 12" if stationary. Oh, but it can deep strike.
It should be 50% it's current price, but it can't be, because its wargear is half the damn point cost.
When I said 15%-30% I meant for everything, wargear included. Half the problem with Marines is that they pay for being better at everything that a Guardsmen, then they also pay more for the same weapons. A Lascannon (or whatever) doesn't need to cost 25% more in a Marine's hands, you already paid for eveything that makes that Lascannon better when you paid 9 more points for the guy carrying it.
I wouldn't cry about Termies dropping to 30ish points though.
There are admittedly some things where it feels like the price isn't the issue though. The Redemptor is one of them, both for T7 and for having a much worse set of weapon options than an Armiger. The Vindicator also comes to mind, it feels like it needs Grinding Advance more than any points adjustment.
Terminators, too. For 13 points more than a Custodian Guard, you get an assault cannon/power fist Terminator that is slower, has fewer wounds, worse BS/WS, lower toughness, strength, and attacks, and does marginally more damage to GEQ past 12" if stationary. Oh, but it can deep strike.
It should be 50% it's current price, but it can't be, because its wargear is half the damn point cost.
Whats more a custodian guard isn't even very good for it's points. No wonder they see 0 competitive play.
Except you can't do a 20-30% point reduction across the board because then gorram Girlyman becomes a major problem again. 15% is probably doable, but after that Girlybro starts compounding additional firepower on itself and the whole army spirals out of control, just like in the Indexes.(Index Space marines with quad Stormravens are STILL the most powerful army, relative to available field, we've seen in 8th).
The stuff that's really bad: Most of the vehicles, terminators, assault marines, etc. could drop that much and probably still be fine. But you start messing around too much with Centurions or Stormravens or even just devastators and you're setting up for another Girlydude leafblower gunline.
I would go at it by just making bolters better, then giving it a 3 point cost and a 6 point cost to storm bolters. Reduce model costs so that model + bolter/stormbolter is the same cost. Now you made the basic loadouts better and the toys cheaper, which are the biggest issues of marine factions.
cole1114 wrote: Drop the land raider's cost to lower than a knight gallant and let it shoot after falling back, give the redemptor T8 and make it cost less than an armiger, and I'll be closer to happy.
But then you still have vanguard vets with hammers/shields/melta costing 200 points for five models and all kinds of other stuff costing too much... it's gonna take more than chapter approved for me to be happy with marines.
lol my dudes cost 200pts before any hammers, special weapons or storm shields
Judging from the ork codex, some good stratagems and better chapter tactics (on all units!) might be much more important than dropping points.
That is true, but how much of it is also orcs being cheap? If the anti flyer cannon cost 150-200pts, like it would if it was an SM artiliery pice, it would be horrible.
Sm probably need everything, point cost drops, and actual good rules both on their units and their stratagems. And in the end it doesn't really mater if GW makes marines tanky, with some special units that are ment to kill stuff in mono lists or the killing being out sourced to knights etc, or if marines become the super killers and the scoring is left to ally or some cheap scouts. As long as the armies work it should be ok. If more then one way of playing is possible, then it is going to be even more awesome.
Karol wrote: That is true, but how much of it is also orcs being cheap? If the anti flyer cannon cost 150-200pts, like it would if it was an SM artiliery pice, it would be horrible.
You have completely missed my point. Some units have gone from trash tier to decent just because they can benefit from clan kultures and stratagems, with next to no changes to them otherwise. This has zero to do with what orks cost. If anything, space marines tend to be equally or more efficient than comparable ork units, except they have bad chapter tactics and no stratagems to boost them. For example, a unit of tractor cannons is almost equal to a unit of space marine devastators with lascannon against most targets.
You are also comparing apples to oranges - I might as well claim that space marines are fine because Roboute Gulliman is so much cheaper than a stompa.
Karol wrote: That is true, but how much of it is also orcs being cheap? If the anti flyer cannon cost 150-200pts, like it would if it was an SM artiliery pice, it would be horrible.
You have completely missed my point. Some units have gone from trash tier to decent just because they can benefit from clan kultures and stratagems, with next to no changes to them otherwise. This has zero to do with what orks cost. If anything, space marines tend to be equally or more efficient than comparable ork units, except they have bad chapter tactics and no stratagems to boost them. For example, a unit of tractor cannons is almost equal to a unit of space marine devastators with lascannon against most targets.
You are also comparing apples to oranges - I might as well claim that space marines are fine because Roboute Gulliman is so much cheaper than a stompa.
Often paying the same and getting more rules means you get better. Space marine players have suggested both points drops and rules changes to fix the codex. Both are met with huge opposition because marine haters are never in short supply in this game.
Often paying the same and getting more rules means you get better. Space marine players have suggested both points drops and rules changes to fix the codex. Both are met with huge opposition because marine haters are never in short supply in this game.
Calling them marine haters does disservice to their arguments. I'm sure we all have our biases though.
Karol wrote: That is true, but how much of it is also orcs being cheap? If the anti flyer cannon cost 150-200pts, like it would if it was an SM artiliery pice, it would be horrible.
You have completely missed my point. Some units have gone from trash tier to decent just because they can benefit from clan kultures and stratagems, with next to no changes to them otherwise. This has zero to do with what orks cost. If anything, space marines tend to be equally or more efficient than comparable ork units, except they have bad chapter tactics and no stratagems to boost them. For example, a unit of tractor cannons is almost equal to a unit of space marine devastators with lascannon against most targets.
You are also comparing apples to oranges - I might as well claim that space marines are fine because Roboute Gulliman is so much cheaper than a stompa.
Often paying the same and getting more rules means you get better. Space marine players have suggested both points drops and rules changes to fix the codex. Both are met with huge opposition because marine haters are never in short supply in this game.
As far as I can tell, the people telling marines they are fine are the same as the people that used to tell orks before the codex that they are fine.
I have Dark Angels, Crimson Fists, Imperial Fists and Space Wolves in my gaming group as regular opponents. The universal truth is that marines suck and need help. The ones who do best out of that pile are dark angels - because they have a powerful chapter tactic and strong stragems.
I'd argue if you just take the ork datacards and kultures instead of the marine ones, the army would already be a lot more powerful.
Karol wrote: That is true, but how much of it is also orcs being cheap? If the anti flyer cannon cost 150-200pts, like it would if it was an SM artiliery pice, it would be horrible.
You have completely missed my point. Some units have gone from trash tier to decent just because they can benefit from clan kultures and stratagems, with next to no changes to them otherwise. This has zero to do with what orks cost. If anything, space marines tend to be equally or more efficient than comparable ork units, except they have bad chapter tactics and no stratagems to boost them. For example, a unit of tractor cannons is almost equal to a unit of space marine devastators with lascannon against most targets.
You are also comparing apples to oranges - I might as well claim that space marines are fine because Roboute Gulliman is so much cheaper than a stompa.
It has everything to do with cost. Lets say a super awesome stratagem or rule gets added to land raiders, but their cost stays the same or even goes up. Who cares about the unit then? I tell you who, no one. Plus those type of fixs, unlike a point cost change, is not going to happen in a CA or FAQ, or at least that is what people have been telling me.
And it effects me double, my faction is glued to space marine point costs. I don't have a Gulliman, las devs etc and the chance to get new rules in a new codex, is close to zero next year. You play a cheap army, so getting big returns on certain units is easier, even fitting in weaker unit is easier. If I would decide to take something like 10 purificators in a normal points games I just blew 1/4 of all my points, while your freebooters are just weaker goffs or skulls.
By the way I don't understand the devs vs traktor cannons example. Orcs are cheaper then devs. so after building a 2000pts list, the orc players will have more points left to buy more cannons then a marine player is going to have devs with lascannons. It gets even drastic for armies like GK. After 3 troops, I maybe will have enough left points to buy 1 unit of support, while the orc player could easily buy 3 gun sections.
I don't think any reasonable person is against marine buffs. Marines are the crappiest codex behind grey knights and MAYBE necrons.
I also personally didn't think ork boyz needed to go to 7 points, but w/e. Guardsmen now feel even more out of place than they already did at 4ppm. I think they should go to 5ppm in this CA and get it over with so people will stop complaining about how good guard chaff is in relation to everything else.
Skitarii rangers should go to 8ppm though, or we are going to see guardsmen chaff being replaced with ranger chaff in soup lists.
Karol wrote: That is true, but how much of it is also orcs being cheap? If the anti flyer cannon cost 150-200pts, like it would if it was an SM artiliery pice, it would be horrible.
You have completely missed my point. Some units have gone from trash tier to decent just because they can benefit from clan kultures and stratagems, with next to no changes to them otherwise. This has zero to do with what orks cost. If anything, space marines tend to be equally or more efficient than comparable ork units, except they have bad chapter tactics and no stratagems to boost them. For example, a unit of tractor cannons is almost equal to a unit of space marine devastators with lascannon against most targets.
You are also comparing apples to oranges - I might as well claim that space marines are fine because Roboute Gulliman is so much cheaper than a stompa.
It has everything to do with cost. Lets say a super awesome stratagem or rule gets added to land raiders, but their cost stays the same or even goes up. Who cares about the unit then? I tell you who, no one. Plus those type of fixs, unlike a point cost change, is not going to happen in a CA or FAQ, or at least that is what people have been telling me.
And it effects me double, my faction is glued to space marine point costs. I don't have a Gulliman, las devs etc and the chance to get new rules in a new codex, is close to zero next year. You play a cheap army, so getting big returns on certain units is easier, even fitting in weaker unit is easier. If I would decide to take something like 10 purificators in a normal points games I just blew 1/4 of all my points, while your freebooters are just weaker goffs or skulls.
By the way I don't understand the devs vs traktor cannons example. Orcs are cheaper then devs. so after building a 2000pts list, the orc players will have more points left to buy more cannons then a marine player is going to have devs with lascannons. It gets even drastic for armies like GK. After 3 troops, I maybe will have enough left points to buy 1 unit of support, while the orc player could easily buy 3 gun sections.
First off lets destroy that first point. Lootas are absolute CRAP, in the codex without strats they are far to expensive, lack any kind of durability and on average can dish out about 5 damage a turn to a T7 vehicle with a 3+ but only if they roll average and only if they upgrade to the 15 boy unit which costs....255pts. As soon as the enemy sees them though they will die to a stiff breeze because at T4 with a 6+ save and each model costing 17pts they suck. Now after the codex came out and gave us access to strats and klan tactics they are ok, not great but ok. Using 2 units of 15 and 10 you can combine them with a strat to make a unit of 25, then another strat lets them trigger dakkax3 on 5s and 6s (also makes them always hit on 5s and 6s) give them another bonus for being Bad moon and now they reroll 1s, and finally pay another strat and poof they can now shoot twice a turn. So against a T7 vehicle you are averaging 50 shots a turn, which is about 24 hits a turn with rerolling and exploding 5s and 6s. Those 24 do 12 wounds on average vs T7 and against a 3+ save they will do about 12 damage, almost enough to obliterate a vehicle in 1 turn, and they get to fire a second time The grot unit is there to die as meat shields which covers up their other biggest issue, dying to a stiff breeze.
Same thing for deff dreadz, they are a terrible unit....until I can tellyporta a group of 3 of them into 9' range of the enemy and then have a 8' charge due to klan Evil Sunz. Suddenly, their biggest weakness (Durability/speed) is negated by being able to get into CC so quickly, same thing for the 2 nauts as well as other slow units like battlewagons.
Also, your other complaint that orkz are so much cheaper and we can afford to take more stuff.....yeah no kidding, we suck at shooting and as a rule we aren't as durable as comparable units so we get to be cheaper because we die quicker. Go figure But with your example, no we don't have more points left over to buy more guns because to get the same results with our units we have to buy MORE of them. SO yeah Devestators might cost more than Lootas, but my 5 man unit of lootas isn't doing a whole hell of a lot compared to a 5 man unit of devs. That is why I usually have to bring 3x as many for the same benefits.
Sasori wrote: A bit late to the thread, but do we have any firmer date on the release of CA? I know nothing official has been set yet.
I'm really itching for some updates to my Crons, while hoping they don't do anything silly to my Nids and Thousand Sons.
Last year the pre-order was just after Thanksgiving/Black Friday, so not long now. With made to order this week we'll see previews next week I imagine.
Also, your other complaint that orkz are so much cheaper and we can afford to take more stuff.....yeah no kidding, we suck at shooting and as a rule we aren't as durable as comparable units so we get to be cheaper because we die quicker. Go figure But with your example, no we don't have more points left over to buy more guns because to get the same results with our units we have to buy MORE of them. SO yeah Devestators might cost more than Lootas, but my 5 man unit of lootas isn't doing a whole hell of a lot compared to a 5 man unit of devs. That is why I usually have to bring 3x as many for the same benefits.
I wasn't talking about lootaz, so I don't understand why you mention them. And my argument was not that orcs are too cheap. My argument was that in low point cost armies, it is much easier to do fixs by adding single rules or stratagems. Also the problem is not that space marine units one vs one are worse or better then some other armies unit, unless you play narrative or something. It is just that a unit of devs is that cost X times the points an orc unit doing the same costs, is not X times better. It is the same way with IG. People take a squad of them and a squad of marines compare them, and say that IG aren't that much better. What they forget is that marines cost a lot more.
Same thing for deff dreadz, they are a terrible unit....until I can tellyporta a group of 3 of them into 9' range of the enemy and then have a 8' charge due to klan Evil Sunz. Suddenly, their biggest weakness (Durability/speed) is negated by being able to get into CC so quickly, same thing for the 2 nauts as well as other slow units like battlewagons.
ok. now you play marines get the same teleport option, by the way GK can teleport their stuff. Lets say somehow marines also get the speed boost of some sort so the charge is not an above avarge roll. You are not going to fit 3 dreadnoughts or 3 NDKs in case of GK, in to a space marine list. You wil be droping 1. Now what happens next? unless the opposing army consists of 5 model units with teq stats and no stormshields, the dread is either going to bounce or will get tar pited.
The stratagem you use as an example of being good, only works because a deff dread and the other stuff in the orc army is cheap enough to do such stuff. Now am not saying it is totally impossible for marines to build a cheap list. But I doubt many people want to play with 3x5 scouts in every army, not to mention the fact that there are marine armies like GK or DW that do not have scouts, and can't even ,if they wanted to, fit 3 dreads in a list.
Deff Dreadz are 105pts with 6 attacks in CC and no dakka. Dreadnoughts are 134pts for 4 attacks in CC and 6 shots with a S6 AP-1 weapon and 4 shots with a S4 weapon hitting on 3s.
Deff dreadz are 4 attacks at S10 and 2 at S9 Dreadnoughts are 4 attacks at S12.
so 29pts gets you +2 strength and a lot of dakka but 2 less attacks.....I wouldn't be "bouncing" off targets, I would be killing specific targets just like I am with my dreadz. I don't just launch them into fodder units, i make them run into vehicles and heavy infantry so I can carve them up.
So I would call that about a draw as far as points/damage. And the reason I brought up lootas was because you said Space Marine units are terrible and need major fixes as well as price drops, I was giving examples of terrible units that got better with just strats and no changes.
And yeah, Space Marine units are significantly more expensive then a comparable unit in the IG but you keep comparing only 1 aspect of them...damage. But glossing over the fact that those Marines have a 2+ in cover with their heavy weapons (Devestators) while the IG Heavy weapons team gets at best a 4+ in cover. In other words you are also paying for better chances to hit and more durability.
Warriors: Give them back the gauss rule (MW on 6+ to wound vs vehicles) and/or pts drop.
Monolith: Inv save and pts drop. Allow unit to disembark the turn it deepstrikes.
Flyers: God knows. Pts drop + ignore move and firing heavy as standard at the least.
Flayed ones: Ap-1 in combat.
Lychguard: pts drop.
Stratagems: Enhanced RP to 1CP (it still wouldn't be great,but it's hilariously bad at 2CP.
Entropic strike: make it apply to all attacks, not just the first one.
There a ton more changes tbh, but these are the big ones. RP is what it is, no point hoping for an overhaul there.
Those are all fine. Except the mortals on 6's for warriors. That is ultimately insane - with that rule alone you would never lose a game just spamming warriors. Warriors just need their 3+ save back. Rp is totally fine too. You have to understand this ability is to be messure against other army wide abilites. Marines have a completely useless ability called ATSKNF - eldar get battle focus (decen't but not game breaking), tau get supporting fire, RP could potentially bring back 19 warriors from death...seriously. It is fine. Necrons aren't in nearly as bad of shape as anyone claims. They have some extremely overcosted weapon options and those need to be fixed - they have some bad units that could use point drops (but literally every army has these complaints in some form that isn't named DE or AM).
Warriors: Give them back the gauss rule (MW on 6+ to wound vs vehicles) and/or pts drop.
Monolith: Inv save and pts drop. Allow unit to disembark the turn it deepstrikes.
Flyers: God knows. Pts drop + ignore move and firing heavy as standard at the least.
Flayed ones: Ap-1 in combat.
Lychguard: pts drop.
Stratagems: Enhanced RP to 1CP (it still wouldn't be great,but it's hilariously bad at 2CP.
Entropic strike: make it apply to all attacks, not just the first one.
There a ton more changes tbh, but these are the big ones. RP is what it is, no point hoping for an overhaul there.
Those are all fine. Except the mortals on 6's for warriors. That is ultimately insane - with that rule alone you would never lose a game just spamming warriors. Warriors just need their 3+ save back. Rp is totally fine too. You have to understand this ability is to be messure against other army wide abilites. Marines have a completely useless ability called ATSKNF - eldar get battle focus (decen't but not game breaking), tau get supporting fire, RP could potentially bring back 19 warriors from death...seriously. It is fine. Necrons aren't in nearly as bad of shape as anyone claims. They have some extremely overcosted weapon options and those need to be fixed - they have some bad units that could use point drops (but literally every army has these complaints in some form that isn't named DE or AM).
Don't Deathmarks already do Mortals on 6's in addition to their normal damage though? I don't see them being spammed as a result.
Warriors: Give them back the gauss rule (MW on 6+ to wound vs vehicles) and/or pts drop.
Monolith: Inv save and pts drop. Allow unit to disembark the turn it deepstrikes.
Flyers: God knows. Pts drop + ignore move and firing heavy as standard at the least.
Flayed ones: Ap-1 in combat.
Lychguard: pts drop.
Stratagems: Enhanced RP to 1CP (it still wouldn't be great,but it's hilariously bad at 2CP.
Entropic strike: make it apply to all attacks, not just the first one.
There a ton more changes tbh, but these are the big ones. RP is what it is, no point hoping for an overhaul there.
Those are all fine. Except the mortals on 6's for warriors. That is ultimately insane - with that rule alone you would never lose a game just spamming warriors. Warriors just need their 3+ save back. Rp is totally fine too. You have to understand this ability is to be messure against other army wide abilites. Marines have a completely useless ability called ATSKNF - eldar get battle focus (decen't but not game breaking), tau get supporting fire, RP could potentially bring back 19 warriors from death...seriously. It is fine. Necrons aren't in nearly as bad of shape as anyone claims. They have some extremely overcosted weapon options and those need to be fixed - they have some bad units that could use point drops (but literally every army has these complaints in some form that isn't named DE or AM).
Don't Deathmarks already do Mortals on 6's in addition to their normal damage though? I don't see them being spammed as a result.
)
)
Really that is the 
