Martel732 wrote: You can roll them in, but why have so many different power armor kits in the game? Very little differentiates the armies, and the results are no different, either. There's just no reason to have these different chapters/factions from a game play standpoint. They don't add anything.
Well, there certainly is too much of pointless differentiation; I for one never wanted the subfaction traits. But then again, and aggressive, in-your-face, melee focused space marine army like BA are supposed to be is a perfectly valid concept. That it doesn't currently work so well doesn't mean it couldn't.
Furthermore, kits are not so much about game play than visual customisation.
Ice_can wrote: The problem is in many cases those primary win rate stats are 700-100 points of primary and 650, 650 or 999 points of other factions.
It's not surprising that older player's arn't exactlly happy with this you got soup to be able to make your army functional.
Evidently these marine factions can't even soup their way to victory.
No one was able to really match Ynnari and Castellans. Maybe we should wait and see how things shake out, yea?
What in the FAQ is going to stop most of these supposedly Marine primary lists having maybe 800-1300 points of marines and then 750- 300 points of guard plus flavour.
As far as I can tell the FAQ didn't impact that mix and match from 3 codex's is still a much more powerful way to play.
This seriously devolved into a Blood Angels are the worst thread? It’s the FAQ thread. The dead horses thread is over there, with the bats and dead horses.
greatbigtree wrote: This seriously devolved into a Blood Angels are the worst thread? It’s the FAQ thread. The dead horses thread is over there, with the bats and dead horses.
My original observation was that there are three statistically redundant power armor armies that could all be eliminated with no impact on the game or the meta.
greatbigtree wrote: This seriously devolved into a Blood Angels are the worst thread? It’s the FAQ thread. The dead horses thread is over there, with the bats and dead horses.
My original observation was that there are three statistically redundant power armor armies that could all be eliminated with no impact on the game or the meta.
Because screw people who like their unique fluff and models, amirite?
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: How does sharing rules with another codex suddenly remove the fluff and models? Are the models automatically transformed into the generic models?
Well, considering Space Wolves have been claiming TWC don't exist or are actually Swiftclaws or Wolf Guard on Bikes it's not completely outside the realms of possibility. Dealing with the massively different bases on the other hand is an issue.
Joking aside I wouldn't mind the Space Wolves, Blood Angels and Dark Angels rolled into a single book since they're all kind of unique enough to be seperate from the vanilla host. On top of that most of the codex fluff is garbage and nearly half the pages are just photos that are recycled from White Dwarf and the 7th edition codexes, 70 out of 144 pages of the Space Wolves 8th ed Codex are a recycled waste of pages. Not sure about the Blood Angels and Dark Angels players but I could live with sharing a codex with them at the cost of the useless pages.
Seabass wrote: I think the old mob up Lootah bomb was 15 lootas and 10 lootas to get a total of 25 IIRC right?
I also think you had to get the 3 shots to go off, which a command reroll really helps with, but obviously doesn't guarantee it. ( i use the word "think" a lot because I'm, not an Ork player, I'm just attempting to recall what I have seen happen on more than one occasion, forgive the crudeness of this post and if it's inaccurate, please accept that I'm not an Ork player by any stretch)
25 hits out of 75 shots
3 hits out of the 9 or 10 ones you will roll in that mess for rerolling ones.
that's 28 hits.
that will net you another 9 hits based on the exploding 5+ of those 9 hits for exploding dice.
1 or 2 ones will show up in that reroll process, netting you a few more chances to hit. likely getting one more (I think the math is two more, but I'm not 100 on that) hit in that mess for a total of 38 hits
getting about 13 or 14 wounds through.
that will result in 4 or 5 unsaved wounds going through, causing between 8 and 10 damage.
now, do all of that again.
so if we just go strictly by the rough numbers (and this is all head math and I've dropped any fraction or anything that didn't divide evenly, so forgive the really elementary version of it) but I don't think you have to spike much to kill one, and I think if you can get just a few wounds in with a shock relic or another ork cannon I think you can pretty reliably do it on one turn. As an aside note, i have seen this sequence take down a castellan without any help, and did it all on their own. with the 4++ now instead of the 3++ the number of wounds that translate to damage go up (i did this assuming only 1/3 of the wounds would translate into damage)
I've seen it happen on tables next to me in ITC. frankly, as an Aeldari player, there is nothing I am more scared of than lootahs, even 15 of them is scary as hell for hemlocks.
But, the point is, the firepower is there, and the only real "dicey" variable is the number of shots. I think it's easier than you think. Its not guaranteed in one turn, and my post made it sound like that and I shouldn't have spoken in that level of an absolute, as its not, but I think the other side of this is that it is WAY easier to do than your post is letting on, with the key, of course, being bad moons (I think) rerolling ones, and generating more exploding shots from that and with the shoot again stratagem (which I think is a bad moons stratagem, but again, im not sure on that)
Most players only took 20 lootas because its such a points sink. But if you take 25 Lootas that is 425pts, plus the 90 grots to shield for another 270, you are looking at 695pts for a Loota bomb. Those 25 lootas average 50 shots a turn not 75, even with reroll you are more likely to get 2 then 3, especially since you only use it if you roll a 1 or a 2. So on aver that is 50 shots getting 16.66 hits, 8.33 1s get to be rerolled immediately which averages about 2.77 more hits you then reroll all the hits which is 19.4ish you get 6.47 more hits and 3.2 more 1 which reroll for 1 more hit which can't trigger dakkax3 so 7.47 extra hits for a grand total of about 27 hits. Against T8 that is 9 wounds, against the 4+ save that is 4.5 that go through which averages 9 damage a turn, use shoot again strat and its up to 18. And that is rolling on average. So to kill a knight Castellan which has 28 wounds you will need to roll more then 50% better then average.
And on the flipside it takes minimal effort for IG players with a Knight to kill the grot shields in 1 turn. Again, if you target the grots first they are 2+ to wound with S4 weapons, and if they are in a squad of 10 you need only kill 6 to reliably wipe them out with morale. 10 guardsmen at double tap range can do this relatively easily. If they are in mobz of 30 then simply killing 17 wipes them out from morale. Loota bombs were good, but they weren't insta win buttons and they required 7 CP on average turn 1 to function. Turn 2 they were down to 6 CP a turn but at that point you are basically out of CP.
It's not even just that it was easy to kill the grot screens. There's something I think a lot of people forget about Mob Rule: Its used during the end of the movement phase. Otherwise, if you don't get first turn/ you have two loota units that can be shot at and only one can be protected by grot screen.
So before you even get to the effectiveness of the loota bomb itself, it's a tactic that ONLY works if the ork player goes first.
Martel732 wrote: By 40stats, BA have a win rate of 34% as primary. SW and DA are each at 40%. They aren't adding anything to the game. That's where I'm coming from.
Martel732 wrote: By 40stats, BA have a win rate of 34% as primary. SW and DA are each at 40%. They aren't adding anything to the game. That's where I'm coming from.
That's not a reason, I can't even...
Edit: Nevermind, not worth it.
That's a very valid reason. They are useless. Useless things are to be discarded.
Martel732 wrote: By 40stats, BA have a win rate of 34% as primary. SW and DA are each at 40%. They aren't adding anything to the game. That's where I'm coming from.
That's not a reason, I can't even...
Edit: Nevermind, not worth it.
That's a very valid reason. They are useless. Useless things are to be discarded.
Bye necrons, GK, half of eldar, half of guard, half of chaos, etc...
Martel732 wrote: Those armies at least provide meta diversity. BA, DA, SW dont' even do that. Just more boring power armor.
Who cares if a faction brings something to the meta?
The existence of a faction is not related to the meta, it's first of all related to the collectionist side of the hobby.
Q: "Is there a percentage of players who actually care for faction x, collect it's models and are interested in the fluff?"
If the answer is yes, then that faction has a right to exist, even if it composed by 1W 1T models without save at 200 points each.
"Meta" is also a big word. ITC meta is not 40K meta, that is not ETC meta. 2000 point meta is not 500 point meta, which is not 1000 point meta... and so on and so on. Matched is not open which is not narrative. There are so many ways to play the game that any statement based on the concept of "meta" is baseless.
Martel732 wrote: By 40stats, BA have a win rate of 34% as primary. SW and DA are each at 40%. They aren't adding anything to the game. That's where I'm coming from.
That's not a reason, I can't even...
Edit: Nevermind, not worth it.
That's a very valid reason. They are useless. Useless things are to be discarded.
Most players only took 20 lootas because its such a points sink. But if you take 25 Lootas that is 425pts, plus the 90 grots to shield for another 270, you are looking at 695pts for a Loota bomb. Those 25 lootas average 50 shots a turn not 75, even with reroll you are more likely to get 2 then 3, especially since you only use it if you roll a 1 or a 2. So on aver that is 50 shots getting 16.66 hits, 8.33 1s get to be rerolled immediately which averages about 2.77 more hits you then reroll all the hits which is 19.4ish you get 6.47 more hits and 3.2 more 1 which reroll for 1 more hit which can't trigger dakkax3 so 7.47 extra hits for a grand total of about 27 hits. Against T8 that is 9 wounds, against the 4+ save that is 4.5 that go through which averages 9 damage a turn, use shoot again strat and its up to 18. And that is rolling on average. So to kill a knight Castellan which has 28 wounds you will need to roll more then 50% better then average.
And on the flipside it takes minimal effort for IG players with a Knight to kill the grot shields in 1 turn. Again, if you target the grots first they are 2+ to wound with S4 weapons, and if they are in a squad of 10 you need only kill 6 to reliably wipe them out with morale. 10 guardsmen at double tap range can do this relatively easily. If they are in mobz of 30 then simply killing 17 wipes them out from morale. Loota bombs were good, but they weren't insta win buttons and they required 7 CP on average turn 1 to function. Turn 2 they were down to 6 CP a turn but at that point you are basically out of CP.
Im sorry if I gave the impression they were an instant win. they clearly weren't. But they are also more effective than you are alluding too. Getting the 3 shots is largely predicated on a reroll, but I think about half of the time on a command reroll it happens (as an aggregate between the two dice rolls, but honestly, I've never looked it up or did the math, I just heard that somewhere and it kind of made sense).
When we start looking at things like how easily the grots are to kill, or how easy it is to wipe out a unit of them, I don't know how many guardsmen are going to be in range before they get a chance to fire, though I suppose if you deploy the Lootas far enough forward and the guardsman does too, its probably quite possible. Most of the time when I see them, I see the grots in concentric rings overlapping each other protecting the lootas, who are deployed for safety, and some of the characters. Maybe that's the wrong way to do it, I'm not honestly sure, but it seemed pretty good to me. Also, drawing LoS to those little buggers can be a PITA, especially when most tables i see are all <insret GW ruins kit here> for the vast majority of their terrain.
It totally does use a TON of CP to do, but most ork lists I have seen run double battalion, I have even heard of (but not seen) some run triple battalion (given how expensive everything is, im not sure how that works points wise) but honestly, even if its half of your existing CP pool, if you did it to get rid of 1/3 or so of your opponents army, I would certainly do so, especially if it only came at the cost of the activations of the one unit, and not the rest of the army.
I totally understand how frustrating it is to have a cool interaction nerfed, but like doom and jinx (I play Aeldari and Drukhari) it probably wasn't intended or with the nerfing of the castellan they didn't want lesser knights getting evaporated in one round from them.
Eihnlazer wrote: This is because GW don't see the problem with how they gave assault weapons permission to fire after you advance.
They don't even understand their own rules.
This comes from a few things.
The rules writers aren't actively working together, they just do their own thing.
The editors are horrible (many typos make it through even though they price their books at a premium), and don't understand the rules they are editing.
The people up top are not worried about perfection from their employee's, as they make enough money to be perfectly happy with being the crappiest high end hobby studio.
GW is GW because its British. It would be nowhere like this if the company was based in any other country. Not saying this to offend British folks, just stating a fact. British companies do not mostly "Strive for Excellence". They just throw parties when they show profit.
Where it is written makes little difference, you walk round warhammer world and there employees of many nations there. The English educational system covers all basic tenets of the written language to some degree, even if not always perfectly.
I'm curious if this is an image shared by most though.
Luke_Prowler wrote: It's not even just that it was easy to kill the grot screens. There's something I think a lot of people forget about Mob Rule: Its used during the end of the movement phase. Otherwise, if you don't get first turn/ you have two loota units that can be shot at and only one can be protected by grot screen.
So before you even get to the effectiveness of the loota bomb itself, it's a tactic that ONLY works if the ork player goes first.
That's why if you go second you hide them. So without ignore los weapons(plenty) 100% bullet proof
Eihnlazer wrote: This is because GW don't see the problem with how they gave assault weapons permission to fire after you advance.
They don't even understand their own rules.
This comes from a few things.
The rules writers aren't actively working together, they just do their own thing.
The editors are horrible (many typos make it through even though they price their books at a premium), and don't understand the rules they are editing.
The people up top are not worried about perfection from their employee's, as they make enough money to be perfectly happy with being the crappiest high end hobby studio.
GW is GW because its British. It would be nowhere like this if the company was based in any other country. Not saying this to offend British folks, just stating a fact. British companies do not mostly "Strive for Excellence". They just throw parties when they show profit.
Where it is written makes little difference, you walk round warhammer world and there employees of many nations there. The English educational system covers all basic tenants of the written language to some degree, even if not always perfectly.
I'm curious if this is an image shared by most though.
Eihnlazer wrote: This is because GW don't see the problem with how they gave assault weapons permission to fire after you advance.
They don't even understand their own rules.
This comes from a few things.
The rules writers aren't actively working together, they just do their own thing.
The editors are horrible (many typos make it through even though they price their books at a premium), and don't understand the rules they are editing.
The people up top are not worried about perfection from their employee's, as they make enough money to be perfectly happy with being the crappiest high end hobby studio.
GW is GW because its British. It would be nowhere like this if the company was based in any other country. Not saying this to offend British folks, just stating a fact. British companies do not mostly "Strive for Excellence". They just throw parties when they show profit.
Where it is written makes little difference, you walk round warhammer world and there employees of many nations there. The English educational system covers all basic tenants of the written language to some degree, even if not always perfectly.
I'm curious if this is an image shared by most though.
Psst... tenet, not tenant.
Yeah, I missed that it was an auto correct thanks to my phone :(
I wish they would make the rules more user friendly, and consolidated.
Also GW doesn't build rules that let them modify them when needed.
Like if they put down the overwatch rule and said You need to roll a 6+ to hit, unless you hit automatically or have Defensive fire.
But then put in Defensive fire you hit in overwatch on the number indicated in parentesiste after the Defensive Overwatch. so like Defensive Fire (5+) or Defensive fire (4+)
Some stuff like that would fix the issues they keep building into the game.
ServiceGames wrote: *sits quietly, pouting, waiting for a World Eaters update that will make them a standout melee army on the table.*
It seems like they have all the tools currently. What exactly are they missing?
Well from some of my discussions about the Castellan how it shouldn't be nerfed cause Chaos doesn't do well with it, I was assured that was because Chaos has bad players.
ServiceGames wrote: *sits quietly, pouting, waiting for a World Eaters update that will make them a standout melee army on the table.*
It seems like they have all the tools currently. What exactly are they missing?
Well from some of my discussions about the Castellan how it shouldn't be nerfed cause Chaos doesn't do well with it, I was assured that was because Chaos has bad players.
The Chaos Castellan was never bad, in fact, it was great, but not great-great like the Imperium. Chaos didn't even have rotate just this past December.
I think you might be able to do an interesting World Eaters chaos soup these days - but it probably wouldn't involve lots Khorne Berserkers jogging or rhino rushing up the table.
Which I think is what certain people want because thats how they imagine the army.
And frankly you'd probably just not make it World Eaters. But that is a problem with the "chapter system".
ServiceGames wrote: *sits quietly, pouting, waiting for a World Eaters update that will make them a standout melee army on the table.*
Get in the line, bro.
More seiously, WE currently has the problem BT had in past editions: lack of psykers without proper compensation when the psychic powers (particularly Warptime) is the best thing the faction has to offer.
Berzerkers definitely outclass BA and Tyranids in hitting power; it's a matter of delivery since they're slow.
AL lets you deliver them better than WE, or you have to buy Rhinos.
One of my friends runs 2 squads, 1 of 10 and 1 of 8, as Red Corsairs in Rhinos [the 1 of 8 also has 2 characters sharing the tank]. Another one was running 3 using Alpha Legion to move up board for the longest time, but dropped that when infiltrate changed to vanguard, and several other guys I saw had one big unit they hit with warptime.
It definitely seems that Alpha Legions or Red Corsairs are the legion to be for 'zerkers, though, since the World Eaters don't offer anything to them. They're so killy as is, they don't need a single extra attack, but they do need delivery options.
Martel732 wrote: By 40stats, BA have a win rate of 34% as primary. SW and DA are each at 40%. They aren't adding anything to the game. That's where I'm coming from.
That's not a reason, I can't even...
Edit: Nevermind, not worth it.
That's a very valid reason. They are useless. Useless things are to be discarded.
The assumption you are making is that they can never not be useless. That's bold and ultimately unsupportable.
Let alone the fact that you're making a frankly silly display at using tournaments as a guide. How capable a unit or army is on top tables is irrelevant to 99% of the hobby.
It's also similarly silly how guard players use tournament results to pretend that they don't have a rediculous powerful codex and that other people just need to LTP as soup is broken while asking for 3ppm conscripts.
As much as it's sad in many ways it does feel it would be a lot fairer on new playera if GW wpuld just admit they broke marines and either replace them with primaris or give them something worthwhile to bring to soup.
The Chaos Castellan was never bad, in fact, it was great, but not great-great like the Imperium. Chaos didn't even have rotate just this past December.
But if it wasn't great-great, then did it need to be nerfed? The problem with castellans was that people could slam it in to a IG list and get a more efficient baneblade and fuel it with CP. Castellans, even the imperial ones, that were played in mono knight lists were breaking the meta. Maybe instead of nerfing the castellan, even for people that couldn't enjoy a IG+ravellan, they should have fixed stuff like soup and more specific IG being super efficient when anything that need CP to fuel it with them.
The Chaos Castellan was never bad, in fact, it was great, but not great-great like the Imperium. Chaos didn't even have rotate just this past December.
But if it wasn't great-great, then did it need to be nerfed? The problem with castellans was that people could slam it in to a IG list and get a more efficient baneblade and fuel it with CP. Castellans, even the imperial ones, that were played in mono knight lists were breaking the meta. Maybe instead of nerfing the castellan, even for people that couldn't enjoy a IG+ravellan, they should have fixed stuff like soup and more specific IG being super efficient when anything that need CP to fuel it with them.
The Chaos Castellan was never bad, in fact, it was great, but not great-great like the Imperium. Chaos didn't even have rotate just this past December.
But if it wasn't great-great, then did it need to be nerfed? The problem with castellans was that people could slam it in to a IG list and get a more efficient baneblade and fuel it with CP. Castellans, even the imperial ones, that were played in mono knight lists were breaking the meta. Maybe instead of nerfing the castellan, even for people that couldn't enjoy a IG+ravellan, they should have fixed stuff like soup and more specific IG being super efficient when anything that need CP to fuel it with them.
Porque no los dos?
Because GW does not seem to be able to do both without killing a model, rule or faction. And I assume, maybe wrong here considering people are telling me I should be paying for stuff that happened in 5th ed, that people do want other people play with the models they bought and enjoy it. And that the goal as unachivable as it maybe, is as few bad units per faction as possible.
Seabass wrote: I think the old mob up Lootah bomb was 15 lootas and 10 lootas to get a total of 25 IIRC right?
I also think you had to get the 3 shots to go off, which a command reroll really helps with, but obviously doesn't guarantee it. ( i use the word "think" a lot because I'm, not an Ork player, I'm just attempting to recall what I have seen happen on more than one occasion, forgive the crudeness of this post and if it's inaccurate, please accept that I'm not an Ork player by any stretch)
25 hits out of 75 shots
3 hits out of the 9 or 10 ones you will roll in that mess for rerolling ones.
that's 28 hits.
that will net you another 9 hits based on the exploding 5+ of those 9 hits for exploding dice.
1 or 2 ones will show up in that reroll process, netting you a few more chances to hit. likely getting one more (I think the math is two more, but I'm not 100 on that) hit in that mess for a total of 38 hits
getting about 13 or 14 wounds through.
that will result in 4 or 5 unsaved wounds going through, causing between 8 and 10 damage.
now, do all of that again.
so if we just go strictly by the rough numbers (and this is all head math and I've dropped any fraction or anything that didn't divide evenly, so forgive the really elementary version of it) but I don't think you have to spike much to kill one, and I think if you can get just a few wounds in with a shock relic or another ork cannon I think you can pretty reliably do it on one turn. As an aside note, i have seen this sequence take down a castellan without any help, and did it all on their own. with the 4++ now instead of the 3++ the number of wounds that translate to damage go up (i did this assuming only 1/3 of the wounds would translate into damage)
I've seen it happen on tables next to me in ITC. frankly, as an Aeldari player, there is nothing I am more scared of than lootahs, even 15 of them is scary as hell for hemlocks.
But, the point is, the firepower is there, and the only real "dicey" variable is the number of shots. I think it's easier than you think. Its not guaranteed in one turn, and my post made it sound like that and I shouldn't have spoken in that level of an absolute, as its not, but I think the other side of this is that it is WAY easier to do than your post is letting on, with the key, of course, being bad moons (I think) rerolling ones, and generating more exploding shots from that and with the shoot again stratagem (which I think is a bad moons stratagem, but again, im not sure on that)
Most players only took 20 lootas because its such a points sink. But if you take 25 Lootas that is 425pts, plus the 90 grots to shield for another 270, you are looking at 695pts for a Loota bomb. Those 25 lootas average 50 shots a turn not 75, even with reroll you are more likely to get 2 then 3, especially since you only use it if you roll a 1 or a 2. So on aver that is 50 shots getting 16.66 hits, 8.33 1s get to be rerolled immediately which averages about 2.77 more hits you then reroll all the hits which is 19.4ish you get 6.47 more hits and 3.2 more 1 which reroll for 1 more hit which can't trigger dakkax3 so 7.47 extra hits for a grand total of about 27 hits. Against T8 that is 9 wounds, against the 4+ save that is 4.5 that go through which averages 9 damage a turn, use shoot again strat and its up to 18. And that is rolling on average. So to kill a knight Castellan which has 28 wounds you will need to roll more then 50% better then average.
And on the flipside it takes minimal effort for IG players with a Knight to kill the grot shields in 1 turn. Again, if you target the grots first they are 2+ to wound with S4 weapons, and if they are in a squad of 10 you need only kill 6 to reliably wipe them out with morale. 10 guardsmen at double tap range can do this relatively easily. If they are in mobz of 30 then simply killing 17 wipes them out from morale. Loota bombs were good, but they weren't insta win buttons and they required 7 CP on average turn 1 to function. Turn 2 they were down to 6 CP a turn but at that point you are basically out of CP.
less math and more play and a new world will open, last ork i met with 25 lootas shooted 75+50+75 (x2) in 3 turns, a total of 400 shots and i dont count the 5 or 6 rerolls..400 shots at 5+ to hit mean 132 hit and 132 hits trigger another 43 hits so he got 175 hits....math have to stay in forums. Not all armies have firepower enough to shoot out the table the lootas GSCtyr demons for example havent, mob up for lootas was a mistake they needed to fix it
I think it is kind of clear that Inescapable Accuracy doesn't work in overwatch.
But I think it could have easily been written so that it wasn't a problem in the first place.
And right now, Inescapable death does work.
I think it is clear that GW is happy how the basic plan of soup works. Too much development into soup reliant things have happened (assassins example)
But the basic format of the game needs to be changed to allow there to be some kind of balance to Soup. Even something pretty limited to If your force shares a second Keyword in common, increase the Battle forge CP from 3 to 6 would be meaningful.
The Chaos Castellan was never bad, in fact, it was great, but not great-great like the Imperium. Chaos didn't even have rotate just this past December.
But if it wasn't great-great, then did it need to be nerfed? The problem with castellans was that people could slam it in to a IG list and get a more efficient baneblade and fuel it with CP. Castellans, even the imperial ones, that were played in mono knight lists were breaking the meta. Maybe instead of nerfing the castellan, even for people that couldn't enjoy a IG+ravellan, they should have fixed stuff like soup and more specific IG being super efficient when anything that need CP to fuel it with them.
Because the Castellan is worth 700 before relics, which is what made it borked. With (seemingly) a new Renegade Knights codex on the way there is really no concern to be had about its viability.
Karol wrote: But if it wasn't great-great, then did it need to be nerfed? The problem with castellans was that people could slam it in to a IG list and get a more efficient baneblade and fuel it with CP. Castellans, even the imperial ones, that were played in mono knight lists were breaking the meta. Maybe instead of nerfing the castellan, even for people that couldn't enjoy a IG+ravellan, they should have fixed stuff like soup and more specific IG being super efficient when anything that need CP to fuel it with them.
Because the problem in an IG+Castellan list wasn't the IG.
Castellan was under-costed, and 3++ on that kind of model was a stupid design decision on top of that.
The Castellan was never overcosted. People confuse the version with relics for the version without because the relics were so prevalent.
Take a Castellan without Cawl's Wrath and Ion Bulwark and even at 600 points it felt a little over priced. The point change just makes those relics even more mandatory.
The Chaos Castellan was never bad, in fact, it was great, but not great-great like the Imperium. Chaos didn't even have rotate just this past December.
But if it wasn't great-great, then did it need to be nerfed? The problem with castellans was that people could slam it in to a IG list and get a more efficient baneblade and fuel it with CP. Castellans, even the imperial ones, that were played in mono knight lists were breaking the meta. Maybe instead of nerfing the castellan, even for people that couldn't enjoy a IG+ravellan, they should have fixed stuff like soup and more specific IG being super efficient when anything that need CP to fuel it with them.
Why you talk about imperial castellan as justification to nerf chaos castellan? Chaos castellan was stuck with 4++ max from get go, no cawl's wrath, no companion, no krast relics etc. Totally different beast to imperial castellan.
Karol wrote: But if it wasn't great-great, then did it need to be nerfed? The problem with castellans was that people could slam it in to a IG list and get a more efficient baneblade and fuel it with CP. Castellans, even the imperial ones, that were played in mono knight lists were breaking the meta. Maybe instead of nerfing the castellan, even for people that couldn't enjoy a IG+ravellan, they should have fixed stuff like soup and more specific IG being super efficient when anything that need CP to fuel it with them.
Because the problem in an IG+Castellan list wasn't the IG.
Castellan was under-costed, and 3++ on that kind of model was a stupid design decision on top of that.
It is exactly because of IG that castellan was the problem. List with castellans and other stuff, or mono knight lists were no where near as powerful as an IG list that replaced its shadow with a castellan. Same was true for BA smash captins and custodes etc. Played alone or with other factions those units were never as potent as when they were run along side a IG list.
Why you talk about imperial castellan as justification to nerf chaos castellan? Chaos castellan was stuck with 4++ max from get go, no cawl's wrath, no companion, no krast relics etc. Totally different beast to imperial castellan.
This. Also if people expect that the 100pts more on a castellan happens because of how potent some stratagems and relics are, then the new ones coming in for renegade knights have to be at least just as good. If they are worse then the renegade knights will not only have a worse knight, but will also lack the platform in form of the IG. And if someone is looking for a strickt monster mash list, then there is already a chaos lists with a ton of demons and other characters that is doing fine. And that list does not need a castellan.
Because the Castellan is worth 700 before relics, which is what made it borked. With (seemingly) a new Renegade Knights codex on the way there is really no concern to be had about its viability.
But this is a stupid design paradigma. It means a LR crusader for a GK army or BAs is going to have the high cost it has now, because Gulliman exists and can give re-rolls to the same kind of Land Raider, if you play it out of the regular marine codex. Soup should not be a thing, and costs should be adjusted to what a unit, rule or model can do in a given faction, and not get punished, because a faction they don't play has a bonus to the same type of thing.
It is on the level of making fertilazer illegal, because someone may have made a bomb out of it at some time in the past.
Drager wrote: Did anyone else notice that the new Aircraft rules don't allow you to move through your own Aircraft?
How?
‘If the datasheet for a model says it can Fly, then during the Movement phase it can move across models as if they were not there, and when moving across terrain features, vertical distance is not counted against the total it can move (i.e. moving vertically is free for this model in the Movement phase). If the datasheet for a model says it can Fly, then during the Charge phase it can move across models (other than Buildings) as if they were not there.’
This still applies.
Page 177 – Movement PhaseAdd the following text to the end of the Movement phase section: ‘AircraftIf a unit can Fly and it has a minimum Move characteristic (or if it has a damage table on its datasheet that includes any minimum Move characteristics), that unit gains the Aircraft keyword.Whenever a model makes any kind of move, it can be moved within 1" of enemy Aircraft, and it can be moved across such models (and their bases) as if they were not there, but it cannot end the move on top of another model (or its base), and it cannot end the move within 1" of any enemy units.If, when a unit is selected to move in the Movement phase, the only enemy units that are within 1" of it are Aircraft, then it can still make a move (i.e. it does not have to Fall Back in order to move).’
This speaks nothing against preventing moving across(infact it allows). Just that you can't END over one.
Drager wrote: Did anyone else notice that the new Aircraft rules don't allow you to move through your own Aircraft?
How?
‘If the datasheet for a model says it can Fly, then during the Movement phase it can move across models as if they were not there, and when moving across terrain features, vertical distance is not counted against the total it can move (i.e. moving vertically is free for this model in the Movement phase). If the datasheet for a model says it can Fly, then during the Charge phase it can move across models (other than Buildings) as if they were not there.’
This still applies.
Page 177 – Movement PhaseAdd the following text to the end of the Movement phase section: ‘AircraftIf a unit can Fly and it has a minimum Move characteristic (or if it has a damage table on its datasheet that includes any minimum Move characteristics), that unit gains the Aircraft keyword.Whenever a model makes any kind of move, it can be moved within 1" of enemy Aircraft, and it can be moved across such models (and their bases) as if they were not there, but it cannot end the move on top of another model (or its base), and it cannot end the move within 1" of any enemy units.If, when a unit is selected to move in the Movement phase, the only enemy units that are within 1" of it are Aircraft, then it can still make a move (i.e. it does not have to Fall Back in order to move).’
This speaks nothing against preventing moving across(infact it allows). Just that you can't END over one.
If you have an infantry model is in your army, let's say a Guardian and there is one of your own Hemlocks in front of it, where is the permission to allow the Guardian to walk across the Aircraft's base?
Drager wrote: Did anyone else notice that the new Aircraft rules don't allow you to move through your own Aircraft?
How?
‘If the datasheet for a model says it can Fly, then during the Movement phase it can move across models as if they were not there, and when moving across terrain features, vertical distance is not counted against the total it can move (i.e. moving vertically is free for this model in the Movement phase). If the datasheet for a model says it can Fly, then during the Charge phase it can move across models (other than Buildings) as if they were not there.’
This still applies.
Page 177 – Movement PhaseAdd the following text to the end of the Movement phase section: ‘AircraftIf a unit can Fly and it has a minimum Move characteristic (or if it has a damage table on its datasheet that includes any minimum Move characteristics), that unit gains the Aircraft keyword.Whenever a model makes any kind of move, it can be moved within 1" of enemy Aircraft, and it can be moved across such models (and their bases) as if they were not there, but it cannot end the move on top of another model (or its base), and it cannot end the move within 1" of any enemy units.If, when a unit is selected to move in the Movement phase, the only enemy units that are within 1" of it are Aircraft, then it can still make a move (i.e. it does not have to Fall Back in order to move).’
This speaks nothing against preventing moving across(infact it allows). Just that you can't END over one.
If you have an infantry model is in your army, let's say a Guardian and there is one of your own Hemlocks in front of it, where is the permission to allow the Guardian to walk across the Aircraft's base?
in last design commentary, go there and read, now everyone can move through aircraft bases like if they were not there
Drager wrote: Did anyone else notice that the new Aircraft rules don't allow you to move through your own Aircraft?
How?
‘If the datasheet for a model says it can Fly, then during the Movement phase it can move across models as if they were not there, and when moving across terrain features, vertical distance is not counted against the total it can move (i.e. moving vertically is free for this model in the Movement phase). If the datasheet for a model says it can Fly, then during the Charge phase it can move across models (other than Buildings) as if they were not there.’
This still applies.
Page 177 – Movement PhaseAdd the following text to the end of the Movement phase section: ‘AircraftIf a unit can Fly and it has a minimum Move characteristic (or if it has a damage table on its datasheet that includes any minimum Move characteristics), that unit gains the Aircraft keyword.Whenever a model makes any kind of move, it can be moved within 1" of enemy Aircraft, and it can be moved across such models (and their bases) as if they were not there, but it cannot end the move on top of another model (or its base), and it cannot end the move within 1" of any enemy units.If, when a unit is selected to move in the Movement phase, the only enemy units that are within 1" of it are Aircraft, then it can still make a move (i.e. it does not have to Fall Back in order to move).’
This speaks nothing against preventing moving across(infact it allows). Just that you can't END over one.
If you have an infantry model is in your army, let's say a Guardian and there is one of your own Hemlocks in front of it, where is the permission to allow the Guardian to walk across the Aircraft's base?
in last design commentary, go there and read, now everyone can move through aircraft bases like if they were not there
You can move through enemy aircraft bases, but I can't find the permission to move through friendly ones. The designer's commentary is quoted above by tnev82 and reading that is what led to me asking the question. If you can point out the permission I'm missing, I'd be grateful. Have another read yourself, I'm sure it's there and I'm just not seeing it.
I mean, there is another easy way to fix Guilliman Syndrome for marines and it is...price Guilliman around the unique ability to triple the firepower of anything he's shaking his shiny metal ass for.
If they really REALLY want to give Guililman the ability to twerk in the middle of a space marine army and grant them ALL Guide+Doom with no cast roll against every target in the enemy army, just cost the fething dude like 700 points and fix the rest of the damn marine roster.
Don't price everything in the marine codex and every other unit shared by every other marine codex as if they might be in range to watch guilliman drop it down and make it clap.
the_scotsman wrote: I mean, there is another easy way to fix Guilliman Syndrome for marines and it is...price Guilliman around the unique ability to triple the firepower of anything he's shaking his shiny metal ass for.
If they really REALLY want to give Guililman the ability to twerk in the middle of a space marine army and grant them ALL Guide+Doom with no cast roll against every target in the enemy army, just cost the fething dude like 700 points and fix the rest of the damn marine roster.
Don't price everything in the marine codex and every other unit shared by every other marine codex as if they might be in range to watch guilliman drop it down and make it clap.
He already costs 500+ by the time you bring in another character, and limits the army in mobility and play style, and takes up another detachment.
What Marines need are better strats and unique abilities that encourage other play styles without nerfing existing ones.
Frankly, I don't think that auras as powerful than Guillimans' should exist. It is an utter balancing hell. There just is no way to cost it appropriately. They should have recognised this a long time ago, and instead of increasing the cost of theoretically buffable units and Guilliman, they should have just nerfed the aura.
the_scotsman wrote: I mean, there is another easy way to fix Guilliman Syndrome for marines and it is...price Guilliman around the unique ability to triple the firepower of anything he's shaking his shiny metal ass for.
If they really REALLY want to give Guililman the ability to twerk in the middle of a space marine army and grant them ALL Guide+Doom with no cast roll against every target in the enemy army, just cost the fething dude like 700 points and fix the rest of the damn marine roster.
Don't price everything in the marine codex and every other unit shared by every other marine codex as if they might be in range to watch guilliman drop it down and make it clap.
He already costs 500+ by the time you bring in another character, and limits the army in mobility and play style, and takes up another detachment.
What Marines need are better strats and unique abilities that encourage other play styles without nerfing existing ones.
I guess what I find curious about that is:
other than melee marines, what marine playstyle would not be made stronger by adding Guiliman?
Since the inception of 8th, that aura's existence has pretty much precluded the existence of the other...seven? marine codexes. Even when marines were the only codex and top dogs, you had plenty of people saying "well yeah, but where are the non-guilliman marine lists winning tournaments?"
I think it would be collossally stupid to just nerf guilliman and not, alongside that, provide some serious across the board buffs to the rest of the marine codex. They 100% need new stratagems (or at least recosted stratagems), subfaction abilities, psychic powers and unit costs. It just seems like GW decided "OK, this is the aura faction, that's their thing, they take a bunch of characters who stand around and give them bonuses."
Unsurprisingly, the marine codex with the least reliance on auras and the most power built into baseline units seems to be pretty strong, at least in soup - deathwatch. But in the baseline codex, where it seems like every unit is costed around Guilliman, Fight when you Die banner, and the half dozen other aura modifying/enhancing relics and stratagems, everything feels like it underperforms at a baseline level.
Auras in general are a bad mechanic, and should not be the way to apply most powerful buffs. They encourage castling everything in one lump, which to me goes against the dynamic playstyle marines should have. Counter-intuitively IG-style order mechanic would be better for marines. If a character can apply buffs to a set number of units, then that character and small team of units can form an independently operating 'platoon.'
Crimson wrote: Auras in general are a bad mechanic, and should not be the way to apply most powerful buffs. They encourage castling everything in one lump, which to me goes against the dynamic playstyle marines should have. Counter-intuitively IG-style order mechanic would be better for marines. If a character can apply buffs to a set number of units, then that character and small team of units can form an independently operating 'platoon.'
Honestly, it'd probably be easier to balance if practically every unit that provided an ability to another unit had to select a unit to buff.
Drager wrote: Did anyone else notice that the new Aircraft rules don't allow you to move through your own Aircraft?
How?
‘If the datasheet for a model says it can Fly, then during the Movement phase it can move across models as if they were not there, and when moving across terrain features, vertical distance is not counted against the total it can move (i.e. moving vertically is free for this model in the Movement phase). If the datasheet for a model says it can Fly, then during the Charge phase it can move across models (other than Buildings) as if they were not there.’
This still applies.
Page 177 – Movement PhaseAdd the following text to the end of the Movement phase section: ‘AircraftIf a unit can Fly and it has a minimum Move characteristic (or if it has a damage table on its datasheet that includes any minimum Move characteristics), that unit gains the Aircraft keyword.Whenever a model makes any kind of move, it can be moved within 1" of enemy Aircraft, and it can be moved across such models (and their bases) as if they were not there, but it cannot end the move on top of another model (or its base), and it cannot end the move within 1" of any enemy units.If, when a unit is selected to move in the Movement phase, the only enemy units that are within 1" of it are Aircraft, then it can still make a move (i.e. it does not have to Fall Back in order to move).’
This speaks nothing against preventing moving across(infact it allows). Just that you can't END over one.
If you have an infantry model is in your army, let's say a Guardian and there is one of your own Hemlocks in front of it, where is the permission to allow the Guardian to walk across the Aircraft's base?
in last design commentary, go there and read, now everyone can move through aircraft bases like if they were not there
You can move through enemy aircraft bases, but I can't find the permission to move through friendly ones. The designer's commentary is quoted above by tnev82 and reading that is what led to me asking the question. If you can point out the permission I'm missing, I'd be grateful. Have another read yourself, I'm sure it's there and I'm just not seeing it.
I've created a thread in YMDC if people are interested in discussing this further.
Crimson wrote: Auras in general are a bad mechanic, and should not be the way to apply most powerful buffs. They encourage castling everything in one lump, which to me goes against the dynamic playstyle marines should have. Counter-intuitively IG-style order mechanic would be better for marines. If a character can apply buffs to a set number of units, then that character and small team of units can form an independently operating 'platoon.'
I mean they could exchange the auras with the orders, adapt them a bit and it would be fairly straight forward improvement of the feel of the armies in question.
the_scotsman wrote: I mean, there is another easy way to fix Guilliman Syndrome for marines and it is...price Guilliman around the unique ability to triple the firepower of anything he's shaking his shiny metal ass for.
If they really REALLY want to give Guililman the ability to twerk in the middle of a space marine army and grant them ALL Guide+Doom with no cast roll against every target in the enemy army, just cost the fething dude like 700 points and fix the rest of the damn marine roster.
Don't price everything in the marine codex and every other unit shared by every other marine codex as if they might be in range to watch guilliman drop it down and make it clap.
He already costs 500+ by the time you bring in another character, and limits the army in mobility and play style, and takes up another detachment.
What Marines need are better strats and unique abilities that encourage other play styles without nerfing existing ones.
You've both got good points, and really neither of you is wrong. Gulliman probably is at a good price for what he does, and Marines really are priced as though they were always standing next to him. Neither of those things by itself would break the army, but together it's crippling.
Realistically just about everything in the vanilla marine codex still needs to be 15% cheaper even with the CA 2018 price drops, and unfortunately GW seems to be married to the notion that a basic Tac marine should be the same price no matter what army he's in.
the_scotsman wrote: I mean, there is another easy way to fix Guilliman Syndrome for marines and it is...price Guilliman around the unique ability to triple the firepower of anything he's shaking his shiny metal ass for.
If they really REALLY want to give Guililman the ability to twerk in the middle of a space marine army and grant them ALL Guide+Doom with no cast roll against every target in the enemy army, just cost the fething dude like 700 points and fix the rest of the damn marine roster.
Don't price everything in the marine codex and every other unit shared by every other marine codex as if they might be in range to watch guilliman drop it down and make it clap.
He already costs 500+ by the time you bring in another character, and limits the army in mobility and play style, and takes up another detachment.
What Marines need are better strats and unique abilities that encourage other play styles without nerfing existing ones.
You've both got good points, and really neither of you is wrong. Gulliman probably is at a good price for what he does, and Marines really are priced as though they were always standing next to him. Neither of those things by itself would break the army, but together it's crippling.
Realistically just about everything in the vanilla marine codex still needs to be 15% cheaper even with the CA 2018 price drops.
Marines are not priced for Bobby and a 15% cut would up-end the game and just make Bobby and absolute auto-take.
Marines are mostly fine - just let the damn meta shake out after all the changes that just came out.
If I said Bobby G was properly priced before I said almost everything in the Marine codex needed a price drop, why would you assume Bobby G wasn't part of the "almost"?
15% might be a slight exaggeration, I'll grant you that.
I don't think a price drop would be good for marines, they would stop being anything like Marines at that point, just another horde. They need to be better, not cheaper.
The Newman wrote: If I said Bobby G was properly priced before I said almost everything in the Marine codex needed a price drop, why would you assume Bobby G wasn't part of the "almost"?
15% might be a slight exaggeration, I'll grant you that.
I meant that the currently priced Bobby with cheaper marines makes Bobby more of an auto-take, because he's buffing more models.
Thing about Guilliman is that he isn't performing well. Everyone says he's bad for this and that, but armies built around him aren't competing for the top spot. It's a perception thing. He's a popular model, everyone has Marines so they see him a lot.
I do think that he can get results at a basic level of play however. People that don't understand the true tactics behind movement and deployment, and who don't have access to quality terrain suffer most. To improve their experience they need to look at those things.
Marines also need improvements for sure. I think Primaris are the best chance for this to happen as the new units are all designed for a specifc job from the ground up.
He's a popular model, everyone has Marines so they see him a lot.
I wouldn't quite say he is popular, atleast as a model he is somewhat controversial, but overall i agree with your point about terrrain, castles tend to be less off an issue if they can't see you.
The Newman wrote: If I said Bobby G was properly priced before I said almost everything in the Marine codex needed a price drop, why would you assume Bobby G wasn't part of the "almost"?
15% might be a slight exaggeration, I'll grant you that.
I meant that the currently priced Bobby with cheaper marines makes Bobby more of an auto-take, because he's buffing more models.
That's completely backward, Bobby G becomes comparatively less valuable as the size of the army grows once you cross the line where you can't fit everything within his aura. And that's already non-trivial at 2000 points.
Even with two battalions worth of regular Captains and Lieutenants keeping everything in the auras can be a challenge, so it's not just Bobby G either.
Ishagu wrote: There are websites that track the performance of armies across thousands of events. Guilliman lists win less than 45% of games.
Not sure how anyone can argue for nerfs?
And how are non-Guilliman marine lists doing?
Largely the same. Evething needs improvement. Arguably Guilliman needs it also.
DA are actually the best performing Astartes.
Also, if people don't like auras they should play something other than Marines. The re rolls aren't actually common across armies. Orks, Nids, GSC, Tau, Eldar, etc are all different in this regard.
Ishagu wrote: There are websites that track the performance of armies across thousands of events. Guilliman lists win less than 45% of games.
Not sure how anyone can argue for nerfs?
No one is saying Marines need nerfs, some people are saying Marines need buffs, some are saying Marines are fine, and some are saying that Marines are paying for having the option of taking Bobby G and that cost should be on Bobby G and not the units he's potentially buffing.
The Newman wrote: If I said Bobby G was properly priced before I said almost everything in the Marine codex needed a price drop, why would you assume Bobby G wasn't part of the "almost"?
15% might be a slight exaggeration, I'll grant you that.
I meant that the currently priced Bobby with cheaper marines makes Bobby more of an auto-take, because he's buffing more models.
That's completely backward, Bobby G becomes comparatively less valuable as the size of the army grows once you cross the line where you can't fit everything within his aura. And that's already non-trivial at 2000 points.
Even with two battalions worth of regular Captains and Lieutenants keeping everything in the auras can be a challenge, so it's not just Bobby G either.
Which becomes easier with non-trivially sized Primaris units.
A captain and lieutenant are in the 140 to 160 range primaris or otherwise. That means two sets in place of Bobby over two battalions. Marines hit and wound more easily so reroll 1s is just fine unless you really want to hurt big things with weaker guns. There are enough quality full reroll hit characters as well that Bobby is not necessary.
Reemule wrote:I wish they would make the rules more user friendly, and consolidated.
They probably should be doing annual or semi-annual consolidations of the digital version of the core rules to include the changes from the FAQs, erratas and designer commentaries. It's not difficult for experienced players to miss changes amidst the myriad of documents, can't imagine what it's like for someone starting out in the game.
The 40k rules team should also look at consistent use of language, something the Age of Sigmar rules team have already begun implementing. This should help cut down on quibbling of different interpretations of nearly identical rules across factions and units. It might also help with the verbosity of the rules, which I personally found a tad head-wrecking in this FAQ.
Also, if people don't like auras they should play something other than Marines. The re rolls aren't actually common across armies. Orks, Nids, GSC, Tau, Eldar, etc are all different in this regard.
There are other reasons to play the army. But I think it is really unfortunate design choice to make Marines in particular so aura dependent. These are elite soldiers with superior training, they should be able to operate at peak efficiency without needing a bunch of officers constantly babysitting them. Furthermore marine army should function by coordinating different independently operating elements, Reivers or Assault marines sowing chaos at enemy lines, Intercessors and Tacticals holding the midfield and the longer ranged elements providing fire support from the backfield. Auras encourage the exact opposite of this, clumping everything in an immobile firebase is how the Guard should play, not the Marines.
The Newman wrote: If I said Bobby G was properly priced before I said almost everything in the Marine codex needed a price drop, why would you assume Bobby G wasn't part of the "almost"?
15% might be a slight exaggeration, I'll grant you that.
I meant that the currently priced Bobby with cheaper marines makes Bobby more of an auto-take, because he's buffing more models.
That's completely backward, Bobby G becomes comparatively less valuable as the size of the army grows once you cross the line where you can't fit everything within his aura. And that's already non-trivial at 2000 points.
Even with two battalions worth of regular Captains and Lieutenants keeping everything in the auras can be a challenge, so it's not just Bobby G either.
Which becomes easier with non-trivially sized Primaris units.
1) Serious question, what do you mean by "non-trivially sized Primaris units"?
2) At least in my experience Primaris don't really have a smaller per-point footprint. Partially because they don't have weapon options and partially because a lot of them are on larger bases.
Ishagu wrote: There are websites that track the performance of armies across thousands of events. Guilliman lists win less than 45% of games.
Not sure how anyone can argue for nerfs?
I'd be fine with guilliman going down in price as long as he didn't have a 6" Guide+Doom vs all targets aura. That's just goofy. Like, if they want to give him reroll to hit+reroll 1 to wound? That'd be fine. But if you're going to price stuff in the marine arsenal and factor in an aura that only 1 chapter, instead of all the chapters, can have access to...that's just dumb.
It'd be like pricing shared marine units around access to Azrael's 4++ aura. They aren't priced that way, because Azrael is not a competitive list standard, but Guilliman is.
He's not to blame for the poor codex guys, seriously. It's nothing more than first codex syndrome.
He is a reason for price increase for several marine units and probably a reason why GW is cautious to give marines really strong units. His buff is simply too potent for it to be possible to balance. Its effectiveness varies by insane amount depending on what else you're bringing, and thus it is not possible to price it fairly. In theory this is an issue with any aura ability, but more powerful the aura is more prevalent the problem becomes, and if the aura is something only one subfaction in the codex has, then it becomes an even worse balancing nightmare. If the wound portion was removed, or made to be just re-roll of ones, then it would be easier, as that's the same buffs all marines can have. Then every time GW makes rules for a marine unit they don't need to think whether the thing becomes too powerful with Guilliman or alternatively too weak without him.
I hope they use the new space marine dex to address some pet peeves.
1. Character customization. Want a gravis armored Libriarian? Go make one.
2. Fix some weapons that just don't work. Looking at Stalker class bolter rifles.
3. Semi squat Classic marines for some chapters, and outline the chapters that are going to keep them, and how they are going to be supported going forward.
Or even build something into the lore to make it work. something like:
After Calgar gets Primarisized a bunch of marines are primarisized, and it is quickly found that primarizing classic marines before age 100 doesn't work and they get dead.
Also it is found that Primarizing a marine to a Primaris Marine works better than making someone from a human to a marine, so nearly all chapters now recruit scouts, Make them into marines, then primarize them at around 100.
Something like that would help with the Classic marine conundrum.
He's not to blame for the poor codex guys, seriously. It's nothing more than first codex syndrome.
He is a reason for price increase for several marine units and probably a reason why GW is cautious to give marines really strong units. His buff is simply too potent for it to be possible to balance. Its effectiveness varies by insane amount depending on what else you're bringing, and thus it is not possible to price it fairly. In theory this is an issue with any aura ability, but more powerful the aura is more prevalent the problem becomes, and if the aura is something only one subfaction in the codex has, then it becomes an even worse balancing nightmare. If the wound portion was removed, or made to be just re-roll of ones, then it would be easier, as that's the same buffs all marines can have. Then every time GW makes rules for a marine unit they don't need to think whether the thing becomes too powerful with Guilliman or alternatively too weak without him.
Now I wonder if Marines would feel less imbalanced (both internally and externally) if the standard Captain & Lieutenant auras were "reroll failed to-hit" and "reroll failed to-wound" instead of rerolling 1s.
Now I wonder if Marines would feel less imbalanced (both internally and externally) if the standard Captain & Lieutenant auras were "reroll failed to-hit" and "reroll failed to-wound" instead of rerolling 1s.
It would obviously make them better, but I wouldn't like that change. It would make standing in the aura bubble even more mandatory than it already is. That is the exact opposite of the direction I want.
He's not to blame for the poor codex guys, seriously. It's nothing more than first codex syndrome.
He is a reason for price increase for several marine units and probably a reason why GW is cautious to give marines really strong units. His buff is simply too potent for it to be possible to balance. Its effectiveness varies by insane amount depending on what else you're bringing, and thus it is not possible to price it fairly. In theory this is an issue with any aura ability, but more powerful the aura is more prevalent the problem becomes, and if the aura is something only one subfaction in the codex has, then it becomes an even worse balancing nightmare. If the wound portion was removed, or made to be just re-roll of ones, then it would be easier, as that's the same buffs all marines can have. Then every time GW makes rules for a marine unit they don't need to think whether the thing becomes too powerful with Guilliman or alternatively too weak without him.
This sounds like speculation.
There is an upper limit to Bobby as mentioned in this thread.
If I have 3 Quad LC Preds and Bobby or the same with a Captain and LT, which is better?
Bobby
12 * .888 * 888 * .5 * 3.5 = 16.6 vs RIS Castellan
CPT & LT
12 * .777 * .777 * .5 * 3.5 = 12.7
Calgar & LT
12 * .888 * .777 * .5 * 3.5 = 14.5
940 for Bobby. 674 for the CPT & LT. 800 for Calgar.
CPT & LT - for 72% of Bobby's formation they did 76% of the damage.
Calrgar - for 85% of Bobby's formation they did 87% of the damage.
3 CP can also get you full rerolls to hit making a CPT & LT way more efficient.
Bobby is a red herring of efficiency. You might get CP and fighting prowess, but he also takes a LoW slot.
There are scenarios when full rerolls to wound work better under bobby when using non-optimal weapons, but that is not a requirement of list building. For example - shooting other marines with S4 means 75% success with RG over 58% with a LT, but the freed up points gives you room to take more prime weapons.
NOTE: for demonstration purposes and not a real world scenario 30 marines with bolters & Bobby - 790 points
40 marines, 8 plasma with CPT & LT - 742 points
He's not to blame for the poor codex guys, seriously. It's nothing more than first codex syndrome.
He is a reason for price increase for several marine units and probably a reason why GW is cautious to give marines really strong units. His buff is simply too potent for it to be possible to balance. Its effectiveness varies by insane amount depending on what else you're bringing, and thus it is not possible to price it fairly. In theory this is an issue with any aura ability, but more powerful the aura is more prevalent the problem becomes, and if the aura is something only one subfaction in the codex has, then it becomes an even worse balancing nightmare. If the wound portion was removed, or made to be just re-roll of ones, then it would be easier, as that's the same buffs all marines can have. Then every time GW makes rules for a marine unit they don't need to think whether the thing becomes too powerful with Guilliman or alternatively too weak without him.
This sounds like speculation.
There is an upper limit to Bobby as mentioned in this thread.
If I have 3 Quad LC Preds and Bobby or the same with a Captain and LT, which is better?
Bobby
12 * .888 * 888 * .5 * 3.5 = 16.6 vs RIS Castellan
CPT & LT
12 * .777 * .777 * .5 * 3.5 = 12.7
Calgar & LT
12 * .888 * .777 * .5 * 3.5 = 14.5
940 for Bobby. 674 for the CPT & LT. 800 for Calgar.
CPT & LT - for 72% of Bobby's formation they did 76% of the damage.
Calrgar - for 85% of Bobby's formation they did 87% of the damage.
3 CP can also get you full rerolls to hit making a CPT & LT way more efficient.
Bobby is a red herring of efficiency. You might get CP and fighting prowess, but he also takes a LoW slot.
There are scenarios when full rerolls to wound work better under bobby when using non-optimal weapons, but that is not a requirement of list building. For example - shooting other marines with S4 means 75% success with RG over 58% with a LT, but the freed up points gives you room to take more prime weapons.
NOTE: for demonstration purposes and not a real world scenario 30 marines with bolters & Bobby - 790 points
40 marines, 8 plasma with CPT & LT - 742 points
The true power of Gman is not shooting efficiency - he will be remotely more efficiently than just reroll 1's (with 400 points more of shooting in the LT and CM aura). However you do lose a lot more shooting power when you take hits with Gmans army.
The true power is not crumbling in assault when a knight or super CC unit comes along. Because Gman will crush most anything in CC.
the_scotsman wrote: I mean, there is another easy way to fix Guilliman Syndrome for marines and it is...price Guilliman around the unique ability to triple the firepower of anything he's shaking his shiny metal ass for.
If they really REALLY want to give Guililman the ability to twerk in the middle of a space marine army and grant them ALL Guide+Doom with no cast roll against every target in the enemy army, just cost the fething dude like 700 points and fix the rest of the damn marine roster.
Don't price everything in the marine codex and every other unit shared by every other marine codex as if they might be in range to watch guilliman drop it down and make it clap.
Of course it has drawbacks, the point is that the efficiency is too variable. Doing one isolated comparison is pointless. Guilliman obviously gets better more things you shove in his aura. Should Guilliman be priced like he is buffing 500 points of stuff, 1000 points of stuff or 2000 points of stuff? Should a potential new Primaris super heavy vehicle be priced like it is sitting on Guilliman's aura, or not?
If you're taking Guilliman AND another super heavy at 2k points you will lose the game.
You know what Guilliman doesn't do? He doesn't make any unit more durable. When the stuff around him dies (and it does) you quickly remember that you have less units to saturate.
He needs a point drop like everything else in the book.
Now I wonder if Marines would feel less imbalanced (both internally and externally) if the standard Captain & Lieutenant auras were "reroll failed to-hit" and "reroll failed to-wound" instead of rerolling 1s.
It would obviously make them better, but I wouldn't like that change. It would make standing in the aura bubble even more mandatory than it already is. That is the exact opposite of the direction I want.
It can't be more mandatory than it already is. You don't do any damage outside of your auras. It's how the army is played and even when you do this. The army still sucks. Bolters wound most good units on 5's just like lasguns. All the heavy weapons are overcosted. Practically nothing is survivable. People call for plasma nerfs when marines with plasma is less efficient than actual powerful armies and plasma kills your own units to boot.
Ishagu wrote: Anyone calling for nerfs is a casual with nothing but anecdotal evidence and should be ignored anyways.
You just don't get it. Some people don't like the bubble hammer. Nerfs to auras should be accompanied to buffs to the units themselves (be this a cost decrease or an actual rule change.)
Crimson wrote: Of course it has drawbacks, the point is that the efficiency is too variable. Doing one isolated comparison is pointless. Guilliman obviously gets better more things you shove in his aura. Should Guilliman be priced like he is buffing 500 points of stuff, 1000 points of stuff or 2000 points of stuff? Should a potential new Primaris super heavy vehicle be priced like it is sitting on Guilliman's aura, or not?
The more you stuff in his aura the less flexible you become with objectives. There's an upper limit as well and I'm not sure that a 266 point deficit can succinctly be overcome.
Ishagu wrote: Anyone calling for nerfs is a casual with nothing but anecdotal evidence and should be ignored anyways.
You just don't get it. Some people don't like the bubble hammer. Nerfs to auras should be accompanied to buffs to the units themselves (be this a cost decrease or an actual rule change.)
I get it! But this is how Marines are.
This is how they've always been. Whether it's bubbles now or multi character units in the past. This is nothing new.
There are different armies for people who don't like this. They should stop making demands on how armies should be.
Ishagu wrote: I get it! But this is how Marines are.
This is how they've always been. Whether it's bubbles or multi character units.
There are different armies for people who don't like this. They should stop making demands on how armies should be!
I have played marines since the second edition, it is not how 'marines have always been.' And rules should reflect the fluff. Current rules encourage unfluffy playstyle, thus the rules need to be changed.
Ishagu wrote: Sure, in 2nd edition things were different.
They've been like this for 10+ years in one variation or another.
Sounds like you need a new army to play? There's nothing wrong with that.
My marine army is new, this is my third! And this sort of reliance to auras is new, especially compared to other factions. Deathstar units were a thing in past editions, but that's a different thing. Static, castling gunline was more traditionally a Guard thing. Counterintuitively they're now pretty damn mobile, while marines are static and rely on castling. This is just bad rules writing from army identity perspective.
Today it's auras. Yesterday it was all about multiple character units sharing their ability.
It's the same thing. Grouped as one unit or grouped around one character.
Why aren't you playing Blood Angels? All about fast movement and assault with individual units or characters.
Ishagu wrote: Anyone calling for nerfs is a casual with nothing but anecdotal evidence and should be ignored anyways.
You just don't get it. Some people don't like the bubble hammer. Nerfs to auras should be accompanied to buffs to the units themselves (be this a cost decrease or an actual rule change.)
Ehh - bubble hammer is only problematic play wise because the bubble is only 6 inch. If marines are going to have to be in auras to do decent damage then the auras range should be extended. Or they should get much improved efficiency on their own. Those are the 2 options. None other exist.
Ishagu wrote: Auras are new. Characters buffind units is not.
Today it's auras. Yesterday it was all about multiple character units sharing their ability.
It's the same thing. Grouped as one unit or grouped around one character.
Why aren't you playing Blood Angels? All about fast movement and assault with individual units or characters.
BA are slaves to babysitters, too. Even worse in some ways, even.
Ishagu wrote: The aura is for a unit or two. The rest of the army must spread out or you lose the game.
Not really. Typically a game has 4 objectives. 1 is in your deployment and you just try to control the next closest objective as well. You lose when you don't play to your armies strength. Spreading out is not for marines. Putting your whole army in cover with gman buff is just about the only thing that works.
Ishagu wrote: Auras are new. Characters buffind units is not.
Today it's auras. Yesterday it was all about multiple character units sharing their ability.
It's the same thing. Grouped as one unit or grouped around one character.
It absolutely is not the same thing. Deathstars didn't encourage castling and lumping every unit together. It encouraged putting many characters in one unit, which was kinda weird, but a different issue. A character being able to buff one unit (or even limited number of units) incentivises completely different sort of gameplay than auras. If you don't see this you'd make a terrible game designer.
Why aren't you playing Blood Angels? All about fast movement and assault with individual units or characters.
I have considered it, but they're kinda awkward as Primaris only, which is how my new chapter rolls.
Why not wait for the next dex? Primaris are still in very, very early stages.
I wouldn't judge or be upset about things now. They'll change and evolve greatly in the future.
Ishagu wrote: Why not wait for the next dex? Primaris are still in very, very early stages.
I wouldn't judge or be upset about things now. They'll change and evolve greatly in the future.
Some of us have been waiting since the beginning of 6th to not a have dog gak army.
Ishagu wrote: Why not wait for the next dex? Primaris are still in very, very early stages.
I wouldn't judge or be upset about things now. They'll change and evolve greatly in the future.
IDK about that. This edition is almost 2 years old. I wouldn't be surprised if 9th eddition came out before a new primaris codex.
Primaris are still in very, very early stages.
I wouldn't judge or be upset about things now. They'll change and evolve greatly in the future.
I am not upset, and I was speculating about what sort of changes I'd like to see in the future. Then you told me that I shouldn't want marines to be changed and should get a different army instead...
That might be the case. If you look at the codex there are no strats for Primaris units, limited unit roles, limited wargear etc.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. They've already mapped out the next 10 years of releases, as per comments from the design studio. Wave 2 and 3 will evolve them. Look at how Stormcast Eternals developed.
I imagine we'll get fast assault elements and additional vehicles. Chapter Tactics will also have additional effects on units that don't benefit currently.
IDK about that. This edition is almost 2 years old. I wouldn't be surprised if 9th eddition came out before a new primaris codex.
I think that a new Marine dex soon is somewhat likely. Chaos got full kits for their Shadowspear easybuilds and then some, accompanied by an updated codex. I expect and hope that the same will happen with the marines.
IDK about that. This edition is almost 2 years old. I wouldn't be surprised if 9th eddition came out before a new primaris codex.
I think that a new Marine dex soon is somewhat likely. Chaos got full kits for their Shadowspear easybuilds and then some, accompanied by an updated codex. I expect and hope that the same will happen with the marines.
They're literally telling us - use marines as elite well equipped units and stop comparing them as plain bolter whores to IS.
Yeah, that doesn't really work. You are paying elite prices, but dying at the same rate, so you are bleeding points VERY fast, enough with equipment cuts. Those cuts are just the tip of the iceberg of what's needed. That, or take the dissy cannon out of the game. There is no combination of that equipment that makes them beat guardsmen. In fact, they lose faster.
They're literally telling us - use marines as elite well equipped units and stop comparing them as plain bolter whores to IS.
Yeah, that doesn't really work. You are paying elite prices, but dying at the same rate, so you are bleeding points VERY fast, enough with equipment cuts. Those cuts are just the tip of the iceberg of what's needed. That, or take the dissy cannon out of the game. There is no combination of that equipment that makes them beat guardsmen. In fact, they lose faster.
Dissy is going to see less time now that they can't dual role as anti-tank. Give it time.
Still can't beat the 4 ppm elephant in the corner. There is no equipment that lets marines deal with 90-120 bodies that prevent movement. Sorry, 120 bodies that are only 1/4 of the enemy list.
A marine with a meltagun is 27 pts. That's insane for one shot.
Losing 100 models and shrugging is the ultimate counter in 8th ed. They were facilitating the Castellan not just with CP. I'm morbidly curious how long GW will let this go on.
They're literally telling us - use marines as elite well equipped units and stop comparing them as plain bolter whores to IS.
Yeah, that doesn't really work. You are paying elite prices, but dying at the same rate, so you are bleeding points VERY fast, enough with equipment cuts. Those cuts are just the tip of the iceberg of what's needed. That, or take the dissy cannon out of the game. There is no combination of that equipment that makes them beat guardsmen. In fact, they lose faster.
Dissy is going to see less time now that they can't dual role as anti-tank. Give it time.
They're still similar to Dark Lances against most tanks, they're not going anywhere. It's absurd that they're 5 points less than a Lance.
They're literally telling us - use marines as elite well equipped units and stop comparing them as plain bolter whores to IS.
Yeah, that doesn't really work. You are paying elite prices, but dying at the same rate, so you are bleeding points VERY fast, enough with equipment cuts. Those cuts are just the tip of the iceberg of what's needed. That, or take the dissy cannon out of the game. There is no combination of that equipment that makes them beat guardsmen. In fact, they lose faster.
Dissy is going to see less time now that they can't dual role as anti-tank. Give it time.
It still does more damage without doom than dark lances... to t8. Its 5 points more than a heavy bolter to do about 3x the damage. Plus it can be taken on better platforms. If a D cannon is worth 15 - then a HB is worth 5. Seems pretty simple to me. Take a look at a grav cannon.
Hv 4 str 5 ap-3 d1-3 damage (vs + 3 save or better) 24" (26 points)
D cannon
Heavy 3 (but is assault on every platform it can be taken) str 5 ap-3 D2 @ 36" (15 points)
Dude - there is a legit argument to be made that the Gravcannon should cost less than a Dessie cannon.
Martel732 wrote: Still can't beat the 4 ppm elephant in the corner. There is no equipment that lets marines deal with 90-120 bodies that prevent movement. Sorry, 120 bodies that are only 1/4 of the enemy list.
A marine with a meltagun is 27 pts. That's insane for one shot.
Losing 100 models and shrugging is the ultimate counter in 8th ed. They were facilitating the Castellan not just with CP. I'm morbidly curious how long GW will let this go on.
IS are 5.5. If you're going to mentally assign all the abilities of the CC in your assessment of IS then you should add those points in, too. And if you really want to do it right then the sarge doesn't really come into play often making them 55 / 9 = 6.1 ppm. Some lists don't get full command command coverage, because of this factor - more CC = more dead weight at the end of the game. But that also means you have 2 or 3 blocks running without orders bar CP spend for 1 order.
Are they still really good? You bet. Are they unbeatable by marines? Not by a long shot.
Martel732 wrote: Still can't beat the 4 ppm elephant in the corner. There is no equipment that lets marines deal with 90-120 bodies that prevent movement. Sorry, 120 bodies that are only 1/4 of the enemy list.
A marine with a meltagun is 27 pts. That's insane for one shot.
Losing 100 models and shrugging is the ultimate counter in 8th ed. They were facilitating the Castellan not just with CP. I'm morbidly curious how long GW will let this go on.
Here's something I'm a little curious about.
Genestealer Cultists can bring, quite frankly, just a more efficient guard list to the table. Take a GSC detachment with 20-man 4ppm Brood Brothers squads as troops, Patriarch who grants a fearless aura to all those 20-man guard squads and pair it with a supreme command with a Shadowsword, Company Commanders (to FRFSRF the 20-man blob units), Tank Commanders, and a primaris psyker to cast Nightshroud. Take Aberrant bombs, kelermorph, and whatever other GSC stuff to taste.
To me, that just seems to be a better pure guard list than guard can bring. So, why has that style of list not shown up in any of the competitive GSC lists we've seen? Why have no brood brothers at all shown up - GSC is literally a faction where your choices for troops are a glass cannon deep striking melee unit, and "the most OP troop choice in the game, but with twice the unit size cap". Surely if melee is unmitigated garbage and guardsmen are the most OP thing since sliced bread we should see at least SOME brood brothers.
Ishagu wrote: Why not wait for the next dex? Primaris are still in very, very early stages.
I wouldn't judge or be upset about things now. They'll change and evolve greatly in the future.
Some of us have been waiting since the beginning of 6th to not a have dog gak army.
Every marine has a built in VOX in his helmet, so I never understood why being next to their Captain would really help them.
I agree that it'd be better for the game if all the marine auras were switched to target a unit (or more than one, just cost balance it) for the buff. Then we wouldn't have the silly marine balls that we do in games.
And while we're at it, a VOX on a IG unit should make their orders unlimited range imo.
But it should be the same for everyone. Auras are hard to balance and make the battles look weird.
It still does more damage without doom than dark lances... to t8. Its 5 points more than a heavy bolter to do about 3x the damage. Plus it can be taken on better platforms. If a D cannon is worth 15 - then a HB is worth 5. Seems pretty simple to me. Take a look at a grav cannon.
Hv 4 str 5 ap-3 d1-3 damage (vs + 3 save or better) 24" (26 points)
D cannon
Heavy 3 (but is assault on every platform it can be taken) str 5 ap-3 D2 @ 36" (15 points)
Dude - there is a legit argument to be made that the Gravcannon should cost less than a Dessie cannon.
Internal balance is an issue. Externally I'm ok waiting for things to settle before a points nerf.
They're literally telling us - use marines as elite well equipped units and stop comparing them as plain bolter whores to IS.
Yeah, that doesn't really work. You are paying elite prices, but dying at the same rate, so you are bleeding points VERY fast, enough with equipment cuts. Those cuts are just the tip of the iceberg of what's needed. That, or take the dissy cannon out of the game. There is no combination of that equipment that makes them beat guardsmen. In fact, they lose faster.
Dissy is going to see less time now that they can't dual role as anti-tank. Give it time.
It still does more damage without doom than dark lances... to t8. Its 5 points more than a heavy bolter to do about 3x the damage. Plus it can be taken on better platforms. If a D cannon is worth 15 - then a HB is worth 5. Seems pretty simple to me. Take a look at a grav cannon.
Hv 4 str 5 ap-3 d1-3 damage (vs + 3 save or better) 24" (26 points)
D cannon
Heavy 3 (but is assault on every platform it can be taken) str 5 ap-3 D2 @ 36" (15 points)
Dude - there is a legit argument to be made that the Gravcannon should cost less than a Dessie cannon.
It's closer to "embarrassingly obvious" than it is to "you could make the argument" territory just on the profile.
They're literally telling us - use marines as elite well equipped units and stop comparing them as plain bolter whores to IS.
Yeah, that doesn't really work. You are paying elite prices, but dying at the same rate, so you are bleeding points VERY fast, enough with equipment cuts. Those cuts are just the tip of the iceberg of what's needed. That, or take the dissy cannon out of the game. There is no combination of that equipment that makes them beat guardsmen. In fact, they lose faster.
Dissy is going to see less time now that they can't dual role as anti-tank. Give it time.
It still does more damage without doom than dark lances... to t8. Its 5 points more than a heavy bolter to do about 3x the damage. Plus it can be taken on better platforms. If a D cannon is worth 15 - then a HB is worth 5. Seems pretty simple to me. Take a look at a grav cannon.
Hv 4 str 5 ap-3 d1-3 damage (vs + 3 save or better) 24" (26 points)
D cannon
Heavy 3 (but is assault on every platform it can be taken) str 5 ap-3 D2 @ 36" (15 points)
Dude - there is a legit argument to be made that the Gravcannon should cost less than a Dessie cannon.
It's closer to "embarrassingly obvious" than it is to "you could make the argument" territory just on the profile.
Perhaps - I am doing my best to no exaggerate these days. I have been accused to exaggerating a lot on this site.
It still does more damage without doom than dark lances... to t8. Its 5 points more than a heavy bolter to do about 3x the damage. Plus it can be taken on better platforms. If a D cannon is worth 15 - then a HB is worth 5. Seems pretty simple to me. Take a look at a grav cannon.
Hv 4 str 5 ap-3 d1-3 damage (vs + 3 save or better) 24" (26 points)
D cannon
Heavy 3 (but is assault on every platform it can be taken) str 5 ap-3 D2 @ 36" (15 points)
Dude - there is a legit argument to be made that the Gravcannon should cost less than a Dessie cannon.
Internal balance is an issue. Externally I'm ok waiting for things to settle before a points nerf.
I was thinking more talos, but time will tell.
I mean yeah...we are waiting. We've been waiting a long time already. The marine arsenal is overpriced and there isn't really any room for denying it. Twin las going to 40 is helpful. But then why would I ever take lastalon? These are bonehead fixes on their best selling product line. Personally I am fine with DE having really efficient weapons. I'm not fine with the imperium (mainly marines) not having efficient weapons.
Drager wrote: Did anyone else notice that the new Aircraft rules don't allow you to move through your own Aircraft?
How?
‘If the datasheet for a model says it can Fly, then during the Movement phase it can move across models as if they were not there, and when moving across terrain features, vertical distance is not counted against the total it can move (i.e. moving vertically is free for this model in the Movement phase). If the datasheet for a model says it can Fly, then during the Charge phase it can move across models (other than Buildings) as if they were not there.’
This still applies.
Page 177 – Movement PhaseAdd the following text to the end of the Movement phase section: ‘AircraftIf a unit can Fly and it has a minimum Move characteristic (or if it has a damage table on its datasheet that includes any minimum Move characteristics), that unit gains the Aircraft keyword.Whenever a model makes any kind of move, it can be moved within 1" of enemy Aircraft, and it can be moved across such models (and their bases) as if they were not there, but it cannot end the move on top of another model (or its base), and it cannot end the move within 1" of any enemy units.If, when a unit is selected to move in the Movement phase, the only enemy units that are within 1" of it are Aircraft, then it can still make a move (i.e. it does not have to Fall Back in order to move).’
This speaks nothing against preventing moving across(infact it allows). Just that you can't END over one.
If you have an infantry model is in your army, let's say a Guardian and there is one of your own Hemlocks in front of it, where is the permission to allow the Guardian to walk across the Aircraft's base?
in last design commentary, go there and read, now everyone can move through aircraft bases like if they were not there
You can move through enemy aircraft bases, but I can't find the permission to move through friendly ones. The designer's commentary is quoted above by tnev82 and reading that is what led to me asking the question. If you can point out the permission I'm missing, I'd be grateful. Have another read yourself, I'm sure it's there and I'm just not seeing it.
sigh i give up....so if they dont say you must use d6 dice you use d8? just an example, if a model base is not there, is not there period anyway really i give up... no worth
Drager wrote: Did anyone else notice that the new Aircraft rules don't allow you to move through your own Aircraft?
How?
‘If the datasheet for a model says it can Fly, then during the Movement phase it can move across models as if they were not there, and when moving across terrain features, vertical distance is not counted against the total it can move (i.e. moving vertically is free for this model in the Movement phase). If the datasheet for a model says it can Fly, then during the Charge phase it can move across models (other than Buildings) as if they were not there.’
This still applies.
Page 177 – Movement PhaseAdd the following text to the end of the Movement phase section: ‘AircraftIf a unit can Fly and it has a minimum Move characteristic (or if it has a damage table on its datasheet that includes any minimum Move characteristics), that unit gains the Aircraft keyword.Whenever a model makes any kind of move, it can be moved within 1" of enemy Aircraft, and it can be moved across such models (and their bases) as if they were not there, but it cannot end the move on top of another model (or its base), and it cannot end the move within 1" of any enemy units.If, when a unit is selected to move in the Movement phase, the only enemy units that are within 1" of it are Aircraft, then it can still make a move (i.e. it does not have to Fall Back in order to move).’
This speaks nothing against preventing moving across(infact it allows). Just that you can't END over one.
If you have an infantry model is in your army, let's say a Guardian and there is one of your own Hemlocks in front of it, where is the permission to allow the Guardian to walk across the Aircraft's base?
in last design commentary, go there and read, now everyone can move through aircraft bases like if they were not there
You can move through enemy aircraft bases, but I can't find the permission to move through friendly ones. The designer's commentary is quoted above by tnev82 and reading that is what led to me asking the question. If you can point out the permission I'm missing, I'd be grateful. Have another read yourself, I'm sure it's there and I'm just not seeing it.
sigh i give up....so if they dont say you must use d6 dice you use d8? just an example, if a model base is not there, is not there period anyway really i give up... no worth
Not at all, that;s not an analogous scenario, I am simply trying to follow the rules and to do that I need to work out if I am reading them correctly. As far as I can tell I am, and all I have received in response is exasperated sighs and people telling me to read the rule that caused me to ask the question in the first place. I'll lay it out as an argument, just point to what part I have got wrong.
Premise 1: There is a rule saying you cannot move through other models (including bases)
Premise 2: There is a rule giving permission to move through Enemy Aircraft bases
Conclusion: You may move through enemy Aircraft bases, but not the bases of other models, including friendly Aircraft.
Drager wrote: Did anyone else notice that the new Aircraft rules don't allow you to move through your own Aircraft?
How?
‘If the datasheet for a model says it can Fly, then during the Movement phase it can move across models as if they were not there, and when moving across terrain features, vertical distance is not counted against the total it can move (i.e. moving vertically is free for this model in the Movement phase). If the datasheet for a model says it can Fly, then during the Charge phase it can move across models (other than Buildings) as if they were not there.’
This still applies.
Page 177 – Movement PhaseAdd the following text to the end of the Movement phase section: ‘AircraftIf a unit can Fly and it has a minimum Move characteristic (or if it has a damage table on its datasheet that includes any minimum Move characteristics), that unit gains the Aircraft keyword.Whenever a model makes any kind of move, it can be moved within 1" of enemy Aircraft, and it can be moved across such models (and their bases) as if they were not there, but it cannot end the move on top of another model (or its base), and it cannot end the move within 1" of any enemy units.If, when a unit is selected to move in the Movement phase, the only enemy units that are within 1" of it are Aircraft, then it can still make a move (i.e. it does not have to Fall Back in order to move).’
This speaks nothing against preventing moving across(infact it allows). Just that you can't END over one.
If you have an infantry model is in your army, let's say a Guardian and there is one of your own Hemlocks in front of it, where is the permission to allow the Guardian to walk across the Aircraft's base?
in last design commentary, go there and read, now everyone can move through aircraft bases like if they were not there
You can move through enemy aircraft bases, but I can't find the permission to move through friendly ones. The designer's commentary is quoted above by tnev82 and reading that is what led to me asking the question. If you can point out the permission I'm missing, I'd be grateful. Have another read yourself, I'm sure it's there and I'm just not seeing it.
I believe the line is "and it can be moved across such models (and their bases) as if they were not there."
I'm currently reading the above text as:
A: Models that have a minimum move characteristic are AIRCRAFT
B: When a unit is moving, it may be moved within 1" of enemy AIRCRAFT
C: When a unit it moving, it may move across AIRCRAFT and their bases as if they were not there, but it cannot end on top of it, or end within 1" of enemy units.
The issue seems to be the interpretation of the phrase "such models", and whether it refers to AIRCRAFT or enemy AIRCRAFT. This seems to be a matter of poor choice of words [in the vein of "The Johnsons have cats. They like them a lot." Who do the pronouns They and Them refer to?], I interpret the pronoun "such models" as referring to the models that were previous defined as aircraft, but I can see the opposite argument has validity. That said, they specified enemy at all other times when referring to enemy models, so I think the lack of such phrasing is indicative that the former interpretation is probably correct.
Drager wrote: Did anyone else notice that the new Aircraft rules don't allow you to move through your own Aircraft?
How?
‘If the datasheet for a model says it can Fly, then during the Movement phase it can move across models as if they were not there, and when moving across terrain features, vertical distance is not counted against the total it can move (i.e. moving vertically is free for this model in the Movement phase). If the datasheet for a model says it can Fly, then during the Charge phase it can move across models (other than Buildings) as if they were not there.’
This still applies.
Page 177 – Movement PhaseAdd the following text to the end of the Movement phase section: ‘AircraftIf a unit can Fly and it has a minimum Move characteristic (or if it has a damage table on its datasheet that includes any minimum Move characteristics), that unit gains the Aircraft keyword.Whenever a model makes any kind of move, it can be moved within 1" of enemy Aircraft, and it can be moved across such models (and their bases) as if they were not there, but it cannot end the move on top of another model (or its base), and it cannot end the move within 1" of any enemy units.If, when a unit is selected to move in the Movement phase, the only enemy units that are within 1" of it are Aircraft, then it can still make a move (i.e. it does not have to Fall Back in order to move).’
This speaks nothing against preventing moving across(infact it allows). Just that you can't END over one.
If you have an infantry model is in your army, let's say a Guardian and there is one of your own Hemlocks in front of it, where is the permission to allow the Guardian to walk across the Aircraft's base?
in last design commentary, go there and read, now everyone can move through aircraft bases like if they were not there
You can move through enemy aircraft bases, but I can't find the permission to move through friendly ones. The designer's commentary is quoted above by tnev82 and reading that is what led to me asking the question. If you can point out the permission I'm missing, I'd be grateful. Have another read yourself, I'm sure it's there and I'm just not seeing it.
I believe the line is "and it can be moved across such models (and their bases) as if they were not there."
I'm currently reading the above text as:
A: Models that have a minimum move characteristic are AIRCRAFT
B: When a unit is moving, it may be moved within 1" of enemy AIRCRAFT
C: When a unit it moving, it may move across AIRCRAFT and their bases as if they were not there, but it cannot end on top of it, or end within 1" of enemy units.
The issue seems to be the interpretation of the phrase "such models", and whether it refers to AIRCRAFT or enemy AIRCRAFT. This seems to be a matter of poor choice of words [in the vein of "The Johnsons have cats. They like them a lot." Who do the pronouns They and Them refer to?], I interpret the pronoun "such models" as referring to the models that were previous defined as aircraft, but I can see the opposite argument has validity. That said, they specified enemy at all other times when referring to enemy models, so I think the lack of such phrasing is indicative that the former interpretation is probably correct.
I think the fact that enemy Aircraft are the only models referred to in the sentence containing the phrase such models, in the preceding clause, indicates that they are using the pronoun to indicate the prior named models in that sentence. If those were two separate sentences I might agree with you, but they are not. And to hopefully get out ahead of any aspersions being cast, I'm an Aeldari player who owns many planes, my interpretation is bad for my army.
Requote for clarity:
Big FAQ wrote:Page 177 – Movement PhaseAdd the following text to the end of the Movement phase section: ‘AircraftIf a unit can Fly and it has a minimum Move characteristic (or if it has a damage table on its datasheet that includes any minimum Move characteristics), that unit gains the Aircraft keyword.Whenever a model makes any kind of move, it can be moved within 1" of enemy Aircraft, and it can be moved across such models (and their bases) as if they were not there, but it cannot end the move on top of another model (or its base), and it cannot end the move within 1" of any enemy units.If, when a unit is selected to move in the Movement phase, the only enemy units that are within 1" of it are Aircraft, then it can still make a move (i.e. it does not have to Fall Back in order to move).
Martel732 wrote: Still can't beat the 4 ppm elephant in the corner. There is no equipment that lets marines deal with 90-120 bodies that prevent movement. Sorry, 120 bodies that are only 1/4 of the enemy list.
A marine with a meltagun is 27 pts. That's insane for one shot.
Losing 100 models and shrugging is the ultimate counter in 8th ed. They were facilitating the Castellan not just with CP. I'm morbidly curious how long GW will let this go on.
IS are 5.5. If you're going to mentally assign all the abilities of the CC in your assessment of IS then you should add those points in, too. And if you really want to do it right then the sarge doesn't really come into play often making them 55 / 9 = 6.1 ppm. Some lists don't get full command command coverage, because of this factor - more CC = more dead weight at the end of the game. But that also means you have 2 or 3 blocks running without orders bar CP spend for 1 order.
Are they still really good? You bet. Are they unbeatable by marines? Not by a long shot.
Im not assigning them anything. The way ive been using mine is 4ppm. All they have to do is stand there.
Automatically Appended Next Post: With cultists at 5, these guys are indefensible. At least to me.
Honestly, I think Marines as a whole need a major rejig. Whilst lowering the points cost of Marine units will eventually bring them up to par, I think that is just the wrong way to go for making Marines competitive- it literally cheapens Marines.
I'd much rather they do something like add a wound to every Marine unit, with only a minimal points increase. The damage output doesn't increase, but the durability goes up across the board. D2 weapons will still knock out standard Marines in one unsaved wound, but a Marine will be twice as durable against small arms, and occasionally survive a D3 or D6 weapon. Primaris and Terminators will be surviving plasma and disintegrator hits.
I feel two wounds for Marines will be a notable change. Couple this with Chapter Tactics for vehicles and maybe a further buff to bolter discipline, and I think Marines could be in a better place.
I also agree that auras just doesn't work for Marines from a fluff and playstyle perspective (except for green Dark Angels). They should make Marine characters buff a limited number of units each anywhere on the board- say one squad for a Lieutenant, 2 for a Captain, 3 for a Chapter Master. Chaplains and the like should still be close-ranged buffs. Allow these buffs to occur from inside Rhinos and Land Raiders (superior command and control equipment used by Marines, obviously) and transports get some more use too.
Martel732 wrote: Still can't beat the 4 ppm elephant in the corner. There is no equipment that lets marines deal with 90-120 bodies that prevent movement. Sorry, 120 bodies that are only 1/4 of the enemy list.
A marine with a meltagun is 27 pts. That's insane for one shot.
Losing 100 models and shrugging is the ultimate counter in 8th ed. They were facilitating the Castellan not just with CP. I'm morbidly curious how long GW will let this go on.
Here's something I'm a little curious about.
Genestealer Cultists can bring, quite frankly, just a more efficient guard list to the table. Take a GSC detachment with 20-man 4ppm Brood Brothers squads as troops, Patriarch who grants a fearless aura to all those 20-man guard squads and pair it with a supreme command with a Shadowsword, Company Commanders (to FRFSRF the 20-man blob units), Tank Commanders, and a primaris psyker to cast Nightshroud. Take Aberrant bombs, kelermorph, and whatever other GSC stuff to taste.
To me, that just seems to be a better pure guard list than guard can bring. So, why has that style of list not shown up in any of the competitive GSC lists we've seen? Why have no brood brothers at all shown up - GSC is literally a faction where your choices for troops are a glass cannon deep striking melee unit, and "the most OP troop choice in the game, but with twice the unit size cap". Surely if melee is unmitigated garbage and guardsmen are the most OP thing since sliced bread we should see at least SOME brood brothers.
They're op because of how they screen to facilitate big shooting units
Martel732 wrote: Still can't beat the 4 ppm elephant in the corner. There is no equipment that lets marines deal with 90-120 bodies that prevent movement. Sorry, 120 bodies that are only 1/4 of the enemy list.
A marine with a meltagun is 27 pts. That's insane for one shot.
Losing 100 models and shrugging is the ultimate counter in 8th ed. They were facilitating the Castellan not just with CP. I'm morbidly curious how long GW will let this go on.
Here's something I'm a little curious about.
Genestealer Cultists can bring, quite frankly, just a more efficient guard list to the table. Take a GSC detachment with 20-man 4ppm Brood Brothers squads as troops, Patriarch who grants a fearless aura to all those 20-man guard squads and pair it with a supreme command with a Shadowsword, Company Commanders (to FRFSRF the 20-man blob units), Tank Commanders, and a primaris psyker to cast Nightshroud. Take Aberrant bombs, kelermorph, and whatever other GSC stuff to taste.
To me, that just seems to be a better pure guard list than guard can bring. So, why has that style of list not shown up in any of the competitive GSC lists we've seen? Why have no brood brothers at all shown up - GSC is literally a faction where your choices for troops are a glass cannon deep striking melee unit, and "the most OP troop choice in the game, but with twice the unit size cap". Surely if melee is unmitigated garbage and guardsmen are the most OP thing since sliced bread we should see at least SOME brood brothers.
They're op because of how they screen to facilitate big shooting units
But the big thing is there Martel, or is the Feared shadowsword not good enough no more?
Reading comp fail. I don't know why we don't see this. 10 man units are pretty ideal so you only lose your army in 40 pt chunks. Im not sure brood brothers are actually better than guardsmen.
Martel732 wrote: Reading comp fail. I don't know why we don't see this. 10 man units are pretty ideal so you only lose your army in 40 pt chunks. Im not sure brood brothers are actually better than guardsmen.
Because fearless?
10 or 100 fearless is a great rule on <10 pts models.
Remember guardsmen have a morale value that makes it possible for 5 dead to wipe a squad.
Fearless models of such price need to be cleared out.
It's also one of the reasons why cultists climbed up in price i suspect and got lower max capacity per squad.
Martel732 wrote: Reading comp fail. I don't know why we don't see this. 10 man units are pretty ideal so you only lose your army in 40 pt chunks. Im not sure brood brothers are actually better than guardsmen.
OK, but surely if theyre like the most OP model in the game, there should be a gulf of some size between seeing them 100% of the time in imperial lists and 0% of the time in GSC lists.
It seems like you're saying "4ppm for that staline is criminal, that's a fact, no way no how" but then also saying that some small edge like...I don't know, +1S instead of +1Ld and the ability to tank for characters is enough to go from "best thing in the whole game" to "not worth taking compared to a glass cannon, fly-less melee troop.
Acolyte hybrids are glass cannon (same statline as a guardsman, nearly twice the cost) fly-less pure melee deep strikers. By martel logic, they should be lower-than-dirt tier, and their faction has guardsmen, with no strings attached, access to MORE auras and all the resources of the guard codex, at the same cost, with the added ability to tank wounds like Tau drones.
This is a legitimate line of reasoning. As a GSC player myself I saw that in my codex and thought "well, that's it, we're just Imperial Soup 2 now, we're going to have basically pure guard lists with Kelermorphs and Patriarchs slapped on and GSC is gonna get nerfed for the guard's bs" but we've seen multiple GSC lists topping tournaments now and nobody's bothered to bring even one BB squad. Not one.
We'll see how much fly helps. You can arrange them like people did before to make it very hard.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "So you take IS with no CC and they're a problem for your opponent? That seems more silly than 5 point cultists to me"
Not everything has to be a problem. They just have to stand there and give up 4 points at a time.
Martel732 wrote: Reading comp fail. I don't know why we don't see this. 10 man units are pretty ideal so you only lose your army in 40 pt chunks. Im not sure brood brothers are actually better than guardsmen.
OK, but surely if theyre like the most OP model in the game, there should be a gulf of some size between seeing them 100% of the time in imperial lists and 0% of the time in GSC lists.
It seems like you're saying "4ppm for that staline is criminal, that's a fact, no way no how" but then also saying that some small edge like...I don't know, +1S instead of +1Ld and the ability to tank for characters is enough to go from "best thing in the whole game" to "not worth taking compared to a glass cannon, fly-less melee troop.
Acolyte hybrids are glass cannon (same statline as a guardsman, nearly twice the cost) fly-less pure melee deep strikers. By martel logic, they should be lower-than-dirt tier, and their faction has guardsmen, with no strings attached, access to MORE auras and all the resources of the guard codex, at the same cost, with the added ability to tank wounds like Tau drones.
This is a legitimate line of reasoning. As a GSC player myself I saw that in my codex and thought "well, that's it, we're just Imperial Soup 2 now, we're going to have basically pure guard lists with Kelermorphs and Patriarchs slapped on and GSC is gonna get nerfed for the guard's bs" but we've seen multiple GSC lists topping tournaments now and nobody's bothered to bring even one BB squad. Not one.
I guess they know something I don't. I don't understand how anyone does anything with acolyte hybrids. I guess its the strats. Melee is pretty much crap in 8th.
Now I wonder if Marines would feel less imbalanced (both internally and externally) if the standard Captain & Lieutenant auras were "reroll failed to-hit" and "reroll failed to-wound" instead of rerolling 1s.
It would obviously make them better, but I wouldn't like that change. It would make standing in the aura bubble even more mandatory than it already is. That is the exact opposite of the direction I want.
I totally agree. I remember when a 2000 point Marine army might be 18 models, that same army today is under 800 points. They don't feel like Space Marines.
But I'm realistic enough to realize that 18-model armies means smaller collections and less profit for GW, so here we are. And also, if I want an army that plays like Space Marines ought to I should have gone with Custodes.
Now I wonder if Marines would feel less imbalanced (both internally and externally) if the standard Captain & Lieutenant auras were "reroll failed to-hit" and "reroll failed to-wound" instead of rerolling 1s.
It would obviously make them better, but I wouldn't like that change. It would make standing in the aura bubble even more mandatory than it already is. That is the exact opposite of the direction I want.
I totally agree. I remember when a 2000 point Marine army might be 18 models, that same army today is under 800 points. They don't feel like Space Marines.
But I'm realistic enough to realize that 18-model armies means smaller collections and less profit for GW, so here we are. And also, if I want an army that plays like Space Marines ought to I should have gone with Custodes.
You could always counts as, it's not like anyone other than myself plays by the rules anyway.
Martel732 wrote: Still can't beat the 4 ppm elephant in the corner. There is no equipment that lets marines deal with 90-120 bodies that prevent movement. Sorry, 120 bodies that are only 1/4 of the enemy list.
A marine with a meltagun is 27 pts. That's insane for one shot.
Losing 100 models and shrugging is the ultimate counter in 8th ed. They were facilitating the Castellan not just with CP. I'm morbidly curious how long GW will let this go on.
The thing is that this is a kinda frustrating army to play against but its not really that overwhelmingly good. Maybe its good in some missions but if you play the CA18 missions (which we would all hope is what they balance against) not so much. Despite all the theoryhammer of CA18 missions being horde focussed the top tables of the last GT finals were pretty darned elite (mech Eldar vs mech Tau) and no hordes really got close. Horde armies are - and should be - viable but they are just not that dominating and the nearest thing to a dominant horde army is not guard anyway, its Daemons. If guard hordes are proving to be a major problem in ITC missions then I guess you need to look at the missions and rebalancing those with a few tweaks.
I would be far from upset if guardsmen went to 5ppm in CA19 but I also don't thing the game desperately needs it - so long as the game goes to 5 or 6 turns I am pretty confident that either of my armies (T'au and Crimson Fist Marines) could clear them out and grab the objectives I want to grab. Armies like that are unbeatable if you only play 3 turns but slow play is the problem there.
Now I wonder if Marines would feel less imbalanced (both internally and externally) if the standard Captain & Lieutenant auras were "reroll failed to-hit" and "reroll failed to-wound" instead of rerolling 1s.
It would obviously make them better, but I wouldn't like that change. It would make standing in the aura bubble even more mandatory than it already is. That is the exact opposite of the direction I want.
I totally agree. I remember when a 2000 point Marine army might be 18 models, that same army today is under 800 points. They don't feel like Space Marines.
But I'm realistic enough to realize that 18-model armies means smaller collections and less profit for GW, so here we are. And also, if I want an army that plays like Space Marines ought to I should have gone with Custodes.
You could always counts as, it's not like anyone other than myself plays by the rules anyway.
Don't lie, you don't actually play this game.
Oh he does. He's just still stuck in the first game since you can't actually play game through RAW without running into situation rules don't tell how to play so you are forced to play RAI which he doesn't do so either he's lying there or he's still stuck in his first game of 8th ed waiting for GW to fix the game.
It's closer to "embarrassingly obvious" than it is to "you could make the argument" territory just on the profile.
Grav Cannon is still being punished for its 7th edition sins. That is a job for a new codex or Chapter Approved to fix rather than the FAQ. Its rules are just fine.
Dissy cannon is a bit too good for its points - usually if one choice is such an auto-take you know that choice is not point costed correctly. Again its a job for CA19, I don't think it was breaking the game so badly it needed an emergency fix in the FAQ.
It's closer to "embarrassingly obvious" than it is to "you could make the argument" territory just on the profile.
Grav Cannon is still being punished for its 7th edition sins. That is a job for a new codex or Chapter Approved to fix rather than the FAQ. Its rules are just fine.
Dissy cannon is a bit too good for its points - usually if one choice is such an auto-take you know that choice is not point costed correctly. Again its a job for CA19, I don't think it was breaking the game so badly it needed an emergency fix in the FAQ.
It's quite different to Marines where something being an auto-take is an indication it's broken. When a codex only has 1 'tank' and that vehicle has the choice of 2 weapons, it doesn't need to be too cheap to be the only thing people take, it could be that the other option is too expensive. In this case, the Disintegrator Cannon is a better weapon than the Dark Lance and 5 points cheaper, this is obviously not correct, but I'd argue that swapping the costs, or reducing the dark lance 3 points (to 17) and upping the Dissie 3 (to 18) would make a difference. Disintegrators are great against Marines and always have been, but they are not so wonderful against other targets without access to doom. So much so that I (and several others) are now dropping Ravagers as they simply underperform compared to bringing some Craftworld stuff. Nerfing the Disintegrator without buffing the Dark Lance would remove Ravagers and Razorwings in large part, which would mean removing mono DE as we, unlike other codexes, don't have other options.
Martel732 wrote: Still can't beat the 4 ppm elephant in the corner. There is no equipment that lets marines deal with 90-120 bodies that prevent movement. Sorry, 120 bodies that are only 1/4 of the enemy list.
A marine with a meltagun is 27 pts. That's insane for one shot.
Losing 100 models and shrugging is the ultimate counter in 8th ed. They were facilitating the Castellan not just with CP. I'm morbidly curious how long GW will let this go on.
The thing is that this is a kinda frustrating army to play against but its not really that overwhelmingly good. Maybe its good in some missions but if you play the CA18 missions (which we would all hope is what they balance against) not so much. Despite all the theoryhammer of CA18 missions being horde focussed the top tables of the last GT finals were pretty darned elite (mech Eldar vs mech Tau) and no hordes really got close. Horde armies are - and should be - viable but they are just not that dominating and the nearest thing to a dominant horde army is not guard anyway, its Daemons. If guard hordes are proving to be a major problem in ITC missions then I guess you need to look at the missions and rebalancing those with a few tweaks.
I would be far from upset if guardsmen went to 5ppm in CA19 but I also don't thing the game desperately needs it - so long as the game goes to 5 or 6 turns I am pretty confident that either of my armies (T'au and Crimson Fist Marines) could clear them out and grab the objectives I want to grab. Armies like that are unbeatable if you only play 3 turns but slow play is the problem there.
trouble
I'm having way more trouble with ig in gw missions because there is no downside to guardsmen without secondary missions. I'm usually out of marines by 5 or 6 anyway.
Now I wonder if Marines would feel less imbalanced (both internally and externally) if the standard Captain & Lieutenant auras were "reroll failed to-hit" and "reroll failed to-wound" instead of rerolling 1s.
It would obviously make them better, but I wouldn't like that change. It would make standing in the aura bubble even more mandatory than it already is. That is the exact opposite of the direction I want.
I totally agree. I remember when a 2000 point Marine army might be 18 models, that same army today is under 800 points. They don't feel like Space Marines.
But I'm realistic enough to realize that 18-model armies means smaller collections and less profit for GW, so here we are. And also, if I want an army that plays like Space Marines ought to I should have gone with Custodes.
Was that 2nd edition? I've almost always run 50-80 marines in my marine armies, not counting transports.
Martel732 wrote: Still can't beat the 4 ppm elephant in the corner. There is no equipment that lets marines deal with 90-120 bodies that prevent movement. Sorry, 120 bodies that are only 1/4 of the enemy list.
A marine with a meltagun is 27 pts. That's insane for one shot.
Losing 100 models and shrugging is the ultimate counter in 8th ed. They were facilitating the Castellan not just with CP. I'm morbidly curious how long GW will let this go on.
Here's something I'm a little curious about.
Genestealer Cultists can bring, quite frankly, just a more efficient guard list to the table. Take a GSC detachment with 20-man 4ppm Brood Brothers squads as troops, Patriarch who grants a fearless aura to all those 20-man guard squads and pair it with a supreme command with a Shadowsword, Company Commanders (to FRFSRF the 20-man blob units), Tank Commanders, and a primaris psyker to cast Nightshroud. Take Aberrant bombs, kelermorph, and whatever other GSC stuff to taste.
To me, that just seems to be a better pure guard list than guard can bring. So, why has that style of list not shown up in any of the competitive GSC lists we've seen? Why have no brood brothers at all shown up - GSC is literally a faction where your choices for troops are a glass cannon deep striking melee unit, and "the most OP troop choice in the game, but with twice the unit size cap". Surely if melee is unmitigated garbage and guardsmen are the most OP thing since sliced bread we should see at least SOME brood brothers.
There is the Dallas open where GSC did it with 5 point troops, not even 4.
Plus you will be happy to note that since the last Faq you can no longer order GSC Brood Brothers so you know, GW actually nerfed the thing your afraid of.
Martel732 wrote: Still can't beat the 4 ppm elephant in the corner. There is no equipment that lets marines deal with 90-120 bodies that prevent movement. Sorry, 120 bodies that are only 1/4 of the enemy list.
A marine with a meltagun is 27 pts. That's insane for one shot.
Losing 100 models and shrugging is the ultimate counter in 8th ed. They were facilitating the Castellan not just with CP. I'm morbidly curious how long GW will let this go on.
The thing is that this is a kinda frustrating army to play against but its not really that overwhelmingly good. Maybe its good in some missions but if you play the CA18 missions (which we would all hope is what they balance against) not so much. Despite all the theoryhammer of CA18 missions being horde focussed the top tables of the last GT finals were pretty darned elite (mech Eldar vs mech Tau) and no hordes really got close. Horde armies are - and should be - viable but they are just not that dominating and the nearest thing to a dominant horde army is not guard anyway, its Daemons. If guard hordes are proving to be a major problem in ITC missions then I guess you need to look at the missions and rebalancing those with a few tweaks.
I would be far from upset if guardsmen went to 5ppm in CA19 but I also don't thing the game desperately needs it - so long as the game goes to 5 or 6 turns I am pretty confident that either of my armies (T'au and Crimson Fist Marines) could clear them out and grab the objectives I want to grab. Armies like that are unbeatable if you only play 3 turns but slow play is the problem there.
trouble
I'm having way more trouble with ig in gw missions because there is no downside to guardsmen without secondary missions. I'm usually out of marines by 5 or 6 anyway.
The trouble might be with Marines, not guard. Guard aren't running away with the tourney scene at the moment, most people can deal with them. Maybe you're not very good, or marines are not very good or both. I play against Guard in CA18 missions regularly and I've lost once due to a combination of (1) making stupid play mistakes (2) a run of extremely bad luck (my rangers didn't cause a single wound for 3 turns against a character on 1 wound left) and (3) not paying enough attention. None of those were a problem with guard I should jus tplay better and have more rest. If 1 and 3 hadn't been in play 2 wouldn't have mattered anyway. these are games at tournaments, big and small and torunament practise games alike.
zerosignal wrote: I'd like Marines to get some kind of drop pod assault rule. Perhaps a stratagem? Allowing you to drop in turn 1. With a points decrease on the pod.
Also, they could compensate for the general weakness of tac squads by giving them some great stratagems and perhaps a CP bonus?
Assault Doctrine (2CP) - choose a tactical squad. That squad may fight twice in the fight phase
Devastator Doctrine (2CP) - choose a tactical squad. Heavy Weapons in that squad may fire twice this turn and receives +1 to hit.
Tactical Doctrine (2CP) - choose a tactical squad. All bolt weapons in that squad may fire twice this turn.
Would this really be so insane? I mean, compared to some of the other general silliness in the game?
I don't think any of these things are individually insane, but implementing them all at once might run the risk of over swinging the pendulum.
As a Dark Angels player, I find that my "Greenwing," "men-of-the-line" don't often blow my mind with their performance, but I don't feel like they're terrible either. Having a brief look through this thread, I find it curious how many of the posts are about highlighting the general weakness of Space Marines when Necrons and Grey Knights seem to be in a far worse condition. I really think the majority of any balancing measures ought to focus on the ends of the spectrum while generally leaving the middle alone.
Necron really should get some sort of bolter drill type of improvment. And I don't mean the exact rule, but something that effects the army as a whole in a positive manner, and is generaly useful. No idea though what it could be.
Martel732 wrote: Still can't beat the 4 ppm elephant in the corner. There is no equipment that lets marines deal with 90-120 bodies that prevent movement. Sorry, 120 bodies that are only 1/4 of the enemy list.
A marine with a meltagun is 27 pts. That's insane for one shot.
Losing 100 models and shrugging is the ultimate counter in 8th ed. They were facilitating the Castellan not just with CP. I'm morbidly curious how long GW will let this go on.
Here's something I'm a little curious about.
Genestealer Cultists can bring, quite frankly, just a more efficient guard list to the table. Take a GSC detachment with 20-man 4ppm Brood Brothers squads as troops, Patriarch who grants a fearless aura to all those 20-man guard squads and pair it with a supreme command with a Shadowsword, Company Commanders (to FRFSRF the 20-man blob units), Tank Commanders, and a primaris psyker to cast Nightshroud. Take Aberrant bombs, kelermorph, and whatever other GSC stuff to taste.
To me, that just seems to be a better pure guard list than guard can bring. So, why has that style of list not shown up in any of the competitive GSC lists we've seen? Why have no brood brothers at all shown up - GSC is literally a faction where your choices for troops are a glass cannon deep striking melee unit, and "the most OP troop choice in the game, but with twice the unit size cap". Surely if melee is unmitigated garbage and guardsmen are the most OP thing since sliced bread we should see at least SOME brood brothers.
There is the Dallas open where GSC did it with 5 point troops, not even 4.
Plus you will be happy to note that since the last Faq you can no longer order GSC Brood Brothers so you know, GW actually nerfed the thing your afraid of.
...Yes you can?
Q: Are units in Brood Brothers Detachments restricted from
using Regimental Orders, or all orders?
A: They cannot use Regimental Orders, but can use other
orders. Note the errata above that further clarified which
units these orders can and cannot be issued to.
Also, that list is a whole lot closer to what I thought GSC lists would be post-codex, admittedly not with the neophytes but pretty close. Those are some super cool lists though! A Tau list with Breachers and Aunshi?
zerosignal wrote: I'd like Marines to get some kind of drop pod assault rule. Perhaps a stratagem? Allowing you to drop in turn 1. With a points decrease on the pod.
Also, they could compensate for the general weakness of tac squads by giving them some great stratagems and perhaps a CP bonus?
Assault Doctrine (2CP) - choose a tactical squad. That squad may fight twice in the fight phase
Devastator Doctrine (2CP) - choose a tactical squad. Heavy Weapons in that squad may fire twice this turn and receives +1 to hit.
Tactical Doctrine (2CP) - choose a tactical squad. All bolt weapons in that squad may fire twice this turn.
Would this really be so insane? I mean, compared to some of the other general silliness in the game?
I don't think any of these things are individually insane, but implementing them all at once might run the risk of over swinging the pendulum.
As a Dark Angels player, I find that my "Greenwing," "men-of-the-line" don't often blow my mind with their performance, but I don't feel like they're terrible either. Having a brief look through this thread, I find it curious how many of the posts are about highlighting the general weakness of Space Marines when Necrons and Grey Knights seem to be in a far worse condition. I really think the majority of any balancing measures ought to focus on the ends of the spectrum while generally leaving the middle alone.
BA primary lists are now losing more than necrons or gk at 34%. DA and SW clock in at 40%. They are close to terrible, if not already there.
Martel732 wrote: Still can't beat the 4 ppm elephant in the corner. There is no equipment that lets marines deal with 90-120 bodies that prevent movement. Sorry, 120 bodies that are only 1/4 of the enemy list.
A marine with a meltagun is 27 pts. That's insane for one shot.
Losing 100 models and shrugging is the ultimate counter in 8th ed. They were facilitating the Castellan not just with CP. I'm morbidly curious how long GW will let this go on.
The thing is that this is a kinda frustrating army to play against but its not really that overwhelmingly good. Maybe its good in some missions but if you play the CA18 missions (which we would all hope is what they balance against) not so much. Despite all the theoryhammer of CA18 missions being horde focussed the top tables of the last GT finals were pretty darned elite (mech Eldar vs mech Tau) and no hordes really got close. Horde armies are - and should be - viable but they are just not that dominating and the nearest thing to a dominant horde army is not guard anyway, its Daemons. If guard hordes are proving to be a major problem in ITC missions then I guess you need to look at the missions and rebalancing those with a few tweaks.
I would be far from upset if guardsmen went to 5ppm in CA19 but I also don't thing the game desperately needs it - so long as the game goes to 5 or 6 turns I am pretty confident that either of my armies (T'au and Crimson Fist Marines) could clear them out and grab the objectives I want to grab. Armies like that are unbeatable if you only play 3 turns but slow play is the problem there.
trouble
I'm having way more trouble with ig in gw missions because there is no downside to guardsmen without secondary missions. I'm usually out of marines by 5 or 6 anyway.
The trouble might be with Marines, not guard. Guard aren't running away with the tourney scene at the moment, most people can deal with them. Maybe you're not very good, or marines are not very good or both. I play against Guard in CA18 missions regularly and I've lost once due to a combination of (1) making stupid play mistakes (2) a run of extremely bad luck (my rangers didn't cause a single wound for 3 turns against a character on 1 wound left) and (3) not paying enough attention. None of those were a problem with guard I should jus tplay better and have more rest. If 1 and 3 hadn't been in play 2 wouldn't have mattered anyway. these are games at tournaments, big and small and torunament practise games alike.
It's a perfect storm of a combination of both the design choices made with the Guard codex and the allies rules as they are.
With fly having been reversed the ability to actually hurt certain units via bypass the guard wall better.
Alsoi genuinely don't think anyone beside maybe 2 or 3 people have actually spent any time trying to maximise a pure guard list to win a tournament. Most people have relied on the allies crutch for guard so far.
But the amount of firepower a guard list can put down is rediculous especially when compaired to other factions, like Tau quite often loose out on raw firepower to guard. It takes a lot of shenanigans via CP and Strategums to claw back games.
Buffing Guard in anyway without buffing everything else in the game would be terrible for interfaction balance.
I still believe Necron Gauss weapons should do Mortal Wounds on a wound roll of a 6.
All the fluff states how terrible it must be to have molecule thick layers peeled from your body when struck by Gauss. Currently they don't even have special rules, just a -1 AP...
Lord Clinto wrote: I still believe Necron Gauss weapons should do Mortal Wounds on a wound roll of a 6.
All the fluff states how terrible it must be to have molecule thick layers peeled from your body when struck by Gauss. Currently they don't even have special rules, just a -1 AP...
I'm gonna say that's a hard no from me...Unless it's like specifically against vehicles/monsters, as a replacement for their previous "auto glance on a six" rule.
We don't need more ways to make weapons a million times better at killing elite infantry than basic goobers.
Automatically Appended Next Post: For the record, 28% is worse than *I* thought it would be for non-ITC.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lord Clinto wrote: I still believe Necron Gauss weapons should do Mortal Wounds on a wound roll of a 6.
All the fluff states how terrible it must be to have molecule thick layers peeled from your body when struck by Gauss. Currently they don't even have special rules, just a -1 AP...
Yeah, the factions with mini-grenade launchers that are AP 0 aren't going to be very sympathetic.
Martel732 wrote: All types of tournaments. I think ba do better in itc but not by much. Id have to filter the data.
Ok, well, I think it's pretty important to keep in mind that the FAQ is 9 days old and literally no major would have adopted it for the weekend of the 4th. Working with stale data won't help us.
There is also a deeper issue of what defines a primary and what is actually being taken in them as well as the types of missions being player to truly understand whatever dynamic is at play. Just looking at a win percentage by a forced metric tells us nothing about the viability of the army. There is a point where an army slips into the "Grey Knight Syndrome" and no one tries to do anything novel with the army save for a few brave souls.
This whole meta dynamic at Majors is predicated on the thought processes of people attending tournaments. They take their points from other people nearby trying to be as hard as they can. What lists will show depends on who flinches first. If a core keeps bringing Castellans then all the surrounding lists will be adjusting to meet it.
Will Castellan lists actually go away?
What are the Ynnari players going to do?
Are assassins a thing? Will they reduce the power of character dependent armies or force more transports and bodyguards?
Is Daemon Engine spam viable? Is it scary enough to make the Castellan second guess it's existence?
...and so on...
I realize the FAQ made non-trivial changes. But I can tell you from banging my head now for a while that power armor melee just doesn't work out mathematically. You run out power armor before anyone who's any good runs out of dum dums. The dum dums are too durable per point OR the power armor isn't killy enough per point OR the power armor isn't durable enough per point.
The fly thing doesn't really address straight up losing the attrition war. Mixing in primaris can shift the numbers, but the fact that the gravis units are easily killed by lasguns is a serioius problem.
Martel732 wrote: I realize the FAQ made non-trivial changes. But I can tell you from banging my head now for a while that power armor melee just doesn't work out mathematically. You run out power armor before anyone who's any good runs out of dum dums. The dum dums are too durable per point OR the power armor isn't killy enough per point OR the power armor isn't durable enough per point.
The fly thing doesn't really address straight up losing the attrition war. Mixing in primaris can shift the numbers, but the fact that the gravis units are easily killed by lasguns is a serioius problem.
Martel732 wrote: That's an interesting specific fix. Now for the other 5 codices or so with power armor problems...
This is why I really think some should go away...
I guess that you will see more marines anyways, the new beta rule is great, and for CSM the only cheaper usefull alternative now is R&H which is not really an option except for CP, which however is done again better by RC, so yes Chaos side wise you will see more squads, mostly MSU but also maybee the odd skew list.
Lord Clinto wrote: I still believe Necron Gauss weapons should do Mortal Wounds on a wound roll of a 6.
All the fluff states how terrible it must be to have molecule thick layers peeled from your body when struck by Gauss. Currently they don't even have special rules, just a -1 AP...
That would make them the most broken army in the game with a snap of the finger. How about no.
Martel732 wrote: I realize the FAQ made non-trivial changes. But I can tell you from banging my head now for a while that power armor melee just doesn't work out mathematically. You run out power armor before anyone who's any good runs out of dum dums. The dum dums are too durable per point OR the power armor isn't killy enough per point OR the power armor isn't durable enough per point.
The fly thing doesn't really address straight up losing the attrition war. Mixing in primaris can shift the numbers, but the fact that the gravis units are easily killed by lasguns is a serioius problem.
I'd say marines are dead this edition/forever (since this is supposed to be a living rule set) unless drastic changes are made to multiple codes not just marines specifically
Martel732 wrote: That's an interesting specific fix. Now for the other 5 codices or so with power armor problems...
This is why I really think some should go away...
Well, looking at that Dallas Open tournament some more it seems like Power Armor > Cultists seems to be a thing in chaos lists. 7 squads of rubrics in that winning Thousand Sons list, and it looks like this tournament was even before the FAQ that significantly buffed them by removing their annoying little tendency to firecracker when they Perils.
So that seems to be Thousand Sons down, Deathwatch down, CSMs possibly down (Hearing lots of rumbling about how good CSM squads are now in a lot of different configurations). It seems like even you are slowly migrating towards "Power armored melee can never work" from "power armor can never work."
Martel732 wrote: That's an interesting specific fix. Now for the other 5 codices or so with power armor problems...
This is why I really think some should go away...
Well, looking at that Dallas Open tournament some more it seems like Power Armor > Cultists seems to be a thing in chaos lists. 7 squads of rubrics in that winning Thousand Sons list, and it looks like this tournament was even before the FAQ that significantly buffed them by removing their annoying little tendency to firecracker when they Perils.
So that seems to be Thousand Sons down, Deathwatch down, CSMs possibly down (Hearing lots of rumbling about how good CSM squads are now in a lot of different configurations). It seems like even you are slowly migrating towards "Power armored melee can never work" from "power armor can never work."
You can make a CSM unit work by buffing it out the wazzo with prayers (new uncounterable spells). Ofc they would always be better on something like...Noise marines. You can bring a 20 man marine squad back to life with a strat though. It has very little to do with the units themselves. Choas has just become absurdly good at buffing their units.
These are significant deviations from standard power armor dudes though.
In basically index 40k it worked. Before every other army got actual rules / points drops/ and basically every unit used in that build nerfed. Strom ravens / AC Razors/ G man - all nerfed.
It's almost like relative power level is a thing based on this thing called points.
Martel732 wrote: I realize the FAQ made non-trivial changes. But I can tell you from banging my head now for a while that power armor melee just doesn't work out mathematically. You run out power armor before anyone who's any good runs out of dum dums. The dum dums are too durable per point OR the power armor isn't killy enough per point OR the power armor isn't durable enough per point.
The fly thing doesn't really address straight up losing the attrition war. Mixing in primaris can shift the numbers, but the fact that the gravis units are easily killed by lasguns is a serioius problem.
When we sit down and do math we always assume scenarios at parity, but that's not the case on the table.
170 points of intercessors (and bubble support) at 30" kill 20 GEQ when you make them vets and double tap. That, in reality, is something like 3 squads effectively gone and a large section of the board cleared out. Those IS, if deployment went well, can't all strike back if they're in 2 ranks.
But what about Disintegrators? Surely they'll wipe such a large unit of Intercessors? That's the beauty of combat squadding. Versus one army you make the most of force multipliers and versus another you split up and make it harder for them to bring units down. And what's more you can get a 5+++ with an ancient for primaris (and a 5++ if you feel like taking that spell).
Lord Clinto wrote: I still believe Necron Gauss weapons should do Mortal Wounds on a wound roll of a 6.
All the fluff states how terrible it must be to have molecule thick layers peeled from your body when struck by Gauss. Currently they don't even have special rules, just a -1 AP...
A lot of things that used to do more have no rules.
Skitarii Rangers used to get Precision Shots on 6s with their Galvanic Rifles. Transauranic Arquebi used to roll 2D6 and add it together for Armour Penetration(incidentally, the reasoning for this was great...but it wasn't applied to fighting Monstrous/Gargantuan Monstrous Creatures and caused a weapon that was supposed to be equally effective against Big Things of all types, only was great against vehicles) because of their Armourbane rule.
Hopefully if/when Necrons get Gauss revisited, it's like the Infiltrator's Bolt Carbines. Hit rolls of 6s automatically hit and wound, no rolling necessary, but it's not a Mortal Wound so saves can still be taken.
Martel732 wrote: I realize the FAQ made non-trivial changes. But I can tell you from banging my head now for a while that power armor melee just doesn't work out mathematically. You run out power armor before anyone who's any good runs out of dum dums. The dum dums are too durable per point OR the power armor isn't killy enough per point OR the power armor isn't durable enough per point.
The fly thing doesn't really address straight up losing the attrition war. Mixing in primaris can shift the numbers, but the fact that the gravis units are easily killed by lasguns is a serioius problem.
When we sit down and do math we always assume scenarios at parity, but that's not the case on the table.
170 points of intercessors (and bubble support) at 30" kill 20 GEQ when you make them vets and double tap. That, in reality, is something like 3 squads effectively gone and a large section of the board cleared out. Those IS, if deployment went well, can't all strike back if they're in 2 ranks.
But what about Disintegrators? Surely they'll wipe such a large unit of Intercessors? That's the beauty of combat squadding. Versus one army you make the most of force multipliers and versus another you split up and make it harder for them to bring units down. And what's more you can get a 5+++ with an ancient for primaris (and a 5++ if you feel like taking that spell).
I'm aware that vet intercessors are one of the best units for killing geq now. BA don't get them, of course. I am in the progress in putting intercessors and infiltrators in all my lists instead of the 1W counterparts.
If I'm using shield of sanguinius, I'll probably still want the squad of 10. Combat squadding doesn't help when the ravagers can just split fire weapon by weapon.
I'm aware that vet intercessors are one of the best units for killing geq now. BA don't get them, of course. I am in the progress in putting intercessors and infiltrators in all my lists instead of the 1W counterparts.
If I'm using shield of sanguinius, I'll probably still want the squad of 10. Combat squadding doesn't help when the ravagers can just split fire weapon by weapon.
I've never seen a restriction for BA not getting Indomitus. Where is that?
I'm aware that vet intercessors are one of the best units for killing geq now. BA don't get them, of course. I am in the progress in putting intercessors and infiltrators in all my lists instead of the 1W counterparts.
If I'm using shield of sanguinius, I'll probably still want the squad of 10. Combat squadding doesn't help when the ravagers can just split fire weapon by weapon.
I've never seen a restriction for BA not getting Indomitus. Where is that?
Vigilus Defiant designer's commentary:
Q: Is a Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves or
Deathwatch Detachment also a Space Marines Detachment?
A: No. As defined in Codex: Space Marines, a Space
Marines Detachment is a Detachment that only includes
units with one of the following Faction keywords:
<Chapter>, Ultramarines, Imperial Fists,
Salamanders, White Scars, Raven Guard, Iron
Hands, Crimson Fists or Black Templars.
To be honest, Space Marines now have 4 troop choices. I find it hard to cry for Tactical Marines.
Intercessors are decent, and scouts are good. Of some note, I don't think one should go all-in on intercessors, they're too expensive to be hiding on backfield objectives out of Line of Sight, but they're very good at mowing down infantry [and light vehicles] in standoff, and fairly good at pushing forward to secure the board middle. I'm warming up on them, at least. The extra 6" of range can be leveraged very effectively, especially against GEQ armies. They actually survive tank gun fire alarmingly well, too.
Scouts are crap. I was sucked into the 15 scouts + smash paradigm for a long time.
11 points is too much for a 1 W model with a 4+ save. And, more importantly, only having a 3+ in cover. They bleed ITC points and kill points. The scout paradigm partially explains the 34% rate for BA players, imo. Based off the FB page, most of them buy into it.
Hopefully if/when Necrons get Gauss revisited, it's like the Infiltrator's Bolt Carbines. Hit rolls of 6s automatically hit and wound, no rolling necessary, but it's not a Mortal Wound so saves can still be taken.
I like auto-wounding on a 6+ (on par with Tesla, has the synergies with Necron buffs, etc etc.), as that solves one of the two main issues with the codex (Troops getting their anti-tank back) but it does make Gauss Immortals look even sadder in the face of Tesla AND Necron Warriors.
The big white Seraptek in the room is that Reanimation Protocols are oppressive in <1500pt games, literal fluff in >1500pt games, and baked into the costs of half of our "mandatory" units. I've never really wanted to go back to a boring 5+++ because actually reanimating your units is really cool, but at this point I'm not sure.
Martel732 wrote: Scouts are crap. I was sucked into the 15 scouts + smash paradigm for a long time.
11 points is too much for a 1 W model with a 4+ save. And, more importantly, only having a 3+ in cover. They bleed ITC points and kill points. The scout paradigm partially explains the 34% rate for BA players, imo. Based off the FB page, most of them buy into it.
This stems from the belief of minimizing all costs to get max CP and spend points elsewhere. It's a bad decision when they could have spent on more useful setups for troop slots and made the rest of the list work with them.
It was the same gak with cultists. 10 man cultists don't do anything. Ever. If you don't have the points and need to fill a 3rd troop spot? Great. Otherwise don't use them unless you're going to push them forward as a 30 man with tons of support.
Lord Clinto wrote: I still believe Necron Gauss weapons should do Mortal Wounds on a wound roll of a 6.
All the fluff states how terrible it must be to have molecule thick layers peeled from your body when struck by Gauss. Currently they don't even have special rules, just a -1 AP...
I'm gonna say that's a hard no from me...Unless it's like specifically against vehicles/monsters, as a replacement for their previous "auto glance on a six" rule.
We don't need more ways to make weapons a million times better at killing elite infantry than basic goobers.
I would be fine with it only working on vehicles.
Full-on Gauss weapon strikes are usually portrayed, situationaly at least, as being as effective at penetrating adamantium as they are at slicing through flesh.
Martel732 wrote: By elsewhere, it's usually IG or IK, or both. We can already get 5 CP for ~200 pts, there's no reason to bring the scouts.
Some sort of stigma about being pure. I plan on a Red Corsairs battalion almost all of the time now. I use armigers often as well. People need to get over their soup aversion.
Automatically Appended Next Post: For the record, 28% is worse than *I* thought it would be for non-ITC.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lord Clinto wrote: I still believe Necron Gauss weapons should do Mortal Wounds on a wound roll of a 6.
All the fluff states how terrible it must be to have molecule thick layers peeled from your body when struck by Gauss. Currently they don't even have special rules, just a -1 AP...
Yeah, the factions with mini-grenade launchers that are AP 0 aren't going to be very sympathetic.
Super interesting...
No other marine force has anywhere near the same gap between BA as Primary and faction win % from including them as secondary. We know they have a capable super combo - just need better ways to support it.
Martel732 wrote: All types of tournaments. I think ba do better in itc but not by much. Id have to filter the data.
Ok, well, I think it's pretty important to keep in mind that the FAQ is 9 days old and literally no major would have adopted it for the weekend of the 4th. Working with stale data won't help us.
False, Canadian Tabletop Championship in Ottawa ran it the weekend of the 4th. Big names attended that Major, too.
BA are good in melee for sure, as are Custodes and Chaos Astartes.
Tau are bad in cc. Why should all power armour armies be effective in CC? I don't subscribe to the idea that any faction should be viable in any tactic.
I think people need to decide what they want from an army and chose the appropriate one. I don't expect Ultramarines to ever be as good in cc as Blood Angels. I wouldn't ever complain about it either.
Martel732 wrote: Smash capt is a crutch that fails vs targets with an invuln save. Hardly good enough to prop up an entire codex.
that i agree with, a codex should not have one combo circling around one unit and be called good.
It's obviously not with a 34% win rate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ishagu wrote: BA are good in melee for sure, as are Custodes and Chaos Astartes.
Tau are bad in cc. Why should all power armour armies be effective in CC? I don't subscribe to the idea that any faction should be viable in any tactic.
I think people need to decide what they want from an army and chose the appropriate one. I don't expect Ultramarines to ever be as good in cc as Blood Angels. I wouldn't ever complain about it either.
Actually, BA AREN'T good in CC. That's kind of the problem. Smash capt is good in CC.
Martel732 wrote: Smash capt is a crutch that fails vs targets with an invuln save. Hardly good enough to prop up an entire codex.
that i agree with, a codex should not have one combo circling around one unit and be called good.
It's obviously not with a 34% win rate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ishagu wrote: BA are good in melee for sure, as are Custodes and Chaos Astartes.
Tau are bad in cc. Why should all power armour armies be effective in CC? I don't subscribe to the idea that any faction should be viable in any tactic.
I think people need to decide what they want from an army and chose the appropriate one. I don't expect Ultramarines to ever be as good in cc as Blood Angels. I wouldn't ever complain about it either.
Actually, BA AREN'T good in CC. That's kind of the problem. Smash capt is good in CC.
Nah, I think you're playing them wrong.
Are they the best cc army? Nah.
Are they good in cc? Yeah
Martel732 wrote: Smash capt is a crutch that fails vs targets with an invuln save. Hardly good enough to prop up an entire codex.
that i agree with, a codex should not have one combo circling around one unit and be called good.
Nobody called it good.
I pointed out that Smash Caps bring to BA a super combo that these data suggest is more valuable outside of a BA force than it is inside one. So, one of the ways to address this variance is to either reduce power of that super combo, which would drop the faction win % much closer to its primary win %, or include ways to support that combo (and the playstyle it epitomizes) across the entirety of the faction by providing mono-Codex access to similar tools they rely on when they're mixed into something else.
And Martel - whining about invuln saves? Not every unit is supposed to be effective against everything. That's why the Smash Captain is never the primary source of threat in these soup lists - it is ONE good piece used to solve a problem. Right now, BA don't have the ability to support the delivery, manage the loss, or capitalize on the success of that big piece. I thought you played this faction, man!
But outright removing them from the game? Seems a tad overkill. We see how pieces of the faction can be successful - far more than any other marine force. With proper attention, the whole faction can find success.
Martel732 wrote: Smash capt is a crutch that fails vs targets with an invuln save. Hardly good enough to prop up an entire codex.
that i agree with, a codex should not have one combo circling around one unit and be called good.
It's obviously not with a 34% win rate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ishagu wrote: BA are good in melee for sure, as are Custodes and Chaos Astartes.
Tau are bad in cc. Why should all power armour armies be effective in CC? I don't subscribe to the idea that any faction should be viable in any tactic.
I think people need to decide what they want from an army and chose the appropriate one. I don't expect Ultramarines to ever be as good in cc as Blood Angels. I wouldn't ever complain about it either.
Actually, BA AREN'T good in CC. That's kind of the problem. Smash capt is good in CC.
Nah, I think you're playing them wrong.
Are they the best cc army? Nah.
Are they good in cc? Yeah
I think you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to BA.
Martel732 wrote: Smash capt is a crutch that fails vs targets with an invuln save. Hardly good enough to prop up an entire codex.
that i agree with, a codex should not have one combo circling around one unit and be called good.
Nobody called it good.
I pointed out that Smash Caps bring to BA a super combo that these data suggest is more valuable outside of a BA force than it is inside one. So, one of the ways to address this variance is to either reduce power of that super combo, which would drop the faction win % much closer to its primary win %, or include ways to support that combo (and the playstyle it epitomizes) across the entirety of the faction by providing mono-Codex access to similar tools they rely on when they're mixed into something else.
And Martel - whining about invuln saves? Not every unit is supposed to be effective against everything. That's why the Smash Captain is never the primary source of threat in these soup lists - it is ONE good piece used to solve a problem. Right now, BA don't have the ability to support the delivery, manage the loss, or capitalize on the success of that big piece. I thought you played this faction, man!
But outright removing them from the game? Seems a tad overkill. We see how pieces of the faction can be successful - far more than any other marine force. With proper attention, the whole faction can find success.
I'm not whining about it. I don't even like smash capts. I hate them as concept. But everyone acts like they are a delete button. They are not in many cases.
False, Canadian Tabletop Championship in Ottawa ran it the weekend of the 4th. Big names attended that Major, too.
Sooo what did they do with people who suddenly had models that cost 100 points more?
You had to resubmit your lists, duh. Not that hard here, bub.
Did they use WD Ynnari?
No.
There is no way it is reflective of any thoughtful consideration of the FAQ changes.
How could this be said with a straight face?
Top 4 winners were TJ Lanigan, Nick Nanavati, Jason Sparks, and Jim Vesal. The literal who's who of 40k ITC right now, and you don't think they considered the impact of the FAQ...
False, Canadian Tabletop Championship in Ottawa ran it the weekend of the 4th. Big names attended that Major, too.
Sooo what did they do with people who suddenly had models that cost 100 points more?
You had to resubmit your lists, duh. Not that hard here, bub.
Did they use WD Ynnari?
No.
There is no way it is reflective of any thoughtful consideration of the FAQ changes.
How could this be said with a straight face?
Top 4 winners were TJ Lanigan, Nick Nanavati, Jason Sparks, and Jim Vesal. The literal who's who of 40k ITC right now, and you don't think they considered the impact of the FAQ...
Absolute nonsense.
Usually people don't have models ready to go when a tournament is 5 days away. Players like the top can capitalize on the changes pretty easily, but it's quite likely very few people got any reasonable amount of test plays with the updates before this tournament ran. Most importantly - those people you mentioned have the *time* to deal with that. The rest of the community does not.
Ultimately it's STILL not a good view of the result of the FAQs.
Nick didn't run Orks who got nerfed, so there's a big indicator right there that he dropped them instead of figuring out how to make them work.
I'm not whining about it. I don't even like smash capts. I hate them as concept. But everyone acts like they are a delete button. They are not in many cases.
A highly aggressive, mobile, blood thirsty unit that rushes head first into hard targets and punches a hole into them as fast as possible. There's nothing more BA than that.
It sounds like the problem you have with the smash captain is its reputation in soup lists rather than how it literally screams Blood Angels in theme and design.
And as such, if that design does not appeal to you, then perhaps the entire army is not your style. Might be worth considering that before suggesting the whole thing be squatted in a fit of impotent rage. I totally get the frustration you feel when your chosen faction isn't being represented on the top tables the way you want it to be. But we've seen a variety of factions rise and fall in just the short time 8th edition has been active. There is truly no reason to think squatting these factions would solve anything - it would be highly unpopular and achieve none of the goals we all want - a faction that can compete at all levels of the game.
Ultimately it's STILL not a good view of the result of the FAQs.
Nick didn't run Orks who got nerfed, so there's a big indicator right there that he dropped them instead of figuring out how to make them work.
So you at once argue that it was too soon for decisions made in light of the FAQ, and at the same time come up with an example of a decision you think was made in light of the FAQ. Make up your mind, buddy. Finding it hard to understand your position here. But the point I'm making here is that you're wrong.
Look, I get it - you aren't comfortable admitting you were wrong. That's fine. Hey, a Major ITC tournament did use the FAQ, despite you definitively claiming it didn't happen, and hey, there actually is some value in analyzing that instead of dismissing it entirely, like you claim we should.
I fear your back will start to hurt if you keep having to move those goalposts, though - so I'll give you an out. I think it's woefully shortsighted and misguided to avoid useful information that gives us the literal starting point of whatever this new meta shift will be. But if you want to, feel free to ignore it - just make sure you point out you're intentionally ignoring live data when you make your next wild, factually inaccurate claim in the very near future.
I'm sure it's been said before but what about putting an actual limit on SM Scouts?
Perspective:
'Codex' Space Marine Chapter 'Blarg' in a perfectly ideal condition:
+/- 900 full-fledged Space Marines in nine 100-marine companies.
+/- 100 Acolytes (aka Scouts) in one training company.
So why not make it so that if you want a squad of Scouts in your force make them 1 per SMTac squad?
Yes, for the few people that would scream "aN aLL ScOUt FoRCE is TaCTicaLLy AcCePTablE!", provide a 'Vigilus' detachment specifically for "Scout" forces. Just give them special taxes/restrictions, like: "6+ Scout squads" or 'May not be taken in the same army as a Super Heavy Auxiliary and/or Supreme Command".
Ultimately it's STILL not a good view of the result of the FAQs.
Nick didn't run Orks who got nerfed, so there's a big indicator right there that he dropped them instead of figuring out how to make them work.
So you at once argue that the it was too soon for decisions made in light of the FAQ, and at the same time come up with an example of a decision made in light of the FAQ. Make up your mind, buddy. Finding it hard to understand your position here. But the point I'm making here is that you're wrong. And you refuse to accept it.
Look, I get it - you aren't comfortable admitting you were wrong. That's fine. Hey, a Major ITC tournament did use the FAQ, despite you definitively claiming it was impossible, and hey, there actually is some value in analyzing that instead of dismissing it entirely, like you claim we should.
I fear your back will start to hurt if you keep having to move those goalposts. I think it's woefully shortsighted and misguided to avoid useful information that gives us the literal starting point of whatever this new meta shift will be. You can feel free to ignore it - just make sure you point out you're intentionally ignoring actual data when you make your next wild, factually inaccurate claim in the very near future.
Tell me what value there is over analyzing a tournament where people dumped their usual armies and Ynnari took 3rd place?
I know you want to be Dwight from The Office and win on a technicality, but it's kind of gak. Five days is in no way a meaningful lead up for most armies to address the changes especially when not all the changes were put in place.
Martel732 wrote: Still can't beat the 4 ppm elephant in the corner. There is no equipment that lets marines deal with 90-120 bodies that prevent movement. Sorry, 120 bodies that are only 1/4 of the enemy list.
A marine with a meltagun is 27 pts. That's insane for one shot.
Losing 100 models and shrugging is the ultimate counter in 8th ed. They were facilitating the Castellan not just with CP. I'm morbidly curious how long GW will let this go on.
Here's something I'm a little curious about.
Genestealer Cultists can bring, quite frankly, just a more efficient guard list to the table. Take a GSC detachment with 20-man 4ppm Brood Brothers squads as troops, Patriarch who grants a fearless aura to all those 20-man guard squads and pair it with a supreme command with a Shadowsword, Company Commanders (to FRFSRF the 20-man blob units), Tank Commanders, and a primaris psyker to cast Nightshroud. Take Aberrant bombs, kelermorph, and whatever other GSC stuff to taste.
To me, that just seems to be a better pure guard list than guard can bring. So, why has that style of list not shown up in any of the competitive GSC lists we've seen? Why have no brood brothers at all shown up - GSC is literally a faction where your choices for troops are a glass cannon deep striking melee unit, and "the most OP troop choice in the game, but with twice the unit size cap". Surely if melee is unmitigated garbage and guardsmen are the most OP thing since sliced bread we should see at least SOME brood brothers.
There is the Dallas open where GSC did it with 5 point troops, not even 4.
Plus you will be happy to note that since the last Faq you can no longer order GSC Brood Brothers so you know, GW actually nerfed the thing your afraid of.
...Yes you can?
Q: Are units in Brood Brothers Detachments restricted from
using Regimental Orders, or all orders?
A: They cannot use Regimental Orders, but can use other
orders. Note the errata above that further clarified which
units these orders can and cannot be issued to.
Also, that list is a whole lot closer to what I thought GSC lists would be post-codex, admittedly not with the neophytes but pretty close. Those are some super cool lists though! A Tau list with Breachers and Aunshi?
From the 29/4 faq update
Add the following paragraphs to the end of the Brood
Brothers rules:
‘Orders
Brood Brothers units that have the Voice of
Command or Tank Orders abilities (see Codex: Astra
Militarum) cannot issue orders to any unit that has the
Genestealer Cults Faction keyword, nor can they
issue orders to units that they would not have been
able to issue orders to before they gained the Brood
Brothers keyword (e.g. a Brood Brothers Company
Commander cannot issue orders to a Brood Brothers
Ogryn unit or to a Brood Brothers Tempestus
Scions unit).
And Brood Brother units from the GSC codex have the GSC faction keyword. So cannot be ordered.
So nope, you can't anymore.
Lord Clinto wrote: I'm sure it's been said before but what about putting an actual limit on SM Scouts?
Perspective:
'Codex' Space Marine Chapter 'Blarg' in a perfectly ideal condition:
+/- 900 full-fledged Space Marines in nine 100-marine companies.
+/- 100 Acolytes (aka Scouts) in one training company.
So why not make it so that if you want a squad of Scouts in your force make them 1 per SMTac squad?
Yes, for the few people that would scream "aN aLL ScOUt FoRCE is TaCTicaLLy AcCePTablE!", provide a 'Vigilus' detachment specifically for "Scout" forces. Just give them special taxes/restrictions, like: "6+ Scout squads" or 'May not be taken in the same army as a Super Heavy Auxiliary and/or Supreme Command".
Why do you feel the need to tax scouts with having to take a unit of dead weight that is tac marines just to unlock them?
You'd get more support being honest about your motivation and just suggesting that GW squats marine's.
Ishagu wrote: BA are good in melee for sure, as are Custodes and Chaos Astartes.
Tau are bad in cc. Why should all power armour armies be effective in CC? I don't subscribe to the idea that any faction should be viable in any tactic.
I think people need to decide what they want from an army and chose the appropriate one. I don't expect Ultramarines to ever be as good in cc as Blood Angels. I wouldn't ever complain about it either.
Wouldn't you suspect the "generalist army" to not be one of the worst armies in CC? Marines lose to guardsmen in CC for crying out loud.
Ishagu wrote: BA are good in melee for sure, as are Custodes and Chaos Astartes.
Tau are bad in cc. Why should all power armour armies be effective in CC? I don't subscribe to the idea that any faction should be viable in any tactic.
I think people need to decide what they want from an army and chose the appropriate one. I don't expect Ultramarines to ever be as good in cc as Blood Angels. I wouldn't ever complain about it either.
Wouldn't you suspect the "generalist army" to not be one of the worst armies in CC? Marines lose to guardsmen in CC for crying out loud.
The old "Generalists are trash argument".
Marines are bad because they're designed to be good at everything, best at nothing.
Serpents are OP because while they're not the best at anything, they're good at everything.
Ishagu wrote: BA are good in melee for sure, as are Custodes and Chaos Astartes.
Tau are bad in cc. Why should all power armour armies be effective in CC? I don't subscribe to the idea that any faction should be viable in any tactic.
I think people need to decide what they want from an army and chose the appropriate one. I don't expect Ultramarines to ever be as good in cc as Blood Angels. I wouldn't ever complain about it either.
Wouldn't you suspect the "generalist army" to not be one of the worst armies in CC? Marines lose to guardsmen in CC for crying out loud.
The old "Generalists are trash argument".
Marines are bad because they're designed to be good at everything, best at nothing.
Serpents are OP because while they're not the best at anything, they're good at everything.
The problem is they aren't gernalist. They aren't good enough at anything to do anything well enough to make a difference.
For example. LEts just say armies were rated on a 5 star system with 5's being the best.
Marines would look like this.
Range Offense 4
CC 2
Mobility 2
Defense 2
Those aren't at all generalist. Straight 3's or 4's would be generalist.
Where as DE look like this - supposed to be fast glass cannons
Ranged offense 4
CC 3
Mobility 5
Defense 3.5
I see where you are coming from but the answer is they just aren't generalist enough. They are really only decent at shooting and suck at everything else. Basically Tau - but worse.
In the real world - generalist dominate. Because they do the job good enough.
Martel732 wrote: All types of tournaments. I think ba do better in itc but not by much. Id have to filter the data.
Ok, well, I think it's pretty important to keep in mind that the FAQ is 9 days old and literally no major would have adopted it for the weekend of the 4th. Working with stale data won't help us.
False, Canadian Tabletop Championship in Ottawa ran it the weekend of the 4th. Big names attended that Major, too.
That's a weird move - isn't there normally a grace period for new FAQs, Codexes (or whatever the plural is), etc? It used to be that there would be a cut-off date before the event - often 30 days - and anything released within that window wasn't used.
That's a weird move - isn't there normally a grace period for new FAQs, Codexes (or whatever the plural is), etc? It used to be that there would be a cut-off date before the event - often 30 days - and anything released within that window wasn't used.
Which is exactly the basis for my earlier statement. It's really completely unfair to many players who submitted their list 30 days ago and a TO allowing it really baffles the mind.
Ishagu wrote: BA are good in melee for sure, as are Custodes and Chaos Astartes.
Tau are bad in cc. Why should all power armour armies be effective in CC? I don't subscribe to the idea that any faction should be viable in any tactic.
I think people need to decide what they want from an army and chose the appropriate one. I don't expect Ultramarines to ever be as good in cc as Blood Angels. I wouldn't ever complain about it either.
Wouldn't you suspect the "generalist army" to not be one of the worst armies in CC? Marines lose to guardsmen in CC for crying out loud.
The old "Generalists are trash argument".
Marines are bad because they're designed to be good at everything, best at nothing.
Serpents are OP because while they're not the best at anything, they're good at everything.
The problem is they aren't gernalist. They aren't good enough at anything to do anything well enough to make a difference.
For example. LEts just say armies were rated on a 5 star system with 5's being the best.
Marines would look like this.
Range Offense 4
CC 2
Mobility 2
Defense 2
Those aren't at all generalist. Straight 3's or 4's would be generalist.
Where as DE look like this - supposed to be fast glass cannons
Ranged offense 4
CC 3
Mobility 5
Defense 3.5
I see where you are coming from but the answer is they just aren't generalist enough. They are really only decent at shooting and suck at everything else. Basically Tau - but worse.
In the real world - generalist dominate. Because they do the job good enough.
If an S3 T3 A1 Sv5+ Kabalite gets a 3 in CC, then surely a S4 T4 A1 Sv3+ Marine gets at least a 4.
And, likewise with defense, a Marine is clearly more durable than a Kabalite. Even later in the game with PfP buffs.
In CC, a Marine beats a:
-Scout
-Guardsman
-Vet
-Scion
-Storm Guardian
-Guardian Defender
-Dire Avenger
-Ranger (CWE)
-Ranger (AdMech)
-Vanguard (AdMech)
-Fire Warrior
-Kroot
-Necron Warrior
-Immortal
-Kabalite
-Shoota Boy
-Slugga Boy
-Grot
-Hormagaunt
-Termigaunt
In CC, a Marine loses to:
-Custode
-Tyranid Warrior
And not much else.
Roughly the same could be said about all the other stats - Marines are better than most other troops at CC, dakka, movement, and durability. They aren't the best at any one of those.
A Marine is certainly better than almost all other troops in CC. They're just not better per point.
The Marine is a generalist. And being a generalist isn't why they're bad. They're simply overcosted for what they get.
Ishagu wrote: BA are good in melee for sure, as are Custodes and Chaos Astartes.
Tau are bad in cc. Why should all power armour armies be effective in CC? I don't subscribe to the idea that any faction should be viable in any tactic.
I think people need to decide what they want from an army and chose the appropriate one. I don't expect Ultramarines to ever be as good in cc as Blood Angels. I wouldn't ever complain about it either.
Wouldn't you suspect the "generalist army" to not be one of the worst armies in CC? Marines lose to guardsmen in CC for crying out loud.
The old "Generalists are trash argument".
Marines are bad because they're designed to be good at everything, best at nothing.
Serpents are OP because while they're not the best at anything, they're good at everything.
The problem is they aren't gernalist. They aren't good enough at anything to do anything well enough to make a difference.
For example. LEts just say armies were rated on a 5 star system with 5's being the best.
Marines would look like this.
Range Offense 4
CC 2
Mobility 2
Defense 2
Those aren't at all generalist. Straight 3's or 4's would be generalist.
Where as DE look like this - supposed to be fast glass cannons
Ranged offense 4
CC 3
Mobility 5
Defense 3.5
I see where you are coming from but the answer is they just aren't generalist enough. They are really only decent at shooting and suck at everything else. Basically Tau - but worse.
In the real world - generalist dominate. Because they do the job good enough.
If an S3 T3 A1 Sv5+ Kabalite gets a 3 in CC, then surely a S4 T4 A1 Sv3+ Marine gets at least a 4.
And, likewise with defense, a Marine is clearly more durable than a Kabalite. Even later in the game with PfP buffs.
In CC, a Marine beats a:
-Scout
-Guardsman
-Vet
-Scion
-Storm Guardian
-Guardian Defender
-Dire Avenger
-Ranger (CWE)
-Ranger (AdMech)
-Vanguard (AdMech)
-Fire Warrior
-Kroot
-Necron Warrior
-Immortal
-Kabalite
-Shoota Boy
-Slugga Boy
-Grot
-Hormagaunt
-Termigaunt
In CC, a Marine loses to:
-Custode
-Tyranid Warrior
And not much else.
Roughly the same could be said about all the other stats - Marines are better than most other troops at CC, dakka, movement, and durability. They aren't the best at any one of those.
A Marine is certainly better than almost all other troops in CC. They're just not better per point.
The Marine is a generalist. And being a generalist isn't why they're bad. They're simply overcosted for what they get.
Which of those do they actually beat on a point for point even fight?
You can argue that they are just overcosted but at a certain point overcosted models cost you game's.
Overcosted is the same as underpowered. You are just arguing two sides of the same coin. There's just the faction that wants cheaper marines vs those who want them to remain and just be worth their points. Problem I see is how to do the second one.
Ishagu wrote: BA are good in melee for sure, as are Custodes and Chaos Astartes.
Tau are bad in cc. Why should all power armour armies be effective in CC? I don't subscribe to the idea that any faction should be viable in any tactic.
I think people need to decide what they want from an army and chose the appropriate one. I don't expect Ultramarines to ever be as good in cc as Blood Angels. I wouldn't ever complain about it either.
Wouldn't you suspect the "generalist army" to not be one of the worst armies in CC? Marines lose to guardsmen in CC for crying out loud.
The old "Generalists are trash argument".
Marines are bad because they're designed to be good at everything, best at nothing.
Serpents are OP because while they're not the best at anything, they're good at everything.
The problem is they aren't gernalist. They aren't good enough at anything to do anything well enough to make a difference.
For example. LEts just say armies were rated on a 5 star system with 5's being the best.
Marines would look like this.
Range Offense 4
CC 2
Mobility 2
Defense 2
Those aren't at all generalist. Straight 3's or 4's would be generalist.
Where as DE look like this - supposed to be fast glass cannons
Ranged offense 4
CC 3
Mobility 5
Defense 3.5
I see where you are coming from but the answer is they just aren't generalist enough. They are really only decent at shooting and suck at everything else. Basically Tau - but worse.
In the real world - generalist dominate. Because they do the job good enough.
If an S3 T3 A1 Sv5+ Kabalite gets a 3 in CC, then surely a S4 T4 A1 Sv3+ Marine gets at least a 4.
And, likewise with defense, a Marine is clearly more durable than a Kabalite. Even later in the game with PfP buffs.
In CC, a Marine beats a:
-Scout
-Guardsman
-Vet
-Scion
-Storm Guardian
-Guardian Defender
-Dire Avenger
-Ranger (CWE)
-Ranger (AdMech)
-Vanguard (AdMech)
-Fire Warrior
-Kroot
-Necron Warrior
-Immortal
-Kabalite
-Shoota Boy
-Slugga Boy
-Grot
-Hormagaunt
-Termigaunt
In CC, a Marine loses to:
-Custode
-Tyranid Warrior
And not much else.
Roughly the same could be said about all the other stats - Marines are better than most other troops at CC, dakka, movement, and durability. They aren't the best at any one of those.
A Marine is certainly better than almost all other troops in CC. They're just not better per point.
The Marine is a generalist. And being a generalist isn't why they're bad. They're simply overcosted for what they get.
Which of those do they actually beat on a point for point even fight?
At least
-Scout
-Scion
-Guardian Defender
-Dire Avenger
-Ranger (CWE)
-Fire Warrior
-Necron Warrior
-Immortal
-Grot
Not that short a list.
You can argue that they are just overcosted but at a certain point overcosted models cost you game's.
They certainly are overcosted. Never said they were competitive. Only that they're better at CC than most troops.
Ishagu wrote: BA are good in melee for sure, as are Custodes and Chaos Astartes.
Tau are bad in cc. Why should all power armour armies be effective in CC? I don't subscribe to the idea that any faction should be viable in any tactic.
I think people need to decide what they want from an army and chose the appropriate one. I don't expect Ultramarines to ever be as good in cc as Blood Angels. I wouldn't ever complain about it either.
Wouldn't you suspect the "generalist army" to not be one of the worst armies in CC? Marines lose to guardsmen in CC for crying out loud.
The old "Generalists are trash argument".
Marines are bad because they're designed to be good at everything, best at nothing.
Serpents are OP because while they're not the best at anything, they're good at everything.
The problem is they aren't gernalist. They aren't good enough at anything to do anything well enough to make a difference.
For example. LEts just say armies were rated on a 5 star system with 5's being the best.
Marines would look like this.
Range Offense 4
CC 2
Mobility 2
Defense 2
Those aren't at all generalist. Straight 3's or 4's would be generalist.
Where as DE look like this - supposed to be fast glass cannons
Ranged offense 4
CC 3
Mobility 5
Defense 3.5
I see where you are coming from but the answer is they just aren't generalist enough. They are really only decent at shooting and suck at everything else. Basically Tau - but worse.
In the real world - generalist dominate. Because they do the job good enough.
If an S3 T3 A1 Sv5+ Kabalite gets a 3 in CC, then surely a S4 T4 A1 Sv3+ Marine gets at least a 4.
And, likewise with defense, a Marine is clearly more durable than a Kabalite. Even later in the game with PfP buffs.
In CC, a Marine beats a:
-Scout
-Guardsman
-Vet
-Scion
-Storm Guardian
-Guardian Defender
-Dire Avenger
-Ranger (CWE)
-Ranger (AdMech)
-Vanguard (AdMech)
-Fire Warrior
-Kroot
-Necron Warrior
-Immortal
-Kabalite
-Shoota Boy
-Slugga Boy
-Grot
-Hormagaunt
-Termigaunt
In CC, a Marine loses to:
-Custode
-Tyranid Warrior
And not much else.
Roughly the same could be said about all the other stats - Marines are better than most other troops at CC, dakka, movement, and durability. They aren't the best at any one of those.
A Marine is certainly better than almost all other troops in CC. They're just not better per point.
The Marine is a generalist. And being a generalist isn't why they're bad. They're simply overcosted for what they get.
Which of those do they actually beat on a point for point even fight?
At least
-Scout
-Scion
-Guardian Defender
-Dire Avenger
-Ranger (CWE)
-Fire Warrior
-Necron Warrior
-Immortal
-Grot
Not that short a list.
You can argue that they are just overcosted but at a certain point overcosted models cost you game's.
They certainly are overcosted. Never said they were competitive. Only that they're better at CC than most troops.
It's certainly a lot shorter list though and loops back to why take them when you can go full cheese with the 32? Marines have nothing competitive in the troop slot, along with a few other slots.
False, Canadian Tabletop Championship in Ottawa ran it the weekend of the 4th. Big names attended that Major, too.
Sooo what did they do with people who suddenly had models that cost 100 points more?
You had to resubmit your lists, duh. Not that hard here, bub.
Did they use WD Ynnari?
No.
There is no way it is reflective of any thoughtful consideration of the FAQ changes.
How could this be said with a straight face?
Top 4 winners were TJ Lanigan, Nick Nanavati, Jason Sparks, and Jim Vesal. The literal who's who of 40k ITC right now, and you don't think they considered the impact of the FAQ...
Absolute nonsense.
Which is utterly irrelevant if not EVERYONE ELSE did. The true effects of FAQs like this take a while to shake out. Taking the first major after it drops as gospel is very shortsighted.
The meta will shift over time and may end up in a place where Castellan lists are still really strong, or may be pushed out by more people bringing things like shadowswords that used to be crowded out, but now have a legitimate shot at one-shotting a Castellan.
We won't know the full affect of the changes for probably 3 months.
Ishagu wrote: BA are good in melee for sure, as are Custodes and Chaos Astartes.
Tau are bad in cc. Why should all power armour armies be effective in CC? I don't subscribe to the idea that any faction should be viable in any tactic.
I think people need to decide what they want from an army and chose the appropriate one. I don't expect Ultramarines to ever be as good in cc as Blood Angels. I wouldn't ever complain about it either.
Wouldn't you suspect the "generalist army" to not be one of the worst armies in CC? Marines lose to guardsmen in CC for crying out loud.
The old "Generalists are trash argument".
Marines are bad because they're designed to be good at everything, best at nothing.
Serpents are OP because while they're not the best at anything, they're good at everything.
The problem is they aren't gernalist. They aren't good enough at anything to do anything well enough to make a difference.
For example. LEts just say armies were rated on a 5 star system with 5's being the best.
Marines would look like this.
Range Offense 4
CC 2
Mobility 2
Defense 2
Those aren't at all generalist. Straight 3's or 4's would be generalist.
Where as DE look like this - supposed to be fast glass cannons
Ranged offense 4
CC 3
Mobility 5
Defense 3.5
I see where you are coming from but the answer is they just aren't generalist enough. They are really only decent at shooting and suck at everything else. Basically Tau - but worse.
In the real world - generalist dominate. Because they do the job good enough.
If an S3 T3 A1 Sv5+ Kabalite gets a 3 in CC, then surely a S4 T4 A1 Sv3+ Marine gets at least a 4.
And, likewise with defense, a Marine is clearly more durable than a Kabalite. Even later in the game with PfP buffs.
In CC, a Marine beats a:
-Scout
-Guardsman
-Vet
-Scion
-Storm Guardian
-Guardian Defender
-Dire Avenger
-Ranger (CWE)
-Ranger (AdMech)
-Vanguard (AdMech)
-Fire Warrior
-Kroot
-Necron Warrior
-Immortal
-Kabalite
-Shoota Boy
-Slugga Boy
-Grot
-Hormagaunt
-Termigaunt
In CC, a Marine loses to:
-Custode
-Tyranid Warrior
And not much else.
Roughly the same could be said about all the other stats - Marines are better than most other troops at CC, dakka, movement, and durability. They aren't the best at any one of those.
A Marine is certainly better than almost all other troops in CC. They're just not better per point.
The Marine is a generalist. And being a generalist isn't why they're bad. They're simply overcosted for what they get.
Which of those do they actually beat on a point for point even fight?
At least
-Scout
-Scion
-Guardian Defender
-Dire Avenger
-Ranger (CWE)
-Fire Warrior
-Necron Warrior
-Immortal
-Grot
Not that short a list.
You can argue that they are just overcosted but at a certain point overcosted models cost you game's.
They certainly are overcosted. Never said they were competitive. Only that they're better at CC than most troops.
It's certainly a lot shorter list though and loops back to why take them when you can go full cheese with the 32? Marines have nothing competitive in the troop slot, along with a few other slots.
Scouts are still great. 55pts for infiltrate is fantastic.
Wouldn't you suspect the "generalist army" to not be one of the worst armies in CC? Marines lose to guardsmen in CC for crying out loud.
This is not a very accurate statement.
Basic marines lose to Catachan IS supported by Harken and a priest. Basic marines otherwise greatly outshine IS in cc.
At DC marine with CS that gets 4 attacks that wound on 2s does not lose to IS.
I am assuming that the game is progressing as normal.
Lets assume DC are charging into 60 IS and kill 20. The following turn they lose 8 DC to shooting and 2-3 more in assault. 4 DC can not beat the 30ish IS that remain. This isn't even using orders or preists and letting the DC go first. Friggen tacticals it's even worse....they do about 1/4 of the total damage as DC.
Because it seems like people want efficiencies this is base marine versus base of the noted unit each divided by that unit's cost. Double the marine's value if you wish to assume a chainsword.
The marine loses to the units in yellow. Not that this is changing anyone's mind about marines.
-Scout
0.012 vs 0.010
-Guardsman
0.023 vs 0.014
-Vet
The Vet will basically be twice as good
-Scion
0.017 vs 0.006
-Storm Guardian
0.023 vs 0.016
-Guardian Defender
0.023 vs 0.009
-Dire Avenger
0.017 vs 0.009
-Ranger (CWE)
0.023 vs 0.006
-Ranger (AdMech)
0.017 vs 0.008
-Vanguard (AdMech)
0.017 vs 0.010
-Fire Warrior
0.017 vs 0.005
-Kroot
0.028 vs 0.022
-Necron Warrior
0.013 vs 0.009
Tzaangor
0.017 vs 0.048
-Immortal
0.008 vs 0.014
-Kabalite
0.023 vs 0.010
-Shoota Boy
0.021 vs 0.032
-Slugga Boy
0.021 vs 0.048
-Grot
0.042 vs 0.009
-Hormagaunt
0.028 vs 0.026
-Termigaunt
0.028 vs 0.014
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: I am assuming that the game is progressing as normal.
Lets assume DC are charging into 60 IS and kill 20. The following turn they lose 8 DC to shooting and 2-3 more in assault. 4 DC can not beat the 30ish IS that remain. This isn't even using orders or preists and letting the DC go first. Friggen tacticals it's even worse....they do about 1/4 of the total damage as DC.
The goal isn't to kill every model on the board and there is no way they'd be charging 60. If that many were in range the opponent is playing the board very badly.
The point is to make a hole to get units into what's behind them, which the DC can do decently well.
Because it seems like people want efficiencies this is base marine versus base of the noted unit each divided by that unit's cost. Double the marine's value if you wish to assume a chainsword.
The marine loses to the units in yellow. Not that this is changing anyone's mind about marines.
-Scout
0.012 vs 0.010
-Guardsman
0.023 vs 0.014
-Vet
The Vet will basically be twice as good
-Scion
0.017 vs 0.006
-Storm Guardian
0.023 vs 0.016
-Guardian Defender
0.023 vs 0.009
-Dire Avenger
0.017 vs 0.009
-Ranger (CWE)
0.023 vs 0.006
-Ranger (AdMech)
0.017 vs 0.008
-Vanguard (AdMech)
0.017 vs 0.010
-Fire Warrior
0.017 vs 0.005
-Kroot
0.028 vs 0.022
-Necron Warrior
0.013 vs 0.009
Tzaangor
0.017 vs 0.048
-Immortal
0.008 vs 0.014
-Kabalite
0.023 vs 0.010
-Shoota Boy
0.021 vs 0.032
-Slugga Boy
0.021 vs 0.048
-Grot
0.042 vs 0.009
-Hormagaunt
0.028 vs 0.026
-Termigaunt
0.028 vs 0.014
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: I am assuming that the game is progressing as normal.
Lets assume DC are charging into 60 IS and kill 20. The following turn they lose 8 DC to shooting and 2-3 more in assault. 4 DC can not beat the 30ish IS that remain. This isn't even using orders or preists and letting the DC go first. Friggen tacticals it's even worse....they do about 1/4 of the total damage as DC.
The goal isn't to kill every model on the board and there is no way they'd be charging 60. If that many were in range the opponent is playing the board very badly.
The point is to make a hole to get units into what's behind them, which the DC can do decently well.
The problem is that troops statlines really don't matter, the important parts are their cost and sometimes their abilities.
Daedalus81 wrote: Because it seems like people want efficiencies this is base marine versus base of the noted unit each divided by that unit's cost. Double the marine's value if you wish to assume a chainsword.
Spoiler:
The marine loses to the units in yellow. Not that this is changing anyone's mind about marines.
-Scout
0.012 vs 0.010
-Guardsman
0.023 vs 0.014
-Vet
The Vet will basically be twice as good
-Scion
0.017 vs 0.006
-Storm Guardian
0.023 vs 0.016
-Guardian Defender
0.023 vs 0.009
-Dire Avenger
0.017 vs 0.009
-Ranger (CWE)
0.023 vs 0.006
-Ranger (AdMech)
0.017 vs 0.008
-Vanguard (AdMech)
0.017 vs 0.010
-Fire Warrior
0.017 vs 0.005
-Kroot
0.028 vs 0.022
-Necron Warrior
0.013 vs 0.009
Tzaangor
0.017 vs 0.048
-Immortal
0.008 vs 0.014
-Kabalite
0.023 vs 0.010
-Shoota Boy
0.021 vs 0.032
-Slugga Boy
0.021 vs 0.048
-Grot
0.042 vs 0.009
-Hormagaunt
0.028 vs 0.026
-Termigaunt
0.028 vs 0.014
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: I am assuming that the game is progressing as normal.
Lets assume DC are charging into 60 IS and kill 20. The following turn they lose 8 DC to shooting and 2-3 more in assault. 4 DC can not beat the 30ish IS that remain. This isn't even using orders or preists and letting the DC go first. Friggen tacticals it's even worse....they do about 1/4 of the total damage as DC.
The goal isn't to kill every model on the board and there is no way they'd be charging 60. If that many were in range the opponent is playing the board very badly.
The point is to make a hole to get units into what's behind them, which the DC can do decently well.
Yeah no you have done something wrong in your math somewhere.
Tacs kill 7 points of guard with 65 points of tacs
Guard kill 8 points of marines with 40 points of IS
Guard are more efficient killing marines in CC than marines are at killing guard.
Daedalus81 wrote: Because it seems like people want efficiencies this is base marine versus base of the noted unit each divided by that unit's cost. Double the marine's value if you wish to assume a chainsword.
Spoiler:
The marine loses to the units in yellow. Not that this is changing anyone's mind about marines.
-Scout
0.012 vs 0.010
-Guardsman
0.023 vs 0.014
-Vet
The Vet will basically be twice as good
-Scion
0.017 vs 0.006
-Storm Guardian
0.023 vs 0.016
-Guardian Defender
0.023 vs 0.009
-Dire Avenger
0.017 vs 0.009
-Ranger (CWE)
0.023 vs 0.006
-Ranger (AdMech)
0.017 vs 0.008
-Vanguard (AdMech)
0.017 vs 0.010
-Fire Warrior
0.017 vs 0.005
-Kroot
0.028 vs 0.022
-Necron Warrior
0.013 vs 0.009
Tzaangor
0.017 vs 0.048
-Immortal
0.008 vs 0.014
-Kabalite
0.023 vs 0.010
-Shoota Boy
0.021 vs 0.032
-Slugga Boy
0.021 vs 0.048
-Grot
0.042 vs 0.009
-Hormagaunt
0.028 vs 0.026
-Termigaunt
0.028 vs 0.014
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: I am assuming that the game is progressing as normal.
Lets assume DC are charging into 60 IS and kill 20. The following turn they lose 8 DC to shooting and 2-3 more in assault. 4 DC can not beat the 30ish IS that remain. This isn't even using orders or preists and letting the DC go first. Friggen tacticals it's even worse....they do about 1/4 of the total damage as DC.
The goal isn't to kill every model on the board and there is no way they'd be charging 60. If that many were in range the opponent is playing the board very badly.
The point is to make a hole to get units into what's behind them, which the DC can do decently well.
Yeah no you have done something wrong in your math somewhere.
Tacs kill 7 points of guard with 65 points of tacs
Guard kill 8 points of marines with 40 points of IS
Guard are more efficient killing marines in CC than marines are at killing guard.
That depends on the Marines and their weaponry.
If they have Chainswords and Bolters the Marines are popping two attacks per model, otherwise they have Bolt Pistols and Bolters which means if - and this is a BIG if - the Guard stay in CC with the Marines they're also going to wear a shooting round of Bolt Pistols in the face which kind of levels it out.
Problem is unless the Marines manage to encircle them or pin them against something that's never going to happen.
Daedalus81 wrote: Because it seems like people want efficiencies this is base marine versus base of the noted unit each divided by that unit's cost. Double the marine's value if you wish to assume a chainsword.
Spoiler:
The marine loses to the units in yellow. Not that this is changing anyone's mind about marines.
-Scout
0.012 vs 0.010
-Guardsman
0.023 vs 0.014
-Vet
The Vet will basically be twice as good
-Scion
0.017 vs 0.006
-Storm Guardian
0.023 vs 0.016
-Guardian Defender
0.023 vs 0.009
-Dire Avenger
0.017 vs 0.009
-Ranger (CWE)
0.023 vs 0.006
-Ranger (AdMech)
0.017 vs 0.008
-Vanguard (AdMech)
0.017 vs 0.010
-Fire Warrior
0.017 vs 0.005
-Kroot
0.028 vs 0.022
-Necron Warrior
0.013 vs 0.009
Tzaangor
0.017 vs 0.048
-Immortal
0.008 vs 0.014
-Kabalite
0.023 vs 0.010
-Shoota Boy
0.021 vs 0.032
-Slugga Boy
0.021 vs 0.048
-Grot
0.042 vs 0.009
-Hormagaunt
0.028 vs 0.026
-Termigaunt
0.028 vs 0.014
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: I am assuming that the game is progressing as normal.
Lets assume DC are charging into 60 IS and kill 20. The following turn they lose 8 DC to shooting and 2-3 more in assault. 4 DC can not beat the 30ish IS that remain. This isn't even using orders or preists and letting the DC go first. Friggen tacticals it's even worse....they do about 1/4 of the total damage as DC.
The goal isn't to kill every model on the board and there is no way they'd be charging 60. If that many were in range the opponent is playing the board very badly.
The point is to make a hole to get units into what's behind them, which the DC can do decently well.
Yeah no you have done something wrong in your math somewhere.
Tacs kill 7 points of guard with 65 points of tacs
Guard kill 8 points of marines with 40 points of IS
Guard are more efficient killing marines in CC than marines are at killing guard.
I'm getting that Space Marines are better at killing IG point-for-point than Guard are at killing Space Marines.
Spoiler:
These plots are generated using 1000 trials, and recording the number of wounds dealt, then dividing that by the unit point cost.
Also note that Intercessors are slightly less efficient than Tacticals at killing Guardsmen, but they have standoff potential and better survivability for fairly minimal gain.
Wouldn't you suspect the "generalist army" to not be one of the worst armies in CC? Marines lose to guardsmen in CC for crying out loud.
This is not a very accurate statement.
Basic marines lose to Catachan IS supported by Harken and a priest. Basic marines otherwise greatly outshine IS in cc.
At DC marine with CS that gets 4 attacks that wound on 2s does not lose to IS.
I am assuming that the game is progressing as normal.
Lets assume DC are charging into 60 IS and kill 20. The following turn they lose 8 DC to shooting and 2-3 more in assault. 4 DC can not beat the 30ish IS that remain. This isn't even using orders or preists and letting the DC go first. Friggen tacticals it's even worse....they do about 1/4 of the total damage as DC.
This scenario assumes several things: That someone would try to multicharge 15 DC into 6 units of IS, That the DC would survive the 60 shots of overwatch intact, The DC only kill 20 with @45 attacks (2 each plus 1 for the chainsword x 15, not sure if DC get extra attacks for charging), The DC lose no models in the combat, There is enough room left between the 2 forces that the IS do not need to Fall Back and thus can charge during the Fight phase...
So lets ask: If the DC charge the IS and survive the overwatch intact, how is the damage to the IS (assumed to be @20 models) distributed? Two whole units gone thus leaving a gap in the line, or 3-4 models per unit? In the first case the next step is consolidation. In the second the IS have to take a LD check for each unit at a max LD of 7. Since IM do not have the "Mob Up" Ability to boost their LD, they would need to roll less than a 5 on two dice for each unit to avoid additional losses.
So lets further assume IS loses an additional 10 models to morale. This leaves 6 units at around 1/2 strength each, that would have to shoot as individual units, since no "Mob Up" ability. That's 10 shots (on average) at 4+ to hit and 5+ to wound from each IM/IS unit. I think the DC losing 8 models here is a bit much given the 3+ save. Then the IS would need to charge into the DC, who have Bolt Pistols and can fire overwatch (assuming base DC). Even if the remaining DC get wiped, they should do enough damage to the IS to force another Morale Check which would reduce their numbers even more.
Total costs for involved units: DC=255 for 1 unit, IM=240 for 6 units.
So, while this one unit of BA is taking on 6 units of IM, what is the rest of the BA army doing?
Wouldn't you suspect the "generalist army" to not be one of the worst armies in CC? Marines lose to guardsmen in CC for crying out loud.
This is not a very accurate statement.
Basic marines lose to Catachan IS supported by Harken and a priest. Basic marines otherwise greatly outshine IS in cc.
At DC marine with CS that gets 4 attacks that wound on 2s does not lose to IS.
I am assuming that the game is progressing as normal.
Lets assume DC are charging into 60 IS and kill 20. The following turn they lose 8 DC to shooting and 2-3 more in assault. 4 DC can not beat the 30ish IS that remain. This isn't even using orders or preists and letting the DC go first. Friggen tacticals it's even worse....they do about 1/4 of the total damage as DC.
This scenario assumes several things: That someone would try to multicharge 15 DC into 6 units of IS, That the DC would survive the 60 shots of overwatch intact, The DC only kill 20 with @45 attacks (2 each plus 1 for the chainsword x 15, not sure if DC get extra attacks for charging), The DC lose no models in the combat, There is enough room left between the 2 forces that the IS do not need to Fall Back and thus can charge during the Fight phase...
So lets ask: If the DC charge the IS and survive the overwatch intact, how is the damage to the IS (assumed to be @20 models) distributed? Two whole units gone thus leaving a gap in the line, or 3-4 models per unit? In the first case the next step is consolidation. In the second the IS have to take a LD check for each unit at a max LD of 7. Since IM do not have the "Mob Up" Ability to boost their LD, they would need to roll less than a 5 on two dice for each unit to avoid additional losses.
So lets further assume IS loses an additional 10 models to morale. This leaves 6 units at around 1/2 strength each, that would have to shoot as individual units, since no "Mob Up" ability. That's 10 shots (on average) at 4+ to hit and 5+ to wound from each IM/IS unit. I think the DC losing 8 models here is a bit much given the 3+ save. Then the IS would need to charge into the DC, who have Bolt Pistols and can fire overwatch (assuming base DC). Even if the remaining DC get wiped, they should do enough damage to the IS to force another Morale Check which would reduce their numbers even more.
Total costs for involved units: DC=255 for 1 unit, IM=240 for 6 units.
So, while this one unit of BA is taking on 6 units of IM, what is the rest of the BA army doing?
its also worth noting that the 6+ fnp would be at its most useful in this incredibly ridiculous scenario.
Yeah no you have done something wrong in your math somewhere.
Tacs kill 7 points of guard with 65 points of tacs
Guard kill 8 points of marines with 40 points of IS
Guard are more efficient killing marines in CC than marines are at killing guard.
I know it seems counter intuitive especially as it runs against the refrain about IS, but -
1 * .666 * .666 * .666 / 13 = 0.023
1 * .5 * .333 * .333 / 4 = 0.014
If you were to assume FB then the IS go to 0.020 as they're now effectively 5.5 ppm. Catachan is the only place that matters and these days people should be sniping out that priest and harken.
None of this is really going to change the perception of marines - especially as that's not the kind of marine you want punching.
Guardsmen aren't about doing damage really. That's never been my contention. The damage is icing. It's about cheap bodies that get in the way and overload the enemy list from a number of shots perspective. The guardsmen aren't that scary until they are in context. That is, protecting crazy efficient shooting units. They're paying 300-400 pts to make the rest of the list immune to assault.
Martel732 wrote: Guardsmen aren't about doing damage really. That's never been my contention. The damage is icing. It's about cheap bodies that get in the way and overload the enemy list from a number of shots perspective. The guardsmen aren't that scary until they are in context. That is, protecting crazy efficient shooting units.
Melee units too. It is a hard choice, when the option is to either shot custodes that will butcher half your army, or the troops that just swarmed all the objectives. Now am sure some armies can kill both at the same time, but not all.
I give the obj and kill the killers. That which is given now can be taken back later if your force isn't crippled. Problem being is that its really easy to cripple a BA army.
That is true for GK too, but that is a fring case. I wonder how the meta is going to deal with IG post FAQ. Would be cool if suddenly something else then eldar or IG mix was at the top. Even for novelity sake.
Daedalus81 wrote: Because it seems like people want efficiencies this is base marine versus base of the noted unit each divided by that unit's cost. Double the marine's value if you wish to assume a chainsword.
Spoiler:
The marine loses to the units in yellow. Not that this is changing anyone's mind about marines.
-Scout
0.012 vs 0.010
-Guardsman
0.023 vs 0.014
-Vet
The Vet will basically be twice as good
-Scion
0.017 vs 0.006
-Storm Guardian
0.023 vs 0.016
-Guardian Defender
0.023 vs 0.009
-Dire Avenger
0.017 vs 0.009
-Ranger (CWE)
0.023 vs 0.006
-Ranger (AdMech)
0.017 vs 0.008
-Vanguard (AdMech)
0.017 vs 0.010
-Fire Warrior
0.017 vs 0.005
-Kroot
0.028 vs 0.022
-Necron Warrior
0.013 vs 0.009
Tzaangor
0.017 vs 0.048
-Immortal
0.008 vs 0.014
-Kabalite
0.023 vs 0.010
-Shoota Boy
0.021 vs 0.032
-Slugga Boy
0.021 vs 0.048
-Grot
0.042 vs 0.009
-Hormagaunt
0.028 vs 0.026
-Termigaunt
0.028 vs 0.014
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: I am assuming that the game is progressing as normal.
Lets assume DC are charging into 60 IS and kill 20. The following turn they lose 8 DC to shooting and 2-3 more in assault. 4 DC can not beat the 30ish IS that remain. This isn't even using orders or preists and letting the DC go first. Friggen tacticals it's even worse....they do about 1/4 of the total damage as DC.
The goal isn't to kill every model on the board and there is no way they'd be charging 60. If that many were in range the opponent is playing the board very badly.
The point is to make a hole to get units into what's behind them, which the DC can do decently well.
Yeah no you have done something wrong in your math somewhere.
Tacs kill 7 points of guard with 65 points of tacs
Guard kill 8 points of marines with 40 points of IS
Guard are more efficient killing marines in CC than marines are at killing guard.
I'm getting that Space Marines are better at killing IG point-for-point than Guard are at killing Space Marines.
Spoiler:
These plots are generated using 1000 trials, and recording the number of wounds dealt, then dividing that by the unit point cost.
Also note that Intercessors are slightly less efficient than Tacticals at killing Guardsmen, but they have standoff potential and better survivability for fairly minimal gain.
Yeah no you have done something wrong in your math somewhere.
Tacs kill 7 points of guard with 65 points of tacs
Guard kill 8 points of marines with 40 points of IS
Guard are more efficient killing marines in CC than marines are at killing guard.
I know it seems counter intuitive especially as it runs against the refrain about IS, but -
1 * .666 * .666 * .666 / 13 = 0.023
1 * .5 * .333 * .333 / 4 = 0.014
If you were to assume FB then the IS go to 0.020 as they're now effectively 5.5 ppm. Catachan is the only place that matters and these days people should be sniping out that priest and harken.
None of this is really going to change the perception of marines - especially as that's not the kind of marine you want punching.
Yeah that's not an efficiency value though thats wounds per point.
.023x4= .092 points
.014x13=.182 points.
You have to take into account the value of those wounds your causing, Guard kills almost twice as many points of tacs in CC that is a problem.
Also note that Intercessors are slightly less efficient than Tacticals at killing Guardsmen, but they have standoff potential and better survivability for fairly minimal gain.
What? Intercessors have twice the attacks for much less than twice the cost. Certainly the Intercesors are are more efficient than Tacticals!
To be honest that data shows the game is in a great place if you just... ignore power armor.
Everything between 45%-55% is fine. And thats basically all of the game with the exception of loyalist power armour (With the exception of deathwatch of course) and Adeptus Custodes, but not by much. (They are nearly 45% of victories, something thats impresive for a Codex that, without FW, is totally lacking of options and only competes on the back of jetbikes)
When you look at the bottom half of that list, you have:
Renegade Knights: Is barely an army, more of a bolt-on (as Knights probably should be!)
Custodes: I hear the army is pretty balanced (as much as an army can be) when you incorporate the FW models, would like to hear a second opinion on that tho.
AdMech: They're getting a fancy new transport soon, so I'll pass judgement later
Necrons: Give Reanimation Protocols something to do when the unit gets wiped (Beta Rule?) and the codex is fine
Harlequins: Now the FLY rule has been un-junked, I'm sure they'll do a bit better
AND
Power Armor: Tactical Marines are trash and anything built off of a Tactical framework is trash by association. Unlike the previous factions, the rule-set is rotten to the core.
Yeah that's not an efficiency value though thats wounds per point.
.023x4= .092 points
.014x13=.182 points.
You have to take into account the value of those wounds your causing, Guard kills almost twice as many points of tacs in CC that is a problem.
Sorry, my mistake on miswording the values that, but the math you did there basically backs it into damage.
Look at it this way -
It takes 3.4 marine attacks to kill an IS.
An IS needs 18.2 attacks to kill a marine.
The marine pays 44 points to do its job. The IS pays 73 points.
Phaeron Gukk wrote: When you look at the bottom half of that list, you have:
Renegade Knights: Is barely an army, more of a bolt-on (as Knights probably should be!)
Custodes: I hear the army is pretty balanced (as much as an army can be) when you incorporate the FW models, would like to hear a second opinion on that tho.
AdMech: They're getting a fancy new transport soon, so I'll pass judgement later
Necrons: Give Reanimation Protocols something to do when the unit gets wiped (Beta Rule?) and the codex is fine
Harlequins: Now the FLY rule has been un-junked, I'm sure they'll do a bit better
AND
Power Armor: Tactical Marines are trash and anything built off of a Tactical framework is trash by association. Unlike the previous factions, the rule-set is rotten to the core.
Can't speak for many of them but Custodes get mostly an actual filled out roster through FW which rounds the army alot.
Power armor, frankly the profile is just not worth 13 pts anymore, especially on the chaos side through the loss of chainswords for 2 melee attacks.
Reeimplement that and lower price to 11 pts and you would get an profile that is worth it, ofcourse that would also mean that by assosciation you would need to lower the pts off all marine units by 2 pts. (incases of terminators maybee more, maybee less)
Yeah that's not an efficiency value though thats wounds per point.
.023x4= .092 points
.014x13=.182 points.
You have to take into account the value of those wounds your causing, Guard kills almost twice as many points of tacs in CC that is a problem.
Sorry, my mistake on miswording the values that, but the math you did there basically backs it into damage.
Look at it this way -
It takes 3.4 marine attacks to kill an IS.
An IS needs 18.2 attacks to kill a marine.
The marine pays 44 points to do its job. The IS pays 73 points.
No your missing the point
Thats 44 points to kill a 4 point wound so a 9% return rate
73 points to kill a 13 point marine is a 17% return rate
Infantry squads are more efficient at killing marines than marines are at killing guard.
Yeah that's not an efficiency value though thats wounds per point.
.023x4= .092 points
.014x13=.182 points.
You have to take into account the value of those wounds your causing, Guard kills almost twice as many points of tacs in CC that is a problem.
Sorry, my mistake on miswording the values that, but the math you did there basically backs it into damage.
Look at it this way -
It takes 3.4 marine attacks to kill an IS.
An IS needs 18.2 attacks to kill a marine.
The marine pays 44 points to do its job. The IS pays 73 points.
Why not a PPD calculation. I'm really tired and don't want to do math right now but I'm pretty sure I have seen this already. Marines lose pretty hard to IS in basically every scenario.
Phaeron Gukk wrote: When you look at the bottom half of that list, you have:
Renegade Knights: Is barely an army, more of a bolt-on (as Knights probably should be!)
Custodes: I hear the army is pretty balanced (as much as an army can be) when you incorporate the FW models, would like to hear a second opinion on that tho.
AdMech: They're getting a fancy new transport soon, so I'll pass judgement later
Necrons: Give Reanimation Protocols something to do when the unit gets wiped (Beta Rule?) and the codex is fine
Harlequins: Now the FLY rule has been un-junked, I'm sure they'll do a bit better
AND
Power Armor: Tactical Marines are trash and anything built off of a Tactical framework is trash by association. Unlike the previous factions, the rule-set is rotten to the core.
I play pure RK, just saying. While it doesn't have the support of other armies, I still think it's worth mentioning. There are some armies that just can't handle a 7 knight list.
Galas wrote: To be honest that data shows the game is in a great place if you just... ignore power armor.
Everything between 45%-55% is fine. And thats basically all of the game with the exception of loyalist power armour (With the exception of deathwatch of course) and Adeptus Custodes, but not by much. (They are nearly 45% of victories, something thats impresive for a Codex that, without FW, is totally lacking of options and only competes on the back of jetbikes)
By Power armour I guess you mean Marines (except Deathwatch) - -Sororitas is at 49%
Yeah that's not an efficiency value though thats wounds per point.
.023x4= .092 points
.014x13=.182 points.
You have to take into account the value of those wounds your causing, Guard kills almost twice as many points of tacs in CC that is a problem.
Sorry, my mistake on miswording the values that, but the math you did there basically backs it into damage.
Look at it this way -
It takes 3.4 marine attacks to kill an IS.
An IS needs 18.2 attacks to kill a marine.
The marine pays 44 points to do its job. The IS pays 73 points.
No your missing the point
Thats 44 points to kill a 4 point wound so a 9% return rate
73 points to kill a 13 point marine is a 17% return rate
Infantry squads are more efficient at killing marines than marines are at killing guard.
No, I understand that. But in the broader context that is nearly two full squads of IS to do that job. It would take them *all game* to kill 5 marines. How often are 18 or so IS punching marines like that?
IS are efficient at what they do, but they're not effective. That takes CCs, Priests, and Harken.
This still doesn't change anything, because these are sort of silly scenarios. IS should be getting pulled off by (bike) bolters or c-beams and not super basic marine melee.
I play pure RK, just saying. While it doesn't have the support of other armies, I still think it's worth mentioning. There are some armies that just can't handle a 7 knight list.
Fair enough! If the Index/Codex/? alone is enough for a functional army, gratz for making it work.
Can't speak for many of them but Custodes get mostly an actual filled out roster through FW which rounds the army alot.
Power armor, frankly the profile is just not worth 13 pts anymore, especially on the chaos side through the loss of chainswords for 2 melee attacks.
Reeimplement that and lower price to 11 pts and you would get an profile that is worth it, ofcourse that would also mean that by assosciation you would need to lower the pts off all marine units by 2 pts. (incases of terminators maybee more, maybee less)
Nice to hear the custards can order deserts that aren't banana jetbike splits!
My biggest bugbear with a lot of 8th edition costing is the lack of awareness towards bloatware costings. I bet if you crunch the numbers and use the "formulae" that GW uses, then a Guardsman "should cost" 4ppm or so, but if you actually zoom out and look at the game as-played, then you realize there's a minimum floor for just having a wound and existing as a screen, and guardsmen fall way below that floor. Likewise, Tacticals are being billed for being 3.5/5 in a bunch of stuff but since list-building normally makes you specialize in one strategy for a unit, they should really only be billed for the "best" option. Necron HQs are another pain. Yes, the Overlord has pretty ace CC stats, but if his entire value is predicated on buffing a gunline that moves 5 inches a turn then who cares?
Grey Knights 40.28%
Adeptus Astartes 38.03%
Dark Angels 37.29%
Space Wolves 34.00%
Blood Angels 27.68%
Thats kinda grim reading for Space Marine players.
Not really in my mind for the following reasons:
1) Data is pre-FAQ / Ynnari (which may not make anything better for marines, but we'll see)
2) Data does not distinguish in what capacity the army is used (e.g. Thousand Sons detachments are typically Ahriman & DPs)
3) Data does not analyze matchups
4) Data does not exclude fluff / less competitive players who may or may not skew towards power armor
It's nice meta data that gives an overall trend, but doesn't really help us identify issues. Take the ITC player data for example.
Jim Vesal is top ranged Thousand Sons player (and top overall IIRC). His most recent list? Note: I think ITC changed how they count these lists going forward, but there is no unified manner of codifying these disparities.
That said, who's been arguing they're fine in this thread?
I *think* they're fine. I do not KNOW that they are.
My thoughts are predicated on the wide range of changes that have occurred in the past couple of months (FAQ, Ynnari, CSM, Assassins).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ratius wrote: Sorry I meant loyalists. Chaos marines have been doing ok for a while now between tzeentch and nurgle builds.
Yes - I'm with you - that list was just an example of how difficult it is to parse the data and come to a final conclusion. In reality a large majority of lists are "Soup", but we're not labeling them as such.
Grey Knights 40.28%
Adeptus Astartes 38.03%
Dark Angels 37.29%
Space Wolves 34.00%
Blood Angels 27.68%
Thats kinda grim reading for Space Marine players.
Not really in my mind for the following reasons:
1) Data is pre-FAQ / Ynnari (which may not make anything better for marines, but we'll see)
2) Data does not distinguish in what capacity the army is used (e.g. Thousand Sons detachments are typically Ahriman & DPs)
3) Data does not analyze matchups
4) Data does not exclude fluff / less competitive players who may or may not skew towards power armor
It's nice meta data that gives an overall trend, but doesn't really help us identify issues.
I'll preface my post by saying I'm going off the data I see on 40kstats.com
To your points:
1) I agree - most of the data we have is not from the current version of the game and a lot has changed. Beta Bolter is finalized and a lot of the top meta lists have received nerfs. We don't know how marines will slot into the new metagame.
2) You're correct that we don't see exactly what is taken or hows its used however we can see in the faction breakdown and subfaction breakdowns (along with top lists from BCP) for what is most commonly being taken in Space Marine lists. There are many units / subfactions that simply aren't viable according to the data or their lack of representation.
3) This is your only point I kind of disagree with - there is a faction vs faction tab on 40kstats.com so we have some sense of what is going on here. That being said it isn't specific data to show list archetype vs list archetype match ups like MTG or a video game could. Dual Repulsor Guilliman lists play have different match ups than a Salamanders MSU / Dreadnought list or a list centered around Raven Guard SFTS (rest in peace that stratagem).
4) Every faction has good and bad players but yes due to Space Marine popularity it could have an effect on win rate. People showing up with their entirely unviable Space Marine army because those are the models that came in their starter set could definitely be a factor. I don't however know if its even possible to calculate or represent this with data.
There are other contributing factors as well - no one talked about double C-Beam Contemptors before a top player used them to great success. Are people stuck in the old ways of playing marines? Reece Robbins had success at Nova 2018 with a Space Marine brigade list but you tend not to see Space Marine brigades in BCP or on forums/reddit for critique.
Additionally some factions have access to tools that players might be reluctant to acquire (the Custodes Orion gunship fills a niche in that army but is a rather expensive piece of resin for example). One of the most talked about Space Marine models in terms of competitiveness is the dual Storm Cannon Array Leviathan Dreadnought however to your 4th point - how many Space Marines players are contributing to the data we are looking at who might not consider investing in an expensive FW model like that? How many Space Marine players bought all 4 assassins to be able to tech on the fly? Definitely hard to say.
I can tell you that marines have been very poorly represented in the last 3 itc events i attended. People in my new play group consider astartes largely unplayable.
Old playgroup had marine holdouts. New group has me and a sw out of say 20ish. Most are vets.
Ach! I can't access that data at work. Can anyone tell me, what exactly are the ends of the spectrum according to that data, without ITC that is?
This the result for primary factions for non-ITC:
Does this site define what make a faction the "Primary" one in a given list? Because many of the armies listed seem to be the ones that fall into the "Soup" catagory.
Daedalus81 wrote: No, I understand that. But in the broader context that is nearly two full squads of IS to do that job. It would take them *all game* to kill 5 marines. How often are 18 or so IS punching marines like that?
IS are efficient at what they do, but they're not effective. That takes CCs, Priests, and Harken.
This still doesn't change anything, because these are sort of silly scenarios. IS should be getting pulled off by (bike) bolters or c-beams and not super basic marine melee.
I feel this is sort of special pleading when we are comparing whether a unit is more or less efficient than another.
IS are generalists in that they are a no regret unit. I mean if you end up punching a rhino (4.8% return on your points unless catachan) then thats bad. But a Marine in that circumstance would get a 4% return and be even worse. Versus almost anything that isn't toughness 6 or higher with a good save they do fine. Marines don't.
This is principally because IS are too cheap, and as a result the maths are skewed in their favour - but that is the reality of the game. At 13 points a tactical marine is not especially tough and has awful offensive abilities. Bolter drill helps a little bit (since you can go to ground in your deployment zone and fire 2 shots up to 24") - but this is one dimensional and cannot always apply.
What applies to tacticals goes through so much of the Marine list. Assault marines are garbage. Devestators as anything but mortal wound stratagem tacticals are a points pinata. The Predator is possibly the worst vehicle in the game although other Marine tanks are up there too.
Then, to do BA specifically, you get into the special stuff. Death Company are frankly bad. Either you keep them cheap - in which case you have a handful of S4 AP- D1 attacks resulting in a one dimensional unit (its basically an ork boy but paying several times as much for a 3+ save and possibly a jetpack) which can bully troops but still can't take any sustained shooting (or a proper charge). Or you start blinging them up with say hammers/fists so they can threaten a range of targets but their price goes through the roof and consequently survivability goes out the window.
Sanguinary Guard at least have 2 wounds and a 2+ save - but then they have pillows for weapons. Enjoy your 2 attacks for 32-39~ points. You don't kill chaff, you don't really wreck the vehicles or monsters (let alone knights) that get to the table. "I'd be good in a meta where people played expensive high points per wound marine units" - yeah, unsurprisingly they don't and since this is also countered by just about everything in the game odds are they never will.
As for the dreads and baal predator.... no. Just no.
Phaeron Gukk wrote: Necrons: Give Reanimation Protocols something to do when the unitgets wiped (Beta Rule?) and the codex is fine
Could do with more work on that but albeit that's not doable with just small updates. Things like HQ's having weird synergy(destroyer lord is more of beatstick but boosts destroyers who don't want to go anywhere near enemy...And you can get waaaay superior boost by 1CP anyway).
RP is bit of issue. Can't have it just work on any unit even if wiped. Apart from practical issue of where to put unit that would mean basically impossible to kill units. You can't keep failing all 5+ rolls for 10 immortals so the unit would always come back so only way to get kill points would be going second. If necrons go second they will have all units with RP in table at the end...And having them give KP each time unit dies would make any scenario with kill points ridiculously hard then with constantly weak units popping back ready to be killed for extra KP.
Then maybe instead of making everything complicated give all basic necrons, like warriors a flat +2sv, and RP would be just a second inv like save, which would again scale. So a warrior would be ++6, while a destroyer would be ++5. Real resurection could be limited to wargear and character trai that could buff the RP. And if buffing was too powerful, then it could have limited range or the character doing it would have to do nothing on their phase. Or it could be made in to not psychic powers like orders.
Phaeron Gukk wrote: Necrons: Give Reanimation Protocols something to do when the unitgets wiped (Beta Rule?) and the codex is fine
Could do with more work on that but albeit that's not doable with just small updates. Things like HQ's having weird synergy(destroyer lord is more of beatstick but boosts destroyers who don't want to go anywhere near enemy...And you can get waaaay superior boost by 1CP anyway).
RP is bit of issue. Can't have it just work on any unit even if wiped. Apart from practical issue of where to put unit that would mean basically impossible to kill units. You can't keep failing all 5+ rolls for 10 immortals so the unit would always come back so only way to get kill points would be going second. If necrons go second they will have all units with RP in table at the end...And having them give KP each time unit dies would make any scenario with kill points ridiculously hard then with constantly weak units popping back ready to be killed for extra KP.
Make it a strat? Other codexes have those, so give them something along those lines, maybe cheaper? Something like this could work:
1CP Rebuild, Reanimate, Reconstruct
Use at the end of Movement Phase. Choose a unit with Reanimation Protocols that has been completely removed from play. Roll a dice for each model that has been slain from that unit, for each 5+ a model reanimates, set the unit back up with a number of models equal to the number that reanimated within 6" of another <DYNASTY> unit and more than 9" from enemy units.
Probably needs editing and the wording fixing, but I think it illustrates a concept of something that could help.
Seems rather cheap for 1CP. The fight second time, when you die stratagem costs a lot more, and the dude is dead after using it. It would be more like 2 or 3 CP. But who knows with GW, it could end up as 1 CP.
Ach! I can't access that data at work. Can anyone tell me, what exactly are the ends of the spectrum according to that data, without ITC that is?
This the result for primary factions for non-ITC:
Does this site define what make a faction the "Primary" one in a given list? Because many of the armies listed seem to be the ones that fall into the "Soup" catagory.
I would assume its the old ITC rule which is most specific keyword of your most expensive detachment.
As this is 8th edition its a given that 90% of the lists will be soup of some variety.
Okey, but doesn't that skew the results. What if someone took 3 GM NDKS and draigo along side a catellan, and IG, and won a few games. One can hardly say that the wins are GK ones, but in the data they are going to be just that.
Tyel wrote: The Predator is possibly the worst vehicle in the game although other Marine tanks are up there too.
Yea, I gotta push back on this point-the hammerhead wants a word with you.
Costs about the same, body aint too different, less than half the firepower.
Karol wrote: Okey, but doesn't that skew the results. What if someone took 3 GM NDKS and draigo along side a catellan, and IG, and won a few games. One can hardly say that the wins are GK ones, but in the data they are going to be just that.
Well the other option is what we will see in the upcoming ITC season where 50% of the lists are going to be "Imperium" which says even less about what the army is.
Karol wrote: Seems rather cheap for 1CP. The fight second time, when you die stratagem costs a lot more, and the dude is dead after using it. It would be more like 2 or 3 CP. But who knows with GW, it could end up as 1 CP.
I don't know, I think 1CP is reasonable for a Make Your Army Actually Functional stratagem.
Karol wrote: Seems rather cheap for 1CP. The fight second time, when you die stratagem costs a lot more, and the dude is dead after using it. It would be more like 2 or 3 CP. But who knows with GW, it could end up as 1 CP.
I don't know, I think 1CP is reasonable for a Make Your Army Actually Functional stratagem.
I think, for 1 CP, maybe something along the lines of: play this strategem when the last model of a unit with Reanimation Protocols would be removed from the board. Instead, immediately make a reanimation protocol test for each slain model in the unit.
The House Taranis stratagem is one of the most annoying stratagems in the game. Tide of Traitors at least brings on only a light infantry unit which possesses only moderate firepower.
Eihnlazer wrote: Hammerhead does have fly though, so it kad to take a hit somewhere.
How does fly help it in any way though?
Sure, it lets it retreat from combat and keep shooting, yay?
But it really doesn't matter when your output is SO LOW that taking down a mere rhino in 3 turns is considered a high roll, because its about 20% under optimal conditions.
Do note, its about 20% for the full three turns, not each turn.
I think, for 1 CP, maybe something along the lines of: play this strategem when the last model of a unit with Reanimation Protocols would be removed from the board. Instead, immediately make a reanimation protocol test for each slain model in the unit.
That sounds perfectly fine. My one tweak is that WARRIORS and IMMORTALS should cost 1CP while other units (read: Destroyers) should cost 3CP, and the strat needs a once per unit game limit.
Also, the Destroyer Lord's reroll aura being flatly inferior to the basic Lord is insulting. Make it a flat wound reroll aura for DESTROYERS and reroll 1s for everyone else, jeez.
To go back to an earlier point, I think factions like the Necrons, the AdMech, the Custodes, etc. can all be fixed with new units or small additions. I have no idea what you do with the SM other than price Guilliman into irrelevance, throw away all of the old point metrics and start from scratch.
Also, the Destroyer Lord's reroll aura being flatly inferior to the basic Lord is insulting. Make it a flat wound reroll aura for DESTROYERS and reroll 1s for everyone else, jeez.
So much this. Also, have it work in melee so that the Destroyer Lord can actually benefit from his own aura.
Daedalus81 wrote: No, I understand that. But in the broader context that is nearly two full squads of IS to do that job. It would take them *all game* to kill 5 marines. How often are 18 or so IS punching marines like that?
IS are efficient at what they do, but they're not effective. That takes CCs, Priests, and Harken.
This still doesn't change anything, because these are sort of silly scenarios. IS should be getting pulled off by (bike) bolters or c-beams and not super basic marine melee.
I feel this is sort of special pleading when we are comparing whether a unit is more or less efficient than another.
IS are generalists in that they are a no regret unit. I mean if you end up punching a rhino (4.8% return on your points unless catachan) then thats bad. But a Marine in that circumstance would get a 4% return and be even worse. Versus almost anything that isn't toughness 6 or higher with a good save they do fine. Marines don't.
This is principally because IS are too cheap, and as a result the maths are skewed in their favour - but that is the reality of the game. At 13 points a tactical marine is not especially tough and has awful offensive abilities. Bolter drill helps a little bit (since you can go to ground in your deployment zone and fire 2 shots up to 24") - but this is one dimensional and cannot always apply.
What applies to tacticals goes through so much of the Marine list. Assault marines are garbage. Devestators as anything but mortal wound stratagem tacticals are a points pinata. The Predator is possibly the worst vehicle in the game although other Marine tanks are up there too.
Then, to do BA specifically, you get into the special stuff. Death Company are frankly bad. Either you keep them cheap - in which case you have a handful of S4 AP- D1 attacks resulting in a one dimensional unit (its basically an ork boy but paying several times as much for a 3+ save and possibly a jetpack) which can bully troops but still can't take any sustained shooting (or a proper charge). Or you start blinging them up with say hammers/fists so they can threaten a range of targets but their price goes through the roof and consequently survivability goes out the window.
Sanguinary Guard at least have 2 wounds and a 2+ save - but then they have pillows for weapons. Enjoy your 2 attacks for 32-39~ points. You don't kill chaff, you don't really wreck the vehicles or monsters (let alone knights) that get to the table. "I'd be good in a meta where people played expensive high points per wound marine units" - yeah, unsurprisingly they don't and since this is also countered by just about everything in the game odds are they never will.
As for the dreads and baal predator.... no. Just no.
A marine that punches a kabalite earns more points than if it punched an IS at the same difficulty. The marine didn't do anything special to earn those extra points. Are kabalites bad?
Kabalite shoots MEQ:
1 * .666 * .5 * .333 = 0.111
IS shoots MEQ:
1 * .5 * .333 * .333 = 0.055
The kabalite is twice as good for less than half the points.
An IS with a CC is 5.5 points
2 * .5 * .333 * .333 = 0.111
We can see the IS caught up, but for fewer points. The Kabalites still move faster, have better leadership, and PfP.
That seems like pretty reasonable parity.
Something that is equally important to killing is...not dying. That's what people are talking about with IS bar the IS with tons of support. And that's also what marines can do well, too.
Killing isn't everything. Killing everything also isn't everything.
If marines want to kill GEQ it's 155 for redepmtor with OGC, HOGC, 2x SB, and a fist, which is pretty reasonable anti-GEQ - especially when carrying a captain & lt nearby - and they can still mix it up in CC.
Bikes are also fantastic and flexible.
Two or three hammers in a DC unit is all you need to throw a reasonable amount of hurt. The other guys exist to help clear GEQ and be ablative wounds.
