Karol wrote: And in my country, where ITC is not played, my army placed in top 8 in 5th edition the last time. Plus it is for tournaments. Very few new people start with an exact tournament list, mostly because just like me, they fall for the whole, play what you want thing.
Also harlequins has 3 top 8s last year in ITC? not saying I don't believe you, but where does harleguin lists or pre nerf Inari lists with MW spaming jetbikes in them?
Karol wrote: And in my country, where ITC is not played, my army placed in top 8 in 5th edition the last time. Plus it is for tournaments. Very few new people start with an exact tournament list, mostly because just like me, they fall for the whole, play what you want thing.
Also harlequins has 3 top 8s last year in ITC? not saying I don't believe you, but where does harleguin lists or pre nerf Inari lists with MW spaming jetbikes in them?
I see two Harlequin lists at that link for 2019, a 3rd place and a 1st place. Can't view them, for some reason, clicking on them just gives me the home page. I am guessing like you Karol, the list has a max-sized unit of old Ynnari Harlequin skyweaver jetbikes, some min sized clown squads with fusion pistols in starweavers, and a couple shadowseers or troupe masters.
IF it's even mostly harlequins, and it's not classified as a harlequin list because the largest single detachment was harlequins, and it's mostly allies by points. I don't know, I can't see the list.
Why , when somebody points out that all units should at least have an use in some kind of list, the usual suspects come with the "OMG DO YOU WANT A RANDOM LIST WITH RANDOM UNITS TO HAVE A 50% CHANCE OF WINNING AGAISNT ANY OTHER KIND OF LIST?!"
No. Nobody is saying that. People just wants for units to have an use, even if its in some kind of niche-anti meta list.
If GW sells me a support character for Tyranid Warriors in the form of the Tyranid Warrior Prime, I expect to be able to use that sinergy to make something usable. And is perfectly fine for a Tyranid Warrior Prime to be absolute crap in a list without Tyranid Warriors, just like a Techmarine in a list with 0 vehicles should be useless.
The problem is when you have a list full of vehicles and a Techmarine is still useless.
Galas wrote: Why , when somebody points out that all units should at least have an use in some kind of list, the usual suspects come with the "OMG DO YOU WANT A RANDOM LIST WITH RANDOM UNITS TO HAVE A 50% CHANCE OF WINNING AGAISNT ANY OTHER KIND OF LIST?!"
No. Nobody is saying that. People just wants for units to have an use, even if its in some kind of niche-anti meta list.
If GW sells me a support character for Tyranid Warriors in the form of the Tyranid Warrior Prime, I expect to be able to use that sinergy to make something usable. And is perfectly fine for a Tyranid Warrior Prime to be absolute crap in a list without Tyranid Warriors, just like a Techmarine in a list with 0 vehicles should be useless.
The problem is when you have a list full of vehicles and a Techmarine is still useless.
^This. having a unit be objectively worse than other options only makes sense to me when it's some WD-released goofy narrative play unit that you don't want people to be able to powergame and use in tournaments.
Like if GW went "hey you know what, we don't actually sell chaplain dreads anymore. PBBBBBBHHHHHT" and took a big old nerf dump on them to make people stop playing this wonky ass character dreadnought thing in every tournament list, I'd honestly be fine with that. Or when the weirdo psyker thing from RnH was broken to the point of absurdity. Some weird obscure hidden FW thing with no official model, fine, nerf that to basically just be for narrative games, idc.
But everything else should strive to at least have some use. All current models you can actually go buy from a store or online.
Ishagu wrote: So you think the art of list building shouldn't exist? Every unit should be balanced against every other at all times? That's pretty stupid lol
It's not really stupid. Just because choices are balanced doesn't mean they're identical.
Balance is about what you get for your points. So putting the points up or putting the points down will bring something more or less into line.
I mean to bring up an infamous moment on the forum - the humble Squigbuggy. In my view (and I think any competitive ork list view) its crap at 100 points. Its not a meaningful shooting threat, its not a meaningful combat threat, and its relatively easy to kill.
But all of this is in the context of being 100 points.
If it was say 60 points suddenly its a lot better. Whether its competitive or not I can't say (probably not in ITC, due to things like "kill more" being very anti small units like buggies) but it would be "more balanced".
At the same time if GW were to put its points back up to 140, it would be even worse than it is now.
Ishagu wrote: So you think the art of list building shouldn't exist? Every unit should be balanced against every other at all times? That's pretty stupid lol
The 'art of listbuilding' should be about building a list where the units synergize together to function effectively, cover each other's weaknesses, and maximize their strengths. Not about picking the objectively best units and avoiding the objectively weakest ones, which isn't much of an art at all.
Canadian 5th, and now you, keep repeating the false equivalence that having all units be on roughly equal ground to start with means 'every unit should be balanced against every other at all times', and listbuilding suddenly doesn't matter. And that is utter bs. We can make a game where Basilisks are worth their points in a normal army, but will probably lose every game if you take absolutely nothing but Basilisks.
Canadian 5th then continues to repeat the false equivalence that not having trap choices means expecting perfect balance. That's also bs. We know expecting perfect balance is unreasonable, but that doesn't mean GW should embrace imbalance and use it as a gotcha, to reward players who mistake being able to read DakkaDakka for game skill. The whole reason for points values is to adequately reflect the value of a unit.
Starcraft didn't become an e-sport by having deliberate imbalance, so as to reward the players who figure out which units to avoid and which to build. Quite the opposite, it was successful because it was incredibly well-balanced despite three very different factions, leading to an interesting meta with many different ways to play. Counter-Strike didn't become an e-sport by having some weapons be garbage, to reward players who figure out which weapons to take and which to avoid. League of Legends, contrary to Canadian 5th's implication, does not have deliberate imbalance- characters are subject to meta-changing balance passes all the time. In videogames, it is taken as a given that balance is desirable and leads to a better and more interesting game. The success of games built on tight balance bears this out.
It's seemingly only with gambling (see: CCGs) that imbalance is a design goal. And that has no place in wargaming, where players invest non-negligible time and money into their armies. The idea of GW hyping up unit choices for sale while simultaneously ensuring that they are underpowered and will lose unless your opponent takes pity on you isn't just bad design, it's downright exploitative.
Exactly. It is easy to imagine a kid getting started in the hobby with Necrons for example, because killer space robots are bad ass and the paint scheme is forgiving for a new player.
Then they find out that they made the mistake of picking a third tier army that is not really supported by GW, with poor rules and limited viability in the game as it is widely played. Every game they play will now have to involve some sort of pleading from a weak position for their opponent to aquiesce to weakening their forces to give them a good game. This feels bad, it feels like being second class.
This kid is gonna feel like they wasted a large amount of money and time. They are not gonna feel good about this hobby.
The solution is for the game designers to put in the mimimum amount of work required of professionals working on a premium priced product to ensure that it works for their customers. Even if it is just for the sake of a kid like that.
That they don't get this, or don't care, means they are unprofessional or fools.
It is easy for someone who has been playing for years across many editions to navigate this environment. But it is unpleasant for new players and especially young players without a lot of income, the very casual players that people arguing for poor balance (an insane argument to my mind) claim to be arguing on the side of.
I would love to hear from a GW designer what they think that hypothetical kid should do with the rules as provided.
Da Boss wrote: Exactly. It is easy to imagine a kid getting started in the hobby with Necrons for example, because killer space robots are bad ass and the paint scheme is forgiving for a new player.
Then they find out that they made the mistake of picking a third tier army that is not really supported by GW, with poor rules and limited viability in the game as it is widely played. Every game they play will now have to involve some sort of pleading from a weak position for their opponent to aquiesce to weakening their forces to give them a good game. This feels bad, it feels like being second class.
This kid is gonna feel like they wasted a large amount of money and time. They are not gonna feel good about this hobby.
The solution is for the game designers to put in the mimimum amount of work required of professionals working on a premium priced product to ensure that it works for their customers. Even if it is just for the sake of a kid like that.
That they don't get this, or don't care, means they are unprofessional or fools.
It is easy for someone who has been playing for years across many editions to navigate this environment. But it is unpleasant for new players and especially young players without a lot of income, the very casual players that people arguing for poor balance (an insane argument to my mind) claim to be arguing on the side of.
I would love to hear from a GW designer what they think that hypothetical kid should do with the rules as provided.
I have seen this situation in real life many times. Person starts an army, turns out that army is incredibly low tier, person disappears from play group after collecting like 1k points.
Happens all the time.Probably the #2 reason people quit soon after joining, #1 being making a big, gigantic, stupid financial investment in an army and burning right the feth out because you just cannot play the game at 2k points right off the bat and can't paint 2k points of stuff.
Da Boss wrote: Exactly. It is easy to imagine a kid getting started in the hobby with Necrons for example, because killer space robots are bad ass and the paint scheme is forgiving for a new player.
Then they find out that they made the mistake of picking a third tier army that is not really supported by GW, with poor rules and limited viability in the game as it is widely played. Every game they play will now have to involve some sort of pleading from a weak position for their opponent to aquiesce to weakening their forces to give them a good game. This feels bad, it feels like being second class.
This kid is gonna feel like they wasted a large amount of money and time. They are not gonna feel good about this hobby.
The solution is for the game designers to put in the mimimum amount of work required of professionals working on a premium priced product to ensure that it works for their customers. Even if it is just for the sake of a kid like that.
That they don't get this, or don't care, means they are unprofessional or fools.
It is easy for someone who has been playing for years across many editions to navigate this environment. But it is unpleasant for new players and especially young players without a lot of income, the very casual players that people arguing for poor balance (an insane argument to my mind) claim to be arguing on the side of.
I would love to hear from a GW designer what they think that hypothetical kid should do with the rules as provided.
I agree with the premise, but I think we too often impose our hindsight and conditions upon kids.
I didn't care much when I was young about losing. I figured I needed a variety of tools to deal with my opponent. My opponent was like-wise pretty novice and wouldn't be trying to deny RPP or anything like that. And we'd often play whacky missions.
My son has started playing in the last 6 months, and he's collecting Necrons. Before he'd even looked at the available factions, he said 'it'd be really cool if there was a race of, like, skeleton robots or something' - so Necrons are ideal for him.
He's playing in an after-school club once a week, and because they only have about an hour to play, plus they are kids with limited budget etc, most people only have a small army. Starter box or so.
And he's doing OK. Wins some, loses some. Enjoys himself though. And that's the main thing.
Crispy78 wrote: My son has started playing in the last 6 months, and he's collecting Necrons. Before he'd even looked at the available factions, he said 'it'd be really cool if there was a race of, like, skeleton robots or something' - so Necrons are ideal for him.
He's playing in an after-school club once a week, and because they only have about an hour to play, plus they are kids with limited budget etc, most people only have a small army. Starter box or so.
And he's doing OK. Wins some, loses some. Enjoys himself though. And that's the main thing.
His models are looking awesome too...
I've been hearing that their Psychic Awakening is going to be pretty spicy too, so he's got something to look forward to in the future.
GW balance is arguably exactly where it should be.
The game is playable, the community growing. New factions and rules create buzz - and the buzz about rules would not be as great if everything was average compared to everything else.
"Hey dude, did you see the latest XYZ rules!? They are completely average compared to my existing army!"
Wow it's so exciting. Not.
There's a small minority who have a complaint fetish, God knows why they spend so much time talking about something that according to them is rubbish.
GW's main focus is not the rules. The balance is merely ONE of the things they focus on. Models, lore and hobby supplies come first. I think people need to understand that their personal priorities might not always be shared by the creators.
Also, GW are actively patching the game. Many of you might be too young to remember that in the old days a faction might not get updated for 7 years. If you got stuck with crappy rules you were stuck for a long, long, long time.
Let's all calm down. A game as complex as 40k, with as many variables is impossible to balance perfectly. Frequently updated rules like what we have now is perfectly reasonable.
Also, there's no reason to complain right now. Astartes rules, have been updated and we don't yet know the impact of the changes. Patience
I actually agree with your points for the most part, Ishagu. I love 40k, I play it weekly in tournaments, etc... and the game is in a better state than before, specially with the regular updates.
But that doesn't mean you aren't strawmaning. Nobody is saying every unit needs to be average with every other unit. But I assume at this point, this is the internet and nobody is gonna convince anybody else. So whatever.
I think they've been making genuine attempts at balance, but the missteps recently have been due to structural changes they've made, or inexperienced new members on the team. Games Workshop know that if their game is believed to be a hot mess (regardless of whether it is or not), people might be put off of investing into the hobby. They've been making serious attempts to make adjustments. The delay for the recent FAQ is likely not just a result of their data gathering (really, you could be very confident like 2 months ago), but rather that they were told they had a certain time that they were allowed to publish it, for whatever reasons. They still have a long way to go though, and not specifically in balance. Many factions still feel bland, and the release schedule is anything but well spread these days.
One of the issues I think is the game has been simplified a lot to get around some of the pure incompetent game design of the passed.
6th and 7th being really bad so it is better, but still laughable and bloated to give differences where at times you could do a lot more with less.
Maybe by next edition they will work out where the game really should be going.
I do not even think it’s just a rules issue ether, in some cases there is just lack of models in the design to do the jobs that are needed in some factions.
Some of the imperium has models they could use, but don’t get access to them. Often I think from some ever changing design plan for them.
Crispy78 wrote: My son has started playing in the last 6 months, and he's collecting Necrons. Before he'd even looked at the available factions, he said 'it'd be really cool if there was a race of, like, skeleton robots or something' - so Necrons are ideal for him.
He's playing in an after-school club once a week, and because they only have about an hour to play, plus they are kids with limited budget etc, most people only have a small army. Starter box or so.
And he's doing OK. Wins some, loses some. Enjoys himself though. And that's the main thing.
Ishagu wrote: GW balance is arguably exactly where it should be.
The game is playable, the community growing. New factions and rules create buzz - and the buzz about rules would not be as great if everything was average compared to everything else.
"Hey dude, did you see the latest XYZ rules!? They are completely average compared to my existing army!"
Wow it's so exciting. Not.
There's a small minority who have a complaint fetish, God knows why they spend so much time talking about something that according to them is rubbish.
GW's main focus is not the rules. The balance is merely ONE of the things they focus on. Models, lore and hobby supplies come first. I think people need to understand that their personal priorities might not always be shared by the creators.
Also, GW are actively patching the game. Many of you might be too young to remember that in the old days a faction might not get updated for 7 years. If you got stuck with crappy rules you were stuck for a long, long, long time.
Let's all calm down. A game as complex as 40k, with as many variables is impossible to balance perfectly. Frequently updated rules like what we have now is perfectly reasonable.
Also, there's no reason to complain right now. Astartes rules, have been updated and we don't yet know the impact of the changes. Patience
This is kind of a silly opinion. Rules have to be OP to create excitement?
Boy, it sure would be silly if an extremely well-balanced codex with a hugely anticipated army relaunch in plastic were to have happened like a month ago pretty much entirely proving you wrong there.
Everything in the new sisters codex is playable, everything has its niche, all the subfactions have a reason to take them. Every existing sisters player I know is thrilled with it and at least four people where I play are starting brand new sisters armies from scratch.
Compare that to the SM horsegak, which tanked our player numbers by a solid 25% for like a month, and everyone left was basically just playing space marines or actively avoiding playing against space marines.
Ishagu wrote: GW balance is arguably exactly where it should be.
The game is playable, the community growing. New factions and rules create buzz - and the buzz about rules would not be as great if everything was average compared to everything else.
"Hey dude, did you see the latest XYZ rules!? They are completely average compared to my existing army!"
Wow it's so exciting. Not.
There's a small minority who have a complaint fetish, God knows why they spend so much time talking about something that according to them is rubbish.
GW's main focus is not the rules. The balance is merely ONE of the things they focus on. Models, lore and hobby supplies come first. I think people need to understand that their personal priorities might not always be shared by the creators.
Also, GW are actively patching the game. Many of you might be too young to remember that in the old days a faction might not get updated for 7 years. If you got stuck with crappy rules you were stuck for a long, long, long time.
Let's all calm down. A game as complex as 40k, with as many variables is impossible to balance perfectly. Frequently updated rules like what we have now is perfectly reasonable.
Also, there's no reason to complain right now. Astartes rules, have been updated and we don't yet know the impact of the changes. Patience
This is kind of a silly opinion. Rules have to be OP to create excitement?
Boy, it sure would be silly if an extremely well-balanced codex with a hugely anticipated army relaunch in plastic were to have happened like a month ago pretty much entirely proving you wrong there.
Everything in the new sisters codex is playable, everything has its niche, all the subfactions have a reason to take them. Every existing sisters player I know is thrilled with it and at least four people where I play are starting brand new sisters armies from scratch.
Compare that to the SM horsegak, which tanked our player numbers by a solid 25% for like a month, and everyone left was basically just playing space marines or actively avoiding playing against space marines.
So I don't think GW cares so much about play #'s at this point. They really only care how many SM supplement books they sold and how many boxes of cents/ Intercessors they were able to generate interests in. Probably a gak ton! They know you'll be right back to playing the game because you addicted to plastic crack just like the rest of us. As soon as that deathwatch supplement comes out - you will be on that gravy train!
Ishagu wrote: GW balance is arguably exactly where it should be.
The game is playable, the community growing. New factions and rules create buzz - and the buzz about rules would not be as great if everything was average compared to everything else.
"Hey dude, did you see the latest XYZ rules!? They are completely average compared to my existing army!"
Wow it's so exciting. Not.
There's a small minority who have a complaint fetish, God knows why they spend so much time talking about something that according to them is rubbish.
GW's main focus is not the rules. The balance is merely ONE of the things they focus on. Models, lore and hobby supplies come first. I think people need to understand that their personal priorities might not always be shared by the creators.
Also, GW are actively patching the game. Many of you might be too young to remember that in the old days a faction might not get updated for 7 years. If you got stuck with crappy rules you were stuck for a long, long, long time.
Let's all calm down. A game as complex as 40k, with as many variables is impossible to balance perfectly. Frequently updated rules like what we have now is perfectly reasonable.
Also, there's no reason to complain right now. Astartes rules, have been updated and we don't yet know the impact of the changes. Patience
This is kind of a silly opinion. Rules have to be OP to create excitement?
Boy, it sure would be silly if an extremely well-balanced codex with a hugely anticipated army relaunch in plastic were to have happened like a month ago pretty much entirely proving you wrong there.
Everything in the new sisters codex is playable, everything has its niche, all the subfactions have a reason to take them. Every existing sisters player I know is thrilled with it and at least four people where I play are starting brand new sisters armies from scratch.
Compare that to the SM horsegak, which tanked our player numbers by a solid 25% for like a month, and everyone left was basically just playing space marines or actively avoiding playing against space marines.
So I don't think GW cares so much about play #'s at this point. They really only care how many SM supplement books they sold and how many boxes of cents/ Intercessors they were able to generate interests in. Probably a gak ton! They know you'll be right back to playing the game because you addicted to plastic crack just like the rest of us. As soon as that deathwatch supplement comes out - you will be on that gravy train!
Nope, my DW are permanently shelved outside of Kill Team until SM as a whole are nerfed. I find them to be overpoweringly strong just with their current rules+shock assault+bolter discipline (which doesn't even work with SIA anymore lol).
Ishagu wrote: GW balance is arguably exactly where it should be.
The game is playable, the community growing. New factions and rules create buzz - and the buzz about rules would not be as great if everything was average compared to everything else.
"Hey dude, did you see the latest XYZ rules!? They are completely average compared to my existing army!"
Wow it's so exciting. Not.
There's a small minority who have a complaint fetish, God knows why they spend so much time talking about something that according to them is rubbish.
GW's main focus is not the rules. The balance is merely ONE of the things they focus on. Models, lore and hobby supplies come first. I think people need to understand that their personal priorities might not always be shared by the creators.
Also, GW are actively patching the game. Many of you might be too young to remember that in the old days a faction might not get updated for 7 years. If you got stuck with crappy rules you were stuck for a long, long, long time.
Let's all calm down. A game as complex as 40k, with as many variables is impossible to balance perfectly. Frequently updated rules like what we have now is perfectly reasonable.
Also, there's no reason to complain right now. Astartes rules, have been updated and we don't yet know the impact of the changes. Patience
This is kind of a silly opinion. Rules have to be OP to create excitement?
Boy, it sure would be silly if an extremely well-balanced codex with a hugely anticipated army relaunch in plastic were to have happened like a month ago pretty much entirely proving you wrong there.
Everything in the new sisters codex is playable, everything has its niche, all the subfactions have a reason to take them. Every existing sisters player I know is thrilled with it and at least four people where I play are starting brand new sisters armies from scratch.
Compare that to the SM horsegak, which tanked our player numbers by a solid 25% for like a month, and everyone left was basically just playing space marines or actively avoiding playing against space marines.
So I don't think GW cares so much about play #'s at this point. They really only care how many SM supplement books they sold and how many boxes of cents/ Intercessors they were able to generate interests in. Probably a gak ton! They know you'll be right back to playing the game because you addicted to plastic crack just like the rest of us. As soon as that deathwatch supplement comes out - you will be on that gravy train!
Nope, my DW are permanently shelved outside of Kill Team until SM as a whole are nerfed. I find them to be overpoweringly strong just with their current rules+shock assault+bolter discipline (which doesn't even work with SIA anymore lol).
I've mostly been playing GSC and Orks lately.
Humm - space marines on the whole were just massively nerfed. The only army that really didn't see serious nerfs was ultramarines because they were one of the few armies that specializes in the tactical doctrine which has been made the most reliable doctrine to be in. RG are also tactical but effects way less units and without WL trait bomb cents they are massively down in power. Essentially DW is pretty close in power level to ultramarines at this point. SIA is probably better than tactical doctrine on intercessors. AP -4 on lascannons is only for 1 round. I wouldn't say DW power was ever at all considered over powered.
Ishagu wrote: GW balance is arguably exactly where it should be.
The game is playable, the community growing. New factions and rules create buzz - and the buzz about rules would not be as great if everything was average compared to everything else.
"Hey dude, did you see the latest XYZ rules!? They are completely average compared to my existing army!"
Wow it's so exciting. Not.
There's a small minority who have a complaint fetish, God knows why they spend so much time talking about something that according to them is rubbish.
GW's main focus is not the rules. The balance is merely ONE of the things they focus on. Models, lore and hobby supplies come first. I think people need to understand that their personal priorities might not always be shared by the creators.
Also, GW are actively patching the game. Many of you might be too young to remember that in the old days a faction might not get updated for 7 years. If you got stuck with crappy rules you were stuck for a long, long, long time.
Let's all calm down. A game as complex as 40k, with as many variables is impossible to balance perfectly. Frequently updated rules like what we have now is perfectly reasonable.
Also, there's no reason to complain right now. Astartes rules, have been updated and we don't yet know the impact of the changes. Patience
This is kind of a silly opinion. Rules have to be OP to create excitement?
Boy, it sure would be silly if an extremely well-balanced codex with a hugely anticipated army relaunch in plastic were to have happened like a month ago pretty much entirely proving you wrong there.
Everything in the new sisters codex is playable, everything has its niche, all the subfactions have a reason to take them. Every existing sisters player I know is thrilled with it and at least four people where I play are starting brand new sisters armies from scratch.
Compare that to the SM horsegak, which tanked our player numbers by a solid 25% for like a month, and everyone left was basically just playing space marines or actively avoiding playing against space marines.
So I don't think GW cares so much about play #'s at this point. They really only care how many SM supplement books they sold and how many boxes of cents/ Intercessors they were able to generate interests in. Probably a gak ton! They know you'll be right back to playing the game because you addicted to plastic crack just like the rest of us. As soon as that deathwatch supplement comes out - you will be on that gravy train!
Nope, my DW are permanently shelved outside of Kill Team until SM as a whole are nerfed. I find them to be overpoweringly strong just with their current rules+shock assault+bolter discipline (which doesn't even work with SIA anymore lol).
I've mostly been playing GSC and Orks lately.
Humm - space marines on the whole were just massively nerfed. The only army that really didn't see serious nerfs was ultramarines because they were one of the few armies that specializes in the tactical doctrine which has been made the most reliable doctrine to be in. RG are also tactical but effects way less units and without WL trait bomb cents they are massively down in power. Essentially DW is pretty close in power level to ultramarines at this point. SIA is probably better than tactical doctrine on intercessors. AP -4 on lascannons is only for 1 round. I wouldn't say DW power was ever at all considered over powered.
As I've said before in this thread, what's considered overpowered by the competitive crowd and what creates bad, uninteractive games in my local meta are often two entirely different things. I'm sure I'd go 0-everything with my deathwatch at some super competitive tournament. I only have terminators with powerfists, I run Terminator armor on all my HQs because it's what I've got, heck I have vets armed wtih heavy thunder hammers in a melee kill team, but every time I run them I feel like I'm just getting handed wins. It's the combination of 2+ armor saves and at least 2-3 storm shields in every unit, they just seem to take next to no casualties while they hose stuff off the table. I have never lost a 40k game with them, and the collection started from 1 of each DW vet and vanvet configuration you can take in Kill Team+a Space Hulk set of terminators. I didn't plan my purchases strategically for 40k at all. I look at them and feel like they should be the softest fluffiest goofball army possible, it's just a jumble of randomly armed power armor roughly sorted into "long range weapons one squad, short range weapons one squad, melee weapons one squad" with an old dreadnought repainted from my space wolves and the characters from space hulk+chaplain from deathwatch overkill.
So, they're shelved for now. I'd run them if someone wanted to do an ITC mission or something because that usually means they're more competitive, but most people are specifically requesting games against not space marines right now.
True-but the general point (going from AP0 to AP-1 matters more than AP-3 to AP-4) remains.
Going from a 5+ to a 6+ is a 25% increase in damage. 6+ to no save is a 20% increase.
Going from a 2+ to a 3+ is a 100% increase in damage. 3+ to 4+ is a 50% increase.
Xenomancers wrote: Yeah but going to a 6+ to a 7+ is a huge breakpoint. Removal of all saves = automatic damage ( the best kind of damage).
Do the math, please. Not to mention, a LOT of things have invulnerable saves, meaning extra AP isn't just less useful than the first point, it's actually completely irrelevant.
I think the "art of list-building" shouldn't be "I can spot the gakky, useless choices and the nearly game-breakingly good choices (or I'll hop onto Dakka and/or Reddit and let someone else do it for me) and I shall build a list that only, or primarily includes the latter". It should be about finding which units synergize well with each other and your playstyle, and which will excel at the tasks you want them to do.
Before the internet was a thing, I'm sure spotting the "bad" and "good" units was quite a skillful endeavor. These days, within hours of a datasheet dropping, you already have access to a nearly perfect rundown of its viability. Maybe you don't use this tool, and good on ya for it (I guess), but the fact remains that many people DO use it and this type of "list-building art" just isn't skillful anymore.
Instead, give me a Codex where every unit is, at the least, viable and I can be skillful in how I build my list to utilize them in a way that suits how I play.
Tldr; it takes more skill to create a list tailored to you than it does to grab a net list and copy what the top tournament players are doing.
Xenomancers wrote: Yeah but going to a 6+ to a 7+ is a huge breakpoint. Removal of all saves = automatic damage ( the best kind of damage).
Do the math, please. Not to mention, a LOT of things have invulnerable saves, meaning extra AP isn't just less useful than the first point, it's actually completely irrelevant.
That is true. It is nice to get no saves though. Math is kind of irrelevant compared to doing automatic damage. Making 2 out of 3 6+ saves is enough to win you the game sometimes. Take that away entirely and there is no hope at that point. Less and less things have invulnerable saves with imperial things. I was surprised how often the -4 on a lascannon or a -5 on an executioner made a huge difference.
Ishagu wrote: GW balance is arguably exactly where it should be.
The game is playable, the community growing. New factions and rules create buzz - and the buzz about rules would not be as great if everything was average compared to everything else.
"Hey dude, did you see the latest XYZ rules!? They are completely average compared to my existing army!"
Wow it's so exciting. Not.
There's a small minority who have a complaint fetish, God knows why they spend so much time talking about something that according to them is rubbish.
GW's main focus is not the rules. The balance is merely ONE of the things they focus on. Models, lore and hobby supplies come first. I think people need to understand that their personal priorities might not always be shared by the creators.
Also, GW are actively patching the game. Many of you might be too young to remember that in the old days a faction might not get updated for 7 years. If you got stuck with crappy rules you were stuck for a long, long, long time.
Let's all calm down. A game as complex as 40k, with as many variables is impossible to balance perfectly. Frequently updated rules like what we have now is perfectly reasonable.
Also, there's no reason to complain right now. Astartes rules, have been updated and we don't yet know the impact of the changes. Patience
Its easy to be calm when you are playing the offending faction. That quip aside, I agree somewhat with what you have said. Mainly that perfect balance is unobtainable and that the game is updated. But after being in this hobby for a small amount of time (10+years) I can tell you that GW can and does play favorites in the balance department. It may swing from edition to edition but you are almost always betting well when you play Eldar, Tau or Guard and scraping the bottom with Orks, tyranids and Sisters. Marines and to a extent, Chaos marines may not always be top dog on the balance scale but marines ALWAYS get a lion share of releases and rules while Chaos gets drops from a overfilled chalice. Look at forgeworld, perfect example.
And you cant really blame GW, the top factions sell models. Marines sell more than anyone else by a large margin. Its good business sense. But its bad for the health of the product they produce.
Melissia wrote: Oddly enough, on that note, Sisters are better than they've been in ages. Kinda like how Dark Eldar got revived when they first got plastics.
Is this odd at all? They invest money in sculpts and marketing to relaunch a line. Then, they go and make them competitive rule wise. I would say this is obviously a way to guarantee they get good return on investment.
This just means that they know how to make units and more generally armies relevant. They just choose to do it selectively to maximize sales. It makes sense to me: Probably switching metas sells more minis than a stable game.
At the same time, I never said Sisters were top tier yet. They haven't really given us any particularly punchy gimmick yet, which you think they would if they were going to try to do what you said.
Melissia wrote: At the same time, I never said Sisters were top tier yet. They haven't really given us any particularly punchy gimmick yet, which you think they would if they were going to try to do what you said.
Didn’t say they would make them the best, I said more competitive. Objectively speaking, they are and you said so yourself.
Why weren’t they more competitive before and why are they now? Well, they just invested quite a bit in new sculpts, so it seems obvious to me that they bumped them so that the models would sell well.
There are more considerations involved in deciding where they place them in the competitive ladder. We can only guess when it comes to such fine detail.
I just wish they would stop doing this because it degrades the game. I don’t think they need so much rule fiddling to sell minis well. The extra buck they make with rule tampering comes at a big cost in reputation, at least when it comes to me.
Because they never got an update other than just rehashing basically the same exact units over and over again for five editions in a row.
Even now, Sisters have the least new "stuff" out of all of the armies, in spite of being the big new thing of the year. We basically have all the exact same units as we had five editions ago, except with the addition of a couple characters, zephyrim, and mortifiers. And both of those new units are just variants of existing units (Seraphim and Penitent Engines), while there's still no named characters for orders other than the one poster-girl order. And we still haven't gotten the miniatujre for our generic character yet...
It's not really accurate to say that Sisters are somehow being shown some kind of massive favor for being finally given plastic miniatures (as the final army that needed plastic troops choices to begin with) and given another set of updated rules for basically the same units after so long.
Melissia wrote:Oddly enough, on that note, Sisters are better than they've been in ages. Kinda like how Dark Eldar got revived when they first got plastics.
This is what you said. I said I didn't feel it was odd at all.
Melissia wrote:Because they never got an update other than just rehashing basically the same exact units over and over again for five editions in a row.
Even now, Sisters have the least new "stuff" out of all of the armies, in spite of being the big new thing of the year. We basically have all the exact same units as we had five editions ago, except with the addition of a couple characters, zephyrim, and mortifiers. And both of those new units are just variants of existing units (Seraphim and Penitent Engines), while there's still no named characters for orders other than the one poster-girl order. And we still haven't gotten the miniatujre for our generic character yet...
It's not really accurate to say that Sisters are somehow being shown some kind of massive favor for being finally given plastic miniatures (as the final army that needed plastic troops choices to begin with) and given another set of updated rules for basically the same units after so long.
No one is saying massive, in fact I didn't qualify how big of an improvement at all. I just parroted what you said and added my conclusion.
Sisters are now better than they've been in ages (this is what you said)....BECAUSE GW wants to get return on the investment needed to give them plastic.
I am a marine player and I still think marines are too killy. Most of their bonuses are offensive, and I think they are supposed to be more resilent. I think strategems like trashuman should be the norm over things like bolter discipline or shock assault
Kithail wrote: I am a marine player and I still think marines are too killy. Most of their bonuses are offensive, and I think they are supposed to be more resilent. I think strategems like trashuman should be the norm over things like bolter discipline or shock assault
I am actually semi ok with the range firepower they bring to games. What I dislike, as a chaos player, is how we go this many years without a simple Drop pod kit. We have them in the lore, a good amount of them but yet we are stuck with forgeworld models that you pay out the nose for that have unneeded and unwanted gimmicks attached. I mean how hard is it to throw a sprue of spikes into the kit and change the box art.
But nope. Rhinos until the end of days............
Im sorry, ill go now. No one likes a whiner.
Kithail wrote: I am a marine player and I still think marines are too killy. Most of their bonuses are offensive, and I think they are supposed to be more resilent. I think strategems like trashuman should be the norm over things like bolter discipline or shock assault
I am actually semi ok with the range firepower they bring to games. What I dislike, as a chaos player, is how we go this many years without a simple Drop pod kit. We have them in the lore, a good amount of them but yet we are stuck with forgeworld models that you pay out the nose for that have unneeded and unwanted gimmicks attached. I mean how hard is it to throw a sprue of spikes into the kit and change the box art.
But nope. Rhinos until the end of days............
Im sorry, ill go now. No one likes a whiner.
You can have our overpriced drop pods "hands drop pod".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kithail wrote: I am a marine player and I still think marines are too killy. Most of their bonuses are offensive, and I think they are supposed to be more resilent. I think strategems like trashuman should be the norm over things like bolter discipline or shock assault
What you are talking about is a design philosophy. I've been saying it for years. Marines should be more durable. Since that is never going to happen they are gonna remain glass cannons.
Kithail wrote: I am a marine player and I still think marines are too killy. Most of their bonuses are offensive, and I think they are supposed to be more resilent. I think strategems like trashuman should be the norm over things like bolter discipline or shock assault
I am actually semi ok with the range firepower they bring to games. What I dislike, as a chaos player, is how we go this many years without a simple Drop pod kit. We have them in the lore, a good amount of them but yet we are stuck with forgeworld models that you pay out the nose for that have unneeded and unwanted gimmicks attached. I mean how hard is it to throw a sprue of spikes into the kit and change the box art.
But nope. Rhinos until the end of days............
Im sorry, ill go now. No one likes a whiner.
The dreadclaw should be easy to make as a full plastic kit, as anyone whose assembled one knows, it is literally a full standard drop pod kit with some extra conversion bits. I just don't understand why you'd just want a standard drop instead. That's literally just wanting "marines with spikes ".
Not when your basic weapons are ap-2 or better. if demons had access to +5 re-rollable or worse +4 inv save they would be a very spiky army to play against.
Karol wrote: Not when your basic weapons are ap-2 or better. if demons had access to +5 re-rollable or worse +4 inv save they would be a very spiky army to play against.
Is someone gonna tell karol about tzeentch? I dont want to break his little heart.
Melissia wrote: At the same time, I never said Sisters were top tier yet. They haven't really given us any particularly punchy gimmick yet, which you think they would if they were going to try to do what you said.
Didn’t say they would make them the best, I said more competitive. Objectively speaking, they are and you said so yourself.
Why weren’t they more competitive before and why are they now? Well, they just invested quite a bit in new sculpts, so it seems obvious to me that they bumped them so that the models would sell well.
There are more considerations involved in deciding where they place them in the competitive ladder. We can only guess when it comes to such fine detail.
I just wish they would stop doing this because it degrades the game. I don’t think they need so much rule fiddling to sell minis well. The extra buck they make with rule tampering comes at a big cost in reputation, at least when it comes to me.
Why didn't they do this for all the new CSM sculpts? Didn't they want a return on those models, too?
Karol wrote: Not when your basic weapons are ap-2 or better. if demons had access to +5 re-rollable or worse +4 inv save they would be a very spiky army to play against.
Is someone gonna tell karol about tzeentch? I dont want to break his little heart.
With exception of Blue and Brimstone Horrors Tzeentch Daemons have a 4++. Karol will be fine, he's got mortal wounds en masse, he just needs to kill big squads or monsters with morale, inquisitors and fortifications or kill more than one in a single phase to avoid getting hit too hard by the Daemonic Incursion Stratagem.
Harlequins are worse with having 4++ on everything and all their vehicles are -1 to hit with shooting.
Getting countered by GK hardly is a big problem for the meta.
As I said, +4 or re-rolable inv make up for odd games, because one game they save everything and another they save nothing.
It is not very fun to lose, because someone got lucky with rolls, it is like you doing long jump and getting wind in the face, while your opponent gets it in the back.
+2sv on the other hand is flat, and easier, or at least was easier to drop. saving wounds on +5 does not save enough wounds when your getting slamed by 60+shots.
Martel732 wrote: "It's the breakpoint of automatic damage. That is the point."
And that's meaningless, I think.
Not really, he does have a point.
This game is not all about average damage, damage distribution is also important.
As long as you concede a 6+ to the target, it makes your damage quite swingy in the distribution. Any plan which requires that shot to go through are carrying a not so small risk of failing.
I'm not saying that it is a huge difference, but it is surely bigger than what that measly negated 6+ would let you believe.
Martel732 wrote: "It's the breakpoint of automatic damage. That is the point."
And that's meaningless, I think.
Not really, he does have a point.
This game is not all about average damage, damage distribution is also important.
As long as you concede a 6+ to the target, it makes your damage quite swingy in the distribution. Any plan which requires that shot to go through are carrying a not so small risk of failing.
I'm not saying that it is a huge difference, but it is surely bigger than what that measly negated 6+ would let you believe.
The exact same thing applies to a 2+, if you rely on getting 5 unsaved wounds on 30 wounds then you could get 2 and lose the game.
Melissia wrote: At the same time, I never said Sisters were top tier yet. They haven't really given us any particularly punchy gimmick yet, which you think they would if they were going to try to do what you said.
Didn’t say they would make them the best, I said more competitive. Objectively speaking, they are and you said so yourself.
Why weren’t they more competitive before and why are they now? Well, they just invested quite a bit in new sculpts, so it seems obvious to me that they bumped them so that the models would sell well.
There are more considerations involved in deciding where they place them in the competitive ladder. We can only guess when it comes to such fine detail.
I just wish they would stop doing this because it degrades the game. I don’t think they need so much rule fiddling to sell minis well. The extra buck they make with rule tampering comes at a big cost in reputation, at least when it comes to me.
Why didn't they do this for all the new CSM sculpts? Didn't they want a return on those models, too?
To further this with a more recent example, what about the plastic Banshees and Incubi, or even the plastic Shadowsun that many players are considering to be worse than her previous incarnation?
For every knew model that gets released with overpowered rules there is atleast two with average or crap rules.
After some inner thinking, I came to the conclusion that GW either bases the power of armies on personal bias of the writers in the design team, or there is zero rules to decide who gets powerful and who gets bad rules, and it is just random stuff GW design team has no more real control over, then they have over rolling a set of dice.
They are definitely incompetent. They have also made their job harder, with faction bloat of lots of pretty much identical factions, but that is also part of the incompetence and lack of overall control and vision for the product.
They have improved, in that they now update the game every now and then with "FAQs" which are actually rules errata or balance fixes, but this is a cover for sloppy design and incompetence. It is better than NOT having errata, but I still find the the studio unprofessional and worthy of scorn and contempt.
People with low standards who are happy with this slop can continue to enjoy it of course. Good for them.
To further this with a more recent example, what about the plastic Banshees and Incubi, or even the plastic Shadowsun that many players are considering to be worse than her previous incarnation?
For every knew model that gets released with overpowered rules there is atleast two with average or crap rules.
I do not think that's by design. Eldars are due a massive revamp of aspect warriors (new sculpts and rules), I just think banshees were simply released earlier.
Now, if in the span of a year or so they release a ton of eldar plastic and rules remain meh for it, then I'll be very surprised.
Primaris were a special case since quite clearly they had to deal with backlash (since they are invalidating old marines in the process).
To further this with a more recent example, what about the plastic Banshees and Incubi, or even the plastic Shadowsun that many players are considering to be worse than her previous incarnation?
For every knew model that gets released with overpowered rules there is atleast two with average or crap rules.
I do not think that's by design. Eldars are due a massive revamp of aspect warriors (new sculpts and rules), I just think banshees were simply released earlier.
Now, if in the span of a year or so they release a ton of eldar plastic and rules remain meh for it, then I'll be very surprised.
Primaris were a special case since quite clearly they had to deal with backlash (since they are invalidating old marines in the process).
You're just making up rationalizations though to maintain your point of view, but they're not based on anything sound.
They got new rules. There is nothing that can change for Banshees now. They're bottom barrel pricing and they already have several special rules. S4 is incredibly unlikely so the only chance would be a point drop on power swords, but that won't convince anyone who hates wounding on 5s.
You're just making up rationalizations though to maintain your point of view, but they're not based on anything sound.
They got new rules. There is nothing that can change for Banshees now. They're bottom barrel pricing and they already have several special rules. S4 is incredibly unlikely so the only chance would be a point drop on power swords, but that won't convince anyone who hates wounding on 5s.
I do not agree. It is quite obvious that it is hard for them to release new rules for a single model.
I think my point is clear and I do believe it is spot on for large releases like sisters, or primaris.
Might not apply to absolutely everything they do, but I believe it holds as a general rule.
Feel free to disagree, but I have yet to see any convincing argument that makes me change my mind.
Da Boss wrote: Points drops turn them into a horde unit, rather than the elite combat blender they are supposed to be.
That's where people lose their sense of balance - when a unit doesn't do as they think the lore indicates.
People are also wearing rose colored glasses on Banshees since they have almost exactly the same rules now, as previous. They only exceptions being war shout was worse and they used to cause fear, which was also kind of useless. And they were I5/6, but charging now means going first anyway. Of course back then they only hit marines on 4s.
You're just making up rationalizations though to maintain your point of view, but they're not based on anything sound.
They got new rules. There is nothing that can change for Banshees now. They're bottom barrel pricing and they already have several special rules. S4 is incredibly unlikely so the only chance would be a point drop on power swords, but that won't convince anyone who hates wounding on 5s.
I do not agree. It is quite obvious that it is hard for them to release new rules for a single model.
I think my point is clear and I do believe it is spot on for large releases like sisters, or primaris.
Might not apply to absolutely everything they do, but I believe it holds as a general rule.
Feel free to disagree, but I have yet to see any convincing argument that makes me change my mind.
...CSM They got Abaddon, Havocs, CSM, MoP, VC, GP, Oblits, Discordant, Haarken, and Terminators.
GW released a "new" codex that did nothing for those models. Then they got a PA book, which while containing some nice strats does not share the same design principles other armies have been seeing and only dealt with the legions and not the models themselves.
Where I would consider CSM to be "fine" it does not rise to the level of your standard.
Amusingly, the "Marines should be elites not hordes" thing is part of why GW keeps slapping on new stuff to Marines, like Doctrines. Which then had to be nerfed pretty quickly by GW's standards...
Da Boss wrote: Points drops turn them into a horde unit, rather than the elite combat blender they are supposed to be.
That's where people lose their sense of balance - when a unit doesn't do as they think the lore indicates.
People are also wearing rose colored glasses on Banshees since they have almost exactly the same rules now, as previous. They only exceptions being war shout was worse and they used to cause fear, which was also kind of useless. And they were I5/6, but charging now means going first anyway. Of course back then they only hit marines on 4s.
You're just making up rationalizations though to maintain your point of view, but they're not based on anything sound.
They got new rules. There is nothing that can change for Banshees now. They're bottom barrel pricing and they already have several special rules. S4 is incredibly unlikely so the only chance would be a point drop on power swords, but that won't convince anyone who hates wounding on 5s.
I do not agree. It is quite obvious that it is hard for them to release new rules for a single model.
I think my point is clear and I do believe it is spot on for large releases like sisters, or primaris.
Might not apply to absolutely everything they do, but I believe it holds as a general rule.
Feel free to disagree, but I have yet to see any convincing argument that makes me change my mind.
...CSM They got Abaddon, Havocs, CSM, MoP, VC, GP, Oblits, Discordant, Haarken, and Terminators.
GW released a "new" codex that did nothing for those models. Then they got a PA book, which while containing some nice strats does not share the same design principles other armies have been seeing and only dealt with the legions and not the models themselves.
Where I would consider CSM to be "fine" it does not rise to the level of your standard.
Agreed. The new models are great but csm are still stuck with the same crap wombo combo and soup playstyle gw seems to think represents the faction. Sadly I fear we'll never again see the heady days of 3.5.
Oh well. Back to the salt mines.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: Amusingly, the "Marines should be elites not hordes" thing is part of why GW keeps slapping on new stuff to Marines, like Doctrines. Which then had to be nerfed pretty quickly by GW's standards...
Gw seems to be fine with hordes of marines as long as they have spikes....
It works on them too, some of the time, but it just doesn't feel satisfying. I don't understand why gw decided chaos should be the gimmick of the week brigade.
It works on them too, some of the time, but it just doesn't feel satisfying. I don't understand why gw decided chaos should be the gimmick of the week brigade.
DIsagree, as someone that actually runs a massed CSM army quite often nowadays, it works precisly until the SM player of any flavour turns to tactical doctrine and proceeds to wipe the floor with 2 squads + per turn.
Most xenos small arms fire aswell as most small arms fire from other factions in general i can pretty easily shrugg off the AP -1 though really hurts overall and i can often not recycle in enough backup. Which also leads to another point, in general CSM feel pretty decent against most infantry atm but get mostly cut out due to the codex dictating imo that thou shall not have less then 13 CP and place for a Hammer of some kind, usually obliterators and or nowadays possessed. Leaving you with alot less pts and overall enforcing that you pick cultists which at this point is only a real save on points off 5 / squad.
Is there a specific reason why GW can't make lets say a BA tactial without upgrades cost a different amount of points then say a salamander one, and both of those cost different a DA one. And then go even further with DA having cheaper plasma, Salamanders having cheap or free flamers, and something like ultramarines having everything a bit cheaper, but not as cheap as chapters that specialise in something?
This way it would be easier for GW to steer people in to a specific type of game play with a chapter, the option for playing something wierd would still technicly be there. And all comers like ultramarines could be rewarded by an over all discount on gear.
And they could do it for other subfactions too. So it is not like it would limit other factions in what they can get, or have GW sell fewer books.
Would also fix some of the over lap problem. Banshees in a regular codex would cost the way they are now, and if someone wants to be crazy and take them , they still would be able to. But there could be some aspect warrior focused list, where if you take nothing but aspects they are cheaper, or you get free exarchs for taking specific number of aspect warriors. It could even scale, so if you just mixed aspects up, they would only get cheaper. but if you had 3+ units of one aspect the exarchs could be buffed. And if you had 6+ they could get some special rule. And at 9+ you would get a free phoenix lord.
Not to disagree, but in general GW would mess it up.
The best case scenario would be, that we would have to actually pay for subfaction traits, because there is not reason that a WBCSM is equal to an ALCSM.
It also would reduce streamlining, which is not something GW seems to want atm considering CA 19 lowered Sorcerers and MoP's on foot to be excactly priced the same as librarians, even though atleast the sorcerer just has the better discipline.
With CSM I think what could help them is to add gear or chaos stuff on squad level to regular squads. Some sort of chaos icons that do something, and are different per legion. Maybe some ancient heresy era guns loyalists don't have. maybe gear from the chaos mechanicus, which again loyalist don't have. If loyalists can have cawl stuff and grav guns, chaos marines should have an option of their own too.
Da Boss wrote: They are definitely incompetent. They have also made their job harder, with faction bloat of lots of pretty much identical factions, but that is also part of the incompetence and lack of overall control and vision for the product.
They have improved, in that they now update the game every now and then with "FAQs" which are actually rules errata or balance fixes, but this is a cover for sloppy design and incompetence. It is better than NOT having errata, but I still find the the studio unprofessional and worthy of scorn and contempt.
People with low standards who are happy with this slop can continue to enjoy it of course. Good for them.
So incompetent they have made the most successful tabletop wargame of all time and post record success month after month.
It works on them too, some of the time, but it just doesn't feel satisfying. I don't understand why gw decided chaos should be the gimmick of the week brigade.
DIsagree, as someone that actually runs a massed CSM army quite often nowadays, it works precisly until the SM player of any flavour turns to tactical doctrine and proceeds to wipe the floor with 2 squads + per turn.
Most xenos small arms fire aswell as most small arms fire from other factions in general i can pretty easily shrugg off the AP -1 though really hurts overall and i can often not recycle in enough backup. Which also leads to another point, in general CSM feel pretty decent against most infantry atm but get mostly cut out due to the codex dictating imo that thou shall not have less then 13 CP and place for a Hammer of some kind, usually obliterators and or nowadays possessed. Leaving you with alot less pts and overall enforcing that you pick cultists which at this point is only a real save on points off 5 / squad.
Sorry, thought you were talking about my wombo combo comment and not massed csm.
No, hordes of csm don't work against sm due to the cp hungry tactics we need to compete with them. That's what I hate about gw's current take on chaos. Combos combos combos. I hate having to plan on 2cp per turn just to keep their fething chapter masters in check.
It works on them too, some of the time, but it just doesn't feel satisfying. I don't understand why gw decided chaos should be the gimmick of the week brigade.
DIsagree, as someone that actually runs a massed CSM army quite often nowadays, it works precisly until the SM player of any flavour turns to tactical doctrine and proceeds to wipe the floor with 2 squads + per turn.
Most xenos small arms fire aswell as most small arms fire from other factions in general i can pretty easily shrugg off the AP -1 though really hurts overall and i can often not recycle in enough backup. Which also leads to another point, in general CSM feel pretty decent against most infantry atm but get mostly cut out due to the codex dictating imo that thou shall not have less then 13 CP and place for a Hammer of some kind, usually obliterators and or nowadays possessed. Leaving you with alot less pts and overall enforcing that you pick cultists which at this point is only a real save on points off 5 / squad.
Sorry, thought you were talking about my wombo combo comment and not massed csm.
No, hordes of csm don't work against sm due to the cp hungry tactics we need to compete with them. That's what I hate about gw's current take on chaos. Combos combos combos. I hate having to plan on 2cp per turn just to keep their fething chapter masters in check.
Honestly, my issue with my horde is more that i can just cacophony/ recycle once per turn. severly limiting my capabilities down comparatively to the allways on Doctrines and superior traits of SM. Remember it's based on RC to work meaning that i run around with 16 + CP depending on how i set up. that is more then enough for 3-4 times recycling and one or the other cacophony.
Karol wrote: With CSM I think what could help them is to add gear or chaos stuff on squad level to regular squads. Some sort of chaos icons that do something, and are different per legion. Maybe some ancient heresy era guns loyalists don't have. maybe gear from the chaos mechanicus, which again loyalist don't have. If loyalists can have cawl stuff and grav guns, chaos marines should have an option of their own too.
Good idea. Perhaps csm could purchase special abilities for points. We could call them "veteran abilities ".
Karol wrote: With CSM I think what could help them is to add gear or chaos stuff on squad level to regular squads. Some sort of chaos icons that do something, and are different per legion. Maybe some ancient heresy era guns loyalists don't have. maybe gear from the chaos mechanicus, which again loyalist don't have. If loyalists can have cawl stuff and grav guns, chaos marines should have an option of their own too.
Good idea. Perhaps csm could purchase special abilities for points. We could call them "veteran abilities ".
you don't have to be competent, when your a monopolist. This works in trade, politics, academia and sports.
Oligopolist* but yes, Karol has a point.
If GW would release 40k now in this state, it would be probably a pretty minute margin of market that it would achieve if not outright fail.
He doesn't really. It's not like GW have priced their competition out of the market given their models are some of, if not the most expensive. While there exist barriers to entry to the miniature wargame market, GW have not really influenced this in a negative way.
What they have done is create an incredible setting with some of the best models and their success stems from here, rather than a deep and structured rule set.
GW is a very competent business, as evidenced by their sales, continued growth and market domination. Their competence is more to do with models and setting than rules, however.
...CSM They got Abaddon, Havocs, CSM, MoP, VC, GP, Oblits, Discordant, Haarken, and Terminators.
GW released a "new" codex that did nothing for those models. Then they got a PA book, which while containing some nice strats does not share the same design principles other armies have been seeing and only dealt with the legions and not the models themselves.
Where I would consider CSM to be "fine" it does not rise to the level of your standard.
What I said is that GW has an incentive to update the rules for models they want to sell (e.g. after a big release of new sculpts). Primaris and sisters do work well with that theory, although of course at different power levels.
You tell me that there were releases that didn't see any boost in power whatsoever. I wasn't there, so I'll trust you opinion on it.
The question is then whether this means GW is not tweaking rules to sell models, or perhaps there is another reason why this wasn't done in the case you point out.
Chaos seems middle of the pack at the moment, perhaps they didn't feel they needed to raise the level for them, or that it would limit them in their ability to launch other lines if they did that.
As I said, I am not familiar with the case at all.
But you do know that in some parts of the world, GW is not going to sell you their stuff, if your also running other table tops. And shops that did try to do it or order their stuff from germany instead of UK, had their shipments coming late, with missing important popular items to sell. Even now GW is late delivering stuff like codex, starter sets etc. They are not a fun company to be around, but they are the only ones that can make a store run. while stuff like warmachine that was popular in Poland at a time, just doesn't get send new or any stuff to europe. A store can't run a game, when it has no models people are willing to buy.
As models goes, I think they are producing more then a few dudes and ugly models that have extra stuff put on the model just so people don't see how flat their plastic models are. French and spanish companies make a lot better looking models.
And while I understand that in countries where buying an amry every 3 months rules ain't a problem, if that was 100% true, then we would not have the crying over IH rule set and AoS wouldn't have done bad without points and proper rules.
GW is just a big company that can kill a store, by being late with delivery once or twice, and no store has the free money to take them to court over it. So people comply.
Same with new games, it is too much a risk to grow a new one, when the store owner may not let you play with the models.
so I call bs on GW not influencing the market in a negative way.
you don't have to be competent, when your a monopolist. This works in trade, politics, academia and sports.
Oligopolist* but yes, Karol has a point.
If GW would release 40k now in this state, it would be probably a pretty minute margin of market that it would achieve if not outright fail.
He doesn't really. It's not like GW have priced their competition out of the market given their models are some of, if not the most expensive. While there exist barriers to entry to the miniature wargame market, GW have not really influenced this in a negative way.
What they have done is create an incredible setting with some of the best models and their success stems from here, rather than a deep and structured rule set.
GW is a very competent business, as evidenced by their sales, continued growth and market domination. Their competence is more to do with models and setting than rules, however.
Well, they benefited mostly from first mover advantage. A lot of it seems snowballing to me, after that.
I'd say the biggest factors GW has going for them, atm, are market presence and dominance.
GW did not create very much original, to begin with, rather they stole ideas left and right. No one cared too much at that time and I suspect it was seen more as a satire of current (at the time) sci fi and fantasy themes than anything. Then, they are big enough now to sustain the creation of fluff.
Finally, people want a game they can play (potentially) anywhere and that will continue to exist in the next few years; GW provides that better than the competitors simply base on size.
I do not find the game to be particularly well balanced, the sculpts to be significantly better than the competition, or the prices to be lower than alternatives. But the package they offer (big community, sustainable future, expanding universe) is hard to beat by other companies, even if the other games and sculpts are better. Also, it kills potential entry into its niche. I wouldn't say it is surprising that similar games have gone for different battle sizs (number of minis). Up until now, at least, these smaller games didn't do well foGW.
Agreed. It's all about the setting. I fell in love with 40k when I discovered wd 120. That was 1st edition. I didn't actually get to play until 3rd. Lots of people read the books but never play, and many discover the game through the books.
Ishagu wrote: I think some people literally can't comprehend the fact that GW never made their success around rules. It's funny how single minded some people are.
They are better than the past, but the ruled are only one of the things they focus on, and it's not their main focus.
Which loops nicely back into "why treat something where rules are secondary/for funsies as the ultimate competitive game".
Melissia wrote: Amusingly, the "Marines should be elites not hordes" thing is part of why GW keeps slapping on new stuff to Marines, like Doctrines. Which then had to be nerfed pretty quickly by GW's standards...
I'd say that's more an issue with 8th's core rules, which are very shallow and don't really have any in-built mechanics for the different factions to expand on. It's just a war of spreadsheets.
Hence, the only way GW can meaningfully differentiate the different factions (especially when it comes to the twenty-billion SM subfactions) is by adding more and more special rules. You need special rules to differentiate the faction from other factions, then you need more special rules to differentiate most unit from other units, then (in the case of SMs) you need more special rules to show how elite they are, and then finally you need some extra special rules to differentiate their particular subfaction from all the other Marine subfactions.
What's more, there's the additional problem that 8th edition is a vastly different scale to, say, 5th edition. Back in 5th, the largest things you could expect to face were Trygons and Dreadknights. The former had 6 wounds and 3+ armour but no invulnerable save, the latter had only 4 wounds but a superior 2+/5++ save.
Obviously both of these outclassed individual Marines but they were far from insurmountable. The lack of any invulnerable meant that the Trygon was pretty vulnerable to missiles, Lascannons and plasma. Those 6 wounds could disappear pretty quickly. The Dreadknight with it's 2+/5++ was probably harder to kill overall, but at the end of the day is only had 4 wounds. What's more, neither of these were built to win fire-fights. The Dreadknight had some impressive mid-range shooting but it was unlikely to actually out-range its targets. And the Trygon was basically just a big, melee beast. Hence, neither of these could expect to blow enemies off the table from beyond their maximum range.
Now fast forward to 8th edition and suddenly those models are nowhere near the strongest individual models. Not when we have Baneblades and Imperial Knights wandering around. And Imperial Knights have far more wounds than Trygons whilst also boasting the protection of Dreadknights, not to mention enough firepower to challenge small armies from the other side of the table.
The reason I bring this up is because when you add new elite models at the top of the curve, it invariably squashes together all the units below them.
To put it another way, we're basically using standard 40k rules to play out Apocalypse-scale battles. And at that scale, infantry - even elite infantry like Marines - just aren't going to be significantly different from Guardsmen or Kabalites or any other infantry.
If you really want Marines to feel elite again, then the first step is to remove Fliers, super-heavies, Primarchs, Knights, and everything else that belongs in Apocalypse games. Otherwise, it's like differentiating between combat-knives on individual soldiers during a battle between aircraft carriers and battleships. It's just not relevant to the scale.
I don't really agree with the idea GW is a monopoly - or that 8th is doom and gloom.
GW was sinking without a trace from about 2012-2016. The share price went nowhere, the revenue went nowhere.
This was the time when games like X-Wing and Warmahordes and others gobbled up market share. Arguably it was a healthy time - as you saw huge numbers of games appear and have a go - but it also saw the death of Warhammer Fantasy, something which should have been incomprehensible to the supposedly monopolistic behemoth. 40k was still dominant but going nowhere fast.
Then GW got rid of Kirby, started making models people wanted to buy, with game systems they wanted to play, and profits and market share surged as they did before the weird paranoia kicked in and GW stopped. This turn around was not inevitable.
Ishagu wrote: I think some people literally can't comprehend the fact that GW never made their success around rules. It's funny how single minded some people are.
They are better than the past, but the ruled are only one of the things they focus on, and it's not their main focus.
Which loops nicely back into "why treat something where rules are secondary/for funsies as the ultimate competitive game".
Then why have rules for sale at all if you can just go "pewpew" and remove models as necessary?
Ishagu wrote: I think some people literally can't comprehend the fact that GW never made their success around rules. It's funny how single minded some people are.
They are better than the past, but the ruled are only one of the things they focus on, and it's not their main focus.
Which loops nicely back into "why treat something where rules are secondary/for funsies as the ultimate competitive game".
Then why have rules for sale at all if you can just go "pewpew" and remove models as necessary?
Not everything has to be 100% one way or another.
Rules are a part of their product. They aren't the main focus of it.
I don't think 40k is the game for you. Sell your models and find a different hobby.
Ishagu wrote: I think some people literally can't comprehend the fact that GW never made their success around rules. It's funny how single minded some people are.
They are better than the past, but the ruled are only one of the things they focus on, and it's not their main focus.
Which loops nicely back into "why treat something where rules are secondary/for funsies as the ultimate competitive game".
Then why have rules for sale at all if you can just go "pewpew" and remove models as necessary?
Not everything has to be 100% one way or another.
Rules are a part of their product. They aren't the main focus of it.
I don't think 40k is the game for you. Sell your models and find a different hobby.
Love it or leave it fallacy. GW should 100% outsource the rules. Theyve proven for eight editions now that they dont have a clue.
Ishagu wrote: I think some people literally can't comprehend the fact that GW never made their success around rules. It's funny how single minded some people are.
They are better than the past, but the ruled are only one of the things they focus on, and it's not their main focus.
Which loops nicely back into "why treat something where rules are secondary/for funsies as the ultimate competitive game".
Then why have rules for sale at all if you can just go "pewpew" and remove models as necessary?
Not everything has to be 100% one way or another.
Rules are a part of their product. They aren't the main focus of it.
I don't think 40k is the game for you. Sell your models and find a different hobby.
Love it or leave it fallacy. GW should 100% outsource the rules. Theyve proven for eight editions now that they dont have a clue.
Use rules from a different system with your GW minis, problem solved?
Martel732 wrote: On paper sure, but lack of community is a big problem.
So create that community.
Be the change you want to see.
So you enter the store, say you want to play game X, that no one plays it, the store owner doesn't run it. You would have to be really liked and supply the models for people to even try the game, and the store owner would have to be okey with it. Playing a non GW system, with GW models at a store that runs GW stuff, is not going to happen very often.
FLG created the ITC basically whole cloth in response to GWs rules. It's not impossible to create your own dedicated group of players who all broadly agree on how the game should be played.
Changing systems entirely, while using the same models will be harder than that, but with dedication and patience, it could be done.
How Elite did you feel when you playing as Captain Titus?
That's how Elite a Marine is supposed to feel. (From a fluff POV of course).
A: A Marine Captain is more elite than an ordinary Marine.
B: Did you have to reload at any point because you died?
C: Did you ever find yourself in open terrain facing tanks/knights as can happen on the tabletop?
Marines don't feel as elite on the tabletop because of the pitched nature of the game and the removal of fog of war. But imagine if your Tactical Squad is in dense terrain against traitor Guardmen, and can pick through enemy units one at a time, backed up by organized fire support.
Martel732 wrote: On paper sure, but lack of community is a big problem.
So create that community.
Be the change you want to see.
You DO realize how hard that is, right?
More productive than complaining on a 3rd party site.
If they want GW to change, they should contact GW directly through their allocated media channels, or vote with their wallet. If GW isn't doing anything for them, then they should step away from the hobby, for their own mental health. If they want community support, they can't just expect it to come out of nowhere.
Put in the work (and believe me, it's hard work, not denying that), and maybe you'll get what you want. But complaining about it and doing nothing to help create it isn't going to magically solve everything.
Meant with all due respect.
Karol wrote:So you enter the store, say you want to play game X, that no one plays it, the store owner doesn't run it. You would have to be really liked and supply the models for people to even try the game, and the store owner would have to be okey with it. Playing a non GW system, with GW models at a store that runs GW stuff, is not going to happen very often.
Find a different store, or encourage people within that store to play it. And yes, that may include having to supply the initial rules and models/proxy models to do it, but that's how you involve people in a game they might not be invested in.
When I try and get people involved in other game systems (30k, Kill Team, Legion, Dreadball, D&D, etc) I make sure that I have material for at least two players, so I can teach one-on-one, or have two people play, and oversee them both. If it doesn't work out, then I still enjoyed myself painting models. If it does work out, then I've got someone else I can play with/against.
Of course, you can't expect a GW owned store to do it, like how you can't go into a fast food store and eat food from a rival chain, but a 3rd party store, or even playing another GW game in a GW store (Necromunda/Warcry) should all be fine. And if they're not, you then know what store not to give your patronage.
It's all a question of how much effort you're willing/able to put in to get people involved.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Canadian 5th wrote: FLG created the ITC basically whole cloth in response to GWs rules. It's not impossible to create your own dedicated group of players who all broadly agree on how the game should be played.
Exactly. While I have no love for the ITC, and maintain that it is a homebrew system separate from GW's own priorities, it is proof that communities based on homebrew 40k rules can, and do, gain traction.
Other examples are the Centurion ruleset in 30k, and the Combat Patrol/Escalation campaign system for regular 40k. While both are only organisational changes to how the game is played, not a wholesale rebuild from a ground up, they're still widely recognised rulesets. Heralds of Ruin's own Kill Team rules are a similar example of an even more distinct ruleset.
Building your own homebrew ruleset for 40k models is absolutely possible. Marketing it, and gaining widespread distribution is harder, but also possible. Create PDF rules, with easy web access. Post battle reports through various channels and social media pages (Twitter, Facebook, instagram, Reddit, forum sites, Youtube, etc). Just *talk* about your ruleset, get in contact with people with larger online presences and ask if they'd like to try out and review your system.
Find a different store, or encourage people within that store to play it. And yes, that may include having to supply the initial rules and models/proxy models to do it, but that's how you involve people in a game they might not be invested in.
When I try and get people involved in other game systems (30k, Kill Team, Legion, Dreadball, D&D, etc) I make sure that I have material for at least two players, so I can teach one-on-one, or have two people play, and oversee them both. If it doesn't work out, then I still enjoyed myself painting models. If it does work out, then I've got someone else I can play with/against.
Of course, you can't expect a GW owned store to do it, like how you can't go into a fast food store and eat food from a rival chain, but a 3rd party store, or even playing another GW game in a GW store (Necromunda/Warcry) should all be fine. And if they're not, you then know what store not to give your patronage.
It's all a question of how much effort you're willing/able to put in to get people involved.
We have one GW store in the entire country, and you can't even play games there besides demo games. Also I think the saturation with FLGS in other countries has to be way higher, closers other store to me is a 6 hours away trip by bus, and that is just one way, then I would have to return and the way buses go around here, I would have to reach the store, play a game and get back to the station in 30 min or I miss the last bus back, and then I would miss a night check at the dorm.
maybe doable for people that have good income. I struggle to get the stuff I need for my army, no way am I going to buy two other so others maybe will play. It is bad enough to have a so-so army of your own, it is another to buy models and never get to use them. That would litteraly be wasting money.
Karol wrote: We have one GW store in the entire country, and you can't even play games there besides demo games.
No games beyond demos in a GW store? Not doubting you, but that sounds like a pretty ridiculous store management policy. Where does everyone play games with the models bought there? Third party stores? At home?
Also I think the saturation with FLGS in other countries has to be way higher, closers other store to me is a 6 hours away trip by bus, and that is just one way, then I would have to return and the way buses go around here, I would have to reach the store, play a game and get back to the station in 30 min or I miss the last bus back, and then I would miss a night check at the dorm.
So the closest gaming place for you is a GW that doesn't let you play their own games there?
maybe doable for people that have good income.
I have no income bar what I've saved before unemployment. I'm capable of it.
I struggle to get the stuff I need for my army, no way am I going to buy two other so others maybe will play. It is bad enough to have a so-so army of your own, it is another to buy models and never get to use them. That would litteraly be wasting money.
Most games tend to have a starter box that is cheaper than GWs. Failing that, even something as small as a unit and a leader, or a handful of models in smaller sized games like Necromunda, is a fine starting place, enough to get a feeling of how the game's base mechanics function, and the pace of play. You don't need full armies to learn to play. When I run 40k demos, I usually do a 25PL list, with at least an HQ and Troops, and then throw in something else.
Again, I can't speak for your financial situation, but if you can afford new GW minis, you can afford new minis from another company. If you can't afford new GW minis, and you're not enjoying GW, then, as I've said above, it's important to step away from GW if it's causing more stress than it's worth, be that just shelving models, or selling them.
But as for the main issue of "how can I create a homebrew 40k ruleset and get it widely played", all you *need* is an internet connection, and people to talk to. No investment, no money needed. It's not easy, no, but it's infinitely better than hoping someone else does it.
Karol wrote: We have one GW store in the entire country, and you can't even play games there besides demo games.
No games beyond demos in a GW store? Not doubting you, but that sounds like a pretty ridiculous store management policy. Where does everyone play games with the models bought there? Third party stores? At home?...
You haven't encountered GW's hole-in-the-wall one-man stores without enough space to put a full 6'x4' table? I've run into them in a couple of US states now.
Karol wrote: We have one GW store in the entire country, and you can't even play games there besides demo games.
No games beyond demos in a GW store? Not doubting you, but that sounds like a pretty ridiculous store management policy. Where does everyone play games with the models bought there? Third party stores? At home?...
You haven't encountered GW's hole-in-the-wall one-man stores without enough space to put a full 6'x4' table? I've run into them in a couple of US states now.
Thankfully not, GW stores around here usually have two demo tables (AoS and 40k), and at least one regular table for people to book in.
It's usually the 3rd party places that lack the table room over here.
GW has a huge problem that it makes for itself. It has become reliant on drawing in new and yes, younger players with marine porn. And marine porn can be fun, if that is your kink, which it is for most people if we look at sales figures.
Anyhow, the problem is that Marine porn builds unrealistic expectations in the SM player base. They read the fluff and expect to drive all xenos and heretics before them, and rightfully so when you look at the content of that fluff.
You need non-SM (Imperial) factions to make a game that isnt a 40k version of the HH.
And people dont like placing down models just to remove them for the pleasure of the other player (and rightfully so). And if we pay attention to the Bolter porn, thats exactly what you are expected to do.
So, to balance things out SM's can never "feel" like they do in the porn. And that will lead to bad feelings for newer players that have been raised on it. So how "elite" should marines feel to play? They shouldnt. The ridiculous lore should be wrangled in. I find the current stat lines makes marines about as elite as they should be.
Table wrote: GW has a huge problem that it makes for itself. It has become reliant on drawing in new and yes, younger players with marine porn. And marine porn can be fun, if that is your kink, which it is for most people if we look at sales figures.
Anyhow, the problem is that Marine porn builds unrealistic expectations in the SM player base. They read the fluff and expect to drive all xenos and heretics before them, and rightfully so when you look at the content of that fluff.
You need non-SM (Imperial) factions to make a game that isnt a 40k version of the HH.
And people dont like placing down models just to remove them for the pleasure of the other player (and rightfully so). And if we pay attention to the Bolter porn, thats exactly what you are expected to do.
So, to balance things out SM's can never "feel" like they do in the porn. And that will lead to bad feelings for newer players that have been raised on it. So how "elite" should marines feel to play? They shouldnt. The ridiculous lore should be wrangled in. I find the current stat lines makes marines about as elite as they should be.
Can you say porn a few more times, I was unclear as to the point you were making.
Table wrote: GW has a huge problem that it makes for itself. It has become reliant on drawing in new and yes, younger players with marine porn. And marine porn can be fun, if that is your kink, which it is for most people if we look at sales figures.
Anyhow, the problem is that Marine porn builds unrealistic expectations in the SM player base. They read the fluff and expect to drive all xenos and heretics before them, and rightfully so when you look at the content of that fluff.
You need non-SM (Imperial) factions to make a game that isnt a 40k version of the HH.
And people dont like placing down models just to remove them for the pleasure of the other player (and rightfully so). And if we pay attention to the Bolter porn, thats exactly what you are expected to do.
So, to balance things out SM's can never "feel" like they do in the porn. And that will lead to bad feelings for newer players that have been raised on it. So how "elite" should marines feel to play? They shouldnt. The ridiculous lore should be wrangled in. I find the current stat lines makes marines about as elite as they should be.
Can you say porn a few more times, I was unclear as to the point you were making.
How many more porns would you like? I aim to please.
Table wrote: GW has a huge problem that it makes for itself. It has become reliant on drawing in new and yes, younger players with marine porn. And marine porn can be fun, if that is your kink, which it is for most people if we look at sales figures.
Anyhow, the problem is that Marine porn builds unrealistic expectations in the SM player base. They read the fluff and expect to drive all xenos and heretics before them, and rightfully so when you look at the content of that fluff.
You need non-SM (Imperial) factions to make a game that isnt a 40k version of the HH.
And people dont like placing down models just to remove them for the pleasure of the other player (and rightfully so). And if we pay attention to the Bolter porn, thats exactly what you are expected to do.
So, to balance things out SM's can never "feel" like they do in the porn. And that will lead to bad feelings for newer players that have been raised on it. So how "elite" should marines feel to play? They shouldnt. The ridiculous lore should be wrangled in. I find the current stat lines makes marines about as elite as they should be.
Marines have always been billed as an elite army, compared to say, guard, eldar etc.
the problem is that there's not much room to really define the differances at the scale 40k is played at now.
if you compare the base stat line of space marines to Guard, eldar, or ork obyz, (they and space marines I consider essentially the core original armies) space Marines do have a pretty solid advantage, the problem is that there's so much anti-tank around these days those added stats seem irrelevant. I mean Marines, of both stripes DO feel pretty elite in say.. kill team
Table wrote: GW has a huge problem that it makes for itself. It has become reliant on drawing in new and yes, younger players with marine porn. And marine porn can be fun, if that is your kink, which it is for most people if we look at sales figures.
Anyhow, the problem is that Marine porn builds unrealistic expectations in the SM player base. They read the fluff and expect to drive all xenos and heretics before them, and rightfully so when you look at the content of that fluff.
You need non-SM (Imperial) factions to make a game that isnt a 40k version of the HH.
And people dont like placing down models just to remove them for the pleasure of the other player (and rightfully so). And if we pay attention to the Bolter porn, thats exactly what you are expected to do.
So, to balance things out SM's can never "feel" like they do in the porn. And that will lead to bad feelings for newer players that have been raised on it. So how "elite" should marines feel to play? They shouldnt. The ridiculous lore should be wrangled in. I find the current stat lines makes marines about as elite as they should be.
Marines have always been billed as an elite army, compared to say, guard, eldar etc.
the problem is that there's not much room to really define the differances at the scale 40k is played at now.
if you compare the base stat line of space marines to Guard, eldar, or ork obyz, (they and space marines I consider essentially the core original armies) space Marines do have a pretty solid advantage, the problem is that there's so much anti-tank around these days those added stats seem irrelevant. I mean Marines, of both stripes DO feel pretty elite in say.. kill team
Agreed. Reivers for instance are actually scary in kill team. Primaris marines that are good at hunting GEQs in melee are actually useful in that game especially in arena when they can deep strike.
Table wrote: GW has a huge problem that it makes for itself. It has become reliant on drawing in new and yes, younger players with marine porn. And marine porn can be fun, if that is your kink, which it is for most people if we look at sales figures.
Anyhow, the problem is that Marine porn builds unrealistic expectations in the SM player base. They read the fluff and expect to drive all xenos and heretics before them, and rightfully so when you look at the content of that fluff.
You need non-SM (Imperial) factions to make a game that isnt a 40k version of the HH.
And people dont like placing down models just to remove them for the pleasure of the other player (and rightfully so). And if we pay attention to the Bolter porn, thats exactly what you are expected to do.
So, to balance things out SM's can never "feel" like they do in the porn. And that will lead to bad feelings for newer players that have been raised on it. So how "elite" should marines feel to play? They shouldnt. The ridiculous lore should be wrangled in. I find the current stat lines makes marines about as elite as they should be.
Marines have always been billed as an elite army, compared to say, guard, eldar etc.
the problem is that there's not much room to really define the differances at the scale 40k is played at now.
if you compare the base stat line of space marines to Guard, eldar, or ork obyz, (they and space marines I consider essentially the core original armies) space Marines do have a pretty solid advantage, the problem is that there's so much anti-tank around these days those added stats seem irrelevant. I mean Marines, of both stripes DO feel pretty elite in say.. kill team
Elite is one thing. But some players (even CSM players) act like a single marine should be wiping out models left and right. And the TT game can never represent the lore. Because a space marine in the lore is a demi god of war. On the TT they are a solid high AS toughness 4 unit.
Da Boss wrote: They are definitely incompetent. They have also made their job harder, with faction bloat of lots of pretty much identical factions, but that is also part of the incompetence and lack of overall control and vision for the product.
They have improved, in that they now update the game every now and then with "FAQs" which are actually rules errata or balance fixes, but this is a cover for sloppy design and incompetence. It is better than NOT having errata, but I still find the the studio unprofessional and worthy of scorn and contempt.
People with low standards who are happy with this slop can continue to enjoy it of course. Good for them.
Posts like this are silly. Starts reasonable enough then decides to pre-mock any opposing views. Utterly disingenuous.
Da Boss wrote: They are definitely incompetent. They have also made their job harder, with faction bloat of lots of pretty much identical factions, but that is also part of the incompetence and lack of overall control and vision for the product.
They have improved, in that they now update the game every now and then with "FAQs" which are actually rules errata or balance fixes, but this is a cover for sloppy design and incompetence. It is better than NOT having errata, but I still find the the studio unprofessional and worthy of scorn and contempt.
People with low standards who are happy with this slop can continue to enjoy it of course. Good for them.
Posts like this are silly. Starts reasonable enough then decides to pre-mock any opposing views. Utterly disingenuous.
Where's the lie though? Right now we have players here and WH Community themselves defending the gak writing for Ghaz as we post.
Da Boss wrote: They are definitely incompetent. They have also made their job harder, with faction bloat of lots of pretty much identical factions, but that is also part of the incompetence and lack of overall control and vision for the product.
They have improved, in that they now update the game every now and then with "FAQs" which are actually rules errata or balance fixes, but this is a cover for sloppy design and incompetence. It is better than NOT having errata, but I still find the the studio unprofessional and worthy of scorn and contempt.
People with low standards who are happy with this slop can continue to enjoy it of course. Good for them.
Posts like this are silly. Starts reasonable enough then decides to pre-mock any opposing views. Utterly disingenuous.
Where's the lie though? Right now we have players here and WH Community themselves defending the gak writing for Ghaz as we post.
What's wrong with Ghaz?
Is it that you don't think he's worth it? Or that you don't like that he doesn't get certain benefits?
How have we determined that this is sloppy or incompetence? It seems to me that they much prefer to not give a model that can limit damage like he does (and heal) a FNP. Advance and charge is pretty irrelevant considering Tellyporta.
Ghaz is one of the more unique and interesting design choices GW has made and people are at the ready to gak all over it before the attached PA book is even out, too.
Da Boss wrote: They are definitely incompetent. They have also made their job harder, with faction bloat of lots of pretty much identical factions, but that is also part of the incompetence and lack of overall control and vision for the product.
They have improved, in that they now update the game every now and then with "FAQs" which are actually rules errata or balance fixes, but this is a cover for sloppy design and incompetence. It is better than NOT having errata, but I still find the the studio unprofessional and worthy of scorn and contempt.
People with low standards who are happy with this slop can continue to enjoy it of course. Good for them.
Posts like this are silly. Starts reasonable enough then decides to pre-mock any opposing views. Utterly disingenuous.
Where's the lie though? Right now we have players here and WH Community themselves defending the gak writing for Ghaz as we post.
What's wrong with Ghaz?
Is it that you don't think he's worth it? Or that you don't like that he doesn't get certain benefits?
How have we determined that this is sloppy or incompetence? It seems to me that they much prefer to not give a model that can limit damage like he does (and heal) a FNP. Advance and charge is pretty irrelevant considering Tellyporta.
Ghaz is one of the more unique and interesting design choices GW has made and people are at the ready to gak all over it before the attached PA book is even out, too.
He doesn't get benefits from his own aura, nor does he affect even Bikers. He's sloppily written, period. There's no "unique and interesting" argument you can make here.
He doesn't get benefits from his own aura, nor does he affect even Bikers. He's sloppily written, period. There's no "unique and interesting" argument you can make here.
Again - there's a difference between "sloppy" and "GW didn't do what I want / expect".
There are also plenty of Ork HQs bound to just INFANTRY or just BIKES as well. I mean his original aura was INFANTRY only for gaks sake.
I agree with Daed. Been a lot of "Ghaz is awful" talk going on in the Ork Taktikz thread, but I think Ghaz can be competitively viable. Just not as a beatstick. In a vehicle heavy list, he makes a fine Distraction Carnifex.
He doesn't get benefits from his own aura, nor does he affect even Bikers. He's sloppily written, period. There's no "unique and interesting" argument you can make here.
Again - there's a difference between "sloppy" and "GW didn't do what I want / expect".
There are also plenty of Ork HQs bound to just INFANTRY or just BIKES as well. I mean his original aura was INFANTRY only for gaks sake.
Which was one of his problems to begin with that way complained about. So you're not helping your case here, not that you really have one to begin with. Also it IS sloppy as he's always benefitted from his own rules until now.
Seriously it's like you're almost on their payroll like the Community people defending the trash rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
flandarz wrote: I agree with Daed. Been a lot of "Ghaz is awful" talk going on in the Ork Taktikz thread, but I think Ghaz can be competitively viable. Just not as a beatstick. In a vehicle heavy list, he makes a fine Distraction Carnifex.
How's he even a distraction? He can't advance and charge so that means he's actually pretty slow. Knock off just the four wounds and he's moving at a paltry 6".
Anyone thinking he's dangerous is just a bad player.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Only being able to take 4 Damage per phase is unique.
I'm not saying Ghaz couldn't have some improvements, but he does have unique and interesting features.
So in other words, instead of dying T1, he dies on T2 instead. That's really no more unique than Roboute coming back from the dead.
Still a unique rule, unlike Guilliman (as other characters share his "come back from the grave" ability, like Celestine). Can you name any models who are explicitly unable to lose a certain amount of Wounds per round/phase?
You know you can Advance and, like, not Charge right? Why is it that everyone thinks that not being able to Advance and Charge means you're just not going to Advance? Advance Turn 1 so you don't have to on Turn 2.
Also, his second Wound Bracket starts at 7, so even with 4 Wounds down, he's still moving at top speed.
If you don't feel like he's dangerous, feel free to ignore him as he moves up the board. Unless you admit that he's dangerous enough to require that you throw at least 4 Damage a phase at him.
Which was one of his problems to begin with that way complained about. So you're not helping your case here, not that you really have one to begin with. Also it IS sloppy as he's always benefitted from his own rules until now.
Seriously it's like you're almost on their payroll like the Community people defending the trash rules.
Again, again - there's a difference between "sloppy" and "GW didn't do what I want / expect".
He always benefited before and now he's a god damn tank.
Sorry that I don't get my pants in a twist over nothing burgers. GW couldn't pay me enough to work for the absolute garbage on these forums some times. I just hate bs and whining so much I do it for free.
Oh noooo Ghazkull can't advance and charge out of deepstrike...what do we doo? He doesn't get +1A from it either....travesty....I wonder what his WL trait dooooesss...
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Only being able to take 4 Damage per phase is unique.
I'm not saying Ghaz couldn't have some improvements, but he does have unique and interesting features.
So in other words, instead of dying T1, he dies on T2 instead. That's really no more unique than Roboute coming back from the dead.
Still a unique rule, unlike Guilliman (as other characters share his "come back from the grave" ability, like Celestine). Can you name any models who are explicitly unable to lose a certain amount of Wounds per round/phase?
Certain characters half damage, which is similar enough. Only difference is once you did your 4 for the phase, you focus elsewhere.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
flandarz wrote: You know you can Advance and, like, not Charge right? Why is it that everyone thinks that not being able to Advance and Charge means you're just not going to Advance? Advance Turn 1 so you don't have to on Turn 2.
Also, his second Wound Bracket starts at 7, so even with 4 Wounds down, he's still moving at top speed.
If you don't feel like he's dangerous, feel free to ignore him as he moves up the board. Unless you admit that he's dangerous enough to require that you throw at least 4 Damage a phase at him.
Because for one, he doesn't benefit from his own aura, which he always has, and two he is still slow, unless you somehow think a total move of 10" is really fast for whatever reason. At least if he could charge, that would speed up how quickly he gets to tie things up before they need to fall back. He can't even do that though, so what is he a distraction FOR exactly? You could teleport him, and then he lands four on average S5 shots, and then you sit twiddling your thumbs before he loses 12 wounds for shooting, smites, and melee, since relying on a rerolled charge for that expensive a model isn't a winning strategy.
Which was one of his problems to begin with that way complained about. So you're not helping your case here, not that you really have one to begin with. Also it IS sloppy as he's always benefitted from his own rules until now.
Seriously it's like you're almost on their payroll like the Community people defending the trash rules.
Again, again - there's a difference between "sloppy" and "GW didn't do what I want / expect".
He always benefited before and now he's a god damn tank.
Sorry that I don't get my pants in a twist over nothing burgers. GW couldn't pay me enough to work for the absolute garbage on these forums some times. I just hate bs and whining so much I do it for free.
Oh noooo Ghazkull can't advance and charge out of deepstrike...what do we doo? He doesn't get +1A from it either....travesty....I wonder what his WL trait dooooesss...
No, it is sloppy. You haven't shown that it is written on purpose that he doesn't benefit from several rules that he's benefitted from before. Inconsistency equates sloppiness, which is already a known trait for a lot of the writing.
Super elite I'd say. So elite you have no chance against them. Bolter porn aside I'd say a 2000 point army should be around 40 or so infantry and 2 to 3 vehicles.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Only being able to take 4 Damage per phase is unique.
I'm not saying Ghaz couldn't have some improvements, but he does have unique and interesting features.
So in other words, instead of dying T1, he dies on T2 instead. That's really no more unique than Roboute coming back from the dead.
Still a unique rule, unlike Guilliman (as other characters share his "come back from the grave" ability, like Celestine). Can you name any models who are explicitly unable to lose a certain amount of Wounds per round/phase?
Certain characters half damage, which is similar enough. Only difference is once you did your 4 for the phase, you focus elsewhere.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
flandarz wrote: You know you can Advance and, like, not Charge right? Why is it that everyone thinks that not being able to Advance and Charge means you're just not going to Advance? Advance Turn 1 so you don't have to on Turn 2.
Also, his second Wound Bracket starts at 7, so even with 4 Wounds down, he's still moving at top speed.
If you don't feel like he's dangerous, feel free to ignore him as he moves up the board. Unless you admit that he's dangerous enough to require that you throw at least 4 Damage a phase at him.
Because for one, he doesn't benefit from his own aura, which he always has, and two he is still slow, unless you somehow think a total move of 10" is really fast for whatever reason. At least if he could charge, that would speed up how quickly he gets to tie things up before they need to fall back. He can't even do that though, so what is he a distraction FOR exactly? You could teleport him, and then he lands four on average S5 shots, and then you sit twiddling your thumbs before he loses 12 wounds for shooting, smites, and melee, since relying on a rerolled charge for that expensive a model isn't a winning strategy.
Which was one of his problems to begin with that way complained about. So you're not helping your case here, not that you really have one to begin with. Also it IS sloppy as he's always benefitted from his own rules until now.
Seriously it's like you're almost on their payroll like the Community people defending the trash rules.
Again, again - there's a difference between "sloppy" and "GW didn't do what I want / expect".
He always benefited before and now he's a god damn tank.
Sorry that I don't get my pants in a twist over nothing burgers. GW couldn't pay me enough to work for the absolute garbage on these forums some times. I just hate bs and whining so much I do it for free.
Oh noooo Ghazkull can't advance and charge out of deepstrike...what do we doo? He doesn't get +1A from it either....travesty....I wonder what his WL trait dooooesss...
No, it is sloppy. You haven't shown that it is written on purpose that he doesn't benefit from several rules that he's benefitted from before. Inconsistency equates sloppiness, which is already a known trait for a lot of the writing.
Definitely not sloppy.
I don't know the previous rules, and reading his rules know my first thought was "What a nice rule design!". He is thematic and powerful without being OP or obvious in the way you should use him.
It is one of the best model designs made up to now, and we should encourage GW to make more models like that instead of complaining that a model doesn't fit the current competitive builds (which no new model should ever do).
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Only being able to take 4 Damage per phase is unique.
I'm not saying Ghaz couldn't have some improvements, but he does have unique and interesting features.
So in other words, instead of dying T1, he dies on T2 instead. That's really no more unique than Roboute coming back from the dead.
Still a unique rule, unlike Guilliman (as other characters share his "come back from the grave" ability, like Celestine). Can you name any models who are explicitly unable to lose a certain amount of Wounds per round/phase?
Certain characters half damage, which is similar enough. Only difference is once you did your 4 for the phase, you focus elsewhere.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
flandarz wrote: You know you can Advance and, like, not Charge right? Why is it that everyone thinks that not being able to Advance and Charge means you're just not going to Advance? Advance Turn 1 so you don't have to on Turn 2.
Also, his second Wound Bracket starts at 7, so even with 4 Wounds down, he's still moving at top speed.
If you don't feel like he's dangerous, feel free to ignore him as he moves up the board. Unless you admit that he's dangerous enough to require that you throw at least 4 Damage a phase at him.
Because for one, he doesn't benefit from his own aura, which he always has, and two he is still slow, unless you somehow think a total move of 10" is really fast for whatever reason. At least if he could charge, that would speed up how quickly he gets to tie things up before they need to fall back. He can't even do that though, so what is he a distraction FOR exactly? You could teleport him, and then he lands four on average S5 shots, and then you sit twiddling your thumbs before he loses 12 wounds for shooting, smites, and melee, since relying on a rerolled charge for that expensive a model isn't a winning strategy.
Which was one of his problems to begin with that way complained about. So you're not helping your case here, not that you really have one to begin with. Also it IS sloppy as he's always benefitted from his own rules until now.
Seriously it's like you're almost on their payroll like the Community people defending the trash rules.
Again, again - there's a difference between "sloppy" and "GW didn't do what I want / expect".
He always benefited before and now he's a god damn tank.
Sorry that I don't get my pants in a twist over nothing burgers. GW couldn't pay me enough to work for the absolute garbage on these forums some times. I just hate bs and whining so much I do it for free.
Oh noooo Ghazkull can't advance and charge out of deepstrike...what do we doo? He doesn't get +1A from it either....travesty....I wonder what his WL trait dooooesss...
No, it is sloppy. You haven't shown that it is written on purpose that he doesn't benefit from several rules that he's benefitted from before. Inconsistency equates sloppiness, which is already a known trait for a lot of the writing.
Definitely not sloppy.
I don't know the previous rules, and reading his rules know my first thought was "What a nice rule design!". He is thematic and powerful without being OP or obvious in the way you should use him.
It is one of the best model designs made up to now, and we should encourage GW to make more models like that instead of complaining that a model doesn't fit the current competitive builds (which no new model should ever do).
You're not showing how it's not sloppy. I provided some evidence (rules not working on him like before, previous sloppiness) and you have not done as much.
You not knowing the previous rules is not my concern, but the greatest Ork ever not being able to advance and charge himself while everyone else (more specifically just Infantry as apparently Ork Bikers and the like don't find him inspirational) around him does is pretty inconsistent.
I never said it was. People were saying that he had no unique abilities, which is untrue. I'm not saying they need to be good, only that they are unique.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Certain characters half damage, which is similar enough.
Eh, I disagree. That's like saying a 4+++ is the same as half damage, which is only true from certain perspectives.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Only being able to take 4 Damage per phase is unique.
I'm not saying Ghaz couldn't have some improvements, but he does have unique and interesting features.
So in other words, instead of dying T1, he dies on T2 instead. That's really no more unique than Roboute coming back from the dead.
Still a unique rule, unlike Guilliman (as other characters share his "come back from the grave" ability, like Celestine). Can you name any models who are explicitly unable to lose a certain amount of Wounds per round/phase?
Certain characters half damage, which is similar enough. Only difference is once you did your 4 for the phase, you focus elsewhere.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
flandarz wrote: You know you can Advance and, like, not Charge right? Why is it that everyone thinks that not being able to Advance and Charge means you're just not going to Advance? Advance Turn 1 so you don't have to on Turn 2.
Also, his second Wound Bracket starts at 7, so even with 4 Wounds down, he's still moving at top speed.
If you don't feel like he's dangerous, feel free to ignore him as he moves up the board. Unless you admit that he's dangerous enough to require that you throw at least 4 Damage a phase at him.
Because for one, he doesn't benefit from his own aura, which he always has, and two he is still slow, unless you somehow think a total move of 10" is really fast for whatever reason. At least if he could charge, that would speed up how quickly he gets to tie things up before they need to fall back. He can't even do that though, so what is he a distraction FOR exactly? You could teleport him, and then he lands four on average S5 shots, and then you sit twiddling your thumbs before he loses 12 wounds for shooting, smites, and melee, since relying on a rerolled charge for that expensive a model isn't a winning strategy.
Which was one of his problems to begin with that way complained about. So you're not helping your case here, not that you really have one to begin with. Also it IS sloppy as he's always benefitted from his own rules until now.
Seriously it's like you're almost on their payroll like the Community people defending the trash rules.
Again, again - there's a difference between "sloppy" and "GW didn't do what I want / expect".
He always benefited before and now he's a god damn tank.
Sorry that I don't get my pants in a twist over nothing burgers. GW couldn't pay me enough to work for the absolute garbage on these forums some times. I just hate bs and whining so much I do it for free.
Oh noooo Ghazkull can't advance and charge out of deepstrike...what do we doo? He doesn't get +1A from it either....travesty....I wonder what his WL trait dooooesss...
No, it is sloppy. You haven't shown that it is written on purpose that he doesn't benefit from several rules that he's benefitted from before. Inconsistency equates sloppiness, which is already a known trait for a lot of the writing.
Definitely not sloppy.
I don't know the previous rules, and reading his rules know my first thought was "What a nice rule design!". He is thematic and powerful without being OP or obvious in the way you should use him.
It is one of the best model designs made up to now, and we should encourage GW to make more models like that instead of complaining that a model doesn't fit the current competitive builds (which no new model should ever do).
You're not showing how it's not sloppy. I provided some evidence (rules not working on him like before, previous sloppiness) and you have not done as much.
You not knowing the previous rules is not my concern, but the greatest Ork ever not being able to advance and charge himself while everyone else (more specifically just Infantry as apparently Ork Bikers and the like don't find him inspirational) around him does is pretty inconsistent.
I gave plenty of reasons, let me repeat it again "He is thematic and powerful without being OP or obvious in the way you should use him." that's the definition of a not sloppy design. Sloppy refers to something made without passion and minimal resources. Copying the previous version with a buff here and there, now THAT would have been sloppy. This here instead is a nice example of model design.
Your definition of sloppy is "He differs too much from the previous version", which is a weird definition.
Yeah, I look at Ghaz and I see one of the very first successful iterations of a big monster character in 8th edition. He's not designed for the current competitive hellhole game that ends on turn 2, but he looks like an awesome piece for larger games. I couldn't care less that he has an aura he doesn't give to himself.You might as well complain that his other aura ability doesn't affect non-goffs.
For Orkz, 7" movement is pretty dang fast, especially for a "foot" model. That said, I don't think Ghaz is perfect. For me, I'd like to see his aura affect himself, I'd have preferred to have a "sweep" option for his Klaw, and I'd have liked for Ramming Speed to affect Monsters as well. But, in terms of sheer survivability, Ghaz outclasses anything else in the Ork line-up by miles.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Only being able to take 4 Damage per phase is unique.
I'm not saying Ghaz couldn't have some improvements, but he does have unique and interesting features.
So in other words, instead of dying T1, he dies on T2 instead. That's really no more unique than Roboute coming back from the dead.
Still a unique rule, unlike Guilliman (as other characters share his "come back from the grave" ability, like Celestine). Can you name any models who are explicitly unable to lose a certain amount of Wounds per round/phase?
Certain characters half damage, which is similar enough. Only difference is once you did your 4 for the phase, you focus elsewhere.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
flandarz wrote: You know you can Advance and, like, not Charge right? Why is it that everyone thinks that not being able to Advance and Charge means you're just not going to Advance? Advance Turn 1 so you don't have to on Turn 2.
Also, his second Wound Bracket starts at 7, so even with 4 Wounds down, he's still moving at top speed.
If you don't feel like he's dangerous, feel free to ignore him as he moves up the board. Unless you admit that he's dangerous enough to require that you throw at least 4 Damage a phase at him.
Because for one, he doesn't benefit from his own aura, which he always has, and two he is still slow, unless you somehow think a total move of 10" is really fast for whatever reason. At least if he could charge, that would speed up how quickly he gets to tie things up before they need to fall back. He can't even do that though, so what is he a distraction FOR exactly? You could teleport him, and then he lands four on average S5 shots, and then you sit twiddling your thumbs before he loses 12 wounds for shooting, smites, and melee, since relying on a rerolled charge for that expensive a model isn't a winning strategy.
Which was one of his problems to begin with that way complained about. So you're not helping your case here, not that you really have one to begin with. Also it IS sloppy as he's always benefitted from his own rules until now.
Seriously it's like you're almost on their payroll like the Community people defending the trash rules.
Again, again - there's a difference between "sloppy" and "GW didn't do what I want / expect".
He always benefited before and now he's a god damn tank.
Sorry that I don't get my pants in a twist over nothing burgers. GW couldn't pay me enough to work for the absolute garbage on these forums some times. I just hate bs and whining so much I do it for free.
Oh noooo Ghazkull can't advance and charge out of deepstrike...what do we doo? He doesn't get +1A from it either....travesty....I wonder what his WL trait dooooesss...
No, it is sloppy. You haven't shown that it is written on purpose that he doesn't benefit from several rules that he's benefitted from before. Inconsistency equates sloppiness, which is already a known trait for a lot of the writing.
Definitely not sloppy.
I don't know the previous rules, and reading his rules know my first thought was "What a nice rule design!". He is thematic and powerful without being OP or obvious in the way you should use him.
It is one of the best model designs made up to now, and we should encourage GW to make more models like that instead of complaining that a model doesn't fit the current competitive builds (which no new model should ever do).
You're not showing how it's not sloppy. I provided some evidence (rules not working on him like before, previous sloppiness) and you have not done as much.
You not knowing the previous rules is not my concern, but the greatest Ork ever not being able to advance and charge himself while everyone else (more specifically just Infantry as apparently Ork Bikers and the like don't find him inspirational) around him does is pretty inconsistent.
I gave plenty of reasons, let me repeat it again "He is thematic and powerful without being OP or obvious in the way you should use him." that's the definition of a not sloppy design. Sloppy refers to something made without passion and minimal resources. Copying the previous version with a buff here and there, now THAT would have been sloppy. This here instead is a nice example of model design.
Your definition of sloppy is "He differs too much from the previous version", which is a weird definition.
You're still not providing proof, you're giving benefit of the doubt to GW as the usual white knight would. He can't advance and charge like he used to whereas other Bosses just do it, he doesn't benefit even Goff Bikers with extra attacks as he's just not inspirational to them for whatever reason but regular Wartrikes will be helping THEM advance and charge, and of course he has the pointless stikk Bombs that he'll never use.
So he isn't going to do anything besides live until T2, which regular Warbosses will do with basic character protection rules. He's sloppy design with little thought put into him. They didn't even bother to give him D2 on his shooting weapon that he will land maybe FIVE hits with, which scares nobody. Ya know, GW thinking they give him 12 shots and he's dangerous in shooting all the sudden.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
flandarz wrote: For Orkz, 7" movement is pretty dang fast, especially for a "foot" model. That said, I don't think Ghaz is perfect. For me, I'd like to see his aura affect himself, I'd have preferred to have a "sweep" option for his Klaw, and I'd have liked for Ramming Speed to affect Monsters as well. But, in terms of sheer survivability, Ghaz outclasses anything else in the Ork line-up by miles.
It's not fast simply because he cannot charge after advancing. He's moving an average of 10.5" or just 7" with the chance to charge.
Spoletta wrote: Repeating that something is sloppy design without providing reasons for it isn't gonna make it real
I did provide reasons.
1. Sloppy writing has been a consistency from GW. It's hard to deny this.
2. Rules that he benefitted from before with no issue do not benefit him now, simply because of a keyword change preventing it, especially when other Warboss variants benefit themselves too. That is inconsistency and therefore sloppiness.
Spoletta wrote: Repeating that something is sloppy design without providing reasons for it isn't gonna make it real
I did provide reasons.
1. Sloppy writing has been a consistency from GW. It's hard to deny this.
2. Rules that he benefitted from before with no issue do not benefit him now, simply because of a keyword change preventing it, especially when other Warboss variants benefit themselves too. That is inconsistency and therefore sloppiness.
1) Nonsense reason, i will not waste time on it.
2) Inconsistent and sloppy are 2 completely different things. Sloppy means lazy.
Please provide a reason why you think that design is sloppy, you still have not done so.
Spoletta wrote: Repeating that something is sloppy design without providing reasons for it isn't gonna make it real
I did provide reasons.
1. Sloppy writing has been a consistency from GW. It's hard to deny this.
2. Rules that he benefitted from before with no issue do not benefit him now, simply because of a keyword change preventing it, especially when other Warboss variants benefit themselves too. That is inconsistency and therefore sloppiness.
1) Nonsense reason, i will not waste time on it.
2) Inconsistent and sloppy are 2 completely different things. Sloppy means lazy.
Please provide a reason why you think that design is sloppy, you still have not done so.
1. Generic Warboss benefits from own aura
2. Generic Wartrike benefits from own aura
3. Ghaz somehow doesn't because nothing was reworded in his rules
That's sloppy right there AND inconsistent
Spoletta wrote: Repeating that something is sloppy design without providing reasons for it isn't gonna make it real
I did provide reasons.
1. Sloppy writing has been a consistency from GW. It's hard to deny this.
2. Rules that he benefitted from before with no issue do not benefit him now, simply because of a keyword change preventing it, especially when other Warboss variants benefit themselves too. That is inconsistency and therefore sloppiness.
1) Nonsense reason, i will not waste time on it.
2) Inconsistent and sloppy are 2 completely different things. Sloppy means lazy.
Please provide a reason why you think that design is sloppy, you still have not done so.
1. Generic Warboss benefits from own aura
2. Generic Wartrike benefits from own aura
3. Ghaz somehow doesn't because nothing was reworded in his rules
That's sloppy right there AND inconsistent
So you wanted new Ghaz to be a copy +1 of a warboss? And you talk about being sloppy?
Spoletta wrote: Repeating that something is sloppy design without providing reasons for it isn't gonna make it real
I did provide reasons.
1. Sloppy writing has been a consistency from GW. It's hard to deny this.
2. Rules that he benefitted from before with no issue do not benefit him now, simply because of a keyword change preventing it, especially when other Warboss variants benefit themselves too. That is inconsistency and therefore sloppiness.
1) Nonsense reason, i will not waste time on it.
2) Inconsistent and sloppy are 2 completely different things. Sloppy means lazy.
Please provide a reason why you think that design is sloppy, you still have not done so.
1. Generic Warboss benefits from own aura
2. Generic Wartrike benefits from own aura
3. Ghaz somehow doesn't because nothing was reworded in his rules
That's sloppy right there AND inconsistent
So you wanted new Ghaz to be a copy +1 of a warboss? And you talk about being sloppy?
That's literally what he is. The most powerful Warboss, who has always liked getting into the thick of it and had rules to help that, can no longer do it. Perhaps you want to defend it and say it's fluffy now because he's afraid of getting into melee with Blackmane again! Soooooo fluffy good job GW take my money!
Spoletta wrote: Repeating that something is sloppy design without providing reasons for it isn't gonna make it real
I did provide reasons. 1. Sloppy writing has been a consistency from GW. It's hard to deny this. 2. Rules that he benefitted from before with no issue do not benefit him now, simply because of a keyword change preventing it, especially when other Warboss variants benefit themselves too. That is inconsistency and therefore sloppiness.
1) Nonsense reason, i will not waste time on it.
2) Inconsistent and sloppy are 2 completely different things. Sloppy means lazy.
Please provide a reason why you think that design is sloppy, you still have not done so.
1. Generic Warboss benefits from own aura 2. Generic Wartrike benefits from own aura 3. Ghaz somehow doesn't because nothing was reworded in his rules That's sloppy right there AND inconsistent
So you wanted new Ghaz to be a copy +1 of a warboss? And you talk about being sloppy?
That's literally what he is. The most powerful Warboss, who has always liked getting into the thick of it and had rules to help that, can no longer do it. Perhaps you want to defend it and say it's fluffy now because he's afraid of getting into melee with Blackmane again! Soooooo fluffy good job GW take my money!
"GW you are so lazy! You gave me a new inspired design, extremely characteristic and with actual new rules, instead of another generic warboss that i could do in 5 minutes copy pasting the standard datasheet and increasing some random numbers!! How can you be so lazy!!!"
You can complain that you don't like the new design, but complaining that they were lazy because they have put extra work in it, is ultra dumb.
There's a new strategem that gives a warboss +1 attack and a 4++. Happy now?
Even a Warboss without that is still worth taking over Ghaz. A Warboss that can't get anywhere is pointless.
If only we could have some sort of rule that let you set up models closer to the enemy. We could call it "Profound Assault" or some synonym thereof. Alas...
on one side, i am happy that he has something like that, because bigger then 9 W model charachters really suffered from beeing targetable.
Otoh, i can understand that people are frustrated with this as a defensive mechanic since it flat out denies damage after a certain threshold.
There's a new strategem that gives a warboss +1 attack and a 4++. Happy now?
Even a Warboss without that is still worth taking over Ghaz. A Warboss that can't get anywhere is pointless.
If only we could have some sort of rule that let you set up models closer to the enemy. We could call it "Profound Assault" or some synonym thereof. Alas...
They have Deep Strike with the Tellyporta, and then Ghaz has a 55~% chance to make a charge. For ONE unit at what is probably over 200 points that's hardly worth it.
on one side, i am happy that he has something like that, because bigger then 9 W model charachters really suffered from beeing targetable.
Otoh, i can understand that people are frustrated with this as a defensive mechanic since it flat out denies damage after a certain threshold.
GW amped up the killing potential of everything. Hell, they couldn't be bothered to use their new wounding chart close to creatively.
I might totally overestimate the worth of that but doesn't that mean that Ghazzy can be really annoying for armies planning on Smitespam and other psychic powers that must target the nearest enemy unit? Just from an inexperiences sideglance at Grey Knights or thousand sons: if an orc player manages to position Ghazzy in a way that he is the closest visible enemy model for at least most of the Psyker units, they can "only" hit him with 4 MWs a turn (if it all, he might already have lost those 4 wounds in the shooting phase) and then fail to do any more. They cannot kill him that turn, even if its Magnus with a bunch of buddies and might (!) not be able to reposition in a way to target another orc unit.
And its not just Smite, Vortex of Doom for example (Sanctic discipline) also has to target the nearest unit and there are definitly more of those...
flandarz wrote: He'd be annoying to them for exactly 1 turn. Between shooting, those smites, and a charge, he'll be dead before turn 2.
Your making this out to be way easier than it actually is. Smites still target the closest model, if you'll recall. There is likely no way for you to smite with boyz filling in around him. SOME armies might have the tools,. but he's healing and there's lots of unknown potential benefits in the PA book.
sorry, I missread the "per phase" as "per turn". So my comment that he would not loose wounds in the psychic phase when he already lost for in the shooting phase makes no sense.
Still, he is a character that, if he has 5+ wounds at the start of the psychic phase, is unkillable in that phase.
flandarz wrote: He'd be annoying to them for exactly 1 turn. Between shooting, those smites, and a charge, he'll be dead before turn 2.
Your making this out to be way easier than it actually is. Smites still target the closest model, if you'll recall. There is likely no way for you to smite with boyz filling in around him. SOME armies might have the tools,. but he's healing and there's lots of unknown potential benefits in the PA book.
In which case he still won't be a danger because he can't keep up with the boys that advance and charge! Please put him behind a failing wall of boyz!
Pyroalchi wrote: I might totally overestimate the worth of that but doesn't that mean that Ghazzy can be really annoying for armies planning on Smitespam and other psychic powers that must target the nearest enemy unit? Just from an inexperiences sideglance at Grey Knights or thousand sons: if an orc player manages to position Ghazzy in a way that he is the closest visible enemy model for at least most of the Psyker units, they can "only" hit him with 4 MWs a turn
Wouldn't the other player just move some/all of their psykers so that they were closer to other units?
A statement without arguments doesn't hold much weight.
Why do you think that that rule is not good design?
40k has a fundamental problem with "characters" where the fact that without the 9-wound-or-less closest-target protection you can shoot them with as many lascannons as you like, which means anything that isn't either under 10 wounds or as big as a Daemon Primarch just gets shot.
Extending the design space of the game by introducing new mechanics to band-aid patch over the problem instead of going back and fixing the problem is how rules bloat happens (the game becomes a stack of band-aid patches over a shaky foundation), which is how we got to the mess that was 7e and the resulting reboot.
A statement without arguments doesn't hold much weight.
Why do you think that that rule is not good design?
40k has a fundamental problem with "characters" where the fact that without the 9-wound-or-less closest-target protection you can shoot them with as many lascannons as you like, which means anything that isn't either under 10 wounds or as big as a Daemon Primarch just gets shot.
Extending the design space of the game by introducing new mechanics to band-aid patch over the problem instead of going back and fixing the problem is how rules bloat happens (the game becomes a stack of band-aid patches over a shaky foundation), which is how we got to the mess that was 7e and the resulting reboot.
I know this isn't necessarily the main issue but I do think that Wounds are a terrible characteristic to base this particular mechanic on. Mainly because they tend to bear almost no resemblance to the actual size of the model. e.g. many 5-wound characters are no larger than 1-wound infantry, and are actually smaller than, for example, 2-wound bikers or Terminators. At the upper end of the scale, the difference in size between Guilliman and a Hive Tyrant seems negligible, yet one can hide behind guardsmen and the other can't hide at all.
It seems like strength or toughness would be more sensible, with characters being unable to hide behind models with toughness that's 2 or more pts lower than their own. So a T6 character could hide behind T5+ models but not behind T4 or T3 models.
Of course, this would still be a binary system regarding whether or not a model can or can't be shot at, just with more nuance in terms of what units a given model can realistically hide amongst.
If we were making things less granular, what do you think would be reasonable? Some sort of penalty to hit for models that are close to other units? A 'Look Out Sir!' type rule?
Okay lets get back on topic. Marine design is bad.
They have propelled the game of 40k into this bizarre i-out-ap-you war. A game where -1 AP on gauss rifles used to be a cool-and-special thing is now flat out below standard, as basic mehreens have access to longer ranged and more armor penetrating rounds because of,,, what? "Doctrines"?
Every faction in the game feels like they can compare themselves directly to Mehreens and come out worse off. To use my earlier example, Necron AP isn't special or unique, Imperial Fists have Tesla on base AP weapons. Dakka dakka is worse than IF, Eldar fall back and charge? Lol, Ultramarines have that - with more range, ap and saves. This "Marines are the elitesterest!" effect completely ruins the reason to play other armies. Ork Boyz? Blood angels hit more and harder. Rubrics? Basic mehreen infantry is better. Chaos? Intercessors eat them for breakfast etc etc etc.
This prolific rules arms race is *all* because each flavour of marines has to be its own special snowflake, and different to each other - this difference is sadly made while disregarding the rulesets *every other* faction has.
I feel like this is the beginning of a ridiculous arms race of bandaid invulnerables and rules to build a wall around marines. And they'll be the ones paying for it.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: How is Dakka worse than Imperial Fists? If Ork pricing was better on the shooting I'd say they're equal, as it DOES affect all weapons.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: How is Dakka worse than Imperial Fists? If Ork pricing was better on the shooting I'd say they're equal, as it DOES affect all weapons.
That's why.
That's not necessarily discussing why one rule is worse than the other, though.
Pyroalchi wrote: I might totally overestimate the worth of that but doesn't that mean that Ghazzy can be really annoying for armies planning on Smitespam and other psychic powers that must target the nearest enemy unit? Just from an inexperiences sideglance at Grey Knights or thousand sons: if an orc player manages to position Ghazzy in a way that he is the closest visible enemy model for at least most of the Psyker units, they can "only" hit him with 4 MWs a turn (if it all, he might already have lost those 4 wounds in the shooting phase) and then fail to do any more. They cannot kill him that turn, even if its Magnus with a bunch of buddies and might (!) not be able to reposition in a way to target another orc unit.
And its not just Smite, Vortex of Doom for example (Sanctic discipline) also has to target the nearest unit and there are definitly more of those...
I mean, I can think of a much, MUCH, MUUUUUUUUUUUCH cheaper points-per-wound alternative that ork armies have to soak up smite spam mortal wounds....
psssst
....it's the orks.
Mortal wounds are only 1/6 more effective than regular AP- wounds against orks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eonfuzz wrote: Okay lets get back on topic. Marine design is bad.
They have propelled the game of 40k into this bizarre i-out-ap-you war. A game where -1 AP on gauss rifles used to be a cool-and-special thing is now flat out below standard, as basic mehreens have access to longer ranged and more armor penetrating rounds because of,,, what? "Doctrines"?
Every faction in the game feels like they can compare themselves directly to Mehreens and come out worse off. To use my earlier example, Necron AP isn't special or unique, Imperial Fists have Tesla on base AP weapons. Dakka dakka is worse than IF, Eldar fall back and charge? Lol, Ultramarines have that - with more range, ap and saves. This "Marines are the elitesterest!" effect completely ruins the reason to play other armies. Ork Boyz? Blood angels hit more and harder. Rubrics? Basic mehreen infantry is better. Chaos? Intercessors eat them for breakfast etc etc etc.
This prolific rules arms race is *all* because each flavour of marines has to be its own special snowflake, and different to each other - this difference is sadly made while disregarding the rulesets *every other* faction has.
I feel like this is the beginning of a ridiculous arms race of bandaid invulnerables and rules to build a wall around marines. And they'll be the ones paying for it.
Yep. I have no doubt that whatever book Harlequins come out in, there'll be some kind of bonkers-ass ability designed to help harlequins screw over marines because right now, dedicated glass-cannon anti-MEQ assault unit Harlequins lose in melee to intercessors even when they get the charge off.
And what will that mean? it'll mean harlequins will absolutely blow away Necrons, Custodes, CSM, etc because the new "baseline" unit they're trying to compete with is so bonkers.
Or they could go the easier way and give Harleys some D2 melee weapon which is perfect to counter primaris but doesn't invalidate other elite infantries?
Spoletta wrote: Or they could go the easier way and give Harleys some D2 melee weapon which is perfect to counter primaris but doesn't invalidate other elite infantries?
Yeah, because that's both the sort of thing they've been adding in PA and also no other elite infantry has W2.
Seem to remember some novel, I think it was Blood Gorgon where a CSM (he was to all intents and purposes a loyalist in spiky armour) slaughters his way through an entire squad of Dark Eldar, Incubi and Plague Marines, instigating a planetary rebellion and countless other impressive feats along the way. Thats how I image space marines, not guardsmen+ with a lot of faith. That being said, clearly something needs to change, rules =/= fluff
Seem to remember some novel, I think it was Blood Gorgon where a CSM (he was to all intents and purposes a loyalist in spiky armour) slaughters his way through an entire squad of Dark Eldar, Incubi and Plague Marines, instigating a planetary rebellion and countless other impressive feats along the way. Thats how I image space marines, not guardsmen+ with a lot of faith. That being said, clearly something needs to change, rules =/= fluff
That video is great, but it's actually not that elite.
They're doing what I described a few pages back, assymetric warfare to maximise their superiorities.
But really, that video shows a squad of marines killing nothing but guardsmen and only 2 weapons are deployed that could threaten them in a single shot and the marines receive and hide quickly rather than just waiting for the scatter laser to penetrate for example.
When you breakdown Astartes, it does what marines SHOULD do, but it doesn't do what the fanwank and worst GW books say they do.
Seem to remember some novel, I think it was Blood Gorgon where a CSM (he was to all intents and purposes a loyalist in spiky armour) slaughters his way through an entire squad of Dark Eldar, Incubi and Plague Marines, instigating a planetary rebellion and countless other impressive feats along the way. Thats how I image space marines, not guardsmen+ with a lot of faith. That being said, clearly something needs to change, rules =/= fluff
That video is great, but it's actually not that elite.
They're doing what I described a few pages back, assymetric warfare to maximise their superiorities.
But really, that video shows a squad of marines killing nothing but guardsmen and only 2 weapons are deployed that could threaten them in a single shot and the marines receive and hide quickly rather than just waiting for the scatter laser to penetrate for example.
When you breakdown Astartes, it does what marines SHOULD do, but it doesn't do what the fanwank and worst GW books say they do.
Yeah, that's what makes Astartes so good. It portrays astartes as they should be. Elite shock troops acting like elite shock troops, not fething super heroes.
Seem to remember some novel, I think it was Blood Gorgon where a CSM (he was to all intents and purposes a loyalist in spiky armour) slaughters his way through an entire squad of Dark Eldar, Incubi and Plague Marines, instigating a planetary rebellion and countless other impressive feats along the way. Thats how I image space marines, not guardsmen+ with a lot of faith. That being said, clearly something needs to change, rules =/= fluff
That video is great, but it's actually not that elite.
They're doing what I described a few pages back, assymetric warfare to maximise their superiorities.
But really, that video shows a squad of marines killing nothing but guardsmen and only 2 weapons are deployed that could threaten them in a single shot and the marines receive and hide quickly rather than just waiting for the scatter laser to penetrate for example.
When you breakdown Astartes, it does what marines SHOULD do, but it doesn't do what the fanwank and worst GW books say they do.
Tbh I was just using this thread as a vector to share this incredible video. I agree with you of course, this is a relatively low-level threat for sure, I just love the brutal, overwhelming efficiency that bleeds off the space marines. They seem utterly unstoppable, utterly ruthless. The traitors, competent as they are don't stand a chance no matter what they try. It really seems like the astartes are on autopilot. Even when they come up against the potent psykers they hammer their way through in silence, pausing only to sheath their weapons. It looks elite to me, its fluid, intuitive and utterly unstoppable. Nothing they face fazes them for even a moment
Seem to remember some novel, I think it was Blood Gorgon where a CSM (he was to all intents and purposes a loyalist in spiky armour) slaughters his way through an entire squad of Dark Eldar, Incubi and Plague Marines, instigating a planetary rebellion and countless other impressive feats along the way. Thats how I image space marines, not guardsmen+ with a lot of faith. That being said, clearly something needs to change, rules =/= fluff
That video is great, but it's actually not that elite.
They're doing what I described a few pages back, assymetric warfare to maximise their superiorities.
But really, that video shows a squad of marines killing nothing but guardsmen and only 2 weapons are deployed that could threaten them in a single shot and the marines receive and hide quickly rather than just waiting for the scatter laser to penetrate for example.
When you breakdown Astartes, it does what marines SHOULD do, but it doesn't do what the fanwank and worst GW books say they do.
Tbh I was just using this thread as a vector to share this incredible video. I agree with you of course, this is a relatively low-level threat for sure, I just love the brutal, overwhelming efficiency that bleeds off the space marines. They seem utterly unstoppable, utterly ruthless. The traitors, competent as they are don't stand a chance no matter what they try. It really seems like the astartes are on autopilot. Even when they come up against the potent psykers they hammer their way through in silence, pausing only to sheath their weapons. It looks elite to me, its fluid, intuitive and utterly unstoppable. Nothing they face fazes them for even a moment
The problem comes when fans expect this behaviour to work against ALL foes, including enemy elites. But it doesn't and it shouldn't. They only look overwhelming because of their oppenents.
But make those oppenents Tyranid warriors, tau battlesuits, nobz, Eldar aspects, and suddenly marines don't look so overwhelmingly badass.
But so many people just expect marines to plough through their oppenents like the all those guardsmen...
The base attacks of an Ork or Genestealer
More resilient than a Necron
A gun as powerful as the Gauss Blaster
With the range of the Tau rifle.
Far out-"eliteing" the traditional Eldar elite core infantry.
They just diminish the traditional advantages of those factions' baseline troops. And that's before the doctrines+super doctrines.
Martel732 wrote: Why should marines push through guardsmen when the guardsmen outnumber them so badly AND have weapons that can bring them down pretty easily?
Traditionally, hitting guardsmen with flame and blast weapons, ignoring their armor with AP5 bolters and cutting them down as they fled close combat did the trick.
Martel732 wrote: Why should marines push through guardsmen when the guardsmen outnumber them so badly AND have weapons that can bring them down pretty easily?
They should, but only through their training, tactics, use of demoralisation and hefty use of cover and ambush tactics.
Ten marines charging across an empty field bellowing like orks should stand no chance against 100 guardsmen.
Ten marines pulling shock and awe hit and run tactics on 100 guardsmen should have an almost completely assured victory.
Martel732 wrote: Why should marines push through guardsmen when the guardsmen outnumber them so badly AND have weapons that can bring them down pretty easily?
They should, but only through their training, tactics, use of demoralisation and hefty use of cover and ambush tactics.
Ten marines charging across an empty field bellowing like orks should stand no chance against 100 guardsmen.
Ten marines pulling shock and awe hit and run tactics on 100 guardsmen should have an almost completely assured victory.
I think you overestimate shock and awe. 1:10 odds should never be close to assured victory.
Martel732 wrote: Why should marines push through guardsmen when the guardsmen outnumber them so badly AND have weapons that can bring them down pretty easily?
Traditionally, hitting guardsmen with flame and blast weapons, ignoring their armor with AP5 bolters and cutting them down as they fled close combat did the trick.
Not anymore, and the LD mechanic was cribbed off historicals where it was more relevant. Even then, one tac squad had no hope vs 10 guard squads.
Weapons that shred marine armor exist in-universe, and a paltry -1 AP cuts into their efficacy greatly in game. Bolter porn is completely divorced from these realities.
Martel732 wrote: Why should marines push through guardsmen when the guardsmen outnumber them so badly AND have weapons that can bring them down pretty easily?
They should, but only through their training, tactics, use of demoralisation and hefty use of cover and ambush tactics.
Ten marines charging across an empty field bellowing like orks should stand no chance against 100 guardsmen.
Ten marines pulling shock and awe hit and run tactics on 100 guardsmen should have an almost completely assured victory.
I mean it depends, right?
Ten marines pulling shock and awe hit and run tactics should never fight 100 guardsmen. They should fight like, 10 at a time and then run away to strike somewhere else. Any situation where the Marines are taking on 100 Guardsmen is a loss, no matter how quickly they can hit&run away.
The whole point of irregular warfare / hit and run is to take on strategically larger and/or superior forces by breaking the engagements up into smaller chunks and preventing them from bringing their whole capability to bear. It's essentially an admission that you do not possess the capability to confidently win in a head-to-head engagement with the enemy force.
To replicate this on the tabletop at 2000 points, Marines should be really bad (like early 8th edition bad), but then have a special rule that permits them to only fight 500 or 1000 points of the enemy army at a time - perhaps because they blasted the enemy leader earlier in the day, or damaged communications, or utilized superior force concentration, something like that. But we'll never get rules like that, so we end up with half a damn chapter deployed against three guard regiments which is just ridiculous. GW wrote their fluff into a corner as soon as Marines became a "line force".
Martel732 wrote: All of these descriptions assume marines can always dictate engagement. It doesn't take much to go wrong to lose an entire chapter in a day.
Right, that's part of the fluff of the Marines.
The Marines have their own navy (i.e. orbital support), their own orbital delivery transports, etc. The whole apparatus is designed to be faster than any other Imperial force. They are designed as best as the Imperium can design to be able to operate independently, with alacrity and initiative, to seize control of an engagement and dictate it.
The whole problem with Marines, of course, is that they can't always do that. Those are the tragedies when an entire chapter is wiped out. Those are the tragedies from which only Plot Armor can save you (SW during 1k Sons attack on Fenris, BA vs Tyranids on Baal, Ultramarines vs Tyranids on Macragge, etc).
So, again, to draw it back to rules, we might make the Marine player have to work to seize control of the engagement. Have it be 2k vs 2k, with the Marines fighting an uphill field battle against a superior force, unless they do [x]. I'm loathe to make it a dice roll (e.g. a 4+) because then it's just weird Seize the Initiative. But it can be very difficult to model these strategic effects on a tactical tabletop.
This goes back to 2nd ed where armies had a Strategy rating that was essentially a bonus to go first, and Marines had a better Stragegy Rating than everyone else.
Martel732 wrote: Why should marines push through guardsmen when the guardsmen outnumber them so badly AND have weapons that can bring them down pretty easily?
They should, but only through their training, tactics, use of demoralisation and hefty use of cover and ambush tactics.
Ten marines charging across an empty field bellowing like orks should stand no chance against 100 guardsmen.
Ten marines pulling shock and awe hit and run tactics on 100 guardsmen should have an almost completely assured victory.
I mean it depends, right?
Ten marines pulling shock and awe hit and run tactics should never fight 100 guardsmen. They should fight like, 10 at a time and then run away to strike somewhere else. Any situation where the Marines are taking on 100 Guardsmen is a loss, no matter how quickly they can hit&run away.
The whole point of irregular warfare / hit and run is to take on strategically larger and/or superior forces by breaking the engagements up into smaller chunks and preventing them from bringing their whole capability to bear. It's essentially an admission that you do not possess the capability to confidently win in a head-to-head engagement with the enemy force.
To replicate this on the tabletop at 2000 points, Marines should be really bad (like early 8th edition bad), but then have a special rule that permits them to only fight 500 or 1000 points of the enemy army at a time - perhaps because they blasted the enemy leader earlier in the day, or damaged communications, or utilized superior force concentration, something like that. But we'll never get rules like that, so we end up with half a damn chapter deployed against three guard regiments which is just ridiculous. GW wrote their fluff into a corner as soon as Marines became a "line force".
I think an easier way to do that would be to change lieutenant's aura to the captain's. If Space Marines aren't pushed into the battle pile, they they can spread out more and use the force concentration they already have.
Marines have tanks and other capital assets. That makes them a line force. They've always been depicted that way in the art work and the codices. At least back to 2nd ed. I know before that, they were space cops. It's GW's 1000 marine chapter idiocy that makes the "surgical force" narrative appealing. But it doesn't make any sense.
Insectum7 wrote: This goes back to 2nd ed where armies had a Strategy rating that was essentially a bonus to go first, and Marines had a better Stragegy Rating than everyone else.
Yes, that was an attempt at grappling with this problem - it's elegant and easy, but it doesn't quite achieve the feeling IMO. Not in 8th edition at least. "You can go first" isn't really the same as "you dictate the engagement" anymore. It's certainly easy though, and has more of an effect than just nothing.
Martel732 wrote: Marines have tanks and other capital assets. That makes them a line force. They've always been depicted that way in the art work and the codices. At least back to 2nd ed. I know before that, they were space cops. It's GW's 1000 marine chapter idiocy that makes the "surgical force" narrative appealing. But it doesn't make any sense.
Having tanks and capital assets doesn't make you a "line" force. That's like saying "Well, an irregular force has some tanks so obviously they're ready to fight open-field battles against professional armies."
Historically (looking past rules and certainly past 8th edition rules) Marine tanks were faster and lighter than the Imperium's battle-line tanks. A squadron of Marine Predators would do poorly against a squadron of Imperial Guard Leman Russes, in the fluff, and that's because the Predators are not designed to dig into tank pits and fire ordnance weapons at ten thousand yards. They're designed for maneuver warfare - and they will beat the Russes if orbitally inserted behind them, or using their greater strategic mobility to outmaneuver them.
The problem is that none of that means much on the tabletop.
The other problem with that is that there are forces with even greater strategic mobility - Daemons that can appear from anywhere, Eldar who blur the line between aircraft and tank, etc. But those forces are supposed to be more elite than marines anyways (at least in the case of the Eldar) or a planet-ending threat that require the intervention of specialized apparatuses within the Imperial state (Daemons).
Martel732 wrote: Marines also tangle with too many factions where they would in no way dictate anything. Particularly factions with their own navies.
Yes, but those factions are typically more elite or otherwise narratively different than Marines. For example (to reiterate one from above) Eldar can typically dictate the engagement to the Space Marines. But there are also considerably fewer Eldar than Space Marines (or at least, in theory anyways) and they are less skilled in man-to-man combat for the majority of their warriors (guardians, and again in theory anyways). Which means the Marines in this case are the strategically superior force that now the Eldar have to maneuver around, much like how the Imperial Guard are to the Space Marines (in a theoretical fight between the two).
I think those things make you a line force. Or at least a potential line force. That's why US marines have all those things so they can fight pitched battles without depending on other branches. But they can still easily end up in a line situation.
The chapter sizes are just way too small. Way, way too small.
Predators other than Baal preds have never had rules to support or imply mobile warfare.
Demons are supposed to be more elite than marines? That doesn't make much sense to me.
"But there are also considerably fewer Eldar than Space Marines"
This is impossible. A small portion of a craft world would have more Eldar than all marines in existence. As per GW's insanity. There are probably 100 X more of any given aspect than all marines and chaos marines combined.
Martel732 wrote: I think those things make you a line force. Or at least a potential line force. That's why US marines have all those things so they can fight pitched battles without depending on other branches. But they can still easily end up in a line situation.
Yet, in the European theatre in the modern context for example, no one expects the Marines to go toe-to-toe with the Soviet Russian army and stop them. At the very best, they are expected to delay them to give the U.S. Army - the real line force - time to arrive, and then once the Army arrives they can participate in the grander strategic campaign, utilizing their own LHAs and LHDs to strike at the enemy's strategic perimeter and otherwise ensure they are engaging where the enemy is weakest rather than facing the 2nd Combined Arms Army head-on...
Much like the Marines in 40k really.
Martel732 wrote: The chapter sizes are just way too small. Way, way too small.
This is true, but irrelevant to my point.
Martel732 wrote: Predators other than Baal preds have never had rules to support or imply mobile warfare.
First of all, I am talking about Marine fluff, not rules, and second of all, yes they have - by comparison to the line tanks of the Imperial Guard. They were always faster than a Leman Russ, at least since 3rd (not that familiar with 2nd). 3rd edition: Russ had to stay stationary to fire its main gun. Predator could move 6" 4th edition: Russ had to stay stationary to fire its main gun. Predator could move 6" 5th edition: Russ could move 6" to fire its main gun but could fire no other weapons. Predator could move 6" 6th edition: The Russ had the Heavy rule and could not flat-out; the Predator could. 7th edition: ditto 8th Edition: Predator has 2" more movement at top speed and the Russ prefers to move 5" or less.
Martel732 wrote: Demons are supposed to be more elite than marines? That doesn't make much sense to me.
Did you read what I said or are you ignoring me?
EDIT: Also if you want a reply to a point in a post, wait a minute before editing it in so you can just put it as part of a new reply. I won't constantly be checking your old posts for new points.
Marines ended up as a line force in Korea. Marines would have been a line force in an invasion of Japan that didn't happen. They are not just there to wait for the army.
Yeah, I didn't see the narratively different clause.
I guess my point was that predators have mostly been incentivized to not move. That doesn't scream "mobile warfare" to me. Being a little faster doesn't really change this.
To me, it makes more sense that marines are just there for propaganda are not really any more effective on the battle field than anything else.
Martel732 wrote: Marines ended up as a line force in Korea. Marines would have been a line force in an invasion of Japan that didn't happen. They are not just there to wait for the army.
Korea wasn't a peer threat. In 40k, I am making the assumption that there aren't just factions that are worse because "reasons". So everyone is peer. And yes, you're right, the Marines would've been a line force for the invasion of Japan, right alongside the army. It's telling that the US would rather be the only nation to use nuclear weapons in anger rather than suffer the horrific cost of using the Marines as a line force in exactly that situation.
That's literally saying "the Marines could've been a line force, but the Imperium would rather commit Exterminatus than suffer so many Space Marine casualties."
Also, did you know that the U.S. Army deployed five times as many forces to the Pacific Theater than the Marines did?
Martel732 wrote: Yeah, I didn't see the narratively different clause.
Okay.
Martel732 wrote: I guess my point was that predators have mostly been incentivized to not move. That doesn't scream "mobile warfare" to me. Being a little faster doesn't really change this.
Don't confuse tactical mobility with strategic mobility. The Predators will never beat the Leman Russ in a pitched battle that the tabletop game is supposed to be. That's because they've made several compromises in their design to enhance their strategic mobility (they're smaller and easier to move from orbit, as well as being able to move faster at top speed when not opposed).
Don't confuse tactical mobility with strategic mobility - indeed, in arguably a majority of situations, an infantryman can tactically outmaneuver a tank (e.g. most dense terrain). Does that mean that tanks don't outmaneuver infantry?
That sort of thing is why you shouldn't ever fight a Predator squadron against a Russ squadron in a head-to-head engagement. The game does, but it really shouldn't, and that's a flaw.
Martel732 wrote: To me, it makes more sense that marines are just there for propaganda are not really any more effective on the battle field than anything else.
To make a point about reality:
"The United States does not need a Marine Corps. However, for good reasons which completely transcend cold logic, the United States wants a Marine Corps." - Marine Brig. Gen. Victor Krulak
This is all great and grand. But GW has turned them into a line force regardless of if come maybes. Assuming they weren't a line force since 2nd ed already.
Martel732 wrote: This is all great and grand. But GW has turned them into a line force regardless of if come maybes. Assuming they weren't a line force since 2nd ed already.
Right, and that's a mistake for obvious reasons.
GW is trying to have their cake and eat it too with Marines - able to go toe-to-toe in pitched battles with veritable armies, but also be lightning fast, operationally agile, and strategically independent without regard for other branches of the Imperial military. So instead of simply saying "I guess marines really should beat everyone 80% of the time", I'll answer the thread by saying:
"somewhere above Imperial Guard but below Eldar, and the rules they achieve this with shouldn't be raw firepower or durability but should instead attempt to reflect operational agility". This would make Marines harder to play - after all, it's easier to dig in a thousand heavy tanks and say THIS IS DEFENDED than it is to plan a masterful offensive counterstroke as a defensive attack.
Martel732 wrote: But there's not really a viable way to depict operational agility.
I think there is, just not in the current over-simplified 40k rulesset as it stands. But if we were to take the current 30k rulesset to an example:
The Solar Auxilia are much more agile than the Imperial Militia, even on the table top. The rules by which this is achieved are as follows:
1) Troops Choice Mobility: - The Imperial Militia tends to have massive, unwieldy squad sizes. Minimum 20, except Grenadiers who are minimum 10 (and can therefore fit in transports), but can't take any special weapons at all and still fit in a transport (each special weapon taken also adds a body). This means that the Imperial Militia are either stuck to really really terrible firepower, or walking speed. And remember, if even a single model takes terrain, the whole unit must slow down. So not being able to fit between terrain easily basically means the Militia are always moving the highest of 2d6" rather than 6". - The Solar Auxilia have 10 man squads who all have special weapons. These fit in transports armed with Demolisher cannons; alternatively, their 20 man squads still fit in transports armed with twin lascannons. It's much easier to make a force that moves faster and further on the table top than the Imperial Militia while still being effective. Their squad sizes (no larger than 20, and their 10-man squads do well) are small enough to maneuver in tight terrain where the Imperial Militia squads would feel unwieldy and be forced to only move the highest of 2d6.
2) Tank/Heavy weapon mobility: - Both armies have Leman Russ tanks, but the Solar Auxilia tanks have Outflank and can be Fast for one turn, while Imperial Militia tanks are Heavy type and can take sponsons and loads of extra gun. - Imperial Militia choices include heavy weapon squads on foot, while Solar Auxilia tend to have armored vehicles to carry their guns. - Imperial Militia artillery are all towed guns, Solar Auxilia artillery are all self-propelled - meaning they can move and fire while the Imperial Militia cannot.
3) Special Rules: - The Solar Auxilia have Move Through Cover on their smaller units (making them faster, on average, through terrain than the Militia), and all their tanks and transports have Explorator Adaptation which lets them re-roll dangerous terrain tests. The Imperial Militia lacks all of these, but tends to bring cheaper firepower.
So, in a 30k engagement between a Solar Auxilia army and a Imperial Militia army, you'll have an army that's slow, unwieldy, and prefers to dig in vs. an army that's smaller, faster, and concentrates its forces where the enemy is weakest (e.g. outflanking the heavier Russes with lighter ones typically gives the victory to the lighter Russes, even without their sponsons).
40k's modern rules lack the ability to reflect this as easily though. (to pursue the same example, there's no such thing as side armor anymore so outflanking a Leman Russ with another Leman Russ gets you exactly squat). And that's terrible, because I would argue that Solar Auxilia are much closer to the Imperial Militia (they even have the same tank chassis) than SM are to IG, yet the difference in playstyle is more obvious between them than between the latter two in modern 40k.
Martel732 wrote: Yeah, I'm losing squads to the antenna of a tank shooting through a window. I think strategic mobility advantages are out of the question.
That's the game now. It's kinda pathetic really. 30k may be more your stride.
Martel732 wrote: Marines also tangle with too many factions where they would in no way dictate anything. Particularly factions with their own navies.
Yes, but those factions are typically more elite or otherwise narratively different than Marines. For example (to reiterate one from above) Eldar can typically dictate the engagement to the Space Marines. But there are also considerably fewer Eldar than Space Marines (or at least, in theory anyways) and they are less skilled in man-to-man combat for the majority of their warriors (guardians, and again in theory anyways). Which means the Marines in this case are the strategically superior force that now the Eldar have to maneuver around, much like how the Imperial Guard are to the Space Marines (in a theoretical fight between the two).
I believe the older depiction of Strategy Rating was a combination of both speed and aggressiveness. So even though Eldar technically have faster vehicles, they don't deploy as quickly or as aggressively as marines. Also, each Eldar lost is worth more to the faction than each marine. Marines are super special and all, but they still draw upon a population of trillions and refill their ranks much faster. Eldar might just be a bit less gung-ho about engagements because of it.
Either way, the 2nd ed Strategy Rating for Eldar was 4 to the Marine 5, giving the Marines a +1 advantage. I forget the Initiative rating for them respectively in Epic Armageddon. Iirc, Epic used alternating activation with Initiative giving an advantage to activation order.
Anyways, the point is really that just because your assets might be fast, the force might not be operating at "theoretically maximum possible initiative" for some reason.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Yeah, I'm losing squads to the antenna of a tank shooting through a window. I think strategic mobility advantages are out of the question.
What's really irritating about that is that the antenna only needs to see one model in a squad to kill everybody, but any model from the squad that can't see the antenna can't fire at it, so you get extremely disproportionate engagement capability. Irl it should be the other way around, where it's easy for infantry to find a tank and much harder for a tank to find infantry. The current terrain/LOS rules are dumb.
Martel732 wrote: Well, once before. Then choose one weapon to fire. Resolve. Then check to see if tank can still see the unit before firing second weapon.
Right.
The whole situation makes me re-appreciate the older "measure LOS from the weapon mount" rules as well. That combined with firing arcs and armor facing made vehicles much more interesting.
Martel732 wrote:But there's not really a viable way to depict operational agility.
Unit1126PLL wrote:I think there is, just not in the current over-simplified 40k rulesset as it stands. But if we were to take the current 30k rulesset to an example:
The Solar Auxilia are much more agile than the Imperial Militia, even on the table top. The rules by which this is achieved are as follows:
1) Troops Choice Mobility:
- The Imperial Militia tends to have massive, unwieldy squad sizes. Minimum 20, except Grenadiers who are minimum 10 (and can therefore fit in transports), but can't take any special weapons at all and still fit in a transport (each special weapon taken also adds a body). This means that the Imperial Militia are either stuck to really really terrible firepower, or walking speed. And remember, if even a single model takes terrain, the whole unit must slow down. So not being able to fit between terrain easily basically means the Militia are always moving the highest of 2d6" rather than 6".
- The Solar Auxilia have 10 man squads who all have special weapons. These fit in transports armed with Demolisher cannons; alternatively, their 20 man squads still fit in transports armed with twin lascannons. It's much easier to make a force that moves faster and further on the table top than the Imperial Militia while still being effective. Their squad sizes (no larger than 20, and their 10-man squads do well) are small enough to maneuver in tight terrain where the Imperial Militia squads would feel unwieldy and be forced to only move the highest of 2d6.
2) Tank/Heavy weapon mobility:
- Both armies have Leman Russ tanks, but the Solar Auxilia tanks have Outflank and can be Fast for one turn, while Imperial Militia tanks are Heavy type and can take sponsons and loads of extra gun.
- Imperial Militia choices include heavy weapon squads on foot, while Solar Auxilia tend to have armored vehicles to carry their guns.
- Imperial Militia artillery are all towed guns, Solar Auxilia artillery are all self-propelled - meaning they can move and fire while the Imperial Militia cannot.
3) Special Rules:
- The Solar Auxilia have Move Through Cover on their smaller units (making them faster, on average, through terrain than the Militia), and all their tanks and transports have Explorator Adaptation which lets them re-roll dangerous terrain tests. The Imperial Militia lacks all of these, but tends to bring cheaper firepower.
So, in a 30k engagement between a Solar Auxilia army and a Imperial Militia army, you'll have an army that's slow, unwieldy, and prefers to dig in vs. an army that's smaller, faster, and concentrates its forces where the enemy is weakest (e.g. outflanking the heavier Russes with lighter ones typically gives the victory to the lighter Russes, even without their sponsons).
40k's modern rules lack the ability to reflect this as easily though. (to pursue the same example, there's no such thing as side armor anymore so outflanking a Leman Russ with another Leman Russ gets you exactly squat). And that's terrible, because I would argue that Solar Auxilia are much closer to the Imperial Militia (they even have the same tank chassis) than SM are to IG, yet the difference in playstyle is more obvious between them than between the latter two in modern 40k.
I think you guys are getting too hung up on raw combat ability, when 40K already has something that should directly reflect operational mobility- the scenario and objectives.
If you set up a 2k vs 2k standard pitched battle, then you're back to a meat grinder, regardless of tactical mobility through innate speed or ability to move through cover.
But if you set up an asymmetric scenario where the Marine player's objective is a command post that they need to seize and hold for one turn before extracting, while their opponent starts with only a small their force on the board (but a lot more trickling in as reinforcements), you get a completely different sort of game. The Marine player is then engaging in less of a slugfest and more of a smash-and-grab. Tactical mobility options become a lot more useful. Now take it a step further and have it influenced by FOC. The defender starts with their Troops and HQs on the board, but not their Elites, Fast Attack, or Heavy Support. So the Marine player has their opportunity to slaughter their way through Guardsmen- but better be quick about actually completing the objective, because the tanks are on their way.
That kind of scenario better fits the fluff of Space Marines than conventional warfare over open terrain. Not to beat a dead horse, but because Epic models the 'closing to contact' part of the battle too, you get these kinds of scenarios organically. Space Marines are operationally fast and coordinated, and can apply overwhelming firepower to a small point and then redeploy before reinforcements can arrive.
I don't think you can ever satisfyingly model operational mobility solely through combat mechanics at the tactical scale 40K depicts- Genestealer Cults are the closest with their blip mechanic, but even that is a pretty limited gimmick. You don't wargame special forces raids by setting up a team of SEALs opposite a Soviet tank battalion and then trying to figure out what special rules can make the SEALs feel 'right'. It's never going to feel 'right', even if you can make it balanced.
If you want alternate scenarios to work in the current tournament-oriented context of 40K, you need something akin to Dust Warfare's Battle Builder, where players can bid a predetermined number of points to adjust the conditions of the battle (including deployment types and victory conditions). Let the Imperial Guard player bid to have prepared defensive positions and a defend-the-point objective, while the Marine player can bid to have the scenario take place at night and allow them aggressive forward deployment. That way each army can adjust the conditions of the battle to suit their strengths and better fit their themes.
No one wants to play vs marines with only a fraction of their army though.
Also, that scenario only makes sense for large cumbersome forces. Also, IG have a lot of air-mobile forces. I just have a hard time buying the whole quick insertion use narrative for marines. There are virtually no uses of that in my codex stories.
Again, only in very limited circumstances. Marines, like knights, seem really good at putting down peasant revolts, but seem miserable vs other actual militaries.
Martel732 wrote: Again, only in very limited circumstances. Marines, like knights, seem really good at putting down peasant revolts, but seem miserable vs other actual militaries.
Martel732 wrote: Again, only in very limited circumstances. Marines, like knights, seem really good at putting down peasant revolts, but seem miserable vs other actual militaries.
Which is rather the point, isn't it?
The Marines are not designed to fight toe-to-toe with other militaries.
They're designed to fight other militaries when the tactical advantage presents itself. For example, while the IG might have airmobile forces, they take a bit of muscle from High Command to get places. So let's use your plasma gun problem.
A given rebellion (call them the Davros IV rebellion) has more plasma guns than there are Marines in the engagement area. The Davros IV rebellion is also led by a single charismatic figure, whose death would cause the rebellion to disintegrate. The Imperium has several options, but for the moment lets set aside the idea that Assassins are immediately available for "reasons" (i.e. they're all on the toilet at the same time or whatever).
The Imperial Guard could tackle the rebellion head on and smash it to pieces in a total war style conflict. Their airmobile style forces would be employed to support this conflict the way the 101st and 82nd supported American offensives in World War II (i.e. not dropped into Berlin to assassinate Hitler, but instead dropped in to support military objectives near the front).
The Space Marines could nibble at the rebellion from the sides, striking where they are weakest - i.e. where those plasmaguns aren't. If the enemy concentrates their plasma guns and anti-tank weapons forwards to try to fight the Imperial Guard, the Marines can hit rear areas and possibly assassinate the leader if he doesn't keep enough plasma gunners around him specifically. If the enemy heavily commits to defending their rear areas from the Space Marine drop, the Imperial Guard's heavy tanks smash through the defenseless front lines.
Essentially, even if the marines are outnumbered by the heavy weapons, they're more mobile than the heavy weapons and "peanut-butter spreading" your heavy weapons across your entire AO just means you never have enough where you need them against either the IG or the Marines together. So the Marines strike where the heavy weapons aren't, and the Guard strikes where the heavy weapons are. This is because their toolsets are complimentary - the Guard can suppress heavy weapons with artillery and endure heavy weapons with thick armor and large numbers. The Space Marines can shatter and destroy forces where heavy weapons are lacking, and have the speed to strike and withdraw before such weapons can be relocated to tackle them.
Martel732 wrote: Again, only in very limited circumstances. Marines, like knights, seem really good at putting down peasant revolts, but seem miserable vs other actual militaries.
Martel732 wrote: Again, only in very limited circumstances. Marines, like knights, seem really good at putting down peasant revolts, but seem miserable vs other actual militaries.
Which is rather the point, isn't it?
The Marines are not designed to fight toe-to-toe with other militaries.
They're designed to fight other militaries when the tactical advantage presents itself. For example, while the IG might have airmobile forces, they take a bit of muscle from High Command to get places. So let's use your plasma gun problem.
A given rebellion (call them the Davros IV rebellion) has more plasma guns than there are Marines in the engagement area. The Davros IV rebellion is also led by a single charismatic figure, whose death would cause the rebellion to disintegrate. The Imperium has several options, but for the moment lets set aside the idea that Assassins are immediately available for "reasons" (i.e. they're all on the toilet at the same time or whatever).
The Imperial Guard could tackle the rebellion head on and smash it to pieces in a total war style conflict. Their airmobile style forces would be employed to support this conflict the way the 101st and 82nd supported American offensives in World War II (i.e. not dropped into Berlin to assassinate Hitler, but instead dropped in to support military objectives near the front).
The Space Marines could nibble at the rebellion from the sides, striking where they are weakest - i.e. where those plasmaguns aren't. If the enemy concentrates their plasma guns and anti-tank weapons forwards to try to fight the Imperial Guard, the Marines can hit rear areas and possibly assassinate the leader if he doesn't keep enough plasma gunners around him specifically. If the enemy heavily commits to defending their rear areas from the Space Marine drop, the Imperial Guard's heavy tanks smash through the defenseless front lines.
Essentially, even if the marines are outnumbered by the heavy weapons, they're more mobile than the heavy weapons and "peanut-butter spreading" your heavy weapons across your entire AO just means you never have enough where you need them against either the IG or the Marines together. So the Marines strike where the heavy weapons aren't, and the Guard strikes where the heavy weapons are. This is because their toolsets are complimentary - the Guard can suppress heavy weapons with artillery and endure heavy weapons with thick armor and large numbers. The Space Marines can shatter and destroy forces where heavy weapons are lacking, and have the speed to strike and withdraw before such weapons can be relocated to tackle them.
I just don't think things would work out that way due to their lack of numbers. And again, this falls apart fast vs Xenos.
Martel732 wrote: Again, only in very limited circumstances. Marines, like knights, seem really good at putting down peasant revolts, but seem miserable vs other actual militaries.
Ships with beyond-nuclear capability.
Relevance? So does everyone else who matters.
Having nukes is less important than deploying them effectively, and hitting first wins the exchange. The entire marine MO is predicated on dictating the terms. If they can't, then they don't engage. That's the principle from the fleet all the way down to the individual trooper.
Martel732 wrote: No one wants to play vs marines with only a fraction of their army though.
That's why I gave some examples of how a 'scenario builder' could create conditions where Marines can carry out a more fluff-accurate role.
If you set as hard requirements that you're ONLY going to play meat grinder scenarios, and you expect both sides to be balanced around the same points level, and one side is bringing lots of tanks... You're going to have a lot of Marines dying to tanks. There's no way around that. You can only keep Marines feeling elite while still having a fair game if you do one of the following:
1. Don't play at a scale where Marines get hard-countered.
2. Use a scenario where the enemy doesn't have their full force immediately available.
3. Give the Marines a way to accomplish their objective without having to just slug it out.
In the fluff those are the three conditions under which we normally see Marines being used, and the successful zero-casualties Marines-kill-everything stories are generally when they have all three- they're not going up against tank companies, they're operating with surprise and can disassemble the enemy piecemeal, and they have a specific objective to complete that doesn't require them to sit around and wait for enemy reinforcements.
The problem with tabletop 40K is that #1 and #2 are complete non-starters, and #3 is barely featured and unpopular (especially in ITC, where the objectives skew heavily towards killing).
I don't think that will even work. On the table, power armor has a 33% failure rate vs autoguns. GW needed to give some weapons AP +1. That's my take. Tabletop marines take crippling casualties even vs scut troops.
Martel732 wrote: I don't think that will even work. On the table, power armor has a 33% failure rate vs autoguns. GW needed to give some weapons AP +1. That's my take.
On average it takes 18 Guardsmen Rapid Firing at close range to kill a single Intercessor. They're point-for-point the toughest basic infantry of any faction against regular small arms.
They don't have any problems going up against lasguns/autoguns. It's the dedicated anti-MEQ weapons that screw them over, and the current scenario design gives them no tools to avoid those.
Martel732 wrote: You can't always rely on that. gak goes wrong all the time. To me, this makes their purported MO absolutely unbelievable.
Remember
A They are better at it than you are.
B: They have highly trained space magicians to help guide them.
C: They do screw up sometimes and it's disasterous.
I'm just not sure they should be able to avoid anti-meq weapons, because such weapons have lots of other uses as well. It's the old offense outstripping defense issue. Marines don't have a gun radar. They really don't have any way to know what they are walking into at any given time.
Drop some scouts in and take a looksee. Gather information from orbit. Have your space magician feel for the confidence of the enemy. Use feints to determine strength. Rely on centuries of combat experience and make an executive decision.
Insectum7 wrote: Drop some scouts in and take a looksee. Gather information from orbit. Have your space magician feel for the confidence of the enemy. Use feints to determine strength. Rely on centuries of combat experience and make an executive decision.
I just don't think things would work out that way due to their lack of numbers. And again, this falls apart fast vs Xenos.
I don't disagree but I chalk that up to GW having no sense of scale.
Does it really matter when everyone has a reduced scale? I know it's silly that 100 Marines are the force they're portrayed as but when everyone else has that reduced scale it's nowhere near as bad.
Insectum7 wrote: Drop some scouts in and take a looksee. Gather information from orbit. Have your space magician feel for the confidence of the enemy. Use feints to determine strength. Rely on centuries of combat experience and make an executive decision.
The scouts get eaten by Tyranids before they get to send back proper information.
In orbit, the navy is busy fighting off the Hive Fleet ships.
The Space Magician is busy trying to not have his head explode from the presence of the Hive Mind.
Feints might work, but...
Above all, you don't have time. You need to be in the battlefield yesterday to have the best effect, because the Tyranids are invading NOW.
Insectum7 wrote: Drop some scouts in and take a looksee. Gather information from orbit. Have your space magician feel for the confidence of the enemy. Use feints to determine strength. Rely on centuries of combat experience and make an executive decision.
Insectum7 wrote: Drop some scouts in and take a looksee. Gather information from orbit. Have your space magician feel for the confidence of the enemy. Use feints to determine strength. Rely on centuries of combat experience and make an executive decision.
The scouts get eaten by Tyranids before they get to send back proper information.
In orbit, the navy is busy fighting off the Hive Fleet ships.
The Space Magician is busy trying to not have his head explode from the presence of the Hive Mind.
Feints might work, but...
Above all, you don't have time. You need to be in the battlefield yesterday to have the best effect, because the Tyranids are invading NOW.
Fire nukes into the invading swarm for as long as you can. When your chances to do so are about to run out, exterminatus the planet to achieve the greatest net loss of biomass to the nids as possible. Disengage from the battle but harass the Nid fleet to keep them expending energy, and send runner ships out to report and call reinforcements.
The current rules of 40k (outside of scenarios) make it near impossible to represent Marines (or really most Factions) as they appear in the fluff. The closest you could probably get would be to revamp the entire Imperial line-up into one Faction, with Marines all being Elite choices, Militarum being Troops, Admech being the Heavies, etc. But no one wants that, so you gotta settle for Marines on the tabletop that operate differently than the fluff portrays them.
If only there were some way to play 40k that was more customizable, some way to make it easier for players to grasp the fluff and implement it with mutual agreement...
...hmm. I think we should do a community one and call it Narrative Play. You could have scenarios like Meat Grinder, or perhaps Stronghold Assault, or maybe Planetstrike.
Unit1126PLL wrote: If only there were some way to play 40k that was more customizable, some way to make it easier for players to grasp the fluff and implement it with mutual agreement...
...hmm. I think we should do a community one and call it Narrative Play. You could have scenarios like Meat Grinder, or perhaps Stronghold Assault, or maybe Planetstrike.
It's a pity none of this already exists.
Why should Marines feeling how they're supposed to be Narrative only?
While I'm perfectly willing to make concessions for the sake of the game, the broad strokes should feel accurate even in Matched play.
Unit1126PLL wrote: If only there were some way to play 40k that was more customizable, some way to make it easier for players to grasp the fluff and implement it with mutual agreement...
...hmm. I think we should do a community one and call it Narrative Play. You could have scenarios like Meat Grinder, or perhaps Stronghold Assault, or maybe Planetstrike.
It's a pity none of this already exists.
Why should Marines feeling how they're supposed to be Narrative only?
While I'm perfectly willing to make concessions for the sake of the game, the broad strokes should feel accurate even in Matched play.
Then you need to very very carefully define what you are looking for. You are contending with the idea that in-universe, marines (really all sides) are only trying to engage in battles from a position of srong advantage, but at the same time trying to make a game that starts with giving both sides a roughly equal chance of success.
If Marines were to be accurate, Marines armies would be minuscule.
The problem is that GW wants Marine players to be able to take an army, and for the opposing army to not also break the bank (any more than it currently does). So, they make Marines weaker compared to their fluff in order for Marine players to be able to put their whole army down.
For what it's worth, I played a Solohammer game a few days ago where I basically took two squads of Terminators and threw them against about three times their cost in Genestealers on a Zone Mortalis board. The catch? I had the Genestealers come in via infinitely respawning waves, so even though over the course of the mission my Marines killed about 47 Genestealers (for the cost of 6 of their own), they didn't fight them at once.
That, more than anything else, is the power of the Space Marine - high force concentration. They have the speed and intelligence to engage precisely where needed, and the arms and armour to engage the enemy's elite troops. IMO, a basic Space Marine should be equal to the elite troops of an enemy, because, relatively speaking, a Space Marine IS an elite troop of the Imperium. Or, to put it a different way, if the Imperium was treated as it's own single army, like Orks are, then Space Marines would be an Elites slot, like Meganobz or Battlesuits. But, Space Marines are treated as their own unique force by GW, and so also need to be fieldable as their own army - so suffer a deal of nerfing to make them more tabletop palatable.
So if the Terminators killed 47 to their 6, are they really nerfed for the tabletop?
In my opinion the basic marine is more or less fine on the tabletop, and comparable to the better incarnations in the fluff. See the Astartes-related discussion earlier. A squad of marines can easily defeat 10 GEQ, and if the GEQ can't bring their numbers to bear, the Marines can just continue to kill them off piecmeal pretty effectively.
The issue for MEQ on the tabletop is that the tabletop is essentially a pitched tank battle in which MEQ take part. And I am all for anti-vehicle weapons pulverizing MEQ. If you want to get deeper into it, I think that the man-portable anti-armor weapons have gone down in effectiveness, as well as the protection that terrain gave to infantry in older days. Change those balances and elite infantry in cover with heavy weapons fare better against tank armies, and Marines start to get more capable while not dumping on other infantry stats-wise.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: If Marines were to be accurate, Marines armies would be minuscule.
The problem is that GW wants Marine players to be able to take an army, and for the opposing army to not also break the bank (any more than it currently does). So, they make Marines weaker compared to their fluff in order for Marine players to be able to put their whole army down.
I think that's getting it backwards- Marines in the fluff used to line up pretty well with Marines on the tabletop, being the best basic infantry but still relying on special forces tactics to make up for lack of numbers, and sustaining heavy casualties when caught in a knock-down drag-out open fight. It wasn't until the late-2000s, and particularly the Horus Heresy series, that Black Library started to power-creep Marines to absurd levels.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Or, to put it a different way, if the Imperium was treated as it's own single army, like Orks are, then Space Marines would be an Elites slot, like Meganobz or Battlesuits. But, Space Marines are treated as their own unique force by GW, and so also need to be fieldable as their own army - so suffer a deal of nerfing to make them more tabletop palatable.
The Primaris range is already there. Primaris line up pretty well to Ork Nobz, hold their own against Genestealers, and can take on any of the Aspect Warriors. But for a lot of Marine players this apparently isn't enough.
Since I've posted this twice now, and the arguments ave had it ignored, yet again, I'll mention Movie Marines. I think, when compared to what they currently have, Movie Marines aren't the silly broken thing they were when they were made.
Blndmage wrote: Since I've posted this twice now, and the arguments ave had it ignored, yet again, I'll mention Movie Marines. I think, when compared to what they currently have, Movie Marines aren't the silly broken thing they were when they were made.
Anyone that said Movie Marines were broken had a broken calculator, simple as that. They weren't even CLOSE to broken. Hell, they weren't close to GOOD.
Blndmage wrote: Since I've posted this twice now, and the arguments ave had it ignored, yet again, I'll mention Movie Marines. I think, when compared to what they currently have, Movie Marines aren't the silly broken thing they were when they were made.
Anyone that said Movie Marines were broken had a broken calculator, simple as that. They weren't even CLOSE to broken. Hell, they weren't close to GOOD.
No.buy they were close to stupid.
Movie marines were not consistent with the background either - a lascannon still instantly fries a marine, and marines killed each other with Bolters during the heresy no problem. Marines have never been tougher than heavy bolters, or capable of taking melts guns to the face.
Giving marines hive tyrant profiles in 3rd Ed didn't make them more representative of how they work, because they aren't like that.
GW just refuses to define armies by things other than their profiles and weapons, creating all sorts of stupid contradictions to get them to function properly.
Scenario and set up are huge parts of marine capability, just as it is for the Eldar (of all stripes).
So you get this juxtaposition of issues:
Marines are tough and skilful
Their armour is not proof against anti tank weapons
Their bodies are still damaged by basic guns (a naked marine is still likely to die if someone put a lasgun to their temple)
There aren't many of them
They can't punch through a land raider
They can punch through a human face
And so on.
So what this says is that a marine's power shouldn't be about making them harder to kill, or superhero powerful.
It says that they use their higher survivability in clever ways to tip each engagement in their favour. Choosing the terrain before the game starts, creating narrow kill corridors where marines can take on individual groups one at a time maximizing their advantages.
Just as the Eldar would use surprise ambushes and high speed overwhelming force in the first few minutes to determine whether they'd won or not. in a game they might get two turns in a row to fight before the enemy strikes, but they would have smaller forces.
Until GW commits to set up and scenario based army balance.mechanics, we're just going to keep getting RAWR smash marine rules which continues their misrepresentation to fans and perpetuates juvenile one-upmanship style superhero marines.
Blndmage wrote: Since I've posted this twice now, and the arguments ave had it ignored, yet again, I'll mention Movie Marines. I think, when compared to what they currently have, Movie Marines aren't the silly broken thing they were when they were made.
Anyone that said Movie Marines were broken had a broken calculator, simple as that. They weren't even CLOSE to broken. Hell, they weren't close to GOOD.
No.buy they were close to stupid.
Movie marines were not consistent with the background either - a lascannon still instantly fries a marine, and marines killed each other with Bolters during the heresy no problem. Marines have never been tougher than heavy bolters, or capable of taking melts guns to the face.
Giving marines hive tyrant profiles in 3rd Ed didn't make them more representative of how they work, because they aren't like that.
GW just refuses to define armies by things other than their profiles and weapons, creating all sorts of stupid contradictions to get them to function properly.
Scenario and set up are huge parts of marine capability, just as it is for the Eldar (of all stripes).
So you get this juxtaposition of issues:
Marines are tough and skilful
Their armour is not proof against anti tank weapons
Their bodies are still damaged by basic guns (a naked marine is still likely to die if someone put a lasgun to their temple)
There aren't many of them
They can't punch through a land raider
They can punch through a human face
And so on.
So what this says is that a marine's power shouldn't be about making them harder to kill, or superhero powerful.
It says that they use their higher survivability in clever ways to tip each engagement in their favour. Choosing the terrain before the game starts, creating narrow kill corridors where marines can take on individual groups one at a time maximizing their advantages.
Just as the Eldar would use surprise ambushes and high speed overwhelming force in the first few minutes to determine whether they'd won or not. in a game they might get two turns in a row to fight before the enemy strikes, but they would have smaller forces.
Until GW commits to set up and scenario based army balance.mechanics, we're just going to keep getting RAWR smash marine rules which continues their misrepresentation to fans and perpetuates juvenile one-upmanship style superhero marines.
Marines would also benefit from proper overwatch rules where a unit breaking cover or even just moving within a certain range and angle of a unit can be shot at out of sequence. Other armies would also get this but Marines might not suffer penalties for doing so, or have longer ranges and wider areas covered.
Demons might have an exception where they never start on the table and come onto the table from reserves in a random and haphazard fashion but can get a full turn (moving, psychic, shooting, charging, etc.) after arriving from the warp making them terrifying as they could pop up almost anywhere on the table.
Go down the list and give every faction a suitable and flavorful advantage.
Most people have hit it pretty squarely on the head - marines are elite in that they have strategic mobility and martial prowess. The game currently only has the rules to really represent the martial prowess, and it even struggles with that as far too many units are 2's RR1's on attacks.
The easiest way to represent strategic mobility - and I say easiest, not necessarily best - would be to use side tables.
Give each codex a Strategic Mobility rating (for lack of a better term).
If a player is using multiple codexs, use the lowest.
Players preparing for a 2000 pt game would bring a 500 pt side table
Before the game both players would announce their codexes, and Strategic Mobility rating.
Before knowing the other players list, the player that has the higher SMr would get to change out some number of points from their side-table, depending on how much higher the SMr is.
You could then even have things that manipulate the SMr further, like characters that have no combat buffs/aura but increase the SMr. Or even the use of supplements could lower the SMr as it represents a more specialized supply chain.
For example:
A) I'm playing a guard player (SMr 2) with my Marine army (SMr 4) - Because I'm double their rating, I get ~ 100 points to trade in from my sideboard, could be pointed relics/weapon swaps/model swaps as long as its in my sideboard. The guard are better in a straight up gun fight, but I get to use more specialized tools for taking out the guard player.
B) I'm playing the same guard player, but he's brought CREEEED, making his SMr 3. I'm bringing my Marine Army, and using the Salamanders supplements. Because of the specialized nature of force my SMr is reduced by 1 meaning I have SMr 3. Equal ratings mean no side gets to sideboard.
C) The guard player is as above (SMr 3), but I've brought Marines: Salamanders supplement AND guard allies meaning I have SMr 2. Giving the full guard player ~ 50 points of sideboard to trade
Versatility is a potent tool in the hands of a good player
Anyways, just a thought I had from the discussion in this thread
Oh absolutely, there is work that would have to go into the implementation - But thats the case for any idea, it's just that this one occupies a different design space and for the most part uses already in place architecture.
I always though tac squads in a rhino picking their gear after the matchup revealed would have been thematic because they just grab what they need after disembark.
Sideboarding works better for systems where you play more than one game against the same list and opponent. It's also better in systems where there can be hidden information such as an MtG draft event.
I think I'd rather see the strategic advantage handled by rules that allow for deployment advantages for one side or even disadvantages for the other team. Perhaps you could even change how objectives are placed, change the distance units can deep strike at from 6" to 13" depending on how the lists stack up. You could drain enemy CP, add to your own, etc.
I'd rather see really cool impactful rules than something bland.
Martel732 wrote: Sideboards aren't bland, imo. And the game does have hidden info. You don't know what each opponent will have.
You do the moment you get paired with them and ask to see their list detailed down to the most insignificant piece of war gear. In MtG your opponetn could hold certain cards back in a blowout win or loss so when you go to sideboard you miss out on countering something in their deck. You also can't see their sideboard so they could change from a midrange creature deck in game one into a no creature control deck for game two and you wouldn't know until you started the game.
I think sideboards are nicely engaging because you get to design your sideboards. Also, it's in GWs intrest because it encourages the purchase of more models.
The old Strategy rating or something similar is ok too, it's simple.
This reminds me a bit of 2nd Edition Tyranids where only certain missions could be played against them, and they had a series of tables to roll on before the battle to see what effects the horrors of fighting them had already come to pass.
Martel732 wrote: Sideboards aren't bland, imo. And the game does have hidden info. You don't know what each opponent will have.
You do the moment you get paired with them and ask to see their list detailed down to the most insignificant piece of war gear. In MtG your opponetn could hold certain cards back in a blowout win or loss so when you go to sideboard you miss out on countering something in their deck. You also can't see their sideboard so they could change from a midrange creature deck in game one into a no creature control deck for game two and you wouldn't know until you started the game.
That's why you would announce any side-table usage after informing the other player your codex and comparing ratings.
But before lists were swapped. I know this isn't how list sharing doesn't currently work in 40k Tournament, but it doesn't mean that it can't be made to work that way.
How do you propose people hide their models so that their army composition isn't obvious?
In the case/s you normally carry your models in? It's not like this is an unsolvable problem.
Conversely, you play it so the opponent can see your default army, but not your sideboards, and then use a rating to determine who decides on their sideboard first.
That is a big assumption to think that people would both own and carry with them, more then 2000pts of an army. Out of the 30+ people playing at my store the only ones that have more then 2000pts are people who played for longer then I am alive.
And even they just have multiple tournament lists, not 3000k of one army.
This is probably beside the point of this thread, but I'd like Space Marines to be brought closer to their rogue trader era level of power. I.e more psychotic elite units with the very best human equipment and bio enhancements, not superheroes. But that's probably very very unlikely (before someone screams rose tinted glasses at me, I started playing years after rt)
Karol wrote: That is a big assumption to think that people would both own and carry with them, more then 2000pts of an army. Out of the 30+ people playing at my store the only ones that have more then 2000pts are people who played for longer then I am alive.
And even they just have multiple tournament lists, not 3000k of one army.
I mean, this is a silly objection. If the rules changed, people would change to match them. It's not like people have refused to buy more models since 3rd edition or anything. If the game requires more models, then people will obviously buy to keep up, since they do today.
It doesn't matter if the "game requires more models" is because of dropping points costs without dropping game sizes, increasing game sizes, or adding a sideboard.
The game now is much larger than it was at the beginning of 8th edition (every army is cheaper than it was) so unless your friends and company are playing Index Rules Only then I suspect they've already bought more models to meet shifting game rules.
Yeah, and even if people didn't want more models, why can't they just play 1500 point games instead?
Like, I'm not a massive advocate for people needing to buy more models to meta-chase or whatever, but there's nothing forcing people to keep playing at X points limit beyond their own impositions.
I usually have my armies organised in formation/faction (so, I carry all my Ultramarines 2nd Company in one box, and all my 1st in another, even though I do sometimes play them together).
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I usually have my armies organised in formation/faction (so, I carry all my Ultramarines 2nd Company in one box, and all my 1st in another, even though I do sometimes play them together).
I used to do this until I started playing Daemons. Now, I just bring all my Daemons because if I'm playing power-level I can summon infinite daemons (if I have the models) and if I'm playing points I sometimes need a backup set of models in case my opponent wants to tune the list up or down or wants to bring in a friendo or change the game size, etc.
IMO the game plays better at 1500 than it does at 2000, so a 1500pt game + 500pt sideboard would be a win-win with the same model count.
I mentioned Dust earlier, here's the mission builder I was referencing:
Both players have two points to spend, and alternate allocating them to one of the three categories (Objectives, Deployment, Conditions). There's a bit of a metagame thus involved in dictating the conditions of the battle.
In a perfect world, I'd like to see something similar (maybe a bit more in-depth) in 40K, with certain command assets giving you extra 'mission points' to spend at this stage. Even if Marines didn't intrinsically get more points than other factions, it would let them play to their strengths and skew the mission towards conditions that make more sense than a pitched battle.
Edit: Oh yeah, and just speaking in general- I think Marines would feel a lot more elite if Bolter Discipline were implemented like 30K's Fury of the Legion instead. As it stands, Bolter Discipline encourages you to stand still and shoot at long range, which... isn't very Marine-like. Fury of the Legion lets you double-shoot at long range and then withdraw, or quadruple-shoot at close range and then charge into melee, which feels much more appropriate to the faction.
Edit: Oh yeah, and just speaking in general- I think Marines would feel a lot more elite if Bolter Discipline were implemented like 30K's Fury of the Legion instead. As it stands, Bolter Discipline encourages you to stand still and shoot at long range, which... isn't very Marine-like. Fury of the Legion lets you double-shoot at long range and then withdraw, or quadruple-shoot at close range and then charge into melee, which feels much more appropriate to the faction.
My idea before Bolter Discipline became a thing was to just add one shot per RFnum to each range band, so three at close and two at far for Bolters, or six at close and four at long for Storm Bolters. Not as fancy as shoot-withdraw or shoot-charge, but still encouraging closing with the opponent.
Edit: Oh yeah, and just speaking in general- I think Marines would feel a lot more elite if Bolter Discipline were implemented like 30K's Fury of the Legion instead. As it stands, Bolter Discipline encourages you to stand still and shoot at long range, which... isn't very Marine-like. Fury of the Legion lets you double-shoot at long range and then withdraw, or quadruple-shoot at close range and then charge into melee, which feels much more appropriate to the faction.
My idea before Bolter Discipline became a thing was to just add one shot per RFnum to each range band, so three at close and two at far for Bolters, or six at close and four at long for Storm Bolters. Not as fancy as shoot-withdraw or shoot-charge, but still encouraging closing with the opponent.
To clarify, Fury of the Legion lets you double your shots, but you can't charge that turn or shoot the next turn. So it lets you do things like double your fire output at close range and then charge into combat next turn (while you 'reload'), or double-fire at long range and then next turn move to break LOS. It gives you the flexibility to play more tactically by front-loading your firepower. To me, that fits the MO of Marines perfectly.
Adding an extra shot would be fine too. I still think it might overly incentivize static combat at long range, since non-Marines would still benefit more from closing the distance, but it'd definitely be better than the current implementation.
Edit: Oh yeah, and just speaking in general- I think Marines would feel a lot more elite if Bolter Discipline were implemented like 30K's Fury of the Legion instead. As it stands, Bolter Discipline encourages you to stand still and shoot at long range, which... isn't very Marine-like. Fury of the Legion lets you double-shoot at long range and then withdraw, or quadruple-shoot at close range and then charge into melee, which feels much more appropriate to the faction.
My idea before Bolter Discipline became a thing was to just add one shot per RFnum to each range band, so three at close and two at far for Bolters, or six at close and four at long for Storm Bolters. Not as fancy as shoot-withdraw or shoot-charge, but still encouraging closing with the opponent.
To clarify, Fury of the Legion lets you double your shots, but you can't charge that turn or shoot the next turn. So it lets you do things like double your fire output at close range and then charge into combat next turn (while you 'reload'), or double-fire at long range and then next turn move to break LOS. It gives you the flexibility to play more tactically by front-loading your firepower. To me, that fits the MO of Marines perfectly.
Adding an extra shot would be fine too. I still think it might overly incentivize static combat at long range, since non-Marines would still benefit more from closing the distance, but it'd definitely be better than the current implementation.
Yeah, this was a suggestion originating prior to the Doctrines giving the bonus AP. More shots combined with the bonus AP for Intercessors arguably still puts out enough fire to make advancing unnecessary, even with another shot.
I think that skills that modify weapon use are better than making half a dozen different types of bolter.
Is the same with aspect warriors, they shouldn't have avenger catapults or scorpion swords, they should have normal weapons and skills that make their use more effective.
On the other hand, there's not really anything special about full auto at close range - emptying your magazine is something anyone can do. Marines aren't adding anything extra to it.
Which comes back to my comments on game design - it's still just trying to represent marines in a brute force way through pure damage.
The current doctrine bonus imo is just allowing them to kill other marines easier.
If you look at what they're trying to do in these scenarios then I think you can get pretty distinct skills that reflect them.
IE long range. Given how vulnerable they are to heavy weaponry, controlling enemy weapons at range before getting closer is better.
So marines could lay down accurate suppressive fire at range that reduces the targets BS.
At short range they might need to pin the target in place for an assault, so attacks cause pinning which reduces movement.
Controlling enemy movements and dictating fighting conditions are both very good ways for a small elite force to be its own force multiplier
^I agree with most of the post, however I will point out that until 8th edition GEQ received no armor save against Bolters, and then all of a sudden were saving 1/3 successful wounds, thwarting imo both reasonable expectations and precedent. The extra shots clear that up. Unfortunately 8th ed is also the edition where S4 wounds T7 on a 5+ :/. Vehicles aside however, I think the core balance should be constructed around the interactions between troops, and the MEQ vs. GEQ wasn't quite where it should be.
That said, I like the idea of suppression, or just meaningful morale rules again.
