SemperMortis wrote: My trust in GW's "Playtesting" is the same amount of trust I would place on a Cruise Ship Named Titanic reaching its intended destination.
I hate to bring it back up, but one of these "Playtesters" is the renowned Reece who is famous for being wrong...all the damn time.
Not gonna argue that; it's not much. But it's basically all we've got.
No it's fething not.
I don't understand this stockholm syndrome bull that people have with GW. You have your dollars and your time. Stop payng GW for a subpar product, take your plastic toys and your friends, and go play a different rule set with better rules. You don't owe GW gak and you absolutely do not have to eat their scraps of a crap product.
But what if I enjoy the game, have fun with it, and then go with my group of friends to big tournaments where everybody plays the same game? And , at the same time, I play other rulesets that are more balanced and I also like?
Is being critical with the game incompatible with having reasonable expectations about what it is and what isnt and having fun with it?
I'm sorry but when you, and many like you, reach the point of reducing all the reasons of playing GW games to emotional manipulation, attacking the people that enjoys playing those games, you lose all kind of moral ground you could claim.
That is not what I attacked. I attacked the idea of "it's all we've got". You enjoy what GW gives you? Good. Go enjoy it. If you don't enjoy it then you don't have to put up with it. There is no "it's all we've got".
Lance845 wrote: That is not what I attacked. I attacked the idea of "it's all we've got". You enjoy what GW gives you? Good. Go enjoy it. If you don't enjoy it then you don't have to put up with it. There is no "it's all we've got".
For a much broader value of "All we've got" than I had intended, but perhaps underarticulated.
Lance845 wrote: That is not what I attacked. I attacked the idea of "it's all we've got". You enjoy what GW gives you? Good. Go enjoy it. If you don't enjoy it then you don't have to put up with it. There is no "it's all we've got".
For a much broader value of "All we've got" than I had intended, but perhaps underarticulated.
Frankly in some regions it is all the playerbase has.
GW is rather dominant in the market sadly.
I don't think the two wounds is the problem.
Back as early as 6th edition, I remember "giving Space Marines 2 wounds" was one of the more common proposals to make Space Marines more competitive.
Space Marines might need a bit of a nudge upwards in points- or, alternatively, other armies might need a nudge downwards in points. We are, as I understand, seeing a massive change in various weapons across the board.
However as I understand it, there's some things to note:
1- Saying "X can wipe out Y too easily" is an argument, but not as much of one as before- especially considering the way points are scored now- 'kill the other guy better' isn't always a winning move.
2- Space Marines now have more restrictive 'Force Org'- in other words, max 1 Captain and 2 Lt's per detachment. Not seeing any other army with that, unless I missed something.
3- Deathwatch and some of the others don't even have signature strategems right now, only the base generic ones. I'm still rather confused about some of what Deathwatch can do.
4- People have complained for years that Space Marines aren't competitive. To a point where playing Space Marines was something that got a chuckle and a snort, because you were assumed to be an idiot that was still learning to play or an idiot that couldn't play 'a real army'. Well, now you might have to actually think when playing against Space Marines- and that probably sounds familiar, because some people with some pretty OP armies in the past used the same line about their army.
5- It's the first official codex. Just give it some time and wait for your army to get one. If it still sucks, then... well, complain to GW, find a way to balance it, or just quit.
4- People have complained for years that Space Marines aren't competitive. To a point where playing Space Marines was something that got a chuckle and a snort, because you were assumed to be an idiot that was still learning to play or an idiot that couldn't play 'a real army'. Well, now you might have to actually think when playing against Space Marines- and that probably sounds familiar, because some people with some pretty OP armies in the past used the same line about their army.
Just because people where whining on the internet doesn't mean it was true.
8th Edition Space Marines 1.0, pre-Bolter Discipline, pre-Shock Assault, pre-Doctrines, pre-Transhuman, pre-Chapter-Tactics for vehicles, pre-multiple-WL-traits, pre-anything were in the LVO Top 10 and other top tournaments. Marines played by those rule were competitively well-balanced against many books still around today with few changes since then (e.g. all Eldar-variants, Nids, etc.., etc..).
Nothing in particular. Its a good gun, but they lose to hit and gain to wound. Their real value has always been that you can have more firewarriors than marines. That doesn't scream 'specialist' to me. It doesn't even hint at it.
Oh they are a specialist. The SM is a generalist. He gets to shoot and fight. The Tau is only really going to shoot. That doesn't mean he's better at shooting than a Space Marine, just that he specializes in it. Similar but less extreme than a Shoota Boy of old.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Who says they're living up to their fluff? If anything the individual Marine would basically be Custodes level and Custodes beyond even that.
You want to follow lore THAT strictly that's on all y'all.
No because lore-wise genestealer should be able to tear through marines in CC, for instance.
So either you upgrade the individual marine to custodes level and you upgrade EVERYONE ELSE and then you just reach the point where grots have two HP and it's ridiculous, or you stop making nonsensical statement likle this one.
jeff white wrote: Orks don’t have technology exactly and were not known as Uber tele porters until recently, snotguns aside.
When I started getting interested in 40k and got my first White Dwarf, there was this summer campaign going on, you may have heard of it. It was called 3rd war for Armageddon. And the orks where using tellyporta. Like, teleporting only the upper half of the enemy troops bodies, or teleporting the whole body, but several hundred meters high in the air.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Just because people where whining on the internet doesn't mean it was true.
8th Edition Space Marines 1.0, pre-Bolter Discipline, pre-Shock Assault, pre-Doctrines, pre-Transhuman, pre-Chapter-Tactics for vehicles, pre-multiple-WL-traits, pre-anything were in the LVO Top 10 and other top tournaments. Marines played by those rule were competitively well-balanced against many books still around today with few changes since then (e.g. all Eldar-variants, Nids, etc.., etc..).
To be honest, I did feel that Marines were weak on the basis of my casual play; those Top 10 lists were generally Guilliman bubblehammer lists, and I don't think it's fair to judge the entire army on the basis of one standout build. But Bolter Discipline and Shock Assault both made a huge difference, and it would have been nice if we had time to see how Marines perform on the whole with just those changes.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Just because people where whining on the internet doesn't mean it was true.
So help me out here-
Which whining on the internet is false?
All of it?
The part that you don't agree with?
Or maybe these more recent complaints?
Because right now it's starting to look to me like the major complaint is "Space Marines aren't a cake walk for my army to beat any more, this is obviously wrong".
I just would like a little help determining which batch of whinging I'm supposed to give any credit to at all.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Just because people where whining on the internet doesn't mean it was true.
So help me out here-
Which whining on the internet is false?
All of it?
The part that you don't agree with?
Or maybe these more recent complaints?
Because right now it's starting to look to me like the major complaint is "Space Marines aren't a cake walk for my army to beat any more, this is obviously wrong".
I just would like a little help determining which batch of whinging I'm supposed to give any credit to at all.
> you forgot the fact that GW does not maintain a stable ruleset, making factions not propperly balanced regardless if op or up.
just look at 8th marines. from Tournament winning to really meh to bad to broken. All within one singular edition.
Granted some factions and units have a lon standing tradition of sucking. Which only rarely improves. F.e. Possessed. Or factions that just got ignored b GW.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Just because people where whining on the internet doesn't mean it was true.
So help me out here-
Which whining on the internet is false?
All of it?
The part that you don't agree with?
Or maybe these more recent complaints?
Because right now it's starting to look to me like the major complaint is "Space Marines aren't a cake walk for my army to beat any more, this is obviously wrong".
I just would like a little help determining which batch of whinging I'm supposed to give any credit to at all.
I'm at the point where it doesn't matter. Regardless of which side they're on, if its whining, its probably wrong and not worth paying attention to.
It doesn't help that its the same 15 or so people constantly arguing back and forth about the same topics and derailing each thread with the same copypasta.
Voss wrote: I'm at the point where it doesn't matter. Regardless of which side they're on, if its whining, its probably wrong and not worth paying attention to.
It doesn't help that its the same 15 or so people constantly arguing back and forth about the same topics and derailing each thread with the same copypasta.
I'd give you an exalt, but in truth you deserve the actual keys to this forum and a throne made of boobies.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: 1- Saying "X can wipe out Y too easily" is an argument, but not as much of one as before- especially considering the way points are scored now- 'kill the other guy better' isn't always a winning move.
There are two pieces of "X can wipe out Y too easily", and they are often confused.
1. X can wipe out Y from a pure game balance/points efficiency/mechanical standpoint.
2. X can wipe out Y from a model-to-model/"unit identity" standpoint.
Both armies/units placing well in tournaments/being competitive only works for type 1. If you point a unit cheap enough it can still be competitive even though individual models are comparatively terrible vs. common opposing models.
Type 2 is the lore/setting side of it. A unit being competitive has nothing to do with it. Banshees might be a great competitive model if they were 6 points each, but the idea of requiring 3-4 Banhees to take out an Intercessor in CC breaks the setting/faction identity/unit dignity.
Genestealers bouncing off Terminators sucks, regardless of how well they fare in a competitive sense.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Just because people where whining on the internet doesn't mean it was true.
So help me out here-
Which whining on the internet is false?
All of it?
The part that you don't agree with?
Or maybe these more recent complaints?
Because right now it's starting to look to me like the major complaint is "Space Marines aren't a cake walk for my army to beat any more, this is obviously wrong".
I just would like a little help determining which batch of whinging I'm supposed to give any credit to at all.
The part is false where we have tournament data to show it is false.
Sunny Side Up wrote: The part is false where we have tournament data to show it is false.
Considering I've yet to hear about a tournament that isn't saturated with cheaters (and that's just the ones getting caught), I'll take that 'data' with a very, very, very fine grain of salt.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: 1- Saying "X can wipe out Y too easily" is an argument, but not as much of one as before- especially considering the way points are scored now- 'kill the other guy better' isn't always a winning move.
There are two pieces of "X can wipe out Y too easily", and they are often confused.
1. X can wipe out Y from a pure game balance/points efficiency/mechanical standpoint.
2. X can wipe out Y from a model-to-model/"unit identity" standpoint.
Both armies/units placing well in tournaments/being competitive only works for type 1. If you point a unit cheap enough it can still be competitive even though individual models are comparatively terrible vs. common opposing models.
Type 2 is the lore/setting side of it. A unit being competitive has nothing to do with it. Banshees might be a great competitive model if they were 6 points each, but the idea of requiring 3-4 Banhees to take out an Intercessor in CC breaks the setting/faction identity/unit dignity.
Genestealers bouncing off Terminators sucks, regardless of how well they fare in a competitive sense.
Sunny Side Up wrote: The part is false where we have tournament data to show it is false.
Considering I've yet to hear about a tournament that isn't saturated with cheaters (and that's just the ones getting caught), I'll take that 'data' with a very, very, very fine grain of salt.
No, screw that. Salt has worth.
I'll take it with a grain of Splenda.
So you Mr Armchair General who havent even played in a tournament is someones opinion we should listen to? I assume you havent played in one since you think its mostly cheaters and not just people who likes to play multiple rounds of 40k in a short period of time. Why is that narrow opinion more useful than the data we have?
Tournament data isnt everything but at least it shows something. There are many peoples thoughts thrown against each other in the form of list building and then played against other players. You could see the data as a non verbal discussion on the game from hundreds of people.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Just because people where whining on the internet doesn't mean it was true.
So help me out here-
Which whining on the internet is false?
All of it? The part that you don't agree with? Or maybe these more recent complaints?
Because right now it's starting to look to me like the major complaint is "Space Marines aren't a cake walk for my army to beat any more, this is obviously wrong".
I just would like a little help determining which batch of whinging I'm supposed to give any credit to at all.
This part
4- People have complained for years that Space Marines aren't competitive. To a point where playing Space Marines was something that got a chuckle and a snort, because you were assumed to be an idiot that was still learning to play or an idiot that couldn't play 'a real army'. Well, now you might have to actually think when playing against Space Marines- and that probably sounds familiar, because some people with some pretty OP armies in the past used the same line about their army.
So 9th, Space Marines are top tier, not a fair point because nobody else really has a codex yet, but still top tier, massively over represented in the tournament scene. End of 8th they were regarded not only as top tier, but god tier, broken OP. middle of 8th the "Dark ages" as far as some of the posters here are concerned, SM still had decent placings in tournaments, they were over shadowed by broken lists like the Knight/smashCaptain/loyal 32 or the eldar flyer list but still not that bad. Beginning of 8th, top tier, Girlyman parking lot dominated the meta as did other lesser builds. 7th....Space Marine Demi-company free razorbacks. yeah again top tier.
So when you say people complained for years, which years are you talking about? because I am already going back 5-6 years here. I mean, you can make an argument for a specific color of Marine being bad during that time frame but not really as a whole. So I am honestly curious where you are getting this notion that Space Marines were noncompetitive for years.
Klickor wrote: So you Mr Armchair General who havent even played in a tournament is someones opinion we should listen to? I assume you havent played in one since you think its mostly cheaters and not just people who likes to play multiple rounds of 40k in a short period of time. Why is that narrow opinion more useful than the data we have?
Have hosted tournaments, and played in them. I work in a game shop. Nice assumption.
It's not 'mostly cheaters'. It's 'just enough cheaters' to soil the whole scene for me. I've watched people cheat when NOTHING is at stake, and then when 'little' is at stake- I'm not even shocked to hear that high-profile '40k news site' players cheat at major tournaments. Hell, I've seen tournament organizers do scummy stuff and lie.
When you say 'there's cheating at major tournaments'- it's at that point you're telling me I might get shot in Compton for wearing a Rolex after I've watched someone get a full mag dumped into them for wearing a taped-together Livestrong bracelet. Yeah, I'm pretty damned sure it's inevitable.
Why is my narrow opinion more useful than the data you have? Your data from last edition, before the current overhaul of the rules and a new codex, sans the supplements to said codex is about as valuable as said grain of Splenda.
If you're uncertain on the worth of Splenda, go have a whole mouthful of it and get back to me.
The Codex is out- and it's just these two Codexes, and everyone that didn't get the Codex for their army right out of the gate is crying because "It's too OP" before the sun went down on Saturday. Jesus Christ, wait a damned minute for the others to come out. It ain't like you've got some big tournament you're gonna lose because of it- thank the 'Rona. Calm down. Wait for your book. Wash your hands.
Personal observation:
Wasps sting. They always sting if you grab one. You're grabbing one and saying, "Oh my God, it stung me!"
Now, when was the last time GW ever made a -balanced game-? This isn't even new, this is the same. Damned. Thing. Every. TIme. Every Codex. Every. Edition.
SemperMortis wrote: So when you say people complained for years, which years are you talking about? because I am already going back 5-6 years here. I mean, you can make an argument for a specific color of Marine being bad during that time frame but not really as a whole. So I am honestly curious where you are getting this notion that Space Marines were noncompetitive for years.
Do you have a halloween costume to go with the role you're playing? Does it have jingle bells.
My dude, would you like me to get you cited quotes from individuals? Peer-reviewed papers?
Or you could just....
...use this website.
It's here. Trust me.
I wouldn't lie to you to make you feel worse. The truth does well enough.
But, go ahead. "Well I never made that complaint or believed that!" OK, good for you, sit down.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: Ah, yes, the "wait and see" combined with "GW is always imbalanced so asking for a balanced game is silly."
Heard it before, where's the NEXT button?
"I've heard it all before, if you bend over you'll get shafted and shouldn't be shocked. Enough already!" -Guy, being bent over
The definition of 'insanity' is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
>Literally one Codex has dropped
>No one is even playing in this pandemic
>You'll buy Space Marines anyway
I won't enter in any debate but Space Marines were crap for most of 8th with the exceptions being were only them, DG and GK had codex and SM Codex 2.0 and onwards.
All space marine top placings before 2.0 were with Guilliman parking lot and even those lists didnt fare that good. It was much worse playing "casual" space marines because casual tiranids, imperial guard, eldar, dark eldar lists would absolutely destroy you.
Bad luck if you played Dark Angels (Like myself) that have been crap for all of 8th even when marines were OP with codex 2.0
And I'm not saying this to justify the absurdity of Codex 2.0 or the supplements but when the most popular faction of your game is crap at that level for so long , of course people will be angry and thats why GW, overcorrected.
SemperMortis wrote: So when you say people complained for years, which years are you talking about? because I am already going back 5-6 years here. I mean, you can make an argument for a specific color of Marine being bad during that time frame but not really as a whole. So I am honestly curious where you are getting this notion that Space Marines were noncompetitive for years.
Do you have a halloween costume to go with the role you're playing? Does it have jingle bells.
My dude, would you like me to get you cited quotes from individuals? Peer-reviewed papers?
Or you could just....
...use this website.
It's here. Trust me.
I wouldn't lie to you to make you feel worse. The truth does well enough.
But, go ahead. "Well I never made that complaint or believed that!" OK, good for you, sit down.
Sorry dorito but you are the one making the claim here that Marines were bad for years and were considered an easy win. In the last half decade that hasnt been the case. Unless you are using SM players on Dakka as a more definitive source for information that tournament results...but since we literally have SM defenders here saying Aggressors are garbage...I wouldn't even give them the value of splenda.
So, unless you are basing your opinion on the competitiveness of SM on the handful of Dakka posters who constantly complain that SM aren't powerful enough you have to provide some kind of proof.
I mean if you look at tournament data you'll see that the Guilliman parking lot lists (With flyers and razorbacks before nerfs and with other stuff after) wasn't even that good, and it was not the "most" competitive SM list but the only one powerfull enough to compete. The rest of the codex was absolute crap when you had codex like Imperial Guard or Tyranids or Dark Eldar with duds here and there but with much more competitive flexibility even in a casual setting.
I'm no pro-player by any metric and in some team tournaments I had some success with Azrael pre nerf with 3 predators with 4++ even agaisnt triple baneblade lists when those were very scary. But playing Space Marines in casual games in that time was an excercise of frustration. Thats why I played them, and when I stopped they were buffed to the strathospere, but by that time I was playing Custodes that were also crap. And now with 9th I play Tau. I don't know why, I always end up playing the army of the ones I own that is in a worse state
Sunny Side Up wrote: The part is false where we have tournament data to show it is false.
Considering I've yet to hear about a tournament that isn't saturated with cheaters (and that's just the ones getting caught), I'll take that 'data' with a very, very, very fine grain of salt.
No, screw that. Salt has worth.
I'll take it with a grain of Splenda.
'Objective and consistent data from tournaments is worthless because cheaters exist' is the spiciest hot take I've seen this week.
Galas wrote:I won't enter in any debate but Space Marines were crap for most of 8th with the exceptions being were only them, DG and GK had codex and SM Codex 2.0 and onwards.
All space marine top placings before 2.0 were with Guilliman parking lot and even those lists didnt fare that good. It was much worse playing "casual" space marines because casual tiranids, imperial guard, eldar, dark eldar lists would absolutely destroy you.
Bad luck if you played Dark Angels (Like myself) that have been crap for all of 8th even when marines were OP with codex 2.0
You're not wrong about Guilliman parking lot being the one really successful build pre-2.0, but nobody seems to buy that T'au sucked all of 8th because T'au sept triptide gunlines were the only viable build, or that Eldar sucked because Alaitoc flyer spam was the only viable build. Lots of factions have had only one viable build and then been held up as competitively viable and therefore strong as a faction- that I think is a legitimate criticism of tournament data, or at least the competitive mindset.
Yeah at the end of the day most codex end up with only one competitive lists because after months of optimization is like the recipe for success. The thing is, with space marines, even your most competitive lists was... I remember winning a Guilliman Parking lot with custodes infantry.
And I'm not complaining or anything, as I said, I have no problem playing underpowered factions , and I'm also quite bad (When you play 3-5 games each two months how can you become good at any game?), but there was very valid criticism about the most part of 8th when marines were crap. And also for the people that complained about the bad units of tau, eldar, etc... Theres no need to negate the experience of others. We are talking about GW, we all know even in the best of times at minimun 30-50% of a codex will be mediocre at best, stupidly bad at worst.
Galas wrote: I won't enter in any debate but Space Marines were crap for most of 8th with the exceptions being were only them, DG and GK had codex and SM Codex 2.0 and onwards.
All space marine top placings before 2.0 were with Guilliman parking lot and even those lists didnt fare that good. It was much worse playing "casual" space marines because casual tiranids, imperial guard, eldar, dark eldar lists would absolutely destroy you.
Bad luck if you played Dark Angels (Like myself) that have been crap for all of 8th even when marines were OP with codex 2.0
And I'm not saying this to justify the absurdity of Codex 2.0 or the supplements but when the most popular faction of your game is crap at that level for so long , of course people will be angry and thats why GW, overcorrected.
2019 LVO, top placing SM list was 8th place. And while it was "Soup" it was exclusively SM soup. So in the middle of 8th, when SM were supposedly the worst, they had a top 8 finishing at one of the biggest tournaments.
Lorewise they are, much more badass than basic marine.
They should probably not be like 11 points and have ap-0 weapons then. If it can merk a marine in CC it should cost more than 20 points and have lots of attacks with high AP. It is set up as a chaff killer right now. Marines are not chaff. THEY WILL NEVER BE CHAFF. So Associating marines with other armies troops and drawing comparisons is silly. Those units are chaff.
Klickor wrote: So you Mr Armchair General who havent even played in a tournament is someones opinion we should listen to? I assume you havent played in one since you think its mostly cheaters and not just people who likes to play multiple rounds of 40k in a short period of time. Why is that narrow opinion more useful than the data we have?
Have hosted tournaments, and played in them. I work in a game shop. Nice assumption.
It's not 'mostly cheaters'. It's 'just enough cheaters' to soil the whole scene for me. I've watched people cheat when NOTHING is at stake, and then when 'little' is at stake- I'm not even shocked to hear that high-profile '40k news site' players cheat at major tournaments. Hell, I've seen tournament organizers do scummy stuff and lie.
That neither gives your position more authority, nor means that tournament data can be tossed out.
Lorewise they are, much more badass than basic marine.
. . .If it can merk a marine in CC it should cost more than 20 points. . .
Why?
Makes no sense. Marines get to be decent at CC and good at shooting for 20 points, as well as being durable. . . But something can't just be good at CC for 20 points? Even if it's not durable and can't shoot?
Galas wrote: I won't enter in any debate but Space Marines were crap for most of 8th with the exceptions being were only them, DG and GK had codex and SM Codex 2.0 and onwards.
All space marine top placings before 2.0 were with Guilliman parking lot and even those lists didnt fare that good. It was much worse playing "casual" space marines because casual tiranids, imperial guard, eldar, dark eldar lists would absolutely destroy you.
Bad luck if you played Dark Angels (Like myself) that have been crap for all of 8th even when marines were OP with codex 2.0
And I'm not saying this to justify the absurdity of Codex 2.0 or the supplements but when the most popular faction of your game is crap at that level for so long , of course people will be angry and thats why GW, overcorrected.
2019 LVO, top placing SM list was 8th place. And while it was "Soup" it was exclusively SM soup. So in the middle of 8th, when SM were supposedly the worst, they had a top 8 finishing at one of the biggest tournaments.
That list was a parking guilliman list with a smash captain. There were no more space marine lists on the top 25. That does not negate what I have said. Marines were crap. Others armies have been crap. Marines doesnt deserve to be OP now for being crap in that time, but is obvious that GW overcorrected because is not the same for Genestealer Cults to be crap than for marines to be crap.
I remember the 8th period of just before pre marine codex 2.0 but with shock assault and bolter discipline as a very good time of balance in the game,
Galas wrote: And I'm not complaining or anything, as I said, I have no problem playing underpowered factions , and I'm also quite bad (When you play 3-5 games each two months how can you become good at any game?), but there was very valid criticism about the most part of 8th when marines were crap. And also for the people that complained about the bad units of tau, eldar, etc... Theres no need to negate the experience of others. We are talking about GW, we all know even in the best of times at minimun 30-50% of a codex will be mediocre at best, stupidly bad at worst.
My point was more that Marines were hardly in a unique position in having a generally mediocre codex but one standout subfaction-based build. If someone is going to point to tournament results showing that only Guilliman castles placed well in tournaments, and then argue that this shows Marines were particularly weak, without doing the same kind of analysis for other factions, then that's not a very fair assessment. I think you'll find that there are/were a lot of factions- almost certainly a plurality- that had just one standout build.
I'm not trying to negate anyone's experience, but I think the perception that Marines were especially bad in early 8th comes primarily from Marine players comparing their own non-meta builds to the meta builds of other armies (and the couple of armies that were universally strong, eg Guard and Knights), rather than the factions as a whole. Like I said before I agree that they were weak and needed buffs, but I disagree with the common characterization as one of the worst or the worst army in early 8th.
Galas wrote: I mean if you look at tournament data you'll see that the Guilliman parking lot lists (With flyers and razorbacks before nerfs and with other stuff after) wasn't even that good, and it was not the "most" competitive SM list but the only one powerfull enough to compete. The rest of the codex was absolute crap when you had codex like Imperial Guard or Tyranids or Dark Eldar with duds here and there but with much more competitive flexibility even in a casual setting.
I'm no pro-player by any metric and in some team tournaments I had some success with Azrael pre nerf with 3 predators with 4++ even agaisnt triple baneblade lists when those were very scary. But playing Space Marines in casual games in that time was an excercise of frustration. Thats why I played them, and when I stopped they were buffed to the strathospere, but by that time I was playing Custodes that were also crap. And now with 9th I play Tau. I don't know why, I always end up playing the army of the ones I own that is in a worse state
The best part is we have nearly 2 years of marines under 8th edd with 40ish % win rate. Demonstrating the craptastic army condition...Many thought the army/armies were fine and didn't need to be buffed then. Most marine players can admit where the issue are...Really all the supplements except for Ultramarines were pretty effing bonkers. Really though - just the ending of an eddition...pretty standard for GW to release insane rules at the end of an eddition...Think...Greyknights...gladius...Demonic incursion...
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Have hosted tournaments, and played in them. I work in a game shop. Nice assumption.
It's not 'mostly cheaters'. It's 'just enough cheaters' to soil the whole scene for me. I've watched people cheat when NOTHING is at stake, and then when 'little' is at stake- I'm not even shocked to hear that high-profile '40k news site' players cheat at major tournaments. Hell, I've seen tournament organizers do scummy stuff and lie.
The cheating is very much a result of GW's policy towards game design. GW doesn't want a game that's balanced, they don't want a game where skill matters. They want a game where the solution to a loss isn't "get good," it's "buy MOAR PRIMARIS" because that makes them money. So they *want* a game where certain units/models are powerful in an unbalanced way, and where the game is absolutely braindead once you sit down at the table. This creates a situation where the players know the game is rigged, and know they have very little control over what happens at the table, and so feel much better about cheating. It's the same reason why crime runs rampant in societies where the legal authority is capricious and arbitrary - there's no understanding that everyone gets a fair shake at the gaming table, so how does cheating make it worse?
Anyway, other than that, you're wrong, Astartes have been powerful for a while, it's just that their playerbase veers more towards the incompetent than other factions.
Anyway, other than that, you're wrong, Astartes have been powerful for a while, it's just that their playerbase veers more towards the incompetent than other factions.
This does not help anyone. Lets be real here. Most of the people that play this game is very bad (Myself included and many posters of Dakka that probably think are much better than what they are). Compare a game like league of legends were even the worst but minimally "regular" players play normally what. 12-15 games a week? Who plays so many games of warhammer a week? A month?
We spend much more time talking about warhammer than playing it, and as much as people say Warhammer doesnt require skill (And it is not a very intense game in that front) theres still place to show it. I'm very bad, and I know many players and friends of mine that are much better than me and even then admit they are quite mediocre at the game. As much as you have people on dakka claiming that they could win agaisnt Navanati if they had the list the pro players use (And lets not start the pro player with horrible list vs bad player with OP list tangent), theres still place for some skill to make a difference.
That list was a parking guilliman list with a smash captain. There were no more space marine lists on the top 25. That does not negate what I have said. Marines were crap. Others armies have been crap. Marines doesnt deserve to be OP now for being crap in that time, but is obvious that GW overcorrected because is not the same for Genestealer Cults to be crap than for marines to be crap.
I remember the 8th period of just before pre marine codex 2.0 but with shock assault and bolter discipline as a very good time of balance in the game,
Correct, because other more broken combinations were in play. During that horrible era where SM were crap you had a TOP 8 PLACING in probably the biggest tournament of the year. But that doesn't count because there were no other Marines in the top 25.
You can not have a CRAP codex while simultaneously having a top 8 finishing at LVO. You would have a point with lesser tournaments but not LVO.
The best part is we have nearly 2 years of marines under 8th edd with 40ish % win rate. Demonstrating the craptastic army condition...Many thought the army/armies were fine and didn't need to be buffed then. Most marine players can admit where the issue are...Really all the supplements except for Ultramarines were pretty effing bonkers. Really though - just the ending of an eddition...pretty standard for GW to release insane rules at the end of an eddition...Think...Greyknights...gladius...Demonic incursion...
Enter Xeno with the missing context comment. Marines weren't good in 8th because ummm...Timmy from down the street who picked up a start playing box last week lost at a 8-12 person tournament. Now go measure Top 4 and top 8 finishes, how did they do compared to everyone else? Now do that math for major events and not little 10 man events. SMs were the best faction at the start of 8th, they were the most broken OP at the end of 8th, The WORST you guys had it was in the middle of 8th where you had a top 8 finish at the biggest tournament of the year. Same year you had an Ultrasmurf finishing 6th at Adepticon. Yeah, totally a garbage time for SM players.
SemperMortis I disagree in clasifying the quality of a codex based in if it can have a top placing on a tournament, even a one as big as LVO. And when that faction is your most popular one, it will affect much more people. And thats what I'm saying: GW doesnt particularly likes when marines are even in a casual context, pretty horrible. Even if other , many other codex and armies are and were weak (Marines weren't the weaker codex in 8th, that place goes to Dark Angels and then Ynnary post nerf, both worse than even pre PAGK).
I consider Tyranid 7th codex utter crap even when spamming flyrants was a competitive list.
Galas wrote: SemperMortis I disagree in clasifying the quality of a codex based in if it can have a top placing on a tournament, even a one as big as LVO. And when that faction is your most popular one, it will affect much more people. And thats what I'm saying: GW doesnt particularly likes when marines are even in a casual context, pretty horrible. Even if other , many other codex and armies are and were weak (Marines weren't the weaker codex in 8th, that place goes to Dark Angels and then Ynnary post nerf, both worse than even pre PAGK).
I consider Tyranid 7th codex utter crap even when spamming flyrants was a competitive list.
You can disagree to your hearts content. But the fact remains that the SM codex had the tools necessary to field a top 8 finishing army in LVO and a top 6 at Adepticon while being claimed to be "Terrible" By that same token, my Orkz had their best edition since 4th and at LVO that same year we had the previous LVO WINNER playing orkz....and he didn't make it into the top 12, and I would consider the ork codex at that time to be better than it had been in over a decade.
while internal balance might have been bad in your opinion, it was still good enough to carry at least 1 list to top finishes.
I admit my perception is sweked as a DA player, but things never looked much better until 2.0 in the vanilla codex. In that LVO Orks made 2 top 25 placements, for example. People is a little too fast to take in a 600 person tournament only the top 8 or 10 as relevant when with those lists and player skill level, theres a ton of chance in who fights who when determining those rankings. Remember in LVO 2020 Navanati had a competitive lists and in the first round he faced and hard counter and he just retired, for example. (Or was it adepticon, I don't remember)
Man, looking back at that top 25, just look at the distribution. Ok, AM and Imperial Knights were OP but look at that faction representation. Fething marines. Stop buffing them GW!
SemperMortis wrote: Correct, because other more broken combinations were in play. During that horrible era where SM were crap you had a TOP 8 PLACING in probably the biggest tournament of the year. But that doesn't count because there were no other Marines in the top 25.
You can not have a CRAP codex while simultaneously having a top 8 finishing at LVO. You would have a point with lesser tournaments but not LVO.
I think we're nominally on the same side, but I'd caution against this. Outliers and unusual occurrences happen; you have to look at overall performance. Someone can just be rolling red hot fire on a few crucial rolls or have amazing matchups that day.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: This does not help anyone. Lets be real here.
Well, you gotta say it if it's accurate. It's part of the issue with the narrative of "Buy into 40k with Astartes, lose, then buy another army and succeed." A big part of that is player skill increasing in the interim. Less serious, and therefore less skilled, players are more likely to own Astartes because they're easier to access.
Lorewise they are, much more badass than basic marine.
They should probably not be like 11 points and have ap-0 weapons then. If it can merk a marine in CC it should cost more than 20 points and have lots of attacks with high AP. It is set up as a chaff killer right now. Marines are not chaff. THEY WILL NEVER BE CHAFF. So Associating marines with other armies troops and drawing comparisons is silly. Those units are chaff.
They didn't need gobs of AP weapons or to be 20pt models in order to be effective against Marines of various flavors in previous editions. They were able to beat marines in CC while being cheaper than them at the cost of having no relevant shooting capability and dying like Guardsmen to shooting attacks, that worked just fine.
By that token, should Genestealers be 20+ points too?
The idea that something needs to be that expensive and equipped that lavishly to be able to best a (cheaper and far more flexible) Space Marine in CC is absurd. Simple as.
Galas wrote: I admit my perception is sweked as a DA player, but things never looked much better until 2.0 in the vanilla codex. In that LVO Orks made 2 top 25 placements, for example. People is a little too fast to take in a 600 person tournament only the top 8 or 10 as relevant when with those lists and player skill level, theres a ton of chance in who fights who when determining those rankings.
Man, looking back at that top 25, just look at the distribution. Ok, AM and Imperial Knights were OP but look at that faction representation. Fething marines. Stop buffing them GW!
Yep, in that tournament we had the previous LVO winner Nick Nanavati and Steve Pampreen (Arguably one of the best players in the game) finish 16th and 17th. So again, repeating the issue here, you have people claiming SM's were god awful, dark ages, worst in the game during the middle of 8th, while at the same time finishing higher in MAJOR tournaments like LVO and Adepticon than most other factions. IS this because SM's were terrible with a single competitive build or is this because SM's are the starter faction with the most New/casual players (They are the biggest faction hands down) and as such, unless things are OP they tend to get their butts kicked by players who have more experience/practice with their chosen armies?
On a strictly army vs army comparison, SM's were as good as my ork codex, the biggest difference, most Ork players i am familiar with knew to avoid the bad units like Burna boyz or Warbiker nobz etc. And since most of those tournament ork players are long time veterans, we tend to have rather large collections comparatively and can choose not to take the bad units to events.
The fact is that SM's were given tools in their original codex that were amazing and didn't really get nerfed. You still had units like Aggressors double tapping units, didn't have the blast rule yet but 19 shots a turn from a relatively cheap model is amazing.
The only real detriment I can see for SM players was the brokeness of other codex like Eldar and Imperial Knights which had to be nerfed because they were OP. But other factions being OP (units not entire armies) doesn't mean that a codex is weak.
Hecaton wrote: Anyway, other than that, you're wrong, Astartes have been powerful for a while, it's just that their playerbase veers more towards the incompetent than other factions.
Hecaton wrote: Well, you gotta say it if it's accurate. It's part of the issue with the narrative of "Buy into 40k with Astartes, lose, then buy another army and succeed." A big part of that is player skill increasing in the interim. Less serious, and therefore less skilled, players are more likely to own Astartes because they're easier to access.
Wait, let me try it, too: Marines have been balanced even after 2.0 dropped. Players of other factions just don't have what it takes to win without a leg up.
Got anything to back up your lowkey insult of other players, or are you just making things up as you post?
a_typical_hero wrote: Wait, let me try it, too: Marines have been balanced even after 2.0 dropped. Players of other factions just don't have what it takes to win without a leg up.
Got anything to back up your lowkey insult of other players, or are you just making things up as you post?
You, sir, get a throne made of boobies and a shovel full of Splenda to hurl in the quivering mouths of your foes.
I'll say it.
Space Marines aren't the 'easy win' any more, there's no 'one specific list with a specific unit' to make two specific flavors of Space Marine a concern on the tabletop, now they have the means to compete. Which means you'll need to get better at making your lists. You might have to plan on ways to mitigate that. Maybe figure out a way to keep those Eradicators away from your shooty box/stompy bot.
You're all smart(ish) people. Figure it out. Wait for you know, your actual Codex. Don't worry, it's not hard- there's a Pandemic.
You can't lose the games you aren't playing anyway. Paint your damned models. Wash your hands.
a_typical_hero wrote: Wait, let me try it, too: Marines have been balanced even after 2.0 dropped. Players of other factions just don't have what it takes to win without a leg up.
Got anything to back up your lowkey insult of other players, or are you just making things up as you post?
The difference is, I'm factually right and you're factually wrong.
I'm sorry SemperMortis but I can agree with "The codex was good but players were just bad".
The codex was not the worst of 8th. It was quite horrible and overcosted tought, and badly designed. In a time were everybody had subfaction traits in their whole armies marines and csm had them on infantry, bikers and dreadnoughts, for example.
Anecdotically the worst player I know is an ork one, and whats worse of him is that he never admits that he has made a mistake. Great painter tought, one of the best I personally know. The truth is, even if Space Marines have the bigger % of "new" players, not for being a veteran you are a good or better player, quite the contrary, the worst players I know are not the newest ones but normally the oldest ones that just don't want to improve.
That list was a parking guilliman list with a smash captain. There were no more space marine lists on the top 25. That does not negate what I have said. Marines were crap. Others armies have been crap. Marines doesnt deserve to be OP now for being crap in that time, but is obvious that GW overcorrected because is not the same for Genestealer Cults to be crap than for marines to be crap.
I remember the 8th period of just before pre marine codex 2.0 but with shock assault and bolter discipline as a very good time of balance in the game,
Correct, because other more broken combinations were in play. During that horrible era where SM were crap you had a TOP 8 PLACING in probably the biggest tournament of the year. But that doesn't count because there were no other Marines in the top 25.
You can not have a CRAP codex while simultaneously having a top 8 finishing at LVO. You would have a point with lesser tournaments but not LVO.
The best part is we have nearly 2 years of marines under 8th edd with 40ish % win rate. Demonstrating the craptastic army condition...Many thought the army/armies were fine and didn't need to be buffed then. Most marine players can admit where the issue are...Really all the supplements except for Ultramarines were pretty effing bonkers. Really though - just the ending of an eddition...pretty standard for GW to release insane rules at the end of an eddition...Think...Greyknights...gladius...Demonic incursion...
Enter Xeno with the missing context comment. Marines weren't good in 8th because ummm...Timmy from down the street who picked up a start playing box last week lost at a 8-12 person tournament. Now go measure Top 4 and top 8 finishes, how did they do compared to everyone else? Now do that math for major events and not little 10 man events. SMs were the best faction at the start of 8th, they were the most broken OP at the end of 8th, The WORST you guys had it was in the middle of 8th where you had a top 8 finish at the biggest tournament of the year. Same year you had an Ultrasmurf finishing 6th at Adepticon. Yeah, totally a garbage time for SM players.
What you are calling the middle here is literally 90% of the edition time wise.
If we can stay on topic instead of getting off into great text walls of personal attacks, fecal analogies, and accusations, and other similar unproductive conversation leads, it will help keep this thread active longer, thanks!
Hecaton wrote: Anyway, other than that, you're wrong, Astartes have been powerful for a while, it's just that their playerbase veers more towards the incompetent than other factions.
Hecaton wrote: Well, you gotta say it if it's accurate. It's part of the issue with the narrative of "Buy into 40k with Astartes, lose, then buy another army and succeed." A big part of that is player skill increasing in the interim. Less serious, and therefore less skilled, players are more likely to own Astartes because they're easier to access.
Wait, let me try it, too: Marines have been balanced even after 2.0 dropped. Players of other factions just don't have what it takes to win without a leg up.
Got anything to back up your lowkey insult of other players, or are you just making things up as you post?
Beyond the words being a bit mean i guess, how is he wrong? Anecdotally the worst players I see on average are Marine players. This might be because SM's are the beginners army, how many L2P starter boxes contain Marines vs dont? It might also be because they are the most popular and as such draw in the largest crowd of "casual" players whom tend to be less skilled than more frequent players. And of course, with the possible exception of Eldar, they tend to be the best faction edition to edition and easiest to swap out traits for.
"Oh no, green Marines are bad, well these Green Marines are now a chapter of Blue Marines! yay".
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Space Marines aren't the 'easy win' any more, there's no 'one specific list with a specific unit' to make two specific flavors of Space Marine a concern on the tabletop, now they have the means to compete. Which means you'll need to get better at making your lists. You might have to plan on ways to mitigate that. Maybe figure out a way to keep those Eradicators away from your shooty box/stompy bot.
And if Fire Dragons were point-for-point as destructive and durable as Eradicators, you'd be crying for them to be nerfed. This isn't rocket science.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: You're all smart(ish) people. Figure it out. Wait for you know, your actual Codex. Don't worry, it's not hard- there's a Pandemic.
Plenty of people are still getting games in, and they expected an edition that was actually functional. On the one hand you're saying vote with your wallet, and on the other you're saying that people who expect a balanced game don't deserve it. Pick one.
Vaktathi wrote: If we can stay on topic instead of getting off into great text walls of personal attacks, fecal analogies, and accusations, and other similar unproductive conversation leads, it will help keep this thread active longer, thanks!
Well, that really flushes my next reply.
Why the hell are we even indulging these threads? You guys shut down threads for less than this 'derailing'.
FFS, let's summarize this thread and the five or six other identical ones:
"ME ARMY NO GET CODEX. ME MAD. BIG BIG MAD." - Guy, sitting in his home for the next few months with nothing better to do than paint and build models and wait for his Codex
Because that's literally the thread. We could just delete them all, make one post that says that, and call it a day.
Hecaton wrote: Anyway, other than that, you're wrong, Astartes have been powerful for a while, it's just that their playerbase veers more towards the incompetent than other factions.
Hecaton wrote: Well, you gotta say it if it's accurate. It's part of the issue with the narrative of "Buy into 40k with Astartes, lose, then buy another army and succeed." A big part of that is player skill increasing in the interim. Less serious, and therefore less skilled, players are more likely to own Astartes because they're easier to access.
Wait, let me try it, too: Marines have been balanced even after 2.0 dropped. Players of other factions just don't have what it takes to win without a leg up.
Got anything to back up your lowkey insult of other players, or are you just making things up as you post?
Which faction does GW push the hardest? Which faction is the most popular among new players?
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Space Marines aren't the 'easy win' any more, there's no 'one specific list with a specific unit' to make two specific flavors of Space Marine a concern on the tabletop, now they have the means to compete. Which means you'll need to get better at making your lists. You might have to plan on ways to mitigate that. Maybe figure out a way to keep those Eradicators away from your shooty box/stompy bot.
Sure they aren't. Need to kill Tough troops/Vehicles, best unit in the entire game = Eradicators. Take 3-18 of them in 1 to 6 squads (Combat squads) Need to kill hordes of infantry, one of the best, if not the best P4P is Aggressors, even post nerf. Take 3-18 of them in 1 to 6 squads. Need to hold an objective? Here, take intercessors, P4P better than Tau firewarriors at range while also being better than Genestealers in CC.
I mean, this is still based on the fact that we don't have any other codex's out yet, but since we know the release schedule we are talking about 6 months minimum before we start seeing most of the game getting theirs.
Hecaton wrote: And if Fire Dragons were point-for-point as destructive and durable as Eradicators, you'd be crying for them to be nerfed. This isn't rocket science.
No, I'll be laughing because they're still Finecast and a stiff breeze just amputated 3 of your guys. The least I can do is let you blow up a tank or something. Damn, get the unpainted one and drop it on the floor if you want after that.
Hecaton wrote: lenty of people are still getting games in, and they expected an edition that was actually functional.
Functional, or completely optimal? I think you need to look up what these words mean.
Hecaton wrote: On the one hand you're saying vote with your wallet, and on the other you're saying that people who expect a balanced game don't deserve it. Pick one.
I'm saying as long as you guys are dumping your money onto the counter for poo- er, garbage- and eating said garbage by the fistfull- you can complain about the taste all your like, but as long as you keep doing what you do- Yes, you deserve it.
Xenomancers wrote: What you are calling the middle here is literally 90% of the edition time wise.
Index was what 6 months? other factions didn't even get their codex until the end of 2018, and then in 2019 you guys got your 2nd codex that was broken levels of good. But regardless, you aren't arguing that the Marine codex wasn't good for 90% of the time, you are basically arguing it wasn't the MOST OP in the game for 90% of the time. Because yet again, tournament results show SM players still pulling out wins and victories, maybe not 1st place against the OP broken castellan loyal 32 combo with smash captains to flavor, but I haven't seen anyone defending those combos.
Hecaton wrote: And if Fire Dragons were point-for-point as destructive and durable as Eradicators, you'd be crying for them to be nerfed. This isn't rocket science.
No, I'll be laughing because they're still Finecast and a stiff breeze just amputated 3 of your guys. The least I can do is let you blow up a tank or something. Damn, get the unpainted one and drop it on the floor if you want after that.
Insectum7 wrote: The Necron book came out too. Some people look at the two books side by side and see some eyebrow raising things.
A lot of people will find problems if they go looking for them. And 'the army that I don't play and beat me' is always OP. The one that I beat all the time is perfectly fine, leave it alone. My army ALWAYS needs a buff desperately.
SemperMortis wrote: I mean, this is still based on the fact that we don't have any other codex's out yet, but since we know the release schedule we are talking about 6 months minimum before we start seeing most of the game getting theirs.
Good. Plenty of time to paint and build and wait for this 'Rona thing to blow over so you can, you know, actually congregate.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: I'm saying as long as you guys are dumping your money onto the counter for poo- er, garbage- and eating said garbage by the fistfull- you can complain about the taste all your like, but as long as you keep doing what you do- Yes, you deserve it.
I picked both. Have some Splenda.
Except you're being two-faced about this. You're saying Eradicators are fine, but then saying people deserve to have bad game balance. It honestly sounds like you're one of those players who wants bad game balance so they can meta-chase to secure easy wins, and is unremittingly angry at people who want a balanced game.
SemperMortis wrote: I mean, this is still based on the fact that we don't have any other codex's out yet, but since we know the release schedule we are talking about 6 months minimum before we start seeing most of the game getting theirs.
Good. Plenty of time to paint and build and wait for this 'Rona thing to blow over so you can, you know, actually congregate.
We are mostly already congregating lol. Even in ridiculous places where the government says you have to sit at 2 tables with your family because while it was safe to drive together, eating together might kill you, even then we are still allowed to game I mean, masks required etc.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: A lot of people will find problems if they go looking for them. And 'the army that I don't play and beat me' is always OP. The one that I beat all the time is perfectly fine, leave it alone. My army ALWAYS needs a buff desperately.
Except that it doesn't take a genius to find unbalance in favor of marines in 9th edition. The game is unbalanced because players support GW's model of unbalanced rules, or the rules are balanced and people need to shut up? Which is it? Again, two-faced.
Hecaton wrote: Except you're being two-faced about this. You're saying Eradicators are fine, but then saying people deserve to have bad game balance. It honestly sounds like you're one of those players who wants bad game balance so they can meta-chase to secure easy wins, and is unremittingly angry at people who want a balanced game.
No. I'll keep it simple. This is what I'm saying:
1- Wait for your Codex.
2- If your Codex sucks, stop buying stuff. Stop playing. Stop supporting
3- If your Codex sucks and you keep throwing money at GW, it will not change. You deserve the bad game balance because you are enabling it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: Adeptus Doritos, do you think the current state of the game is good?
Not a hypothetical future state, where every codex is out-the actual game right now. Is it in a good state?
I don't know, do you think if I yank a pizza out of the oven 2 minutes after I put the damned thing in there, it'll be good?
2- If your Codex sucks, stop buying stuff. Stop playing. Stop supporting
3- If your Codex sucks and you keep throwing money at GW, it will not change. You deserve the bad game balance because you are enabling it.
That's not what you're saying in your other posts, though, where you're saying that people are going "looking for problems" by comparing the Necron codex to the Astartes one. Again, two-faced. Why should anyone take you seriously when you can't write a post without contradicting yourself? You don't seem to have anything meaningful to say.
Xenomancers wrote: What you are calling the middle here is literally 90% of the edition time wise.
Index was what 6 months? other factions didn't even get their codex until the end of 2018, and then in 2019 you guys got your 2nd codex that was broken levels of good. But regardless, you aren't arguing that the Marine codex wasn't good for 90% of the time, you are basically arguing it wasn't the MOST OP in the game for 90% of the time. Because yet again, tournament results show SM players still pulling out wins and victories, maybe not 1st place against the OP broken castellan loyal 32 combo with smash captains to flavor, but I haven't seen anyone defending those combos.
You are looking at outliers though. win% was really low. The issue for the army has always been durability. It's always done a lot of damage when you get to go first because of the reroll auras. Marines could win any game they go first - that was always true. Almost no chance to win going second. 8.5 doubled down on it by giving marines durable buffs like apoth and always counts in cover which gave them more staying power. Then they gave them even more damage. So it's no surpise they started to dominate.
Anyways...with lots of marine entries the chance of going first in most of their games - there should be a few that place high in any high volume event. This is a game of dice afterall. More tickets to the lotery increases your chances quite a bit. Which IMO is why you have to look at WR combined with top finishes.
SemperMortis wrote: We are mostly already congregating lol. Even in ridiculous places where the government says you have to sit at 2 tables with your family because while it was safe to drive together, eating together might kill you, even then we are still allowed to game I mean, masks required etc.
Quiet, you! The 'Foreign People' will latch onto this and go nuts.
(You say it like we actually stopped in the first place. WASH YOUR HANDS)
Hecaton wrote: Except you're being two-faced about this. You're saying Eradicators are fine, but then saying people deserve to have bad game balance. It honestly sounds like you're one of those players who wants bad game balance so they can meta-chase to secure easy wins, and is unremittingly angry at people who want a balanced game.
No. I'll keep it simple. This is what I'm saying:
1- Wait for your Codex.
2- If your Codex sucks, stop buying stuff. Stop playing. Stop supporting
3- If your Codex sucks and you keep throwing money at GW, it will not change. You deserve the bad game balance because you are enabling it.
Just to be clear, 8th edition Codecs are compatible with 9th edition.
Why should one Codex be released that is wildly more powerful than other Codecs, when all available Codecs are usable? If they really intend to make the power level so much higher, they should NOT be slow-walking Codex releases. Otherwise, you're waiting anywhere from a few months to potentially years to be brought up to par.
I don't know, do you think if I yank a pizza out of the oven 2 minutes after I put the damned thing in there, it'll be good?
Wait for your Codex.
How about you stop interjecting if COVID has prevented you from participating in the hobby? The rest of us are talking. The rest of us think the game should have been balanced from the new edition, and "wait for your codex" is a meaningless thing to say.
To be honest, if the complaining bothers you, that's just more incentive to do it.
JNAProductions wrote: Adeptus Doritos, do you think the current state of the game is good?
Not a hypothetical future state, where every codex is out-the actual game right now. Is it in a good state?
I don't really think in a casual scene is good because marines are just too easy to be extremely strong and a casual marine list will stomp nearly all casual lists of other armies.
By competitive and tournamend data, if we find reasonable armies between a 55% and 45% winrate we have more than half the codex of the game between those brackets. So competitive, is relatively fine? But when you look at normal feeling of gameplay, things could not be more different. Thats why personally I don't take just and only tournament data for this kind of judgement of an edition or the state of a faction.
JNAProductions wrote: Adeptus Doritos, do you think the current state of the game is good?
Not a hypothetical future state, where every codex is out-the actual game right now. Is it in a good state?
I don't really think in a casual scene is good because marines are just too easy to be extremely strong and a casual marine list will stomp nearly all casual lists of other armies.
By competitive and tournamend data, if we find reasonable armies between a 55% and 45% winrate we have more than half the codex of the game between those brackets. So competitive, is relatively fine? But when you look at normal feeling of gameplay, things could not be more different. Thats why personally I don't just take tournament data for this kind of judgement of an edition or the power of a faction.
That's a very reasonable stance-one I agree with, as a matter of fact.
I do think that tournament data is the best data available, since there is not (to my knowledge) any good data on casual games, but yeah. In the same way that -4 to-hit Lord Discordants might've been able to rock the tournament scene, but weren't a problem casually (because you could just take different relics or powers or whatever, even if the models were exactly the same) Space Marines could be manageable on the tourney scene, but overwhelming in a more casual scene.
Admittedly, I do like how the Marine Dex can take many different viable builds, and has relatively good internal balance. It's the external balance that's shot to hell, and a few stand outs of imbalance internally.
Xenomancers wrote: You are looking at outliers though. win% was really low. The issue for the army has always been durability. It's always done a lot of damage when you get to go first because of the reroll auras. Marines could win any game they go first - that was always true. Almost no chance to win going second. 8.5 doubled down on it by giving marines durable buffs like apoth and always counts in cover which gave them more staying power. Then they gave them even more damage. So it's no surpise they started to dominate.
Anyways...with lots of marine entries the chance of going first in most of their games - there should be a few that place high in any high volume event. This is a game of dice afterall. More tickets to the lotery increases your chances quite a bit. Which IMO is why you have to look at WR combined with top finishes.
The reason I look at the "outliers" as you put it, is because I have been to these tournaments and seen the Fluffy SM list with 6 squads of terminators/assault terminators walking up the board or Deep striking being led by the 1st company captain, beautifully painted etc. I've watched the SM player show up to these bigger events with one of the worst lists imaginable because hes doing it for fluffy fun, and more power to him. I've also watched the kids who just put together their start collecting space marine boxes and slap some black and silver with their chapter color and call it good enough, and show up to major events. SM are the largest faction by a significant portion, you guys get the bigger portion of newbies, hell, most players started with SM of some flavor, I started with Blood Angels before switching to Orkz. So when you compare W/L rates as opposed to top 4 top 8 or even top 12 finishes you are purposely skewing the data to fit your desired result. Go look at the 2017 LVO results when SM's were unarguably TOP tier with Tau triptides and Eldar shenanigans. What was the W/L ratio for those SM lists? i'll tell you this, in the bottom 100 players were a lot of SM players, does that mean that SM's were bad in 7th as opposed to being one of the best factions? No. it just means little timmy showing up with his first collection of badly painted marines got steam rolled by Triptide players and Marines bringing 10-20 Free Razorbacks.
Insectum7 wrote: The Necron book came out too. Some people look at the two books side by side and see some eyebrow raising things.
A lot of people will find problems if they go looking for them. And 'the army that I don't play and beat me' is always OP. The one that I beat all the time is perfectly fine, leave it alone. My army ALWAYS needs a buff desperately.
I see. So "wait for your codex", but even if the codex is already out, complaints about it are totally invalid and we should not even be talking about it.
Xenomancers wrote: You are looking at outliers though. win% was really low. The issue for the army has always been durability. It's always done a lot of damage when you get to go first because of the reroll auras. Marines could win any game they go first - that was always true. Almost no chance to win going second. 8.5 doubled down on it by giving marines durable buffs like apoth and always counts in cover which gave them more staying power. Then they gave them even more damage. So it's no surpise they started to dominate.
Anyways...with lots of marine entries the chance of going first in most of their games - there should be a few that place high in any high volume event. This is a game of dice afterall. More tickets to the lotery increases your chances quite a bit. Which IMO is why you have to look at WR combined with top finishes.
The reason I look at the "outliers" as you put it, is because I have been to these tournaments and seen the Fluffy SM list with 6 squads of terminators/assault terminators walking up the board or Deep striking being led by the 1st company captain, beautifully painted etc. I've watched the SM player show up to these bigger events with one of the worst lists imaginable because hes doing it for fluffy fun, and more power to him. I've also watched the kids who just put together their start collecting space marine boxes and slap some black and silver with their chapter color and call it good enough, and show up to major events. SM are the largest faction by a significant portion, you guys get the bigger portion of newbies, hell, most players started with SM of some flavor, I started with Blood Angels before switching to Orkz. So when you compare W/L rates as opposed to top 4 top 8 or even top 12 finishes you are purposely skewing the data to fit your desired result. Go look at the 2017 LVO results when SM's were unarguably TOP tier with Tau triptides and Eldar shenanigans. What was the W/L ratio for those SM lists? i'll tell you this, in the bottom 100 players were a lot of SM players, does that mean that SM's were bad in 7th as opposed to being one of the best factions? No. it just means little timmy showing up with his first collection of badly painted marines got steam rolled by Triptide players and Marines bringing 10-20 Free Razorbacks.
I hear this point an awful lot. I don't think there is anything I could say to disprove it. Without going and looking at large events bottom 50 rosters of space marine armies and showing they have basically the same composition. Tournaments are mostly grown men and college age men each running essentially net lists or minor variations of net lists. That has been my experience with larger tournaments (50 plus or more). Locals might have some of the players you are talking about but most anyone knows it's not any fun to consistently get smashed against power lists with some kind of fluffy army. Sure there are some players like you describe at larger events but it is not the norm.
Hecaton wrote: The difference is, I'm factually right and you're factually wrong.
I'm sure you have more to back up your claim than just saying "I'm right, you are wrong"? Some statistics showing the average skill level of players and their associated factions? Maybe showing their skill level when they started out with their first army and how it changed when they started their second army or played for some time? Or a statistic showing that the lesser players stay with Marines, while those who seek success change to other factions?
SemperMortis wrote: Beyond the words being a bit mean i guess, how is he wrong? Anecdotally the worst players I see on average are Marine players. This might be because SM's are the beginners army, how many L2P starter boxes contain Marines vs dont? It might also be because they are the most popular and as such draw in the largest crowd of "casual" players whom tend to be less skilled than more frequent players. And of course, with the possible exception of Eldar, they tend to be the best faction edition to edition and easiest to swap out traits for.
"Oh no, green Marines are bad, well these Green Marines are now a chapter of Blue Marines! yay".
I believe you that you feel the worst players are Marines on average. But that is anecdotally and thus not relevant when asked about proof.
Insectum7 wrote: Which faction does GW push the hardest? Which faction is the most popular among new players?
Without having numbers, I'm taking a wild guess and say Marines. By the point you are trying to make, you may as well say since most people play Marines, they have the most competent players. What makes you think that the quote on quote "incompetent" players stay with Marines and the rest goes to harder to play factions if they want to succeed? Even though Marines are somewhere between middle of the road to A tier in every edition, depending on the color?
You guys really think just because a faction is less popular that its playerbase is more skilled? Hot take
a_typical_hero wrote: You guys really think just because a faction is less popular that its playerbase is more skilled? Hot take
Not less popular, less accessible, though those two ideas are kind of linked.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
a_typical_hero wrote: I'm sure you have more to back up your claim than just saying "I'm right, you are wrong"? Some statistics showing the average skill level of players and their associated factions? Maybe showing their skill level when they started out with their first army and how it changed when they started their second army or played for some time? Or a statistic showing that the lesser players stay with Marines, while those who seek success change to other factions?
Tournament results, even when Marines are a powerful army, show a lot of Astartes players in the bottom rungs of tournament placings. Moreover, you made a claim too - that Astartes 2.0 was balanced, and that's trivially untrue.
You guys really think just because a faction is less popular that its playerbase is more skilled? Hot take
Yeah, this is what I strongly disagree with when people try to seel marines as the noob army and other factions as this heavens of proplayers, specially by the metric than most players of warhammer are quite bad, and the worst one tend to be the oldest ones, that don't want to adapt to new dynamics of the edition.
The best players rotate between armies because thats whats needed to win. And the wannabe "Proplayers" do just the same going after the net list of the moment. Thats why when Imperial Guard became OP on 8th most "competitive" tau players jumped to play it and from 7th to 8th Tau playerbase dwindled. Because the people that like an army and stick with it are not only a minority but most are not the kind of competitive players that will be noted by their tactical knowledge.
Hecaton wrote: Tournament results, even when Marines are a powerful army, show a lot of Astartes players in the bottom rungs of tournament placings. Moreover, you made a claim too - that Astartes 2.0 was balanced, and that's trivially untrue.
You would have a point if other factions would have the same attention rate as Marines. But you / they don't.
10 Marines show up and 4 play bad.
2 GSC show up and both play bad.
What does this say about the average skill of each faction's playerbase? Absolutely nothing.
My claim about Marines 2.0 being balanced was sarcasm. I thought it was outlandish and provoking enough to not be taken for an actual opinion. Like the post I wanted to challenge with it.
Insectum7 wrote: Which faction does GW push the hardest? Which faction is the most popular among new players?
Without having numbers, I'm taking a wild guess and say Marines. By the point you are trying to make, you may as well say since most people play Marines, they have the most competent players. What makes you think that the quote on quote "incompetent" players stay with Marines and the rest goes to harder to play factions if they want to succeed? Even though Marines are somewhere between middle of the road to A tier in every edition, depending on the color?
You guys really think just because a faction is less popular that its playerbase is more skilled? Hot take
I think that many tournament goers/competitive people switch armies when they go to tournaments. The competitive group will skew to whatever faction/combination they think gives them the best chance of winning. Players who are less competitive and in it more for the lulz, are more likely to stick with whatever army they enjoy. So if the most popular army is marines, and the most common "beginner" army is marines, then marines will have a higher representation of lower-skilled players.
That doesn't directly correlate "less popular factions have more skilled players", but it does correlate to "more competitive factions will attract more competitive players."
Hecaton wrote: Tournament results, even when Marines are a powerful army, show a lot of Astartes players in the bottom rungs of tournament placings. Moreover, you made a claim too - that Astartes 2.0 was balanced, and that's trivially untrue.
You would have a point if other factions would have the same attention rate as Marines. But you / they don't.
10 Marines show up and 4 play bad.
2 GSC show up and both play bad.
What does this say about the average skill of each faction's playerbase? Absolutely nothing.
My claim about Marines 2.0 being balanced was sarcasm. I thought it was outlandish and provoking enough to not be taken for an actual opinion. Like the post I wanted to challenge with it.
It says nothing *on its own*, but taken holistically with the actual power level of the faction in question, it can be meaningful.
Hecaton wrote: Tournament results, even when Marines are a powerful army, show a lot of Astartes players in the bottom rungs of tournament placings. Moreover, you made a claim too - that Astartes 2.0 was balanced, and that's trivially untrue.
You would have a point if other factions would have the same attention rate as Marines. But you / they don't.
10 Marines show up and 4 play bad.
2 GSC show up and both play bad.
What does this say about the average skill of each faction's playerbase? Absolutely nothing.
My claim about Marines 2.0 being balanced was sarcasm. I thought it was outlandish and provoking enough to not be taken for an actual opinion. Like the post I wanted to challenge with it.
It says nothing *on its own*, but taken holistically with the actual power level of the faction in question, it can be meaningful.
It's really not. I've seen lots of new players come into the game. The players that choose to play marines aren't any worse or better than the ones that choose to play csm or orks or crons.
I appreciate a good tangent as much as the next man, but we do seem to have strayed quite a way from the original topic.
Surely the average (or mean or mode) skill of Marine players, relative to players of other armies, isn't especially relevant to whether Marines should have 2 wounds?
vipoid wrote: I appreciate a good tangent as much as the next man, but we do seem to have strayed quite a way from the original topic.
Surely the average (or mean or mode) skill of Marine players, relative to players of other armies, isn't especially relevant to whether Marines should have 2 wounds?
Honestly? One could make the argument.
2W is a more accessible type of "toughness" and "grit" than the old ATSKNF.
It's really not. I've seen lots of new players come into the game. The players that choose to play marines aren't any worse or better than the ones that choose to play csm or orks or crons.
I disagree. Just by putting the work into to play those other factions they're already more invested into the game.
Lorewise they are, much more badass than basic marine.
They should probably not be like 11 points and have ap-0 weapons then. If it can merk a marine in CC it should cost more than 20 points and have lots of attacks with high AP. It is set up as a chaff killer right now. Marines are not chaff. THEY WILL NEVER BE CHAFF. So Associating marines with other armies troops and drawing comparisons is silly. Those units are chaff.
I agree, Marines are not, and should not be chaff. if a Unit is being fluffed as being a bad ass marine killer it shouldn't be a chaff killer. or if it IS a chaff killer should be such an absurdly good chaff killer it can take out marines by sheer weight of attacks.
How expensive was a Tactical Marine before Primaris? Now at 2W they are... 19pts? Being twice as durable than before vs dmg 1 weapons made a lot of Xenos units useless vs them.
Denegaar wrote: How expensive was a Tactical Marine before Primaris? Now at 2W they are... 19pts? Being twice as durable than before vs dmg 1 weapons made a lot of Xenos units useless vs them.
Denegaar wrote: How expensive was a Tactical Marine before Primaris? Now at 2W they are... 19pts? Being twice as durable than before vs dmg 1 weapons made a lot of Xenos units useless vs them.
This also has lore implications, as brought up before.
Even if you can make the points work out, needing a horde of supposedly-elite units to down a handful of space marines just doesn't feel right.
I can't remember who said it, but a few pages ago someone made a very good point about ATSKNF being a very good way to represent the eliteness of SMs, beyond just giving them a stupidly good statlines. But sadly meaningful Morale mechanics was yet another casualty in the move to the ""streamlined"" rules of 8th onwards.
Lorewise they are, much more badass than basic marine.
They should probably not be like 11 points and have ap-0 weapons then. If it can merk a marine in CC it should cost more than 20 points and have lots of attacks with high AP. It is set up as a chaff killer right now. Marines are not chaff. THEY WILL NEVER BE CHAFF. So Associating marines with other armies troops and drawing comparisons is silly. Those units are chaff.
I agree, Marines are not, and should not be chaff. if a Unit is being fluffed as being a bad ass marine killer it shouldn't be a chaff killer. or if it IS a chaff killer should be such an absurdly good chaff killer it can take out marines by sheer weight of attacks.
What was so wrong about Wyches being able to beat Space Marines, and why do we have to insist that anything capable of engaging a Space Marine in CC has to be some sort of 20+pt elite tooled out monster unit?
Lorewise they are, much more badass than basic marine.
They should probably not be like 11 points and have ap-0 weapons then. If it can merk a marine in CC it should cost more than 20 points and have lots of attacks with high AP. It is set up as a chaff killer right now. Marines are not chaff. THEY WILL NEVER BE CHAFF. So Associating marines with other armies troops and drawing comparisons is silly. Those units are chaff.
I agree, Marines are not, and should not be chaff. if a Unit is being fluffed as being a bad ass marine killer it shouldn't be a chaff killer. or if it IS a chaff killer should be such an absurdly good chaff killer it can take out marines by sheer weight of attacks.
What was so wrong about Wyches being able to beat Space Marines, and why do we have to insist that anything capable of engaging a Space Marine in CC has to be some sort of 20+pt elite tooled out monster unit?
I second this question.
I propose a corresponding hypothetical. A Marine has about a 50% chance to kill a Genestealer in a round of firing while rapid-firing a Bolter, and about a 50% chance of killing a Genestealer in a round of combat with 2 attacks.
A Genestealer has a 5+ save, 1W, and no shooting. If a Genestealer had a 90% chance of killing a Marine in CC, how much should the Genestealer cost? (A Genestealer probably currently has about a 20-30% chance of killing a Marine right now.)
Lorewise they are, much more badass than basic marine.
They should probably not be like 11 points and have ap-0 weapons then. If it can merk a marine in CC it should cost more than 20 points and have lots of attacks with high AP. It is set up as a chaff killer right now. Marines are not chaff. THEY WILL NEVER BE CHAFF. So Associating marines with other armies troops and drawing comparisons is silly. Those units are chaff.
I agree, Marines are not, and should not be chaff. if a Unit is being fluffed as being a bad ass marine killer it shouldn't be a chaff killer. or if it IS a chaff killer should be such an absurdly good chaff killer it can take out marines by sheer weight of attacks.
What was so wrong about Wyches being able to beat Space Marines, and why do we have to insist that anything capable of engaging a Space Marine in CC has to be some sort of 20+pt elite tooled out monster unit?
You misinterpreted my comment, my comment was more aimed at the fact that a Wych shouldn't BE simply a "chaff killer" or if it is a chaff killer it should be of such a degree that even elites are destroyed by a thousand paper cuts.
I mean, wych's are what 3 AP 0 S3 attacks each? that's CRAP for a supposed elite melee unit. what I'm saying is if Wyches are supposed to be scarey elite killers.. they eaither need a ton more attacks, or they need better weapons.
Alright, this is going to be a hot take - So I will try to be as clear as possible
Firstborn going to 2W and becoming more expensive is a meta-dependent nerf.
To describe my perspective - I play solely Firstborn Salamanders. That means that this is a relatively narrow perspective but I also have a big chunk of experience with firstborn.
The durability difference between Salamanders and other marines come down to ignoring ap1 and a +1 save vs 1 damage weapon strat, just important to note this for later.
There are three interactions to examine that have changed due to gaining the second wound:
1 - Interactions with 1 Damage weapons - This is what everybody seems to be annoyed with, that 1 Damage weapons just didn't do well vs firstborn. The thing is, 1 damage weapons NEVER did well against marines. The most common 1D weapons had AP0/1 and they were already super inefficient against Marines. Between playing with cover, and the Salamander rules I never factored enemy 1D weapons into my play - because they didn't really matter. In fact the only times I did have to worry about it was when I was dealing with mass intercessors or the perma-heavy doctrine TFC. The second wound doesn't really change that at all.
2 - Interactions with Multi Damage weapons - Against Multi-damage weapons, the firstborn were already almost as durable as primaris. Anything with 2+ fixed damage the firstborn were essentially MORE durable per point then primaris. Now this is no longer the case. There is a minor buff to durability against Dd3 and Dd6 weapons, but not enough to offset the cost increase. I've played 3 games with 2W marines so far, and my opponent brings their anti-primaris list and just wipes out entire squads with Str5+ -2 2D weapons. It's also not like these lists are tailored either, they can effectively deal with other armies because massed Str5+ -2 2D is one of the most cost effective damage profiles in the game (although this may change with more 3W models out on the field). One could also add the interaction of FNP here, and yes it does matter but not enough - otherwise you'd see everyone running firstborn IH.
3 - interactions with MW's - When I played 1W marines, MWs was one of the major drawbacks of keeping firstborn. Out of all three damage interactions, this is where getting a 2W gets most of its mileage. With the exception of certain match-ups, MW spam is relatively rare (and hopefully remains that way). This is pretty big increase in durability.
So when I say its meta-dependent, I mean it's dependent on what percentage of those categories you're running into. If everyone is fighting primaris - people are going to spam 2/3D weapons and the durability increase that your paying for does absolutely nothing. If suddenly the green tide gets super popular again and people are going to switch to mass 1D weapons to counter, then sure you get an increase in durability. These weapons never threatened me before hand but that could be the Salamander rules speaking. So I'm paying more for protection against something I didn't really fear in the first place. If MW machine-guns come back into play, then yes - I will absolutely adore that extra wound per model.
Out of all the marine units, the ones that really benefitted from that extra wound are terminators. Those things are nasty now. The increase in durability against 2D weapons is huge, as 3D weapons are generally much more expensive or rare.
Xenomancers wrote: You are looking at outliers though. win% was really low. The issue for the army has always been durability. It's always done a lot of damage when you get to go first because of the reroll auras. Marines could win any game they go first - that was always true. Almost no chance to win going second. 8.5 doubled down on it by giving marines durable buffs like apoth and always counts in cover which gave them more staying power. Then they gave them even more damage. So it's no surpise they started to dominate.
Anyways...with lots of marine entries the chance of going first in most of their games - there should be a few that place high in any high volume event. This is a game of dice afterall. More tickets to the lotery increases your chances quite a bit. Which IMO is why you have to look at WR combined with top finishes.
The reason I look at the "outliers" as you put it, is because I have been to these tournaments and seen the Fluffy SM list with 6 squads of terminators/assault terminators walking up the board or Deep striking being led by the 1st company captain, beautifully painted etc. I've watched the SM player show up to these bigger events with one of the worst lists imaginable because hes doing it for fluffy fun, and more power to him. I've also watched the kids who just put together their start collecting space marine boxes and slap some black and silver with their chapter color and call it good enough, and show up to major events. SM are the largest faction by a significant portion, you guys get the bigger portion of newbies, hell, most players started with SM of some flavor, I started with Blood Angels before switching to Orkz. So when you compare W/L rates as opposed to top 4 top 8 or even top 12 finishes you are purposely skewing the data to fit your desired result. Go look at the 2017 LVO results when SM's were unarguably TOP tier with Tau triptides and Eldar shenanigans. What was the W/L ratio for those SM lists? i'll tell you this, in the bottom 100 players were a lot of SM players, does that mean that SM's were bad in 7th as opposed to being one of the best factions? No. it just means little timmy showing up with his first collection of badly painted marines got steam rolled by Triptide players and Marines bringing 10-20 Free Razorbacks.
I hear this point an awful lot. I don't think there is anything I could say to disprove it. Without going and looking at large events bottom 50 rosters of space marine armies and showing they have basically the same composition. Tournaments are mostly grown men and college age men each running essentially net lists or minor variations of net lists. That has been my experience with larger tournaments (50 plus or more). Locals might have some of the players you are talking about but most anyone knows it's not any fun to consistently get smashed against power lists with some kind of fluffy army. Sure there are some players like you describe at larger events but it is not the norm.
Simple answer? go look at 7th edition LVO after SM got their super formations. if ork/IG or DE players were beating the Marine player...that Marine player was not doing well to put it nicely. That or his dice were so bad they just automatically stayed on 1s and 2s. A SM running around with 10-20 free razorbacks with Twin Heavy bolters basically adding another 25-50% to his points legally shouldn't have lost to an Ork player running around with...what? Ork warbikes attempting to use "Da Lucky Stick" to keep them alive longer than 1 turn? Or were you scared of the 100-300 ork boyz in 1 massive mob, unable to do anything other than survive for a bit.
It doesn't take much to figure out why a SM with basically an extra 500-1k points is losing to Orkz/IG/DE. But the exact same list is also winning events.
SemperMortis wrote: Beyond the words being a bit mean i guess, how is he wrong? Anecdotally the worst players I see on average are Marine players. This might be because SM's are the beginners army, how many L2P starter boxes contain Marines vs dont? It might also be because they are the most popular and as such draw in the largest crowd of "casual" players whom tend to be less skilled than more frequent players. And of course, with the possible exception of Eldar, they tend to be the best faction edition to edition and easiest to swap out traits for.
"Oh no, green Marines are bad, well these Green Marines are now a chapter of Blue Marines! yay".
I believe you that you feel the worst players are Marines on average. But that is anecdotally and thus not relevant when asked about proof.
Its not "feel" its physically seen first hand as well as being able to read basic statistics from tournaments. Same thing I just told Xeno, if you see a SM with decurion losing to Orkz/IG or DE in 7th, it wasn't because those other codex's were good, it was because the SM player was trash.
1 - Interactions with 1 Damage weapons - This is what everybody seems to be annoyed with, that 1 Damage weapons just didn't do well vs firstborn. The thing is, 1 damage weapons NEVER did well against marines. The most common 1D weapons had AP0/1 and they were already super inefficient against Marines. Between playing with cover, and the Salamander rules I never factored enemy 1D weapons into my play - because they didn't really matter. In fact the only times I did have to worry about it was when I was dealing with mass intercessors or the perma-heavy doctrine TFC. The second wound doesn't really change that at all.
except those 1D weapons, of which 95%+ of troops are armed with, either at range or CC, just became 50% as effective. Not to mention, GW can't seem to invent any new ork models without throwing on a plethora of Big shootas, which are garbage to say the least, but I still have to pay for the damn thing.
Vaktathi wrote: What was so wrong about Wyches being able to beat Space Marines, and why do we have to insist that anything capable of engaging a Space Marine in CC has to be some sort of 20+pt elite tooled out monster unit?
Space Marine players would have a severe NPE if that was the case. Look at how they reacted to the Kellermorph.
Vaktathi wrote: What was so wrong about Wyches being able to beat Space Marines, and why do we have to insist that anything capable of engaging a Space Marine in CC has to be some sort of 20+pt elite tooled out monster unit?
Space Marine players would have a severe NPE if that was the case. Look at how they reacted to the Kellermorph.
yes, the fourms where filled with panic posts about keller morphs, with every thread being hijacked to complain about them... ohh wait no they weren't
Vaktathi wrote: What was so wrong about Wyches being able to beat Space Marines, and why do we have to insist that anything capable of engaging a Space Marine in CC has to be some sort of 20+pt elite tooled out monster unit?
Space Marine players would have a severe NPE if that was the case. Look at how they reacted to the Kellermorph.
yes, the fourms where filled with panic posts about keller morphs, with every thread being hijacked to complain about them... ohh wait no they weren't
Yes they were. The level of panic about the Kellermorph was both crazy and stupid. Maybe it didn't last as long, because the Kellermorph is only one model, it was nerfed, and GSC players are pretty rare.
Vaktathi wrote: What was so wrong about Wyches being able to beat Space Marines, and why do we have to insist that anything capable of engaging a Space Marine in CC has to be some sort of 20+pt elite tooled out monster unit?
Space Marine players would have a severe NPE if that was the case. Look at how they reacted to the Kellermorph.
yes, the fourms where filled with panic posts about keller morphs, with every thread being hijacked to complain about them... ohh wait no they weren't
Yes they were. The level of panic about the Kellermorph was both crazy and stupid. Maybe it didn't last as long, because the Kellermorph is only one model, it was nerfed, and GSC players are pretty rare.
Space Marines are everywhere.
I dunno, maybe it is because I absolutely hate rogue/assassin archetypes, maybe it is because a single shot suicide unit should not be able to take out a key support character but i always thought the Kellermorph was dumb and should not have a place in this game. Leave assassins to the lore/small skirmishes, they don't belong in 40k proper just like LOW don't from the opposite end of the chart.
Castozor wrote: I dunno, maybe it is because I absolutely hate rogue/assassin archetypes, maybe it is because a single shot suicide unit should not be able to take out a key support character but i always thought the Kellermorph was dumb and should not have a place in this game. Leave assassins to the lore/small skirmishes, they don't belong in 40k proper just like LOW don't from the opposite end of the chart.
Having marksmen or specially trained troops target the enemy chain of command is something that happens all the time in war. It definitely belongs.
I think marines all at 2 wounds feels right and the increased points cost to go with it seems reasonable.
What I do expect however is a lot more units to get the increased wounds treatment when their books come out. I expect aspects to go to two wounds, I expect more wounds on tyranid creatures, I think the increased wound range of weapons and stats will allow for more granularity and ability to balance.
I like what they did with the Necron book and hope to see other factions get a similar treatment.
outside of 2-3 units I think the marine book does what it is supposed to do for the hobby, have a lot of options and be a fun introduction to a majority of the people who get into the hobby. They have a low skill requirement to do alright against everyone but can easily be outdone by skilled opponents who play other factions.
But mostly I think that because of covid, most people are still stuck in a 8th edition mentality because they have not had a chance to play 9th and realize that what wins missions has changed and that requires a different way of looking at units. There is a great tyranid player that posts here and on reddit and has dominated his local meta mainly through movement and controlling the board. His opponents are still stuck in the 8th edition mentality of killing being the primary way to win.
You can tell because of how people argue the value of unit solely by killing power and not objectives and board control/denial.
Leth wrote: What I do expect however is a lot more units to get the increased wounds treatment when their books come out.
Given that basic Necrons - a troop type that, when introduced, was unequivocally more durable than Astartes - don't have it, I wouldn't hold my breath. Everyone's been nerfed, relatively, to make room for more marine spank.
Lorewise they are, much more badass than basic marine.
They should probably not be like 11 points and have ap-0 weapons then. If it can merk a marine in CC it should cost more than 20 points and have lots of attacks with high AP. It is set up as a chaff killer right now. Marines are not chaff. THEY WILL NEVER BE CHAFF. So Associating marines with other armies troops and drawing comparisons is silly. Those units are chaff.
I agree, Marines are not, and should not be chaff. if a Unit is being fluffed as being a bad ass marine killer it shouldn't be a chaff killer. or if it IS a chaff killer should be such an absurdly good chaff killer it can take out marines by sheer weight of attacks.
What was so wrong about Wyches being able to beat Space Marines, and why do we have to insist that anything capable of engaging a Space Marine in CC has to be some sort of 20+pt elite tooled out monster unit?
You misinterpreted my comment, my comment was more aimed at the fact that a Wych shouldn't BE simply a "chaff killer" or if it is a chaff killer it should be of such a degree that even elites are destroyed by a thousand paper cuts.
I mean, wych's are what 3 AP 0 S3 attacks each? that's CRAP for a supposed elite melee unit. what I'm saying is if Wyches are supposed to be scarey elite killers.. they eaither need a ton more attacks, or they need better weapons.
Pretty sure new reanimating protocols is a different type of durability increase. With the increase in the number of d,g 2 and 3 Weapons as well as the way reanimating functions I think necrons came out alright in the increased durability section.
Leth wrote: Pretty sure new reanimating protocols is a different type of durability increase. With the increase in the number of d,g 2 and 3 Weapons as well as the way reanimating functions I think necrons came out alright in the increased durability section.
I'm talking about when they first droped in 2e. They had a similar statline to Astartes, but reanimation protocols and they fethed with your technology and so on. Now they're weaker than marines. So no, you're wrong, they used to be tougher, now they're weaker. If they had the T4 3+ save 2W statline, *and* reanimation protocols (that wasn't horrible for multi-wound units), then we're talking.
Sure, and that means nothing without factoring in points costs or how the rules of the game have changed.
Necrons have had a complete lore revamp since then so yeah, it is kinda grampa to "back in my day errrrrr" as a counter point to a change that has occurred between something that came out like 3 years ago and now.
If I am talking about 3 years ago, and you start talking about 20 as if it is relevant? Gonna call you a grampa.
But anyway, get your rebuttal in and then I will drop the conversation. It is getting off topic.
except those 1D weapons, of which 95%+ of troops are armed with, either at range or CC, just became 50% as effective. Not to mention, GW can't seem to invent any new ork models without throwing on a plethora of Big shootas, which are garbage to say the least, but I still have to pay for the damn thing.
I feel like the point I was trying to make was missed
From a mathhammer perspective - you're completely correct. The firstborn marines just got 100% more wounds for a 38% increase in cost (13 -> 18) which seems like a good deal (and when it comes to dealing with MW's it is)
The point is that in my experience the effect of those 1D weapons we're talking about was already negligible. They didn't alter my planning or tactics and while there was some attrition from 1D weapons - and even some squad wipes caused by mass. Sometimes I spent a CP to mitigate a little bit of damage here or there, but outside of edge cases likes mortifiers or mass intercessors they didn't affect the gameplan. This change made them more negligible - but if the effect they had was already negligible to begin with then so what? This wound wasn't free either - If I keep running into what I've been running into (mass -2 2D weapons or better) then the durability increase essentially doesn't matter whilst the price increase does. Hence why I call it a meta-dependent nerf because the interactions are reliant on what other armies are bringing. And pretty much every army has a way to bring massed 2D weapons into play now.
Leth wrote: So you are comparing necrons 20 years ago to what they are now?
Alright grandpa.
Yup. That's my point. A basic Necron warrior should be a match for an Astartes. Thematically, they're supposed to be.
When was that the case in lore or otherwise - they are resiliant but limited in combat effectivness - especially in close combat where they have always been relatively SLOW and weak compared to a Marine.
Hecaton wrote: Yup. That's my point. A basic Necron warrior should be a match for an Astartes. Thematically, they're supposed to be.
I'm afraid things have changed and now they are not.
GW want marines to be tougher. There isn't much point giving them 2/3 wounds if they then intend to boost the damage output of just about everything in the game so they die just the same as before.
This may upset the fluff but its what is desired on the tabletop.
Leth wrote: So you are comparing necrons 20 years ago to what they are now?
Alright grandpa.
Yup. That's my point. A basic Necron warrior should be a match for an Astartes. Thematically, they're supposed to be.
Basic Necron Warriors haven't been a match for a proper tactical marine in a long time. Inmortals at 2 wounds would be my preference just for feeling but it would be a nerf with how RP work right now. Now Necrons have two troops, the basic warriors for a silver tide army, that works and feels right, and the elite inmortals that are more resilient tactical and intercessors, worse in mele and with better guns for nearly the same cost. (I'm not saying an Inmortal is better than an Intercessor, but just by their basic statlines I would say they are equal with the edge going for the Inmortal even if I would prefer for inmortals to have 2wounds just for "feel")
Leth wrote: Sure, and that means nothing without factoring in points costs or how the rules of the game have changed.
Necrons have had a complete lore revamp since then so yeah, it is kinda grampa to "back in my day errrrrr" as a counter point to a change that has occurred between something that came out like 3 years ago and now.
If I am talking about 3 years ago, and you start talking about 20 as if it is relevant? Gonna call you a grampa.
But anyway, get your rebuttal in and then I will drop the conversation. It is getting off topic.
I guess I'm gonna start to refer to 2W marines as "kiddie pool" marines then.
"Mawines need to be the bestest evar wike I wead in Bwack Wibwary. . ."
except those 1D weapons, of which 95%+ of troops are armed with, either at range or CC, just became 50% as effective. Not to mention, GW can't seem to invent any new ork models without throwing on a plethora of Big shootas, which are garbage to say the least, but I still have to pay for the damn thing.
I feel like the point I was trying to make was missed
From a mathhammer perspective - you're completely correct. The firstborn marines just got 100% more wounds for a 38% increase in cost (13 -> 18) which seems like a good deal (and when it comes to dealing with MW's it is)
The point is that in my experience the effect of those 1D weapons we're talking about was already negligible. They didn't alter my planning or tactics and while there was some attrition from 1D weapons - and even some squad wipes caused by mass. Sometimes I spent a CP to mitigate a little bit of damage here or there, but outside of edge cases likes mortifiers or mass intercessors they didn't affect the gameplan. This change made them more negligible - but if the effect they had was already negligible to begin with then so what? This wound wasn't free either - If I keep running into what I've been running into (mass -2 2D weapons or better) then the durability increase essentially doesn't matter whilst the price increase does. Hence why I call it a meta-dependent nerf because the interactions are reliant on what other armies are bringing. And pretty much every army has a way to bring massed 2D weapons into play now.
First, They didn't go from 13 to 18. They went from 15 to 18, But, even if you go back to 7th edition, SM's used to be 14pts and were one of the factions that saw their basic troops go DOWN in price while also receiving a fethload of buffs (Doctrines, bolter discipline etc) So between 8th and the very beginning of 9th GW realized that with all the increases in their ability a tactical Marine was worth 15pts, but when they gave it the further buff of a 2nd wound they had to add 20% to its price. So your 2nd wound actually costs you 3ppm.
Secondly, you play a SM/Elite army heavy meta. In other words, yeah, for you, those SM's aren't much more durable because everyone was already spamming D2+ weapons because Primaris, custodes etc. The problem with that line of thinking is you are excluding the plethora of other factions which don't have spam access to D2+ weapons or -1 and -2 AP weapons. The best way for me to deal with those SM's wasn't to hit them with my Mek gunz, it was to just slam a mob of boyz into them and watch them soak up 60-90 S4 AP0 1D CC attacks. Now though those 60-90 attacks are only killing HALF of what they were before, and at the same time, those tactical Marines are now significantly better at gunning down my boyz with -1AP from doctrines and bolter discipline giving them 2 shots at 24' most of the time.
So I get the point you are making, the problem is you are viewing the problem from a point of view of the most heavily supported faction in the game who has more data sheets than basically any other 2 factions put together and who has access to a plethora of weapons and abilities which make the your basic troop weapon into an 2 shot AP-2 weapon.
Side Note: The only common 2D weaponry in my codex is Lootas....which do not synergize with ork play styles right now. They are too expensive for what little they do and they are the definition of glass cannons D3 S7 -1 AP 2D shots hitting on 5s with T4 6+ save 1 wound. All for 20ppm, they are literally hard countered by basic infantry fire.
I understand the Marines VS Marines point of view, the changes are not a big deal for them. And they have a point indeed.
When you are a Xenos player though, it forces you to play tailored/skew lists or just resign and lose, as the rest of your "common weaponry" just became twice as bad.
If your army wasn't specially killy in 8th... Now you are even in a worse spot. I have to bring 6-10 Disintegrators or just play DT Venom spam if I want to compete vs Primaris lists... If I don't I'll probably have a hard time. And it's not going to be even fun.
Denegaar wrote: I understand the Marines VS Marines point of view, the changes are not a big deal for them. And they have a point indeed.
When you are a Xenos player though, it forces you to play tailored/skew lists or just resign and lose, as the rest of your "common weaponry" just became twice as bad.
If your army wasn't specially killy in 8th... Now you are even in a worse spot. I have to bring 6-10 Disintegrators or just play DT Venom spam if I want to compete vs Primaris lists... If I don't I'll probably have a hard time. And it's not going to be even fun.
The other aspect is that disintegrators are generally taken as anti-vehicle weapons. So you're forced to split your anti-tank fire against marines and their tanks, because your anti-infantry weapons are such utter garbage against their infantry.
Denegaar wrote: I understand the Marines VS Marines point of view, the changes are not a big deal for them. And they have a point indeed.
When you are a Xenos player though, it forces you to play tailored/skew lists or just resign and lose, as the rest of your "common weaponry" just became twice as bad.
If your army wasn't specially killy in 8th... Now you are even in a worse spot. I have to bring 6-10 Disintegrators or just play DT Venom spam if I want to compete vs Primaris lists... If I don't I'll probably have a hard time. And it's not going to be even fun.
I know you already know this, but damn do DE ever need help...
At the very least splinter cannons need to go up to D2 the way heavy bolters did.
Leth wrote: So you are comparing necrons 20 years ago to what they are now?
Alright grandpa.
Necrons have always had Marine-like stats, having a nearly identical profile until 5th Ed dropped them from a 3+ save to 4+. Even then, a Necron Warrior remained comparable to a Tactical Marine well into 8th- the Marine had 1" more move and a slightly better save (3+ vs 4+), but the Warrior had AP-1 on its gun.
Marines being twice as good as Necrons is a very recent change.
except those 1D weapons, of which 95%+ of troops are armed with, either at range or CC, just became 50% as effective. Not to mention, GW can't seem to invent any new ork models without throwing on a plethora of Big shootas, which are garbage to say the least, but I still have to pay for the damn thing.
I feel like the point I was trying to make was missed
From a mathhammer perspective - you're completely correct. The firstborn marines just got 100% more wounds for a 38% increase in cost (13 -> 18) which seems like a good deal (and when it comes to dealing with MW's it is)
The point is that in my experience the effect of those 1D weapons we're talking about was already negligible. They didn't alter my planning or tactics and while there was some attrition from 1D weapons - and even some squad wipes caused by mass. Sometimes I spent a CP to mitigate a little bit of damage here or there, but outside of edge cases likes mortifiers or mass intercessors they didn't affect the gameplan. This change made them more negligible - but if the effect they had was already negligible to begin with then so what? This wound wasn't free either - If I keep running into what I've been running into (mass -2 2D weapons or better) then the durability increase essentially doesn't matter whilst the price increase does. Hence why I call it a meta-dependent nerf because the interactions are reliant on what other armies are bringing. And pretty much every army has a way to bring massed 2D weapons into play now.
First, They didn't go from 13 to 18. They went from 15 to 18, But, even if you go back to 7th edition, SM's used to be 14pts and were one of the factions that saw their basic troops go DOWN in price while also receiving a fethload of buffs (Doctrines, bolter discipline etc) So between 8th and the very beginning of 9th GW realized that with all the increases in their ability a tactical Marine was worth 15pts, but when they gave it the further buff of a 2nd wound they had to add 20% to its price. So your 2nd wound actually costs you 3ppm.
Secondly, you play a SM/Elite army heavy meta. In other words, yeah, for you, those SM's aren't much more durable because everyone was already spamming D2+ weapons because Primaris, custodes etc. The problem with that line of thinking is you are excluding the plethora of other factions which don't have spam access to D2+ weapons or -1 and -2 AP weapons. The best way for me to deal with those SM's wasn't to hit them with my Mek gunz, it was to just slam a mob of boyz into them and watch them soak up 60-90 S4 AP0 1D CC attacks. Now though those 60-90 attacks are only killing HALF of what they were before, and at the same time, those tactical Marines are now significantly better at gunning down my boyz with -1AP from doctrines and bolter discipline giving them 2 shots at 24' most of the time.
So I get the point you are making, the problem is you are viewing the problem from a point of view of the most heavily supported faction in the game who has more data sheets than basically any other 2 factions put together and who has access to a plethora of weapons and abilities which make the your basic troop weapon into an 2 shot AP-2 weapon.
Side Note: The only common 2D weaponry in my codex is Lootas....which do not synergize with ork play styles right now. They are too expensive for what little they do and they are the definition of glass cannons D3 S7 -1 AP 2D shots hitting on 5s with T4 6+ save 1 wound. All for 20ppm, they are literally hard countered by basic infantry fire.
Your making assumptions that are not necessarily true - or relevant to the point but I feel its necessary to refute them anyways.
- The meta I played in when there wasn't a pandemic going on was pretty health, and in fact had a fluctuation between a 20-25% marine players (although this number went up markedly during the IH fiasco) with a healthy mix of both xenos and non-marine imperium players. We'd commonly max out at 36 players during league nights with most codices seeing play. 2D weapons were common in the meta not because it was primaris heavy - but because it was an effective all-rounder damage type.
- Do remember that at the beginning of 8th the tactical marine was considered pretty garbage by most people. Two shots at AP0 and 1 attack in CC just didn't really cut it. Until SM2.0 I struggled to make Tacs work. It was an uphill fight against pretty much every codex. Shock Assault made them much more viable, and honest question - when was the last time you got hit by bolter disciplined firstborn? It's a great rule for intercessors, not for firstborn who need to be much closer anyways and generally tend towards more aggressive play.
- I can see the delineation between 13 - 15 - 18 points. But I feel it disingenuous to say that they went from 15 to 18 for the second wound when there were so many points being juggled around in the interim. In fact there was some evidence (the MM cost) to support that there was some possible overarching plan to shift Marines to 2 wounds, but they wanted to increase the price slowly to instead of a singular jump.
Remember the specific scope of the statement - This is not directly about Primaris - because I agree that the SM codex has way too many options and some poor rules. Primaris have some particularly egregious design decisions (hence why I stick to pure firstborn). Heavy intercessors just shouldn't exists. Intercessors themselves shouldn't be able to doubletap at 30" out, and eradicators shouldn't be able to one-round a knight ~50% of the time. But that isn't the topic being discussed here
This is specifically about the implications of firstborn getting an additional wound for the current cost. To which I'm currently thinking is a nerf, again more input will be required before a final judgement but we've waited a long enough time.
If your army was capable of dealing with Primaris beforehand, they should be capable of dealing with firstborn now. If your army wasn't capable of dealing with Primaris before hand, It didn't threaten my firstborn either.
But lets talk about the options Orks have available to them - because its not just lootas
Off the top of my head they have:
Battletruck w/ Deffrollaz
Flashgitz
Killsawz/Powerklaws
Tankbustas
Scrapjet? (one of the buggies but I can't remember the name - it just throws out D2 shots and moves pretty quickly)
Lootaz still work with gretchin shield right?
Each of those unit encompasses different strengths in how they deliver the damage - I'm pretty sure an ork player like yourself could supplement a list with these to mitigate any shortcomings.
Or you could design a list that doesn't need to kill much to win, because with 9thed it is a completely viable tactic to just own the board and just focus on gumming up the works.
Because honestly the part that really irritates me is how everyone is already shouting "Muhriinez OP" when really the codex actually plays far healthier than 8th barring two aberrations (eradicators and reviving ATV's)
My old lists don't work at all - and that's perfectly fine. Expecting old tactics to work exactly the same in the new edition is silly. If throwing 60-90 CC attacks doesn't work, start thinking about other potential tactics that can achieve the same desired effect, because I can assure you they exists.
except those 1D weapons, of which 95%+ of troops are armed with, either at range or CC, just became 50% as effective. Not to mention, GW can't seem to invent any new ork models without throwing on a plethora of Big shootas, which are garbage to say the least, but I still have to pay for the damn thing.
I feel like the point I was trying to make was missed
From a mathhammer perspective - you're completely correct. The firstborn marines just got 100% more wounds for a 38% increase in cost (13 -> 18) which seems like a good deal (and when it comes to dealing with MW's it is)
The point is that in my experience the effect of those 1D weapons we're talking about was already negligible. They didn't alter my planning or tactics and while there was some attrition from 1D weapons - and even some squad wipes caused by mass. Sometimes I spent a CP to mitigate a little bit of damage here or there, but outside of edge cases likes mortifiers or mass intercessors they didn't affect the gameplan. This change made them more negligible - but if the effect they had was already negligible to begin with then so what? This wound wasn't free either - If I keep running into what I've been running into (mass -2 2D weapons or better) then the durability increase essentially doesn't matter whilst the price increase does. Hence why I call it a meta-dependent nerf because the interactions are reliant on what other armies are bringing. And pretty much every army has a way to bring massed 2D weapons into play now.
I would like to point out they didn't.
They actually only went up 3pts from 15 at the CA2020 -->18 C:SM 2020.
Everyone's infantry and troops got a hefty price hike with the field manual 9th pts madness debacle.. By this token according to GW an extra wound on your basic troop is worth 3pts by this standard..
They have zero idea what they are doing with pts costs and balances.
I think gak tonne of the would have been avoided if the armies that don't get new codex rules/weapon updates would have remained at their end of 8th pts costs. That way you can make up the rules shortfall with a 20% pts bonus which would allow some armies to compete.
Alas everyone got price hiked and nobody got the rules (apart from Sm...) and then pile on the buffs, core, new units (heavy intercessors, eradicators, ATV, Master apoth etc.) and its a pretty one sided ruleset.. Hence.. salt.. a lot... of … salt...
pothocboots wrote: If T4 wasn't enough to represent the toughness of marines then that can be adjusted in the core rules and faction design.
A universe where a marine is more deadly than an eldar warrior and more durable than an ork is not a grimdark universe.
But they are. Guardians are not apex infantry. And they are more durable than an ork. The grim dark comes in with the fact that there are 50000x the amount of orcs per space marine. For eldar, they never really have a thorn for most factions seeing as they have a very very light population and do not offer much in the way of a challenge to anyone in the grand scheme. On the battle level, sure, Eldar can kick butt. But on a galactic level they are the smallest of road bumps.
pothocboots wrote: If T4 wasn't enough to represent the toughness of marines then that can be adjusted in the core rules and faction design.
A universe where a marine is more deadly than an eldar warrior and more durable than an ork is not a grimdark universe.
But they are. Guardians are not apex infantry. And they are more durable than an ork. The grim dark comes in with the fact that there are 50000x the amount of orcs per space marine. For eldar, they never really have a thorn for most factions seeing as they have a very very light population and do not offer much in the way of a challenge to anyone in the grand scheme. On the battle level, sure, Eldar can kick butt. But on a galactic level they are the smallest of road bumps.
I dont play marines. I do play chaos.
What you just said about Eldar could also be said about Space Marines, except even more so. Tiny population, road bump, etc.
They actually only went up 3pts from 15 at the CA2020 -->18 C:SM 2020.
Everyone's infantry and troops got a hefty price hike with the field manual 9th pts madness debacle..
By this token according to GW an extra wound on your basic troop is worth 3pts by this standard..
They have zero idea what they are doing with pts costs and balances.
I think gak tonne of the would have been avoided if the armies that don't get new codex rules/weapon updates would have remained at their end of 8th pts costs. That way you can make up the rules shortfall with a 20% pts bonus which would allow some armies to compete.
Alas everyone got price hiked and nobody got the rules (apart from Sm...) and then pile on the buffs, core, new units (heavy intercessors, eradicators, ATV, Master apoth etc.) and its a pretty one sided ruleset.. Hence.. salt.. a lot... of … salt...
This is a thing. I actually like marines getting the extra wound, and I like that they raised prices across the board so that they can (in theory) differentiate the costs of the cheapest models in the game more. In theory, raising points should give them an opportunity to differentiate between a conscript and a guardsman, for instance.
But when I heard that first born were going up in wounds, I certainly expected them to pay more points for it than they seem to have. My kabalite warriors going up 50% in points (and actually taking a few stealth nerfs as a result of the edition change) is just a bit of a bitter pill to swallow when comparing them to first born. Like, what is going on here? What is the reasoning behind these decisions?
My kabalite warriors going up 50% in points (and actually taking a few stealth nerfs as a result of the edition change) is just a bit of a bitter pill to swallow when comparing them to first born. Like, what is going on here? What is the reasoning behind these decisions?
A 9th ed rule set design pardigma for example. Plus it could be worse, you could have points rised higher, just like marines, but not get the extra wound. And then made to play an edition that assumes anything marine does have 2W base. CSM players are not happy people, because of that.
They actually only went up 3pts from 15 at the CA2020 -->18 C:SM 2020.
Everyone's infantry and troops got a hefty price hike with the field manual 9th pts madness debacle..
By this token according to GW an extra wound on your basic troop is worth 3pts by this standard..
They have zero idea what they are doing with pts costs and balances.
I think gak tonne of the would have been avoided if the armies that don't get new codex rules/weapon updates would have remained at their end of 8th pts costs. That way you can make up the rules shortfall with a 20% pts bonus which would allow some armies to compete.
Alas everyone got price hiked and nobody got the rules (apart from Sm...) and then pile on the buffs, core, new units (heavy intercessors, eradicators, ATV, Master apoth etc.) and its a pretty one sided ruleset.. Hence.. salt.. a lot... of … salt...
This is a thing. I actually like marines getting the extra wound, and I like that they raised prices across the board so that they can (in theory) differentiate the costs of the cheapest models in the game more. In theory, raising points should give them an opportunity to differentiate between a conscript and a guardsman, for instance.
But when I heard that first born were going up in wounds, I certainly expected them to pay more points for it than they seem to have. My kabalite warriors going up 50% in points (and actually taking a few stealth nerfs as a result of the edition change) is just a bit of a bitter pill to swallow when comparing them to first born. Like, what is going on here? What is the reasoning behind these decisions?
simple really, intercessors are 20 PPM, tac marines with an extra wound are good, but still surrender a few notable advantages to intercessors.
Also keep in mind Kalabites would probably get a point decrease with their codex. GW screws up rules all the time but wait to see how much the Dark Eldar codex screws you compared to the Index.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also keep in mind Kalabites would probably get a point decrease with their codex. GW screws up rules all the time but wait to see how much the Dark Eldar codex screws you compared to the Index.
I think the big question is if chapter approved will be in the summer from now on, or if the next one'll come out around christmas. if so we could see GW adjust some points down for over costed things.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also keep in mind Kalabites would probably get a point decrease with their codex. GW screws up rules all the time but wait to see how much the Dark Eldar codex screws you compared to the Index.
I think the big question is if chapter approved will be in the summer from now on, or if the next one'll come out around christmas. if so we could see GW adjust some points down for over costed things.
And granted the codex doesn't ALWAYS help. Look at Genestealer Cults as an example.
So instead of being one of the people that says "wait and see what GW fixes" I say simply say "wait and see what GW screws up less".
This is a thing. I actually like marines getting the extra wound, and I like that they raised prices across the board so that they can (in theory) differentiate the costs of the cheapest models in the game more. In theory, raising points should give them an opportunity to differentiate between a conscript and a guardsman, for instance.
But when I heard that first born were going up in wounds, I certainly expected them to pay more points for it than they seem to have. My kabalite warriors going up 50% in points (and actually taking a few stealth nerfs as a result of the edition change) is just a bit of a bitter pill to swallow when comparing them to first born. Like, what is going on here? What is the reasoning behind these decisions?
The reasoning is "screw you, buy Astartes."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Morden wrote: When was that the case in lore or otherwise - they are resiliant but limited in combat effectivness - especially in close combat where they have always been relatively SLOW and weak compared to a Marine.
Compared to a Tactical Marine - no, they were often their match in CC, low Initiative nonwithstanding. The point is that there should be some factions where the basic infantry outmatches Astartes, and Necrons is one of them. New lore/paradigm is trash.
This is a thing. I actually like marines getting the extra wound, and I like that they raised prices across the board so that they can (in theory) differentiate the costs of the cheapest models in the game more. In theory, raising points should give them an opportunity to differentiate between a conscript and a guardsman, for instance.
But when I heard that first born were going up in wounds, I certainly expected them to pay more points for it than they seem to have. My kabalite warriors going up 50% in points (and actually taking a few stealth nerfs as a result of the edition change) is just a bit of a bitter pill to swallow when comparing them to first born. Like, what is going on here? What is the reasoning behind these decisions?
The reasoning is "screw you, buy Astartes."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Morden wrote: When was that the case in lore or otherwise - they are resiliant but limited in combat effectivness - especially in close combat where they have always been relatively SLOW and weak compared to a Marine.
Compared to a Tactical Marine - no, they were often their match in CC, low Initiative nonwithstanding. The point is that there should be some factions where the basic infantry outmatches Astartes, and Necrons is one of them. New lore/paradigm is trash.
Except Warriors themselves haven't been a match for a Marine since 5th. You're complaining about it now? Also Immortals are easily better than any Tactical Marine now and an even match-up for Intercessors.
This is a thing. I actually like marines getting the extra wound, and I like that they raised prices across the board so that they can (in theory) differentiate the costs of the cheapest models in the game more. In theory, raising points should give them an opportunity to differentiate between a conscript and a guardsman, for instance.
But when I heard that first born were going up in wounds, I certainly expected them to pay more points for it than they seem to have. My kabalite warriors going up 50% in points (and actually taking a few stealth nerfs as a result of the edition change) is just a bit of a bitter pill to swallow when comparing them to first born. Like, what is going on here? What is the reasoning behind these decisions?
The reasoning is "screw you, buy Astartes."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Morden wrote: When was that the case in lore or otherwise - they are resiliant but limited in combat effectivness - especially in close combat where they have always been relatively SLOW and weak compared to a Marine.
Compared to a Tactical Marine - no, they were often their match in CC, low Initiative nonwithstanding. The point is that there should be some factions where the basic infantry outmatches Astartes, and Necrons is one of them. New lore/paradigm is trash.
Except Warriors themselves haven't been a match for a Marine since 5th.
I think you might be getting your editions mixed up because Warriors were a match for Marines in 7th (they still only had a 4+ save but they had a 5+++ on top of it from RPs). Early 8th, RPs weren't reliable but their weapon was slightly better than the bolter, so it was still about even.
It's only since late 8th (when the Marines got their 2nd edition codex) that Marines suddenly shot ahead of Warriors.
And perhaps you didn't notice at the time but that particular Marine codex actually did receive a fair bit of criticism at the time - and for far more than Marines exceeding necron warriors.
Vilehydra wrote: Your making assumptions that are not necessarily true - or relevant to the point but I feel its necessary to refute them anyways.
- The meta I played in when there wasn't a pandemic going on was pretty health, and in fact had a fluctuation between a 20-25% marine players (although this number went up markedly during the IH fiasco) with a healthy mix of both xenos and non-marine imperium players. We'd commonly max out at 36 players during league nights with most codices seeing play. 2D weapons were common in the meta not because it was primaris heavy - but because it was an effective all-rounder damage type.
What other factions required you to face 2W troops or troops with enough access to FNP to justify 2D weapons as a norm? I can think of maybe Death Guard and that is about it, everything else..including Death Guard, are Marines of some kind, even Custodes are basically Marines
Vilehydra wrote: - Do remember that at the beginning of 8th the tactical marine was considered pretty garbage by most people. Two shots at AP0 and 1 attack in CC just didn't really cut it. Until SM2.0 I struggled to make Tacs work. It was an uphill fight against pretty much every codex. Shock Assault made them much more viable, and honest question - when was the last time you got hit by bolter disciplined firstborn? It's a great rule for intercessors, not for firstborn who need to be much closer anyways and generally tend towards more aggressive play.
Tactical Marines were considered garbage because there were better options easily available. Same thing happened with Ork boyz, why spend 7ppm (now 8) on a boy when the meta at the time said 3ppm grotz were a better tax unit and provided a benefit to your loota bomb. Just because you had better internal options didn't make the unit bad. You could still spend a points for a 5 man squad with a Las cannon or Missile launcher. Not a bad "poor mans" devastator squad for a troops choice. As far as "aggressive" styles of play. No, Tac marines were rarely if ever found outside of cover because they didn't need to hold objectives very much in 8th and the fact is, intercessors only have 6' more range than Tac marines and intercessors are even better in CC than those Tac Marines, P4P.
Vilehydra wrote: - I can see the delineation between 13 - 15 - 18 points. But I feel it disingenuous to say that they went from 15 to 18 for the second wound when there were so many points being juggled around in the interim. In fact there was some evidence (the MM cost) to support that there was some possible overarching plan to shift Marines to 2 wounds, but they wanted to increase the price slowly to instead of a singular jump.
In 7th I believe they were 14 or 15pts, they only dropped to 13 for a bit in 8th. Beginning of 9th, they bumped them to 15, and realistically with all the buffs they had already gotten that wasn't enough, and then they got their 2nd wound, thereby doubling their durability vs D1 weapons....or most of the game.
Vilehydra wrote: Remember the specific scope of the statement - This is not directly about Primaris - because I agree that the SM codex has way too many options and some poor rules. Primaris have some particularly egregious design decisions (hence why I stick to pure firstborn). Heavy intercessors just shouldn't exists. Intercessors themselves shouldn't be able to doubletap at 30" out, and eradicators shouldn't be able to one-round a knight ~50% of the time. But that isn't the topic being discussed here
I agree.
Vilehydra wrote: This is specifically about the implications of firstborn getting an additional wound for the current cost. To which I'm currently thinking is a nerf, again more input will be required before a final judgement but we've waited a long enough time.
If your army was capable of dealing with Primaris beforehand, they should be capable of dealing with firstborn now. If your army wasn't capable of dealing with Primaris before hand, It didn't threaten my firstborn either.
There is no situation I can think of in which doubling of wounds at 20% increase in price is anything other than a massive buff. The problem with your argument about dealing with Primaris though is flawed because everything in my army that used to deal with Primaris (badly) is now more expensive, where as the Intercessor at 2W is now basically a Tac Marines with no real increase in price between 8th intercessors and 9th Tac Marines.
Vilehydra wrote: lets talk about the options Orks have available to them - because its not just lootas
Off the top of my head they have:
Battletruck w/ Deffrollaz
Flashgitz
Killsawz/Powerklaws
Tankbustas
Scrapjet? (one of the buggies but I can't remember the name - it just throws out D2 shots and moves pretty quickly)
Lootaz still work with gretchin shield right?
Battlewagon w/Deff Rolla is DOA thanks to Eradicators and the fact it was always over priced to begin with. The better version is the "Bone Breaker" variant and at Full health it averages 4 Dead tac Marines a turn...but only in CC. And I don't really see a bonebreaker making it into CC with Marines at full strength.
FlashGitz: Massive over priced. 32ppm T4 4+ save with 2 wounds. Basically a worse version of Hellblasters of which Marine players continue to tell me are garbage. There 4+ to hit BS is great for orkz...but if they move its 5+. 5 of them, if they don't move manage to kill 3 tac Marines 2 if they have to move. They in return are getting gunned down by a similar value of Intercessors at longer range.
Killsawz/PKs: over priced, melee only, only spamable on Meganobz who are Movement 4. Whats the complaint about Aggressors? too slow at M5?
Tankbustas: 85pts of T4 6+ save anti-tank models kill....1 Space Marine a turn on average. Those 5 Tac Marines sitting at the same max range are 3 a turn.
Scrapjet: Kills .37 with the Kannon, .1 with the Missile, .51 with the Normal TLBS, and .77 with the Grot gunner TLBS. So the Missiles do .47 which is equivalent to .96 dmg a turn and the Big Shootas do 1.28 dmg a turn. So on average the 110pt Scrapjet kills 1 Marine a turn.
And finally Lootas: Lootas are now 20ppm, D3 shots at S7 -1AP 2 Dmg. They are T4 with a 6+ save so they die to a stiff breeze.
5 Lootas kills 1.29 Tac Marines a turn at the low price of 100pts. As far as the Grot shield still being a thing, You are correct. it is also 66% more expensive to use now, 30pts of grotz used to eat 10 wounds for those Lootas, who were pretty much forced to be Bad Moonz to get the shoot twice strat to make them competitive. Those same 10 wounds are now 50ppm. And in no world is a T2 S2 1W model with a 12' pistol and a 6+ save worth 5ppm.
So the best option you provided to kill standard INFANTRY troops is an elite 32ppm Flashgit that is incredibly hard to use and in a meta that is brimmed with D2 weapons with -1 and -2AP is going to be giving the enemy an easy return on investment.
Vilehydra wrote: Each of those unit encompasses different strengths in how they deliver the damage - I'm pretty sure an ork player like yourself could supplement a list with these to mitigate any shortcomings.
Or you could design a list that doesn't need to kill much to win, because with 9thed it is a completely viable tactic to just own the board and just focus on gumming up the works.
DING DING DING! Winner. You are correct in your 2nd statement, I can design a list to beat SM's that doesn't require me to kill much, and a lot of competitive Ork players have already done so. And you want to know why? Because its about the only way to win with orkz right now. Who cares if you lose 90% of your army and kill very little of theirs, you still win because you held the capture points for 3 turns before basically getting tabled.
I don't know if you've ever played attrition hammer, but its not much fun after the first few times. Being forced to take a list designed to die by turn 4 without killing much of anything is rather 1 dimensional and boring. But that is what Orkz are being forced to do to win or even compete at tournaments right now. And as a fan of the faction that literally coined the phrase DAKKA its kind of sad that we can't gun down a basic damn tac marines with anything approaching a good return on investment.
Vilehydra wrote: Because honestly the part that really irritates me is how everyone is already shouting "Muhriinez OP" when really the codex actually plays far healthier than 8th barring two aberrations (eradicators and reviving ATV's)
My old lists don't work at all - and that's perfectly fine. Expecting old tactics to work exactly the same in the new edition is silly. If throwing 60-90 CC attacks doesn't work, start thinking about other potential tactics that can achieve the same desired effect, because I can assure you they exists.
Well I am sorry the truth irritates you, but you just proved the point by trying to show me how the ork list is capable of killing a basic tac marine and failing basically everytime except with Flashgitz who are regarded as garbage due to price and lack of durability/synergy with the rest of the army.
And again, saying "change your tactics" is not a valid defense of units being OP. We have already developed the tactic that beats them, and it only works if the Marine player brings a relatively elite focused army that can't kill hordes quick enough.
pothocboots wrote: If T4 wasn't enough to represent the toughness of marines then that can be adjusted in the core rules and faction design.
A universe where a marine is more deadly than an eldar warrior and more durable than an ork is not a grimdark universe.
But they are. Guardians are not apex infantry. And they are more durable than an ork. The grim dark comes in with the fact that there are 50000x the amount of orcs per space marine. For eldar, they never really have a thorn for most factions seeing as they have a very very light population and do not offer much in the way of a challenge to anyone in the grand scheme. On the battle level, sure, Eldar can kick butt. But on a galactic level they are the smallest of road bumps.
I dont play marines. I do play chaos.
This is an issue I see frequently, people using lore to justify bad rules in the game, but then having cognitive dissonance when it comes to the return.
Marines need to be more durable than Orkz, at a current rate of about 6x. Takes 1.16 bolter wounds to kill 1 Ork, takes 6 Bolter wounds to kill a Tac Marine. Ok fine, that is good to go, Orkz are currently 44% the price of a Tac Marine. So since fluff justifies bad rules, that means Orkz need to actually be 3ppm. right? I mean we want to reflect the fluff and if Orkz are less resilient than Marines but 50,000x more of them, then 3PPM sounds about right. Obviously I am joking, I do not want Ork boyz to be 3ppm.
Do not argue fluff to make rules balanced EVER. If you do your argument is basically safely ignored. All rules should be written from a balance perspective.
simple really, intercessors are 20 PPM, tac marines with an extra wound are good, but still surrender a few notable advantages to intercessors.
Which is great internal balance and absolutely craptastic External balanced.
Intercessors are out shooting fire warriors and out fighting Genestealers Point for Point. I.E. Intercessors are OP, and saying Tacticals are balanced internally against them means Tac Marines are OP.
Denegaar wrote: I understand the Marines VS Marines point of view, the changes are not a big deal for them. And they have a point indeed.
When you are a Xenos player though, it forces you to play tailored/skew lists or just resign and lose, as the rest of your "common weaponry" just became twice as bad.
If your army wasn't specially killy in 8th... Now you are even in a worse spot. I have to bring 6-10 Disintegrators or just play DT Venom spam if I want to compete vs Primaris lists... If I don't I'll probably have a hard time. And it's not going to be even fun.
The other aspect is that disintegrators are generally taken as anti-vehicle weapons. So you're forced to split your anti-tank fire against marines and their tanks, because your anti-infantry weapons are such utter garbage against their infantry.
Really doesn't seem like good design.
I know this is going to come off sounding a bit "git gud" no matter how much I try to avoid it, but what Marine tanks are you talking about? The only Marine armor outside of cheap transports you're going to see in a competitive list is Dreadnoughts, and D2 weapons are horribly inefficient on them. It's created a weird situation where your AT guns should be shooting the infantry and the best use for your anti-infantry fire (DE poison not withstanding) is trying to drown Dreadnoughts in D1 fire that doesn't care about damage reduction.
SemperMortis wrote: DING DING DING! Winner. You are correct in your 2nd statement, I can design a list to beat SM's that doesn't require me to kill much, and a lot of competitive Ork players have already done so. And you want to know why? Because its about the only way to win with orkz right now. Who cares if you lose 90% of your army and kill very little of theirs, you still win because you held the capture points for 3 turns before basically getting tabled.
I don't know if you've ever played attrition hammer, but its not much fun after the first few times. Being forced to take a list designed to die by turn 4 without killing much of anything is rather 1 dimensional and boring. But that is what Orkz are being forced to do to win or even compete at tournaments right now. And as a fan of the faction that literally coined the phrase DAKKA its kind of sad that we can't gun down a basic damn tac marines with anything approaching a good return on investment.
What makes killing units any more fun than not killing them if both outcomes lead to you winning the game? In both cases, you as a player perform the exact same actions (building a list, moving models, rolling dice) in both cases you score points based on a set of mission objectives, and determine if you've won lost or drawn. The only difference is that in the defensive case your opponent removed fewer models from the table.
What about seeing your opponent remove models from the board makes the game more fun for you to the point that performing all other actions in the same way but not doing that one step makes the game unfun?
SemperMortis wrote: DING DING DING! Winner. You are correct in your 2nd statement, I can design a list to beat SM's that doesn't require me to kill much, and a lot of competitive Ork players have already done so. And you want to know why? Because its about the only way to win with orkz right now. Who cares if you lose 90% of your army and kill very little of theirs, you still win because you held the capture points for 3 turns before basically getting tabled.
I don't know if you've ever played attrition hammer, but its not much fun after the first few times. Being forced to take a list designed to die by turn 4 without killing much of anything is rather 1 dimensional and boring. But that is what Orkz are being forced to do to win or even compete at tournaments right now. And as a fan of the faction that literally coined the phrase DAKKA its kind of sad that we can't gun down a basic damn tac marines with anything approaching a good return on investment.
What makes killing units any more fun than not killing them if both outcomes lead to you winning the game? In both cases, you as a player perform the exact same actions (building a list, moving models, rolling dice) in both cases you score points based on a set of mission objectives, and determine if you've won lost or drawn. The only difference is that in the defensive case your opponent removed fewer models from the table.
What about seeing your opponent remove models from the board makes the game more fun for you to the point that performing all other actions in the same way but not doing that one step makes the game unfun?
Because seeing your opponent remove those models is visual feedback that your army is accomplishing something. It is more visceral than adding ticks to a tally chart on a sheet of paper.
Like, say you're playing a video game and using a sniper rifle. What feels better, hitting a headshot and seeing the head explode to the sound of HEADSHOT! or absolutely nothing happening?
A Town Called Malus wrote: Like, say you're playing a video game and using a sniper rifle. What feels better, hitting a headshot and seeing the head explode to the sound of HEADSHOT! or absolutely nothing happening?
The shot itself is almost anticlimax because if the game is well designed getting into position to take it is what makes sniping worthwhile. I play RPGs, the Franchise modes in sports games, 4x games; the setup, seeing your plan come together in the end, is the payoff.
If you need constant flashing lights, loud announcers, and an ever increased sense that 'u are t3h special' you might just want something other than a tabletop wargame.
EDIT: I changed the end example, bashing people for a medical condition isn't cool.
I think my personal annoyance is that the difference in guns between Marines and Necrons, in the 2 new codexes. Marines got flexibility to take options versus hordes or other elite infantry, but Necrons... didn't? Obviously other Imperial codexes are likely to inherit those weapons from Marines, but it makes me wonder how other Xenos will be.
Like, Heavy Bolters are D2 now, heavy bolt rifles are D2 - these are things Troops can take. Plasma... there's options for Marines that are clearly designed to deal with multiwound infantry but aren't at the level of anti-tank weapons. 'Crons got the Particle Beamer on the Stalker focused on anti-2W... and that was it.
I'm really surprised the Enmitic Exterminator ended up being Yet Another Redundant Anti-Light-Infantry weapon on a list absolutely bloated with them already.
I think my big wonder is: If Marines are 2 to 3 wounds, what does that imply for far more expensive elite multiwound "super infantry" infantry of other factions? Are Marines costed around losing their wounds primarily to 1 damage weapons, or losing them in bigger chunks? If it's the latter, I would have expected to see more multiwound firepower in the 'Cron codex, and it didn't happen. Marines sure got it though, and by extension many other imperials will, so perhaps that's intended to be a deliberate weakness of Necrons only. Increasing the baseline lethality in Damage of anti-infantry guns has implications for multi-wound "super infantry" of all factions though. But I would say it sure doesn't seem like Marines are costed as if they expect them to lose wounds 1 at a time, they're too cheap for that.
Also I'm with the guys that say "planning not to fight but to just endure on objectives isn't fun." When you don't expect to kill anything but have so many models you know you can just win by passing turns sitting on the objectives, that's not a game, that's a REALLY boring math problem.
Edit: To make that more clear: If you're in the situation like Orks right now, where your main "play" is to take advantage of Marines taking mostly anti-elite weapons rather than anti-horde, and thus take a big horde and park on objectives, you're not interacting in any meaningful way with your opponent. You can't kill him, and he can't kill you fast enough, so actual -combat- between units becomes irrelevant. You don't need to respond to his deployment or his movements because you don't intend to fight him. You don't have to pick out targets to kill first or threats to tar-pit because... you don't care about the actual dice going down for killing anything. You care only about "Am I on the objectives?" and nothing else. That's what I mean by "it becomes a really boring math problem."
Corseth wrote: To make that more clear: If you're in the situation like Orks right now, where your main "play" is to take advantage of Marines taking mostly anti-elite weapons rather than anti-horde, and thus take a big horde and park on objectives, you're not interacting in any meaningful way with your opponent. You can't kill him, and he can't kill you fast enough, so actual -combat- between units becomes irrelevant. You don't need to respond to his deployment or his movements because you don't intend to fight him. You don't have to pick out targets to kill first or threats to tar-pit because... you don't care about the actual dice going down for killing anything. You care only about "Am I on the objectives?" and nothing else. That's what I mean by "it becomes a really boring math problem."
There's more to those ork lists than simply dumping boyz on objectives and calling it a day. They may lack some killing power but they use aggression as a tool to hem their opponents into their own deployment zone which in turn enables their objective control strategy.
SemperMortis wrote: DING DING DING! Winner. You are correct in your 2nd statement, I can design a list to beat SM's that doesn't require me to kill much, and a lot of competitive Ork players have already done so. And you want to know why? Because its about the only way to win with orkz right now. Who cares if you lose 90% of your army and kill very little of theirs, you still win because you held the capture points for 3 turns before basically getting tabled.
I don't know if you've ever played attrition hammer, but its not much fun after the first few times. Being forced to take a list designed to die by turn 4 without killing much of anything is rather 1 dimensional and boring. But that is what Orkz are being forced to do to win or even compete at tournaments right now. And as a fan of the faction that literally coined the phrase DAKKA its kind of sad that we can't gun down a basic damn tac marines with anything approaching a good return on investment.
What makes killing units any more fun than not killing them if both outcomes lead to you winning the game? In both cases, you as a player perform the exact same actions (building a list, moving models, rolling dice) in both cases you score points based on a set of mission objectives, and determine if you've won lost or drawn. The only difference is that in the defensive case your opponent removed fewer models from the table.
What about seeing your opponent remove models from the board makes the game more fun for you to the point that performing all other actions in the same way but not doing that one step makes the game unfun?
Yes, I know I for one, when playing Domination games love sitting on an objective, not returning fire, and just focusing my energy on "not dying". The best part? You left out the part where the SM army can plaster those orkz easily if they build TAC lists. But because they are so focused on the meta of anti-SM they don't bring enough aggressors and intercessors and instead want the super sparkly units with 2D+ weapons etc.
Corseth wrote: I think my personal annoyance is that the difference in guns between Marines and Necrons, in the 2 new codexes. Marines got flexibility to take options versus hordes or other elite infantry, but Necrons... didn't? Obviously other Imperial codexes are likely to inherit those weapons from Marines, but it makes me wonder how other Xenos will be.
Like, Heavy Bolters are D2 now, heavy bolt rifles are D2 - these are things Troops can take. Plasma... there's options for Marines that are clearly designed to deal with multiwound infantry but aren't at the level of anti-tank weapons. 'Crons got the Particle Beamer on the Stalker focused on anti-2W... and that was it.
I'm really surprised the Enmitic Exterminator ended up being Yet Another Redundant Anti-Light-Infantry weapon on a list absolutely bloated with them already.
I think my big wonder is: If Marines are 2 to 3 wounds, what does that imply for far more expensive elite multiwound "super infantry" infantry of other factions? Are Marines costed around losing their wounds primarily to 1 damage weapons, or losing them in bigger chunks? If it's the latter, I would have expected to see more multiwound firepower in the 'Cron codex, and it didn't happen. Marines sure got it though, and by extension many other imperials will, so perhaps that's intended to be a deliberate weakness of Necrons only. Increasing the baseline lethality in Damage of anti-infantry guns has implications for multi-wound "super infantry" of all factions though. But I would say it sure doesn't seem like Marines are costed as if they expect them to lose wounds 1 at a time, they're too cheap for that.
Also I'm with the guys that say "planning not to fight but to just endure on objectives isn't fun." When you don't expect to kill anything but have so many models you know you can just win by passing turns sitting on the objectives, that's not a game, that's a REALLY boring math problem. Edit: To make that more clear: If you're in the situation like Orks right now, where your main "play" is to take advantage of Marines taking mostly anti-elite weapons rather than anti-horde, and thus take a big horde and park on objectives, you're not interacting in any meaningful way with your opponent. You can't kill him, and he can't kill you fast enough, so actual -combat- between units becomes irrelevant. You don't need to respond to his deployment or his movements because you don't intend to fight him. You don't have to pick out targets to kill first or threats to tar-pit because... you don't care about the actual dice going down for killing anything. You care only about "Am I on the objectives?" and nothing else. That's what I mean by "it becomes a really boring math problem."
40k is IOM circle jerk ... Not saying it as a bad thing but IOM is the "protagonist" as much as one might be loathe to admit it.
This is a thing. I actually like marines getting the extra wound, and I like that they raised prices across the board so that they can (in theory) differentiate the costs of the cheapest models in the game more. In theory, raising points should give them an opportunity to differentiate between a conscript and a guardsman, for instance.
But when I heard that first born were going up in wounds, I certainly expected them to pay more points for it than they seem to have. My kabalite warriors going up 50% in points (and actually taking a few stealth nerfs as a result of the edition change) is just a bit of a bitter pill to swallow when comparing them to first born. Like, what is going on here? What is the reasoning behind these decisions?
The reasoning is "screw you, buy Astartes."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Morden wrote: When was that the case in lore or otherwise - they are resiliant but limited in combat effectivness - especially in close combat where they have always been relatively SLOW and weak compared to a Marine.
Compared to a Tactical Marine - no, they were often their match in CC, low Initiative nonwithstanding. The point is that there should be some factions where the basic infantry outmatches Astartes, and Necrons is one of them. New lore/paradigm is trash.
Except Warriors themselves haven't been a match for a Marine since 5th.
I think you might be getting your editions mixed up because Warriors were a match for Marines in 7th (they still only had a 4+ save but they had a 5+++ on top of it from RPs). Early 8th, RPs weren't reliable but their weapon was slightly better than the bolter, so it was still about even.
It's only since late 8th (when the Marines got their 2nd edition codex) that Marines suddenly shot ahead of Warriors.
And perhaps you didn't notice at the time but that particular Marine codex actually did receive a fair bit of criticism at the time - and for far more than Marines exceeding necron warriors.
I'm very well aware as a Necron player, thank you. What you described never applied as they were only ever taken with the 4+++, and then imagine them still being worse because the very same Tactical Marines got free transports to pay for their darn Grav Cannons they'd shoot in safety!
So yeah, no. They really weren't a match for the regular Marine. Immortals sure, but not Warriors, and it hasn't been since, you guessed it, 5th.
This is a thing. I actually like marines getting the extra wound, and I like that they raised prices across the board so that they can (in theory) differentiate the costs of the cheapest models in the game more. In theory, raising points should give them an opportunity to differentiate between a conscript and a guardsman, for instance.
But when I heard that first born were going up in wounds, I certainly expected them to pay more points for it than they seem to have. My kabalite warriors going up 50% in points (and actually taking a few stealth nerfs as a result of the edition change) is just a bit of a bitter pill to swallow when comparing them to first born. Like, what is going on here? What is the reasoning behind these decisions?
The reasoning is "screw you, buy Astartes."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Morden wrote: When was that the case in lore or otherwise - they are resiliant but limited in combat effectivness - especially in close combat where they have always been relatively SLOW and weak compared to a Marine.
Compared to a Tactical Marine - no, they were often their match in CC, low Initiative nonwithstanding. The point is that there should be some factions where the basic infantry outmatches Astartes, and Necrons is one of them. New lore/paradigm is trash.
Except Warriors themselves haven't been a match for a Marine since 5th.
I think you might be getting your editions mixed up because Warriors were a match for Marines in 7th (they still only had a 4+ save but they had a 5+++ on top of it from RPs). Early 8th, RPs weren't reliable but their weapon was slightly better than the bolter, so it was still about even.
It's only since late 8th (when the Marines got their 2nd edition codex) that Marines suddenly shot ahead of Warriors.
And perhaps you didn't notice at the time but that particular Marine codex actually did receive a fair bit of criticism at the time - and for far more than Marines exceeding necron warriors.
I'm very well aware as a Necron player, thank you. What you described never applied as they were only ever taken with the 4+++, and then imagine them still being worse because the very same Tactical Marines got free transports to pay for their darn Grav Cannons they'd shoot in safety!
So yeah, no. They really weren't a match for the regular Marine. Immortals sure, but not Warriors, and it hasn't been since, you guessed it, 5th.
Given that the discussion was specifically on how Necron Warriors compare with Tactical Marines, bringing Rhinos into the comparison seems like moving the goalposts quite considerably.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Like, say you're playing a video game and using a sniper rifle. What feels better, hitting a headshot and seeing the head explode to the sound of HEADSHOT! or absolutely nothing happening?
The shot itself is almost anticlimax because if the game is well designed getting into position to take it is what makes sniping worthwhile. I play RPGs, the Franchise modes in sports games, 4x games; the setup, seeing your plan come together in the end, is the payoff.
If you need constant flashing lights, loud announcers, and an ever increased sense that 'u are t3h special' you might just want something other than a tabletop wargame.
EDIT: I changed the end example, bashing people for a medical condition isn't cool.
You might be right in a hardcore simulation game. But 40k ain't that. It's identity has more in common with Doom, Quake, Unreal Tournament etc. than it does with games including simulated ballistics trajectories. 40K is fast ultraviolence with hitscan weapons, not the careful positioning, ballistics calculations and breathing control of a real sniper.
How rewarding do you think 4x games would be if you had no visual marker of how well your strategy was going? So no overlay showing your controlled territory, or your cultural/religious influence etc. You just do your thing and at some arbitrary point the game ends at which point you find out whether or not you won. And how rewarding as a player would it be if your chosen faction had only one way to try and win and no way to deviate from that to counter your opponents strategy due to a massive power imbalance between your faction and that of your opponents?
A Town Called Malus wrote: Like, say you're playing a video game and using a sniper rifle. What feels better, hitting a headshot and seeing the head explode to the sound of HEADSHOT! or absolutely nothing happening?
The shot itself is almost anticlimax because if the game is well designed getting into position to take it is what makes sniping worthwhile. I play RPGs, the Franchise modes in sports games, 4x games; the setup, seeing your plan come together in the end, is the payoff.
If you need constant flashing lights, loud announcers, and an ever increased sense that 'u are t3h special' you might just want something other than a tabletop wargame.
EDIT: I changed the end example, bashing people for a medical condition isn't cool.
You might be right in a hardcore simulation game. But 40k ain't that. It's identity has more in common with Doom, Quake, Unreal Tournament etc. than it does with games including simulated ballistics trajectories. 40K is fast ultraviolence with hitscan weapons, not the careful positioning, ballistics calculations and breathing control of a real sniper.
How rewarding do you think 4x games would be if you had no visual marker of how well your strategy was going? So no overlay showing your controlled territory, or your cultural/religious influence etc. You just do your thing and at some arbitrary point the game ends at which point you find out whether or not you won. And how rewarding as a player would it be if your chosen faction had only one way to try and win and no way to deviate from that to counter your opponents strategy due to a massive power imbalance between your faction and that of your opponents?
40k has a visual marker of how well your game is going - your score sheet.
You're complaining about a winning build not being interactive, killing things isn't a visual measure of success.
Of course we know orks only way to compete is with hordes of infantry sat on objectives, thats why buggy lists have been winning tournaments. It’s also clearly fact they only ever play against marines.
Xenomancers wrote: They should probably not be like 11 points and have ap-0 weapons then.
Yes.
Xenomancers wrote: If it can merk a marine in CC it should cost more than 20 points
No.
Fragile CC unit that can kill a marine in CC should not be more expensive than the marine, because they are fragile and the marine can kill them by shooting at them, which is easier.
Right, but my original point was that watching the number of marks on your tally chart tick up is not engaging gameplay on its own.
Seeing your opponent removing models from the board as a result of your clever manoeuvre feels better than watching your numbers go up on a piece of paper.
Vilehydra wrote: There are three interactions to examine that have changed due to gaining the second wound:
1 - Interactions with 1 Damage weapons - This is what everybody seems to be annoyed with, that 1 Damage weapons just didn't do well vs firstborn. The thing is, 1 damage weapons NEVER did well against marines. The most common 1D weapons had AP0/1 and they were already super inefficient against Marines. Between playing with cover, and the Salamander rules I never factored enemy 1D weapons into my play - because they didn't really matter. In fact the only times I did have to worry about it was when I was dealing with mass intercessors or the perma-heavy doctrine TFC. The second wound doesn't really change that at all.
Ok, so let's look at the weapons available to my army.
Bolters: marine infantry was the best target for them before when facing a marine army, now half as efficient as before.
Flamers: same.
Bolt pistols: same.
Hand flamers: same.
Heavy flamers: same.
D2 weapons I have access to:
Heavy bolters.
Other weapons?
Exorcist missiles, really don't want to shoot at basic marine infantry.
Inferno pistols, melta, multimelta: really don't want to shoot at basic marine infantry.
Well, that seems like twice as much durability for firstborn marines against anything that wants to shoot at them except heavy bolters, and only because heavy bolters got a sudden buff. Would be worse for xenos without a sudden buff.
Also, I don't think Wyches were ever slaughtering units of marines in one round, even under ideal circumstances with what drug they rolled.
Wyches typically killed units by inflicting enough casualties to win the combat, make their enemy run away and then catch them. Guess what? Marines were immune to being wiped out this way due to their special snowflake rules which allowed them to flat out ignore the main risk of engaging in Cc along with pretty much every other rule which was based around morale.
So instead Wyches were grinding them down over multiple turns of attrition. In 5th edition, 14 Wyches plus a hekatrix with agoniser cost the same as a naked ten man tac squad with sarge with bolt pistol and chainsword. Assuming the Wyches rolled +1 strength as their drug and they got the charge, it takes them 3+ rounds on average to wipe out that tac squad.
You might be right in a hardcore simulation game. But 40k ain't that. It's identity has more in common with Doom, Quake, Unreal Tournament etc. than it does with games including simulated ballistics trajectories. 40K is fast ultraviolence with hitscan weapons, not the careful positioning, ballistics calculations and breathing control of a real sniper.
How rewarding do you think 4x games would be if you had no visual marker of how well your strategy was going? So no overlay showing your controlled territory, or your cultural/religious influence etc. You just do your thing and at some arbitrary point the game ends at which point you find out whether or not you won. And how rewarding as a player would it be if your chosen faction had only one way to try and win and no way to deviate from that to counter your opponents strategy due to a massive power imbalance between your faction and that of your opponents?
Your analogy falls rather flat when, by virtue of having models, a board, objective markers, rules, etc. you already have a lot of feedback. In fact, even in an entirely pacifist run of a 40k game where you could take all normal action except that weapons were treated as damage 0 you'd already be playing 90% of the game.
The way you win with the hypothetical or horde that does no damage is to control space and tie opponents up outside of objective scoring range. You still appreciate the models you do kill, nobody said you shouldn't, but the aim is to win via objectives and board control rather than via removing most of your opponents army. 9th edition has specifically been designed to make this style of play more viable with its mission design and smaller play area.
The game has never been at its best when the primary mission was kill your opponent's stuff faster than he kills your stuff. In such a game you could easily just simulate the math and assign points based on the probability of each side winning. Coincidently this is the same level of analysis that goes into declaring something broken on Dakka...
it doesn't matter, if you are not able to utilize killing power to break lines and exploit openings to achieve tactical victories then there IS an issue because when that is the case , why are you even fighting with your force against said enemy.
Canadian 5th wrote: In fact, even in an entirely pacifist run of a 40k game where you could take all normal action except that weapons were treated as damage 0 you'd already be playing 90% of the game.
Yeah, just like playing a CTF match of Unreal Tournament/Q3TA and not firing a single shot at the enemy...
You might be right in a hardcore simulation game. But 40k ain't that. It's identity has more in common with Doom, Quake, Unreal Tournament etc. than it does with games including simulated ballistics trajectories. 40K is fast ultraviolence with hitscan weapons, not the careful positioning, ballistics calculations and breathing control of a real sniper.
How rewarding do you think 4x games would be if you had no visual marker of how well your strategy was going? So no overlay showing your controlled territory, or your cultural/religious influence etc. You just do your thing and at some arbitrary point the game ends at which point you find out whether or not you won. And how rewarding as a player would it be if your chosen faction had only one way to try and win and no way to deviate from that to counter your opponents strategy due to a massive power imbalance between your faction and that of your opponents?
Your analogy falls rather flat when, by virtue of having models, a board, objective markers, rules, etc. you already have a lot of feedback. In fact, even in an entirely pacifist run of a 40k game where you could take all normal action except that weapons were treated as damage 0 you'd already be playing 90% of the game.
The way you win with the hypothetical or horde that does no damage is to control space and tie opponents up outside of objective scoring range. You still appreciate the models you do kill, nobody said you shouldn't, but the aim is to win via objectives and board control rather than via removing most of your opponents army. 9th edition has specifically been designed to make this style of play more viable with its mission design and smaller play area.
The game has never been at its best when the primary mission was kill your opponent's stuff faster than he kills your stuff. In such a game you could easily just simulate the math and assign points based on the probability of each side winning. Coincidently this is the same level of analysis that goes into declaring something broken on Dakka...
Incorrect. Seeing your toys remove the opponents toys is fun. It is the biggest visual indicator of success. Also, toys no longer on the table are toys that can longer hurt your army, double success.
Not Online!!! wrote: it doesn't matter, if you are not able to utilize killing power to break lines and exploit openings to achieve tactical victories then there IS an issue because when that is the case , why are you even fighting with your force against said enemy.
There are many reasons to fight a losing battle or even a losing war. Orks don't even need that, the chance to attempt to krump something is enough for them.
In the case of an ork vs marine conflict, the orks could 'win' a battle by losing tons of Boyz and win the war vai similar means. Or they run the Marines out of time to stop some other critical disaster they're supposed to be responding to. There are any number of ways to make a pyrrhic battle make sense in the context of a larger war.
Canadian 5th wrote: In fact, even in an entirely pacifist run of a 40k game where you could take all normal action except that weapons were treated as damage 0 you'd already be playing 90% of the game.
Yeah, just like playing a CTF match of Unreal Tournament/Q3TA and not firing a single shot at the enemy...
If it worked top players would try it and be happy about a new way to win. It would be the casuals that hate it.
Not Online!!! wrote: it doesn't matter, if you are not able to utilize killing power to break lines and exploit openings to achieve tactical victories then there IS an issue because when that is the case , why are you even fighting with your force against said enemy.
There are many reasons to fight a losing battle or even a losing war. Orks don't even need that, the chance to attempt to krump something is enough for them.
In the case of an ork vs marine conflict, the orks could 'win' a battle by losing tons of Boyz and win the war vai similar means. Or they run the Marines out of time to stop some other critical disaster they're supposed to be responding to. There are any number of ways to make a pyrrhic battle make sense in the context of a larger war.
It does make sense if there would be overarching mechanics simulated, as it stands it isn't. Therefore only the agency of the parties in this battle is relevant (exception to campaign matches)
Also at the of the day 40k still was a War-game. Taking away player agency by crippling an factions offenseve capability IS an issue in that regard.
Insectum7 wrote: Incorrect. Seeing your toys remove the opponents toys is fun. It is the biggest visual indicator of success. Also, toys no longer on the table are toys that can longer hurt your army, double success.
Then why is a major complaint that 40k is too lethal? For that matter why are Knights and Custodes legal for play when they have so few models to have your opponent remove? We could remove objectives too and juse go back to kill points for every game while we're at it!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote: It does make sense if there would be overarching mechanics simulated, as it stands it isn't. Therefore only the agency of the parties in this battle is relevant (exception to campaign matches)
Also at the of the day 40k still was a War-game. Taking away player agency by crippling an factions offenseve capability IS an issue in that regard.
I was unaware that orks had their damage output refuced with the change to 9th edition. Can you show me the faq that did it? Also, if orks can win even in the face of doing little damage, and evidence suggests that they can, it seems that they still have agency.
Agency in a sense of options of a faction to utilise differing playstyles including an offensive playstyle, which as of now hasn't been utilized to win now has it.
Wasn't it the one , that nerfed the shokka attack gun and a ton of other things. A lot of orks stuff right now comes from ploping down a bucket of models, and some armies not being able to deal with such a skew. Same way some armies can't deal with +4inv harlis with -1 to hit. It of course beats the hell out of being bad or not having a working top tier list, but from what I understand some people don't like to play the same stuff all the time. Not me though.
Not Online!!! wrote: Agency in a sense of options of a faction to utilise differing playstyles including an offensive playstyle, which as of now hasn't been utilized to win now has it.
Insectum7 wrote: Incorrect. Seeing your toys remove the opponents toys is fun. It is the biggest visual indicator of success. Also, toys no longer on the table are toys that can longer hurt your army, double success.
Then why is a major complaint that 40k is too lethal?
Because with the IGOUGO turn structure and an entire army attacking all at once across 3 phases where damage can be done 1 player is capable of removing a large number of models causing whole units to never get to act.
Wasn't it the one , that nerfed the shokka attack gun and a ton of other things. A lot of orks stuff right now comes from ploping down a bucket of models, and some armies not being able to deal with such a skew. Same way some armies can't deal with +4inv harlis with -1 to hit. It of course beats the hell out of being bad or not having a working top tier list, but from what I understand some people don't like to play the same stuff all the time. Not me though.
Again what about the buggy list that has won tournaments along side the horde lists? Orks do have lists and models that kill more than the Ghazzy Goff list.
I'm just defending the idea that horde lists that win via board control and which lack strong offence are good for the game and can be fun to play.
Insectum7 wrote: Incorrect. Seeing your toys remove the opponents toys is fun. It is the biggest visual indicator of success. Also, toys no longer on the table are toys that can longer hurt your army, double success.
Then why is a major complaint that 40k is too lethal?
Because with the IGOUGO turn structure and an entire army attacking all at once across 3 phases where damage can be done 1 player is capable of removing a large number of models causing whole units to never get to act.
The "too lethal" is a statement of degree.
Ork horde lists are fine then. They win games, do some damage (just not tons), and have specific counters should they come to dominate the meta.
Not Online!!! wrote: Agency in a sense of options of a faction to utilise differing playstyles including an offensive playstyle, which as of now hasn't been utilized to win now has it.
What about the buggy list?
when the only playstyle is a defensive sit for 3 turn on objecive horde list for your faction.
I mean that can be fun for some, but alas that is hardly a good bar for a supposed interaction based game.
Insectum7 wrote: Incorrect. Seeing your toys remove the opponents toys is fun. It is the biggest visual indicator of success. Also, toys no longer on the table are toys that can longer hurt your army, double success.
Then why is a major complaint that 40k is too lethal? For that matter why are Knights and Custodes legal for play when they have so few models to have your opponent remove? We could remove objectives too and juse go back to kill points for every game while we're at it!
Removing Knights and Custodes from the tabletop via killing them is still fun, so that argument doesn't get you anywhere.
As for "too lethal", wnning by removing models immediately vs. over a longer period of time is still removing models. When most people talk about "too lethal" it's about the fact that units can be erased without any chance of returning action.
Not Online!!! wrote: Agency in a sense of options of a faction to utilise differing playstyles including an offensive playstyle, which as of now hasn't been utilized to win now has it.
What about the buggy list?
when the only playstyle is a defensive sit for 3 turn on objecive horde list for your faction.
I mean that can be fun for some, but alas that is hardly a good bar for a supposed interaction based game.
Nobody is forced to play. Let alone forced to play ork horde lists in a competitive setting. For friendly matches you can work out lists that work for the game you both enjoy playing. For PUGS things are a little tougher but you can always use groups, most FLGS will have them, to pre-arrange games with like minded opponents.
That is one of the biggest fallacies about GW ever told. The whole, just find like minded people and it will work is a lie. It only works when you can force others to play the game the way you want, and if you can't then it doesn't matter if they want to play pick up games, tournament lists or open or narrative, if the gap between armies is huge you would have to rewrite the whole game to make it work, and that just takes too much time, specialy when people can just play other people whose armies do not require them to rewrite army rules, core rules, scenarios or build specific terrain for specific armies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Again what about the buggy list that has won tournaments along side the horde lists? Orks do have lists and models that kill more than the Ghazzy Goff list.
well the thing is. I don't think we have seen a buggy list win or place in more events. We did see the horde orc lists score highe places all across the world.
In 8th GK won 2 big events in australia, or maybe it was even 3, does that mean that GK in 8th ed were fine?
I am not tournament player, but if I see a faction win with multiple different list, like Inari did at some time, then it means the faction is really good or it has some really powerful mechanic. On the other hand if a faction has this one build or has won one tournament in a year, then it probably means it is not okey. Specialy for people playing outside of tournaments.
I remember when BA were considered okey and had tournament wins. Problem for casuals like me was that their army consisted of a ton of IG, a castellan and 15 scouts plus smash hammers. Those aren't lists people that want to play BA like to play.
I doubt if suddenly GW allowed CWE and tau to ally, the tau player would be happy to hear that their army works great if they take as few tau as possible, max on riptide and take the rest of the points in ally eldar. Same with orks being told to take chaos ally or chaos knights being told their army works just fine as long as they take 1125pts of demons in it.
"Guys, the game is fine, it's the player's fault for:
1) Wanting to play
2) Not wanting to have to do a bunch of heavy lifting before the game starts
3) Having the audacity to think the game should function consistently across playgroups"
Canadian 5th wrote: If it worked top players would try it and be happy about a new way to win. It would be the casuals that hate it.
If it worked the top players would try it and the casuals would hate it, that's true.
But the top players being happy about any new way to win, including this one? Not so sure.
Not Online!!! wrote: Agency in a sense of options of a faction to utilise differing playstyles including an offensive playstyle, which as of now hasn't been utilized to win now has it.
What about the buggy list?
when the only playstyle is a defensive sit for 3 turn on objecive horde list for your faction.
I mean that can be fun for some, but alas that is hardly a good bar for a supposed interaction based game.
Nobody is forced to play. Let alone forced to play ork horde lists in a competitive setting. For friendly matches you can work out lists that work for the game you both enjoy playing. For PUGS things are a little tougher but you can always use groups, most FLGS will have them, to pre-arrange games with like minded opponents.
Conversely, we could get the balance of the game to a point where Ork horde lists were competetively viable via krumpin gitz in close quarters. Presumably a much more rewarding way to play and win instead of "cower on objectives and hope to live long enough."
Not Online!!! wrote: Agency in a sense of options of a faction to utilise differing playstyles including an offensive playstyle, which as of now hasn't been utilized to win now has it.
What about the buggy list?
when the only playstyle is a defensive sit for 3 turn on objecive horde list for your faction.
I mean that can be fun for some, but alas that is hardly a good bar for a supposed interaction based game.
Nobody is forced to play. Let alone forced to play ork horde lists in a competitive setting. For friendly matches you can work out lists that work for the game you both enjoy playing. For PUGS things are a little tougher but you can always use groups, most FLGS will have them, to pre-arrange games with like minded opponents.
Conversely, we could get the balance of the game to a point where Ork horde lists were competetively viable via krumpin gitz in close quarters. Presumably a much more rewarding way to play and win instead of "cower on objectives and hope to live long enough."
this.
This is also why on a casual level marines are percieved as a massive issue.
This is a thing. I actually like marines getting the extra wound, and I like that they raised prices across the board so that they can (in theory) differentiate the costs of the cheapest models in the game more. In theory, raising points should give them an opportunity to differentiate between a conscript and a guardsman, for instance.
But when I heard that first born were going up in wounds, I certainly expected them to pay more points for it than they seem to have. My kabalite warriors going up 50% in points (and actually taking a few stealth nerfs as a result of the edition change) is just a bit of a bitter pill to swallow when comparing them to first born. Like, what is going on here? What is the reasoning behind these decisions?
The reasoning is "screw you, buy Astartes."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Morden wrote: When was that the case in lore or otherwise - they are resiliant but limited in combat effectivness - especially in close combat where they have always been relatively SLOW and weak compared to a Marine.
Compared to a Tactical Marine - no, they were often their match in CC, low Initiative nonwithstanding. The point is that there should be some factions where the basic infantry outmatches Astartes, and Necrons is one of them. New lore/paradigm is trash.
Except Warriors themselves haven't been a match for a Marine since 5th.
I think you might be getting your editions mixed up because Warriors were a match for Marines in 7th (they still only had a 4+ save but they had a 5+++ on top of it from RPs). Early 8th, RPs weren't reliable but their weapon was slightly better than the bolter, so it was still about even.
It's only since late 8th (when the Marines got their 2nd edition codex) that Marines suddenly shot ahead of Warriors.
And perhaps you didn't notice at the time but that particular Marine codex actually did receive a fair bit of criticism at the time - and for far more than Marines exceeding necron warriors.
I'm very well aware as a Necron player, thank you. What you described never applied as they were only ever taken with the 4+++, and then imagine them still being worse because the very same Tactical Marines got free transports to pay for their darn Grav Cannons they'd shoot in safety!
So yeah, no. They really weren't a match for the regular Marine. Immortals sure, but not Warriors, and it hasn't been since, you guessed it, 5th.
Given that the discussion was specifically on how Necron Warriors compare with Tactical Marines, bringing Rhinos into the comparison seems like moving the goalposts quite considerably.
If you're going to bring up the 7th edition iteration you need to talk the formations both were in.
Not Online!!! wrote: Agency in a sense of options of a faction to utilise differing playstyles including an offensive playstyle, which as of now hasn't been utilized to win now has it.
What about the buggy list?
when the only playstyle is a defensive sit for 3 turn on objecive horde list for your faction.
I mean that can be fun for some, but alas that is hardly a good bar for a supposed interaction based game.
Nobody is forced to play. Let alone forced to play ork horde lists in a competitive setting. For friendly matches you can work out lists that work for the game you both enjoy playing. For PUGS things are a little tougher but you can always use groups, most FLGS will have them, to pre-arrange games with like minded opponents.
Conversely, we could get the balance of the game to a point where Ork horde lists were competetively viable via krumpin gitz in close quarters. Presumably a much more rewarding way to play and win instead of "cower on objectives and hope to live long enough."
this.
This is also why on a casual level marines are percieved as a massive issue.
So is this an issue with orks melee ability or is it a marine complaint? Which armies can't orks interact with and do damage to in melee because of 9th?
Insectum7 wrote: Conversely, we could get the balance of the game to a point where Ork horde lists were competetively viable via krumpin gitz in close quarters. Presumably a much more rewarding way to play and win instead of "cower on objectives and hope to live long enough."
If boys were a valid melee or shoting unit, and orks could spam them in number they can use now. No one would be winning against orks, unless they had an army that could spam a comperable number of units with comperable shoting and melee abilities. Or be immune to melee and shoting, while being dishing out large amount of damage of their own.
So is this an issue with orks melee ability or is it a marine complaint? Which armies can't orks interact with and do damage to in melee because of 9th?
So is this an issue with orks melee ability or is it a marine complaint? Which armies can't orks interact with and do damage to in melee because of 9th?
1: Marines
2: Chaos Marines
That's all I got.
Right so it boils down to: orks struggle with marines, in which case that's hardly unique to them at this stage and I'd argue it mostly isn't orks that are the issue.
So is this an issue with orks melee ability or is it a marine complaint? Which armies can't orks interact with and do damage to in melee because of 9th?
1: Marines
2: Chaos Marines
That's all I got.
Right so it boils down to: orks struggle with marines, in which case that's hardly unique to them at this stage and I'd argue it mostly isn't orks that are the issue.
I think there are other issues with Orks as well, but I'm not really qualified to say. Afaik boyz will still deal decent damage to other 1W infantry though.
Canadian 5th wrote: Nobody is forced to play. Let alone forced to play ork horde lists in a competitive setting. For friendly matches you can work out lists that work for the game you both enjoy playing. For PUGS things are a little tougher but you can always use groups, most FLGS will have them, to pre-arrange games with like minded opponents.
Conversely, we could get the balance of the game to a point where Ork horde lists were competetively viable via krumpin gitz in close quarters. Presumably a much more rewarding way to play and win instead of "cower on objectives and hope to live long enough."
Nobody sane will disagree with you that factions should have balanced and competitive lists which represent their typical archetype. But "we" are not in charge of rules writing. At least I'm not. While "finding and talking to like minded poeple" is totally within your own power to do.
If you're going to bring up the 7th edition iteration you need to talk the formations both were in.
The Rhino did not make the individual Tac trooper better.
When it's free to the squad it sure does.
There are two types of balance, model balance and game balance. For model balance the Rhino is irrelevant.
Which is why Kalabites are awful in many situations. However when talking about model balance it's important to note the rules at that point. AND, with the rules at that point, five Marines get a Grav Cannon, Combi-Grav or whatever you want, and that Rhino with an extra Storm Bolter because why not. That's all for LESS than the Warriors, who just have Relentless and a 4+++ and a rule for a weapon that's hilariously inefficient vs cheap vehicles.
Canadian 5th wrote: Nobody is forced to play. Let alone forced to play ork horde lists in a competitive setting. For friendly matches you can work out lists that work for the game you both enjoy playing. For PUGS things are a little tougher but you can always use groups, most FLGS will have them, to pre-arrange games with like minded opponents.
Conversely, we could get the balance of the game to a point where Ork horde lists were competetively viable via krumpin gitz in close quarters. Presumably a much more rewarding way to play and win instead of "cower on objectives and hope to live long enough."
Nobody sane will disagree with you that factions should have balanced and competitive lists which represent their typical archetype. But "we" are not in charge of rules writing. At least I'm not. While "finding and talking to like minded poeple" is totally within your own power to do.
If no one sane disagrees, then the GW designers must either be:
1) Insane (because they disagree)
2) Incompetent (because they agree but are incapable of execution).
So is this an issue with orks melee ability or is it a marine complaint? Which armies can't orks interact with and do damage to in melee because of 9th?
that is the thing...
Marines are, imo atleast, atm outlier for damage and firepower thanks to bolter discipline. (yes even CSM to a degree)
vice versa, orks seem slightly overpriced when up against 2 w infantry.. But imo look really good against one W.
That is also why i said percived. Personally i think boler discipline and the malicious volley counterpart are an issue. It's a constraint that hardly is one for a flat 100% increase in shots at the full range, that IS a rule that has issues which then get probably too ridicoulus with doctrines.
i also think however that dakka x3 is an issue, in a way for the time consumption of it , especially when BS 4+ would've solved more issues and made the hike to boyz f.e. alot more stomachable.( also was to case way back so why not try that agains instead of relying on a fishing mechanic.)
Canadian 5th wrote: I'm just defending the idea that horde lists that win via board control and which lack strong offence are good for the game and can be fun to play.
When it comes down to it, 40K is a game billed as the big no-holds-barred confrontation between the galaxy's ultimate badasses. The fluff doesn't concern itself with the dry details of logistics or strategy, it's about knock-down-drag-out close combat. If your opponent has gotten you surrounded and is closing in to finish the job, that's not a sad tactical failure, that's a moment of AWESOME to have your guns-blazing-in-all-directions last stand and if you're cool enough you might just win. This is a game with no flanking, no C&C, no meaningful morale rules, because those aren't part of the fantasy it's trying to sell.
Orks in particular are described as having a culture that revolves around fighting. Their motivation isn't to capture territory or secure other political goals, it's to fight for its own sake. Their cultural hierarchy is determined by ability to fight; the better an Ork is at killing things, the higher on the totem pole it is. If there's one faction in the game that would ignore the battlefield objectives for the promise of a proper fight, it's Orks.
So even if sitting on an objective and not fighting is a viable tactic for Orks on the tabletop, it means the game is absolutely failing to match up with its background. More to the point, a majority of players I've talked to either find it unsatisfying to play, because it doesn't deliver the fantasy they bought into the army for, or unsatisfying to play against, because losing on objectives against an army you can't kill fast enough to stop just isn't fun.
As a Tyranid player I've felt this as well. I can rush objectives and keep the enemy pushed back, but at the same time I'm reluctant to send my twenty-foot-tall bioengineered killing machines into combat because the big man with the hammer just yeets them off the board. Do I win games? Yes. Is it fun? No. Not because I am a Neanderthal who only derives enjoyment from killing things, but because I painted up several thousand points of space bugs specifically to enjoy watching them eat my buddy's space men while he enjoys watching his space men gun down hordes of space bugs. A game that comes down to musical chairs on the poker chips is unsatisfying for both of us.
I appreciate how the change to the scoring system has made games less static and gunline-y, and I'm always a fan of objective systems that reward things other than just removing models. But I would argue that if ignoring the enemy army and focusing on the objective- let alone being forced to do so because your army can't actually fight- is a viable strategy for 40K, then something's gone wrong. Not because that's inherently a bad thing for wargaming, but because it's a bad thing for the sort of game that 40K is.
Insectum7 wrote: Conversely, we could get the balance of the game to a point where Ork horde lists were competetively viable via krumpin gitz in close quarters. Presumably a much more rewarding way to play and win instead of "cower on objectives and hope to live long enough."
If boys were a valid melee or shoting unit, and orks could spam them in number they can use now. No one would be winning against orks, unless they had an army that could spam a comperable number of units with comperable shoting and melee abilities. Or be immune to melee and shoting, while being dishing out large amount of damage of their own.
If Intercessors were a valid shooting and melee unit, and Marines could spam them in the number they can use now, no one would be winning against Marines.
Here's the thing-no one wants Ork Boys to be OP god monsters. (Okay, virtually no one.) What most want is for Ork Boys with Choppas to be a good melee threat, maybe with a PK or Killsaw equipped Nob, or for Ork Boys with Shootas to be a credible threat in melee and able to deal decent damage with shooting. Not stellar damage-even with Shootas, Boys are not a pure shooting unit, given their CC stats-but decent damage.
You mean most or all ork players, because I doubt that anyone who doesn't own or plans to play them wants orks to get a tier 1 army.
They are already problematic just sitting on objectives. If they could also move and engage stuff in melee or shoting, they would be horrible to play against. Specialy now with all the nerfs GW does to marines and marine gear.
You might be right in a hardcore simulation game. But 40k ain't that. It's identity has more in common with Doom, Quake, Unreal Tournament etc. than it does with games including simulated ballistics trajectories. 40K is fast ultraviolence with hitscan weapons, not the careful positioning, ballistics calculations and breathing control of a real sniper.
How rewarding do you think 4x games would be if you had no visual marker of how well your strategy was going? So no overlay showing your controlled territory, or your cultural/religious influence etc. You just do your thing and at some arbitrary point the game ends at which point you find out whether or not you won. And how rewarding as a player would it be if your chosen faction had only one way to try and win and no way to deviate from that to counter your opponents strategy due to a massive power imbalance between your faction and that of your opponents?
Your analogy falls rather flat when, by virtue of having models, a board, objective markers, rules, etc. you already have a lot of feedback. In fact, even in an entirely pacifist run of a 40k game where you could take all normal action except that weapons were treated as damage 0 you'd already be playing 90% of the game.
The way you win with the hypothetical or horde that does no damage is to control space and tie opponents up outside of objective scoring range. You still appreciate the models you do kill, nobody said you shouldn't, but the aim is to win via objectives and board control rather than via removing most of your opponents army. 9th edition has specifically been designed to make this style of play more viable with its mission design and smaller play area.
The game has never been at its best when the primary mission was kill your opponent's stuff faster than he kills your stuff. In such a game you could easily just simulate the math and assign points based on the probability of each side winning. Coincidently this is the same level of analysis that goes into declaring something broken on Dakka...
Wiping so much of an army off the board in turn 1 that the army has no real way to play when they get their first turn is bad, yes.
But the other extreme of nothing meaningful dying is not better.
This game is best when the choices you make versus the choices your opponent makes ON THE TABLE are interesting. Winning defensively via outnumbering an army's damage output is a win in list construction, not on the table. Most people want what they do on the table to matter at least as much as how many models they showed up to the table with.
Interesting: Shooting off a screening unit so a fast moving unit can tie up a high-power shooting backline unit for the rest of the game (table, because you had to position that fast mover and then dedicate firepower to clear a lane for it, and there were probably other things both players could have done with those units)
Not Interesting: Having enough total durability to soak continual fire from that backline shooter all game (list building, because you're not making any choices once you hit the table about how to deal with that backline, and barring crazy dice skews, it's liable to play out the same every time)
Too much lethality means too units never get to do anything, and that's lame. Objectives are notionally good, it makes things you need to get moving across the board for. But winning objectives without having to actively respond to your opponent's actions as anything more than "They're all over there" is also not great.
As a "player feel" they want to krump some gitz. As a strategy game, it needs to matter which gitz they krump and when, to have any depth outside list building. The current meta denies both so just the fact they can still win isn't satisfying. I wouldn't play a multi-hour game like 40k if the ONLY thing I was showing up to a table for was to wait a few hours then declare a win. I'm there to do something fun and interesting on the table, and that means there has to be SOME kind of give-take dance with the opponent that isn't decided in list-building.
And yeah, this is closely related to why people tend to hate things like 500 point games against hyper-skew lists, win or lose, because it's usually a list-building game at that point. When listbuilding factors are completely dominant over table decisions, whether that's too much lethality, too little, etc. it produces dissatisfaction. (And no, "I will go for objectives" is not a real table 'decision' because it's not functionally a decision. HOW you will go for those objectives and HOW you'll counter your opponent's attempts to do the same CAN BE, but only if meaningful choices exist there - it's not guaranteed to be meaningful just because objectives exist - it's good when it feels like you made the right choices by focusing down or tying up the right units, it's bad when you don't care what you're hitting, when or why).
Edit, because just seeing the above posts: Of course no one wants a green tide with too many bodies to kill AND so much damage they can body you off the table. That's just as bad!
A lot of this is coming BECAUSE there is such a huuuuge performance difference in the basic troops and the weapon profiles meant to kill them. Anti-infantry guns frankly need to maintain SOME level of consistent cost-effectiveness against ALL armies. If it's not worth taking anti-horde guns at all versus Marines (the most played army) then you see the very skew in lists we see now: where armies are either equipped to deal with marines, or they're equipped to deal with hordes, and most people will build to the former rather than the latter. We need to see Troops choices across all armies drop to the same anti-infantry guns the same way that lascannons and meltaguns are credibly a threat to all faction vehicles. Doesn't mean they have to drop at the same rate, because units CAN cost more but be more sturdy in return, but the gun itself shooting at them needs to retain some consistency to its cost-effectiveness, ESPECIALLY against the most popular army (though I would argue all armies)) or you get this skew we have.
Karol wrote: You mean most or all ork players, because I doubt that anyone who doesn't own or plans to play them wants orks to get a tier 1 army.
They are already problematic just sitting on objectives. If they could also move and engage stuff in melee or shoting, they would be horrible to play against. Specialy now with all the nerfs GW does to marines and marine gear.
people that petty minded should just not play this game.
Atm, a intercessor does the supposed speciality better of ork boyz and firewarrios the two units on the extreme opposite of the poles where a unit should fall into...
PTS for pts do you think that is good? Further they do the same to pretty much all other factions and are by far the most popular faction to boot THAT is an issue.
Karol wrote: You mean most or all ork players, because I doubt that anyone who doesn't own or plans to play them wants orks to get a tier 1 army.
They are already problematic just sitting on objectives. If they could also move and engage stuff in melee or shoting, they would be horrible to play against. Specialy now with all the nerfs GW does to marines and marine gear.
Are you... Are you reading the same Codex I am?
Have you missed the part where Intercessors outfight Boys and Genestealers, and outshoot Tau Fire Warriors, not just model to model, but point for point?
If no one sane disagrees, then the GW designers must either be:
1) Insane (because they disagree)
2) Incompetent (because they agree but are incapable of execution).
Do you agree?
Or 3) They agree, but don't have the meanings to change it.
Without looking inside GW's headquarter and seeing how departments interact with each other, it is hard to tell how much "fault" lies with each individually.
If no one sane disagrees, then the GW designers must either be:
1) Insane (because they disagree)
2) Incompetent (because they agree but are incapable of execution).
Do you agree?
Or 3) They agree, but don't have the meanings to change it.
Without looking inside GW's headquarter and see how departments interact with each other, it is hard to tell how much "fault" lies with each individually.
Who or what would be inhibiting them and why, and how does this make the fault any less GW's in general?
If no one sane disagrees, then the GW designers must either be:
1) Insane (because they disagree)
2) Incompetent (because they agree but are incapable of execution).
Do you agree?
Or 3) They agree, but don't have the meanings to change it.
Without looking inside GW's headquarter and see how departments interact with each other, it is hard to tell how much "fault" lies with each individually.
Who or what would be inhibiting them and why, and how does this make the fault any less GW's in general?
You were asking about the GW designers specifically, not GW as a single entity. It isGW's fault. Is it the designer's fault? I can't tell.
Every single employee who makes a decision that could impact what goals / materials / time limits / ... / a game designer has to work with could inhibit them from achieving balance. The most simple one would be a CEO saying "make it a constant shifting meta to keep people buzzing about the game".
If no one sane disagrees, then the GW designers must either be:
1) Insane (because they disagree)
2) Incompetent (because they agree but are incapable of execution).
Do you agree?
Or 3) They agree, but don't have the meanings to change it.
Without looking inside GW's headquarter and see how departments interact with each other, it is hard to tell how much "fault" lies with each individually.
Who or what would be inhibiting them and why, and how does this make the fault any less GW's in general?
You were asking about the GW designers specifically, not GW as a single entity. It isGW's fault. Is it the designer's fault? I can't tell.
Every single employee who makes a decision that could impact what goals / materials / time limits / ... / a game designer has to work with could inhibit them from achieving balance. The most simple one would be a CEO saying "make it a constant shifting meta to keep people buzzing about the game".
Well, you're right that I specifically called out the designers, so that's on me, but either way, the important point is that GW themselves are at fault, and not the players - it still refutes your original post, which implied it was the players' fault for not finding likeminded opponents.
Hey, it's Martel. I tanked my old account good evidently.
Previous reputation aside, I'd just like to say that I'm so embarrassed by these marine rules that I'm probably building Necrons for 9th. But I don't want to play against marines, so it's just a real tough spot in general.
Marines really just needed to be cheaper it turn out. At least, in my view.
If no one sane disagrees, then the GW designers must either be:
1) Insane (because they disagree)
2) Incompetent (because they agree but are incapable of execution).
Do you agree?
Or 3) They agree, but don't have the meanings to change it.
Without looking inside GW's headquarter and see how departments interact with each other, it is hard to tell how much "fault" lies with each individually.
Who or what would be inhibiting them and why, and how does this make the fault any less GW's in general?
You were asking about the GW designers specifically, not GW as a single entity. It isGW's fault. Is it the designer's fault? I can't tell.
Every single employee who makes a decision that could impact what goals / materials / time limits / ... / a game designer has to work with could inhibit them from achieving balance. The most simple one would be a CEO saying "make it a constant shifting meta to keep people buzzing about the game".
Well, you're right that I specifically called out the designers, so that's on me, but either way, the important point is that GW themselves are at fault, and not the players - it still refutes your original post, which implied it was the players' fault for not finding likeminded opponents.
We didn't agree that much before, but I agree with this 100%.
It is the players fault if they refuse to interact with other players to make the unbalanced game a more pleasant experience.
GW hasn't balanced the game in the past 20 years. How long do you want to wait for someone to make it better for you?
It depends on how much I am paying them - and yes, I am paying them.
We pay GW for rules. I don't think it's an error to expect a product that was payed for to be usable without changes, especially one that bills itself as fully complete for Matched Play.
SecondTime wrote: Knowing gamers, I don't think that's a realistic expectation.
I know. All I can say is that it is worth your time finding friends who share the hobby and your approach to the game.
Unit1126PLL wrote: It depends on how much I am paying them - and yes, I am paying them.
We pay GW for rules. I don't think it's an error to expect a product that was payed for to be usable without changes, especially one that bills itself as fully complete for Matched Play.
I agree with you. You are right in expecting a good product for your money. And 40k is not a good product when looked at from a competitive / Matched Play point of view imho. As a matter of fact I would never randomly go to a store and look for a pick up game myself.
Not Online!!! wrote: people that petty minded should just not play this game.
Atm, a intercessor does the supposed speciality better of ork boyz and firewarrios the two units on the extreme opposite of the poles where a unit should fall into...
PTS for pts do you think that is good? Further they do the same to pretty much all other factions and are by far the most popular faction to boot THAT is an issue.
JNAProductions wrote:Are you... Are you reading the same Codex I am?
Have you missed the part where Intercessors outfight Boys and Genestealers, and outshoot Tau Fire Warriors, not just model to model, but point for point?
As far as I am aware Karol believes things can only be either underpowered or overpowered so you have to pick one, and also people who play this game always want the best for themselves at the expense of their opponents. Keep those in mind for context and his posts make a lot more sense.
It is the players fault if they refuse to interact with other players to make the unbalanced game a more pleasant experience.
GW hasn't balanced the game in the past 20 years. How long do you want to wait for someone to make it better for you?
Like Unit said it's not an unwillingness to deal with it so much as being annoyed that such an expensive product requires these contortions to not break.
I've got no problem filling in the gaps in my $5 copy of Peter Pig's AK47 Republic and only playing against like-minded friends; my expectations are a bit different for a game where $50 doesn't even buy you the core rules let alone faction-specific supplements.
If you're going to bring up the 7th edition iteration you need to talk the formations both were in.
The Rhino did not make the individual Tac trooper better.
When it's free to the squad it sure does.
There are two types of balance, model balance and game balance. For model balance the Rhino is irrelevant.
Which is why Kalabites are awful in many situations. However when talking about model balance it's important to note the rules at that point. AND, with the rules at that point, five Marines get a Grav Cannon, Combi-Grav or whatever you want, and that Rhino with an extra Storm Bolter because why not. That's all for LESS than the Warriors, who just have Relentless and a 4+++ and a rule for a weapon that's hilariously inefficient vs cheap vehicles.
Doesn't matter. Free Rhinos still do not make individual Tac Marines more durable than individual Nacron Warriors. Besides, free Rhinos could only be taken if you ran double demi-co, so if you were running Skyhammer Formation, single demi-co Gladius or simply playing in a lower-points game, free Rhinos weren't available.
a_typical_hero wrote: I agree with you. You are right in expecting a good product for your money. And 40k is not a good product when looked at from a competitive / Matched Play point of view imho. As a matter of fact I would never randomly go to a store and look for a pick up game myself.
I actually think it is fine for competitive play, and less fine for casual play at the moment. If I go to a tournament, I generally know what I am getting into. There may be some rules idiosyncrasies, but the TO is willing to paper over them in the Tournament Packet (House Rules) and his word is law at a tournament. Competitive play is in a good spot, even if balance isn't exactly right. Balance isn't really important to competitive play (not saying competitive players don't want it here; rather I'm saying that "competitive play" will endure even when the balance is atrocious).
I think the real problem is in casual games. The old method of 40k playing, in 4th and 5th, really was that you could go PUG randomly; it was nice, because you could have "40k night" at the store and simply show up, and there would be people looking for a game. Now? Casual players basically have to build a tournament packet on the fly, for each and every game separately. Not to mention the lie told to us about Crusade, where I could show up with my Crusade army and ask to play a regular Matched Play army and have it work. The armies are very different, the missions are very different - heck, one is build using points and the other is build using PL. You'd have to reconfigure one or both armies right then and there!
If you're going to bring up the 7th edition iteration you need to talk the formations both were in.
The Rhino did not make the individual Tac trooper better.
When it's free to the squad it sure does.
There are two types of balance, model balance and game balance. For model balance the Rhino is irrelevant.
Which is why Kalabites are awful in many situations. However when talking about model balance it's important to note the rules at that point. AND, with the rules at that point, five Marines get a Grav Cannon, Combi-Grav or whatever you want, and that Rhino with an extra Storm Bolter because why not. That's all for LESS than the Warriors, who just have Relentless and a 4+++ and a rule for a weapon that's hilariously inefficient vs cheap vehicles.
Doesn't matter. Free Rhinos still do not make individual Tac Marines more durable than individual Nacron Warriors. Besides, free Rhinos could only be taken if you ran double demi-co, so if you were running Skyhammer Formation, single demi-co Gladius or simply playing in a lower-points game, free Rhinos weren't available.
Seeing as it could be done potentially even at 1500 points you're basically wrong.
Also if you're just looking at the individual models then yes the Tactical technically did win compared to the Warrior. Warriors weren't ran in 7th outside the Decurion for a reason and I think you're entirely avoiding that reason. The free Rhino is part of the unit whether you like it or not, simply because it IS free.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SecondTime wrote: Gladius was an indictment of just how miserable marines were, actually.
It's an indictment of GW not realizing that giving literally free units is absolutely horrible design. Like, imagine going to a 2000 point game and your opponent gets whole minimum of 350 extra points.
"The free Rhino is part of the unit whether you like it or not, simply because it IS free."
Tell that to 7th ed BA tactical marines.
"It's an indictment of GW not realizing that giving literally free units is absolutely horrible design. "
It was a desperate game patch, because they realized their poster boys were getting trounced. They had to spot marines at least 350 points vs that Eldar codex.
More to the point, the gulf that GW has created between Necron units and marine units is far too large.
I feel the Marine situation in 7th never got *remotely* as bad as it did in late 2018. They got silly formations because GW wanted to sell product, and utterly ludicrous formations were their mechanism to do so.
Marines were sufficiently popular that they could be guaranteed sales - whereas factions like Orks, Tyranids, Dark Eldar, CSM were just abandoned.
But its ancient history, so who cares?
I'm struggling to see how Marines *going* to 2 wounds is mattering. Has the meta shifting massively towards tactical marines over intercessors?
The bigger twist is probably Marines becoming a 3+ wound faction and generally being undercosted for it. But so it goes.
Khan-led White Scar grav cannon spam rhino armies were pretty obnoxious. But that's at least specific. Late 8th marines were just obnoxious across the board.
Maybe gravis is indeed a bigger deal. I know eradicators are a bigger deal than any oldboi units. 2W oldbois is just jarring and seems like a giant middle finger to all other armies.
Canadian 5th wrote: Nobody is forced to play. Let alone forced to play ork horde lists in a competitive setting. For friendly matches you can work out lists that work for the game you both enjoy playing. For PUGS things are a little tougher but you can always use groups, most FLGS will have them, to pre-arrange games with like minded opponents.
Conversely, we could get the balance of the game to a point where Ork horde lists were competetively viable via krumpin gitz in close quarters. Presumably a much more rewarding way to play and win instead of "cower on objectives and hope to live long enough."
Nobody sane will disagree with you that factions should have balanced and competitive lists which represent their typical archetype. But "we" are not in charge of rules writing. At least I'm not. While "finding and talking to like minded poeple" is totally within your own power to do.
If no one sane disagrees, then the GW designers must either be:
1) Insane (because they disagree)
2) Incompetent (because they agree but are incapable of execution).
Do you agree?
Sounds like something straight from Epricus himself. Love it.
SecondTime wrote: More to the point, the gulf that GW has created between Necron units and marine units is far too large.
Mind to elaborate on that point?
I had my first game against Newcrons yesterday and it was pretty close with me being only 3 points ahead in secondaries (tied for primaries) when we ended.
I mean on a model by model basis. Necrons are sufficiently advanced in the lore (to my understanding) that their troops should be at least as powerful as Astartes on a model by model basis. Probably more powerful. It doesn't make any sense for a tactical marine to have 2W and an immortal to only have 1W. This holds true for lots of models in the game, really. But Necrons are on my mind because of batreps and such.
I got tired of looking, but I wasn't able to find any Ork Buggy lists winning in the entire month of October. There was 1 possible where he placed 3rd I think, Darren Jac from Northern Front Open YYC. But it doesn't say what kind of Orkz he was playing. Buggies were good in 8th once we got a codex and supplement but against the new SM lists...they die ridiculously quickly.
I was unaware that orks had their damage output refuced with the change to 9th edition. Can you show me the faq that did it? Also, if orks can win even in the face of doing little damage, and evidence suggests that they can, it seems that they still have agency.
Really? you were unaware that Ork fire power got nerfed? the SSAG is dead...the normal SAG is nerfed beyond using in anything except a fluffy for fun game, Lootas lost their ability to mob up and create a Loota Bomb, Flashgitz got beat with the nerf hammer(looks surprisingly like a SM Thunder hammer), As far as regular run of the mill Ork boyz? We got hit with ANOTHER points increase this edition. 7th we were 6ppm and in 9th we are now 8ppm. 33% increase over 2 editions. So now I can field fewer boyz to deal with those tac Marines who got insane buffs across the board.
Also, yet again, as a reminder. Orkz are not winning because the army itself is good. Orkz can win events which are currently like 30-50% some color of Marine because they are a SKEW list. Most lists are built with the assumption that they will need 2D weapons and lots of anti-elite weaponry to counter the meta dominant SM lists. So when a 120-180 Ork boyz show up, backed by a painboy and maybe some KFFs? well suddenly you are wasting Eradicator/fusion shots shooting into a horde of boyz because there are no juicy vehicles or elite units to kill. If any of those lists built in a bit more Anti-horde, it wouldn't happen, but if they do they lose to SM lists running elite heavy.
Of course we know orks only way to compete is with hordes of infantry sat on objectives, thats why buggy lists have been winning tournaments. It’s also clearly fact they only ever play against marines.
Can you find me these Tournament winning lists from any of the last 30 or 40 tournaments? Pretty much since Codex SMOP V2.0 dropped those buggies have disappeared. Probably has something to do with Eradicators being able to 1 shot them for almost a 100% return on investment in 1 turn.
Karol wrote: You mean most or all ork players, because I doubt that anyone who doesn't own or plans to play them wants orks to get a tier 1 army.
They are already problematic just sitting on objectives. If they could also move and engage stuff in melee or shoting, they would be horrible to play against. Specialy now with all the nerfs GW does to marines and marine gear.
Wow.... So my army has to be weak because you can't be bothered to spend a few more points on Anti-horde weapons as opposed to taking the extra 3 Eradicators. Your argument is that Orkz are in a good place because so long as they are counter-meta they have a small chance to actually place in a tournament....by dying slowly enough to hold objectives.
I've already done the math for you, Intercessors out perform Tau Firewarriors at ranged combat while also out performing Genestealers in the CC phase...Point for Point AND model for model. The funniest part is that SM players literally have access to better troops than anyone in the game basically and they instead choose to use min squads of whatever is cheapest because they want those Eradicators and attack bikes instead.
If boys were a valid melee or shoting unit, and orks could spam them in number they can use now. No one would be winning against orks, unless they had an army that could spam a comperable number of units with comperable shoting and melee abilities. Or be immune to melee and shoting, while being dishing out large amount of damage of their own.
You mean like...Space Marines? Your "garbage" nerfed aggressors still gun down there points value in boyz by turn 2. They can still stand toe to toe with Ork boyz or even meganobz. Your basic infantry are better at both shooting and close combat point for point than basically anyone else's. But that isn't good enough because you can't fathom a world where you might have to actually use.....Tactics *Gasp*.
SecondTime wrote: Khan-led White Scar grav cannon spam rhino armies were pretty obnoxious. But that's at least specific. Late 8th marines were just obnoxious across the board.
Maybe gravis is indeed a bigger deal. I know eradicators are a bigger deal than any oldboi units. 2W oldbois is just jarring and seems like a giant middle finger to all other armies.
It is. With the introduction of heavy intercessors loyalists can now field entire armies of 3W T5 infantry, from troops to heavy support and even jump troops, with the only major drawback being a lack of efficient transport options. But then, strategic reserves can help with that. It definitely takes the edge off of 2W csm.
SecondTime wrote: Gladius was an indictment of just how miserable marines were, actually.
And here it is. An actaul smart person.
An army so bad on the table...they have to give you free units to go with your bad units...
Tell yah what...If Eldar got free wave serpants for all their gardian squads....you think they would EVER lose a game in 7? Still lost plenty of games with that miserable formation. It was a horde build in an eddition dominated by deathstars and wraithknights. Plus - like no one likes to remember. It forced you to take a host of terrible crap...like a captain/chaplain. The reality is - the razorback was not really worth much more than the weapons you were paying to put on it. Any savings you were getting were basically balanced out by paying actual points for useless power armor marines. It was probably the best way to run a 3+ horde in the history of the game BUT - it's not like a 3+ horde is actually hard to beat.
SecondTime wrote: I mean on a model by model basis. Necrons are sufficiently advanced in the lore (to my understanding) that their troops should be at least as powerful as Astartes on a model by model basis. Probably more powerful. It doesn't make any sense for a tactical marine to have 2W and an immortal to only have 1W. This holds true for lots of models in the game, really. But Necrons are on my mind because of batreps and such.
Necron Warriors are relatively slow in thought and deed as has been in the stats since the start - they are neither robots or living beings - but the mere remnants of a mind in a increadably resiliant body.
What they are are is very hard to put down for good.
SecondTime wrote: Gladius was an indictment of just how miserable marines were, actually.
And here it is. An actaul smart person.
An army so bad on the table...they have to give you free units to go with your bad units...
Tell yah what...If Eldar got free wave serpants for all their gardian squads....you think they would EVER lose a game in 7? Still lost plenty of games with that miserable formation. It was a horde build in an eddition dominated by deathstars and wraithknights. Plus - like no one likes to remember. It forced you to take a host of terrible crap...like a captain/chaplain. The reality is - the razorback was not really worth much more than the weapons you were paying to put on it. Any savings you were getting were basically balanced out by paying actual points for useless power armor marines. It was probably the best way to run a 3+ horde in the history of the game BUT - it's not like a 3+ horde is actually hard to beat.
The White Scar grav cannon army was pretty hard to beat. But that's about it really.
SecondTime wrote: I mean on a model by model basis. Necrons are sufficiently advanced in the lore (to my understanding) that their troops should be at least as powerful as Astartes on a model by model basis. Probably more powerful. It doesn't make any sense for a tactical marine to have 2W and an immortal to only have 1W. This holds true for lots of models in the game, really. But Necrons are on my mind because of batreps and such.
Necron Warriors are relatively slow in thought and deed as has been in the stats since the start - they are neither robots or living beings - but the mere remnants of a mind in a increadably resiliant body.
What they are are is very hard to put down for good.
I get that, but technology should matter. And looking at the stats, you'd think that the Necrons were the scientifically backwards faction, not the Imperium. Necrons should have much better guns and defenses than the Imperium across the board. But I know, we gotta sell those Mary Sue Astartes. On a model for model basis, the Imperium should be a massive disadvantage vs Necrons and Eldar. Even marines, because the technology is so inferior. But if I'm not getting that, I don't think equal is too much to ask. Like it used to be.
I suppose it doesn't sell models if a fire prism can smoke 10 russes.
SecondTime wrote: Gladius was an indictment of just how miserable marines were, actually.
And here it is. An actaul smart person.
An army so bad on the table...they have to give you free units to go with your bad units...
Tell yah what...If Eldar got free wave serpants for all their gardian squads....you think they would EVER lose a game in 7? Still lost plenty of games with that miserable formation. It was a horde build in an eddition dominated by deathstars and wraithknights. Plus - like no one likes to remember. It forced you to take a host of terrible crap...like a captain/chaplain. The reality is - the razorback was not really worth much more than the weapons you were paying to put on it. Any savings you were getting were basically balanced out by paying actual points for useless power armor marines. It was probably the best way to run a 3+ horde in the history of the game BUT - it's not like a 3+ horde is actually hard to beat.
The White Scar grav cannon army was pretty hard to beat. But that's about it really.
SecondTime wrote: I mean on a model by model basis. Necrons are sufficiently advanced in the lore (to my understanding) that their troops should be at least as powerful as Astartes on a model by model basis. Probably more powerful. It doesn't make any sense for a tactical marine to have 2W and an immortal to only have 1W. This holds true for lots of models in the game, really. But Necrons are on my mind because of batreps and such.
Necron Warriors are relatively slow in thought and deed as has been in the stats since the start - they are neither robots or living beings - but the mere remnants of a mind in a increadably resiliant body.
What they are are is very hard to put down for good.
I get that, but technology should matter. And looking at the stats, you'd think that the Necrons were the scientifically backwards faction, not the Imperium. Necrons should have much better guns and defenses than the Imperium across the board. But I know, we gotta sell those Mary Sue Astartes. On a model for model basis, the Imperium should be a massive disadvantage vs Necrons and Eldar. Even marines, because the technology is so inferior. But if I'm not getting that, I don't think equal is too much to ask. Like it used to be.
I suppose it doesn't sell models if a fire prism can smoke 10 russes.
Not really - just play daemons - which at the time were also one of the strongest armies in the game. Grav was useless vs daemons. Rock paper scissors is not OP.
Said white scars list had a gakload of bolter shots too. And punching through all the free obsec rhinos with a free scout move was not trivial, even for demons. The marines really only needed to kill the demon's obsec and then vegetate the rest of the game.
Regardless, it was an absurd situation. GW's consistent inability to get even their posterboy faction correct is mindboggling. Tac marines have gone from almost worthless to better than all other troops in a fairly short time calendar-wise.
JNAProductions wrote: Rock Paper Scissors is also bad game design for something like this.
Having elements of it is fine-having entire RPS matchups is less so.
Like tanks vs anti-tank, yes. But... invulns short circuit that interaction. At least invulns get reigned in a little bit in 9th. I'm still not sure I'd pay for AP -4 or greater though. Well, other than eradicators.
JNAProductions wrote: Rock Paper Scissors is also bad game design for something like this.
Having elements of it is fine-having entire RPS matchups is less so.
Like tanks vs anti-tank, yes. But... invulns short circuit that interaction. At least invulns get reigned in a little bit in 9th. I'm still not sure I'd pay for AP -4 or greater though. Well, other than eradicators.
Invulns should definitely be more limited on anything big. I've made a proposal to replace the Ion Shield (5+ Invuln) with an Ion Shield that basically functions as an extra set of wounds at a lower Toughness and Save that have to be beat down first to shoot the main Knight, since yeah-that's an issue.
Which brings up back full circle to the issue of only marines get the "good" melta. /facepalm
It was super frustrating for several editions for marine troops to be very, very weak. The marine statline degraded every edition. But this just seems like way overcompensating. 9 and 10 ppw for T4 3+ with the option to max range rapid fire or charge at +1 attack just seems wrong.
SecondTime wrote: Gladius was an indictment of just how miserable marines were, actually.
And here it is. An actaul smart person.
An army so bad on the table...they have to give you free units to go with your bad units...
Tell yah what...If Eldar got free wave serpants for all their gardian squads....you think they would EVER lose a game in 7? Still lost plenty of games with that miserable formation. It was a horde build in an eddition dominated by deathstars and wraithknights. Plus - like no one likes to remember. It forced you to take a host of terrible crap...like a captain/chaplain. The reality is - the razorback was not really worth much more than the weapons you were paying to put on it. Any savings you were getting were basically balanced out by paying actual points for useless power armor marines. It was probably the best way to run a 3+ horde in the history of the game BUT - it's not like a 3+ horde is actually hard to beat
Yes, Poor Poor SMs in 7th. You guys were suffering so badly before you got your decurion style formation.....ohh wait, no...you were average.
Honestly, anytime a Marine codex is "Average" the usual suspects come out screaming things like the above statement. SM's were ok in 7th, when they got their Super Formation they went from good to TOP TIER. up there with Tau Triptides and Eldar Shenanigans. In fact, unless I am mistaken, while Eldar dominated with their shenanigans, SM's averaged a close 2nd as THE MOST POWERFUL army in 7th edition, at least by LVO results they did.
I didn't think I would see the day but we literally have a post from a SM player complaining that the 10-20 FREE vehicles they got to take weren't enough to justify the cost to acquire them by formation.
Maybe so, but it was in spite of awful troops, not because of them. I seem to remember invisible grav centurions being a culprit. That really has nothing to do with the effectiveness of classic marine units. This was very nicely shown by how awful armies like BA and BT were in 7th ed, because they lacked access to the appropriate gimmicks. That means dozens and dozens of marine entries were garbage.
SecondTime wrote: Maybe so, but it was in spite of awful troops, not because of them. I seem to remember invisible grav centurions being a culprit. That really has nothing to do with the effectiveness of classic marine units.
So you should be complaining about Dark Eldar having crap troops too, right? Or any other faction where the one or maybe two top builds that can compete in tournaments aren't fluffy, right?
SecondTime wrote: Maybe so, but it was in spite of awful troops, not because of them. I seem to remember invisible grav centurions being a culprit. That really has nothing to do with the effectiveness of classic marine units.
Yep, in an edition where a few factions have borderline invulnerable death stars, and Mecha robots capable of flattening armies, your basic tac marine isn't going to be a standout. Were any troops standouts in that edition? Even Ork boyz suffered heavily from that.
SecondTime wrote: Maybe so, but it was in spite of awful troops, not because of them. I seem to remember invisible grav centurions being a culprit. That really has nothing to do with the effectiveness of classic marine units.
So you should be complaining about Dark Eldar having crap troops too, right? Or any other faction where the one or maybe two top builds that can compete in tournaments aren't fluffy, right?
Yeah, they're all bad design. I don't understand kabalite pricing in 9th at all. They were probably too strong when they dropped in 8th, but a lot has changed. It's very tone deaf for GW to fan service the marines this much.
SecondTime wrote: Maybe so, but it was in spite of awful troops, not because of them. I seem to remember invisible grav centurions being a culprit. That really has nothing to do with the effectiveness of classic marine units.
Yep, in an edition where a few factions have borderline invulnerable death stars, and Mecha robots capable of flattening armies, your basic tac marine isn't going to be a standout. Were any troops standouts in that edition? Even Ork boyz suffered heavily from that.
But it's not about being a standout. It was about limiting the troop liability, which seems absurd. If a unit was that ineffective, it would stop being fielded I suspect.
SecondTime wrote: If a unit was that ineffective, it would stop being fielded I suspect.
Not at all! You'd just field it in situations where it was good. Just because Seal Team 6 couldn't stop a Russian Combined Arms Brigade on the attack doesn't mean Seal Team 6 will be disbanded.
Of course, 40k's ruleset is such that the enemy can always bring a heavy tank company to every single fight, so Seal Team 6 would be bad in this format...
SecondTime wrote: Gladius was an indictment of just how miserable marines were, actually.
And here it is. An actaul smart person.
An army so bad on the table...they have to give you free units to go with your bad units...
Tell yah what...If Eldar got free wave serpants for all their gardian squads....you think they would EVER lose a game in 7? Still lost plenty of games with that miserable formation. It was a horde build in an eddition dominated by deathstars and wraithknights. Plus - like no one likes to remember. It forced you to take a host of terrible crap...like a captain/chaplain. The reality is - the razorback was not really worth much more than the weapons you were paying to put on it. Any savings you were getting were basically balanced out by paying actual points for useless power armor marines. It was probably the best way to run a 3+ horde in the history of the game BUT - it's not like a 3+ horde is actually hard to beat
Yes, Poor Poor SMs in 7th. You guys were suffering so badly before you got your decurion style formation.....ohh wait, no...you were average.
Honestly, anytime a Marine codex is "Average" the usual suspects come out screaming things like the above statement. SM's were ok in 7th, when they got their Super Formation they went from good to TOP TIER. up there with Tau Triptides and Eldar Shenanigans. In fact, unless I am mistaken, while Eldar dominated with their shenanigans, SM's averaged a close 2nd as THE MOST POWERFUL army in 7th edition, at least by LVO results they did.
I didn't think I would see the day but we literally have a post from a SM player complaining that the 10-20 FREE vehicles they got to take weren't enough to justify the cost to acquire them by formation.
The majority of what you are talking about is imperial soup.
While some effective hero hammer type armies could really do well and even dominate the game. That really has nothing to do with the space marine codex. Invisibility was a spell that every army had access too and pretty much every winning army was abusing it in some way shape or form...Just some broken forge world option let you pick your power...(also...not in the space marine codex) ofc.
Bark star...thunder star...Cent star...Super friends? Space marines right? Actually no...we call that hero hammer for a reason. It was a broken game.
SecondTime wrote: If a unit was that ineffective, it would stop being fielded I suspect.
Not at all! You'd just field it in situations where it was good. Just because Seal Team 6 couldn't stop a Russian Combined Arms Brigade on the attack doesn't mean Seal Team 6 will be disbanded.
Of course, 40k's ruleset is such that the enemy can always bring a heavy tank company to every single fight, so Seal Team 6 would be bad in this format...
Looks like seal team 6 should be introduced in the smaller squad based tactics game...whats it called? Kill team?
But it's not about being a standout. It was about limiting the troop liability, which seems absurd. If a unit was that ineffective, it would stop being fielded I suspect.
Which brings us full circle in GW's design mindset. Tacs weren't very useful in this edition thanks to those invisible deathstars and Mecharobots destroying everything they touched. So what did GW do? created a plethora of formations that allowed players to basically NOT take their specific "bad" units. OR especially in the case of SMs. Incentivized the use of bad units by giving them massive buffs/points for free. IE, Take a 5 man tac squad and receive a free Razorback with TL Heavy Bolters.
In that same edition though, whose troops stood out, whose troops were useful? I really can't think of any. So its a problem of SM players complaining that their troops weren't very cost effective/good in an edition where nobody's troops were cost effective or good.
SecondTime wrote: If a unit was that ineffective, it would stop being fielded I suspect.
Not at all! You'd just field it in situations where it was good. Just because Seal Team 6 couldn't stop a Russian Combined Arms Brigade on the attack doesn't mean Seal Team 6 will be disbanded.
Of course, 40k's ruleset is such that the enemy can always bring a heavy tank company to every single fight, so Seal Team 6 would be bad in this format...
That analogy isn't exactly appropriate here. Marines are constantly depicted in pitched battles. If they fared as poorly vs Riptide as they did in 7th, they'd be disbanded or exterminated. How many terminator suits does a chapter have? I saw 30 die in 3 battle turns vs Riptide in 7th. And no survivors to recover the damaged suits.
But it's not about being a standout. It was about limiting the troop liability, which seems absurd. If a unit was that ineffective, it would stop being fielded I suspect.
Which brings us full circle in GW's design mindset. Tacs weren't very useful in this edition thanks to those invisible deathstars and Mecharobots destroying everything they touched. So what did GW do? created a plethora of formations that allowed players to basically NOT take their specific "bad" units. OR especially in the case of SMs. Incentivized the use of bad units by giving them massive buffs/points for free. IE, Take a 5 man tac squad and receive a free Razorback with TL Heavy Bolters.
In that same edition though, whose troops stood out, whose troops were useful? I really can't think of any. So its a problem of SM players complaining that their troops weren't very cost effective/good in an edition where nobody's troops were cost effective or good.
Bro - in this eddition...Eldar windriders were fething troops!
But it's not about being a standout. It was about limiting the troop liability, which seems absurd. If a unit was that ineffective, it would stop being fielded I suspect.
Which brings us full circle in GW's design mindset. Tacs weren't very useful in this edition thanks to those invisible deathstars and Mecharobots destroying everything they touched. So what did GW do? created a plethora of formations that allowed players to basically NOT take their specific "bad" units. OR especially in the case of SMs. Incentivized the use of bad units by giving them massive buffs/points for free. IE, Take a 5 man tac squad and receive a free Razorback with TL Heavy Bolters.
In that same edition though, whose troops stood out, whose troops were useful? I really can't think of any. So its a problem of SM players complaining that their troops weren't very cost effective/good in an edition where nobody's troops were cost effective or good.
But they weren't good mechanically in 6th, or 5th, and arguably 4th. That's the trend I'm talking about. And then if you factor in the lore to any degree at all, they were utter dog dodo. All this being said, they have added way too much too quickly to marines I think.
But it's not about being a standout. It was about limiting the troop liability, which seems absurd. If a unit was that ineffective, it would stop being fielded I suspect.
Which brings us full circle in GW's design mindset. Tacs weren't very useful in this edition thanks to those invisible deathstars and Mecharobots destroying everything they touched. So what did GW do? created a plethora of formations that allowed players to basically NOT take their specific "bad" units. OR especially in the case of SMs. Incentivized the use of bad units by giving them massive buffs/points for free. IE, Take a 5 man tac squad and receive a free Razorback with TL Heavy Bolters.
In that same edition though, whose troops stood out, whose troops were useful? I really can't think of any. So its a problem of SM players complaining that their troops weren't very cost effective/good in an edition where nobody's troops were cost effective or good.
Bro - in this eddition...Eldar windriders were fething troops!
I wasn't going to bring that up, but there it is. Troops that could reliably bring down IKs from 36" away.
I got tired of looking, but I wasn't able to find any Ork Buggy lists winning in the entire month of October. There was 1 possible where he placed 3rd I think, Darren Jac from Northern Front Open YYC. But it doesn't say what kind of Orkz he was playing. Buggies were good in 8th once we got a codex and supplement but against the new SM lists...they die ridiculously quickly.
Of course we know orks only way to compete is with hordes of infantry sat on objectives, thats why buggy lists have been winning tournaments. It’s also clearly fact they only ever play against marines.
Can you find me these Tournament winning lists from any of the last 30 or 40 tournaments? Pretty much since Codex SMOP V2.0 dropped those buggies have disappeared. Probably has something to do with Eradicators being able to 1 shot them for almost a 100% return on investment in 1 turn.
SecondTime wrote: If a unit was that ineffective, it would stop being fielded I suspect.
Not at all! You'd just field it in situations where it was good. Just because Seal Team 6 couldn't stop a Russian Combined Arms Brigade on the attack doesn't mean Seal Team 6 will be disbanded.
Of course, 40k's ruleset is such that the enemy can always bring a heavy tank company to every single fight, so Seal Team 6 would be bad in this format...
That analogy isn't exactly appropriate here. Marines are constantly depicted in pitched battles. If they fared as poorly vs Riptide as they did in 7th, they'd be disbanded or exterminated. How many terminator suits does a chapter have? I saw 30 die in 3 battle turns vs Riptide in 7th. And no survivors to recover the damaged suits.
Where marines are portrayed in pitched battles, I consider that Bolter Porn rather than real fluff. The whole point of Marines is to be a mobile force that uses surprise and mobility to avoid an even, pitched fight. Their tanks were lighter and faster, they didn't have superheavy tanks (except for relics left over from the Legions)...
SecondTime wrote: If a unit was that ineffective, it would stop being fielded I suspect.
Not at all! You'd just field it in situations where it was good. Just because Seal Team 6 couldn't stop a Russian Combined Arms Brigade on the attack doesn't mean Seal Team 6 will be disbanded.
Of course, 40k's ruleset is such that the enemy can always bring a heavy tank company to every single fight, so Seal Team 6 would be bad in this format...
That analogy isn't exactly appropriate here. Marines are constantly depicted in pitched battles. If they fared as poorly vs Riptide as they did in 7th, they'd be disbanded or exterminated. How many terminator suits does a chapter have? I saw 30 die in 3 battle turns vs Riptide in 7th. And no survivors to recover the damaged suits.
Where marines are portrayed in pitched battles, I consider that Bolter Porn rather than real fluff. The whole point of Marines is to be a mobile force that uses surprise and mobility to avoid an even, pitched fight. Their tanks were lighter and faster, they didn't have superheavy tanks (except for relics left over from the Legions)...
This is a major issue with the game in general and especially Marines. Scope & Scale bloat. Marines are basically portrayed engaging in every possible form of combat and battle, from guerilla warfare to attritional sieges to commando operates, shock assaults, air to air combat, space ship boarding actions, tanks battles, and artillery duels. Likewise, the game wants to portray everything from an individual grot with tiny revolver all the way up to superheavy battle tanks and titanic war machines, and in the same battle and design-space, and armies ranging from bands of demi-gods or dancing assassin troupes to tank companies and gibbering hordes of monsters, regardless of how jarring these scales are.
If you're going to bring up the 7th edition iteration you need to talk the formations both were in.
The Rhino did not make the individual Tac trooper better.
When it's free to the squad it sure does.
There are two types of balance, model balance and game balance. For model balance the Rhino is irrelevant.
Which is why Kalabites are awful in many situations. However when talking about model balance it's important to note the rules at that point. AND, with the rules at that point, five Marines get a Grav Cannon, Combi-Grav or whatever you want, and that Rhino with an extra Storm Bolter because why not. That's all for LESS than the Warriors, who just have Relentless and a 4+++ and a rule for a weapon that's hilariously inefficient vs cheap vehicles.
Doesn't matter. Free Rhinos still do not make individual Tac Marines more durable than individual Nacron Warriors. Besides, free Rhinos could only be taken if you ran double demi-co, so if you were running Skyhammer Formation, single demi-co Gladius or simply playing in a lower-points game, free Rhinos weren't available.
Seeing as it could be done potentially even at 1500 points you're basically wrong.
And 1000 points? And armies that didn't use double-demi-co? Did Tactical Squads automatically get a free Rhino for every possible build? No.
Also if you're just looking at the individual models then yes the Tactical technically did win compared to the Warrior.
Correct. That was the entire point of the original statement/premise. The metric remains: 1 Warrior vs. 1 Marine.
Warriors weren't ran in 7th outside the Decurion for a reason and I think you're entirely avoiding that reason. The free Rhino is part of the unit whether you like it or not, simply because it IS free.
The free Rhino is not an intrinsic part of the unit. First, because it's explicitly not the same unit. Second, because it was optional, and heavily caveated through army build.
SecondTime wrote: If a unit was that ineffective, it would stop being fielded I suspect.
Not at all! You'd just field it in situations where it was good. Just because Seal Team 6 couldn't stop a Russian Combined Arms Brigade on the attack doesn't mean Seal Team 6 will be disbanded.
Of course, 40k's ruleset is such that the enemy can always bring a heavy tank company to every single fight, so Seal Team 6 would be bad in this format...
That analogy isn't exactly appropriate here. Marines are constantly depicted in pitched battles. If they fared as poorly vs Riptide as they did in 7th, they'd be disbanded or exterminated. How many terminator suits does a chapter have? I saw 30 die in 3 battle turns vs Riptide in 7th. And no survivors to recover the damaged suits.
Where marines are portrayed in pitched battles, I consider that Bolter Porn rather than real fluff. The whole point of Marines is to be a mobile force that uses surprise and mobility to avoid an even, pitched fight. Their tanks were lighter and faster, they didn't have superheavy tanks (except for relics left over from the Legions)...
This is a major issue with the game in general and especially Marines. Scope & Scale bloat. Marines are basically portrayed engaging in every possible form of combat and battle, from guerilla warfare to attritional sieges to commando operates, shock assaults, air to air combat, space ship boarding actions, tanks battles, and artillery duels. Likewise, the game wants to portray everything from an individual grot with tiny revolver all the way up to superheavy battle tanks and titanic war machines, and in the same battle and design-space, and armies ranging from bands of demi-gods or dancing assassin troupes to tank companies and gibbering hordes of monsters, regardless of how jarring these scales are.
It's not like this is an impossible problem to solve though. 1W Marines could still manage to engage meaningfully with superheavies if we wanted to make that work. Make Superheavies bad at targeting infantry, and make sure that the tools that infantry have for fighting against superheavies are up to the task. Imagine a few Devastators squads hiding in wait, and being able to unleash enough Lascannon fire to alpha strike a Knight to death. Imagine Rhinos rushing a second Knight under cover of smoke, and Marines planting Meltabombs on it's legs, toppling it over. Imagine Assault Squads landing on a third, tearing open the cockpit with Powerfists and mulching the pilot.
The possibilities for engagement could be so much better than they are.
Heck, 1W marines still interface well with Superheavies in Apocalypse. Exactly those situations that Insectum points out can happen, and the Superheavies get to fight back too, because of unique and innovative activation mechanics, damage resolution mechanics, C2, and fog-of-war mechanics.
Of course, "unique and innovative" aren't hallmarks of 40k, really, but it's funny to see the design team at work in APOC and succeed generally.
But they weren't good mechanically in 6th, or 5th, and arguably 4th. That's the trend I'm talking about. And then if you factor in the lore to any degree at all, they were utter dog dodo. All this being said, they have added way too much too quickly to marines I think.
which troops were good in 4th, 5th and 6th? Honest question. I can not remember any specific stand out infantry troops. There were the outliers like taking a specific HQ and then being able to take Bikes as troops etc, but I am talking about regular infantry troops. Whose were good or on a complete other level from Tactical Marines?
Orks in 9th have 3 1st, 2 2nd and 2 3rd place results at competitive events so far.
5th highest overall win rate at 57.7% if you discount the 1 list ynnari and 3 list Black templars as being too small a data set they become 3rd best
So literally none within the last 30 or so tournaments, none in the entire month of October and of those finishes you mentioned, in September, only 1 list was buggies and it was actually a 4th place finish not 3rd, not your fault the website lied. And finally, from August, only the 1st list was a Buggies list, in other words, when 9th was brand new and everyone was basically using 8th rules still, and nobody had any real experience against our Supplement bonuses yet.
But they weren't good mechanically in 6th, or 5th, and arguably 4th. That's the trend I'm talking about. And then if you factor in the lore to any degree at all, they were utter dog dodo. All this being said, they have added way too much too quickly to marines I think.
which troops were good in 4th, 5th and 6th? Honest question. I can not remember any specific stand out infantry troops. There were the outliers like taking a specific HQ and then being able to take Bikes as troops etc, but I am talking about regular infantry troops. Whose were good or on a complete other level from Tactical Marines?
But they weren't good mechanically in 6th, or 5th, and arguably 4th. That's the trend I'm talking about. And then if you factor in the lore to any degree at all, they were utter dog dodo. All this being said, they have added way too much too quickly to marines I think.
which troops were good in 4th, 5th and 6th? Honest question. I can not remember any specific stand out infantry troops. There were the outliers like taking a specific HQ and then being able to take Bikes as troops etc, but I am talking about regular infantry troops. Whose were good or on a complete other level from Tactical Marines?
Windriders weren't able to take down Knights in 4th, 5th or 6th edition ....since knights didn't exist yet. Plus their gun got buffed in 7th.
No - they were legit troops in that edition. No special requirements. CAD...Take windriders and farseer - you good!
The nobz had a requirement, and you were limited to 1 unit just like with Warbikes, I could take them as troops but I had to take a specific HQ in order to do so.
So they were troops, but required a special requirement to be met.
So literally none within the last 30 or so tournaments, none in the entire month of October and of those finishes you mentioned, in September, only 1 list was buggies and it was actually a 4th place finish not 3rd, not your fault the website lied. And finally, from August, only the 1st list was a Buggies list, in other words, when 9th was brand new and everyone was basically using 8th rules still, and nobody had any real experience against our Supplement bonuses yet.
The 5th most recent tournament, the Iron Man on sept 26th was won by orks.
But what you're saying is that any evidence to suggest orks aren't in bad shape doesn't count because either 9th was too new, their PA book was too new, or wasn't in the last X days?
pothocboots wrote: SemperMortis was asking/challenging about the claim that Ork buggies are the lists winning these tournaments.
Nothing else.
This is the section he replied to me with:
Can you find me these Tournament winning lists from any of the last 30 or 40 tournaments? Pretty much since Codex SMOP V2.0 dropped those buggies have disappeared. Probably has something to do with Eradicators being able to 1 shot them for almost a 100% return on investment in 1 turn.
I took that to mean any winning list. If it's been misinterpreted then I apologise but I fail to see why it has to win a tourney this month to count either.
So literally none within the last 30 or so tournaments, none in the entire month of October and of those finishes you mentioned, in September, only 1 list was buggies and it was actually a 4th place finish not 3rd, not your fault the website lied. And finally, from August, only the 1st list was a Buggies list, in other words, when 9th was brand new and everyone was basically using 8th rules still, and nobody had any real experience against our Supplement bonuses yet.
The 5th most recent tournament, the Iron Man on sept 26th was won by orks.
But what you're saying is that any evidence to suggest orks aren't in bad shape doesn't count because either 9th was too new, their PA book was too new, or wasn't in the last X days?
You do know there are other websites that give you tournament data besides 40kstats right? like this one https://www.frontlinegaming.org/40k-itc-calendar-of-events/ which has over 40 events played so far this month. And again, I got tired of looking through all of them but I did find that 1 result where an ork actually placed well and POSSIBLY had a buggies list. But as far as the bigger events...no, no buggies. Also, the real key takeaway is that this is POST OP Space Marine release. 3 eradicators 1 shotting a buggy is not conducive to that list surviving
I never said Orkz are in a bad place. I think we are when compared to SMs but in general we are fine. Codex creep is going to probably cause issues but maybe orkz will get a good codex
I took that to mean any winning list. If it's been misinterpreted then I apologise but I fail to see why it has to win a tourney this month to count either.
Because 2 Codex have dropped which ramped up anti-vehicle firepower somewhat heavily and since SM make up at least 15-20% of the playerbase that is a big deal.
Corseth wrote: This game is best when the choices you make versus the choices your opponent makes ON THE TABLE are interesting.
This is in direct opposition to GW, since GW wants your choices you make at the cash register to be the meaningful ones. They want peoples' solution to not winning to be BUY MOAR, or maybe buy an entirely different army with an OP Codex. Enjoy your game. Having a braindead game where you cannot outplay your opponent is great for them; it means that kids can get right into the game without feeling outmatched, and it means that people have to buy whatever OP unit or army they produce to stand a chance .
Automatically Appended Next Post: And yes, technology should matter. For all their advanced technology, Necrons basic trooper is inferior to the backwards Imperium? That's bull. It didn't used to be that way, and it's marine spank that it is.
Corseth wrote: This game is best when the choices you make versus the choices your opponent makes ON THE TABLE are interesting.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And yes, technology should matter. For all their advanced technology, Necrons basic trooper is inferior to the backwards Imperium? That's bull. It didn't used to be that way, and it's marine spank that it is.
The Imperiums basic trooper is a Guardsman or women - which a Necron Warrior is superior to in terms of durability, accuracy, etc.
Remember Necron Warriors have ALways been the sci-fi equivalent to skeletons in Fantasy - they are hard to kill but limited abilities and mental comprehension. This is VERY clear in all the lore.
A Marine is a Elite superhuman warrior, totally different thing.
Corseth wrote: This game is best when the choices you make versus the choices your opponent makes ON THE TABLE are interesting.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And yes, technology should matter. For all their advanced technology, Necrons basic trooper is inferior to the backwards Imperium? That's bull. It didn't used to be that way, and it's marine spank that it is.
The Imperiums basic trooper is a Guardsman or women - which a Necron Warrior is superior to in terms of durability, accuracy, etc.
Remember Necron Warriors have ALways been the sci-fi equivalent to skeletons in Fantasy - they are hard to kill but limited abilities and mental comprehension. This is VERY clear in all the lore.
A Marine is a Elite superhuman warrior, totally different thing.
I think Mr Morden sums it up nicely. too many people use Marines as "whats typical" but they really shouldn't be, and it detracts from the faction when thats the case. the "gold standard" for comparison should indeed, be the guard.
I can understand people wanting necron warriors to be what they originally were but thats now for Inmortals. Necron Warriors have been fluff and rule degraded quite a bit in the past 20 years.
I don't blame people for assuming "Marines" as the typical, given:
1) Most of the fluff is about them 2) Most of the army rules are about them 3) Most of the Warhammer Community articles are about them 4) Most of the online debating is about them 5) Most players play some form of them or another, even as a backup army or shelf army.
If the game made it actually feel like marines were elite, rather than a polychromatic horde that you fight in half your games in a game with 17 factions, then there'd be less dissonance.
Galas wrote: I can understand people wanting necron warriors to be what they originally were but thats now for Inmortals. Necron Warriors have been fluff and rule degraded quite a bit in the past 20 years.
They were always Slow in Close combat with Very good ranged weapons and highly durable - unless you focussed fire on them or used close combat weapons that did not allow a save.
BrianDavion wrote: I think Mr Morden sums it up nicely. too many people use Marines as "whats typical" but they really shouldn't be, and it detracts from the faction when thats the case. the "gold standard" for comparison should indeed, be the guard.
Then you really need to ask GW to stop putting Marines in all the branding, stop putting them in every starter box, stop writing power-fantasy fluff that plays up how cool Marines are, stop releasing more Primaris Lieutenants than some factions have units, stop giving Marines 10+ individually supported subfaction supplements/codices, stop giving them constant rules attention, and start treating Marines like the other red-headed stepchildren (see: xenos) while they instead start to fluff up Guard the way they currently do for Marines.
Because as long as Marine players outnumber Guard players ten-to-one, they'll be 'what's typical'. Heck, they're so ubiquitous they're not even under 'Imperium' on GW's webstore anymore. It is just not possible for your faction to be anything but the baseline when they're by far the most commonly-seen faction in the game. Same as it is for Horus Heresy. Same as it ever was.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Morden wrote: The Imperiums basic trooper is a Guardsman or women - which a Necron Warrior is superior to in terms of durability, accuracy, etc.
Remember Necron Warriors have ALways been the sci-fi equivalent to skeletons in Fantasy - they are hard to kill but limited abilities and mental comprehension. This is VERY clear in all the lore.
A Marine is a Elite superhuman warrior, totally different thing.
In their big 3rd Ed launch, the only way in which a Necron Warrior was inferior to a Marine was Initiative.
From 5th up until SM2.0, Necron Warriors were still pretty comparable to Marines. Slightly worse save, slightly slower, slightly better gun.
This idea of Marines being superhuman elites that Necrons just don't compare to is a very recent change, and it does feel pretty spank-y; another entry to the list of things that used to be equals to Marines, but now aren't. Timmy's space men have to be the very bestest in the galaxy, so a roided-up primate created by cargo-culting regressives has to be, like, twice as good as an ancient Lovecraftian horror from a race that can blow up stars on a whim.
catbarf wrote: In their big 3rd Ed launch, the only way in which a Necron Warrior was inferior to a Marine was Initiative.
From 5th up until SM2.0, Necron Warriors were still pretty comparable to Marines. Slightly worse save, slightly slower, slightly better gun.
This idea of Marines being superhuman elites that Necrons just don't compare to is a very recent change, and it does feel pretty spank-y; another entry to the list of things that used to be equals to Marines, but now aren't. Timmy's space men have to be the very bestest in the galaxy, so a roided-up primate created by cargo-culting regressives has to be, like, twice as good as an ancient Lovecraftian horror from a race that can blow up stars on a whim.
They have been equal in their statline, but Necrons could be overrun rather easily after their morale was broken, while Marines kept on fighting.
It was much easier to finish off a Necron unit completely.
catbarf wrote: In their big 3rd Ed launch, the only way in which a Necron Warrior was inferior to a Marine was Initiative.
From 5th up until SM2.0, Necron Warriors were still pretty comparable to Marines. Slightly worse save, slightly slower, slightly better gun.
This idea of Marines being superhuman elites that Necrons just don't compare to is a very recent change, and it does feel pretty spank-y; another entry to the list of things that used to be equals to Marines, but now aren't. Timmy's space men have to be the very bestest in the galaxy, so a roided-up primate created by cargo-culting regressives has to be, like, twice as good as an ancient Lovecraftian horror from a race that can blow up stars on a whim.
They have been equal in their statline, but Necrons could be overrun rather easily after their morale was broken, while Marines kept on fighting.
It was much easier to finish off a Necron unit completely.
I have the 3rd ed dex in front of me - bought it and Necron army when they first came out.
Yep the IN 2 was a big thing - and you had to take them in CC as otherwise they came back and their shooting was too nasty to allow.
AGAIN - Necron Warriors are not the pinancle of Nercon tech - they are simply walking metal skeletons with limited mental capacity and ability that can come back - very similar to those in fantasy except much more durable. - they are hard to put down and hard to keep down but they are not fast, skilled and effective close combat fighters although they retain good Shooting skills with deadily guns.
Corseth wrote: This game is best when the choices you make versus the choices your opponent makes ON THE TABLE are interesting.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And yes, technology should matter. For all their advanced technology, Necrons basic trooper is inferior to the backwards Imperium? That's bull. It didn't used to be that way, and it's marine spank that it is.
The Imperiums basic trooper is a Guardsman or women - which a Necron Warrior is superior to in terms of durability, accuracy, etc.
Remember Necron Warriors have ALways been the sci-fi equivalent to skeletons in Fantasy - they are hard to kill but limited abilities and mental comprehension. This is VERY clear in all the lore.
A Marine is a Elite superhuman warrior, totally different thing.
A superhuman warrior still limited by the Imperium's backwards (alledgedly) technology.
catbarf wrote: In their big 3rd Ed launch, the only way in which a Necron Warrior was inferior to a Marine was Initiative.
From 5th up until SM2.0, Necron Warriors were still pretty comparable to Marines. Slightly worse save, slightly slower, slightly better gun.
This idea of Marines being superhuman elites that Necrons just don't compare to is a very recent change, and it does feel pretty spank-y; another entry to the list of things that used to be equals to Marines, but now aren't. Timmy's space men have to be the very bestest in the galaxy, so a roided-up primate created by cargo-culting regressives has to be, like, twice as good as an ancient Lovecraftian horror from a race that can blow up stars on a whim.
They have been equal in their statline, but Necrons could be overrun rather easily after their morale was broken, while Marines kept on fighting.
It was much easier to finish off a Necron unit completely.
I have the 3rd ed dex in front of me - bought it and Necron army when they first came out.
Yep the IN 2 was a big thing - and you had to take them in CC as otherwise they came back and their shooting was too nasty to allow.
AGAIN - Necron Warriors are not the pinancle of Nercon tech - they are simply walking metal skeletons with limited mental capacity and ability that can come back - very similar to those in fantasy except much more durable. - they are hard to put down and hard to keep down but they are not fast, skilled and effective close combat fighters although they retain good Shooting skills with deadily guns.
Necron tech is so much ahead of the Imperium that the pinnacle should unapproachable by the Imperium, and warriors easily the match for marines. That's how tech works.
Corseth wrote: This game is best when the choices you make versus the choices your opponent makes ON THE TABLE are interesting.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And yes, technology should matter. For all their advanced technology, Necrons basic trooper is inferior to the backwards Imperium? That's bull. It didn't used to be that way, and it's marine spank that it is.
The Imperiums basic trooper is a Guardsman or women - which a Necron Warrior is superior to in terms of durability, accuracy, etc.
Remember Necron Warriors have ALways been the sci-fi equivalent to skeletons in Fantasy - they are hard to kill but limited abilities and mental comprehension. This is VERY clear in all the lore.
A Marine is a Elite superhuman warrior, totally different thing.
A superhuman warrior still limited by the Imperium's backwards (alledgedly) technology.
Same as the Necron Warrior is limited by the fact that they have very limited minds and abilities - this changes as you go up the heriarchy of the Necrons - so Necron lords combine incredable technology with vast experience, skills. But again the basic warrior is strong, insanely durable but often does not even react to stimuli until commanded to do so.
Imperial Technology as I am sure you know varies between the incredably advanced and the primative.
Shall we also compare (in game terms) a base line Necron Warrior to a Kabalite or Guardian - who again I am sure you know also have highly advanced tech.
They have been equal in their statline, but Necrons could be overrun rather easily after their morale was broken, while Marines kept on fighting.
It was much easier to finish off a Necron unit completely.
Sure. But that represented an issue of speed (plus a somewhat weird issue of leadership) - not durability.
AGAIN - Necron Warriors are not the pinancle of Nercon tech - they are simply walking metal skeletons with limited mental capacity and ability that can come back - very similar to those in fantasy except much more durable. - they are hard to put down and hard to keep down but they are not fast, skilled and effective close combat fighters although they retain good Shooting skills with deadily guns.
But surely that's the whole point?
Necron Warriors are not the pinnacle of Necron tech, but they were still almost the equal of Space Marines.
Necron Warriors had two defining features - their guns (which fluctuated a bit between editions but were always at least slightly stronger than bolters), and their durability (which varied a bit but, again, was always strictly superior to that of Marines due to their ability to resurrect).
Where Necron Warriors fell behind was primarily in Leadership and speed (also access to special weapons, if you count that). Marines had better reflexes and were also much better in terms of discipline (courtesy of ATSKNF). In general, this gave Necrons the advantage in shooting, where they'd easily win battles of attrition, but gave Marines the edge in melee where Necron warriors were far more likely to run and get cut down.
However, the current situation is that Marines are instead more durable than Necron Warriors for . . . absolutely no reason.What a marvellous example of fluff-based game design.
Corseth wrote: This game is best when the choices you make versus the choices your opponent makes ON THE TABLE are interesting.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And yes, technology should matter. For all their advanced technology, Necrons basic trooper is inferior to the backwards Imperium? That's bull. It didn't used to be that way, and it's marine spank that it is.
The Imperiums basic trooper is a Guardsman or women - which a Necron Warrior is superior to in terms of durability, accuracy, etc.
Remember Necron Warriors have ALways been the sci-fi equivalent to skeletons in Fantasy - they are hard to kill but limited abilities and mental comprehension. This is VERY clear in all the lore.
A Marine is a Elite superhuman warrior, totally different thing.
A superhuman warrior still limited by the Imperium's backwards (alledgedly) technology.
Same as the Necron Warrior is limited by the fact that they have very limited minds and abilities - this changes as you go up the heriarchy of the Necrons - so Necron lords combine incredable technology with vast experience, skills. But again the basic warrior is strong, insanely durable but often does not even react to stimuli until commanded to do so.
Imperial Technology as I am sure you know varies between the incredably advanced and the primative.
Shall we also compare (in game terms) a base line Necron Warrior to a Kabalite or Guardian - who again I am sure you know also have highly advanced tech.
Those units should be far more dangerous than they are as well. The game gets a lot wrong when it comes to tech. It just doesn't get a pass because its been getting it wrong for a long time. 40K heavily implies that a revolutionary war army could take on a WWII army by shouting "Emprah!". The marine fapping is getting pretty bad.
SecondTime wrote: Necron tech is so much ahead of the Imperium that the pinnacle should unapproachable by the Imperium, and warriors easily the match for marines. That's how tech works.
We have the technology for liquid nitrogen cooled supercomputers, doesn't mean that my PC at home is anywhere near that.
We have the technology to travel into space, doesn't mean that the cooking pot I have is much more sophisticated than it was 2000 years ago.
Asymmetric warfare is a thing, too.
And lastly: The Imperium got a million Marines. This is not your standard human with a flakk west. Necron warriors are much more numerous and outclass any Guardsman with the exception of Sly Marbo
They are still durable - they come back if even if you kill them - thats the whole point - "We'll be back" was even the original rule. AS you specifically say they were more durable BUT ONLY because they would come back.
Also the entire army could fade out if you lost too much stuff - not seeing that anymore?
Necron LD was 10, they stil followed simple protocals that included basic retreat options in specific situations.
Gauss Flayers used to be awesome - auto wound /glance on 6's was devestating - I donlt have the new Codex so can't comment on their current ability.
40K heavily implies that a revolutionary war army could take on a WWII army by shouting "Emprah!"
The fact that Magic/Faith is real in that universe does make a difference especially IF God (the Emperor) does actually protect (or potentially does) and if He is on your side.
SecondTime wrote: Necron tech is so much ahead of the Imperium that the pinnacle should unapproachable by the Imperium, and warriors easily the match for marines. That's how tech works.
We have the technology for liquid nitrogen cooled supercomputers, doesn't mean that my PC at home is anywhere near that.
We have the technology to travel into space, doesn't mean that the cooking pot I have is much more sophisticated than it was 2000 years ago.
Asyemmetric warfare is a thing, too.
And lastly: The Imperium got a million Marines. This is not your standard human with a flakk west. Necron warriors are much more numerous and outclass any Guardsman with the exception of Sly Marbo
But this is a military application. Not cooking pots. That's not exactly a fair comparison.
Are marines ever shown doing asymmetrical warfare? I dunno.
Internal consistency is important for generating dramatic tension. If race A is purported to be more advanced than marines, but marines are still betterer, it just makes me root against marines. Marines become bullies, not "heroes".
Devastating is a hell of a stretch for the Gauss rule. Basically 10% of your shots will glance. If you're talking about the bigger more expensive vehicles it looks nice, but anything around 100 points it's hilariously inefficient.
SecondTime wrote: Necron tech is so much ahead of the Imperium that the pinnacle should unapproachable by the Imperium, and warriors easily the match for marines. That's how tech works.
We have the technology for liquid nitrogen cooled supercomputers, doesn't mean that my PC at home is anywhere near that.
We have the technology to travel into space, doesn't mean that the cooking pot I have is much more sophisticated than it was 2000 years ago.
Asyemmetric warfare is a thing, too.
And lastly: The Imperium got a million Marines. This is not your standard human with a flakk west. Necron warriors are much more numerous and outclass any Guardsman with the exception of Sly Marbo
But this is a military application. Not cooking pots. That's not exactly a fair comparison.
For a fair comparison - you need to compare a Necron Warrior with Imperial Guardsman or woman as has been repeatedly stated - you then compare elite Necron Units with Marines.
Devastating is a hell of a stretch for the Gauss rule. Basically 10% of your shots will glance. If you're talking about the bigger more expensive vehicles it looks nice, but anything around 100 points it's hilariously inefficient.
You mean roughly one in 6 shots will glance right?
I remember playing with and against them - a unit of 10-20 shooting at a Land Raider was either hugely satisfying or horrifying.
SecondTime wrote: Necron tech is so much ahead of the Imperium that the pinnacle should unapproachable by the Imperium, and warriors easily the match for marines. That's how tech works.
We have the technology for liquid nitrogen cooled supercomputers, doesn't mean that my PC at home is anywhere near that.
We have the technology to travel into space, doesn't mean that the cooking pot I have is much more sophisticated than it was 2000 years ago.
Asyemmetric warfare is a thing, too.
And lastly: The Imperium got a million Marines. This is not your standard human with a flakk west. Necron warriors are much more numerous and outclass any Guardsman with the exception of Sly Marbo
But this is a military application. Not cooking pots. That's not exactly a fair comparison.
For a fair comparison - you need to compare a Necron Warrior with Imperial Guardsman or woman as has been repeatedly stated - you then compare elite Necron Units with Marines.
Common WWII soldiers had better tech than revolutionary war elites. And would massacre them. Common/elite doesn't matter with technology gulfs. 40K talks about technology, but doesn't really apply such a concept.
Mr Morden wrote: They are still durable - they come back if even if you kill them - thats the whole point
Except that they're now nowhere near as durable as Marines - which is the whole point.
Coming back on a 5+ *if* the unit is even still alive, makes them far less durable than Marines with 2 wounds apiece.
Thats what it was orginally - you came back only if other Necrons were about or Res Orbs.
Plus now you don;t fade out when you loose too many units.
I personally feel that 2W works for Marines - and yes I am a Marine player (and most other factions, and get acused of Hating Marines by great minds like Breton) but for me it fits narrratively as long as pts are right.
Again compare Necron Warriors with Guard - Necron Elites with Marines.
Mr Morden wrote: They are still durable - they come back if even if you kill them - thats the whole point
Except that they're now nowhere near as durable as Marines - which is the whole point.
Coming back on a 5+ *if* the unit is even still alive, makes them far less durable than Marines with 2 wounds apiece.
Thats what it was orginally - you came back only if other Necrons were about or Res Orbs.
Plus now you don;t fade out when you loose too many units.
I personally feel that 2W works for Marines - and yes I am a Marine player (and most other factions, and get acused of Hating Marines by great minds like Breton) but for me it fits narrratively as long as pts are right.
Again compare Necron Warriors with Guard - Necron Elites with Marines.
Why? Those are arbitrary labels. Necron warriors are conceptually nothing like guardsmen.
Mr Morden wrote: They are still durable - they come back if even if you kill them - thats the whole point
Except that they're now nowhere near as durable as Marines - which is the whole point.
Coming back on a 5+ *if* the unit is even still alive, makes them far less durable than Marines with 2 wounds apiece.
More specifically, 13 pts for a warrior v 18 pts for a tac just seems like pure unadulterated marine fapping.
AGAIN points need to be right - are they - not sure but as not been able to game for six months I don't know,
Why? Those are arbitrary labels. Necron warriors are conceptually nothing like guardsmen.
OH FFS - because someone was going on about them being baseline units - and Gaurdsmen (and PDF) are the Imperial base line.
We can compare what we like - should we be comparing Warlord Titan to Necron Warriors and complaining that a Necron Warrior is not as good??? no because that would be fething stupid
No we are looking at comparing the standard basic infantry of each faction - which is Guardsmen vs Necron Warriors.
"No we are looking at comparing the standard basic infantry of each faction - which is Guardsmen vs Necron Warriors."
I'm not looking at that. They are conceptually nothing like each other. Their arbitrary army role is not the issue. Basically, GW is saying there is no technological difference between Imperium and Eldar/Necrons, despite all descriptions to the contrary.
SecondTime wrote: "No we are looking at comparing the standard basic infantry of each faction - which is Guardsmen vs Necron Warriors."
I'm not looking at that. They are conceptually nothing like each other. Basically, GW is saying there is no technological difference between Imperium and Eldar/Necrons, despite all descriptions to the contrary.
SecondTime wrote: "No we are looking at comparing the standard basic infantry of each faction - which is Guardsmen vs Necron Warriors."
I'm not looking at that. They are conceptually nothing like each other. Basically, GW is saying there is no technological difference between Imperium and Eldar/Necrons, despite all descriptions to the contrary.
Mr Morden wrote: They are still durable - they come back if even if you kill them - thats the whole point
Except that they're now nowhere near as durable as Marines - which is the whole point.
Coming back on a 5+ *if* the unit is even still alive, makes them far less durable than Marines with 2 wounds apiece.
Thats what it was orginally - you came back only if other Necrons were about or Res Orbs.
Plus now you don;t fade out when you loose too many units.
I personally feel that 2W works for Marines - and yes I am a Marine player (and most other factions, and get acused of Hating Marines by great minds like Breton) but for me it fits narrratively as long as pts are right.
Again compare Necron Warriors with Guard - Necron Elites with Marines.
Why? Those are arbitrary labels. Necron warriors are conceptually nothing like guardsmen.
Please stop using the term "marine fapping", it devalues literally any argument you could make.
You also seem to have an issue with appropriate tech levels being demonstrated, so lets have crons come and just annihilate terra with a single shot from one of their larger interplanetary weapons as it's in the fluff they can do that. Orks build battle stations out of moons that whole fleets struggle to stop, why bother landing the boyz?
Unless you strip out some of the more extreme fluff and weapons there's little point playing the game, just pretend you called exterminatus on the planet and have done.
Why? It's appropriate in the context of GW's current philosophy.
"Unless you strip out some of the more extreme fluff and weapons there's little point playing the game, just pretend you called exterminatus on the planet and have done."
Yeah, I guess that's my issue. They need to do a better job of justifying these battles and framing the scope of conflicts.
SecondTime wrote: Why? It's appropriate in the context of GW's current philosophy.
Because it makes your posts read as a petty immature meme rather than having any intellectual basis.
Well, I AM trying to communicate disdain for GW's current direction on marines. It's all a matter of taste anyway; I'm objecting to representations that GW make and then how it translates.
I played a game on Saturday with my Blood Angels vs his custom Necron dynasty. I used eradicators, bladeguard vets, veteran intercessors, outriders, and an atv among other primaris. I struggled to wound his Immortals and only killed 2 of his skorpek destroyers with my eradicators before the remaining one wiped the squad. I was tabled by turn 4. I insisted that because I had eradicators that he couldn't win and offered him the option to concede. Somehow with all my extra wounds and eradicator usage I failed to kill a single unit before I was overrun. This is just a single game and I rolled poorly but I get the feeling that future games will be similar as far as capability. I am not concerned about marines vs necrons power level.
SecondTime wrote: Why? It's appropriate in the context of GW's current philosophy.
Because it makes your posts read as a petty immature meme rather than having any intellectual basis.
Well, I AM trying to communicate disdain for GW's current direction on marines. It's all a matter of taste anyway; I'm objecting to representations that GW make and then how it translates.
Much better
To engage with the topic though, I'm not 100% sure they actually have a direction any more, I think they're rushing out what they have and seeing what the market can handle. To be an optimist I hope they're getting all the marine love out the way then reinforcing the other factions for a few years now they've pocketed the cash.
Brotherjanus wrote: I played a game on Saturday with my Blood Angels vs his custom Necron dynasty. I used eradicators, bladeguard vets, veteran intercessors, outriders, and an atv among other primaris. I struggled to wound his Immortals and only killed 2 of his skorpek destroyers with my eradicators before the remaining one wiped the squad. I was tabled by turn 4. I insisted that because I had eradicators that he couldn't win and offered him the option to concede. Somehow with all my extra wounds and eradicator usage I failed to kill a single unit before I was overrun. This is just a single game and I rolled poorly but I get the feeling that future games will be similar as far as capability. I am not concerned about marines vs necrons power level.
This doesn't jive with the batreps I've been watching.
SecondTime wrote: Why? It's appropriate in the context of GW's current philosophy.
Because it makes your posts read as a petty immature meme rather than having any intellectual basis.
Well, I AM trying to communicate disdain for GW's current direction on marines. It's all a matter of taste anyway; I'm objecting to representations that GW make and then how it translates.
Much better
To engage with the topic though, I'm not 100% sure they actually have a direction any more, I think they're rushing out what they have and seeing what the market can handle. To be an optimist I hope they're getting all the marine love out the way then reinforcing the other factions for a few years now they've pocketed the cash.
Some factions have been waiting for a decade or more for such reinforcements. Hence, my original use of terminology.
Brotherjanus wrote: I played a game on Saturday with my Blood Angels vs his custom Necron dynasty. I used eradicators, bladeguard vets, veteran intercessors, outriders, and an atv among other primaris. I struggled to wound his Immortals and only killed 2 of his skorpek destroyers with my eradicators before the remaining one wiped the squad. I was tabled by turn 4. I insisted that because I had eradicators that he couldn't win and offered him the option to concede. Somehow with all my extra wounds and eradicator usage I failed to kill a single unit before I was overrun. This is just a single game and I rolled poorly but I get the feeling that future games will be similar as far as capability. I am not concerned about marines vs necrons power level.
This doesn't jive with the batreps I've been watching.
SecondTime wrote: Why? It's appropriate in the context of GW's current philosophy.
Because it makes your posts read as a petty immature meme rather than having any intellectual basis.
Well, I AM trying to communicate disdain for GW's current direction on marines. It's all a matter of taste anyway; I'm objecting to representations that GW make and then how it translates.
Much better
To engage with the topic though, I'm not 100% sure they actually have a direction any more, I think they're rushing out what they have and seeing what the market can handle. To be an optimist I hope they're getting all the marine love out the way then reinforcing the other factions for a few years now they've pocketed the cash.
Some factions have been waiting for a decade or more for such reinforcements. Hence, my original use of terminology.
No faction has gone a decade with nothing now, maybe not as much support as they need, but they need to up this from token gestures to a wider release. Who knows, 2021 might be the year, they've already shown willingness to branch out and make brand new ranges and refresh ancient kits recently.
I'm not optimistic, and I think 9th is interesting, but I don't want to use the marine codex, nor play against it. GW just can't help themselves with marines. A relatively recent phenomenon, but boy are they making up for lost time. Every complaint Xeno players have had in the past about marines are coming true now.
Thats what it was orginally - you came back only if other Necrons were about or Res Orbs.
Sure. But whilst not whoelly reliable, that durability was still an objective improvement over that of Marines (which had the same toughness, wounds and save). Even after Necrons got knocked back to a 4+ save, RPs still gave them a clear edge in the durability department.
Now, though, Marines are just outright better. Because that extra wound is vastly better than what RPs achieve for Necrons.
So we have a race whose whole shtick is durability, but still being outdone in durability by Marines. Again, what fantastic representation of the fluff and definitely not just massive Marine bias.
Mr Morden wrote: Again compare Necron Warriors with Guard - Necron Elites with Marines.
Why? Why are only Marines allowed to have elite infantry as their baseline, while other, previously elite factions have to all now suck even in their defining attributes just so that Marines get to feel extra, super special.
But it seems I'm never going to be able to convince you that maybe Marines shouldn't automatically be the best at everything, so I'll let this be my final argument.
SecondTime wrote: "So we have a race whose whole shtick is durability"
They should have more going for them than this, because of their technology. That's my point.
Just to clarify, I didn't mean to say that Necrons should be good at durability and nothing else.
The thing is, a lot of races supposedly have advanced technology. So at the very least, I wouldn't expect Necrons to automatically be the best in that area (not necessarily compared with Marines but more with the equally-ancient Eldar races).
However, durability seems like the one thing they really should excel at over all other races.
SecondTime wrote: "So we have a race whose whole shtick is durability"
They should have more going for them than this, because of their technology. That's my point.
Just to clarify, I didn't mean to say that Necrons should be good at durability and nothing else.
The thing is, a lot of races supposedly have advanced technology. So at the very least, I wouldn't expect Necrons to automatically be the best in that area (not necessarily compared with Marines but more with the equally-ancient Eldar races).
However, durability seems like the one thing they really should excel at over all other races.
Also, nice to see you back, Martel.
It seems to me that Eldar and Necrons should have bigger edges there than currently represented. The 7th ed Wraithknight was very good conceptually for example, they just massively miscosted it. D weapons were a great sci-fi weapon, but GW struggles to cost basic weapons, much less something like a D weapon.
Thats what it was orginally - you came back only if other Necrons were about or Res Orbs.
Sure. But whilst not whoelly reliable, that durability was still an objective improvement over that of Marines (which had the same toughness, wounds and save). Even after Necrons got knocked back to a 4+ save, RPs still gave them a clear edge in the durability department.
Now, though, Marines are just outright better. Because that extra wound is vastly better than what RPs achieve for Necrons.
So we have a race whose whole shtick is durability, but still being outdone in durability by Marines. Again, what fantastic representation of the fluff and definitely not just massive Marine bias.
Mr Morden wrote: Again compare Necron Warriors with Guard - Necron Elites with Marines.
Why? Why are only Marines allowed to have elite infantry as their baseline, while other, previously elite factions have to all now suck even in their defining attributes just so that Marines get to feel extra, super special.
But it seems I'm never going to be able to convince you that maybe Marines shouldn't automatically be the best at everything, so I'll let this be my final argument.
Morden really isn't someone who believes that and they're really not. They're not the most elite troops in the game - custodes and grey knights cover that with cron immortals giving them a good run for their money.
The problem is what you define as an elite faction - eldar of all flavours are/were an elite faction but not because of their stat lines, they had all the rules and weapons going for them along with speed.
Tau always straddled the elite line depending on if they were suit heavy or not, they've got issues as a faction generally atm and the pricing isn't quite right on suits.
Chaos marines have always had this weird should they/shouldn't they because they come with daemons or mortals normally giving the army this weird could be elites but maybe isn't thing.
The only ones to have had a codex for 9th beyond marines is Necrons and the immortals do imo give marine troops more than a run for their money. Warriors have had their fluff changed to be brainless silver tide, their current stats cover that well.
" Warriors have had their fluff changed to be brainless silver tide"
That doesn't preclude their chassis being technologically superior to marines. But this means fewer models, I know. But it feeds into the conception that everyone else is an NPC for marines to punch out.
I don't think their stats should be tied to this arbitrary role if Necrons are truly that much more advanced than the Imperium. But again, fewer models.
I think immortals are far too weak compared to marines atm.
I was under the impression that this thread was arguing that the extra wound on regular marines meant that marines in general became op. I disagree with that but what is this Necron argument? Is it that Necrons should be op because of their technology instead of marines? Are people saying that Necrons should have Custodes stat lines? I don't understand the goal.
Brotherjanus wrote: I was under the impression that this thread was arguing that the extra wound on regular marines meant that marines in general became op. I disagree with that but what is this Necron argument? Is it that Necrons should be op because of their technology instead of marines? Are people saying that Necrons should have Custodes stat lines? I don't understand the goal.
I don't know specifically. The discussion started with extra wound for marines, but then Necrons were brought into as an analogous unit that marines have completely eclipsed. (Especially if you compare the costs) The technological gap makes such an eclipse completely inappropriate in my personal view. It's an extra point that I think Necron units are far too weak on a model by model basis given their stated origin and background. Remember that a unit being OP is completely dependent upon its cost relative to its capabilities. Very weak units miscosted in the past have been just as problematic as very powerful units miscosted in the past.
Since people are using the term "elite" interchangeably with "power on a model by model basis", I suppose I'm saying it would make more sense for Necrons to be more elite than marines. Even the warriors. But then that wrecks the narrative of the outnumbered marines, right? They don't want the visual of multiple marines struggling to defeat a single Necron, even though this makes more sense given the representations. But simultaneously, its okay for multiple necrons to struggle to defeat a single marine according to GW. Because marines are Mary Sues now, I guess.
Mr Morden wrote: They are still durable - they come back if even if you kill them - thats the whole point
Except that they're now nowhere near as durable as Marines - which is the whole point.
Coming back on a 5+ *if* the unit is even still alive, makes them far less durable than Marines with 2 wounds apiece.
Thats what it was orginally - you came back only if other Necrons were about or Res Orbs.
Plus now you don;t fade out when you loose too many units.
To be fair, the Warriors had a 3+ save back then and while they had to be nearby other Necrons for WBB to work, it didn't have to be the same unit, if you had two units of Warriors next to each other and wiped one, they'd still all get to roll for WBB, while a Marine was W1 with no Bolter Discipline, no Shock Asssault, no Chapter Tactics (at least not in the way they are now as direct power-enhancing freebies as opposed to availability of upgrade purchases), no Combat Doctrines, no Combat Squads, no reroll Aura's, etc.
Fade-out was a thing sure, but I don't think I personally ever forced a Necron Army to Phase Out (at least before 5E, but then Necrons were using a 3E book that was almost a decade old by the time it got replaced).
I think GW has always had trouble turning the lore into gameplay. With that aside, I think every army should be brought up to the level marines are instead of bringing marines down. If the armies on the table "feel" like they should as described in the lore then I think that is where it should be. Right now marines are closer to that feel. I want to be menaced by Necrons when I play against them and the last game I played did that. I want to feel overwhelmed when I go against Tyranids or Orks or even Imperial Guard. This sort of thing is difficult to translate but I think my opinion is more inline with the designer's. I like that they have started to make 2 sets of rules, one for matched and another for narrative/casual. The hard part is keeping it fair for matched play.
Elaborate. Necron rules seem very weak compared to marines, and the batreps I've watched don't do much to dispel it. No armies seem to have anything close to enough offense to deal with marine killy units AND their troops now. For the rules they get, marines seem way too cheap even after 9th ed point hikes.
Brotherjanus wrote: I was under the impression that this thread was arguing that the extra wound on regular marines meant that marines in general became op. I disagree with that but what is this Necron argument? Is it that Necrons should be op because of their technology instead of marines? Are people saying that Necrons should have Custodes stat lines? I don't understand the goal.
I don't know specifically. The discussion started with extra wound for marines, but then Necrons were brought into as an analogous unit that marines have completely eclipsed. (Especially if you compare the costs) The technological gap makes such an eclipse completely inappropriate in my personal view. It's an extra point that I think Necron units are far too weak on a model by model basis given their stated origin and background. Remember that a unit being OP is completely dependent upon its cost relative to its capabilities. Very weak units miscosted in the past have been just as problematic as very powerful units miscosted in the past.
Since people are using the term "elite" interchangeably with "power on a model by model basis", I suppose I'm saying it would make more sense for Necrons to be more elite than marines. Even the warriors. But then that wrecks the narrative of the outnumbered marines, right? They don't want the visual of multiple marines struggling to defeat a single Necron, even though this makes more sense given the representations. But simultaneously, its okay for multiple necrons to struggle to defeat a single marine according to GW. Because marines are Mary Sues now, I guess.
I think the problem is assuming that superior technology = superior troops. Just because Necrons have better technology doesn't mean that they would use it to create better troops, they may consider large numbers of slightly inferior troops a better option than smaller numbers of superior troops. It's a war, not a technological showcase. It's entirely possible that Necrons favor numerical superiority in troops over raw power, and thus create large numbers of such troops instead of investing resources into stronger, but less numerical, troops. They have the technology, but find it better to use it in a different way than you would.
For a representation of their superior technology, just compare vehicles. The majority of marine vehicles are T7 or T8 with a 3+ save, with a few packing a 5++, and a few rare examples a 4++. Necrons, on the other hand, have multiple vehicles with Quantum Shielding, which provides both a 5++ and causes all weapons to wound on a natural 4+ regardless of strength. So a S16 AP-5 volcano cannon is wounding a T6 Necron vehicle on 4s instead of 2s, with that vehicle still saving on 5s. Point that same gun at a T8 2+ Land Raider though.....
I can't speak to the batreps you have seen but I play the crusade missions and use lots of los blocking terrain. The best I can do is say what I faced and why it did well. My opponent used 3 squads of Immortals as his only troop units, an overlord, the new scorp lord, the new scorp unit, praetorian guard (the axe and shield guys), and the single model unit that can't be shot with overwatch from the new set. Everything was at least toughness 5 so my regular shooting needed 5's to wound. In melee it was a bit better needing 4's to wound since I was Blood Angels but he was able to get the charge on me in several places as I went first and made moves to score objectives. His Dynasty ability lowered my toughness by 1 so he was able to wound me easily. It could have gone the other way for me if my rolling had been average instead of below. I think in a vacuum the rules seem weak but in practice with scenario choices and dice it's closer than it appears.
Correct me if fluff changed or got specified, but aren't Warriors basically Necron citizens which number into the billions?
So their technology turned a frail, short lived meatbag into one of the toughest, "mass produced" chassis known to the galaxy.
The Imperium can do it too, but on a much smaller scale. In the fluff, every Marine is a hero and a vital asset for the Imperium, revered by those who seen them and only whispered as a myth by others. While Warriors - with a similar statline - are a throw away unit, nothing compared to the actual Necron soldiers.
SecondTime wrote: Elaborate. Necron rules seem very weak compared to marines, and the batreps I've watched don't do much to dispel it. No armies seem to have anything close to enough offense to deal with marine killy units AND their troops now. For the rules they get, marines seem way too cheap even after 9th ed point hikes.
Spin it round, why do you think marines are so much more powerful than necrons, with empirical evidence if not a detailed opinion.
For necrons it seems to be the custom dynasties doing a lot of the lifting with hard to target/kill obsec units everywhere backed up by deadly melee and close range shooting if people try to engage and clear them.
SecondTime wrote: Elaborate. Necron rules seem very weak compared to marines, and the batreps I've watched don't do much to dispel it. No armies seem to have anything close to enough offense to deal with marine killy units AND their troops now. For the rules they get, marines seem way too cheap even after 9th ed point hikes.
Spin it round, why do you think marines are so much more powerful than necrons, with empirical evidence if not a detailed opinion.
For necrons it seems to be the custom dynasties doing a lot of the lifting with hard to target/kill obsec units everywhere backed up by deadly melee and close range shooting if people try to engage and clear them.
Two wound troops for starters. Way more rerolls. More mobility. More CC power. Marines can push almost anything off an objective and then keep it. And they are cheap enough to have lots of bodies on the board. No one has the firepower to engage all the T4 3+ wounds marines put on the table now.
I mean, masks required etc.
people that petty minded should just not play this game.
