This thread is basically a response to comments in the Simple Balance for Codex: Eldar.

In that thread, various recommendations were made for nerfs/points adjustments. I would like to enumerate what I think are basically fair nerfs for Codex: Space Marines.

1. A full battle company should only confer free rhinos.

2. Command squads should not be able to purchase a dedicated transport if they elect to travel on bikes.

3. Scout bikes should cost 21 ppm.

4. Space Marine bikers should cost 24 ppm.

5. The librarians should not be able to not use powers which reroll saves or cause teleportation.

6. Devastator Centurions should cost 70 ppm.

7. Grav-guns should be rapidfire weapons with 24 inch range.

8. Grav cannons should be renamed "Heavy Grav Guns," and they should be 36" range, heavy 3. In compensation for this, a heavy grav gun only costs 20 ppm. A grav amp may be taken for an additional 10 ppm.

9. Drop pods should cost 45 ppm.

10. Storm shields should cost 15 ppm as an upgrade.

11: A buff, not a nerf, but one that's sorely needed: Flakk missiles should cost 5 ppm as an upgrade to missile launchers, not 10 ppm.

12. Sternguard veterans shall cost 24 ppm.

13. Assault centurions shall cost 70 ppm.

14. Honor guard shall cost 27 ppm.

15. Terminators go back to costing 40 ppm.

16. Shield eternal costs 60 ppm.

Boom. Codex fixed.

I say leave the razorbacks off the free list entirely, and make it "5 models for a Rhino, 10 for a drop pod." Then Make inertial guidance only reduce scatter if the pod would hit terrain (something a guidance system would actually account for) and I'd say most of the stuff is fine. Oh, and give Templars a Detachment, because it's dumb that they don't have one.

 Swampmist wrote:
I say leave the razorbacks off the free list entirely, and make it "5 models for a Rhino, 10 for a drop pod." Then Make inertial guidance only reduce scatter if the pod would hit terrain (something a guidance system would actually account for) and I'd say most of the stuff is fine. Oh, and give Templars a Detachment, because it's dumb that they don't have one.

It's a points equivalence thing. According to the codex, rhino = drop pod. Razorback is somewhat worse than 2 rhinos.

To justify your "nerf," you'd have to make drop pods cost more.

Don't agree with some of this. A drop pod that lands on impassible terrain should be considered a loss, for instance.
No free Razorbacks. To easy to spam. No free pods either. Only rhinos and only with 10 man units.
Grav gun should be 5 points more
26 ppm on the bikes.
Centurions should still be t4 but with a 6+ invul

Simply because you think your answers are the best does not mean "boom codex fixed"
You hardly nerfed it at all.

Also drop pods 10 points more

Don't agree with some of this. A drop pod that lands on impassible terrain should be considered a loss, for instance.
No free Razorbacks. To easy to spam. No free pods either. Only rhinos and only with 10 man units.
Grav gun should be 5 points more
26 ppm on the bikes.
Centurions should still be t4 but with a 6+ invul

Simply because you think your answers are the best does not mean "boom codex fixed"
You hardly nerfed it at all.

Also drop pods 10 points more

1. If 10 man squads were a requirement for razorbacks, the minimum investment to spam those razorbacks would be the ten 10 man squads in the battle company (with just bolters; no upgrades) (1400 points), the captain (90 points) with no upgrades and a chaplain with no upgrades (90 points)...and let's say 3 units of scouts (165 points). 1400 + 90 = 1490. 1490 + 90 = 1580. 1580 + 165 = 1745. 1745 points of completely bare bone squads for 10 razorbacks.

You couldn't even add lascannons to the devastator squads in an 1850 game.

I think that this is entirely fair, of course, and it would prevent razorback spam.

2. My thinking on the bikes is the same as the eldar jetbikes. For eldar jetbikes, I just added 10 to the points value of of dire avengers (with the additional 10% increase to the dire avenger's cost, of course). For scout and space marine bikes, I just added 10 points to the value of scouts and tactical marines. Do you think bikes are worth more than that as an upgrade?

3. If grav guns are rapidfire weapons, 15 points would make them exactly points equal to plasma guns. I think that's basically fair. The lowering of their RoF, combined with their situational nature, would make them roughly equivalent in terms of utility to plasma guns.

4. What's the reasoning behind the centurion thing?

5. I agree about increasing points costs for the drop pods.

Traditio wrote:

 Swampmist wrote:
I say leave the razorbacks off the free list entirely, and make it "5 models for a Rhino, 10 for a drop pod." Then Make inertial guidance only reduce scatter if the pod would hit terrain (something a guidance system would actually account for) and I'd say most of the stuff is fine. Oh, and give Templars a Detachment, because it's dumb that they don't have one.

It's a points equivalence thing. According to the codex, rhino = drop pod. Razorback is somewhat worse than 2 rhinos.

To justify your "nerf," you'd have to make drop pods cost more.

I realize the points cost argument, but the simple fact is that a Drop Pod is very much more useful than a Rhino for it's cost. Also, letting only 10-man squads take a transport with only 6 Carrying Capacity feels unintuitive, to say the least. and, honestly, I don't think Drop Pods would be terrible at 45-50 points, simply by virtue of how good thay make the marine alpha strike and how much they invalidate Assault Marines and terminators in their role as "behind-enemy-lines" specialists.

Edit: Pain, would you mind explaining your changes? Because personally, they seem INCREDIBLY harsh, and I'd like to hear your reasoning. Traditio's too, I suppose, but his are pretty much in-line with what I think is op in the codex, though hearing his reasons would probably still

Traditio wrote:
1. ... A full 10 man squad is needed to field a free razorback....

9. The "Intertial Guidance System" for the drop pod should be rewritten to say "keep rerolling the scatter dice until you legally can land and deploy."

10. The shield eternal should be 90 ppm.

I have issue with these three points.

That part of Point (1) makes no sense to me because A Razorback has a Transport Capacity of 6. So what that is essentially saying to me is "Have a free transport/support vehicle that the squad can't utilise properly".

Point (9) completely disallows for Deep Strike Mishaps and also guarantees the Drop Pod will arrive on the turn it passes its Reserve Roll (or 1st Turn)., which is not right at all.

Point (10) is just a wild over-pricing of the item. Think about it: If it costs 90 points, then you could either get a baseline Captain (or a Baseline Librarian with ML2), or you could give an eligible model a Shield Eternal for the same amount of points, which is stupid. A Storm Shield that confers Adamantium Will and Eternal Warrior is not worth anywhere near 90 points.

Traditio wrote:
Boom. Codex fixed.

Not arguing that the codex needs fixing, but these changes definitely have not fixed the codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, what are your reasons for these changes?

 IllumiNini wrote:

Traditio wrote:
1. ... A full 10 man squad is needed to field a free razorback....

9. The "Intertial Guidance System" for the drop pod should be rewritten to say "keep rerolling the scatter dice until you legally can land and deploy."

10. The shield eternal should be 90 ppm.

I have issue with these three points.

That part of Point (1) makes no sense to me because A Razorback has a Transport Capacity of 6. So what that is essentially saying to me is "Have a free transport/support vehicle that the squad can't utilise properly".

Point (9) completely disallows for Deep Strike Mishaps and also guarantees the Drop Pod will arrive on the turn it passes its Reserve Roll (or 1st Turn)., which is not right at all.

Point (10) is just a wild over-pricing of the item. Think about it: If it costs 90 points, then you could either get a baseline Captain (or a Baseline Librarian with ML2), or you could give an eligible model a Shield Eternal for the same amount of points, which is stupid. A Storm Shield that confers Adamantium Will and Eternal Warrior is not worth anywhere near 90 points.

Traditio wrote:
Boom. Codex fixed.

Not arguing that the codex needs fixing, but these changes definitely have not fixed the codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, what are your reasons for these changes?

I would say the Shield, along with every Storm shield, SHOULD be more expensive, if only because 3++ saves being that ubiquitous and cheap can very quickly become abusive. That, and Smashfether exists, and this WOULD be a way to nerf him without nerfing the individual Chapters, which does not seem to be the point of this update.

IllumiNini wrote: have issue with these three points.

That part of Point (1) makes no sense to me because A Razorback has a Transport Capacity of 6. So what that is essentially saying to me is "Have a free transport/support vehicle that the squad can't utilise properly".

1. Ruleswise, it's a points consideration. Razorbacks are 55 ppm. Given the choice between getting a free 35 ppm model and a free 55 ppm, of course you're going to go for the 55 ppm model if it's free.

2. Fluffwise? It's not completely unreasonable. In a traditional space marines tactical squad, you have 10 men. That includes a sergeant, a heavy weapons guy and a special weapons guy. Combat squad. Put the special weapons guy in the razorback. Heavy weapons squad hangs back and provides cover fire.

Point (9) completely disallows for Deep Strike Mishaps and also guarantees the Drop Pod will arrive on the turn it passes its Reserve Roll (or 1st Turn)., which is not right at all.

That did not occur to me. I'll edit the OP.

Point (10) is just a wild over-pricing of the item. Think about it: If it costs 90 points, then you could either get a baseline Captain (or a Baseline Librarian with ML2), or you could give an eligible model a Shield Eternal for the same amount of points, which is stupid. A Storm Shield that confers Adamantium Will and Eternal Warrior is not worth anywhere near 90 points.

It's to kill smashfether.

 Swampmist wrote:

Traditio wrote:

 Swampmist wrote:
I say leave the razorbacks off the free list entirely, and make it "5 models for a Rhino, 10 for a drop pod." Then Make inertial guidance only reduce scatter if the pod would hit terrain (something a guidance system would actually account for) and I'd say most of the stuff is fine. Oh, and give Templars a Detachment, because it's dumb that they don't have one.

It's a points equivalence thing. According to the codex, rhino = drop pod. Razorback is somewhat worse than 2 rhinos.

To justify your "nerf," you'd have to make drop pods cost more.

I realize the points cost argument, but the simple fact is that a Drop Pod is very much more useful than a Rhino for it's cost. Also, letting only 10-man squads take a transport with only 6 Carrying Capacity feels unintuitive, to say the least. and, honestly, I don't think Drop Pods would be terrible at 45-50 points, simply by virtue of how good thay make the marine alpha strike and how much they invalidate Assault Marines and terminators in their role as "behind-enemy-lines" specialists.

Edit: Pain, would you mind explaining your changes? Because personally, they seem INCREDIBLY harsh, and I'd like to hear your reasoning. Traditio's too, I suppose, but his are pretty much in-line with what I think is op in the codex, though hearing his reasons would probably still

Ok so my reasoning on the centurion thing is actually survivability. T5 is great and all but ap2 as we now is abundant and by lowering a toughness but adding an invul I feel they still justify same points cost while increasing survivability. If you don't like the lowering of toughness then keep it but increase them 5 ppm for the invul.
The drop pod is incredibly under costed. I do not feel 10 points is much to ask for it. It would still be incredibly spammed.
Disregard my biker increase, 24 ppm is fine.
I will say that 10 man squads should be what needs a razorback if it is to be free. Combat squad if you wanna make marines fit. Spamming Razorbacks is something that def needs to be looked at

Get rid of Skyhammer.

Get rid of Gladius.

Get rid of Librarian Conclave.

Make it so invisibility can't target models with more than one wound or vehicles of any kind.

No ICs from codex A can join units from codex B.

Ban Angels of Death outright.

Units from codex A can't ride in transports from codex B.

Eliminate shield eternal and gorgon's chain.

All this coupled with fixes for Eldar and Tau, of course.

I am part of the camp that thinks the shield is fine at 50 points, but I would not be adverse to a points increase. But let's be honest: 90 points is a ridiculous price.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Swampmist wrote:

Traditio wrote:

 Swampmist wrote:
I say leave the razorbacks off the free list entirely, and make it "5 models for a Rhino, 10 for a drop pod." Then Make inertial guidance only reduce scatter if the pod would hit terrain (something a guidance system would actually account for) and I'd say most of the stuff is fine. Oh, and give Templars a Detachment, because it's dumb that they don't have one.

It's a points equivalence thing. According to the codex, rhino = drop pod. Razorback is somewhat worse than 2 rhinos.

To justify your "nerf," you'd have to make drop pods cost more.

I realize the points cost argument, but the simple fact is that a Drop Pod is very much more useful than a Rhino for it's cost. Also, letting only 10-man squads take a transport with only 6 Carrying Capacity feels unintuitive, to say the least. and, honestly, I don't think Drop Pods would be terrible at 45-50 points, simply by virtue of how good thay make the marine alpha strike and how much they invalidate Assault Marines and terminators in their role as "behind-enemy-lines" specialists.

Edit: Pain, would you mind explaining your changes? Because personally, they seem INCREDIBLY harsh, and I'd like to hear your reasoning. Traditio's too, I suppose, but his are pretty much in-line with what I think is op in the codex, though hearing his reasons would probably still

Ok so my reasoning on the centurion thing is actually survivability. T5 is great and all but ap2 as we now is abundant and by lowering a toughness but adding an invul I feel they still justify same points cost while increasing survivability. If you don't like the lowering of toughness then keep it but increase them 5 ppm for the invul.
The drop pod is incredibly under costed. I do not feel 10 points is much to ask for it. It would still be incredibly spammed.
Disregard my biker increase, 24 ppm is fine.
I will say that 10 man squads should be what needs a razorback if it is to be free. Combat squad if you wanna make marines fit. Spamming Razorbacks is something that def needs to be looked at

Ah, ok, yeah the bike thing was one of the big ones I understand. Personally, I think 5 ppm but giving them an invuln would work, though I think leaving them T5 but making them 1W with the 6++ (with the current cost) might work better, would have to test it to find out for sure.

 IllumiNini wrote:
I am part of the camp that thinks the shield is fine at 50 points, but I would not be adverse to a points increase. But let's be honest: 90 points is a ridiculous price.

What you're paying for is eternal warrior. The named characters in the codex who have eternal warrior pay a premium for it. Big Papa Smurf costs 275 points. Captain Lysander costs 230 points.

By the time you finish tacking on all of those upgrades to Smashfether, how much is it worth to you for him not to get one-shotted?

Probably more than 50 points.

Traditio wrote:

IllumiNini wrote: have issue with these three points.

That part of Point (1) makes no sense to me because A Razorback has a Transport Capacity of 6. So what that is essentially saying to me is "Have a free transport/support vehicle that the squad can't utilise properly".

1. Ruleswise, it's a points consideration. Razorbacks are 55 ppm. Given the choice between getting a free 35 ppm model and a free 55 ppm, of course you're going to go for the 55 ppm model if it's free.

2. Fluffwise? It's not completely unreasonable. In a traditional space marines tactical squad, you have 10 men. That includes a sergeant, a heavy weapons guy and a special weapons guy. Combat squad. Put the special weapons guy in the razorback. Heavy weapons squad hangs back and provides cover fire.

But it can't just be a points consideration. Yes, points have to come into it, but I don't think it's every that simple.

And yes: fluff-wise it may make sense, but there's not a huge amount of sense it making it work fluff-wise if it doesn't really make sense on the tabletop.

Traditio wrote:

Point (10) is just a wild over-pricing of the item. Think about it: If it costs 90 points, then you could either get a baseline Captain (or a Baseline Librarian with ML2), or you could give an eligible model a Shield Eternal for the same amount of points, which is stupid. A Storm Shield that confers Adamantium Will and Eternal Warrior is not worth anywhere near 90 points.

It's to kill smashfether.

Well an increase in points to 60 or 70 points may do that better without making it over-priced.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:
I am part of the camp that thinks the shield is fine at 50 points, but I would not be adverse to a points increase. But let's be honest: 90 points is a ridiculous price.

What you're paying for is eternal warrior. The named characters in the codex who have eternal warrior pay a premium for it. Big Papa Smurf costs 275 points. Captain Lysander costs 230 points.

By the time you finish tacking on all of those upgrades to Smashfether, how much is it worth to you for him not to get one-shotted?

Probably more than 50 points.

Goddamn people are posting fast haha. See above.

I think 60 is a fine place for it, and increase the cost of all storm shields except on termies by 5 or 10 points. a 3++ should not cost like 10 ppm

IllumiNini wrote:1. Ruleswise, it's a points consideration. Razorbacks are 55 ppm. Given the choice between getting a free 35 ppm model and a free 55 ppm, of course you're going to go for the 55 ppm model if it's free.

At the very least, can we at least agree on the following point?

It is grossly unfair to have a 550 points advantage (in terms of models) over your opponent (if you only take 1 battle company), over and in addition to the free combat doctrines.

Goddamn people are posting fast haha. See above.

I'm not really married to the "90" number. I just made it the cost of a captain. 70 is probably fine too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Does anybody disagree with number 13 listed above?

Traditio wrote:

IllumiNini wrote:1. Ruleswise, it's a points consideration. Razorbacks are 55 ppm. Given the choice between getting a free 35 ppm model and a free 55 ppm, of course you're going to go for the 55 ppm model if it's free.

At the very least, can we at least agree on the following point?

It is grossly unfair to have a 550 points advantage (in terms of models) over your opponent (if you only take 1 battle company), over and in addition to the free combat doctrines.

Goddamn people are posting fast haha. See above.

I'm not really married to the "90" number. I just made it the cost of a captain. 70 is probably fine too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Does anybody disagree with number 13 listed above?

On the Flakk missile change? Yup! honestly, there ARE things that sorely need a buff in C:SM (most Heavy weapons not named the Grav-Cannon and Termies come to mind,) and flakk being not utter gak for it's cost would go a long way with that.

Swampmist wrote:On the Flakk missile change? Yup! honestly, there ARE things that sorely need a buff in C:SM (most Heavy weapons not named the Grav-Cannon and Termies come to mind,) and flakk being not utter gak for it's cost would go a long way with that.

I don't think that any of the heavy weapons other than the missile launcher (except perhaps the heavy bolter, but I'm not convinced of this) need a buff. The problem isn't the power level of the weapons. The problem is the condition of the meta. Tau and Eldar need nerfs.

The missile launcher is the only exception. At 25 ppm for a missile launcher with flakk missiles, it's hard to justify taking it over lascannons or plasma cannons. 20 ppm flakk missile launchers would at least put them on parity with lascannons.

Traditio wrote:

Swampmist wrote:On the Flakk missile change? Yup! honestly, there ARE things that sorely need a buff in C:SM (most Heavy weapons not named the Grav-Cannon and Termies come to mind,) and flakk being not utter gak for it's cost would go a long way with that.

I don't think that any of the heavy weapons other than the missile launcher need a buff. The problem isn't the power level of the weapons. The problem is the condition of the meta. Tau and Eldar need nerfs.

The missile launcher is the only exception. At 25 ppm for a missile launcher with flakk missiles, it's hard to justify taking it over lascannons or plasma cannons. 20 ppm flakk missile launchers would at least put them on parity with lascannons.

I would argue that the Plasma Cannon still needs a buff, as it is the only weapon that can under no circumstance be snap-fired (except your version of the Grav Cannon) and pays up the butt for s7, so even the new grav-cannon out-does it for the cost. Maybe make it hit a larger area? idk, it's a weird weapon to balance without out-competing the grav-cannon...

Swampmist wrote:I would argue that the Plasma Cannon still needs a buff, as it is the only weapon that can under no circumstance be snap-fired (except your version of the Grav Cannon) and pays up the butt for s7, so even the new grav-cannon out-does it for the cost. Maybe make it hit a larger area? idk, it's a weird weapon to balance without out-competing the grav-cannon...

It's situational. Against vehicles, T5 and weak armor saves, the plasma cannon would be as good or better than my version of grav cannons. Grav cannons would only shine against MCs (which they could now hit at range) and really tough elite infantry.

Come to think of it, it would make plasma cannons pretty much better than grav cannons most of the time.

The only obvious benefit to grav is the lack of the gets hot rule.

Traditio wrote:

Swampmist wrote:I would argue that the Plasma Cannon still needs a buff, as it is the only weapon that can under no circumstance be snap-fired (except your version of the Grav Cannon) and pays up the butt for s7, so even the new grav-cannon out-does it for the cost. Maybe make it hit a larger area? idk, it's a weird weapon to balance without out-competing the grav-cannon...

It's situational. Against vehicles, T5 and weak armor saves, the plasma cannon would be as good or better than my version of grav cannons. Grav cannons would only shine against MCs (which they could now hit at range) and really tough elite infantry.

that's why I think it could do with being a bigger blast, or even s6 Heavy 2 (keeping it a blast weapon.) It would give it a point in killing things like massed SMs, hordes outside of cover, ect. again, it would need playtesting, but it would differentiate the weapon enough to justify risking Gets Hot! when compared to the Grav Cannon.

I actually think marines are very mediocre once you kill the formations. Like the only thing really going for them after that is grav, and if they take a lot of it, they auto lose to daemons and orks.

You don't really need the point changes unless you plan on keeping the formations, which is silly IMO.

Also fixing psychic powers would reign in crazy stars.

Oh one last thing, no bike anywhere in any army should be a troop choice.

 niv-mizzet wrote:
I actually think marines are very mediocre once you kill the formations. Like the only thing really going for them after that is grav, and if they take a lot of it, they auto lose to daemons and orks.

You don't really need the point changes unless you plan on keeping the formations, which is silly IMO.

Formations need a re-work or need to be removed. They're part of why every Space Marine Chapter (whether or not they have their own codex or supplement) can be made to be OP as hell.

 niv-mizzet wrote:
Oh one last thing, no bike anywhere in any army should be a troop choice.

Can't agree with this more.

 niv-mizzet wrote:
I actually think marines are very mediocre once you kill the formations. Like the only thing really going for them after that is grav, and if they take a lot of it, they auto lose to daemons and orks.

You don't really need the point changes unless you plan on keeping the formations, which is silly IMO.

Keep formations. Remove the shenanigans. I think that the OP goes some degree to doing this.

Oh one last thing, no bike anywhere in any army should be a troop choice.

Why not?

@traditio
Bikes are super fast, tough, and can jink. They are much better than standard troops. Whatever, they pay a little more and don't have obsec because they aren't troops, that's alright.

Giving them obsec by being a troop choice in a Cad removes any reason whatsoever to take the foot guys.

Traditio 688340 8604581 nul wrote:

Oh one last thing, no bike anywhere in any army should be a troop choice.

Why not?

For the same reason things like Librarians being a Troops Choice aren't a thing - to be that would make any sense.

 niv-mizzet wrote:
@traditio
Bikes are super fast, tough, and can jink. They are much better than standard troops. Whatever, they pay a little more and don't have obsec because they aren't troops, that's alright.

Giving them obsec by being a troop choice in a Cad removes any reason whatsoever to take the foot guys.

This can't be ameliorated by adjusting points costs?

Would you prefer the 14 ppm tactical marine or the 24 ppm bike (they're currently only 21 ppm)?

14 ppm dire avenger or 24 ppm windrider bike (they are currently only 17 ppm)?

Traditio wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:
@traditio
Bikes are super fast, tough, and can jink. They are much better than standard troops. Whatever, they pay a little more and don't have obsec because they aren't troops, that's alright.

Giving them obsec by being a troop choice in a Cad removes any reason whatsoever to take the foot guys.

This can't be ameliorated by adjusting points costs?

Would you prefer the 14 ppm tactical marine or the 24 ppm bike (they're currently only 21 ppm)?

14 ppm dire avenger or 24 ppm windrider bike (they are currently only 17 ppm)?

Eh might as well say 27 ppm for windriders as, yes I'm even guilty, we usually load them up with scatter lasers. But even if we do the cannon it's still 27 ppm. Only when it's the catapult is it 17 ppm

Traditio wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:
@traditio
Bikes are super fast, tough, and can jink. They are much better than standard troops. Whatever, they pay a little more and don't have obsec because they aren't troops, that's alright.

Giving them obsec by being a troop choice in a Cad removes any reason whatsoever to take the foot guys.

This can't be ameliorated by adjusting points costs?

Would you prefer the 14 ppm tactical marine or the 24 ppm bike (they're currently only 21 ppm)?

14 ppm dire avenger or 24 ppm windrider bike (they are currently only 17 ppm)?

The issue there is that it's possible to have them not be troops. By adjusting point cost, you're either making them undercosted obsec troop bikes or overcosted fast attacks.

I'm happy with the bikes current cost until you hand it obsec and get to knock your subpar tacticals out of the list. The change in efficiency for the list there is quite drastic. More than any slight point adjustment will cover.

Windriders would be cool at their current cost as fast attacks, but the ability to cross the board and win the game in addition to not having to take foot troops is where it gets crazy. People focus on the lasers a lot, but they're just a red herring. It's that obsec 48" move that will end up taking the game from you.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:Eh might as well say 27 ppm for windriders as, yes I'm even guilty, we usually load them up with scatter lasers. But even if we do the cannon it's still 27 ppm. Only when it's the catapult is it 17 ppm

I proposed a 1 in 3 heavy weapon restriction in addition to the 24 ppm windrider.

I mean, what would you personally do?

72 points for the windriders plus 10 points for scatter laser?

Or would you take the squad of dire avengers (for 12 points less, mind you)?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

niv-mizzet wrote:The issue there is that it's possible to have them not be troops. By adjusting point cost, you're either making them undercosted obsec troop bikes or overcosted fast attacks.

I disagree with this. I don't think that their position on the FoC really changes whether they are under or over costed. [Incidentally, I was under the impression that all models in a CAD get objective secured? Is it only troops?]

The fact that bikes are able to be taken as troops only put just how undercosted they are into sharp relief. If they were fast attacks, then they would be competing for the slot with potentially even better stuff, but that wouldn't change the fact that they're still undercosted.

A windrider is, for all intents and purposes, a dire avenger. What does the bike add?

1. +1 to the armor save
2. +1 toughness (Chaos space marines pay 3 ppm for this vis a vis mark of nurgle)
3. Additional movement and hammer of wrath (in effect what a jumppack, which is worth 3 ppm, confers).
4. Relentless
5. The ability to jink.

2 and 3 alone are 5 ppm worth of special rules and stat bonuses.

But Eldar players only actually pay FOUR ppm for that (because feth fairness and balance, right?). Compare this to a space marine biker, who pays SEVEN points per model (over a tactical marine) for fewer advantages. The space marine bike, for all intents and purposes, confers:

1. Twin-linked bolter
2. +1 toughness (Chaos space marines pay 3 ppm for this vis a vis mark of nurgle)
3. Additional movement and hammer of wrath (in effect what a jumppack, which is worth 3 ppm, confers).
4. Relentless
5. The ability to jink

Is all of that really only worth 7 ppm? Again, 2 and 3 alone are worth 6 ppm. If you upgrade a SM captain to a bike, that's a 20 point upgrade.

I think that my proposal to increase the cost of bike units up to (10 + cost of the non-bike version of the model) is rather conservative.

I'm happy with the bikes current cost until you hand it obsec and get to knock your subpar tacticals out of the list. The change in efficiency for the list there is quite drastic. More than any slight point adjustment will cover.

Windriders would be cool at their current cost as fast attacks, but the ability to cross the board and win the game in addition to not having to take foot troops is where it gets crazy. People focus on the lasers a lot, but they're just a red herring. It's that obsec 48" move that will end up taking the game from you.

Again, I'm fine with bikes as troop choices. It makes sense for some armies. It makes sense for white scars players to have bike armies.

The key is to make sure that bikes aren't better than their points equivalence in basic troops. This is where appropriate pricing comes in (as well as formation bonuses).

If bikes were appropriately priced, the white scars player would have to choose between:

1. A 72 point bike squad (without upgrades)
2. A 70 point 5 man tactical squad and rhino (without upgrades)

Traditio wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:Eh might as well say 27 ppm for windriders as, yes I'm even guilty, we usually load them up with scatter lasers. But even if we do the cannon it's still 27 ppm. Only when it's the catapult is it 17 ppm

I proposed a 1 in 3 heavy weapon restriction in addition to the 24 ppm windrider.

I mean, what would you personally do?

72 points for the windriders plus 10 points for scatter laser?

Or would you take the squad of dire avengers (for 12 points less, mind you)?

The thing is this. I can see a points increase if we remain allowed to take 3 scatter lasers. Like 35 ppm which is an 8 point increase. However if we go the 1 in 3 route I feel points should remain what they are

Pain4Pleasure wrote:The thing is this. I can see a points increase if we remain allowed to take 3 scatter lasers. Like 35 ppm which is an 8 point increase. However if we go the 1 in 3 route I feel points should remain what they are

See my reply to Nev-Mizzet.

Traditio wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:The thing is this. I can see a points increase if we remain allowed to take 3 scatter lasers. Like 35 ppm which is an 8 point increase. However if we go the 1 in 3 route I feel points should remain what they are

See my reply to Nev-Mizzet.

You make a few points, as my dark eldar reavers compete in fast attack. As long as I take the real space raiders detachment then this is ibviously somewhat negated, but still a concern none the less. And unlike the eldar bretheren, my reaver bikers don't really add a TON for their points at all. Heck, their armor save stays 5+! Yet I still pay 16 ppm for them, plus 15 for a caltrop which might or might not do much. So I get what you mean, but I do stick by the not as much of an increase for the 1 f 3 method vs a decent increase if kept to every model may take method

@traditio
In regards to CAD obsec, yes, ONLY the troop selections in a CAD get obsec. The other units get nothing. (Other than the warlord who gets a reroll on the core book warlord traits.)

As for the point costs, all my experience in local and tournament 40k play tells me that battlefield role DOES matter. Having to make your list a little less efficient by tossing in 110 points of scouts, 140 of tac marines, or 130 of dire avengers that don't fit with your overall list strategy is a big deal. Lists that win large GT's have usually min-maxed down to the last point or few, and forced suboptimal choices in 3 digit point value hurt them severely. (I personally went over my last GT winning list something like 30 times moving around like...20 points, and every little wargear option mattered at some point or another.)

In addition to reduced list efficiency by the bikes not filling in for the subpar troops, making them fast attack hurts them in other ways:
1- They now compete for spots with other fast attacks. Not especially important for marines, but wind riders would be competing with warp spiders!

2- They can't get obsec as mentioned before, without using some formation that grants it. (Which I also advocate killing all formations with nuclear weaponry until they can do them right, so in my perfect 40k universe, that wouldn't even be a consideration.) Obsec doesn't seem like all that much on standard guys, but to units that can cross the table in a turn or two? It is worth it's weight in gold. There is a reason that nearly every eldar tourney player runs a CAD with several bike units instead of snagging their mega-formation. Obsec on those few speedy guys is literally better than the army wide super-battle-focus.

3- They are worth VP's to the enemy in "the scouring" mission and tournament missions based on it, such as ITC mission 4.

4- only 3 FA slots in a CAD, so not only do they compete with other FA, you can't take 6x3 in a single detachment either.

That's all I can really elaborate on it. If you're still convinced that changing battlefield role isn't relevant to a unit's value, then I just have to disagree and bid you good night.

niv-mizzet wrote:That's all I can really elaborate on it. If you're still convinced that changing battlefield role isn't relevant to a unit's value, then I just have to disagree and bid you good night.

What you say makes sense. I'm fully prepared to admit that putting all bikes into the fast attack slot would be a nerf to bikes.

That said, even if that were to happen, that wouldn't change the fact that at least some bike units, regardless of their FOC slot, are fundamentally undercosted. The value of the special rules and bonuses that they derive from the bikes over and beyond what they would normally have without those bikes exceeds the points value of what players actually pay.

That needs to change. Regardless of the FoC slot, a windrider should cost 10 ppm more than a dire avenger.

Even if windriders were a fast attack in the FoC, this change wouldn't alter the fact that windriders cost far too little at 17 ppm, whereas dire avengers cost 13 ppm. That bike confers a whole heck of a lot more than a 4 point value.

Oh yeah I'm certainly not trying to say that all bikes are perfectly costed. Was just saying that them getting to be a troop was the most offensive balance issue they had going to me.

After they get moved to (or kept in) FA, they could then easily have minor tweaks.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:You make a few points, as my dark eldar reavers compete in fast attack. As long as I take the real space raiders detachment then this is ibviously somewhat negated, but still a concern none the less. And unlike the eldar bretheren, my reaver bikers don't really add a TON for their points at all. Heck, their armor save stays 5+! Yet I still pay 16 ppm for them, plus 15 for a caltrop which might or might not do much. So I get what you mean, but I do stick by the not as much of an increase for the 1 f 3 method vs a decent increase if kept to every model may take method

Actually, now that you mention it, this just hammers in just how ridiculous the windrider unit is. A wych costs 10 ppm. The reaver jetbike costs 16 ppm without caltrops. The dire avenger only pays 4 ppm to upgrade, but the wych has to pay 6? Do you really mean to tell me that the reaver jetbike is only 1 ppm less valuable in practice than a 17 ppm windrider model? AND WHY DOES A SPACE MARINE HAVE TO PAY SEVEN FOR LESS BENEFITS THAN BOTH?

Do you know how much an ORK biker costs? EIGHTEEN POINTS PER MODEL! That's a whopping TWELVE point increase from what a standard boy costs.

Regardless of whether or not eldar windriders can spam scatter lasers or not (that's a separate issue), the simple fact is that windrider jetbikes are horribly undercosted, and bikes in general are sharply discounted from what they actually should cost. [Except orcs. Orcs might actually be overcosted. Seriously, what they have to pay for their bikes (THAT THEY CAN'T EVEN UPGRADE) is fething ridiculous]

Regardless of whether or not windriders can spam heavy weapons, these are the simple facts.

Bike units (regardless of the codex), from what I can see, are just NOT fairly costed. There need to be points price changes.

For EVERYONE, that change should be 10 points over and above the points cost of the base model.

Reaver jetbikes should cost 20 ppm.
Windriders should cost 24 ppm.
Space marine bikes should cost 24 ppm.
Space marine scout bikes should cost 21 ppm.

Ork bikes might actually cost LESS at 16 ppm (or else, they should cost 20 points if we compare them to boys in heavy armor).

Im not saying they are better than windriders but don't forget that Ork bikers also get 3 S5 twin-linked shots each and have 3+ jink after Turbo-boost. Most Ork lists i've seen include them.

Sonic Keyboard wrote:
Im not saying they are better than windriders but don't forget that Ork bikers also get 3 S5 twin-linked shots each and have 3+ jink after Turbo-boost. Most Ork lists i've seen include them.

So what?

Space marine bikers get twin-linked bolters.
Eldar jetbikes confer twin-linked shuriken catapults and ridiculous levels of mobility, as well as +1 armor save.
Dark Eldar jetbikes confer a splinter rifle and ridiculous levels of mobility, not to mention bladevanes. (By the way, Dark Eldar have to restrict themselves to 1 heavy weapon in 3, and they take up a FAST ATTACK slot.)
Ork bikes get a gun (which ain't hitting much) and a 3+ cover if they turbo boost.

Are these all worth the same thing? I don't claim that. But they're all worth at least 10 points each.

Eldar jetbikes being, in effect, a 4 point upgrade is an offense, an insult, a slap in the face to all other codices.

Traditio wrote:
This thread is basically a response to comments in the Simple Balance for Codex: Eldar.

In that thread, various recommendations were made for nerfs/points adjustments. I would like to enumerate what I think are basically fair nerfs for Codex: Space Marines.

1. A full battle company should only confer free rhinos and drop pods for minimum 5 man squads. A full 10 man squad is needed to field a free razorback or drop pod.

2. Command squads should not be able to purchase a dedicated transport if they elect to travel on bikes.

3. Scout bikes should cost 21 ppm.

4. Space Marine bikers should cost 24 ppm.

5. The librarians should not be able to not use powers which reroll saves or cause teleportation.

6. Centurions should cost 65 ppm.

7. Grav-guns should be rapidfire weapons

8. Grav cannons should be 48" range, heavy 1, blast weapons. In compensation for this, a grav cannon and amp should only cost 25 ppm.

9. The "Intertial Guidance System" for the drop pod should be rewritten to say "keep rerolling the scatter dice until you legally can land and deploy; if at any point the scatter dice would have the drop pod land off of the table, the drop pod remains in reserves and you must roll reserves for it again next turn."

10. The shield eternal should be 70 ppm.

11. Drop pods should cost 45 ppm.

12. Storm shields should cost 15 ppm as an upgrade.

13: A buff, not a nerf, but one that's sorely needed: Flakk missiles should cost 5 ppm as an upgrade to missile launchers, not 10 ppm.

Boom. Codex fixed.

Your fixes are stupid and you should feel terrible for posting them.
1. The vehicles shouldn't be free in the first place. Free bonuses are worse than free units.
2. Who cares? They're not going to travel in it, and having multiple CAD's makes the Slot issue a non-issue. Ten Tacticals can still get a Razorback, after all, and they can't ride unless they Combat Squad.
3. Nobody is taking Scout Bikers in the first place, and you propose making them more expensive.
4. Bikers are fine. You need to make the Tactical Marine more appealing.
5. So Librarians can't roll on Sanctic, Divination, and Telekinesis. Got it.
6. Centurions are priced fine. Make the Grav Cannon + Amp 35 points like on everyone else and we're doing better.
7. Ah yes, neuter the damage output of Tactical and Biker Marines more. They were barely doing damage with Plasma Guns as is. Make them Salvo 2/2.
8. And then nobody takes Grav Cannons. Notice how nobody takes Plasma Cannons? The Blast profile is garbage.
9. That makes the game take even longer.
10. That's stupid. EW is worth 25-30 points, and the SS is 15 points. So we would pay over 20+ for AW? Uh, no. That's stupid.
11. Maybe 40 points, but 45 is pushing it. 10 more gets you a Razorback.
12. They're already 15 points.
13. Flakk Missiles should be already included in the cost because the ML isn't doing anything well.

I swear, it is like you didn't even read the things you listed before you posted.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:1. The vehicles shouldn't be free in the first place. Free bonuses are worse than free units.

I have no a priori reason to agree with you.

2. Who cares?

Presupposing they are in a battle company, that's an extra rhino, drop pod or razorback that they shouldn't be getting.

3. Nobody is taking Scout Bikers in the first place, and you propose making them more expensive.
4. Bikers are fine. You need to make the Tactical Marine more appealing.

I give an extended defense of why bikers should cost more in an earlier posting(s) of this thread.

5. So Librarians can't roll on Sanctic, Divination, and Telekinesis. Got it.

Of course they can. They just have to reroll if they end up with shenanigans.

Better yet? Remove shenanigans from those tables.

6. Centurions are priced fine. Make the Grav Cannon + Amp 35 points like on everyone else and we're doing better.

No. They aren't. A devastator marine is 14 ppm. They get +1 toughness. That right there is a 3 ppm upgrade (mark of nurgle). They get a twin-linked heavy bolter and a hurricane bolter. Sounds like a 20 ppm upgrade to me. We're at 37 ppm at this point. They get slow and purposeful. How much is that worth? Shooting protocols? +1 strength? 2+ armor save? 2 wounds?

There is no sense in which this is a 55 point model in terms of actual value.

A true fair estimation of this model is more like 75 ppm (50 base X 1.5 for the extra wound). We move that down to an even 70.

7. Ah yes, neuter the damage output of Tactical and Biker Marines more. They were barely doing damage with Plasma Guns as is. Make them Salvo 2/2.

Absolutely not. At 15 ppm, they should be at strict parity with plasma guns. I will grant that as rapidfire weapons, however, their ranges should be increased. 24 inches seems appropriate.

8. And then nobody takes Grav Cannons. Notice how nobody takes Plasma Cannons? The Blast profile is garbage.

At 48 inch range, that grav cannon is going to work better (given the fact that it can be rerolled) than a lascannon against a wraithknight. Probably overcosted, though. 20 ppm seems more appropriate.

9. That makes the game take even longer.

The wording of the rule could be changed. The idea is to get rid of the "minimum distance" thing.

10. That's stupid. EW is worth 25-30 points, and the SS is 15 points. So we would pay over 20+ for AW? Uh, no. That's stupid.

25-30 points is an undervaluation of Eternal Warrior.

11. Maybe 40 points, but 45 is pushing it. 10 more gets you a Razorback.

If you're running a drop pod army, would 45 points make you want to get razorbacks instead?

12. They're already 15 points.

False. See p. 138 of the space marines codex.

I swear, it is like you didn't even read the things you listed before you posted.

Given the fact that you strike me as a competitive space marines player, your vehement protests to the nerfs in question tell me that they are a step in the appropriate direction.

People don't like having their own stuff nerfed. Thus cheese and power creep.

I'll reply as to why you're wrong tomorrow as I don't have my computer in front of me, but I'm actually a competitive Necron player for any tournament I attend. Space Marines are for fun.

I meant that warbikes dont need points decrease whilst i agree with you on increasing the other bikes cost

Or how about the following for bikes/jetbikes:
1) -1 BS if moved more than 6" that turn
2) do not grant bonus Toughness in close combat and for toughness tests, so a bit less auto-take for HQs
3) and can never be Troops

Traditio wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:1. The vehicles shouldn't be free in the first place. Free bonuses are worse than free units.

I have no a priori reason to agree with you.

And you're giving a unit away for free in conjunction with a squad that can't travel in it due to transport size restrictions. There should be your reason.

Traditio wrote:

3. Nobody is taking Scout Bikers in the first place, and you propose making them more expensive.
4. Bikers are fine. You need to make the Tactical Marine more appealing.

I give an extended defense of why bikers should cost more in an earlier posting(s) of this thread.

I gotta agree with the fact that nobody takes Scout Bikes, so unless you're giving them an overall buff and/or reason for people to take them, what's the point in changing them at all?

Traditio wrote:

5. So Librarians can't roll on Sanctic, Divination, and Telekinesis. Got it.

Of course they can. They just have to reroll if they end up with shenanigans.

Better yet? Remove shenanigans from those tables.

Yet I don't see you giving us alternative tables to roll on in the case that these "Shenenigans" are removed. Care to give us some alternatives other than "Don't roll on them"?

Traditio wrote:

6. Centurions are priced fine. Make the Grav Cannon + Amp 35 points like on everyone else and we're doing better.

No. They aren't. A devastator marine is 14 ppm. They get +1 toughness. That right there is a 3 ppm upgrade (mark of nurgle). They get a twin-linked heavy bolter and a hurricane bolter. Sounds like a 20 ppm upgrade to me. We're at 37 ppm at this point. They get slow and purposeful. How much is that worth? Shooting protocols? +1 strength? 2+ armor save? 2 wounds?

There is no sense in which this is a 55 point model in terms of actual value.

A true fair estimation of this model is more like 75 ppm (50 base X 1.5 for the extra wound). We move that down to an even 70.

I have to agree that Centurians are priced just fine.

Traditio wrote:

7. Ah yes, neuter the damage output of Tactical and Biker Marines more. They were barely doing damage with Plasma Guns as is. Make them Salvo 2/2.

Absolutely not. At 15 ppm, they should be at strict parity with plasma guns. I will grant that as rapidfire weapons, however, their ranges should be increased. 30 inches seems appropriate.

Why change this at all? We don't need to nerf Tactical and Biker Marines. We also don't need Rapid Fire weapons at a Range of 30". I mean who are they? Tau?

Traditio wrote:

8. And then nobody takes Grav Cannons. Notice how nobody takes Plasma Cannons? The Blast profile is garbage.

At 48 inch range, that grav cannon is going to work better (given the fact that it can be rerolled) than a lascannon against a wraithknight. Probably overcosted, though. 20 ppm seems more appropriate.

Grav Cannons don't need to be changed. Plasma Cannons could possibly do with a buff (the operative word being 'possibly).

Traditio wrote:

10. That's stupid. EW is worth 25-30 points, and the SS is 15 points. So we would pay over 20+ for AW? Uh, no. That's stupid.

25-30 points is an undervaluation of Eternal Warrior.

No it's not. The whole premise of increasing the points cost at all for the Shield is because you're getting the combination of these things.

Traditio wrote:

11. Maybe 40 points, but 45 is pushing it. 10 more gets you a Razorback.

If you're running a drop pod army, would 45 points make you want to get razorbacks instead?

Well at 45 points for a baseline DP, people might re-think taking a DP army.

Traditio wrote:

12. They're already 15 points.

False. See p. 138 of the space marines codex.

That's for one particular squad. I hardly call that a generic price for the item.

Traditio wrote:

I swear, it is like you didn't even read the things you listed before you posted.

Given the fact that you strike me as a competitive space marines player, your vehement protests to the nerfs in question tell me that they are a step in the appropriate direction.

I'm not a competitive player and yet I'm in agreement with many of their points. Does this also tell you that it's a step in the right direction? Also, do you honestly think that because one person vehemently disagrees with what you're doing, you're going in the right direction? That's flawed logic right there.

Traditio wrote:
People don't like having their own stuff nerfed. Thus cheese and power creep.

People never like their stuff being nerfed, but if it means a more balanced game, most poeple will accept it and get over it.

IllumiNini wrote:And you're giving a unit away for free in conjunction with a squad that can't travel in it due to transport size restrictions. There should be your reason.

I thought of a convenient way to solve this problem. See the edited OP.

I gotta agree with the fact that nobody takes Scout Bikes, so unless you're giving them an overall buff and/or reason for people to take them, what's the point in changing them at all?

Fairness. It is not fair for a scout bike to cost 18 ppm. A scout costs 11 ppm, and the toughness and mobility enhancements alone afforded by the bike are worth 6 ppm. Not to mention the free twin-linked bolter, jink special rule and relentless special rule.

All bikes must cost 10 ppm in addition to the cost of the model that they are upgrading. Nice. Even. Fair for everybody.

Have you seen how much orks pay for their bikes?

Yet I don't see you giving us alternative tables to roll on in the case that these "Shenenigans" are removed. Care to give us some alternatives other than "Don't roll on them"?

I just did. You rolled shenanigans? Reroll on the same table until you don't get shenanigans.

I have to agree that Centurians are priced just fine.

Ok. Then please, give me a line by line estimation of what you think all of those special rules and upgrades are worth.

I want to see how you come up with 55 ppm.

Why change this at all? We don't need to nerf Tactical and Biker Marines. We also don't need Rapid Fire weapons at a Range of 30". I mean who are they? Tau?

...

...

Grav Cannons don't need to be changed. Plasma Cannons could possibly do with a buff (the operative word being 'possibly).

1. I changed the range in the OP.

2. It's commonly admitted that grav is op and has too high of a fire rate. You can't expect for the people who get their stuff targeted by grav to accept nerfs, but leave grav intact as is.

Plasma Cannons could possibly do with a buff (the operative word being 'possibly).

No. Enough is enough. No more buffs. Nerfs for everybody.

No it's not. The whole premise of increasing the points cost at all for the Shield is because you're getting the combination of these things.

What you just said doesn't make sense to me.

Would you please explain at greater length?

Well at 45 points for a baseline DP, people might re-think taking a DP army.

And the bolded is the key word. That's when you know that something has been sufficiently balanced.

Traditio wrote:

IllumiNini wrote:And you're giving a unit away for free in conjunction with a squad that can't travel in it due to transport size restrictions. There should be your reason.

I thought of a convenient way to solve this problem. See the edited OP.

Still doesn't make a whole lot of sense to include Razorbacks in there at all, but if we haven't convinced you that Razorbacks don't fit by now, I'm not going to try anymore.

Traditio wrote:

I gotta agree with the fact that nobody takes Scout Bikes, so unless you're giving them an overall buff and/or reason for people to take them, what's the point in changing them at all?

Fairness. It is not fair for a scout bike to cost 18 ppm. A scout cost 11 pm, and the toughness and mobility enhancements alone afforded by the bike are worth 6 ppm. Not to mention the free twin-linked bolter, jink special rule and relentless special rule.

All bikes must cost 10 ppm in addition to the cost of the model that they are upgrading. Nice. Even. Fair for everybody.

Have you seen how much orks pay for their bikes?

Well I still think there's no need to increase the price of Scout Bikes just because you're doing your bonus-by-bonus maths.

As for the Orks, they're over-priced, under-powered, or both. So Orks aren't a good comparison to make.

Traditio wrote:

Yet I don't see you giving us alternative tables to roll on in the case that these "Shenenigans" are removed. Care to give us some alternatives other than "Don't roll on them"?

I just did. You rolled shenanigans? Reroll on the same table until you don't get shenanigans.

Maybe consolidate the tables instead of being lazy? I don't know, but come up with something better than "Re-roll". Personally, I don't see any particular need to re-roll these shenanigan results because I've never had a problem with them and I don't see enough of a problem in a theoretical sense to remove themm

Traditio wrote:

I have to agree that Centurians are priced just fine.

Ok. Then please, give me a line by line estimation of what you think all of those special rules and upgrades are worth.

I don't need to. They've been play tested a number of times and you're the only person I've ever talked to who has said they are under-priced or in real need of a change. Plus your component-by-component breakdown is a really good and fast way to make things over-priced.

Traditio wrote:

Why change this at all? We don't need to nerf Tactical and Biker Marines. We also don't need Rapid Fire weapons at a Range of 30". I mean who are they? Tau?

...

...

Grav Cannons don't need to be changed. Plasma Cannons could possibly do with a buff (the operative word being 'possibly).

1. I changed the range in the OP.

2. It's commonly admitted that grav is op and has too high of a fire rate. You can't expect for the people who get their stuff targeted by grav to accept nerfs, but leave grav intact as is.

I'll admit that I think Grav is powerful, but does it need a nerf? That's arguable. You start nerfing things and other things become OP and people will whinge about them. Should we keep nerfing until everything does nothing?

Traditio wrote:

Plasma Cannons could possibly do with a buff (the operative word being 'possibly).

No. Enough is enough. No more buffs. Nerfs for everybody.

Balancing doesn't mean nothing can get buffed. If you can't wrap your head around that, then maybe you shouldn't be trying to balance anything at all.

Traditio wrote:

No it's not. The whole premise of increasing the points cost at all for the Shield is because you're getting the combination of these things.

What you just said doesn't make sense to me.

Would you please explain at greater length?

So for example, if you got all the upgrades and benefits the Shield grants you from a bunch of different items, than can be restrictive. For example, if you got 'Adamantium Will' from a piece of Special Issue Wargear, you wouldn't be able to get an additional piece of Special Issue Wargear. So with this sort of idea in mind, you're paying for the convenience of having it all in one item.

Traditio wrote:

Well at 45 points for a baseline DP, people might re-think taking a DP army.

And the bolded is the key word. That's when you know that something has been sufficiently balanced.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough:

If you increase the price to 45 points, people will more than likely find alternate possibilities because the DP is no longer worth buying given the comparative price of other options. I think 35 points is balanced for a DP (40 being the max, I'd say). Think I'm wrong? Consider the fact that people still run Rhinos (which are the same price as a current DP).

Considering you seem to only run suboptimal lists with no chance of reconsideration, I would take a gander at the fact you think everyone who runs an optimal list is a WAAC TFG. Your proposed rules are "meh" at best and do little to solve any issues.

Tactical_Spam wrote:Your proposed rules are "meh" at best and do little to solve any issues.

Would you care to go into any greater detail?

Traditio wrote:

Tactical_Spam wrote:Your proposed rules are "meh" at best and do little to solve any issues.

Would you care to go into any greater detail?

Your proposed rules lack play-testing and perspective. For instance, due to my Meta, I never, ever bring grav. Formations give me a chance against my opponents. I actually have a use for heavy bolters. The Shield Eternal keeps my Chapter Master alive long enough to paste the enemy warlord.

IllumiNini wrote:As for the Orks, they're over-priced, under-powered, or both. So Orks aren't a good comparison to make.

These are the numbers I ended up with:

Reaver jetbikes should cost 20 ppm.
Windriders should cost 24 ppm.
Space marine bikes should cost 24 ppm.
Space marine scout bikes should cost 21 ppm.
Ork bikes should cost 20 ppm.

Do you think that this is basically fair in comparison to each other?

don't need to. They've been play tested a number of times and you're the only person I've ever talked to who has said they are under-priced or in real need of a change. Plus your component-by-component breakdown is a really good and fast way to make things over-priced.

You've never heard anyone complaining about centurions being undercosted or otherwise too good for their points cost?

I'll admit that I think Grav is powerful, but does it need a nerf? That's arguable. You start nerfing things and other things become OP and people will whinge about them. Should we keep nerfing until everything does nothing?

Slippery slope fallacy.

The nerf in grav corresponds directly to a nerf to Eldar, Tau, etc. MCs.

Balancing doesn't mean nothing can get buffed. If you can't wrap your head around that, then maybe you shouldn't be trying to balance anything at all.

I suggested a buff to missile launchers in the OP.

So for example, if you got all the upgrades and benefits the Shield grants you from a bunch of different items, than can be restrictive. For example, if you got 'Adamantium Will' from a piece of Special Issue Wargear, you wouldn't be able to get an additional piece of Special Issue Wargear. So with this sort of idea in mind, you're paying for the convenience of having it all in one item.

I still fail to see how this lends support to the notion that 30 ppm for eternal warrior is an undervaluation of the special rule.

If you increase the price to 45 points, people will more than likely find alternate possibilities because the DP is no longer worth buying given the comparative price of other options. I think 35 points is balanced for a DP (40 being the max, I'd say). Think I'm wrong? Consider the fact that people still run Rhinos (which are the same price as a current DP).

Rhinos are considered a suboptimal choice. People generally express shock and surprise when I tell them that I don't run drop pods.

Rhinos and drop pods generally are not considered equivalent in actual tactical value.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tactical_Spam wrote:Your proposed rules lack play-testing and perspective. For instance, due to my Meta, I never, ever bring grav. Formations give me a chance against my opponents. I actually have a use for heavy bolters. The Shield Eternal keeps my Chapter Master alive long enough to paste the enemy warlord.

Do you have any opinions about specific changes I recommended and why they are fair or unfair?

Traditio wrote:


People generally express shock and surprise when I tell them that I don't run drop pods.

I bet the shock comes from the fact you don't run vehicles and believe bolters should kill a Titan.

Tactical_Spam wrote:Your proposed rules lack play-testing and perspective. For instance, due to my Meta, I never, ever bring grav. Formations give me a chance against my opponents. I actually have a use for heavy bolters. The Shield Eternal keeps my Chapter Master alive long enough to paste the enemy warlord.

Do you have any opinions about specific changes I recommended and why they are fair or unfair?

No, I just believe you are narrow-minded about proposing rules. I won't give myself a headache telling you I hate all your rules and why for you to refuse to look at them from a different angle.

Tactical_Spam wrote:I bet the shock comes from the fact you don't run vehicles and believe bolters should kill a Titan.

I run vehicles.

No, I just believe you are narrow-minded about proposing rules. I won't give myself a headache telling you I hate all your rules and why for you to refuse to look at them from a different angle.

I am pretty sure I already know why you hate all of the proposed rules.

"Because it would nerf my army."

Traditio wrote:

Tactical_Spam wrote:I bet the shock comes from the fact you don't run vehicles and believe bolters should kill a Titan.

I run vehicles.

No, I just believe you are narrow-minded about proposing rules. I won't give myself a headache telling you I hate all your rules and why for you to refuse to look at them from a different angle.

I am pretty sure I already know why you hate all of the proposed rules.

"Because it would nerf my army."

Ah yes, Tradito's trump card. If they disagree with you its because they are TFG trying to game the system right? That's the only possibility right?

You can't possibly be wrong. /sarcasm.

CrownAxe wrote:Ah yes, Tradito's trump card. If they disagree with you its because they are TFG trying to game the system right? That's the only possibility right?

You can't possibly be wrong. /sarcasm.

If anyone disagrees with the second rule I proposed in the OP, it is LITERALLY because he is TFG trying to game the system.

Rule 2 was specifically crafted to prevent TFG from gaming the system.

And rule 1 of this site is be polite. That means not blanketing everyone who disagrees with you as tfg in an insulting and dismissive manner.

Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:Ah yes, Tradito's trump card. If they disagree with you its because they are TFG trying to game the system right? That's the only possibility right?

You can't possibly be wrong. /sarcasm.

If anyone disagrees with the second rule I proposed in the OP, it is LITERALLY because he is TFG trying to game the system.

Rule 2 was specifically crafted to say: "Hey. No gaming the system."

Or they could disagree with it because they think there is a better way to fix that problem.

Seriously, you calling everyone TFG is why no one respects your opinions.

Traditio wrote:

IllumiNini wrote:As for the Orks, they're over-priced, under-powered, or both. So Orks aren't a good comparison to make.

These are the numbers I ended up with:

Reaver jetbikes should cost 20 ppm.
Windriders should cost 24 ppm.
Space marine bikes should cost 24 ppm.
Space marine scout bikes should cost 21 ppm.
Ork bikes should cost 20 ppm.

Do you think that this is basically fair in comparison to each other?

Whether or not I think it's a fair comparison is irrelevant. Scout Bikes don't need any sort of change that doesn't involve giving people an incentive to actually use them and most certainly don't need to be more expensive simply because the formula you cling to says so.

Traditio wrote:

don't need to. They've been play tested a number of times and you're the only person I've ever talked to who has said they are under-priced or in real need of a change. Plus your component-by-component breakdown is a really good and fast way to make things over-priced.

You've never heard anyone complaining about centurions being undercosted or otherwise too good for their points cost?

Nope. Never. Plus - like with anything - they can be annihilated with the proper counter and I've seen that done plenty of times.

Traditio wrote:

I'll admit that I think Grav is powerful, but does it need a nerf? That's arguable. You start nerfing things and other things become OP and people will whinge about them. Should we keep nerfing until everything does nothing?

Slippery slope fallacy.

The nerf in grav corresponds directly to a nerf to Eldar, Tau, etc. MCs.

Given your apparent opposition to buffing things, it isn't a slippery slope falacy at all.

And how do you figure they're all correlated?

Traditio wrote:

Balancing doesn't mean nothing can get buffed. If you can't wrap your head around that, then maybe you shouldn't be trying to balance anything at all.

I suggested a buff to missile launchers in the OP.

And yet you criticised my suggestion out of hand simply because it was a buff...

Traditio wrote:

So for example, if you got all the upgrades and benefits the Shield grants you from a bunch of different items, than can be restrictive. For example, if you got 'Adamantium Will' from a piece of Special Issue Wargear, you wouldn't be able to get an additional piece of Special Issue Wargear. So with this sort of idea in mind, you're paying for the convenience of having it all in one item.

I still fail to see how this lends support to the notion that 30 ppm for eternal warrior is an undervaluation of the special rule.

Like with everything else, you seem to be stuck with your little formula and fail to realise that what you're suggesting will make it over-priced. Like with the Razorbacks, it's obvious I can't convince you.

Traditio wrote:

If you increase the price to 45 points, people will more than likely find alternate possibilities because the DP is no longer worth buying given the comparative price of other options. I think 35 points is balanced for a DP (40 being the max, I'd say). Think I'm wrong? Consider the fact that people still run Rhinos (which are the same price as a current DP).

Rhinos are considered a suboptimal choice. People generally express shock and surprise when I tell them that I don't run drop pods.

Rhinos and drop pods generally are not considered equivalent in actual tactical value.

Maybe in your particular meta, but in general, I would definitely not call Rhinos a sub-optimal choice. It is also by no means shocking if somebody does no run Drop Pods. Also, there's always context. Would your friends still be shocked if I told them I don't run Drop Pods.... BUT I run a Land Raider Spearhead?



On the topic of what Tactical_Spam has said, they may have a point.

Your suggestions (with the exception of the Grav) don't really address any real issues, the reasoning behind your changes seem to be based on a purely mathematical perspective combined with a hunch, and from what I can tell: your main motivation for doing all this is wanting to play god with the rules.

Traditio wrote:
I am pretty sure I already know why you hate all of the proposed rules.

"Because it would nerf my army."

Do I really have to tell you again that if the nerfing is justified and the game is balanced after the army is nerfed (as well as the nerfing making sense in the first place), then people will accept it?

If these changes were mostly sensible changes with a decent reason why, then people wouldn't be complaining.

Traditio wrote:
If anyone disagrees with the second rule I proposed in the OP, it is LITERALLY because he is TFG trying to game the system.

Or maybe he isn't a TFG and and assumed there was a topographical error with that page and was confined to the thought that "It would be really odd if I gave my Command Squads bikes and a drop pod."

 motyak wrote:
And rule 1 of this site is be polite. That means not blanketing everyone who disagrees with you as tfg in an insulting and dismissive manner.

Currently, there apparently is a practice of fielding command squads, putting them on bikes, and then using the battle company rules to get that squad a free razorback that they can't even ride in.

That sounds an awful lot like "gaming the system" to me.

Is it a TFG practice?

It certainly sounds like a rules-lawyering, disrespectable and cheesy practice to me.

But hey. That's just me.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tactical_Spam wrote:Or maybe he isn't a TFG and and assumed there was a topographical error with that page and was confined to the thought that "It would be really odd if I gave my Command Squads bikes and a drop pod."

A drop pod that they can't even deploy in?

Traditio wrote:

 motyak wrote:
And rule 1 of this site is be polite. That means not blanketing everyone who disagrees with you as tfg in an insulting and dismissive manner.

Currently, there apparently is a practice of fielding command squads, putting them on bikes, and then using the battle company rules to get that squad a free razorback that they can't even ride in.

That sounds an awful lot like "gaming the system" to me.

Is it a TFG practice? For the sake of rule 1, I'll abstain from rendering a judgment on the matter.

I disagree with your #2 change. Also I don't play SM at all so i don't gain any advantage at all from it.

How does that make me TFG?

CrownAxeI wrote:I disagree with your #2 change.

Why?

Traditio wrote:

CrownAxeI wrote:I disagree with your #2 change.

Why?

Answer my question "Am I TFG?" first and i will explain to you why i disagree with it.

CrownAxe wrote:Answer my question "Am I TFG?" first and i will explain to you why i disagree with it.

I reserve judgment.

Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:Answer my question "Am I TFG?" first and i will explain to you why i disagree with it.

I reserve judgment.

So how is a non-SM player letting SMs get one more free transport from their battle company exploiting the game to be TFG?

CrownAxe wrote:So how is a non-SM player letting SMs get one more free transport from their battle company exploiting the game to be TFG?

The practice itself is an exploitation. Even bothering to check the codex and the rulebook to determine whether the practice technically is even legal is a rules-lawyering, cheesy thing to do.

I do not, at this point in the conversation, which to claim that you, or any non-SM player who disagrees with rule 2, is TFG. I reserve my judgment in this case.

I do, nonetheless, wish to maintain that the practice itself is a gaming of the system.

Why do you disagree?

Because it's a pointless nerf. Letting a unit have the option to take a cheap-o transport doesn't do anything broken to the game. Outside of Battle-Company they are paying the points for it and its not hard to make room for the same exact transport in a FA slot. In Battle Company there are already like 10+ free transports, an 11th one doesn't mean crap.

And I again I gain no gaming benefit from this what so ever because I do not play SMs.

 CrownAxe wrote:
Because it's a pointless nerf. Letting a unit have the option to take a cheap-o transport doesn't do anything broken to the game. Outside of Battle-Company they are paying the points for it and its not hard to make room for the same exact transport in a FA slot. In Battle Company there are already like 10+ free transports, an 11th one doesn't mean crap.

And I again I gain no gaming benefit from this what so ever because I do not play SMs.

That's like saying that the wraithknight, retaining the exact rules it currently has and its current points cost, should be able to get 55 points worth of upgrades for free.

Because why the feth not? It's so completely OP and broken at this point that the extra 55 points of upgrades don't matter anyway.

Ultimately, that's your argument: "Eh, why the feth not? It doesn't make THAT much of a difference."

It doesn't.

But fact is, it remains a a rules-lawyering, cheesy and disrespectable practice, and such, ought to stop.

It's utterly ridiculous: "Hey, let's go for a ride on these bikes...lemme get the squad razorback ready which is dedicated to transport us around. We won't actually ride in it, but it can go do its own thing while we enjoy our motorcycle ride."

Traditio wrote:
But fact is, it remains a a rules-lawyering, cheesy and disrespectable practice, and such, ought to stop.

This is a subjective opinion. Which is why you calling everyone names based on your subjectives opinions is extremely obnoxious.

And you're missing the point. What you are trying to nerf with #2 isn't OP or broken (so your WK analogy has nothing to do with my argument). You are just nerfing it because of your personal opinion on how you think the game should be played.

Traditio wrote:

 motyak wrote:
And rule 1 of this site is be polite. That means not blanketing everyone who disagrees with you as tfg in an insulting and dismissive manner.

Currently, there apparently is a practice of fielding command squads, putting them on bikes, and then using the battle company rules to get that squad a free razorback that they can't even ride in.

There is? Good thing I haven't noticed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:


That's like saying that the wraithknight, retaining the exact rules it currently has and its current points cost, should be able to get 55 points worth of upgrades for free.

That's quite the straw man. An AV 11/11/10 HP3 vehicle with a TL-HB is very different from a Wraithknight.

 Swampmist wrote:
I say leave the razorbacks off the free list entirely

I have a better idea add an individual point cost to all the formations and remove the "free transport" part altogether.

and make it "5 models for a Rhino, 10 for a drop pod." Then Make inertial guidance only reduce scatter if the pod would hit terrain (something a guidance system would actually account for) and I'd say most of the stuff is fine.

Totally unneeded

Oh, and give Templars a Detachment, because it's dumb that they don't have one.

This might just happen someday.

But and this is the major part NERF GRAVGUNS
Thats right this weapon is currently good vs vehicles, monsters, infantry and has an insane high rate of fire. These abominations really need a nerf.

 oldzoggy wrote:
But and this is the major part NERF GRAVGUNS
Thats right this weapon is currently good vs vehicles, monsters, infantry and has an insane high rate of fire. These abominations really need a nerf.

My proposed re-balancing for Grav:

1. Gravitation Rule: To-wound rolls are based off of a model's size class;
Infantry/Jump Infantry/Cavalry/Beasts - 5+
Bulky - 4+
Very Bulky - 3+
Monstrous Creature - 2+

In addition, against vehicles, Gravitation weapons cause a Shaken result on a 4+. If a 6 is rolled, the vehicle also loses a Hull Point.


2. Grav Gun - 24"/S* (see above)/ap2/Rapid Fire, Gravitation

Grav Cannon - 24"/S* (see above)/ap2/Salvo 3/4, Gravitation


Now the gun is still deadliest against MC's, making it the premier way for Imperials to deal with big gribbles, HOWEVER, it no longer is an automatic catch-all vacuum cleaner of everything that's got a 4+ or better save!!

There is now an actual decision to make regarding whether or not to bring Grav, because Plasma is still the overall supreme 'generalist' option. (can nuke MEQ's/TEQ's, MC's & works against light to medium vehicles)
On the other hand, Grav massively outperforms Plasma against a popular unit type (MC's & anything with Centurion/Obliterator in it's name or equivalent), and carries no risk of over-heating. However, it can no longer simply mow down everything that's sporting something more durable than a basic t-shirt! (which Marines have never needed help killing anyways...)

Also, the excessive RoF on the cannon is slightly dropped, since you really shouldn't be able to murder any MC with just a single God-tier weapon.

Don't bikes count as very bulky for purposes of transport? Is that taken into account?

Nope, they can take a transport no matter what, unlike every other unit that can take a jump pack and/or bike.

 Swampmist wrote:
Nope, they can take a transport no matter what, unlike every other unit that can take a jump pack and/or bike.

No I meant for the purposes of wounding with Grav. Bikes count as Very Bulky, was this intended?

Traditio wrote:
This thread is basically a response to comments in the Simple Balance for Codex: Eldar.

In that thread, various recommendations were made for nerfs/points adjustments. I would like to enumerate what I think are basically fair nerfs for Codex: Space Marines.

1. A full battle company should only confer free rhinos.

Eh, Drop Pods too, I think.
I'd rather have the Gladius' free vehicle rule only come into effect with full squads, as in a squad only gets their transport free if they max out the squad size, but that's just me. Keep it the same, so Drop Pods and Razorbacks can still be taken, but the price of the extra guys should counteract most of the spam.
Again, this is untested, but I always run games like this, so take it as you will.

2. Command squads should not be able to purchase a dedicated transport if they elect to travel on bikes.

Again, it's an option. If you're already taking 10 free vehicles, why not an 11th?

3. Scout bikes should cost 21 ppm.

No-one takes them as is.

4. Space Marine bikers should cost 24 ppm.

I can't comment, I rarely use bikers myself. I'd rather have bikers as forced to a minimum size of five and leaving their cost as is, also preventing MSU spam.

5. The librarians should not be able to not use powers which reroll saves or cause teleportation.

And other factions can?
Hahaha, no. If everyone else has access to them, so do SM.

6. Devastator Centurions should cost 70 ppm.

No-one complains about the Centurions themselves. It's grav that gets people riled up. How often do you see people complain about HB Centurions?

7. Grav-guns should be rapidfire weapons with 24 inch range.

I could get behind this, though Salvo 2/2 would be preferred.

8. Grav cannons should be 48" range, heavy 1, blast weapons. In compensation for this, a grav cannon and amp should only cost 20 ppm.

Nope. Blast is not the way to go - plasma cannons prove this.
A Heavy 3 36" would be more ideal - fast enough to fire as a snapshot weapon, long enough to hit out, and fills in where the HB doesn't. Same cost, or 20 points.

9. The shield eternal should be 70 ppm.

Nope.
In the SW codex, Eternal Warrior was actually buyable, at 35 points, IIRC. Put on the 15 for the storm shield, and 5 for the situational Adamantium Will. 55/60 is where it should be costed. Certainly not 70.
Why do you hate it so much?

10. Drop pods should cost 45 ppm.

40 max.
It's still stationary, and leaves your guys stranded. If your objectives are spread out across the table, you'll struggle to move and capture them in a Maelstrom setting.

11. Storm shields should cost 15 ppm as an upgrade.

I can get behind this.

12: A buff, not a nerf, but one that's sorely needed: Flakk missiles should cost 5 ppm as an upgrade to missile launchers, not 10 ppm.

So much for

No. Enough is enough. No more buffs. Nerfs for everybody.

And yes, I agree with this. Gives MLs some better usage, although I'd still prefer a Stormtalon instead.

13. Sternguard veterans shall cost 24 ppm.

Why? They're in a good spot as is?

14. Assault centurions shall cost 70 ppm.

Again, I don't know about you, but I never hear ANYONE complaining about Assault Centurions. They're too slow without sinking a ton of points into them, by which point they're not undercosted.

15. Honor guard shall cost 28 ppm.

For a guy in 2+ armour and no invuln?
I think not.

Boom. Codex fixed.

It's really not.

The biggest issue with SM is grav, which is currently necessary until it doesn't need to be used as a crutch, and the free vehicles. You don't seem to want to get rid of free vehicles though.
On the other hand, SM could do with making certain units far more viable for taking - Assault Squads, Whirlwinds, Scout Bikers, LOTD, Captains (without Chapter Master) and even Tactical Marines.

However, I think other armies could do with a change before C:SM, but that's a different topic.

I don't know why you argue with him, Smudge. He lives ina very odd meta.

Traditio wrote:

*snip*
A windrider is, for all intents and purposes, a dire avenger.
*snip*

I just want to point out (because I don't see it anywhere yet) that a windrider is actually a guardian defender, not a dire avenger. So the point cost to get them jetbikes is 8 ppm, not 4. The difference being they can have a warlock leader and have leadership 8 instead of 9 (at a glance). Sorry, I know this is supposed to be an SM thread, but the second page was so loaded with Windrider stuff... and inaccurate at that!

Here is how I plan to get it in your skull why your fixes are terrible. You'll answer questions one at a time.
Here's the first question: are Plasma Cannons taken at a competitive level currently? Were they ever?

BossJakadakk wrote:I just want to point out (because I don't see it anywhere yet) that a windrider is actually a guardian defender, not a dire avenger. So the point cost to get them jetbikes is 8 ppm, not 4. The difference being they can have a warlock leader and have leadership 8 instead of 9 (at a glance). Sorry, I know this is supposed to be an SM thread, but the second page was so loaded with Windrider stuff... and inaccurate at that!

You are correct. Let me re-calculate:

Guardians should cost 10 ppm, as per the other thread.
We should assume that +2 armor is worth at least 4 ppm, on analogy with ork boys upgrading from 6+ armor to 'eavy armor for 4 ppm.
+10 for the bike.

24 ppm.

Traditio wrote:

BossJakadakk wrote:I just want to point out (because I don't see it anywhere yet) that a windrider is actually a guardian defender, not a dire avenger. So the point cost to get them jetbikes is 8 ppm, not 4. The difference being they can have a warlock leader and have leadership 8 instead of 9 (at a glance). Sorry, I know this is supposed to be an SM thread, but the second page was so loaded with Windrider stuff... and inaccurate at that!

You are correct. Let me re-calculate:

Guardians should cost 10 ppm, as per the other thread.
We should assume that +2 armor is worth at least 4 ppm, on analogy with ork boys upgrading from 6+ armor to 'eavy armor for 4 ppm.
Mark of nurgle is 3 ppm.
The additional mobility and hammer of wrath is worth at least 3 ppm.
Plus twin-linked shuriken catapult, relentless, mobility beyond what a jumppack can confer, and the jink special rule.

The least that a windrider bike should cost is 22 ppm.

Have you ever considered the fact that your formulas for determining points are broken as feth? Mark of Nurgle costs 6 ppm on some units. 4+ armour is worth 4 ppm not +2 armour.

Tactical_Spam wrote:Have you ever considered the fact that your formulas for determining points are broken as feth? Mark of Nurgle costs 6 ppm on some units. 4+ armour is worth 4 ppm not +2 armour.

We can check this in an alternative way:

If my calculations are correct, a windrider bike and space marine bike are roughly equivalent.

Do you think that's correct or incorrect in terms of the tactical utility of each?

Traditio wrote:

Tactical_Spam wrote:Have you ever considered the fact that your formulas for determining points are broken as feth? Mark of Nurgle costs 6 ppm on some units. 4+ armour is worth 4 ppm not +2 armour.

We can check this in an alternative way:

If my calculations are correct, a windrider bike and space marine bike are roughly equivalent.

Do you think that's correct or incorrect in terms of the tactical utility of each?

Yes, Windriders are made for mobility, SM bikes are not. SM bikes are made for hunting various problem units.

Tactical_Spam wrote:Yes, Windriders are made for mobility, SM bikes are not. SM bikes are made for hunting various problem units.

Right. So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you seem to be asserting that they are roughly equivalent in utility.

Therefore, they should be roughly cost equivalent.

My formula works.

Traditio wrote:

Tactical_Spam wrote:Yes, Windriders are made for mobility, SM bikes are not. SM bikes are made for hunting various problem units.

Right. So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you seem to be asserting that they are roughly equivalent in utility.

Therefore, they should be roughly cost equivalent.

My formula works.

No that would be incorrect. SM bikes should cost less than Windriders in their current iteration.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
I don't know why you argue with him, Smudge. He lives in a very odd meta.

Then his suggestions should apply only to his meta. Which is fine - for your meta.

But if these suggestions are to gain any kind of traction in the more mainstream settings (ie. tourneys, etc), they need to be balanced according to them.

Tactical_Spam wrote:No that would be incorrect. SM bikes should cost less than Windriders in their current iteration.

I have great difficulty accepting this. Windrider bikes, without upgrades, have worse stats and firepower than space marine bikes. The advantage that windriders have over space marine bikes is mobility (and the opportunity to upgrade to heavy, not special, weapons).

Personally, I'd be satisfied at seeing both windrider bikes and space marine bikes costing 24 ppm.

Of course, in addition to this, windrider bikes should only be able to upgrade to a heavy weapon for 1 out of 3 bikes. This would result in an 82 point mobile artillery squad, but with reasonably restricted firepower.

I think that's basically fair.

No scatterlasers on Windriders. Period. That's a heavy weapon and they should go on Vypers only. There is nothing reasonable about the scatterlaser in 7th ed. They kill Gdamn IKs.

Traditio wrote:

Tactical_Spam wrote:No that would be incorrect. SM bikes should cost less than Windriders in their current iteration.

I have great difficulty accepting this. Windrider bikes, without upgrades, have worse stats and firepower than space marine bikes. The advantage that windriders have over space marine bikes is mobility (and the opportunity to upgrade to heavy, not special, weapons).

Personally, I'd be satisfied at seeing both windrider bikes and space marine bikes costing 24 ppm.

Of course, in addition to this, windrider bikes should only be able to upgrade to a heavy weapon for 1 out of 3 bikes. This would result in an 82 point mobile artillery squad, but with reasonably restricted firepower.

I think that's basically fair.

Windriders have more firepower than SM bikes. I think TL pseudo rending guns beats TL bolters anyday.

Bikes, both Windrider and otherwise, are not worth 24 ppm.

How about only one bike gets it, like SM?

Eh, Drop Pods too, I think.
I'd rather have the Gladius' free vehicle rule only come into effect with full squads, as in a squad only gets their transport free if they max out the squad size, but that's just me. Keep it the same, so Drop Pods and Razorbacks can still be taken, but the price of the extra guys should counteract most of the spam.
Again, this is untested, but I always run games like this, so take it as you will.

My problem with requiring 10 man squads for a free rhino is that this is overly restrictive. It's over 1700 points to get a captain, a chaplain, 100 space marines and 15 scouts. All of this is without upgrades.

I have yet to see anyone complaining about free rhinos.

Free drop pods and razorbacks? Most definitely.

Rhinos? I don't think many people really feel particularly strongly about them.

Again, it's an option. If you're already taking 10 free vehicles, why not an 11th?

I'm against it in principle. It just doesn't make sense for a unit to be able to get a dedicated transport that they can't even ride in.

This isn't a rules/fairness consideration. It's sheer principle.

No-one takes them as is.

That's not an argument that they're not undercosted.

That's just an argument that other things are more undercosted or more effective.

I can't comment, I rarely use bikers myself. I'd rather have bikers as forced to a minimum size of five and leaving their cost as is, also preventing MSU spam

It's a seven point upgrade for:

1. Jink
2. Hammer of wrath
3. Increased mobility (2 and 3 together basically being equivalent to a jumppack)
4. +1 toughness (mark of nurgle)
5. Relentless
6. A twin-linked bolter

Are jink, relentless and a twin-linked bolter only worth 1 ppm?

I think you would have a difficult time defending that.

Does that really strike you as fair?

That doesn't strike me as fair.

And other factions can?
Hahaha, no. If everyone else has access to them, so do SM.

No. My proposal is to expunge them from the game entirely.

No-one complains about the Centurions themselves. It's grav that gets people riled up. How often do you see people complain about HB Centurions?

Go through the rules advantages that centurions have over basic devastators or assault marines. Give me a points value for each of those advantages. Please explain to me how you come to a result of "55 points."

Nope. Blast is not the way to go - plasma cannons prove this.
A Heavy 3 36" would be more ideal - fast enough to fire as a snapshot weapon, long enough to hit out, and fills in where the HB doesn't. Same cost, or 20 points.

That seems reasonable enough.

Nope.
In the SW codex, Eternal Warrior was actually buyable, at 35 points, IIRC. Put on the 15 for the storm shield, and 5 for the situational Adamantium Will. 55/60 is where it should be costed. Certainly not 70.
Why do you hate it so much?

There's no arguing with that. If stormshield = 15 and eternal warrior = 35, then 15+35 = 50. Adamantium will has no substantial points value, as per black templar chapter tactics. Together with adamantium will, their other chapter tactics special rules, and And They Shall Know No Fear, all of that collectively is part of the 1 ppm addition to what chaos space marines get.

Fair point. Shield Eternal being 50 ppm is fine as is.

40 max.
It's still stationary, and leaves your guys stranded. If your objectives are spread out across the table, you'll struggle to move and capture them in a Maelstrom setting.

I don't think that a 5 points difference is worth arguing over. Agreed.

13. Sternguard veterans shall cost 24 ppm.

Why? They're in a good spot as is?

A sternguard veteran is, for all rules and intents and purposes, a veteran sergeant with a fancy gun. A tactical sergeant is 14 ppm. The veteran sergeant upgrade is 10 ppm. Therefore, 24 ppm. I'm throwing in the gun for free.

For a guy in 2+ armour and no invuln?
I think not.

Again, they are veteran sergeants with artificer armor and a power weapon IN ADDITION TO their boltpistol and boltgun.

A veteran sergeant is 24 ppm. What is a power weapon and artificer armor worth?

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Don't bikes count as very bulky for purposes of transport? Is that taken into account?

They're only 'Very Bulky' if it's in their listed Special Rules.

Note that Centurions for example, have the Very Bulky rule lists under their special rules. Bikes do not, hence, they won't be wounded on a 3+.

Ideally, 'Bike/Jetbike' unit type should be coupled alongside 'Bulky' models, since bikes themselves are rather ponderous & heavy looking models. With the ability to Jink, it's not like a strait 4+ to-wound is going to suddenly nerf the hell out of them.
Besides, it would make Grav worse against them than it currently tends to be, and thus bumps Plasma Guns up a bit as the preferred weapon of choice to mow down Bikers. (or else the humble Flamer for the basic Orky & DE versions!)

And all bikes have Very Bulky in the special rules because of their unit type.

Like how all Jump and Jet units are Bulky (Because the Jump and Jet types give models the Bulky special rule).

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Here is how I plan to get it in your skull why your fixes are terrible. You'll answer questions one at a time.
Here's the first question: are Plasma Cannons taken at a competitive level currently? Were they ever?

You have yet to answer this.

Martel732 wrote:
No scatterlasers on Windriders. Period. That's a heavy weapon and they should go on Vypers only. There is nothing reasonable about the scatterlaser in 7th ed. They kill Gdamn IKs.

I don't see this as particularly problematic, if all of the rules that I've recommended are imposed.

3 windriders with a single scatter laser upgrade would be an 82 point unit.

Compare this to a 5 man tactical squad with heavy bolter in a rhino for 80 points.

This strikes me as basically equivalent.

It's not even close. They can get that scatterlaser on the side if basically anything.

I don't agree with all of your other changes anyway.

I'm just waiting for him to answer my question about the Plasma Cannon. He doesn't want it buffed, but historically it isn't taken.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I'm just waiting for him to answer my question about the Plasma Cannon. He doesn't want it buffed, but historically it isn't taken.

He's crazy. It's a terrible weapon. Small templates in general are a dumpster fire.

I'm sure Traditio wants you to play nothing but Tactical marines at this point considering he keeps comparing everything to them

Traditio wrote:

Nope.
In the SW codex, Eternal Warrior was actually buyable, at 35 points, IIRC. Put on the 15 for the storm shield, and 5 for the situational Adamantium Will. 55/60 is where it should be costed. Certainly not 70.
Why do you hate it so much?

There's no arguing with that. If stormshield = 15 and eternal warrior = 35, then 15+35 = 50. Adamantium will has no substantial points value, as per black templar chapter tactics. Together with adamantium will, their other chapter tactics special rules, and And They Shall Know No Fear, all of that collectively is part of the 1 ppm addition to what chaos space marines get.

Lesser Locus of Abjuration is 10 pts to give an IC Adamantium Will.

There's no sense using CSM as a basis for measurement since they are so grossly over-costed relative to tac marines it's ridiculous. Once you start down that road you come to all kinds of absurd conclusions, like +1 to FNP is worth no pts, H&R is worth no pts, etc.

Traditio wrote:
Go through the rules advantages that centurions have over basic devastators or assault marines. Give me a points value for each of those advantages. Please explain to me how you come to a result of "55 points."

This reasoning is nonsensical as it does not account for diminishing returns. For example, I don't care if you give a guy 30 special rules if he's still T4 W1 3+ since a) I'm never going to use every single rule you gave him and b) he still dies like a tac marine. Units need to be priced based on quality of rules, not quantity. Primarily you're looking at survivability, damage output and mobility. Everything else is mostly window dressing.

Martel732 wrote:
No scatterlasers on Windriders. Period. That's a heavy weapon and they should go on Vypers only. There is nothing reasonable about the scatterlaser in 7th ed. They kill Gdamn IKs.

I think the fix for Wind Riders is to reclassify their scatter lasers as something else, i.e- some kind of lighter variant more in line with a special rather than heavy weapon.
Whatever the case though I think that Wind Riders come into a category of something that's broken in Codex: Eldar, rather than something that needs fixing or countering in Codex: Space Marines, so I'm not sure it's really worth discussing.


Anyway, the thing that annoys me most about the 7th edition book is the ability to make Space Marine bikes Troops by mounting any character on a Bike. This should be axed right off and replaced with an appropriate bike formation. Maybe allow White Scars Bikes as Troops, but I'd say it should come with some trade-off (i.e- if you're taking Bikes as Troops you should have to take mounted everything, i.e- Dedicated Transports, Drop Pods etc., no foot-sloggers without some form of rapid transport. In fact I was surprised when I found this caveat as I thought the whole point of Formations was to cover themed builds and get away from buy X to unlock Y as Troops nonsense of previous editions.

It seems easier to just reduce their access to the Laser than make a brand new weapon.

I think a formation to replace Bikes as Troops is a good idea considering every other codex I know of lost the ability to move foc slots around.

 Haravikk wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
No scatterlasers on Windriders. Period. That's a heavy weapon and they should go on Vypers only. There is nothing reasonable about the scatterlaser in 7th ed. They kill Gdamn IKs.

Anyway, the thing that annoys me most about the 7th edition book is the ability to make Space Marine bikes Troops by mounting any character on a Bike. This should be axed right off and replaced with an appropriate bike formation. Maybe allow White Scars Bikes as Troops, but I'd say it should come with some trade-off (i.e- if you're taking Bikes as Troops you should have to take mounted everything, i.e- Dedicated Transports, Drop Pods etc., no foot-sloggers without some form of rapid transport. In fact I was surprised when I found this caveat as I thought the whole point of Formations was to cover themed builds and get away from buy X to unlock Y as Troops nonsense of previous editions.

You got the same effect in 5th and 6th by mounting a captain on a bike. Bikes aren't broken, MSU bikes are.

It's still stupid though that only SM get this. Either make it so every army has access to IC makes X become troops, or get rid of it all together.

I prefer that every army gets the ability to shift units around the FOC though. It would make some really fluffy lists (that are bound). Gargoyles for troops for Winged Hive Tyrants. Big Meks making Deffdreads troops for Dread Mob. Haemonculus making Wracks Troops for Covens, etc etc.

But, that is ranting and not on topic. I agree with a lot of things. Grav is still icky, but it's a mechanic I don't like to begin with. Also don't approve of free Rhino's - nothing should be free IMO.

 Frozocrone wrote:
It's still stupid though that only SM get this. Either make it so every army has access to IC makes X become troops, or get rid of it all together.

I prefer that every army gets the ability to shift units around the FOC though. It would make some really fluffy lists (that are bound). Gargoyles for troops for Winged Hive Tyrants. Big Meks making Deffdreads troops for Dread Mob. Haemonculus making Wracks Troops for Covens, etc etc.

But, that is ranting and not on topic. I agree with a lot of things. Grav is still icky, but it's a mechanic I don't like to begin with. Also don't approve of free Rhino's - nothing should be free IMO.

Eldar get it and they don't even need an IC on a jetbike

Instead of formations for everything, I'd much rather see edited FOC for every army dependent upon the mobility of the HQ or the HQ itself, just like you said. It'd make for very interesting and fluffy armies.

Well, Windriders are in a league of their own xD Should be FA imo, combined with Striking Spears into one profile.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Don't agree with some of this. A drop pod that lands on impassible terrain should be considered a loss, for instance.
No free Razorbacks. To easy to spam. No free pods either. Only rhinos and only with 10 man units.
Grav gun should be 5 points more
26 ppm on the bikes.
Centurions should still be t4 but with a 6+ invul

Simply because you think your answers are the best does not mean "boom codex fixed"
You hardly nerfed it at all.

Also drop pods 10 points more

From an Eldar player that is cute. It is ok for Eldar to have biker infantry for dirt cheap, that usually field S6 Ap6 weapons that fire 4 times, but god forbid any other codex has something remotely affordable.
And the centurions thing? Wraithguard are ok being Wicked Tough, but again lets not let SM have something similar. And giving them a 6+ Invul is just fething stupid. From a guy who argued that Wraithguard are perfectly priced and if anything need a buff, this is a bit...well I don't want to be rude but the words double standard kind of come to mind.

SemperMortis wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Don't agree with some of this. A drop pod that lands on impassible terrain should be considered a loss, for instance.
No free Razorbacks. To easy to spam. No free pods either. Only rhinos and only with 10 man units.
Grav gun should be 5 points more
26 ppm on the bikes.
Centurions should still be t4 but with a 6+ invul

Simply because you think your answers are the best does not mean "boom codex fixed"
You hardly nerfed it at all.

Also drop pods 10 points more

From an Eldar player that is cute. It is ok for Eldar to have biker infantry for dirt cheap, that usually field S6 Ap6 weapons that fire 4 times, but god forbid any other codex has something remotely affordable.
And the centurions thing? Wraithguard are ok being Wicked Tough, but again lets not let SM have something similar. And giving them a 6+ Invul is just fething stupid. From a guy who argued that Wraithguard are perfectly priced and if anything need a buff, this is a bit...well I don't want to be rude but the words double standard kind of come to mind.

Way to not look to the post where myself and a few other posted to include OP brainstormed together to create a decent balance to it all. Don't like my fixes? Make your own or don't post in the purposed rules forum

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Don't agree with some of this. A drop pod that lands on impassible terrain should be considered a loss, for instance.
No free Razorbacks. To easy to spam. No free pods either. Only rhinos and only with 10 man units.
Grav gun should be 5 points more
26 ppm on the bikes.
Centurions should still be t4 but with a 6+ invul

Simply because you think your answers are the best does not mean "boom codex fixed"
You hardly nerfed it at all.

Also drop pods 10 points more

From an Eldar player that is cute. It is ok for Eldar to have biker infantry for dirt cheap, that usually field S6 Ap6 weapons that fire 4 times, but god forbid any other codex has something remotely affordable.
And the centurions thing? Wraithguard are ok being Wicked Tough, but again lets not let SM have something similar. And giving them a 6+ Invul is just fething stupid. From a guy who argued that Wraithguard are perfectly priced and if anything need a buff, this is a bit...well I don't want to be rude but the words double standard kind of come to mind.

Way to not look to the post where myself and a few other posted to include OP brainstormed together to create a decent balance to it all. Don't like my fixes? Make your own or don't post in the purposed rules forum

That goes both ways. Don't like that people express their dislike of your ideas? Don't post in the proposed rules forum.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Haravikk wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
No scatterlasers on Windriders. Period. That's a heavy weapon and they should go on Vypers only. There is nothing reasonable about the scatterlaser in 7th ed. They kill Gdamn IKs.

Anyway, the thing that annoys me most about the 7th edition book is the ability to make Space Marine bikes Troops by mounting any character on a Bike. This should be axed right off and replaced with an appropriate bike formation. Maybe allow White Scars Bikes as Troops, but I'd say it should come with some trade-off (i.e- if you're taking Bikes as Troops you should have to take mounted everything, i.e- Dedicated Transports, Drop Pods etc., no foot-sloggers without some form of rapid transport. In fact I was surprised when I found this caveat as I thought the whole point of Formations was to cover themed builds and get away from buy X to unlock Y as Troops nonsense of previous editions.

You got the same effect in 5th and 6th by mounting a captain on a bike. Bikes aren't broken, MSU bikes are.

I know, but I was under the impression that this was supposed to be going away due to formations. Dark Angels for example can no longer take Deathwing as Troops by taking Belial, or Ravenwing as Troops by taking Sammael, we have to take the appropriate formation(s) to take them in large quantities, which means a buy-in cost to get the minimum required units, as well as deciding how to slot the formation into your list.

So why should a random captain hopping on a bike, for nothing more than the cost of said bike, unlock Bikes as Troops unconditionally? X as Troops list building has always been a terrible way to add things to the list, and often exploitable, as it never seems to come with a penalty. Sure it doesn't help that there are issues with bikes in general, such as their having unconditional Relentless, but this isn't a problem with the Space Marine codex, unlocking them as Troops is.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Don't agree with some of this. A drop pod that lands on impassible terrain should be considered a loss, for instance.
No free Razorbacks. To easy to spam. No free pods either. Only rhinos and only with 10 man units.
Grav gun should be 5 points more
26 ppm on the bikes.
Centurions should still be t4 but with a 6+ invul

Simply because you think your answers are the best does not mean "boom codex fixed"
You hardly nerfed it at all.

Also drop pods 10 points more

From an Eldar player that is cute. It is ok for Eldar to have biker infantry for dirt cheap, that usually field S6 Ap6 weapons that fire 4 times, but god forbid any other codex has something remotely affordable.
And the centurions thing? Wraithguard are ok being Wicked Tough, but again lets not let SM have something similar. And giving them a 6+ Invul is just fething stupid. From a guy who argued that Wraithguard are perfectly priced and if anything need a buff, this is a bit...well I don't want to be rude but the words double standard kind of come to mind.

Way to not look to the post where myself and a few other posted to include OP brainstormed together to create a decent balance to it all. Don't like my fixes? Make your own or don't post in the purposed rules forum

That goes both ways. Don't like that people express their dislike of your ideas? Don't post in the proposed rules forum.

Oh I agree! If someone logically expressed dislike for my idea and offered an improved result of such a rule with an open ended sentence so that s conversation could arise then no one should be upset! However, unless your blind, or that's like, a really" close friend you are attempting to protect.. Or maybe you just like acting hard? Either way, he did none of the above. Simply stated the typical "waah eldar fan boy tried to hurt my space marines wah!"

You're not arguing in good faith. The track record in the Eldar thread speaks for itself.

Why do Centurions need a reduction to Toughness when the Grav-cannon is the reason they're fielded? Nerd the Grav-cannon but leave HB and Lascannons Centurions alone, they see no play as it is.

All the anger over "free" points is silly because it assumes that units are actually worth their current cost. If I made Guardians cost 1000000 points but let each Eldar list get one for free, does that mean the Eldar player is up almost a million points? Yes. Is his list one million points better than his opponent's? Yeah no. Tactical Marines were almost universally reviled before the Gladius, and now people take them.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You're not arguing in good faith. The track record in the Eldar thread speaks for itself.

Why do Centurions need a reduction to Toughness when the Grav-cannon is the reason they're fielded? Nerd the Grav-cannon but leave HB and Lascannons Centurions alone, they see no play as it is.

All the anger over "free" points is silly because it assumes that units are actually worth their current cost. If I made Guardians cost 1000000 points but let each Eldar list get one for free, does that mean the Eldar player is up almost a million points? Yes. Is his list one million points better than his opponent's? Yeah no. Tactical Marines were almost universally reviled before the Gladius, and now people take them.

Sir, I et again ask you to please read the whole thread. That has already been fixed. We said leave them at t5 but either give them a way for a small invul or two wounds. Either or... This is what I'm saying. My original post quoted above was dumb, yet had you READ the whole thread you'd see corrections to those corrections that are better suited for an actual marine codex.

Removed by insaniak. Please don't post if you're not interested in actually contributing to the thread.

Oh I agree! If someone logically expressed dislike for my idea and offered an improved result of such a rule with an open ended sentence so that s conversation could arise then no one should be upset! However, unless your blind, or that's like, a really" close friend you are attempting to protect.. Or maybe you just like acting hard? Either way, he did none of the above. Simply stated the typical "waah eldar fan boy tried to hurt my space marines wah!"

Specifically "waag eldar fan boy tried to hurt my space marines wah!" Ironically I play Orks, I don't own any space marines except for some tacticals that I model to look like they are getting stomped on my Kanz and Deff Dreadz.

I am basing my opinion of your proposed rules completely off your track record. Every time someone proposes a nerf to eldar you jump all over them and rant about how awesome and balanced your codex is. In fact you have even gone as far as to say L2P to a number of people.

So I am sorry if you mentioned later on that you fethed up and didn't mean "NERF Everything that can hurt meh speece elves" But thats how you came across, especially when I take into account your previous posts.

Semper Mortis:

What is your opinion of the changes proposed in the OP?

As an ork player, do they basically strike you as fair?

Traditio wrote:
Semper Mortis:

What is your opinion of the changes proposed in the OP?

As an ork player, do they basically strike you as fair?

If anything you nerfed them to much. Plus I would never propose a nerf to terminators, I never see them in the game as is and on the amazingly rare occurrences where my opponent takes them, it means easy points/win for me depending on how much of them he takes.

SemperMortis wrote:If anything you nerfed them to much. Plus I would never propose a nerf to terminators, I never see them in the game as is and on the amazingly rare occurrences where my opponent takes them, it means easy points/win for me depending on how much of them he takes.

Well, in all fairness, you have to understand:

The nerfs that I am conceiving are in the much greater context of a complete rebalance of 40k. Nerf pointy eared space elves. Nerf Tau. Etc.

Simply for the intellectual exercise, I might just start a thread for orks.

Traditio wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:If anything you nerfed them to much. Plus I would never propose a nerf to terminators, I never see them in the game as is and on the amazingly rare occurrences where my opponent takes them, it means easy points/win for me depending on how much of them he takes.

Well, in all fairness, you have to understand:

The nerfs that I am conceiving are in the much greater context of a complete rebalance of 40k. Nerf pointy eared space elves. Nerf Tau. Etc.

Simply for the intellectual exercise, I might just start a thread for orks.

What I think would be hilarious would be for GW do to a complete 180 on Eldar/Tau/Necrons and SM for 2-3 editions and replace those with Tyranid, CSM, IG and Ork armies becoming OP cheese fests.

At this point I really don't know if it is P2Ps fault that he acts like he does and instead GW is to blame. Realistically those armies I said above haven't had a "Weak" codex or hell even a bottom mid codex since...well Hell I can't really think of any edition where those codex's were in that category, on the other hand Tyranid, CSM, and Orks (not sure about IG) have been bottom tier since...4th? maybe longer.

I think it would be a nice, humbling experience for the Eldar/Tau/Necron/SM players to learn how it feels to start a game at a distinct disadvantage and have to "General" your way through the power difference.

Anyway, go ahead and do a Ork Fix, just bring Killa Kanz back down to around 25-30pts a model, I might field them again.

SemperMortis wrote:

Traditio wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:If anything you nerfed them to much. Plus I would never propose a nerf to terminators, I never see them in the game as is and on the amazingly rare occurrences where my opponent takes them, it means easy points/win for me depending on how much of them he takes.

Well, in all fairness, you have to understand:

The nerfs that I am conceiving are in the much greater context of a complete rebalance of 40k. Nerf pointy eared space elves. Nerf Tau. Etc.

Simply for the intellectual exercise, I might just start a thread for orks.

What I think would be hilarious would be for GW do to a complete 180 on Eldar/Tau/Necrons and SM for 2-3 editions and replace those with Tyranid, CSM, IG and Ork armies becoming OP cheese fests.

At this point I really don't know if it is P2Ps fault that he acts like he does and instead GW is to blame. Realistically those armies I said above haven't had a "Weak" codex or hell even a bottom mid codex since...well Hell I can't really think of any edition where those codex's were in that category, on the other hand Tyranid, CSM, and Orks (not sure about IG) have been bottom tier since...4th? maybe longer.

I think it would be a nice, humbling experience for the Eldar/Tau/Necron/SM players to learn how it feels to start a game at a distinct disadvantage and have to "General" your way through the power difference.

Anyway, go ahead and do a Ork Fix, just bring Killa Kanz back down to around 25-30pts a model, I might field them again.

The way I act? To be fair I'm a very new eldar player. My first ever army was drop pod Crimson fist space marines in 5th Ed. Followed by tau in 6th, then a huge ork army for a very long time. I then collected a second army, grey Knights. After I couldn't stand lugging around so many boys anymore, even though I miss them dearly, I sold my 20,000 (roughly) of orks for dark eldar.. Dark eldar became militarum Tempestus, inquisition, imperial knights, skitarii, and cult mechanicus. Only recently has all of that been sold to field a huge eldar, dark eldar, and harlequins army. I have been to EVERY end of the spectrum. Bottom, middle, top. I respect and play armies at each of these levels and love and enjoy every one of them. My hope, however, isn't for top tier to become bottom tier and vice Versace. It's for all codex to become as balanced and equal as possible.

SemperMortis wrote:

Traditio wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:If anything you nerfed them to much. Plus I would never propose a nerf to terminators, I never see them in the game as is and on the amazingly rare occurrences where my opponent takes them, it means easy points/win for me depending on how much of them he takes.

Well, in all fairness, you have to understand:

The nerfs that I am conceiving are in the much greater context of a complete rebalance of 40k. Nerf pointy eared space elves. Nerf Tau. Etc.

Simply for the intellectual exercise, I might just start a thread for orks.

What I think would be hilarious would be for GW do to a complete 180 on Eldar/Tau/Necrons and SM for 2-3 editions and replace those with Tyranid, CSM, IG and Ork armies becoming OP cheese fests.

At this point I really don't know if it is P2Ps fault that he acts like he does and instead GW is to blame. Realistically those armies I said above haven't had a "Weak" codex or hell even a bottom mid codex since...well Hell I can't really think of any edition where those codex's were in that category, on the other hand Tyranid, CSM, and Orks (not sure about IG) have been bottom tier since...4th? maybe longer.

I think it would be a nice, humbling experience for the Eldar/Tau/Necron/SM players to learn how it feels to start a game at a distinct disadvantage and have to "General" your way through the power difference.

Anyway, go ahead and do a Ork Fix, just bring Killa Kanz back down to around 25-30pts a model, I might field them again.

As a BT player, trust me when I say I know what the bottom of the pile feels like. You could always ask Martel as well and see if Blood Angels are doing well (hint: they're not). The grass is not always greener.

As a BT player, trust me when I say I know what the bottom of the pile feels like. You could always ask Martel as well and see if Blood Angels are doing well (hint: they're not). The grass is not always greener.

I meant specifically meant the SM who are currently in the top 3 in power ranking, IE the super friends lists, SW in general atm, Vanilla Smurfs and such. I know the BAs suck atm, as do templars.