So with the big March FAQ coming we are bound to see points changes and maybe some rules changes too.
Outside of Guilliman Codex SM is bad so lets see if we can fix things nice and easily without any crazy rules changes because I don't think we'll be getting them.
The only rule that needs to change is Chapter Tactics since other armies have their equivalent affect all of their units with Marines stuck with a bizarre limitation.
Below is a rough idea of the sort of points changes I think we are looking at.
Most of the point changes don't really seem necessary. My Marine list uses Raven Guard and Lias Issodon, and has won many more games than it's lost, you can make competitive lists without Robby G. Likewise, I've been on the receiving end of particular units such as Aggressors and Predators, they don't need any changes at all.
Dreadnoughts are fine with just chapter tactics added and the tank changes might require testing (they sound like they might be fine but Vindicator/Whirlwind might just be too efficient) but otherwise things seem reasonable.
Okay. Point drops are nice, I'll never say no to them but I'd prefer rules. Such as drop pods simply treating their weapon as "pistol" so it can't get locked up (or at least pose a threat to anything hoping to just squat by it). Or even just giving Dreads power of the machine Spirit, they had relentless in 7th and Dreadnoughts don't really fire enough shots to move and shoot, except the Redemptor with Gatling cannons.
The Whirlwind is decent, could use an ap increase on both launchers or simply ignores covers. Basically full fills the same purpose but doesn't make them too good against vehicles.
I agree Land raider should be significantly cheaper, if the repulser loaded up with a similar weapons (Twin LC and Las-talon) plus loads more can be cheaper.
I can't really make an opinion about some of these units as I haven't used them, but I take it these are all arbitrary values
Not the biggest fan of point drops for marines. We already don't feel elite. Tac squads could come down but outside of that what I would like:
New strats, PoTMS for dreads and preds, more shots for WWs, more weapon options for termies, no -1 to hit for termies with power fists, +1 attack for termies, new BT tactic along with reduced neophite cost or all the stuff I listed here:
bananathug wrote: Not the biggest fan of point drops for marines. We already don't feel elite. Tac squads could come down but outside of that what I would like:
New strats, PoTMS for dreads and preds, more shots for WWs, more weapon options for termies, no -1 to hit for termies with power fists, +1 attack for termies, new BT tactic along with reduced neophite cost or all the stuff I listed here:
yeah, I'm not expecting anything other than a couple swings of the nerf bat to seriously over-performing units (ynarri reapers) some changes to help sell more models (no idea what's not selling but they will get a price decrease, maybe reivers?) and something pants-on-head strange that breaks the meta (oblits go down in cost? increase price for tac squads? Manticores to go down in price while basis go up?)
I don't think those marine changes are unwarranted, if Tau get a modest boost from the index (which seems a given) it will be another army that really hurts marines (high volume of s5 shots, lots of s6 -2 2d shots, massed fire-warriors infantry, good deepstrike). Marines are on their way from mid-tier to GK tier without some major help...
I think SM should be ok till the end of the edition. They already had the codex to fix the index and CA to fix the codex. Now, do they need a FAQ to fix CA?? Definitely not, SM are fine as they are.
Many other things should be nerfed or improved instead. Nerfing some specific units and combos, like the dark reapers thing, is actually the real fix SM need.
daedalus wrote: I think there's going to be a lot of disappointed people at the end of March.
Tend to agree.
Seconded.
While I think there will be -some- points adjustments, I do not think there will be anything like this scale. The FAQ is used to address questions, rules quandries and “grey areas”, whilst also addressing any massive unit outliers.
I’d expect/hope for changes to units considered to be massively superior/auto includes in an attempt to bring them back into balance, but, the rest of the changes will show up in the next CA (and maybe codex, if they start committing to updating codices on a regular basis).
As much as I’d like things like Drop Pods to be usable alongside some other units, I think this list of points changes is just massive wish-listing and would need to be substantially backed up with reasons and evidence. You’d also then have to consider things like BA, DA and SW units, because you can’t (really) have different points for the same units across 4 different books just cos “basic marine armies suck”.
Blackie wrote: I think SM should be ok till the end of the edition. They already had the codex to fix the index and CA to fix the codex. Now, do they need a FAQ to fix CA?? Definitely not, SM are fine as they are.
Many other things should be nerfed or improved instead. Nerfing some specific units and combos, like the dark reapers thing, is actually the real fix SM need.
The codex didn't fix alot if units and CA hasn't changed anything for normal basic power armour units being not worth taking.
Also space furries don't use tactical squads your units cost the same and grt chainswords so swing 2 attacks in CC to a tactical marines 1.
Also whats the issue with marines and marines +1 paying different points for units with different equipment options. The concept that weapons are free is GW's own undoing here as a giving units access to free weapons and other units the same cost no access to said free upgrade is inherently designing in imbalance.
Also space furries don't use tactical squads your units cost the same and grt chainswords so swing 2 attacks in CC to a tactical marines 1.
Right, but the best use of GH is bringing min squads with no upgrades or maybe with a plasma gun. Because they are played in same way than tacticals, but we can't spam those 5 man squads with a lascannon like SM do, since lascannons are not allowed for grey hunters.
If I wanted lascannons I'd bring devistators squads, they cost the same and get a +1 to hit for free so still no reason for a tac squad. Tac squads sould be for midfield objectives but scouts do that just aswell for cheaper
I honestly think bolters and flamers having exploding 6's for to wound rolls would be a nice, gentle adjustment to marine infantry that would make rank and file tac squads good enough at something to justify their cost vs position on the force org chart, and is in line with the fluff of bolters firing mini rockets exploding, and would make bolters and combi bolters a bit better at chewing infantry up. Also adding another attack on the profile of every infantry in the codex to make decent close combat units out of mediocre and terrible combat units. Maybe a single point reduction. Radical changes I think are a recipe for accelerated codex creep.
You need CPs though, and also cheap screeners. 3x5 tac marines with a lascannon are not bad for what they do. Not mandatory but still a viable option that worths to be considered. IIRC in this edition there was at least one guy that won a major tournament with a SM list that spammed those kind of 5 man squads with lascannons.
For midfielf objectives you use scouts or land speeders, eventually a 10 man (or 2x5) squad of tac in a rhino. You need screeners for your backline anyway and SM only have two options, tacs and scouts, and I strongly prefer tacs over scouts. SM players should rely on scouts for their infiltrate thing.
bananathug wrote: Not the biggest fan of point drops for marines. We already don't feel elite. Tac squads could come down but outside of that what I would like:
New strats, PoTMS for dreads and preds, more shots for WWs, more weapon options for termies, no -1 to hit for termies with power fists, +1 attack for termies, new BT tactic along with reduced neophite cost or all the stuff I listed here:
Yeah... That'd take Space Marines from "okay" to god-tier.
Space marines aren't "okay" they are one of the worst factions in the game. Only Admech and greyknights might be in worse shape.
Automatically Appended Next Post: drop pods cost is already determined. 1-2 command point does it's job for a number of other troop units in other armies without even a unit # restriction. Paying over 70 points to do that is absolutely absurd.
Drop pods should be a stratagem.
Drop pod assault (one use only)
1-3 command points
For each 1 command point you spend to a max of 3. Any infantry/dreadnaught unit can be placed in drop pod assault and deep strike all up to 3 units on the same turn. Each unit is deployed in a separate drop pod.
The drop pod model it's self fires a storm bolter or deathwind missile launcher and has it's current stat line - if an enemy unit moves within 1" of a drop pod - it is assumed to be deactivated and can no longer fire. It can not hold objectives.
bananathug wrote: Not the biggest fan of point drops for marines. We already don't feel elite. Tac squads could come down but outside of that what I would like:
New strats, PoTMS for dreads and preds, more shots for WWs, more weapon options for termies, no -1 to hit for termies with power fists, +1 attack for termies, new BT tactic along with reduced neophite cost or all the stuff I listed here:
Yeah... That'd take Space Marines from "okay" to god-tier.
Space marines aren't "okay" they are one of the worst factions in the game. Only Admech and greyknights might be in worse shape.
Automatically Appended Next Post: drop pods cost is already determined. 1-2 command point does it's job for a number of other troop units in other armies without even a unit # restriction. Paying over 70 points to do that is absolutely absurd.
Drop pods should be a stratagem.
Drop pod assault (one use only)
1-3 command points
For each 1 command point you spend to a max of 3. Any infantry/dreadnaught unit can be placed in drop pod assault and deep strike all up to 3 units on the same turn. Each unit is deployed in a separate drop pod.
The drop pod model it's self fires a storm bolter or deathwind missile launcher and has it's current stat line - if an enemy unit moves within 1" of a drop pod - it is assumed to be deactivated and can no longer fire. It can not hold objectives.
Actually, I found the FW Lucis Dreadnought Droppod being the proper one after CA, costing 80pts to carry a Dread. The GW droppod, costing 85pts is still rubbish by comparison.
While all of your proposed point decreases would be very welcome, I do find it strange you think that Tactical Marines will ebd up being 10 PPM vs the Scouts 11 PPM. If anything, I could see them being the same at 11 points per model. Tactical Marines at 10 points seems like that wouldn't be something GW would consider with how hard they have clung to 13 PPM Tacticals for so long.
NH Gunsmith wrote: While all of your proposed point decreases would be very welcome, I do find it strange you think that Tactical Marines will ebd up being 10 PPM vs the Scouts 11 PPM. If anything, I could see them being the same at 11 points per model. Tactical Marines at 10 points seems like that wouldn't be something GW would consider with how hard they have clung to 13 PPM Tacticals for so long.
I'd certainly make blood claws a bit cheaper. After all they's BS4+ tacticals with no bolters but just pistols and no heavy weapons available. Still 13ppm. The only good thing they have is the max size of 16 dudes per squad, but you need an overcosted transport to carry them all.
My god we got hosed by being the first dex out the door and I'm not sure if it is within reason to expect GW to fix it.
The templar tactic is so terrible on vehicles that they can't just "tactics apply to vehicles" fix it so there would need to be an entire re-work of the tactics.
Our strats are the worst in the game for what is supposedly a highly advanced tactical army lead by the greatest general in the galaxy. I'm not sure if this will get fixed and if it doesn't I'm not sure what they can do outside of over-buff our units (or drop op primarchs on us) in order to make us competitive with these super tactical armies.
My god we got hosed by being the first dex out the door and I'm not sure if it is within reason to expect GW to fix it.
The templar tactic is so terrible on vehicles that they can't just "tactics apply to vehicles" fix it so there would need to be an entire re-work of the tactics.
Our strats are the worst in the game for what is supposedly a highly advanced tactical army lead by the greatest general in the galaxy. I'm not sure if this will get fixed and if it doesn't I'm not sure what they can do outside of over-buff our units (or drop op primarchs on us) in order to make us competitive with these super tactical armies.
yeah I'd like to see space marines and chaos marines given a tweek to their CTs to bring them in line with other armies a bit more
My god we got hosed by being the first dex out the door and I'm not sure if it is within reason to expect GW to fix it.
The templar tactic is so terrible on vehicles that they can't just "tactics apply to vehicles" fix it so there would need to be an entire re-work of the tactics.
Our strats are the worst in the game for what is supposedly a highly advanced tactical army lead by the greatest general in the galaxy. I'm not sure if this will get fixed and if it doesn't I'm not sure what they can do outside of over-buff our units (or drop op primarchs on us) in order to make us competitive with these super tactical armies.
Please....have you seen the Tau dex. Come back after you fix that, then I will listen to how "bad" space marines got it.
My god we got hosed by being the first dex out the door and I'm not sure if it is within reason to expect GW to fix it.
The templar tactic is so terrible on vehicles that they can't just "tactics apply to vehicles" fix it so there would need to be an entire re-work of the tactics.
Our strats are the worst in the game for what is supposedly a highly advanced tactical army lead by the greatest general in the galaxy. I'm not sure if this will get fixed and if it doesn't I'm not sure what they can do outside of over-buff our units (or drop op primarchs on us) in order to make us competitive with these super tactical armies.
Please....have you seen the Tau dex. Come back after you fix that, then I will listen to how "bad" space marines got it.
daedalus wrote: I think there's going to be a lot of disappointed people at the end of March.
I can hear pitchforks being sharpened already.
On topic, IMO Tactics should apply to whole army for both SM and CSM (including TS and DG) to be brought in line with all the other factions. Makes no sense why they have a silly restriction to infantry and dreads only when no other codex does.
The Deer Hunter wrote: Instead of lowering SM, are the other armies that should be raised in points. Otherwise is the usual power creep going on like we saw in 7ed.
Power creep is in full swing this edition, and it isn't going anywhere. Besides a few outliers, the Codexes have been getting better as time goes on. It is unfortunate how hard Marines have been hit this edition by being the first out, and by having their points adjusted in Chapter Approved before the rest of the books have come out.
The Twin Assault Cannon Razorback has been growing far less scary as each new book introduces powerhouses that outperform the Razorback and for a similar point cost.
Things I'd like to see would be the assault bolt rifle having ap -1, which it should be, we pay more for an extra shot but lose the ap?
Another thing I'd like to see is ap-1 on reivers knives. Then for the carbines instead of making them just a copy of the assault bolt rifle I'd make it assault 3 with no ap.
I think people in this thread are underestimating how much better all the units would be with everyone getting chapter tactics.
I wouldn't be surprised to see that changed to bring it in line with the standard of 8th edition codexes. But I wouldn't expect that change to come with a point decrease for most of the army. Either one or the other, though terminators should probably get a decrease in points no matter what, as a 2+ isn't what it used to be.
Punisher wrote: I think people in this thread are underestimating how much better all the units would be with everyone getting chapter tactics.
I wouldn't be surprised to see that changed to bring it in line with the standard of 8th edition codexes. But I wouldn't expect that change to come with a point decrease for most of the army. Either one or the other, though terminators should probably get a decrease in points no matter what, as a 2+ isn't what it used to be.
It's never been good really, perhaps 2nd ed but the history of terminator armour has never been a stellar one.
3rd. No invun overcosted.
3.5 invun overcosted
4th overcosted
5th storm shield, others over costed
6th as above
7th as above
8th extra wound, overcosted.
The real issue is GW dropped the ball with how it works on Imperial Guard armies as their vehicles get a different benefit, vs other armies. For AdMech they have not a lot of vehicles so I like the simplicity of just the blanket benefit, but otherwise everyone else should've been designed the same way as Guard. I don't know what I'd pick for every faction, but as it stands they should've tried even at least a little.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
fraser1191 wrote: Things I'd like to see would be the assault bolt rifle having ap -1, which it should be, we pay more for an extra shot but lose the ap?
Another thing I'd like to see is ap-1 on reivers knives. Then for the carbines instead of making them just a copy of the assault bolt rifle I'd make it assault 3 with no ap.
You pay for the extra damage from its max range to 15.1" and the Assault profile. Whether that profile is actually worth it remains to be seen.
To be honest - the proposed point drops in this post are actaully somewhat low reaching.
Centurions could do with a 35 point drop.
Land raiders with a 80 point drop
You could probably drop every transports cost in the game by 20 points and they still wouldnt be that great.
Message to marine fan boys also - I understand you love marines. You don't have to love their broken rules and stat lines though. Their rules and stats are bad - they need level playing field.
Punisher wrote: I think people in this thread are underestimating how much better all the units would be with everyone getting chapter tactics.
I wouldn't be surprised to see that changed to bring it in line with the standard of 8th edition codexes. But I wouldn't expect that change to come with a point decrease for most of the army. Either one or the other, though terminators should probably get a decrease in points no matter what, as a 2+ isn't what it used to be.
It's never been good really, perhaps 2nd ed but the history of terminator armour has never been a stellar one.
3rd. No invun overcosted.
3.5 invun overcosted
4th overcosted
5th storm shield, others over costed
6th as above
7th as above
8th extra wound, overcosted.
I think i know a fix for terminators.
Terminator armor should give +1 T and S and + 1 to BS. This way cost could remain same and terminators would make more sense.
If you really think it why does terminator strike with power sword at same strength as normal space marine???
Another point is that terminator armor is designed to stabilize and help on shooting so why does terminator fire at same ballistic skill as normal space marine???
Last point why does bike grant +1 toughnes for space marine and Terminator armor that is well ARMOR wont???
These should fix terminators allso terminator charge range should probably be lowered as it makes no sense that space marine has same charge range as terminator...
JorpA wrote: I think i know a fix for terminators.
Terminator armor should give +1 T and S and + 1 to BS. This way cost could remain same and terminators would make more sense.
If you really think it why does terminator strike with power sword at same strength as normal space marine???
Another point is that terminator armor is designed to stabilize and help on shooting so why does terminator fire at same ballistic skill as normal space marine???
Last point why does bike grant +1 toughnes for space marine and Terminator armor that is well ARMOR wont???
These should fix terminators allso terminator charge range should probably be lowered as it makes no sense that space marine has same charge range as terminator...
Yeah, i don't like the bike thing either. But as far as terminators go, their problems have always been survivability and damage. +1 T won't do much, hell that's gravis right there and its always seemed very underwhelming to me in the current meta. +1S? Might help with lightning claws, but otherwise with a pf or a th they still hit pretty hard without it. There's a lot of things that could be done, but just picking one of each category (instead of giving them a points drop):
1 - hard to kill. Terminators may reroll their 2+ and their 5++. For quite a while now, the best way to kill terminators was make them fail their 2+ through numbers. Likewise their 5++ didn't really do much against anti-tank, hence the popular th/ss combo. This makes it harder to kill them with without making it impossible. Terminators *should* be able to shrug off basic ap0 shots, this puts their chances of failing from 1/6 wounds to 1/36.
2 - special issue stormbolters. My preferred option for all bolter weapons is to allow them to make +/-1 or +6" to their profile whenever they shoot. But just looking at terminators in isolation, give them the sternguard 'special issue' version of storm bolters. Suddenly they're doing decent damage.
There's a lot more stuff i'd advocate, like stable platform (ignore the first -1 to hit penalty from weapons when attacking) but it doesn't really fit given that terminators are tactical dreadnought armour and dreadnoughts (or any vehicle really, for that matter) don't get that bonus either. Having said that, i'd look at adding 'stable platform' to vehicles in general. And while i'm at it i'd solve world peace, end world hunger, etc etc. But that's just my take on it. The alternative is to drop point costs, but i'd rather keep the elite 'feel' of marines.
Of course I'm for giving Vanguard WS2+ and Sternguard BS2+ and then adjusting prices as necessary.
That sounds good, make tgem like a true elite professional fightung personnel.
I think Terminator worth being given 3A instead of 2A, the low number of attack is actually one big problem for these big expensive units.
The nice part is that you don't really need to adjust the Terminator variants for any of the HQ units as well. I'm against an additional attack though unless we give all HQ units an additional attack in general. That ends up being a chain reaction.
The main issue with terminators as I see it is they pay a lot to be resistant to small arms with 2+ 2W, but still die very easily to anything that can bypass the 2+ and cause 2+ wounds such as plasma.
Like it or not, you aren't heavy infantry until you have 3W, or at the very least some kind of FNP to shrug off some of a 2D weapon. This actual durability, more than anything else, is what makes paladins and custodes better than terminators even though they are more expensive.
So to me, the only real options are to reduce their points, give them another wound, or make them somehow more durable.
T7 11W 3+sv MBT's feel real durable compaired to nope even eldar who had lower armour values in previous editions have an additional wound tau tanks which were comparable have 2 more wounds. Not feeling so durable.
Ah. I was referring specifically to terminators in my comments.
They pay for being something like twice as durable as Marines wound and save wise, but the right guns drop them almost as easily. So they need to either be cheaper or more durable, in my opinion.
Making them cheaper is probably the better choice imo, since it's the easiest way to adjust things.
Ice_can wrote: T7 11W 3+sv MBT's feel real durable compaired to nope even eldar who had lower armour values in previous editions have an additional wound tau tanks which were comparable have 2 more wounds. Not feeling so durable.
Maybe if they were priced appropriately and we're affected by Chapter Tactics like the Eldar and Tau tanks are.
Generally, Marines do cost too much for how durable they are. Pretty much the entire game is set up for a T4 1W 3+ model to get the short end of the math stick.
The way AP works means AP 1, which is fairly common on anti infantry guns, increases casualties on armor types as follows:
2+ save by 100% (from 1/6 to 2/6 failed saves)
3+ by 50%
4+ by 33%
5+ by 25%
6+ by 20%
So, the better your armor save, the more effective AP weapons are on you.
Additionally, the way the wound chart has changed, S5 went from wounding T3 on 2s to on 3s, making T3 just as durable as T4 against a lot of anti infantry weapons.
As if that wasnt enough, the guns with high AP almost completely remove Marine's durability, typically wounding on 2s or 3s, and reducing saves to 5+ or worse. This hurts Marines more than most other infantry targets, since each wound is worth so much more.
Finally, Marines are worse against mortal wounds than almost anything else, since they are some of the most expensive single wound models, and 1 mortal wound = 1 dead model.
All of these things make Marines bad compared to almost any infantry unit in the game, and that's just talking about them defensively.
Primaris Marines are pretty much in the same boat, except they are twice as durable against 1D weapons and mortal wounds. Terminators too, though they do get at least a 5++ against guns which is nice, but not reliable. You can make it a 3++ which is decent but then you have to use hammers and it costs a lot...
Most Space marine vehicles are in a similar spot, with the 3+ armor having the same AP issue, and T7 being not amazing since most anti tank guns are S8 or higher so they typically get wounded on 3+, and most anti infantry guns are at least S4 so they wound on 5+. So they might as well be T5 or 6 against most things that shoot at them.
All of these things mean that Marines are not nearly as durable as they seem to be, and less durable per point than most other infantry in the game.
jcd386 wrote: Generally, Marines do cost too much for how durable they are. Pretty much the entire game is set up for a T4 1W 3+ model to get the short end of the math stick.
The way AP works means AP 1, which is fairly common on anti infantry guns, increases casualties on armor types as follows:
2+ save by 100% (from 1/6 to 2/6 failed saves)
3+ by 50%
4+ by 33%
5+ by 25%
6+ by 20%
So, the better your armor save, the more effective AP weapons are on you.
Additionally, the way the wound chart has changed, S5 went from wounding T3 on 2s to on 3s, making T3 just as durable as T4 against a lot of anti infantry weapons.
As if that wasnt enough, the guns with high AP almost completely remove Marine's durability, typically wounding on 2s or 3s, and reducing saves to 5+ or worse. This hurts Marines more than most other infantry targets, since each wound is worth so much more.
Finally, Marines are worse against mortal wounds than almost anything else, since they are some of the most expensive single wound models, and 1 mortal wound = 1 dead model.
All of these things make Marines bad compared to almost any infantry unit in the game, and that's just talking about them defensively.
Primaris Marines are pretty much in the same boat, except they are twice as durable against 1D weapons and mortal wounds. Terminators too, though they do get at least a 5++ against guns which is nice, but not reliable. You can make it a 3++ which is decent but then you have to use hammers and it costs a lot...
Most Space marine vehicles are in a similar spot, with the 3+ armor having the same AP issue, and T7 being not amazing since most anti tank guns are S8 or higher so they typically get wounded on 3+, and most anti infantry guns are at least S4 so they wound on 5+. So they might as well be T5 or 6 against most things that shoot at them.
All of these things mean that Marines are not nearly as durable as they seem to be, and less durable per point than most other infantry in the game.
Exactly.
I want to make one additional points to the problem of Terminators. That 5++ might looks shining on paper, but in real world it is pretty useless. against the old AP2 weapons (AP-3 in this edition) like lascannons, plasma, powerfist, etc., their "dropped armor save is the same as that 5++, so armor and inv save is no difference.... While there are AP-4 weapons, it is relatively rare and each have fewer shots but usually have D6 damage which seems made them act as AT weapon would be more efficient.
I may agree overall but not about the vehicles. They're pretty durable for their points. The cheapest ones at least, I'm looking at rhinos and razorbacks.
Their flyers have a -1 to hit and very good firepower, it's not that easy to kill them, especially if you have multiple vehicles in the list.
A marine in cover has a 2+ save, he can soak a lot of anti infantry hits (usually S3-4 with no AP) before rolling that one.
I have much problems to avoid getting tabled with drukhari and also ork green tides than with SW. I also play with sisters occasionally and with 6-7 tanks (which are basically the same SM ones in terms of durability) they are quite tough to kill.
I have to say that the 20+ dark reapers thing doesn't exist here (no one owns more than 10) and my meta is full of people that fear hordes more than armored stuff, so many TAC lists have a decent amount of anti tank but not 20+ lascannons or similar. It's easier to kill 60 boyz than 2 rhinos/razorbacks in a single turn here.
Rhinos and razorbacks used to be easier to kill than predators, there isn't a distinction in the 8th edition codex, predators etc die way too easy compaird to their comparible units and rhino's and especially razorbacks outperform them.
Rhino 11,11,10 predators where 13, 11, 11. Why are they the same in 8th edition?
Sisters don't have MBT equivelents, but they also have the ability to shoot out of their tanks marines don't. Also sisters arnt paying the rediculous 13ppm.
Really flyers are durable? Given how many units have fly as a keyword units with +1 to hit flyers should be common.
I agree that the vehicles are not in as bad a spot as the infantry, as their wounds let them take some damage, but they still have an overall inefficient stat line they are presumably paying for. The real issue though is that in the current state of the game, vehicles tend to need infantry to protect them from assault, and we pretty much only have 1 normal infantry unit worth taking (scouts).
And yes, Marines in cover are durable against small arms fire (which I define as S4 AP0 and worse). But, once you bring any real gun to bare on them, like heavy bolters, assault cannons, etc, they melt in a way they never have in any previous edition.
And honestly all of these things are fine, except that Marines cost too much more how mediocre they are. My whole point is just that they should cost less, not be more durable. The T4 3+ 1W stat line is just not that great any more.
The fliers seem in a slightly better spot, with the -1 to wound and are harder to assault, but they can't be hovering for this, and sometimes you have to hover to stay in reroll range of Bobby G etc, so even that is situational.
If you look at the good armies, they all have cheap infantry in common, because when it comes to durability in 8th, the most important stat to have is 1W, and when you only have to pay 3 or 4 points for it, it doesn't really matter if you are T3 5 or 6+ save. And this isn't even bringing up things like board control from having 50 1W models on the board.
Martel732 wrote: Predators are embarrassing compared to Russes, but they are functional.
You should compare them to dunecrawlers...
All in all I think Marine stats/profiles are all well and good, but a lot of them need points decreases. I'm not a fan of OP's suggestions as they seem too extreme. Point changes aren't done in a vacuum either, so you can't reduce Tac down to 10ppm (less than scouts? lol) while increasing Guardsmen to 5ppm. It'll just wildly skew the balance.
I don't expect anything but nerfs in the FAQ either way, with buffs coming in CA at the end of the year.
They're cheap and can therefore be used to screen for more important units effectively.
They can be given orders to make them more effective than their base cost would normally allow (due to the influence of another unit).
Increasing their cost to 5ppm adds 10 points per unit or 30 points per battalion which reduces their value as a cheap screening unit. They have a very short effective range and need to be close to a commander to do much of anything valuable (and I'm in favor of increasing the cost of Company Commanders by a lot.)
And the last thing I want is SM to get buffed to the point of absurdity that they're considered to be one of the very top armies. Nothing kills a game more for me than when I can't play with my friends without feeling there's just an innate advantage that I can't control.
Martel732 wrote: 10 ppm tacs are still not getting you very far. My Eldar opponent has let me field them at 10ppm. I still got tabled. Because dark reapers.
Don't factor stuff like that in. Don't say "X isn't good because when it fights to Y it still loses" when Y is something that's extremely broken and needs to be nerfed. Dark Reapers counter and destroy a lot of things in the game and they themselves don't have many counters. They're under-costed and over-perform.
Martel732 wrote: 10 ppm tacs are still not getting you very far. My Eldar opponent has let me field them at 10ppm. I still got tabled. Because dark reapers.
I played deathwatch with my eldar - I tabled him in 2 turns. Almost felt bad but I have no idea why he was taking drop pods and 40 power armor bodies. I lost a single war walker and d weapon support platform turn 1 - he lost 30 marines and had his corvus dropped to 2 wounds and he even went first. GG space marines.
Martel732 wrote: 10 ppm tacs are still not getting you very far. My Eldar opponent has let me field them at 10ppm. I still got tabled. Because dark reapers.
I played deathwatch with my eldar - I tabled him in 2 turns. Almost felt bad but I have no idea why he was taking drop pods and 40 power armor bodies. I lost a single war walker and d weapon support platform turn 1 - he lost 30 marines and had his corvus dropped to 2 wounds and he even went first. GG space marines.
Deathwatch is like if you took Space Marines and tied 3 point anchors to each of their feet. They're bad.
Martel732 wrote: 10 ppm tacs are still not getting you very far. My Eldar opponent has let me field them at 10ppm. I still got tabled. Because dark reapers.
I played deathwatch with my eldar - I tabled him in 2 turns. Almost felt bad but I have no idea why he was taking drop pods and 40 power armor bodies. I lost a single war walker and d weapon support platform turn 1 - he lost 30 marines and had his corvus dropped to 2 wounds and he even went first. GG space marines.
Deathwatch is like if you took Space Marines and tied 3 point anchors to each of their feet. They're bad.
Their guns actually appear scary on paper - but like everything in power armor - it might as well be flak armor for the most part. I can't stress enough how marines need a durability increase ether through stats or point reductions. I'd much prefer a stats increase though - Marines are supposed to be powerful and limited - not weak and numerous.
Part of the problem I feel is that the venerable boltgun is just so anemic in this edition. I remember the older lore that described them as explosive mini rockets that would rip a man in half. And here they are, almost the worst troop armament. Having them deal mortal wounds on wound rolls of 6+ would have fit the lore of the weapon so much more.
Then perhaps make the marines feel more durable too. But here too is a problem, namely: astartes inflation. By now, the normal marine must suffer from an enormous inferiority complex as he was once THE defender of mankind, then we had Terminators (sure, these were super awesome). But then we got deathwatch, custodes, grey knights, primaris, etc. Those would need buffs too.
Gryphonne wrote: Part of the problem I feel is that the venerable boltgun is just so anemic in this edition. I remember the older lore that described them as explosive mini rockets that would rip a man in half. And here they are, almost the worst troop armament. Having them deal mortal wounds on wound rolls of 6+ would have fit the lore of the weapon so much more.
Then perhaps make the marines feel more durable too. But here too is a problem, namely: astartes inflation. By now, the normal marine must suffer from an enormous inferiority complex as he was once THE defender of mankind, then we had Terminators (sure, these were super awesome). But then we got deathwatch, custodes, grey knights, primaris, etc. Those would need buffs too.
I really don't think a Boltgun should deal Mortal Wounds. There is enough Mortal Wound spam in the game as it is.
An extra hit on a roll of a 6 would be better in my opinion.
Martel732 wrote: 10 ppm tacs are still not getting you very far. My Eldar opponent has let me field them at 10ppm. I still got tabled. Because dark reapers.
Don't factor stuff like that in. Don't say "X isn't good because when it fights to Y it still loses" when Y is something that's extremely broken and needs to be nerfed. Dark Reapers counter and destroy a lot of things in the game and they themselves don't have many counters. They're under-costed and over-perform.
Do you think 10 ppm marines would let marines beat Flyrants or IG gunline? Not with what flyrants and basilisks currently cost. Base marines do not play like 13 ppm models. When you start giving them gear that does something, it gets crazy FAST.
Bharring wrote: But what about the other side of the coin? If you buff Marines, what are you going to do about Necron Warriors? Gaunts? Guardians? Kroot? And soforth.
Are those units necessarily bad/overcosted like Tac marines are?
I don't even want Tacs to compete points wise against the best units of other armies. I just want them to compete against Scouts lol. As it stands they're just not really good to pick up unless you want a lascannon with Obsec or still think plasma guns are good.
Bharring wrote: Tacs as-is still compare reasonably to most of the troop options in the rules - they only "suck" compared to the best few troops.
The issue is they don't fit a niche well, which is just a downside to the Space Marines Jack-of-all-Trades mindset. They're too costly to use as a screen, too squishy to be considered tanky, and often too weak to be considered a threat.
Scouts are cheaper and so make for better screens and more mobile and so meaning you can put their S4 AP0 right where it can actually be used. So the easiest thing to fix for Tacs that might not break the game is simply to make them cheaper.
Necron Warriors and Dire Avengers are both 12. DAs should probably be the same points as Marines, but shouldn't Necron Warriors be 1ppm cheaper?
I don't have the Necron codex on me for Warriors if they've changed from the index, but their cost comes from Ld 10, AP-1 and reanimation protocols. Even with only 4+ they're definitely tougher to deal with than Tacs, while being far more threatening when they get their guns in rapid fire range.
Bharring wrote: Tacs as-is still compare reasonably to most of the troop options in the rules - they only "suck" compared to the best few troops.
Stop comparing them to just troops. For marines, tacs are troops, fast attack, elite, and heavy support. At least the statline is. Also, marine wargear is costed too high. The other problem.
That's a weak argument. The Marine statline is flatout better than Dark Reapers, and you wouldn't say Marines are better than Reapers. Statline only means so much.
As for wargear:
Doesn't the LasCannon seem reasonable compared to the Bright or Dark lances?
It's not a weak argument. The tac marine statline has to take on basically everything in the game.
Right, the lack of special rules for marine elites, heavy support, etc compared to Xenos and even IG is crippling.
I'm talking about the COST of the wargear. Lascannons and missile launchers just aren't worth 25 pts for marines. They have no special rules making these weapons worth the exorbitant cost. And then they are easy to kill on top of it.
Bharring wrote: Tacs as-is still compare reasonably to most of the troop options in the rules - they only "suck" compared to the best few troops.
Stop comparing them to just troops. For marines, tacs are troops, fast attack, elite, and heavy support. At least the statline is. Also, marine wargear is costed too high. The other problem.
In my opinion, every special weapon besides Plasma guns, Lascannons, and Heavy Bolters could use a nice 10-15% point drop. Even Plasma guns I'd consider slightly overcosted right now, but I'd rather see other options brought in line before Plasma Guns get a buff.
Bharring wrote: Tacs as-is still compare reasonably to most of the troop options in the rules - they only "suck" compared to the best few troops.
Stop comparing them to just troops. For marines, tacs are troops, fast attack, elite, and heavy support. At least the statline is. Also, marine wargear is costed too high. The other problem.
In my opinion, every special weapon besides Plasma guns, Lascannons, and Heavy Bolters could use a nice 10-15% point drop. Even Plasma guns I'd consider slightly overcosted right now, but I'd rather see other options brought in line before Plasma Guns get a buff.
No, scions need a nerf. Another one. That's the only squad I'm having problems with that's armed with plasma anything. Scions should be around 25 ppm. They aren't.
Martel732 wrote: No, scions need a nerf. Another one. That's the only squad I'm having problems with that's armed with plasma anything. Scions should be around 25 ppm. They aren't.
"The Tac Marine staline has to take on everything in the game" in the same way that an Aspect Warrior statline needs to too. Sure, CWE has Wraiths and vehicles. If only Marines had Termies and Primaris and vehicles. I'm not saying they're all viable, only that Marines aren't the only ones with a consistent statline across slots.
How many more special rules to Orkz have for their Heavy Supports and Elites and such?
Perhaps an IoMML isn't worth 25pts. But why is the CWEML worth 30? The Lascannon might seem like not a great option for a squad to camp cover, but then does the Brightlance - shorter range, lower strength, and +1 ap - so much better even for slightly fewer points?
The Guardian or Pathfinder that equips these weapons don't have special rules that make these weapons better than IOM counterparts any more than Marines do. And, per point, Guardians and Pathfinders are typically much easier to remove than Marines - especially in cover, which these weapons tend to camp out in.
And that's your cherry-picked weapons. What about others? Even Sarges have much better rules for use of powerswords than Guardians or Kalabites.
There are a lot of tradeoffs in this game, and on some of the options there seem to be blinders.
I could see a points drop on many of the heavies in the game. MM, Heavy Bolter, and CWEML definitely. Probably Scatter Lasers, IoMML, and Grav Cannons too.
Automatically Appended Next Post: My ASM can't take plasma guns.
So scions are 100% better than your ASM, not just 75%.
I don't know what Eldar look like without Reapers. So everything I post about them is going to be colored by Dark Reapers.
What I do now is that my marines and others' marines are getting bulldozed by Nids and IG and Eldar. The games aren't even close. I'm thinking the 13 ppmtac marine not being worth 13 ppm is a serious contributing factor.
It's not that big of a buff. Drukhari, Necrons, and Tau will also be smashing marines to bits. Start with marines at 11 ppm. That's 14 ppm assault marines, who would still suck. A marine dev with a lascannon is still a massive 36 ppm. The fragility of 3+ armor for the cost and the insane durability of 5+ for the cost (on guardsmen) is making things very difficult.
Don't bother arguing with Bharring. He wouldn't even admit that one of his most mediocre units in 7th, the Dire Avenger, was better than Chaos Marines and the Loyalist Scum counterparts.
Martel732 wrote: It's not that big of a buff. Drukhari, Necrons, and Tau will also be smashing marines to bits. Start with marines at 11 ppm. That's 14 ppm assault marines, who would still suck. A marine dev with a lascannon is still a massive 36 ppm. The fragility of 3+ armor for the cost and the insane durability of 5+ for the cost (on guardsmen) is making things very difficult.
The funny thing is I feel like even at 11ppm I'd still rather take scouts and Intercessors. Which is fine by me since Intercessors are cool as gak and Scouts are very Raven Guard.
Though while we're talking, Snipers need to be 3ppm not 4 (even for Rangers), and Camo Cloaks need to be 2ppm not 3.
Bharring wrote: "The Tac Marine staline has to take on everything in the game" in the same way that an Aspect Warrior statline needs to too. Sure, CWE has Wraiths and vehicles. If only Marines had Termies and Primaris and vehicles. I'm not saying they're all viable, only that Marines aren't the only ones with a consistent statline across slots.
How many more special rules to Orkz have for their Heavy Supports and Elites and such?
Perhaps an IoMML isn't worth 25pts. But why is the CWEML worth 30? The Lascannon might seem like not a great option for a squad to camp cover, but then does the Brightlance - shorter range, lower strength, and +1 ap - so much better even for slightly fewer points?
The Guardian or Pathfinder that equips these weapons don't have special rules that make these weapons better than IOM counterparts any more than Marines do. And, per point, Guardians and Pathfinders are typically much easier to remove than Marines - especially in cover, which these weapons tend to camp out in.
And that's your cherry-picked weapons. What about others? Even Sarges have much better rules for use of powerswords than Guardians or Kalabites.
There are a lot of tradeoffs in this game, and on some of the options there seem to be blinders.
I could see a points drop on many of the heavies in the game. MM, Heavy Bolter, and CWEML definitely. Probably Scatter Lasers, IoMML, and Grav Cannons too.
Automatically Appended Next Post: My ASM can't take plasma guns.
Who cares if Tactical Sergeants use the Power Swords better? It isn't an upgrade you take because it's bad!
Bharring wrote: Because Dire Avenger spam won so many tournies in 7th, whereas Obsec Spam early in 7th or Gladius late in 7th won so few?
You've never been able to accept that not everything in this game is better than Marines.
It with Wave Serpent Spam won 6th. Gladius won because it had 300-500 extra points.
That's like saying AdMech did well in 7th because Convocation and who cares if their Elite choices weren't good? I'd like you to tell that to the AdMech players out there.
Martel732 wrote: It's not that big of a buff. Drukhari, Necrons, and Tau will also be smashing marines to bits. Start with marines at 11 ppm. That's 14 ppm assault marines, who would still suck. A marine dev with a lascannon is still a massive 36 ppm. The fragility of 3+ armor for the cost and the insane durability of 5+ for the cost (on guardsmen) is making things very difficult.
The funny thing is I feel like even at 11ppm I'd still rather take scouts and Intercessors. Which is fine by me since Intercessors are cool as gak and Scouts are very Raven Guard.
Though while we're talking, Snipers need to be 3ppm not 4 (even for Rangers), and Camo Cloaks need to be 2ppm not 3.
Bharring wrote: "The Tac Marine staline has to take on everything in the game" in the same way that an Aspect Warrior statline needs to too. Sure, CWE has Wraiths and vehicles. If only Marines had Termies and Primaris and vehicles. I'm not saying they're all viable, only that Marines aren't the only ones with a consistent statline across slots.
How many more special rules to Orkz have for their Heavy Supports and Elites and such?
Perhaps an IoMML isn't worth 25pts. But why is the CWEML worth 30? The Lascannon might seem like not a great option for a squad to camp cover, but then does the Brightlance - shorter range, lower strength, and +1 ap - so much better even for slightly fewer points?
The Guardian or Pathfinder that equips these weapons don't have special rules that make these weapons better than IOM counterparts any more than Marines do. And, per point, Guardians and Pathfinders are typically much easier to remove than Marines - especially in cover, which these weapons tend to camp out in.
And that's your cherry-picked weapons. What about others? Even Sarges have much better rules for use of powerswords than Guardians or Kalabites.
There are a lot of tradeoffs in this game, and on some of the options there seem to be blinders.
I could see a points drop on many of the heavies in the game. MM, Heavy Bolter, and CWEML definitely. Probably Scatter Lasers, IoMML, and Grav Cannons too.
Automatically Appended Next Post: My ASM can't take plasma guns.
Who cares if Tactical Sergeants use the Power Swords better? It isn't an upgrade you take because it's bad!
Melee weapons on Tac Sergeants is like a "don't feth with me" stick. It keeps people from wanting to get in melee with you.
Which is useless because they'll just shoot you instead :/
So DAs are good because in 6th E they unlocked Serpents which were good. But Marines in 7th were bad because all they did was unlock Razorbacks in Gladius? Kinda inconsistent there. And ignores the MEQ-spam lists that didn't take Razorbacks.
DAVU was OP, but that was the Serpents, not the DAs. All DAs did was be the cheapest option to take Serpents - at 1ppm below Tac Marines. The end of DAVU didn't make DAs powerhouses.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If two MEQ squads were to face eachother, one has a powersword and the other not, the powersword squad gets to dictate the flow of the engagement. But that's 4 points you spent to do that. And isn't terribly common.
Putting a powersword on a kalabite or a ranged Exarch will typically still put you behind naked Tacs in CC.
Bharring wrote: So DAs are good because in 6th E they unlocked Serpents which were good. But Marines in 7th were bad because all they did was unlock Razorbacks in Gladius? Kinda inconsistent there. And ignores the MEQ-spam lists that didn't take Razorbacks.
DAVU was OP, but that was the Serpents, not the DAs. All DAs did was be the cheapest option to take Serpents - at 1ppm below Tac Marines. The end of DAVU didn't make DAs powerhouses.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If two MEQ squads were to face eachother, one has a powersword and the other not, the powersword squad gets to dictate the flow of the engagement. But that's 4 points you spent to do that. And isn't terribly common.
Putting a powersword on a kalabite or a ranged Exarch will typically still put you behind naked Tacs in CC.
Dire Avengers were still better on top of unlocking Serpents. On top of having an Assault Weapon (which was very clutch at the time) that ignored the main problem with basic infantry weapons (had the important part of Rending), they WERE a very cheap investment.
They didn't need to try and tackle vehicles. They shot infantry and held objectives. That's all they needed to do. No fancy upgrades to make them even more expensive or anything.
kabalites excell at killing hi T models. Tacticals excell at nothing. Also - marines can't shoot out of their transports - and even if they could - they could never reroll 1's to hit from inside. Kabalites can do both. Hence - they are better than marines. They are also a cheaper tax if needed. However - they seem to be more of a core unit now. Imagine if marines were a core unit for space marines...instead of something to skip over. How cool would that be?
They were a full 0 ppm less than CSMs at the time... (although the CSM Sarge cost +10 pts)
The Assault profile was important to Marines, but not Dire Avengers. Or do you imagine Storm Troopers to be excellent CC units?
They shot infantry about as well as Plasma/CombiPlasma tacs per point (the old 7DAs vs 5Tacs we've discussed adnausium). Better in some ways, worse than others. It was the big MCs with good armor but poor invlun saves that they did better against per point shooting-wise.
As for holding objectives, they died twice as fast as Marines to small arms, for just 1ppm less. Space Marine Scouts did it for cheaper while more surviable, naked Space Marine Tacs did it more durably per point, and HWSM Tacs or Sniper Scouts did it better while also putting potshots downrange. DAs were expensive for just objective grabbing, having the defensive statline of a Storm Trooper or Fire Warrior for the pricetag of a Marine.
DAs were only marginally worse than Tacs. Now, they're marginally better (mostly it's the free Exarch that makes them better).
Bottom line that sisters are great and tacs are miserable. That 4 ppm makes a huge difference. Assault proflies are a joke thanks to super firepower and fall back.
Oh boy - who cares about 7th at this point. Plus yeah - DA were better than tactical then too. Synergy with doom is makes every eldar unit with bladestorm viable - it always has. They were great at killing things that mattered...like wraithknights - tactical as always - great against nothing - requiring free transports to even see the battlefield. Plus - every eldar aspect warrior was sporting 2+ to hit in 7th edition. The comparison is laughable.
This whole "But Marines have always been terrible" meme is kinda sidetracking the thread.
The core point is that Marines are not currently the worst troop in the game. With Genestealers and DAs and Rangers now being better than Tacs, Tacs have certainly dropped some. But what about PAGK? Gaunts? Guardians? Kroot? And will Wyches and Kalabites be better?
In other words, of this list, are Tacs really near the bottom?
Conscripts
Guardsmen
Genestealers
Dire Avengers
SM Scouts
Rangers
Ork Boyz
Tac Marines
Necron Warriors
Immortals
Guardian Defenders
Storm Guardians
Hormigaunts
Termigaunts
Crusader Squads
Fire Warriors
Tau Breachers
Kroot
Kalabites
Wyches
Wracks
Harlequin Troopers
Don't know about wracks yet - haven't seen their rules.
Of the others?
Crusader squads are just tactical squads that can take scouts in them - they suck - but they are just tacticals squads basically.
Hormagaunts - bad unit - 5 points 6+ save 2x str 3 CC attacks. Lose to equal numbers of gaurdsmen even when they charge them. (they do have a nice special rule for 6 in pile in that makes them usable though)
Conscripts might as well not exist as a unit after being gutted with 3 nerfs at the same time. They literally cost the same as an infantry man which it is just a worse version of. (not a big deal because IG just take infantry again - which next to firewarriors - are the best infantry in the game)
Storm gardians - maybe the only troop unit in the game that sucks worse than a tac squad.
Do you even remember 7th beyond WK and Spiders destroying everything?
The 2+ to hit was *only* for a formation, so *could* not apply to any DAs taken as Troops. So it's even less true than saying every Tac squad gets a Razorback.
Tacs were great at taking objectives. When 7th hit, before new codexes, one of the top builds was actually Obsec Spam With Tacs and Pods. It wouldn't table the opponent, but it would claim objectives.
DAs put *slightly* more wounds on the big stuff. A 10-man DA squad might do one more wound to a Riptide than a Tac squad. Useful, but like Marines, the CWE lists needed to rely on other tools to remove the big guns. The big difference was that CWE *had* the other tools.
I'm *not* saying CWE wasn't OP. I'm just saying DAs weren't better than Marines. Or rather was saying. Now they're slightly better than Marines.
I really don't understand the "Tacs don't need a buff because other units are worse" argument, especially in a thread titled "Codex Space Marines March FAQ changes"
If you want your trash troop choices to get buffed maybe you should mention it in a thread dedicated to that codex?
What defines "trash" in terms of how good a troop is? It seems the running definition is always "worse than a Marine". A buff to [random troop] is an inherent nerf to all other troops, as that is what they're measurable against. So if there are more than one troops worse than Marines, a buff to Marines hurts more weaker units than it helps.
I'm not arguing for a buff to Dire Avengers (in fact, as I've said many times, I think they should be paying 10 points for the Exarch). I'm arguing that Tac Marines are in a good spot, relative to a lot of other troops. Buffing Tac Marines nerfs all the other troops at about the same level and worse. And that's a lot of troops.
You could go through and buff every one of those troops. Inflationary spirals tend to happen that way. But maybe it would be better to just not buff them all?
Also, Xeno, are you saying PAGK are better than Tac Marines? Guardian Defenders too? Carbine-armed Fire Warriors? I don't think Storm Guardians are the *only* troop worse than Marines (although that list seems shorter than it used to be).
Bharring wrote: Do you even remember 7th beyond WK and Spiders destroying everything?
The 2+ to hit was *only* for a formation, so *could* not apply to any DAs taken as Troops. So it's even less true than saying every Tac squad gets a Razorback.
Tacs were great at taking objectives. When 7th hit, before new codexes, one of the top builds was actually Obsec Spam With Tacs and Pods. It wouldn't table the opponent, but it would claim objectives.
DAs put *slightly* more wounds on the big stuff. A 10-man DA squad might do one more wound to a Riptide than a Tac squad. Useful, but like Marines, the CWE lists needed to rely on other tools to remove the big guns. The big difference was that CWE *had* the other tools.
I'm *not* saying CWE wasn't OP. I'm just saying DAs weren't better than Marines. Or rather was saying. Now they're slightly better than Marines.
No one took troops in 7th eddition - Objective secured has always been kind of a non rule to situational at best. Bonuses from formations were always better than objective secured. Plus eldar had the best objective grabber in the game that also doubled as the best shooting unit in the game (jetbikes).
Avengers wernt needed really in armies - better things to go into an aspect host - reapers and firedragons where much better then if you could afford them. Avengers were in jetbikes shadow in a CAD. I had a friend however who would take the dire avenger shrine formation with 3 units of avengers. They got a few bonuses that were okay but the triple shot ability they had when properly utilized could down some nasty things. 3 shot bladestorm is nothing to sneeze at.
Bharring wrote: What defines "trash" in terms of how good a troop is? It seems the running definition is always "worse than a Marine". A buff to [random troop] is an inherent nerf to all other troops, as that is what they're measurable against. So if there are more than one troops worse than Marines, a buff to Marines hurts more weaker units than it helps.
I'm not arguing for a buff to Dire Avengers (in fact, as I've said many times, I think they should be paying 10 points for the Exarch). I'm arguing that Tac Marines are in a good spot, relative to a lot of other troops. Buffing Tac Marines nerfs all the other troops at about the same level and worse. And that's a lot of troops.
You could go through and buff every one of those troops. Inflationary spirals tend to happen that way. But maybe it would be better to just not buff them all?
Also, Xeno, are you saying PAGK are better than Tac Marines? Guardian Defenders too? Carbine-armed Fire Warriors? I don't think Storm Guardians are the *only* troop worse than Marines (although that list seems shorter than it used to be).
I disagree with the argument that buffing a unit in 1 army nerfs all the units in other armies that are currently worse off than Tacs, for a number of reasons.
1. Increasing the cost effectiveness of a unit doesn't decrease cost effectiveness of other units. It isn't a zero sum game. Buffing Tacs, for instance, won't nerf scouts, since scouts will remain in the exact same position they started in.
2. Buffs aren't a finite resource. By saying "Buff Tacs" we aren't saying "Only Buff Tacs." We're saying "Buff Tacs" because this is a thread about Space Marine FAQ changes. If I was in a thread about Eldar FAQ Changes, I'd probably be saying "Buff Guardians." You can Buff Tacs, Nerf Guardsmen, and Buff Guardians all at the same time.
Bharring wrote: They were a full 0 ppm less than CSMs at the time... (although the CSM Sarge cost +10 pts)
The Assault profile was important to Marines, but not Dire Avengers. Or do you imagine Storm Troopers to be excellent CC units?
They shot infantry about as well as Plasma/CombiPlasma tacs per point (the old 7DAs vs 5Tacs we've discussed adnausium). Better in some ways, worse than others. It was the big MCs with good armor but poor invlun saves that they did better against per point shooting-wise.
As for holding objectives, they died twice as fast as Marines to small arms, for just 1ppm less. Space Marine Scouts did it for cheaper while more surviable, naked Space Marine Tacs did it more durably per point, and HWSM Tacs or Sniper Scouts did it better while also putting potshots downrange. DAs were expensive for just objective grabbing, having the defensive statline of a Storm Trooper or Fire Warrior for the pricetag of a Marine.
DAs were only marginally worse than Tacs. Now, they're marginally better (mostly it's the free Exarch that makes them better).
Yeah and look at how unamazing those Heretic Marines were! They weren't good at all. They still aren't either but at least they could specialize slightly more than the Loyalist Scum counterparts still. Any bit saying Dire Avengers were worse than the core troop choice for Marines last two editions is pure revisionism on your end.
Look at the 2014 SM lists, for example, early 7th ed.
Of the top 10 at BAO, *5* were SM.
Of those 5, all took much more than minimum troops.
Of those 5, 3 were Tac spam.
That's just the first 7th tourny I looked up. "No one took troops in 7th" is hard to square with 5 of 5 "top" lists I look at spamming troops.
CWE *did* have the best objective grabbers in 7th. Those were not Dire Avengers, though.
Yeah, the Dire Avengers needed neither the Aspect Shrine nor the Avenger Shrine. When using those, DAs were really good - much like using Gladius (or, now, Gilliman) made Tacs really good.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "Any bit saying Dire Avengers were worse than the core troop choice for Marines last two editions is pure revisionism on your end."
A common claim, but the only evidence ever given is 'Buuut DAVU' or 'When used in a formation, compared to non-Formation Marines...'.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @SputNik,
But I think it *is* a zero-sum game.
If you give Rock a 5% chance to beat Paper, Paper has now been nerfed, hasn't it? And now Scisors is a skew list.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @SputNik,
But I think it *is* a zero-sum game.
If you give Rock a 5% chance to beat Paper, Paper has now been nerfed, hasn't it? And now Scisors is a skew list.
I really don't see it that way. Nerfs and buffs aren't the same as moving up and down tier lists. The logic is just backwards to me. Nerfing Flyrants won't buff Captains. Nerfing Dark Reapers won't buff Heavy Weapons Teams. Nerfing Infantry Squads won't buff Tacs. It'll simply bring certain units more in line with their counterparts.
Look at it this way - absurdity intended to show the secondary effects, I know nobody is suggesting this.
Lets give every Marine an Assault Cannon. That buffs Marines. Same points.
Marines now outshoot everything.
If I want to take Fire Warriors, they will now get mowed down easily by Marines. Every game I play will be against Marines or things skewed to kill Marines.
Now Fire Warriors are suddenly garbage, when previously they weren't garbage.
So by buffing Marines, we nerfed Fire Warriors.
The suggestions here aren't as extreme as the above, but I'm trying to express why it's a concern.
I'm just gonna say it and bathe in the flames. Intercessors are significantly better than tacs and I have accepted this and moved on. Primaries is what's going to be supported and pushed, so that's what's going to get painted.
Yes they suffer from being "more valunerable" to multi wound damage but 1 wound weapons don't take them out of the fight instantly.
Even if intercessors were good (which seems debatable, though that's a different conversation) that's no reason why tacs shouldn't also be good. They serve an entirely different purpose than intercessors (the delivery of special weapons) and arent in any way replaced by them.
Bharring wrote: What defines "trash" in terms of how good a troop is? It seems the running definition is always "worse than a Marine". A buff to [random troop] is an inherent nerf to all other troops, as that is what they're measurable against. So if there are more than one troops worse than Marines, a buff to Marines hurts more weaker units than it helps.
I'm not arguing for a buff to Dire Avengers (in fact, as I've said many times, I think they should be paying 10 points for the Exarch). I'm arguing that Tac Marines are in a good spot, relative to a lot of other troops. Buffing Tac Marines nerfs all the other troops at about the same level and worse. And that's a lot of troops.
You could go through and buff every one of those troops. Inflationary spirals tend to happen that way. But maybe it would be better to just not buff them all?
Also, Xeno, are you saying PAGK are better than Tac Marines? Guardian Defenders too? Carbine-armed Fire Warriors? I don't think Storm Guardians are the *only* troop worse than Marines (although that list seems shorter than it used to be).
My phone crapped out to this post so I'll try again.
1. PA Grey Knights are absolutely better. For only a modest point increase, you get innate Deep Strike, twice the shots, and two attacks at AP-2. They're one of the winners of the overall garbage Grey Knights codex for a reason!
2. Then don't use Carbine Fire Warriors? I don't know what the stats are for it, but Fire Warriors got a further point decrease in the codex.
3. Regular Guardians are on the same level of bad that Chaos Marines and Loyalist Scum counterparts are at, but yeah sure Storm Guardians are worse. In fact I'm all for deleting the unit entry as it serves no purpose crunch wise and honestly fluff wise it's pretty lame.
4. Conscripts were gutted after Chapter Approved, sure.
So basically we have a couple of troops on the same level and a few worse. So yeah it's all bad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: Look at it this way - absurdity intended to show the secondary effects, I know nobody is suggesting this.
Lets give every Marine an Assault Cannon. That buffs Marines. Same points.
Marines now outshoot everything.
If I want to take Fire Warriors, they will now get mowed down easily by Marines. Every game I play will be against Marines or things skewed to kill Marines.
Now Fire Warriors are suddenly garbage, when previously they weren't garbage.
So by buffing Marines, we nerfed Fire Warriors.
The suggestions here aren't as extreme as the above, but I'm trying to express why it's a concern.
Except you didn't make Fire Warriors bad. I don't know where you got this idea.
Fire Warriors are still on the same scale. What you did is make a unit broken. For example, Scatterbikes being nerfed didn't suddenly make Tactical Marines or Guardians good, did it? At the same time, them being broken isn't what made them not be taken.
I can't make him understand that the tac marine being miscosted trickles down to every corner of the codex, basically. At the end of the day, GW needs to understand the problem, not him. I'm sure GW has noticed that their precious primaris are doing NOTHING in tournaments as well. Forget movie marines. I just don't want the cheaper troop options in the game to always be better all the time.
Look at the 2014 SM lists, for example, early 7th ed.
Of the top 10 at BAO, *5* were SM.
Of those 5, all took much more than minimum troops.
Of those 5, 3 were Tac spam.
That's just the first 7th tourny I looked up. "No one took troops in 7th" is hard to square with 5 of 5 "top" lists I look at spamming troops.
CWE *did* have the best objective grabbers in 7th. Those were not Dire Avengers, though.
Yeah, the Dire Avengers needed neither the Aspect Shrine nor the Avenger Shrine. When using those, DAs were really good - much like using Gladius (or, now, Gilliman) made Tacs really good.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "Any bit saying Dire Avengers were worse than the core troop choice for Marines last two editions is pure revisionism on your end."
A common claim, but the only evidence ever given is 'Buuut DAVU' or 'When used in a formation, compared to non-Formation Marines...'.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @SputNik,
But I think it *is* a zero-sum game.
If you give Rock a 5% chance to beat Paper, Paper has now been nerfed, hasn't it? And now Scisors is a skew list.
In early 7th before 7.5 codex came out - Ultra marines had a tactical spam list that was good because of calgar. Among giving all of his tacs 2 turns of complete twinlinked firepower - he also gave marines the ability to chose to pass/fail morale tests. So basically that army was good because it let you fall out of close combat willingly (this was very powerful) Plus with the games typically not going longer than 3 turns in a tournament and everything going in a 35 point drop pod. Yeah - that list could win a tournament. it wasn't because a tactical marine was good though - it was because they got a lot of free rules that tactical marines don't come with. I actually ran that list - when I first came back to the game after skipping 6th. It was fun - but it was only strong because of calgar. The same list without calgar did way less damage and would just be fodder for your opponent. Close combat units would just lock you up and you aren't getting out of it with your crappy close combat stats. The list felt a lot like marines feel now though - only 1 way to play them and it's spam ultra marines units around a special character. Also - just like now - it's time of glory was short lived.
Also - I used to respect tournaments too much I think. Time limits allow crappy armies to win games they would be tabled on if the actual rules of the game were followed. When time runs out though the game is over - to me this makes tournament data terrible as a power level metric. A real way to assess power level would be to let armies fight each other until only one army has models left. What tournament data is really telling us is - what army can score the most objective points in 3 turns. Pretty worthless data IMO.
Bharring wrote: This whole "But Marines have always been terrible" meme is kinda sidetracking the thread.
The core point is that Marines are not currently the worst troop in the game. With Genestealers and DAs and Rangers now being better than Tacs, Tacs have certainly dropped some. But what about PAGK? Gaunts? Guardians? Kroot? And will Wyches and Kalabites be better?
In other words, of this list, are Tacs really near the bottom?
They're not, and in fact that "meme" is 100% false.
SM always had a considerable amount of lists that won tournaments and were top tiers, even in this edition. Even with tac marines.
Also - I used to respect tournaments too much I think. Time limits allow crappy armies to win games they would be tabled on if the actual rules of the game were followed. When time runs out though the game is over - to me this makes tournament data terrible as a power level metric. A real way to assess power level would be to let armies fight each other until only one army has models left. What tournament data is really telling us is - what army can score the most objective points in 3 turns. Pretty worthless data IMO.
I agree, but this doesn't apply to SM usually but to orks. We had 2 top tiers lists in a tournament a few weeks ago but both lists were far from being optimized and overpowered, in a regular game they'd struggle a lot to avoid getting tabled. 3 turns games favor armies like orks, which are all about survivability.
Bharring wrote: This whole "But Marines have always been terrible" meme is kinda sidetracking the thread.
The core point is that Marines are not currently the worst troop in the game. With Genestealers and DAs and Rangers now being better than Tacs, Tacs have certainly dropped some. But what about PAGK? Gaunts? Guardians? Kroot? And will Wyches and Kalabites be better?
In other words, of this list, are Tacs really near the bottom?
They're not, and in fact that "meme" is 100% false.
I'm guessing you haven't seen the updated Xenos armies? Tactical Marines and Chaos Marines were garbage before, and this honestly solidifies the point.
I also can't think of anything that matters less than how good something was in a previous edition.
Regardless of what army you play, Marines being bad in this edition is a problem for the game as a whole, and the 13ppm marine stat line seems to be the most obvious offender.
Bharring wrote: This whole "But Marines have always been terrible" meme is kinda sidetracking the thread.
The core point is that Marines are not currently the worst troop in the game. With Genestealers and DAs and Rangers now being better than Tacs, Tacs have certainly dropped some. But what about PAGK? Gaunts? Guardians? Kroot? And will Wyches and Kalabites be better?
In other words, of this list, are Tacs really near the bottom?
They're not, and in fact that "meme" is 100% false.
SM always had a considerable amount of lists that won tournaments and were top tiers, even in this edition. Even with tac marines.
Also - I used to respect tournaments too much I think. Time limits allow crappy armies to win games they would be tabled on if the actual rules of the game were followed. When time runs out though the game is over - to me this makes tournament data terrible as a power level metric. A real way to assess power level would be to let armies fight each other until only one army has models left. What tournament data is really telling us is - what army can score the most objective points in 3 turns. Pretty worthless data IMO.
I agree, but this doesn't apply to SM usually but to orks. We had 2 top tiers lists in a tournament a few weeks ago but both lists were far from being optimized and overpowered, in a regular game they'd struggle a lot to avoid getting tabled. 3 turns games favor armies like orks, which are all about survivability.
Well the time limit affects everyone and it changes the way the game is played. I think the army it favors the least is AM - they have the firepower the table armies in every game - they even have the indirect fire with unlimmited range to kill depleted units that people hide to prevent from getting tabled. In a 3 turn game though - they can't fully table armies - which just makes it a coin flip about who had the easier time scoring objectives - hence the lack of AM domination in tournaments.
Bharring wrote: Look at it this way - absurdity intended to show the secondary effects, I know nobody is suggesting this.
Lets give every Marine an Assault Cannon. That buffs Marines. Same points.
Marines now outshoot everything.
If I want to take Fire Warriors, they will now get mowed down easily by Marines. Every game I play will be against Marines or things skewed to kill Marines.
Now Fire Warriors are suddenly garbage, when previously they weren't garbage.
So by buffing Marines, we nerfed Fire Warriors.
The suggestions here aren't as extreme as the above, but I'm trying to express why it's a concern.
I think I figured out how to explain why Buffs != Nerfs. It took me an overnight but I got it.
If I buff Tacs, you say it nerfs Guardians.
What if you're playing Eldar vs Orks. Are Guardians still nerfed?
Now do you see the distinction between Buffs vs Nerfs? Buffs makes 1 army stronger against everything they face. Nerfs makes 1 army weaker against everything they face. Yes it's a scale, so if one army gets buffed the armies they face that didn't get buffed will be at a disadvantage, but it won't effect how their army plays at all.
gardians are overpointed but they have great strategems.
They can deepstrike - get +1 to hit - and get 4++saves that can be buffed to 3++ saves. Making them one of the most durable units in the game when supported with command points.
There is a reason competitive eldar lists run a squad. It's a powerful unit they can drop anywhere that can hurt or slow down anything.
fraser1191 wrote: Well I just played against Tau with the new codex. Marines need a buff of some sort. The game was over after turn 1
At least GW was honest when they said games would go faster
What were the 2 lists out of curiosity? Not faced down the new T'au yet and i'm trying to think outside of the box!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Expecting/hoping for the FAQ to drop today btw - as it's been hinted it'll be dropping this week.
Niether list tornament level by any means but he didn't even try.
Spoiler:
from memory he had 2 battalion s
Hq Firebalde
2x Commander coldstar 2 fusion, high output burst cannon, adv targeting system
Ethereal
Troops
4x breachers
2x strake w/ sms turrets
Elites
Ghostkeel w/ fusion collider, 2x fusion blasters
Ghostkeel w/ cyclic ion raker 2x Flamers
Riptide w/ heavy burst cannon, smart missle system, adv targeting system (branched Nova charge is broken)
Fast attack
4x Pathfinders
Heavy support
2x broadsides w/ heavy railrifle, sms, target lock
Trasposts
2x devilfish
Then I had
Primatis CPT w/ powerfist, plasma pistol
Primaris libraian
2x intercessors w/ grenade launcher
Intercessors
Primaris ancient
Redemptor dreadnought (not using this thing anymore, it costs too much for what it does and has no rules other than explodes, and I think this unit sums up Marines now perfectly. Pay a lot of points for no rules and just a statline that's really unimpressive)
Inceptors w/ plasma
Hellblasters
Assault hellblasters
Repulser
Guilliman
Basically we've been able to keep things relatively long lived but this game was not fun at all. First turn (he went first) I lost all my assault hellblasters, my repulser, most of the other hellblasters squad and a couple other intercessors.
Branched Nova charge only costing 1 Cp is a joke. So I didn't even get to shoot anything at his riptide but he just boosted it to a 3+ invuln then boosted his gun to 18(?) Shots
Immediatly he advanced his cold stars into my Frontline blasting my repulser to bits ghostkeels we're right up there too. All high toughness units were right in my face. On my first turn I had guilliman who managed to kill a ghostkeel and 3 hellblasters. Everything else was wounding on 5s
2nd turn he killed my dreadnought with just his broadsides then killed guilliman with his riptide very easily. With that I just conceded
With this codex I'd say Marines just got left in the dirt. Things used to be relatively balanced between us but not anymore.
I started using mainly primaris since I wasn't too fond of how he had a lot of high S, 1 dmg weapons before so extra wounds were needed. After the game though we talked for a bit and we both agreed that Marines have basically no stratagems to use, boltguns are worthless and all my units are too expensive.
If Marines don't get a decent buff for this faq I'll be shelving my Marines and playing ad-mech.
Bharring wrote: This whole "But Marines have always been terrible" meme is kinda sidetracking the thread.
The core point is that Marines are not currently the worst troop in the game. With Genestealers and DAs and Rangers now being better than Tacs, Tacs have certainly dropped some. But what about PAGK? Gaunts? Guardians? Kroot? And will Wyches and Kalabites be better?
In other words, of this list, are Tacs really near the bottom?
Conscripts
Guardsmen
Genestealers
Dire Avengers
SM Scouts
Rangers
Ork Boyz
Tac Marines
Necron Warriors
Immortals
Guardian Defenders
Storm Guardians
Hormigaunts
Termigaunts
Crusader Squads
Fire Warriors
Tau Breachers
Kroot
Kalabites
Wyches
Wracks
Harlequin Troopers
Actually, it is at the bottom. Each of those troop choices each offer at least 1 way they can be useful.
Tacs have no usefulness in the game.
Conscripts - screen
Guardsmen - screen
Genestealers - DS assault
Dire Avengers - shuriken rule
SM Scouts - concealed position
Rangers - redeploy, sniper
Ork Boyz - screen, board control
Tac Marines - boltguns?
Necron Warriors - board control, RP, -1 AP Immortals - RP, -2 AP Guardian Defenders - shuriken rule
Storm Guardians - shuriken rule
Hormigaunts - screen, tarpit
Termigaunts - screen
Crusader Squads - just as bad as tacs, but cheaper if taking initiates
Fire Warriors - range, S5
Tau Breachers - screen
Kroot - screen, board control
Kalabites - splinter rule
Wyches - fast, assault
Wracks - fast, interesting flamer
Harlequin Troopers - jump pack as troops
fraser1191 wrote: Well I just played against Tau with the new codex. Marines need a buff of some sort. The game was over after turn 1
At least GW was honest when they said games would go faster
Marines need massive buffs across the board on practically every unit - a complete rewrite of almost every stratagem as well - and army traits apply to ALL UNITS.
I'll make a list on the most grievous things.
#1 Repulsor/land raider - base cost down 70 points. LR gains special rule that allows it to fire after falling back from CC - or to shoot from CC. Both units gain a 5+ FNP. Lose dedicated trasnport and gain Heavy support.
#2 Redemptor - gains 4++ save and T8.
#3 Rhinos - 30 points
#4 Drop pod becomes stratagem - "Drop Pod Assault" (one use only) 1-3 command points select up to 3 units from your army of up to 10 infantry models(based on transport capacity) Each can deep strike in a drop pod armed with a storm bolter/ or missle. The drop pod can not take damage - if enemy units come within 1" of the drop pod it is considered activated for the rest of the game.
#5 Every power armor unit drops 3 points (includes primaris), all aggressor armor types gain t6 2+ save (always hit on their WS in CC regardless of penalties), All terminator armor types -5 points and invo is traded for 5+FNP (always hit on their WS in CC regardless of penalties), All biker units -5 points (scout bikes -3 points but gain infiltrate ability).
#6 Vindicators fire twice if they stay still and ignore penalties for moving and shooting, Whirlwinds fire twice if they stay still and ignore penalties for moving and shooting
#7 Preditors gain +1 W T8 and ignore penalties for moving and shooting.
#8 Land speeders -15 points and a standard rule - if they move more than 12 " in the proceeding movement phase - they gain -1 to hit from all attacks in the opponents next turn.
#9 Dreadnoughts gain 5++ save and close combat weapon is doped in points by 15.
#10 Storm talon - 15 points
#11 Remove trash stratagems - replace with 3-4 good stratagems (you could start just by making the ones that are just worse versions of the craftworld ones - as good as the eldar ones)
#12 Grav cannons - 10 points - rockets -5 points - melta -5 points - grav guns -6 points (including all combis), Sniper rifles become free
#13 Centurions - gain +1 W +1T and -20 points base.
#14 Primaris HQ's gain customization and the ability to take relics (or at least the ability to take relics)
#15 Librarius discipline buffed - Might of heros affects (UNITS) cast value goes up to 7. Stupid line shot POS spell does 2 mortals per units hit - instead of 1, Nullzone cast = 6 not 8 and becomes 12" targeted spell "all units within 6 inches of target have -1 to all saving throws and are unable to cast psychic powers."
#16 For the sake of the games health -1 to hit army trait for RG is removed - a new trait is created. "All RG <chapter> units always count as being in cover, if they are in cover their cover save bonus can not be ignored."
Off the top of my head without even looking at the codex these are my honest ideas about how to improve the army to a competitive level. Some of these might be over the top but not by much. OFC these changes should be applied to every chapter/csm/ect provided the unit affected isn't already hideously OP (bezerkers).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: Do you really see Storm Guardians as useful because of their Shuriken Pistols?
Don't Plas-toting Tacs outperform them per point? By a lot?
I've already pointed out that SG are actually the worst troop in the game - tacs are next.
1. LR falling back and shooting - engaging that thing in CC is the only way most things have of trying to shut it down. Some sort of "I'm not useless" after being in CC would be nice, but full shooting might be too much.
3. Cheaper Rhinos? Yeah! 30 pt Rhinos? Not unless they drop a ton in survivability (which they shouldn't).
4. So WWP. But better. Fewer CP. Additional unit. Oh, and free gun! Decent concept, not properly tuned.
5. I'm starting to see 11pt Tacs. I like the idea of Termies not getting -1 to hit with PF/TH. Could use more consideration.
6. I'm not seeing how the Rhino chasis is more stable on the move than a Devilfish or Falcon chasis. Vindis getting a carbon copy of Fire Prism's rule might work, but this rule as written not a fan on SM vehicles.
7. Again, why are Preds better at firing on the move than anyone but DE?
8. Why to Land Speeders get this but not Vypers?
9. Why a ++ to Dreads? I'd say just buff it to 10W T8 and give it a degrading statline.
11. Some stratagems certainly need improvement - like the interceptor one should either be 1cp or not have a -1 to hit. I do like the other differences between it and the CWE one, though.
12. Grav Cannons should go down, but 10 seems too cheap. Sniper Rifles should be 1ppm, but camo cloaks should be 1ppm.
14. Most HQs - not just SM - should have the level of options the SM Captain has. I loved the SM Commander kit.
15. Null Zone as you write it is too powerful. Perhaps a penalty to Psychic Powers. However, for style reasons, I like Null Zone being centered on the Librarian - must commit to really use it.
16. All army traits like that should get that treatment.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Tacs are closer to worst than I began this discussion thinking. Still think they're better than you give them credit for, though.
I agree Marines need massive buffs across the board on practically every unit - a complete rewrite of almost every stratagem as well - and army traits apply to ALL UNITS, but you went a bit far.
#1 Would rather just give landraiders a points drop and the ability to ignore infantry for preventing movement and a FNP Repulsor make it 2+Sv #2 T8 and maybe more wounds or a 2+Sv a 4++ would be overpowered
#3 making them 50 points is probably a fair amount of points for their durability.
#4 Not a fan of this, also GW sells drop pods its not going to happen, best you could hope for would be something to allow maybe a smaller deployment clearence.
#5 Every power armor unit drops 3 points (includes primaris) OK, all aggressor armor types gain T6 (dont suffer - hit modifiers for weapons), All terminator armor types -5 points and invo is traded for 5+FNP (WS2+ BS2+), All biker units -5 points (scout bikes -3 points but gain scout move).
#6 Vindicators fire twice if they stay still 2+Sv Whirlwinds fire twice if they stay still and a points drop
#7 Preditors gain 2+Sv #8 Land speeders I'm not sure how to fix but making them a hard to hit flyers won't help in a less than causal meta.
#9 Dreadnoughts gain 6+ FNP and close combat weapon is doped in points by 15.
#10 Storm talon - 15 points
#11 Remove trash stratagems - replace with 3-4 good stratagems (you could start just by making the ones that are just worse versions of the craftworld ones - as good as the eldar ones)
#12 Grav cannons - 10 points - rockets -5 points - melta -5 points - grav guns -6 points (including all combis), Sniper rifles become 1point
#13 Centurions - gain +1 W +1T and -20 points base.
#14 Primaris HQ's gain customization and the ability to take relics (or at least the ability to take relics)
#15 Librarius discipline buffed - Might of heros affects (UNITS) cast value goes up to 7. Stupid line shot POS spell does 2 mortals per units hit - instead of 1, Nullzone cast = 6 not 8
#16 For the sake of the games health -1 to hit army trait for RG is removed - a new trait is created. "All RG <chapter> units always count as being in cover, if they are in cover their cover save bonus can not be ignored."
You have to remember that their is units outside of the codex which you just turned some of the codex units into more OP versions of.
Marine vehicals being T7 2+ save baring rhino, razor, whirlwind,hunter, stalker is a more thematic solution than just handing out T8 army wide Marine tanks should be lighter but better armoured compaired to guard.
Bharring wrote: 1. LR falling back and shooting - engaging that thing in CC is the only way most things have of trying to shut it down. Some sort of "I'm not useless" after being in CC would be nice, but full shooting might be too much.
The Repulsor can already do this - it should be trading overall denfensive power for a lighter hull hence 3+ save instead of 2+. This leave the LR screwed though - being a transport which means it gets close to the enemy - should not mean I don't get to use 280-300 points of firepower because you get attacked by a gretchen. LR should be hard to kill - just like a riptide is - just like a wave serpent is.
3. Cheaper Rhinos? Yeah! 30 pt Rhinos? Not unless they drop a ton in survivability (which they shouldn't).
I'd say 50 points is a fair price for a unit that does relatively nothing but get in the way of things and protect units from being shot at on turn 1 and when it blows up kills an average of 2 men in a 10 man. I'm thinking a lot of transports need this treatment - not just SM ones.
4. So WWP. But better. Fewer CP. Additional unit. Oh, and free gun! Decent concept, not properly tuned.
WW portal does not have transport restrictions - can be used on 20 man squads - it's better in some ways but worse than others. A storm bolter is 2 points - how would you go about prcing the strategem? limit to 1-2 for 3 CP just like the eldar one? So they can get twice the number of boddies out there for the same points? IDK - this could be my personal bias here but I think this should be something that marines should be good at - this is how they are supposed to fight - it is a shock army. Kind of like Navy seals or something.
5. I'm starting to see 11pt Tacs. I like the idea of Termies not getting -1 to hit with PF/TH. Could use more consideration.
I think -3 is the sufficient fix for power armor - I'd be happy with -2 over nothing.
6. I'm not seeing how the Rhino chasis is more stable on the move than a Devilfish or Falcon chasis. Vindis getting a carbon copy of Fire Prism's rule might work, but this rule as written not a fan on SM vehicles.
Not having fly keyword comes with a host of disadvantages which are exaggerated when you can't move or suffer offensive penalties - on the whole - space marines need increases in maneuverability. Fluff wise I could come up with reasons but I don't care about fluff in this sense. The Marine vehical should be able to move and shot without penalty because it doesn't have options for assault weapons/It doesn't have an army wide rule like markerlights that can ignore movement penalties and the tank is moving pretty dang slow on top of that. If you have a better solution to these problems - please share your ideas.
7. Again, why are Preds better at firing on the move than anyone but DE?
See above same responce ^
8. Why to Land Speeders get this but not Vypers?
Vipers aren't a particularly great unit - it could use some adjustments itself.
9. Why a ++ to Dreads? I'd say just buff it to 10W T8 and give it a degrading statline.
A decent suggestion on it's own - I would be happish with this. Main reason I think it needs ++ save is because terms have a 5++ save - I think terms should have FNP but that would be too strong on dreads.
11. Some stratagems certainly need improvement - like the interceptor one should either be 1cp or not have a -1 to hit. I do like the other differences between it and the CWE one, though.
Yep - not strictly a space marine problem ether. It's okay for stratagems to be different in a way but strats that do the same thing should have similar performance.
12. Grav Cannons should go down, but 10 seems too cheap. Sniper Rifles should be 1ppm, but camo cloaks should be 1ppm.
maybe -8 - 20 points seems about right.
14. Most HQs - not just SM - should have the level of options the SM Captain has. I loved the SM Commander kit.
Agreed
15. Null Zone as you write it is too powerful. Perhaps a penalty to Psychic Powers. However, for style reasons, I like Null Zone being centered on the Librarian - must commit to really use it.
Having to much fun with nullzone maybe - I don't think you should have to risk sacrificing a libby to and not even know if you have the power off yet. 12" range is risky enough IMO.
16. All army traits like that should get that treatment.
Agreed - remove all -1 to hit army buffs - give them another defensive benefit.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Tacs are closer to worst than I began this discussion thinking. Still think they're better than you give them credit for, though.
You know where I stand on that - the truth is always somewhere in the middle on these things. Power armor sucking makes me want to vomit so there is that.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also I'm not a fan of most of those fixes, Xeno.
Dude - these are pretty obvious fixes. Some of the point suggestions might be off but these are things these units need to be taken - otherwise they will never be taken. What suggestions do you like/ not like?
They die twice as fast as Marines - so less durable per point (worse vs small arms or in cover, better vs S10AP-4 style OMG guns).
ASM sans-jetpacks only real use is to stick into things that are advancing on you. And nobody uses them for that already. Guardians might have better firepower - marginally - but are substantially worse in CC. So, for the one job you *might* want ASM for, ASM do outperform Guardians.
Tac Marines are nearly as good at CC as Storm Guardians stock (reroll 1s with 2 attacks vs S/T 4 in CC), but outshoot Storm Guardians and outsurvive them.
I think its quite funny, that a fully decked Centurion Dev with lascannons and missile launcher is more expensive than a dreadnought with similar gear.
So almost all SM stuff should drop in points and i'd like to see some better and fluffy stratagems. What i don't want are a few autotakes that easily win tournaments. But *insert some other imperium unit* is doing the job better than the SM Unit is simply sad.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The WWP/Droppod change:
WWP can take Guardian squads. That's the only squad above 10 that it can take.
I could see the pod dropping a *lot* of points if it's survivability went down quite a bit. Something like being T5 with the doors off, and not many HP (because all you need to do is knock out the gun). But it's a model, and should be a unit instead of a stratagem.
On the moving and shooting change:
If other factions more known for moving and shooting and/or target assistance still have the move-and-shoot penalty, Marines shouldn't lose it. Retuning the vehicles might be appropriate, but it should be done in other ways.
Grav Cannons:
20pts don't seem bad.
Nullzone:
It shouldn't both be easy to cast *and* be targettable. It should only get one. It's a very nasty piece of work.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The WWP/Droppod change:
WWP can take Guardian squads. That's the only squad above 10 that it can take.
I could see the pod dropping a *lot* of points if it's survivability went down quite a bit. Something like being T5 with the doors off, and not many HP (because all you need to do is knock out the gun). But it's a model, and should be a unit instead of a stratagem.
On the moving and shooting change:
If other factions more known for moving and shooting and/or target assistance still have the move-and-shoot penalty, Marines shouldn't lose it. Retuning the vehicles might be appropriate, but it should be done in other ways.
Grav Cannons:
20pts don't seem bad.
Nullzone:
It shouldn't both be easy to cast *and* be targettable. It should only get one. It's a very nasty piece of work.
Jinx - which is actually 2 spells - is 18 inch range and targetable - you can also cast it again as protect and buff another unit. Nullzone needs to be at least that good - because it is supposed to be the super ability in librarius. Compared to things like - infernal gateway and vortex of doom - executioner - it is actually quite tame even with my proposed buffs.
Automatically Appended Next Post: There would never be a situation where storm gardians aren't getting the jump on tactical marines. Marines are slow and have no ability to deep strike that doesn't cost 80 points where as 20 SG can drop and assault 10 marines of comparable price - they would wreck those marines.
Another thing - the have stratagem support. Plus why are we talking about storm gardians - they are terrible. I use 20 man defender units and crush meq with them. Then when they try to kill them I hit them with a 4++ save and I have 6+ FNP - If I'm lucky they are a 3++ save because I hit them with protect. Is there any way i can buff marines weakness (damage output/ defense) in a meaningful way? NOT REALLY. I'm not taking defenders to be cute ether - they are a lynchpin in my eldar army - 40 start in reserve every game for me. Gardians are great at taking out the trash. What can marines do? other than do less damage than they cost and then just die?
The direct point being discussed was the claim that Tacs are worse than Storm Guardians. Most don't agree with that, but some were still arguing it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Jinx affects one units, not all units within 6" of the target. And certainly doesn't affect psyker powers. And isn't a 6 to cast.
Storm guardians are better at claiming real estate, which is the primary job of troops in many lists. Neither tac marines nor storm guardians do much offensively, although tac marines ARE better than intercessors offensively. Storm guardians also generate more CP per model because they are cheaper.
So which one is better really depends on what you are looking for out of troops. They're both bad. The real difference is storm guardians are backed up by wave serpents and dark reapers and tacs are backed up by more tacs that are equipped slightly differently and terrible tanks.
Bharring wrote: 1. LR falling back and shooting - engaging that thing in CC is the only way most things have of trying to shut it down. Some sort of "I'm not useless" after being in CC would be nice, but full shooting might be too much.
The Repulsor can already do this - it should be trading overall denfensive power for a lighter hull hence 3+ save instead of 2+. This leave the LR screwed though - being a transport which means it gets close to the enemy - should not mean I don't get to use 280-300 points of firepower because you get attacked by a gretchen. LR should be hard to kill - just like a riptide is - just like a wave serpent is.
3. Cheaper Rhinos? Yeah! 30 pt Rhinos? Not unless they drop a ton in survivability (which they shouldn't).
I'd say 50 points is a fair price for a unit that does relatively nothing but get in the way of things and protect units from being shot at on turn 1 and when it blows up kills an average of 2 men in a 10 man. I'm thinking a lot of transports need this treatment - not just SM ones.
4. So WWP. But better. Fewer CP. Additional unit. Oh, and free gun! Decent concept, not properly tuned.
WW portal does not have transport restrictions - can be used on 20 man squads - it's better in some ways but worse than others. A storm bolter is 2 points - how would you go about prcing the strategem? limit to 1-2 for 3 CP just like the eldar one? So they can get twice the number of boddies out there for the same points? IDK - this could be my personal bias here but I think this should be something that marines should be good at - this is how they are supposed to fight - it is a shock army. Kind of like Navy seals or something.
5. I'm starting to see 11pt Tacs. I like the idea of Termies not getting -1 to hit with PF/TH. Could use more consideration.
I think -3 is the sufficient fix for power armor - I'd be happy with -2 over nothing.
6. I'm not seeing how the Rhino chasis is more stable on the move than a Devilfish or Falcon chasis. Vindis getting a carbon copy of Fire Prism's rule might work, but this rule as written not a fan on SM vehicles.
Not having fly keyword comes with a host of disadvantages which are exaggerated when you can't move or suffer offensive penalties - on the whole - space marines need increases in maneuverability. Fluff wise I could come up with reasons but I don't care about fluff in this sense. The Marine vehical should be able to move and shot without penalty because it doesn't have options for assault weapons/It doesn't have an army wide rule like markerlights that can ignore movement penalties and the tank is moving pretty dang slow on top of that. If you have a better solution to these problems - please share your ideas.
7. Again, why are Preds better at firing on the move than anyone but DE?
See above same responce ^
8. Why to Land Speeders get this but not Vypers?
Vipers aren't a particularly great unit - it could use some adjustments itself.
9. Why a ++ to Dreads? I'd say just buff it to 10W T8 and give it a degrading statline.
A decent suggestion on it's own - I would be happish with this. Main reason I think it needs ++ save is because terms have a 5++ save - I think terms should have FNP but that would be too strong on dreads.
11. Some stratagems certainly need improvement - like the interceptor one should either be 1cp or not have a -1 to hit. I do like the other differences between it and the CWE one, though.
Yep - not strictly a space marine problem ether. It's okay for stratagems to be different in a way but strats that do the same thing should have similar performance.
12. Grav Cannons should go down, but 10 seems too cheap. Sniper Rifles should be 1ppm, but camo cloaks should be 1ppm.
maybe -8 - 20 points seems about right.
14. Most HQs - not just SM - should have the level of options the SM Captain has. I loved the SM Commander kit.
Agreed
15. Null Zone as you write it is too powerful. Perhaps a penalty to Psychic Powers. However, for style reasons, I like Null Zone being centered on the Librarian - must commit to really use it.
Having to much fun with nullzone maybe - I don't think you should have to risk sacrificing a libby to and not even know if you have the power off yet. 12" range is risky enough IMO.
16. All army traits like that should get that treatment.
Agreed - remove all -1 to hit army buffs - give them another defensive benefit.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Tacs are closer to worst than I began this discussion thinking. Still think they're better than you give them credit for, though.
You know where I stand on that - the truth is always somewhere in the middle on these things. Power armor sucking makes me want to vomit so there is that.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also I'm not a fan of most of those fixes, Xeno.
Dude - these are pretty obvious fixes. Some of the point suggestions might be off but these are things these units need to be taken - otherwise they will never be taken. What suggestions do you like/ not like?
1. I'm inclined to agree here the land raider is a pretty sizable model, I don't think the operator cares whats in front of him(or behind him)
2. It needs an Invuln save, be it 5 or 4. 6+ saves are basically worthless you can't plan for them
3. 50pt rhinos sure lets try it, if its that bad there's the September FAQ
4. Frankly I think the fact that the entire purpose of the drop pod in previous editions was guaranteed delivery of the unit. Guaranteed delivery is now game wide, so this unit is in an awkward position. Again, let's try it in beta rules and see what happens before it goes into the FAQ or CA
5. I will never complain about the idea of pt decreases, but there needs to be a choice between scouts and Tacs. I think if Marines had 2 wounds then Primaris had either 3 or reduced the damage of attacks by 1 they would be in a better position against small arms fire or multi would guns ie plasma. I'm not sure what it would be like mechanically. T6 Gravis would serve its purpose of having tougher marines but theres is a lot of S6-7 high rate of fire weapons out there that makes being bumped to T5 pointless. But I'm all for T6 Gravis units for the fact alone that I would have infantry tougher than my DE friends vehicles
6. Fly keyword comes with significantly more advantages than disadvantages, which I believe is only +1 to hit with anti air weapons.
7. I would say ignores penalties if it moves under half its move, assuming that it does not get the ability to shoot twice
8. Land speeders are pretty expensive for what they are, the -1 to hit, I could see this as a 1CP stratagem instead (We could use a more low cost stratagems that actually do something)
9. I think dreads should have something extra of some sort, maybe 2+ for all of them then 5++, I'm not really sure but I know the Ven-dreads 6+++ is moot
11. Oh boy, adding in about 3-4 good stratagems and removing the trash ones would remove more than 3-4 haha
13. I think centurions are just a write off
15. I don't care, anything at all would be a buff, Physic fortress is great, we need more like this
I chatted again with my friend after we did a 4 player FFA (worst idea ever), Tau crisis commanders are 72 before guns. Even he thinks its a bit much that his commanders are cheaper than Captains. I understand the potential for the Cpt being more because of its constant buff could potentially affect multiple units to increase their performance. I don't have an argument for this it just bugs me because I can't see a breakdown because there is no breakdown because its just by "feeling" as opposed to a formula.
Also marines as a whole, across the board need an extra attack to make up for the one we lost from the charge in 7th where there was incentive to charge, now the only incentive is going first, which for the most part is lack luster for more than just marines, I'd argue that Eldar could use the extra attack as well. now I have no idea how this would trickle thorugh other armies seeing as how apparently BA have it pretty good in melee
He also didn't realize marines have essentially no rules. ATSKNF I have gotten no use out of it and putting actual thought into it, it would be worthwhile as being "roll 2 take the lowest" seeing as how you could potentially reroll and get something worse (the only reason I was thinking of this was DE codex has a fair amount of Ld debuffs now). Then there's combat squads lmao, knowing GW they priced this into the cost off marines
Automatically Appended Next Post: The WWP/Droppod change:
WWP can take Guardian squads. That's the only squad above 10 that it can take.
I could see the pod dropping a *lot* of points if it's survivability went down quite a bit. Something like being T5 with the doors off, and not many HP (because all you need to do is knock out the gun). But it's a model, and should be a unit instead of a stratagem.
On the moving and shooting change:
If other factions more known for moving and shooting and/or target assistance still have the move-and-shoot penalty, Marines shouldn't lose it. Retuning the vehicles might be appropriate, but it should be done in other ways.
Grav Cannons:
20pts don't seem bad.
Nullzone:
It shouldn't both be easy to cast *and* be targettable. It should only get one. It's a very nasty piece of work.
Jinx - which is actually 2 spells - is 18 inch range and targetable - you can also cast it again as protect and buff another unit. Nullzone needs to be at least that good - because it is supposed to be the super ability in librarius. Compared to things like - infernal gateway and vortex of doom - executioner - it is actually quite tame even with my proposed buffs.
So, Jinx is a WC7 cast and modifies all saves by -1. Cast on a single target of your choice.
Null Zone is a 6” aura that removes all invuln saves and is cast on an 8.
They are both very different powers. Sure, you can argue that -1 saves is better against more units, but Null Zone counters more of the “bigger” threats.
It’s also worth noting that, in order to cast both Protect and Jinx, you need 2 psykers and need to pass 2 WC7 attempts – sure, it’s cheap enough to run 2 Eldar psykers, but it is still essentially 2 50/50 casts.
I think the biggest shortfall of Null Zone is the 6” range. If it were a 12” range it would probably be way too powerful, but, I’d probably aim for something like 9-10” range. Suddenly it actually starts affecting enough things for its cost and risk of use (needing to be so close with your libby etc).
Currently there are only a couple of viable methods of getting Null Zone where you want it, in the turns that it will make a difference. Raven Guard stratagem with a jump pack libby, or a jump pack libby inside a stormraven. Beyond that you’re either counting on a 9” charge, or building a castle and hoping something with an invuln save decides to charge in.
Martel732 wrote: Dire avengers look cool until you realize how fast they get misted by mortars and wyvern strikes. Even in cover.
That's more an issue with Mortars and Wyverns. Dire Avengers are pretty cool otherwise.
Issue or not, Eldar players have largely quit committing their troops until the smoke clears in my play group. They usually shoot for low scoring maelstrom and deny IG their points. Indeed, I've seen IG players score (rarely) zero maelstrom vs Eldar.
Storm Guardians produce *fewer* CP per model. You can take 5-man Tac squads. Slightly more CP per point, though - 56pts min vs 65 pts min. But Scouts do that slightly better than Storm Guardians.
Storm Guardians are better at claiming realestate until fired upon. Tacs retain realestate better under fire. So Storm Guardians are better as a screen. Not a good screen, though. Once again, Scouts do the screen a lot better than either.
Bharring wrote: Storm Guardians produce *fewer* CP per model. You can take 5-man Tac squads. Slightly more CP per point, though - 56pts min vs 65 pts min. But Scouts do that slightly better than Storm Guardians.
Storm Guardians are better at claiming realestate until fired upon. Tacs retain realestate better under fire. So Storm Guardians are better as a screen. Not a good screen, though. Once again, Scouts do the screen a lot better than either.
They're both trash, and one is backed up by dark reapers and wave serpents. The other is backed up by ???. Yeah... LVO was not an accident. Eldar at the final table had a combined record of 23-0-1. This isn't really up for debate.
Falcon and Devilfish chasis, in theory, pay for the Fly keyword. The point wasn't points efficiency, it was (1) Marine vehicles being more agile and stable than CWE vehicles is just plain wrong from both a thematic and fluff perspective and (2) very few factions get to ignore move-and-shoot penalties, so it'd take more than "I'd like to have it" to give it to a faction with no particular stake it in. Not sure Russes should have it. I wouldn't mind most factions getting some limited form of it, though.
For points efficiency, Fly and speed should factor in. As-is, most CWE generic heavy weapons are 36", most IoM generic heavy weapons are 48" - which factors into it. A dakka pred can engage from 36", but a dakka Serpent needs to be within 24". A LasPred can engage from 48", but a BL Falcon only has 36" range.
One of the issues is the Pred being a MBT on the same frame as the Rhino. If the Pred is a MBT, it should be at least as tough as the Falcon or Hammerhead. But if the Rhino can't simultaneously be cheap enough to do it's job well and as sturdy as a MBT (Falcon/Pred/Hammerhead) without being unbalanced. So that gets difficult to "get right". Do we make Preds more durable than Rhinos, do we downgrade Preds from MBT, or do we keep Rhinos too expensive?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Martel,
Nobody is claiming Eldar aren't OP right now. The claim that that part of the thread was talking about was the claim that Storm Guardians were better than Tacs - something I think you agree is inaccurate.
If your point is still that Tacs shouldn't be compared to Troops because the statline has to perform all roles, I'd point out that the Aspect Warrior statline is the backbone of CWE right now - which is strictly inferior to Marines (1 less S/T). So the statline alone can't be the problem.
Marines only get statlines. They lack the special rules and wargear of aspect warriors. If marine devs with missile lauchers had the same special rules as dark reapers, they would be instantly useful.
Admittedly eldar are propped up largely by a few units. They don't have a whole codex of cheap effective units like ig. And altioc. They are propped up by altioc big time.
But the fact that tacs are my cqc units and my long range support units is killing marines, because tacs do none of these jobs well.
Dark Reapers:
-Crack Shot (Sarge)
-Inescapable Accuracy
So they both have different special rules. Inescapable Accuracy is one really good rule, but they both have two rules.
It's not the special rules on Reapers that make them better. They're undercosted a bit - that's what makes Reapers themselves OP. And the support they can get - better interceptor and Ynnari - make it even worse.
Raven Guard do for Devs what Alaitoc does for Reapers. But Alaitoc/RG/etc being common makes Inescapable Accuracy worth even more.
In theory, Tac Marines at 12" from Reapers and getting the alpha shoud win that firefight. Also, in theory, if equal or even quite a bit fewer points of Marines charge equal points of Reapers, the Marines should win. Also, in theory, Reapers and Marines in equal points starting across the board from eachother in a head-to-head should mean Reapers win.
Repeat that paragraph replacing "Reapers" with "Devs".
Repeat both paragraphs replacing "Tac Marines" with "Dire Avengers".
All of that should be true. Most of it is. The two exceptions I can think of are Reapers beat the Marines at close range, and Dire Avengers lose to Devs at CQC. The first is a blowout in the wrong direction. The second is rare, and thematic, and proper.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The WWP/Droppod change:
WWP can take Guardian squads. That's the only squad above 10 that it can take.
I could see the pod dropping a *lot* of points if it's survivability went down quite a bit. Something like being T5 with the doors off, and not many HP (because all you need to do is knock out the gun). But it's a model, and should be a unit instead of a stratagem.
On the moving and shooting change:
If other factions more known for moving and shooting and/or target assistance still have the move-and-shoot penalty, Marines shouldn't lose it. Retuning the vehicles might be appropriate, but it should be done in other ways.
Grav Cannons:
20pts don't seem bad.
Nullzone:
It shouldn't both be easy to cast *and* be targettable. It should only get one. It's a very nasty piece of work.
Jinx - which is actually 2 spells - is 18 inch range and targetable - you can also cast it again as protect and buff another unit. Nullzone needs to be at least that good - because it is supposed to be the super ability in librarius. Compared to things like - infernal gateway and vortex of doom - executioner - it is actually quite tame even with my proposed buffs.
So, Jinx is a WC7 cast and modifies all saves by -1. Cast on a single target of your choice.
Null Zone is a 6” aura that removes all invuln saves and is cast on an 8.
They are both very different powers. Sure, you can argue that -1 saves is better against more units, but Null Zone counters more of the “bigger” threats.
It’s also worth noting that, in order to cast both Protect and Jinx, you need 2 psykers and need to pass 2 WC7 attempts – sure, it’s cheap enough to run 2 Eldar psykers, but it is still essentially 2 50/50 casts.
I think the biggest shortfall of Null Zone is the 6” range. If it were a 12” range it would probably be way too powerful, but, I’d probably aim for something like 9-10” range. Suddenly it actually starts affecting enough things for its cost and risk of use (needing to be so close with your libby etc).
Currently there are only a couple of viable methods of getting Null Zone where you want it, in the turns that it will make a difference. Raven Guard stratagem with a jump pack libby, or a jump pack libby inside a stormraven. Beyond that you’re either counting on a 9” charge, or building a castle and hoping something with an invuln save decides to charge in.
Null zone is terrible. It has a lot of potential but it's always going to have a chance to be denied at that range and requires suicide. Jinx can be cast out of range of a psyker denial (happens all the time). Plus reduces all saves. Costs 7-instead of 8. It needs to be buffed.
Dark Reapers:
-Crack Shot (Sarge)
-Inescapable Accuracy
So they both have different special rules. Inescapable Accuracy is one really good rule, but they both have two rules.
It's not the special rules on Reapers that make them better. They're undercosted a bit - that's what makes Reapers themselves OP. And the support they can get - better interceptor and Ynnari - make it even worse.
Raven Guard do for Devs what Alaitoc does for Reapers. But Alaitoc/RG/etc being common makes Inescapable Accuracy worth even more.
In theory, Tac Marines at 12" from Reapers and getting the alpha shoud win that firefight. Also, in theory, if equal or even quite a bit fewer points of Marines charge equal points of Reapers, the Marines should win. Also, in theory, Reapers and Marines in equal points starting across the board from eachother in a head-to-head should mean Reapers win.
Repeat that paragraph replacing "Reapers" with "Devs".
Repeat both paragraphs replacing "Tac Marines" with "Dire Avengers".
All of that should be true. Most of it is. The two exceptions I can think of are Reapers beat the Marines at close range, and Dire Avengers lose to Devs at CQC. The first is a blowout in the wrong direction. The second is rare, and thematic, and proper.
Cherb is a 1 time use item you have to pay for. It's basically a hunter killer missle that the squad can take. It is nice - but it's not even in the same ball game as inescapable accuracy. Ignoring stacked -1 to hit buffs while being able to move and shoot with no penalty as well improves reapers performance so much they could see a 10 point increase and still be the best unit of it's type in the game. We wont even get into the fact that their weapons are good at killing any kind of unit in the game that isn't 3 point chaff.
When you play against Jinx, remember that if they're casting outside Denial range, they *don't* have Character protection. So they're 30ppm t3. Can't be in a transport. Your surviving chaff can shoot them, and should be in range if they got within 36" of your uber unit.
Also, it's CP spent to increase range, and a good chance of using CP for a reroll. Plus a reasonable chance per attempt to fry a warlock (average Perils kills a guy for them).
I wouldn't mind seeing it buffed, but the original post put it at "Jinx but better, by a lot" territory.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Xeno - my point was that Devs *did* have special rules - it's just that Reaper's special rules are better. It was in direct response to the claim that xenos squads had tons of special rules and Devs had none.
the 18 inch range is usually enough for jinx in my experience to not get denied. Librarians aren't usually at the front of the army and plus the SS usually starts in a serpent so it has a solid 12-13 move (or more if it has falcos wing) to get into position.
It's totally fine for it to be jinx but better also because jinx is 2 fething spells. In my proposed change jinx still counters nullzone heavily. You can protect the target being nullzoned before he casts it - and it will literally cancel the effect - and you can also use the same spell to debuff a space marine unit.
Give it a 12" range instead of 18" (so it almost always has a chance to be denied) and it's totally reasonable.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Rules - gear - makes no difference - points cost is all I am concerned about. Space marine devs probably need to reduce in points between 2-3 points base and also a lot of weapons need points drops.
Rockets should be 20 (-5)
Grav cannons should be 20 (-8)
LC can remain 25
PC is good where it's at
HB is good where it's at
Deny the Witch is a 24" range - so your librarian would be at least 6" behind the unit getting jinxed, despite being untargetable being right behind it?
The extended range stratagem only affects the Conclave, not the Spirit Seer or even the solo Warlock.
You can only use "the same spell" if you don't instead use a different spell - the second cast isn't free in that sense. The 'Can cast both' is nice, but you're overselling it - multiple SM can cast Null Zone and other powers the same way CWE can cast Protect + Jinx same turn.
Automatically Appended Next Post: That point cost change would put MLDevs at 33, and Reapers at 38.
Just a little too far, but in the right direction, I think.
Xeno - my point was that Devs *did* have special rules - it's just that Reaper's special rules are better. It was in direct response to the claim that xenos squads had tons of special rules and Devs had none.
See your point is more or less a technicality. To compare the Signum to always hitting on 3s is unfair. So right away to get the bonus the Sargent has to forfeit his shooting, it only affects one model which is the big difference, but on the other side if the Dev squad stayed sill the one guy hits on 2s instaed. So now I'm shooting against a -2 to hit unit, my buffed model hits on 4s and the rest of the squad hits on 5s
So yes as a marine players when it comes to rules beggers can't be choosers, but to compare dark reapers to a Dev squad is unfair in everyway.
My point is that continuing to argue "But xenos have more special rules" sends us off in the wrong direction.
On the other hand, Signum makes one Plasma Cannon really, really good. SO there are upsides. I'd put that on par with one guy in the unit rerolls 1s to hit.
The 'always hits on 3s' *is* worth more points than it currently costs. That doesn't mean Devs are strictly weaker in every way. They can take Gravs or HBs if they dont want Missile Launchers. They can take ablaitive wounds for less than half the cost (counterpoint - they can't have more than 4 heavy weapons). They're T4, and it takes a beefier skirmisher to beat them in CC. They can reroll LD.
Reapers are better overall, and by quite a bit, but Devs certainly outperform Reapers in some ways.
Bharring wrote: Deny the Witch is a 24" range - so your librarian would be at least 6" behind the unit getting jinxed, despite being untargetable being right behind it?
The extended range stratagem only affects the Conclave, not the Spirit Seer or even the solo Warlock.
You can only use "the same spell" if you don't instead use a different spell - the second cast isn't free in that sense. The 'Can cast both' is nice, but you're overselling it - multiple SM can cast Null Zone and other powers the same way CWE can cast Protect + Jinx same turn.
Automatically Appended Next Post: That point cost change would put MLDevs at 33, and Reapers at 38.
Just a little too far, but in the right direction, I think.
I don't think I am overselling the 1 spell being 2 spells. That has to be worth something. Also space marines aren't as potent psychically as eldar or Tzeentch - so I am okay with their spells being good. Space marine librarians need to have a few powers on their level though - currently librarius is the worth tree in the game. I actaully would prefer using the primaris psyker discipline currently.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I'm pretty sure the Grey Knights chart is worse but yeah the Marine chart is pretty blech.
The one saving grace for GK spells is vortex of doom. Noticeably worse than Infernal Gateway but at least it has high damage potential. I once did 18 mortals with it. Sanctuary is pretty good but it is no protect...I'd love to get those 1+ saves for GMDK...would be too good I guess.
The usecases should be different between the two spells.
Jinx - "That unit there - have a really bad day".
Null Zone - "Marines are here. Y'all gonna have a really bad day."
So Jinx should be usable without fully committing, but should only impact the target unit. Null Zone should require the Librarian be committed, but should affect all nearby units. NOt as a suicide - the use case should be the libby commits *with* a bunch of Marines and stuff, not alone.
Jinx should be easier to manifest because it can impact at most one unit. Jinx should be targetable whereas Null Zone should be an aura from the user. Jinx should feel like the psykers are messing with you again, whereas Null Zone should feel like This gak Got Real.
To that end, I think it's closer to where it should be than you think. A wider range would be great, but giving everything near your guys a save penalty is a big boon over just touching one unit.
(not that I'd be against a buff to it, just not everything stated).
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, especially now that you pick powers, having 1-2 A-rank spells is better in many ways than having 6 B-rank spells. Much better if you're not spaming pskers.
Dark Reapers:
-Crack Shot (Sarge)
-Inescapable Accuracy
So they both have different special rules. Inescapable Accuracy is one really good rule, but they both have two rules.
It's not the special rules on Reapers that make them better. They're undercosted a bit - that's what makes Reapers themselves OP. And the support they can get - better interceptor and Ynnari - make it even worse.
Raven Guard do for Devs what Alaitoc does for Reapers. But Alaitoc/RG/etc being common makes Inescapable Accuracy worth even more.
In theory, Tac Marines at 12" from Reapers and getting the alpha shoud win that firefight. Also, in theory, if equal or even quite a bit fewer points of Marines charge equal points of Reapers, the Marines should win. Also, in theory, Reapers and Marines in equal points starting across the board from eachother in a head-to-head should mean Reapers win.
Repeat that paragraph replacing "Reapers" with "Devs".
Repeat both paragraphs replacing "Tac Marines" with "Dire Avengers".
All of that should be true. Most of it is. The two exceptions I can think of are Reapers beat the Marines at close range, and Dire Avengers lose to Devs at CQC. The first is a blowout in the wrong direction. The second is rare, and thematic, and proper.
Rather than compare the two units against each other, I like to compare their offensive and defensive abilities.
If you compare range damage per point, DA are better than Tacs, and would be even without their AP bonuses for 6s. Once you factor that in, they get even better. They have a bit less range, but longer effective range and the ability to advance and shoot so I'm gonna call that a wash and just look at damage.
They are also more efficient in close combat except against T6 and T7.
None of these comparisons take special weapons or upgrades into account, just the basic Maine and DA profiles and weapons.
Defence wise, they lose less points than Tacs do per shot from every weapon I compared (lasguns, bolters, heavy bolters, assault cannons, plasma, and OC plasma).
How are DAs more efficient than Tacs in CC? They hit at S3, same number of attacks, same weaponskill. For only 1 less ppm. In contrived examples - anything T5 or T8+ with S8+ and AP-4 - they eek out a very slight points advantage. Otherwise, they lose substantially.
I shouldn't have included that part about DAs in that writeup. I agree they're a little better than Tacs (specifically, I think they'd be even if the Exarch were +10pts).
As for points lost per shot:
Boltgun:
Marine:
13x(1/2)(1/3) = ~2.1
DA:
12x(2/3)(1/2) = ~4
What stats do you think DAs have?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Of those, the one where Marines and DAs are the closest in points lost per shot is OC Plasma out of cover:
Marine:
13x(5/6)(5/6)
DA:
12x(5/6)(1)
That looks like about 11 pts of Marines compared to 12 pts of DAs - and, of your list, that's the case that should have been most in DA's favor.
It's the only CWE squad that can take special weapons.
Which would matter if or or 2 meltas or flamers in a squad meant something (which is kinda the same problem Tacs have).
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm actually good with where Guardian Defenders are at, and DAs need to go up, not down (per unit - they're fine per model).
The problem is, lets say we do 10ppm Tacs - won't they destroy 8ppm Guardians?
And if we drop Guardians to adjust for that to, lets say, 6ppm, won't they just destory other things?
Bharring wrote: How are DAs more efficient than Tacs in CC? They hit at S3, same number of attacks, same weaponskill. For only 1 less ppm. In contrived examples - anything T5 or T8+ with S8+ and AP-4 - they eek out a very slight points advantage. Otherwise, they lose substantially.
I shouldn't have included that part about DAs in that writeup. I agree they're a little better than Tacs (specifically, I think they'd be even if the Exarch were +10pts).
As for points lost per shot:
Boltgun:
Marine:
13x(1/2)(1/3) = ~2.1
DA:
12x(2/3)(1/2) = ~4
What stats do you think DAs have?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Of those, the one where Marines and DAs are the closest in points lost per shot is OC Plasma out of cover:
Marine:
13x(5/6)(5/6)
DA:
12x(5/6)(1)
That looks like about 11 pts of Marines compared to 12 pts of DAs - and, of your list, that's the case that should have been most in DA's favor.
Woops I had my numbers wrong. Lol. Yeah Tacs are better per point in melee and defensively, but DA are better offensively. So maybe they are equally bad lol.
Bharring wrote: It's the only CWE squad that can take special weapons.
Which would matter if or or 2 meltas or flamers in a squad meant something (which is kinda the same problem Tacs have).
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm actually good with where Guardian Defenders are at, and DAs need to go up, not down (per unit - they're fine per model).
The problem is, lets say we do 10ppm Tacs - won't they destroy 8ppm Guardians?
And if we drop Guardians to adjust for that to, lets say, 6ppm, won't they just destory other things?
DA don't need to go up in points per unit IMO. To fix the game most specialized infantry need to come down in points.
Tacs 10
DA 9
Gardian 7
Storm guardian 6
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: The usecases should be different between the two spells.
Jinx - "That unit there - have a really bad day".
Null Zone - "Marines are here. Y'all gonna have a really bad day."
So Jinx should be usable without fully committing, but should only impact the target unit. Null Zone should require the Librarian be committed, but should affect all nearby units. NOt as a suicide - the use case should be the libby commits *with* a bunch of Marines and stuff, not alone.
Jinx should be easier to manifest because it can impact at most one unit. Jinx should be targetable whereas Null Zone should be an aura from the user. Jinx should feel like the psykers are messing with you again, whereas Null Zone should feel like This gak Got Real.
To that end, I think it's closer to where it should be than you think. A wider range would be great, but giving everything near your guys a save penalty is a big boon over just touching one unit.
(not that I'd be against a buff to it, just not everything stated).
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, especially now that you pick powers, having 1-2 A-rank spells is better in many ways than having 6 B-rank spells. Much better if you're not spaming pskers.
Why should jinx be effective alpha strike but not null zone? This game is decided by turn 1 most of the time. 6" aura for a libby is suicide in most cases too - he doesn't even have an invo save. Any spell that requires a turn to setup is worthless - Nullzone would actually work great with quicken - maybe space marines should get a quicken type spell. So they can actually utilize their assult units / nullzone / ect. I have a feeling you'd be much happier with a buff to nullzone to make it less useless.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: They just need to eliminate the Storm Guardian entry. It makes no sense for fluff and with crunch they don't do anything special.
I play Ulthwe so i have a soft spot for them BUT I can't imagine ever using them. Removal is fine IMO.
Removal? God no. They serve a thematic purpose, at least in theory. I'd rather jack them up to 50ppm than remove them!
At any rate, back to Marines:
Jinx can help with Alpha against one unit.
If you want Null Zone to add to Alpha, give it a radius > 9". With a 12" radius, a DSing libby (among other things) can put it on the leading edge of the enemy.
If you're getting destroyed by Jinx, take 2 good units instead of one godly unit?
I think the issue with DA is that their gun costs too much. Unless they have some kind of +1 to hit, the AP bonus only makes the gun at best 75% better than a bolter (vs a 2+ save) and at worst the same if there is no armor save. A storm bolter is twice as effective a bolter against all targets, and it only costs half of what the DA gun does. 0-2 points would be fine. The Necron basic gun is better than bolters and DA guns and it's 0 points.
Bharring wrote: Removal? God no. They serve a thematic purpose, at least in theory. I'd rather jack them up to 50ppm than remove them!
At any rate, back to Marines:
Jinx can help with Alpha against one unit.
If you want Null Zone to add to Alpha, give it a radius > 9". With a 12" radius, a DSing libby (among other things) can put it on the leading edge of the enemy.
If you're getting destroyed by Jinx, take 2 good units instead of one godly unit?
I think a 12" aura is way better than what I was suggesting.
jcd386 wrote: I think the issue with DA is that their gun costs too much. Unless they have some kind of +1 to hit, the AP bonus only makes the gun at best 75% better than a bolter (vs a 2+ save) and at worst the same if there is no armor save. A storm bolter is twice as effective a bolter against all targets, and it only costs half of what the DA gun does. 0-2 points would be fine. The Necron basic gun is better than bolters and DA guns and it's 0 points.
You can't look at the cost of the guns just like that when comparing codices. Remember that the Bolter costs a point in the AM codex but 0 in the SM one, and that the Gauss Blaster is absurdly expensive if you looked at a Heavy Bolter.
jcd -
Shuriken weaponry shooting T8 2+/5++ targets does 4x as much damage as Boltguns.
Those targets are very rare, but the shuriken:boltgun output ratio increases as the target gets harder.
Conversely, against anything with a 7+, or a better/equal Invuln to their armor, Shuriken is exactly as powerful as boltguns - while giving up other advantages to get it.
I do like considering the Necron Gauss and CWE Shuriken as equals.
One problem with the gun being so cheap (or cheaper) is the twin Catapault is the no-brainer best way to run DAs (Glaive/Shield might be marginally better in a 10-man, but 2x5mans naked are much better than that 10man. And their CC weapons are on one model with S3.).
I generally think of it as 7 ASCs are about the same as 5 boltguns and 2 PGs.
I meant to say 3 boltguns and 2PGs. 5 boltguns and 2 PGs readily outperform 7 ASCs. I wouldn't consider 93 to 84 'significantly more'.
DAs have 6" +d6 more threatrange for doing doubletap, but 6" -d6" for shooting at all. DAs can doubletap 6" further than Marines - giving a 6" range where they have effectively double firepower. But then Marines have far more than double - half their normal vs exactly 0 - firepower for the next 6".
Put another way, here are their threat profiles:
0"-1": Marines destroy - Pistols + much better CC even naked
1"-~5": Marines win by a lot - doubletap + easy charge
~5"-7": Marines probably win - because probable charge
8"-12": About equal - probably no charge, and doubletap vs assault weapons
13"-18": DAs win - Marines don't doubletap
18"-24": Marines win - they only get singletap, but DAs have a reasonable chance of being unable to fire while being very exposed.
Battle Focus goes a long way to mitigate this, but leaves you closer to the enemy. And DAs are destroyed by naked Tacs in RF range. And many things in this game don't have trouble covering 18" to get into CC in one round. Finally, if they count on Battle Focus to get into range to fire, there's a very reasonable chance - unless they only need 1" - that they will expose themselves without even being able to fire.
Bharring wrote: I meant to say 3 boltguns and 2PGs. 5 boltguns and 2 PGs readily outperform 7 ASCs. I wouldn't consider 93 to 84 'significantly more'.
DAs have 6" +d6 more threatrange for doing doubletap, but 6" -d6" for shooting at all. DAs can doubletap 6" further than Marines - giving a 6" range where they have effectively double firepower. But then Marines have far more than double - half their normal vs exactly 0 - firepower for the next 6".
Put another way, here are their threat profiles:
0"-1": Marines destroy - Pistols + much better CC even naked
1"-~5": Marines win by a lot - doubletap + easy charge
~5"-7": Marines probably win - because probable charge
8"-12": About equal - probably no charge, and doubletap vs assault weapons
13"-18": DAs win - Marines don't doubletap
18"-24": Marines win - they only get singletap, but DAs have a reasonable chance of being unable to fire while being very exposed.
Battle Focus goes a long way to mitigate this, but leaves you closer to the enemy. And DAs are destroyed by naked Tacs in RF range. And many things in this game don't have trouble covering 18" to get into CC in one round. Finally, if they count on Battle Focus to get into range to fire, there's a very reasonable chance - unless they only need 1" - that they will expose themselves without even being able to fire.
Exarch can take 2 cats. The cost is 76 compared to 93. It is significant.
There is 0 chance of exposing and not being able to fire - if you get a poor advance move you just move another direction.
At which point you're still closer to the enemy than when you started the turn, didn't get to shoot, and now it's their turn. As a glass cannon.
The Exarch can take 2 cats. The Exarch is what puts DAs above Tacs right now, as I've said. And Cats would have to cost a lot more to make double Cat exarchs not the automatic choice.
At any rate, we should proably get back to Marines.
Bharring wrote: At which point you're still closer to the enemy than when you started the turn, didn't get to shoot, and now it's their turn. As a glass cannon.
The Exarch can take 2 cats. The Exarch is what puts DAs above Tacs right now, as I've said. And Cats would have to cost a lot more to make double Cat exarchs not the automatic choice.
At any rate, we should proably get back to Marines.
Well this is a marine topic. We are comparing tacs (which are bad) to DA (which are also pretty bad) both units need points drops IMO. It's hard to talk about dropping the points of tacs and not other units that deserve it to.
Bharring wrote: jcd -
Shuriken weaponry shooting T8 2+/5++ targets does 4x as much damage as Boltguns.
Those targets are very rare, but the shuriken:boltgun output ratio increases as the target gets harder.
Conversely, against anything with a 7+, or a better/equal Invuln to their armor, Shuriken is exactly as powerful as boltguns - while giving up other advantages to get it.
I do like considering the Necron Gauss and CWE Shuriken as equals.
One problem with the gun being so cheap (or cheaper) is the twin Catapault is the no-brainer best way to run DAs (Glaive/Shield might be marginally better in a 10-man, but 2x5mans naked are much better than that 10man. And their CC weapons are on one model with S3.).
I generally think of it as 7 ASCs are about the same as 5 boltguns and 2 PGs.
Ah, i see now. Clearly today is not my day for math. Woops.
I thought this was a bunch of knee jerk over reacting in terms of suggested buffs. After reading the Drukhari codex... woo lad. SM codex feels very limited and poorly thought out.
Did GW ever explain their reasoning for limiting SM and CSM's chapter tactics/legion traits to infantry, bikes, and dreads? If not I'd like to see that answered in the FAQ.
Kelligula wrote: I thought this was a bunch of knee jerk over reacting in terms of suggested buffs. After reading the Drukhari codex... woo lad. SM codex feels very limited and poorly thought out.
Did GW ever explain their reasoning for limiting SM and CSM's chapter tactics/legion traits to infantry, bikes, and dreads? If not I'd like to see that answered in the FAQ.
We find out in 25 minutes if they have fixed marines in any meaningful way.
OMG - Guilliman up in points? At this point I think you are better off playing Ravengaurd. They just got nerfed heavily though as did Blood Angels. No more turn 1 deep strikes. Bye bye Isosdan - bye bye SG.
P.S.
I'm making new rules for this game and posting them here within the week.
Martel732 wrote: Sanguinary guard will still be used in an identical manner.
Depends - beta rules don't allow turn 1 deep strike out of your deployment zone. Most tournaments will just use this rule - and 50% of shops will. Unit is dead bro.
I never deep struck turn 1 with SG. The chaff's not clear yet. Maybe talk to some actual BA players before you declare something dead. This hurts DC badly, though.
Martel732 wrote: I never deep struck turn 1 with SG. The chaff's not clear yet. Maybe talk to some actual BA players before you declare something dead. This hurts DC badly, though.
Humm - no point in taking any unit to hold it in reserve for first turn. Sounds like they were already dead for you.
Martel732 wrote: I never deep struck turn 1 with SG. The chaff's not clear yet. Maybe talk to some actual BA players before you declare something dead. This hurts DC badly, though.
Humm - no point in taking any unit to hold it in reserve for first turn. Sounds like they were already dead for you.
murphs wrote: Well I knew I was being a bit optimistic.
Chapter Approved 2018 has a lot riding on it
I can pretty much confirm with you that none of the changes you are expecting will ever happen. GW has had space marines wrong in every eddition I have played.
Martel732 wrote: I never deep struck turn 1 with SG. The chaff's not clear yet. Maybe talk to some actual BA players before you declare something dead. This hurts DC badly, though.
Humm - no point in taking any unit to hold it in reserve for first turn. Sounds like they were already dead for you.
Sigh.. no. But whatever.
It's a general rule I have for every unit - it has to be doing something useful every turn or its a bad unit. Even if you are playing against imperial guard you should be attacking with everything at a time. They have limited firepower - holding a unit back just means they are shooting something else - while you are reducing your total damage output. It's okay - the way you play them is now the only way. You just might be the only person at your shop running melle - in any fashion.
Problem is getting enough PL on the table while having enough to deepstrike everything I want.
Cap and lemartes are 13 PL my death company blobs were going to be 18 PL each so I'm up to 49 PL on the board just to support these guys deepstriking.
Any more than 4 SG and we're looking at 20 PL needed on the board. So thats 69 PL needed on the board for 5 deepstriking units. I was planning on running soup with DA but deepstriking inceptors are like 20 PL each...
No way I come up with enough on the board T1 PL to cover any of the things I want to do and with the survivability of SM troops at around -1 I'm not seeing a way out or at least a viable deep striking army path forward...
murphs wrote: Well I knew I was being a bit optimistic.
Chapter Approved 2018 has a lot riding on it
I can pretty much confirm with you that none of the changes you are expecting will ever happen. GW has had space marines wrong in every eddition I have played.
Martel732 wrote: I never deep struck turn 1 with SG. The chaff's not clear yet. Maybe talk to some actual BA players before you declare something dead. This hurts DC badly, though.
Humm - no point in taking any unit to hold it in reserve for first turn. Sounds like they were already dead for you.
Sigh.. no. But whatever.
It's a general rule I have for every unit - it has to be doing something useful every turn or its a bad unit. Even if you are playing against imperial guard you should be attacking with everything at a time. They have limited firepower - holding a unit back just means they are shooting something else - while you are reducing your total damage output. It's okay - the way you play them is now the only way. You just might be the only person at your shop running melle - in any fashion.
It is doing something useful. It may not be killing units, but it's keeping your opponent in check through 1 of 2 ways:
1. Your opponent is moving more cautiously, keeping every part of his army in check knowing that something big is waiting in reserve, trying to keep an answer for it. The constant threat of a huge force ready to capitalize on a mistake has a big impact on the game, and helps you dictate its flow.
2. Your opponent completely forgets you have stuff in reserve. This leads him to become overconfident as he looks at the table and sees an advantage in models. It might cause him to make a bad play, or underestimate what's coming to him. The psychological damage of doing relatively poorly, only to have your opponent drop a huge force on the table you didn't account for is wild.
1. My opponents are typically not moving. Just a brick of shooting units with the range being most of the board.
2. Any strategy that requires your opponent to be stupid is a bad strategy.
Xenomancers wrote: 1. My opponents are typically not moving. Just a brick of shooting units with the range being most of the board.
2. Any strategy that requires your opponent to be stupid is a bad strategy.
If your opponent isn't moving, just hide most of the game, and get points where you can. Also if you're fighting someone like Tau or AM and you don't have good terrain, then you're really playing an imbalanced game. Who are you fighting?
I guess this gives me time to focus on my other armies. At least I still love the models, but I have to be honest and admit I'm not clever enough to lead a chapter and make a list that can keep up against the codex creep.
