Surprised not to see this already.
So the new store anniversary intercessor datasheet replaces ATSKNF with Angels of Death and the wargear options are different and refer to the Intercessor Sgt equipment table. A hand flamer is also an option.
Certainly looks like we will be seeing a new marine dex soon.
Posted it a bit ago in the Primaris tactics thread, but this will probably see more traffic.
ATSKNF no longer shown...but a new special ability called Angels of Death which likely includes the morale reroll mechanic next to a new effect.
Refers to an Intercessor Sergeant Weapon List, which isn't a thing in the current codex. Assuming this means chainsword, power fist, and power sword...but the data sheet also references the option to equip a hand-flamer or a master-crafted auto/stalker on the sarge.
How? There aren't even sprus for half these things...This honestly looks like one of the badly translated data sheets that comes with knock off boxes. GamesWorkshed InterCassers.
drbored wrote: Neat. Glad to see them fleshing out the Primaris line. Though what kit is going to contain hand flamers to put on Intercessors????
seems to be the GW way, like the old tac marines and devastators and grav guns/ grav cannons. the re release intercessors kit with hand flamers. still sell the ETB kit without and box sets without them. hopefully they also add another couple of weapon options in there too. hopefully a primaris missile launcher as a swiss army type weapon.
bullyboy wrote: Surprised not to see this already.
So the new store anniversary intercessor datasheet replaces ATSKNF with Angels of Death and the wargear options are different and refer to the Intercessor Sgt equipment table. A hand flamer is also an option.
Certainly looks like we will be seeing a new marine dex soon.
I'm not surprised at all to be honest, I'd say on 7/23 we will know a lot more information, assuming that teaser vid from a couple weeks ago pans out.
The thing I'm wondering about is if we'll see new upgrade sprues for the already available kits (Special weps, Heavy Weps for intercessors, power weapons for reivers.)
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: How? There aren't even sprus for half these things...This honestly looks like one of the badly translated data sheets that comes with knock off boxes. GamesWorkshed InterCassers.
And the Bolt Rifle isn't even listed on the datasheet. Thus far, all options named on a datasheet have their stats on the same datasheet. Only options from Special Weapons or Melee weapons lists are not included on datasheets.
So either this is fake, or (equally likely) this is the first in a new format for GW codices.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: How? There aren't even sprus for half these things...This honestly looks like one of the badly translated data sheets that comes with knock off boxes. GamesWorkshed InterCassers.
And the Bolt Rifle isn't even listed on the datasheet. Thus far, all options named on a datasheet have their stats on the same datasheet. Only options from Special Weapons or Melee weapons lists are not included on datasheets.
So either this is fake, or (equally likely) this is the first in a new format for GW codices.
-
It's because this is a data sheet for fielding a sarge with pistol, nades, and chainsword.
Or that would make sense if power sword wasn't inexplicably included as well.
Lemondish wrote: It's because this is a data sheet for fielding a sarge with pistol, nades, and chainsword.
Nope, datasheet says Intercessor SQUAD, not just the Sgt.
But like I said, it could be that GW is moving away from listing the stats for default wargear and LISTED interchangeable options, but the picture shown is puzzling nonetheless.
The data sheet does say Intercessor squad, but above that it says it is from a box containing one sgt model and that it is an abridged datasheet, so it stands to reason that it is only listing the weapons profiles that actually come as options with this particular model.
I assume it comes with a bolt pistol and both a power sword and a chainsword as options.
Lemondish wrote: It's because this is a data sheet for fielding a sarge with pistol, nades, and chainsword.
Nope, datasheet says Intercessor SQUAD, not just the Sgt.
But like I said, it could be that GW is moving away from listing the stats for default wargear and LISTED interchangeable options, but the picture shown is puzzling nonetheless.
-
No, I mean it's coming in the box with a Sarge. Not a squad. It says so at the top, and that it's abridged.
I can't wait for the new marine codex, I really hope that the Primaris characters get some much needed gear flexibility too.
The hand flamer option is weird though. You have to forgo both your long arm and your melee weapon to get it, so only loadout in which you can have it is bolt pistol & hand flamer. I can't imagine anyone ever wielding such, aside a cool modelling opportunity.
I am also a bit worried that the datasheet refers to 'Intercessor Sergeant Weapon List' as this indicates that poor Reiver Sergeants will remain stuck with their useless knives. Or maybe they will get a separate list in the new codex? =ne can hope. They might have an use for the hand flamer as well.
I admit to mild annoyance that a sergent can have a master crafted autobolt rifle or a master crafted stalker, but yet again no master crafted bolt rifle. *sighs* they do that with primaris captains and Lts too.
Hopefully GW will do as I suspected and wished for.
Make a veteran intercessor unit (with a stratagem in the new codex) and give them all the options to take master crafted weapons. A whole unit with MC stalker bolter rifles would not be half bad at the right cost. Maybe 20 PPM with a CP expenditure.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: How? There aren't even sprus for half these things...This honestly looks like one of the badly translated data sheets that comes with knock off boxes. GamesWorkshed InterCassers.
And the Bolt Rifle isn't even listed on the datasheet. Thus far, all options named on a datasheet have their stats on the same datasheet. Only options from Special Weapons or Melee weapons lists are not included on datasheets.
So either this is fake, or (equally likely) this is the first in a new format for GW codices.
-
Or it's real and just a mistake that they will not correct even with 6 months available to fix it.
First off, unless they release the models with the weapons, I am sick of buying 3 different boxes to kit out my line of 5 most basic dudes. Put it on the spru or take it off the fething sheet.
Second, I am betting this is for DW Intercessors, not Regular intercessors. If this is for regulars, it kinda invalidates the primary strength of DW, which is their tactical flexibility and ammo types.
Finally, what is the point of giving long range shooting units 6" crap shooting? Or melee options? Why not just give them Lightning Claws to complete the weird crap being tossed at them trifecta?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: First off, unless they release the models with the weapons, I am sick of buying 3 different boxes to kit out my line of 5 most basic dudes. Put it on the spru or take it off the fething sheet.
Second, I am betting this is for DW Intercessors, not Regular intercessors. If this is for regulars, it kinda invalidates the primary strength of DW, which is their tactical flexibility and ammo types.
Finally, what is the point of giving long range shooting units 6" crap shooting? Or melee options? Why not just give them Lightning Claws to complete the weird crap being tossed at them trifecta?
Definitely not DW, the sheet has the <CHAPTER> variable keyword.
As for melee options, with 3 attacks on the Sgt I think a Power Sword is more than worth it as a backup for 4pts.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: First off, unless they release the models with the weapons, I am sick of buying 3 different boxes to kit out my line of 5 most basic dudes. Put it on the spru or take it off the fething sheet.
Second, I am betting this is for DW Intercessors, not Regular intercessors. If this is for regulars, it kinda invalidates the primary strength of DW, which is their tactical flexibility and ammo types.
Finally, what is the point of giving long range shooting units 6" crap shooting? Or melee options? Why not just give them Lightning Claws to complete the weird crap being tossed at them trifecta?
that is why bits sites are so popular, get some counts as for the things GW left out. alternatively 3d print your own. I know that is what I end up often doing.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: First off, unless they release the models with the weapons, I am sick of buying 3 different boxes to kit out my line of 5 most basic dudes. Put it on the spru or take it off the fething sheet.
Second, I am betting this is for DW Intercessors, not Regular intercessors. If this is for regulars, it kinda invalidates the primary strength of DW, which is their tactical flexibility and ammo types.
Finally, what is the point of giving long range shooting units 6" crap shooting? Or melee options? Why not just give them Lightning Claws to complete the weird crap being tossed at them trifecta?
Does it really matter if the put a hand flamer in the box or not?
You guys are all racing past the best goodie from the sheet. Anyone else looking forward to the debate over what "Every model may be equipped with 1 XXXX bolt rifle instead of 1 bolt rifle." Does this mean you do every model at once and have uniform loads? Does this mean every model can mix and match? New phrasing, new argument.
This Sargeant better be cheap if they're expecting people to buy him. Better not be the same cost as an apothecary. I was able to justify buying the $45 characters because I like them. But they'd be off their rocker if they think I'm gonna pay the same for a Sargeant which comes in a box anyway!
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: First off, unless they release the models with the weapons, I am sick of buying 3 different boxes to kit out my line of 5 most basic dudes. Put it on the spru or take it off the fething sheet.
Second, I am betting this is for DW Intercessors, not Regular intercessors. If this is for regulars, it kinda invalidates the primary strength of DW, which is their tactical flexibility and ammo types.
Finally, what is the point of giving long range shooting units 6" crap shooting? Or melee options? Why not just give them Lightning Claws to complete the weird crap being tossed at them trifecta?
Does it really matter if the put a hand flamer in the box or not?
You guys are all racing past the best goodie from the sheet. Anyone else looking forward to the debate over what "Every model may be equipped with 1 XXXX bolt rifle instead of 1 bolt rifle." Does this mean you do every model at once and have uniform loads? Does this mean every model can mix and match? New phrasing, new argument.
*Starts spraying Anti-RAW spray**** GO! Git! Git! Shoo! No one wants to debate with you as to what the meaning of "is" is!
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: First off, unless they release the models with the weapons, I am sick of buying 3 different boxes to kit out my line of 5 most basic dudes. Put it on the spru or take it off the fething sheet.
Second, I am betting this is for DW Intercessors, not Regular intercessors. If this is for regulars, it kinda invalidates the primary strength of DW, which is their tactical flexibility and ammo types.
Finally, what is the point of giving long range shooting units 6" crap shooting? Or melee options? Why not just give them Lightning Claws to complete the weird crap being tossed at them trifecta?
that is why bits sites are so popular, get some counts as for the things GW left out. alternatively 3d print your own. I know that is what I end up often doing.
I know, it's just, common. Through me a fricking bone here. Is it really too much to ask for them to throw in a correct weapons spru on their 60 dollar box of plastic? It was the most disheartening thing ever as a new player to buy the Grey Knights Paladin box, and not even have the ability to make the load out the rules in the box said I could. Imagine if LEGGO came out with their models that required you buy several unrelated boxes of leggos in order to correctly build the thing you bought in the first place.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: First off, unless they release the models with the weapons, I am sick of buying 3 different boxes to kit out my line of 5 most basic dudes. Put it on the spru or take it off the fething sheet.
Second, I am betting this is for DW Intercessors, not Regular intercessors. If this is for regulars, it kinda invalidates the primary strength of DW, which is their tactical flexibility and ammo types.
Finally, what is the point of giving long range shooting units 6" crap shooting? Or melee options? Why not just give them Lightning Claws to complete the weird crap being tossed at them trifecta?
Does it really matter if the put a hand flamer in the box or not?
You guys are all racing past the best goodie from the sheet. Anyone else looking forward to the debate over what "Every model may be equipped with 1 XXXX bolt rifle instead of 1 bolt rifle." Does this mean you do every model at once and have uniform loads? Does this mean every model can mix and match? New phrasing, new argument.
*Starts spraying Anti-RAW spray**** GO! Git! Git! Shoo! No one wants to debate with you as to what the meaning of "is" is!
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: First off, unless they release the models with the weapons, I am sick of buying 3 different boxes to kit out my line of 5 most basic dudes. Put it on the spru or take it off the fething sheet.
Second, I am betting this is for DW Intercessors, not Regular intercessors. If this is for regulars, it kinda invalidates the primary strength of DW, which is their tactical flexibility and ammo types.
Finally, what is the point of giving long range shooting units 6" crap shooting? Or melee options? Why not just give them Lightning Claws to complete the weird crap being tossed at them trifecta?
that is why bits sites are so popular, get some counts as for the things GW left out. alternatively 3d print your own. I know that is what I end up often doing.
I know, it's just, common. Through me a fricking bone here. Is it really too much to ask for them to throw in a correct weapons spru on their 60 dollar box of plastic? It was the most disheartening thing ever as a new player to buy the Grey Knights Paladin box, and not even have the ability to make the load out the rules in the box said I could. Imagine if LEGGO came out with their models that required you buy several unrelated boxes of leggos in order to correctly build the thing you bought in the first place.
oh I totally get that. GW SHOULD at what they charge include every possible layout, but they never wiil. I am convinced in the GW world they figure is a person wants say 5 of a weapon for a squad that can take 5 but onyl 1 comes in the box that most people will buy 5 boxes.
It's left-over thinking from the Tac/Dev/Assault boxes. Buy a Dev and a Tac and you'll have all the heavy weapons you'll ever need to proxy all the Lascannons that you actually want. Buy an Assault squad box to build cheaper Vanguard Vets and no matter what you arm them with you'll have a ton of weapons left over for equiping Sergeants.
If you have a bits-box already you should be able to handle equiping Intercessor Sergeants. Kind of stinks if you don't.
So should they:
A. Include every bit you could possibly use to kit out your squad in the kit - meaning a 10man Tac box includes:
10x:
-Boltguns
-Pistols
-CCW -Krak Grenades
-Frag Grenades
2x:
-PGs -MGs -GGs
-Flamers
-Lascannons
-GravCannons
-Missile Launchers
-Plasma Cannons
-Heavy Bolters
-Heavy Flamers
-Combi PGs -Combi GGs
-Combi MGs -Combi Flamers
-Storm Bolters
-Melta Bombs
-Grav Pistols
-Plasma Pistols
-Inferno Pistols
-Hand Flamers
-Power Swords
-Power Axes
-Power Mauls
-Power Fists
-Lightning Claws
-Chainswords
-Thunder Hammers
Which would probably cost a *lot* more than the current kit...
B. Reduce options down to what's on-sprue. So limited Heavy weapons on a Tac squad. Devs can only have 1-2 of any given heavy weapon. Captains/ChapterMasters can only have a couple different weapons options. And those on jetpacks/bikes have fewer still.
C. Allow people who own more than one kit to use both kits together.
I, for one, don't want to be told I can't field my Relic Blade/Combi-Melta Captain on foot, just because GW doesn't *currently* sell *that specific loadout*. And, before you call me hysterical, GW does that for Autarchs.
C. Allow people who own more than one kit to use both kits together.
I, for one, don't want to be told I can't field my Relic Blade/Combi-Melta Captain on foot, just because GW doesn't *currently* sell *that specific loadout*. And, before you call me hysterical, GW does that for Autarchs.
This so much. Do not make kits-units fixed 1-1. It's nonsense.
Chaos Terminators are a good example of bad. Can’t even make the DEFAULT load out with the box.
How can store managers tell you to buy more boxes to make a basic squad, or to buy FW upgrade kits to make base squads then. Or be asked, "Why would you want to run base squads?" all have happened.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: First off, unless they release the models with the weapons, I am sick of buying 3 different boxes to kit out my line of 5 most basic dudes. Put it on the spru or take it off the fething sheet.
Second, I am betting this is for DW Intercessors, not Regular intercessors. If this is for regulars, it kinda invalidates the primary strength of DW, which is their tactical flexibility and ammo types.
Finally, what is the point of giving long range shooting units 6" crap shooting? Or melee options? Why not just give them Lightning Claws to complete the weird crap being tossed at them trifecta?
Does it really matter if the put a hand flamer in the box or not?
You guys are all racing past the best goodie from the sheet. Anyone else looking forward to the debate over what "Every model may be equipped with 1 XXXX bolt rifle instead of 1 bolt rifle." Does this mean you do every model at once and have uniform loads? Does this mean every model can mix and match? New phrasing, new argument.
*Starts spraying Anti-RAW spray**** GO! Git! Git! Shoo! No one wants to debate with you as to what the meaning of "is" is!
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: First off, unless they release the models with the weapons, I am sick of buying 3 different boxes to kit out my line of 5 most basic dudes. Put it on the spru or take it off the fething sheet.
Second, I am betting this is for DW Intercessors, not Regular intercessors. If this is for regulars, it kinda invalidates the primary strength of DW, which is their tactical flexibility and ammo types.
Finally, what is the point of giving long range shooting units 6" crap shooting? Or melee options? Why not just give them Lightning Claws to complete the weird crap being tossed at them trifecta?
that is why bits sites are so popular, get some counts as for the things GW left out. alternatively 3d print your own. I know that is what I end up often doing.
I know, it's just, common. Through me a fricking bone here. Is it really too much to ask for them to throw in a correct weapons spru on their 60 dollar box of plastic? It was the most disheartening thing ever as a new player to buy the Grey Knights Paladin box, and not even have the ability to make the load out the rules in the box said I could. Imagine if LEGGO came out with their models that required you buy several unrelated boxes of leggos in order to correctly build the thing you bought in the first place.
oh I totally get that. GW SHOULD at what they charge include every possible layout, but they never wiil. I am convinced in the GW world they figure is a person wants say 5 of a weapon for a squad that can take 5 but onyl 1 comes in the box that most people will buy 5 boxes.
Exactly right. I remember bitching about not having enough plasma rifles to kit out a command squad for when I used to run Scions. The GW rep literally said "We want you to buy at least 3 more kits. So we don't put them in the box."
Blew me away. Then the icing on the cake was that GW doesn't allow parts swapping in their stores.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Exactly right. I remember bitching about not having enough plasma rifles to kit out a command squad for when I used to run Scions. The GW rep literally said "We want you to buy at least 3 more kits. So we don't put them in the box."
Blew me away. Then the icing on the cake was that GW doesn't allow parts swapping in their stores.
You must have a crap manager. My local GW manager has bits boxes people can raid freely-the only requirement is you put an approximately equal amount of bits back in for whatever you take,
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Exactly right. I remember bitching about not having enough plasma rifles to kit out a command squad for when I used to run Scions. The GW rep literally said "We want you to buy at least 3 more kits. So we don't put them in the box."
Blew me away. Then the icing on the cake was that GW doesn't allow parts swapping in their stores.
You must have a crap manager. My local GW manager has bits boxes people can raid freely-the only requirement is you put an approximately equal amount of bits back in for whatever you take,
And bits trading is 100% okay in his store.
I think one of our stores has that. I've never actually found the bits I wanted though, but apparently someone has been able to assemble an entire Leman Russ Tank by collecting discarded bits.
I won't say he was crap, I didn't know him. I do know he toed the company line pretty hard, and won best in state a few times for sales records. (Caveat, there are only 3 approved GW reps in my state).
He refused to allow molds, non GW parts, Bits swapping, or printed models. You wanted to play in his store, you had to buy it from him. Which is a stance you take when you care more about the sale then the customer. But I can't judge. He was successful.
I did paint my guard once in the shop, an entire kit, before he noticed I was using my personal brushes, and a non-GW wash. He let me finish for the day and offer to sell me better brushes.
Martel732 wrote: I wouldn't mind seeing smash capts go away. Because they are dumb.
Nah it's totally fluffy to have Multiple Captains flying around with jumppacks 1 shotting titans. LOL just kidding. I am with you. Certain units should just not be able to hurt titans in melle IMO. Units of certain size differences really should not interact in melle IMO.
Martel732 wrote: I wouldn't mind seeing smash capts go away. Because they are dumb.
Nah it's totally fluffy to have Multiple Captains flying around with jumppacks 1 shotting titans. LOL just kidding. I am with you. Certain units should just not be able to hurt titans in melle IMO. Units of certain size differences really should not interact in melle IMO.
So I can't use a Relic Blade and Melta Gun on my 7th Company Captain on foot, because BAJP captains with better weapons can oneshot Castelleans?
Martel732 wrote: I wouldn't mind seeing smash capts go away. Because they are dumb.
Nah it's totally fluffy to have Multiple Captains flying around with jumppacks 1 shotting titans. LOL just kidding. I am with you. Certain units should just not be able to hurt titans in melle IMO. Units of certain size differences really should not interact in melle IMO.
Only half-agree. Each army having a few captains flying around is dumb. True. But having fancy melee weapons should allow you to damage at least some war machines. Thunder Hammers damaging Knights is fine. I even encourage it.
Martel732 wrote: I wouldn't mind seeing smash capts go away. Because they are dumb.
Nah it's totally fluffy to have Multiple Captains flying around with jumppacks 1 shotting titans. LOL just kidding. I am with you. Certain units should just not be able to hurt titans in melle IMO. Units of certain size differences really should not interact in melle IMO.
So I can't use a Relic Blade and Melta Gun on my 7th Company Captain on foot, because BAJP captains with better weapons can oneshot Castelleans?
No, because they are getting into restricting model loadouts. Smash capt would just be a good outcome of the policy.
I don't think thunder hammers are something regular infantry should be able to wield. Even marines.
Martel732 wrote: I wouldn't mind seeing smash capts go away. Because they are dumb.
Nah it's totally fluffy to have Multiple Captains flying around with jumppacks 1 shotting titans. LOL just kidding. I am with you. Certain units should just not be able to hurt titans in melle IMO. Units of certain size differences really should not interact in melle IMO.
Only half-agree. Each army having a few captains flying around is dumb. True. But having fancy melee weapons should allow you to damage at least some war machines. Thunder Hammers damaging Knights is fine. I even encourage it.
Have you seen the dawn of war 3 cinematic? This is the image I get in my head when a smash captain 1 shots a knight....I'm just like...this game sucks...Not only does it not make fluff sense. It makes 0 sense for 130 point units to 1 shot 600 point 1's.
Martel732 wrote: I wouldn't mind seeing smash capts go away. Because they are dumb.
Nah it's totally fluffy to have Multiple Captains flying around with jumppacks 1 shotting titans. LOL just kidding. I am with you. Certain units should just not be able to hurt titans in melle IMO. Units of certain size differences really should not interact in melle IMO.
Only half-agree. Each army having a few captains flying around is dumb. True. But having fancy melee weapons should allow you to damage at least some war machines. Thunder Hammers damaging Knights is fine. I even encourage it.
Have you seen the dawn of war 3 cinematic? This is the image I get in my head when a smash captain 1 shots a knight....I'm just like...this game sucks...Not only does it not make fluff sense. It makes 0 sense for 130 point units to 1 shot 600 point 1's.
Martel732 wrote: I wouldn't mind seeing smash capts go away. Because they are dumb.
Nah it's totally fluffy to have Multiple Captains flying around with jumppacks 1 shotting titans. LOL just kidding. I am with you. Certain units should just not be able to hurt titans in melle IMO. Units of certain size differences really should not interact in melle IMO.
Only half-agree. Each army having a few captains flying around is dumb. True. But having fancy melee weapons should allow you to damage at least some war machines. Thunder Hammers damaging Knights is fine. I even encourage it.
Have you seen the dawn of war 3 cinematic? This is the image I get in my head when a smash captain 1 shots a knight....I'm just like...this game sucks...Not only does it not make fluff sense. It makes 0 sense for 130 point units to 1 shot 600 point 1's.
To be fair, it's 130 point Warlord with 4+ CP spent.
Not saying they're balanced, but there's more than just points going in.
And moreover, what do my Nurgle Daemons get to fight Knights with if infantry can't touch them?
Martel732 wrote: I wouldn't mind seeing smash capts go away. Because they are dumb.
Nah it's totally fluffy to have Multiple Captains flying around with jumppacks 1 shotting titans. LOL just kidding. I am with you. Certain units should just not be able to hurt titans in melle IMO. Units of certain size differences really should not interact in melle IMO.
So I can't use a Relic Blade and Melta Gun on my 7th Company Captain on foot, because BAJP captains with better weapons can oneshot Castelleans?
I said melle...Mainly because just getting that close to an absurdly large unit to hit it with a hammer would likely kill you. Plus if they step on you that storm shield isn't going to do a dang thing.
But the solution you're advocating, while it might clip what you're aiming to kill (tons of Captains running around with few Marines), it'll certainly kill the option I posted too.
Martel732 wrote: I wouldn't mind seeing smash capts go away. Because they are dumb.
Nah it's totally fluffy to have Multiple Captains flying around with jumppacks 1 shotting titans. LOL just kidding. I am with you. Certain units should just not be able to hurt titans in melle IMO. Units of certain size differences really should not interact in melle IMO.
So I can't use a Relic Blade and Melta Gun on my 7th Company Captain on foot, because BAJP captains with better weapons can oneshot Castelleans?
I said melle...Mainly because just getting that close to an absurdly large unit to hit it with a hammer would likely kill you. Plus if they step on you that storm shield isn't going to do a dang thing.
*Cough cough Nurgle Daemons cough*
Sorry, had an army I play and enjoy that has basically no shooting stuck in my throat.
Martel732 wrote: I wouldn't mind seeing smash capts go away. Because they are dumb.
Nah it's totally fluffy to have Multiple Captains flying around with jumppacks 1 shotting titans. LOL just kidding. I am with you. Certain units should just not be able to hurt titans in melle IMO. Units of certain size differences really should not interact in melle IMO.
Only half-agree. Each army having a few captains flying around is dumb. True. But having fancy melee weapons should allow you to damage at least some war machines. Thunder Hammers damaging Knights is fine. I even encourage it.
Have you seen the dawn of war 3 cinematic? This is the image I get in my head when a smash captain 1 shots a knight....I'm just like...this game sucks...Not only does it not make fluff sense. It makes 0 sense for 130 point units to 1 shot 600 point 1's.
To be fair, it's 130 point Warlord with 4+ CP spent.
Not saying they're balanced, but there's more than just points going in.
And moreover, what do my Nurgle Daemons get to fight Knights with if infantry can't touch them?
Which ones specifically? Cause I'm sure mortiarian can knock a knight out in melle in fluff and in game terms.
I consider CP free - because they are.
Though not actually complaining about BA - because they are a pretty bad army. However the +1 to wound army trait is pure insanity.
Martel732 wrote: I wouldn't mind seeing smash capts go away. Because they are dumb.
Nah it's totally fluffy to have Multiple Captains flying around with jumppacks 1 shotting titans. LOL just kidding. I am with you. Certain units should just not be able to hurt titans in melle IMO. Units of certain size differences really should not interact in melle IMO.
So I can't use a Relic Blade and Melta Gun on my 7th Company Captain on foot, because BAJP captains with better weapons can oneshot Castelleans?
I said melle...Mainly because just getting that close to an absurdly large unit to hit it with a hammer would likely kill you. Plus if they step on you that storm shield isn't going to do a dang thing.
*Cough cough Nurgle Daemons cough*
Sorry, had an army I play and enjoy that has basically no shooting stuck in my throat.
How many of your nurgling can the knight kill in 1 turn? Like 40 points worth? Hed need 11 turns to make his points back - in a 6 turn max game. You win just by existing. Plus you have Daemon prince...which appears to be something like 5x larger than a marine captain. Not to mention his ability to do mortal wounds. He should be able to fight a knight is what I am saying.
Martel732 wrote: I wouldn't mind seeing smash capts go away. Because they are dumb.
Nah it's totally fluffy to have Multiple Captains flying around with jumppacks 1 shotting titans. LOL just kidding. I am with you. Certain units should just not be able to hurt titans in melle IMO. Units of certain size differences really should not interact in melle IMO.
So I can't use a Relic Blade and Melta Gun on my 7th Company Captain on foot, because BAJP captains with better weapons can oneshot Castelleans?
I said melle...Mainly because just getting that close to an absurdly large unit to hit it with a hammer would likely kill you. Plus if they step on you that storm shield isn't going to do a dang thing.
*Cough cough Nurgle Daemons cough*
Sorry, had an army I play and enjoy that has basically no shooting stuck in my throat.
How many of your nurgling can the knight kill in 1 turn? Like 40 points worth? Hed need 11 turns to make his points back - in a 6 turn max game. You win just by existing. Plus you have Daemon prince...which appears to be something like 5x larger than a marine captain. Not to mention his ability to do mortal wounds. He should be able to fight a knight is what I am saying.
Yes, that's fun gameplay. "Sit back and hope you score enough points while you get slaughtered with no way of attacking the big thing."
And a Daemon Prince, with Virulent Blessing AND a Poxbringer, does...
7 attacks
245/36 hits
245/54 wounds
245/81 unsaved, at damage 2 (3s, 4s), 3 (5s), and 6 (6s).
9.83 damage on average.
What does the Knight do? Well let's see!
4 attacks
8/3 hits
20/9 wounds
40/27 unsaved
8.89 damage from the big boy weapon, or not enough to kill through FNP.
So, in close combat only, a Knight will probably fail to kill my prince. (Unless they're a gallant, with an extra attack and better WS.) But then they can fall back and shoot him to hell.
Bharring wrote: But the solution you're advocating, while it might clip what you're aiming to kill (tons of Captains running around with few Marines), it'll certainly kill the option I posted too.
Bharring wrote: But the solution you're advocating, while it might clip what you're aiming to kill (tons of Captains running around with few Marines), it'll certainly kill the option I posted too.
It's not a "solution", it just looks like what GW might be cooking up.
Martel732 wrote: I wouldn't mind seeing smash capts go away. Because they are dumb.
Nah it's totally fluffy to have Multiple Captains flying around with jumppacks 1 shotting titans. LOL just kidding. I am with you. Certain units should just not be able to hurt titans in melle IMO. Units of certain size differences really should not interact in melle IMO.
Only half-agree. Each army having a few captains flying around is dumb. True. But having fancy melee weapons should allow you to damage at least some war machines. Thunder Hammers damaging Knights is fine. I even encourage it.
Have you seen the dawn of war 3 cinematic? This is the image I get in my head when a smash captain 1 shots a knight....I'm just like...this game sucks...Not only does it not make fluff sense. It makes 0 sense for 130 point units to 1 shot 600 point 1's.
To be fair, it's 130 point Warlord with 4+ CP spent.
Not saying they're balanced, but there's more than just points going in.
And moreover, what do my Nurgle Daemons get to fight Knights with if infantry can't touch them?
Which ones specifically? Cause I'm sure mortiarian can knock a knight out in melle in fluff and in game terms.
I consider CP free - because they are.
Though not actually complaining about BA - because they are a pretty bad army. However the +1 to wound army trait is pure insanity.
Hardly. It's a suicide trait on an army with terrible model count. It's the worst marine trait imo.
Martel732 wrote: I wouldn't mind seeing smash capts go away. Because they are dumb.
Nah it's totally fluffy to have Multiple Captains flying around with jumppacks 1 shotting titans. LOL just kidding. I am with you. Certain units should just not be able to hurt titans in melle IMO. Units of certain size differences really should not interact in melle IMO.
So I can't use a Relic Blade and Melta Gun on my 7th Company Captain on foot, because BAJP captains with better weapons can oneshot Castelleans?
I said melle...Mainly because just getting that close to an absurdly large unit to hit it with a hammer would likely kill you. Plus if they step on you that storm shield isn't going to do a dang thing.
*Cough cough Nurgle Daemons cough*
Sorry, had an army I play and enjoy that has basically no shooting stuck in my throat.
How many of your nurgling can the knight kill in 1 turn? Like 40 points worth? Hed need 11 turns to make his points back - in a 6 turn max game. You win just by existing. Plus you have Daemon prince...which appears to be something like 5x larger than a marine captain. Not to mention his ability to do mortal wounds. He should be able to fight a knight is what I am saying.
Yes, that's fun gameplay. "Sit back and hope you score enough points while you get slaughtered with no way of attacking the big thing."
And a Daemon Prince, with Virulent Blessing AND a Poxbringer, does...
7 attacks
245/36 hits
245/54 wounds
245/81 unsaved, at damage 2 (3s, 4s), 3 (5s), and 6 (6s).
9.83 damage on average.
What does the Knight do? Well let's see!
4 attacks
8/3 hits
20/9 wounds
40/27 unsaved
8.89 damage from the big boy weapon, or not enough to kill through FNP.
So, in close combat only, a Knight will probably fail to kill my prince. (Unless they're a gallant, with an extra attack and better WS.) But then they can fall back and shoot him to hell.
Too bad your not a 130 point smash captain.
Also I've had a greater daemon of korne kill 2 knights in 1 turn....It's not like daemons don't have their own titan killers. Nurgle is just more defensively oriented than offense.
Martel732 wrote: I wouldn't mind seeing smash capts go away. Because they are dumb.
Nah it's totally fluffy to have Multiple Captains flying around with jumppacks 1 shotting titans. LOL just kidding. I am with you. Certain units should just not be able to hurt titans in melle IMO. Units of certain size differences really should not interact in melle IMO.
So I can't use a Relic Blade and Melta Gun on my 7th Company Captain on foot, because BAJP captains with better weapons can oneshot Castelleans?
I said melle...Mainly because just getting that close to an absurdly large unit to hit it with a hammer would likely kill you. Plus if they step on you that storm shield isn't going to do a dang thing.
*Cough cough Nurgle Daemons cough*
Sorry, had an army I play and enjoy that has basically no shooting stuck in my throat.
How many of your nurgling can the knight kill in 1 turn? Like 40 points worth? Hed need 11 turns to make his points back - in a 6 turn max game. You win just by existing. Plus you have Daemon prince...which appears to be something like 5x larger than a marine captain. Not to mention his ability to do mortal wounds. He should be able to fight a knight is what I am saying.
Yes, that's fun gameplay. "Sit back and hope you score enough points while you get slaughtered with no way of attacking the big thing."
And a Daemon Prince, with Virulent Blessing AND a Poxbringer, does...
7 attacks
245/36 hits
245/54 wounds
245/81 unsaved, at damage 2 (3s, 4s), 3 (5s), and 6 (6s).
9.83 damage on average.
What does the Knight do? Well let's see!
4 attacks
8/3 hits
20/9 wounds
40/27 unsaved
8.89 damage from the big boy weapon, or not enough to kill through FNP.
So, in close combat only, a Knight will probably fail to kill my prince. (Unless they're a gallant, with an extra attack and better WS.) But then they can fall back and shoot him to hell.
Too bad your not a 130 point smash captain.
Also I've had a greater daemon of korne kill 2 knights in 1 turn....It's not like daemons don't have their own titan killers. Nurgle is just more defensively oriented than offense.
I've seen a T'au soldier kill a Demon Prince. That doesn't mean it's likely.
Martel732 wrote: I wouldn't mind seeing smash capts go away. Because they are dumb.
Nah it's totally fluffy to have Multiple Captains flying around with jumppacks 1 shotting titans. LOL just kidding. I am with you. Certain units should just not be able to hurt titans in melle IMO. Units of certain size differences really should not interact in melle IMO.
using thunder hammers to specificly target titans isn't exactly some new thing, it's fluff supported
Martel732 wrote: I wouldn't mind seeing smash capts go away. Because they are dumb.
Nah it's totally fluffy to have Multiple Captains flying around with jumppacks 1 shotting titans. LOL just kidding. I am with you. Certain units should just not be able to hurt titans in melle IMO. Units of certain size differences really should not interact in melle IMO.
using thunder hammers to specificly target titans isn't exactly some new thing, it's fluff supported
Taking command of this new squad Captain Lysander and his retinue teleported to the bridge of his flagship, where the captain retrieved a single Vortex grenade. Commending their souls to the Emperor they teleported back down to the planet, emerging into the material realm within the void shields of one of the Chaos Titans. As it approached Lysander threw the vortex grenade, which disabled the Titan and created a hole within the massive machine. With this opening formed, the "Titanhammer" squad went inside the large machine and used their thunder hammers to destroy the Titan from within. This action was repeated with the other Chaos Titans, resulting in the destruction of the entire renegade Legio.[1]
Since that day, Lysander has always assembled Titanhammer squads to deal with Chaos forces' war machines. Furthermore, several more Chapters have followed Lysander's example.
Vortex grenade disables titan and then you pound it...that makes sense...like 30 terminators bashing a titan with TH I can see that doing some damage.
40k is supposed to be a universe with near endless variation, and for a long time this was shown in the models too.
Now, I understand it's totally impossible to have an affordable kit that has ALL the options that everyone can take. However, it's also bland and boring to be limited to just what is in the kit.
I'd prefer to go back to 3rd to 6th edition where there was a massive amount of customization, even if you needed to kit-bash a model from 3 or 4 different kits.
Now, if you don't want to confuse a customer, just list all wargear option included in the box ON the box.
The biggest issue is that Knights shouldn't be on the table at all really, not that Thunderhammers and other melee infantry shouldn't be able to hurt them. Since they are on the table, infantry have to be able to kill them, especially since knights generally have no issue killing their points in enemy troops etc.
They should probably lower the amount of shots/range and melee attacks slightly so they cant kill back their points easily against most troops. If all you have left is troop infantry vs a knight on the table you shouldnt be able to kill it but you should win by holding objectives.
At the same time knights is nerfed against trooos cheap troops should be nerfed a bit too. A wounded knight without support can easily be overwhelmed by basic guardsmen and the like by just massed number of str 3 and 4 attacks. There should be a reason for those cheap troops to want a special/heavy weapon for a situation like that and not just buy another squad and kill it with wven more lasguns.
Last 2 knights I killed were at some point in the game charged by guardsmen to get the last wound in. Took an insane amount of attacks but my guard battalion had 150+ attacks a turn for almost nothing in points and just grinded them down. I would have won at points due to controlling objectives any way but why not kill the knights when I could. 300pts of guard used for anti infantry, CP, screening and objective holding only need like 3 turns to kill a 300pt+ knight. Stupid.
The next Marine codex will be coming long before Sisters of Battle. SOB are still in the model design phase.
I was told September but it might be much sooner. Lots of hinting at new models, rules, etc
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bullyboy wrote: The biggest issue is that Knights shouldn't be on the table at all really, not that Thunderhammers and other melee infantry shouldn't be able to hurt them. Since they are on the table, infantry have to be able to kill them, especially since knights generally have no issue killing their points in enemy troops etc.
Knights aren't hard to kill. Maybe you need to buy some new models or change your play-style. Now let's get back on topic.
So I actually think this may be real. My working theory is that there has been enough of an outcry about Sargeants being a little lack luster for options and they obviously aren't going to come out with a new Intercessor sprue this soon after release. So they just drop a single model with a bunch of options.
Though I'd rather if they just made a sarge upgrade sprue as opposed to a model since they'll make the model overpriced.
I hope we hear something soon, I've been wanting these new marines for a bit but I don't want to buy Shadowspear
More seriously, I hope the Sarges get a real diverse weapons list. Although it sounds like it's just 1 option - so no Sword + Pistol or combi or whatnot.
But it seems to read like they can pick 1 item from the Sarge list, or 1 of the following, or 1 item from the Sarge list... am I reading that wrong?
bullyboy wrote: The biggest issue is that Knights shouldn't be on the table at all really,
Wow, only took until page 3 for this thread to get totally derailed!
They're on the table, get used to it. Let's talk about Intercessors.
We are dealing with it.....with Thunderhammers, that was pretty much the point.
It's a points game afterall. 10 Deathwing Knights is 370pts, a Gallant is 352pts, they should be able to kill each other and not be a case of "oh, those terminators shouldn't be able to hurt a titanic unit"
But I agree, let's talk about the new marines...although, let's give those new marines some decent melee weapons!
bullyboy wrote: The biggest issue is that Knights shouldn't be on the table at all really,
Wow, only took until page 3 for this thread to get totally derailed!
They're on the table, get used to it. Let's talk about Intercessors.
Dakka isn't really that bad about staying on topic, unless the topic is 'hey, lets read the tea leaves on what this rules spoiler means for that faction'. It's not like Facebook where you can post an article about how weird snail reproduction is and fully expect someone to invoke Godwin's Law in the first 10 responses.
On topic; anything that opens up the options on Primaris Marines is welcome, the fact that it specified an Intercessor Sergeant Weapon list is a trifle alarming. Hope that's just GW giving themselves space to give different options to different squads, and also hoping that they actually did so instead of letting Intercessors keep all the fun for themselves.
That said, I can almost see it from a faction-balance perspective (again, really hoping I'm wrong here) since Primaris are expensive enough that putting two battalions in a normal list is going to burn up half your points. If we're stuck with that and GW also doesn't want to admit that increasing the CP generation of Battalions and Brigades was a stupid decision that had the exact opposite of it's intended effect, then making the baseline troops better so they don't feel so much like a tax makes a certain amount of sense.
Martel732 wrote: They shouldn't be able to physically wield it. Terminators only, imo. The killy needs scaled back on all fronts.
Smash capt is so stupid, I kind of wish BA didn't have a captain entry at all anymore.
They've always been able to physically wield it. Get over yourself.
Not saying that the Slamguinus is a good thing, but people will just do the same thing with a Power Fist or multi-damage melee weapon, simply with less impressive results.
Any waaay do people think this new rule is just bolter discipline and atsknf rolled together or do you think there's an actual rule change?
I'd like to see one where marines always contest an object. Custodes have one to always control one so I figure marines should have one to contest it. Marine troop are generally out numbered on an objective unless there's a monster or something there which will just slice through regardless
fraser1191 wrote: Any waaay do people think this new rule is just bolter discipline and atsknf rolled together or do you think there's an actual rule change?
I'd like to see one where marines always contest an object. Custodes have one to always control one so I figure marines should have one to contest it. Marine troop are generally out numbered on an objective unless there's a monster or something there which will just slice through regardless
Well this is Intercessors, who have that anyway.
But regardless, that probably wouldn't be handled as a datasheet ability - the Custodes one isn't.
Well, thunder hammers, lightning claws and stormbolters used to be terminator only weapons. Later they got given to everybody, so that made terminators less special, they used to be carry heavier weapons than normal marines. But that ship has sailed and been decommissioned a long time ago. When they make Primaris Teminators, I hope they give them new powerful terminator only weapons and keep them that way.
How thunder hammers function now bother me a bit, because they're just better power fists. There should be some trade off. Perhaps PA marines should wield thunder hammers with two hands, so that they would have to forgo shield and other weapons?
Crimson wrote: Well, thunder hammers, lightning claws and stormbolters used to be terminator only weapons. Later they got given to everybody, so that made terminators less special, they used to be carry heavier weapons than normal marines. But that ship has sailed and been decommissioned a long time ago. When they make Primaris Teminators, I hope they give them new powerful terminator only weapons and keep them that way.
How thunder hammers function now bother me a bit, because they're just better power fists. There should be some trade off. Perhaps PA marines should wield thunder hammers with two hands, so that they would have to forgo shield and other weapons?
fraser1191 wrote: Any waaay do people think this new rule is just bolter discipline and atsknf rolled together or do you think there's an actual rule change?
I'd like to see one where marines always contest an object. Custodes have one to always control one so I figure marines should have one to contest it. Marine troop are generally out numbered on an objective unless there's a monster or something there which will just slice through regardless
Marines already have that rule, it's called Champions of Humanity iirc. The way it's worded it became completely redundant when all troop units got ObSec. The Custodes one is worded the same way.
It makes me wonder what GW is smoking some of the time. They knew that Marines were going to need a special rule or they'd never be able to hold an objective, gave them said rule, and then took it away again.
fraser1191 wrote: Any waaay do people think this new rule is just bolter discipline and atsknf rolled together or do you think there's an actual rule change?
I'd like to see one where marines always contest an object. Custodes have one to always control one so I figure marines should have one to contest it. Marine troop are generally out numbered on an objective unless there's a monster or something there which will just slice through regardless
Marines already have that rule, it's called Champions of Humanity iirc. The way it's worded it became completely redundant when all troop units got ObSec. The Custodes one is worded the same way.
It makes me wonder what GW is smoking some of the time. They knew that Marines were going to need a special rule or they'd never be able to hold an objective, gave them said rule, and then took it away again.
I'm pretty sure custodes have a superior obsec but it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong. But yes that's one of my biggest complaints about the way obsec works in 40k, it again leans towards hordes
I don't have any sort of issue with Marines carrying Thunder Hammers. I do have an issue with non-Terminator Marines carrying Thunder Hammers one-handed, T-Hammers are too big for that to look right.
I also have a bit of an issue with Marines being able to carry Power Fists and T-Hammers, but not Chain Fists when those are clearly in the middle ground between them.
I may be misremembering, but I seem to remember back int he mists of time that thunder hammers were Sx2, 3damage and you could only swing it once. (can't remember if it was instead of all of your other attacks, or if you could still use te rest of your attacks, just had to be a different weapon).
Does anyone else remember this, or being interested in seeing this rule making a return?
It seemw unlikely. It could really help Intercessors with the whole lack of special/heavy weapons thing, but if GW were going to address it that way I think they'd have done it by now.
Honestly just slap astartes in front of every marine weapon so that all Imperium weapons aren't intertwined so some semblance of balance can be achieved
Changing them across the board would require too much rebalancing. Giving Intercessors a single all-purpose Plasma grenade at Grenade d3, S7, Ap2, Dd3 would really help them though. (Edit: I mean they only have one grenade profile, not they have a single-use grenade.)
I miss a lot of the nuance of older editions. I think to make marines better individually, they need to bring that nuance back. Like, they should have built in a lot of small advabntages that other factions have to either pay for or have only on elite troops.
Like, what was it, assault granades giving you and edge in melee combat in 4th edition? Don't remember that well, should get the codex back. Or the autoregroup from ATSKNF.
It seemw unlikely. It could really help Intercessors with the whole lack of special/heavy weapons thing, but if GW were going to address it that way I think they'd have done it by now.
Custom granades would be really nice to give them special weapons with just a single plastic element.
Honestly just slap astartes in front of every marine weapon so that all Imperium weapons aren't intertwined so some semblance of balance can be achieved
They wouldn't even need to add any plastic, all the grenades look pretty much the same on the model.
Considering that Intercessor Sergeants can still be the one carrying the Grenade Launcher GW doesn't even need to create anything new for them, just adding Melta Bombs to the Intercessor Sergeant's wargear list would do it. Although for the way the data sheet the OP posted is written if that happened you'd have to choose between a melee weapon and the Melta Bomb.
I friggin' love krak grenades. I end up getting more wounds out of them than anything else, lol. And they always seem to surprise people as if they've never seen them.
Martel732 wrote: I assure you I could do better than the idiots at GW. Your sideways insults notwithstanding.
Great! When will they receive your job application?
Tell us when they give you the offer! We can hold a celebration!
Pretty sure GW is run a lot like a university at the top. A bunch of people who fell into an extremely successful business and aren't equal to the required tasks ahead of them and can't be replaced - like tenure. It's their baby - I can't take it from them. I can for sure point out the fact that they are failing their way into big profits right now.
Kind of like Tim Tebow when he had a big run with Denver. People looked at his stats and realized he was maybe the worst QB to ever play in pro football and win that many games. The next year he didn't even have a job after a winning record and a playoff run. Cause in a competitive sport you can't afford to not make changes because you are winning more than you are losing. GW doesn't really have any competition. The have utter market dominance due to sheer lack of faith in this community that any other game could ever challenge 40k. The end is near though. 3d printers are going to destroy this industry.
Tim Tebow wasn't given the boot because he was a winner, he was given the boot because he couldn't lead an offense, read a defense, or throw a football.
He was a proto-Manziel in a Sam Darnold body. Giant dumb county boy who has terrible mechanics but can run really fast. Ala: Manziel, and every other worthless scrambling QB the league has ever tried to develop....
Tim Tebow wasn't given the boot because he was a winner, he was given the boot because he couldn't lead an offense, read a defense, or throw a football.
He was a proto-Manziel in a Sam Darnold body. Giant dumb county boy who has terrible mechanics but can run really fast. Ala: Manziel, and every other worthless scrambling QB the league has ever tried to develop....
I wasn't making the point he was given the boot because he was a winner. I was making the point that he was winning in spite of how bad he was. He was booted because he was bad. Much like GW rules team should have been a long time ago. Likely though. These people can't be fired. Even mentioning they are doing a bad job probably gets you fired.
bullyboy wrote: I friggin' love krak grenades. I end up getting more wounds out of them than anything else, lol. And they always seem to surprise people as if they've never seen them.
The thing about Krak grenades that annoys me is that they're better than the bolt rifle against a lot of targets, but not the T7 sweet spot where most of the tanks are sitting.
bullyboy wrote: I friggin' love krak grenades. I end up getting more wounds out of them than anything else, lol. And they always seem to surprise people as if they've never seen them.
The thing about Krak grenades that annoys me is that they're better than the bolt rifle against a lot of targets, but not the T7 sweet spot where most of the tanks are sitting.
Ehh - primaris rarely have a situation where 1 krak is better than 2 bolts. Its only for the 1 for 1 situation which happens even more rarely due to bolter disc.
bullyboy wrote: I friggin' love krak grenades. I end up getting more wounds out of them than anything else, lol. And they always seem to surprise people as if they've never seen them.
The thing about Krak grenades that annoys me is that they're better than the bolt rifle against a lot of targets, but not the T7 sweet spot where most of the tanks are sitting.
Ehh - primaris rarely have a situation where 1 krak is better than 2 bolts. Its only for the 1 for 1 situation which happens even more rarely due to bolter disc.
Agreed, grenades are fairly pointless for Intercessors. The situations it makes sense to use them are very niche.
bullyboy wrote: I friggin' love krak grenades. I end up getting more wounds out of them than anything else, lol. And they always seem to surprise people as if they've never seen them.
The thing about Krak grenades that annoys me is that they're better than the bolt rifle against a lot of targets, but not the T7 sweet spot where most of the tanks are sitting.
Ehh - primaris rarely have a situation where 1 krak is better than 2 bolts. Its only for the 1 for 1 situation which happens even more rarely due to bolter disc.
Wouldn't plague marines be the prime target for a krak grenade? S6, multiple damage
bullyboy wrote: I friggin' love krak grenades. I end up getting more wounds out of them than anything else, lol. And they always seem to surprise people as if they've never seen them.
The thing about Krak grenades that annoys me is that they're better than the bolt rifle against a lot of targets, but not the T7 sweet spot where most of the tanks are sitting.
Ehh - primaris rarely have a situation where 1 krak is better than 2 bolts. Its only for the 1 for 1 situation which happens even more rarely due to bolter disc.
Meanwhile a Scion squad uses Grenadiers and throws ten kraks.
bullyboy wrote: I friggin' love krak grenades. I end up getting more wounds out of them than anything else, lol. And they always seem to surprise people as if they've never seen them.
The thing about Krak grenades that annoys me is that they're better than the bolt rifle against a lot of targets, but not the T7 sweet spot where most of the tanks are sitting.
Ehh - primaris rarely have a situation where 1 krak is better than 2 bolts. Its only for the 1 for 1 situation which happens even more rarely due to bolter disc.
Meanwhile a Scion squad uses Grenadiers and throws ten kraks.
Six inches....ain't no one satisfied by that range....
bullyboy wrote: I friggin' love krak grenades. I end up getting more wounds out of them than anything else, lol. And they always seem to surprise people as if they've never seen them.
The thing about Krak grenades that annoys me is that they're better than the bolt rifle against a lot of targets, but not the T7 sweet spot where most of the tanks are sitting.
Ehh - primaris rarely have a situation where 1 krak is better than 2 bolts. Its only for the 1 for 1 situation which happens even more rarely due to bolter disc.
Wouldn't plague marines be the prime target for a krak grenade? S6, multiple damage
I've literally never faced a plague marine. I face custodians a lot. However - I'm never moving at them so...2 shots is better than 1. ESP with -1 to hit banner....
Kraks are better against T3-T6 and T8-T11 multi-wound targets. That's actually quite a range in theory. In practice there aren't a lot of T4- multi-wound targets and a lot of armor is clustered at T7.
bullyboy wrote: I friggin' love krak grenades. I end up getting more wounds out of them than anything else, lol. And they always seem to surprise people as if they've never seen them.
The thing about Krak grenades that annoys me is that they're better than the bolt rifle against a lot of targets, but not the T7 sweet spot where most of the tanks are sitting.
Ehh - primaris rarely have a situation where 1 krak is better than 2 bolts. Its only for the 1 for 1 situation which happens even more rarely due to bolter disc.
Agreed, grenades are fairly pointless for Intercessors. The situations it makes sense to use them are very niche.
If we could rapid fire them....that might be cool.
If you keep it one man per squad, and all they can do is a nade, you can make the nade OP and it doesn't unbalance anything.
Hell:
Frag: 3d3 hits, S4, d1: Range 8"
Krak: 1d3 hits, S7, D3 Range 8"
Melta: 1 hit, S9, D6 Range 3"
If each 6" represents about 50 meters, then I think 6" is fair for every non-astartes throwing one. Otherwise, Astartes get an extra 2", and Primaris get 30" with the launcher.
bullyboy wrote: I friggin' love krak grenades. I end up getting more wounds out of them than anything else, lol. And they always seem to surprise people as if they've never seen them.
The thing about Krak grenades that annoys me is that they're better than the bolt rifle against a lot of targets, but not the T7 sweet spot where most of the tanks are sitting.
Ehh - primaris rarely have a situation where 1 krak is better than 2 bolts. Its only for the 1 for 1 situation which happens even more rarely due to bolter disc.
Agreed, grenades are fairly pointless for Intercessors. The situations it makes sense to use them are very niche.
If we could rapid fire them....that might be cool.
I think you should be able to throw a single grenade for the whole unit in addition to shooting normal weapons. You don't sacrifice anything, it's a nice bonus for getting within 6".
Then Intercessors would have the added bonus of that single 30" range grenade without losing any bolts. Would probably have to put a few points back on the launcher though.
The Newman wrote: Kraks are better against T3-T6 and T8-T11 multi-wound targets. That's actually quite a range in theory. In practice there aren't a lot of T4- multi-wound targets and a lot of armor is clustered at T7.
More shots is almost always better except in very nitch situations...basically t5. Even if you are getting a little better odds on a krak it's still practically better because you average more hits.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: If you keep it one man per squad, and all they can do is a nade, you can make the nade OP and it doesn't unbalance anything.
Hell:
Frag: 3d3 hits, S4, d1: Range 8"
Krak: 1d3 hits, S7, D3 Range 8"
Melta: 1 hit, S9, D6 Range 3"
If each 6" represents about 50 meters, then I think 6" is fair for every non-astartes throwing one. Otherwise, Astartes get an extra 2", and Primaris get 30" with the launcher.
fraser1191 wrote: Is it too wild to propose the melta bomb to be a flat 6 Damage? Seems like the ultimate risk/reward for tacticals
Six is a LOT. But it should at least be 2d6 pick the highest.
Yeah that's what I was thinking. But at the same time they can't be used in melee. So turn 1 no way to use it (except for the more odd deployments), turn 2 possibly, but no deepstrike and bomb something till min turn 3. So it's basically a mid game weapon where you get at most 3 uses where invulns could just block it.
Martel732 wrote: I assure you I could do better than the idiots at GW. Your sideways insults notwithstanding.
Great! When will they receive your job application?
Tell us when they give you the offer! We can hold a celebration!
Pretty sure GW is run a lot like a university at the top. A bunch of people who fell into an extremely successful business and aren't equal to the required tasks ahead of them and can't be replaced - like tenure. It's their baby - I can't take it from them. I can for sure point out the fact that they are failing their way into big profits right now.
Kind of like Tim Tebow when he had a big run with Denver. People looked at his stats and realized he was maybe the worst QB to ever play in pro football and win that many games. The next year he didn't even have a job after a winning record and a playoff run. Cause in a competitive sport you can't afford to not make changes because you are winning more than you are losing. GW doesn't really have any competition. The have utter market dominance due to sheer lack of faith in this community that any other game could ever challenge 40k. The end is near though. 3d printers are going to destroy this industry.
Lol what a negative rant. I'd like to see you produce a better set of rules with as much unit variety.
Martel732 wrote: I assure you I could do better than the idiots at GW. Your sideways insults notwithstanding.
Great! When will they receive your job application?
Tell us when they give you the offer! We can hold a celebration!
Pretty sure GW is run a lot like a university at the top. A bunch of people who fell into an extremely successful business and aren't equal to the required tasks ahead of them and can't be replaced - like tenure. It's their baby - I can't take it from them. I can for sure point out the fact that they are failing their way into big profits right now.
Kind of like Tim Tebow when he had a big run with Denver. People looked at his stats and realized he was maybe the worst QB to ever play in pro football and win that many games. The next year he didn't even have a job after a winning record and a playoff run. Cause in a competitive sport you can't afford to not make changes because you are winning more than you are losing. GW doesn't really have any competition. The have utter market dominance due to sheer lack of faith in this community that any other game could ever challenge 40k. The end is near though. 3d printers are going to destroy this industry.
Lol what a negative rant. I'd like to see you produce a better set of rules with as much unit variety.
Negative maybe. I like the term realistic. Really - it would be easy to make a better rule set and better balanced units. Like martel says - the bar is really low. I wouldn't call it a rant ether. It is likely exactly the reason the game has had such poor rules for such a long time.
Stux wrote:I want Reivers with Thunder Hammers, and give them back their old charging with grapnels! Then we'd be talking.
You had me at Reivers.
Martel732 wrote:I think thunder hammers on infantry is stupid and unnecessary. I dont care how long its been.
You make Captain Titus of the Ultramarines sad.
Titus wasn't 1 shotting titans. Slaughtering hordes of orks and killing maybe 30 CSM in typically 1v1 and 1v2 combat is pretty reasonable. Plus if you make a mistake against a nob you get 1 shot by it. Also - if jump packs were as good as there were in "Space Marine" I don't think ASM would be avoided like the plague.
I did do it. I covered nearly all the changes I'd make to codex space marines in a post a while back. What does it matter? Is anyone going to play by my rules? Nope. It is a complete was of time. I offer plenty of suggestions in the hope that maybe someone at GW will see it. Considering GW thinks the game is in "a good place" when it is clearly terrible wilth obvious problems like an infatry and a conscript costingf 4 points while a cultist is now 5 points and probably worse than a conscript....it is clearly not in a good place.
The Newman wrote: Kraks are better against T3-T6 and T8-T11 multi-wound targets. That's actually quite a range in theory. In practice there aren't a lot of T4- multi-wound targets and a lot of armor is clustered at T7.
More shots is almost always better except in very nitch situations...basically t5. Even if you are getting a little better odds on a krak it's still practically better because you average more hits.
You are mistaken. All other things being equal a Heavy 1, Dd6 is mathematically identical to a Heavy d6, D1 provided you're shooting at something with more than one wound, and multi-wound targets are hardly a niche situation. The reason multi-shot weapons are considered better is that most of them are not over-paying for a high AP that they won't get to use on account of all the invuln saves and because you won't always have a target with more than one wound. More shots is better on average, but not due to any inherent mathematical advantage when calculating expected damage.
The average damage of any given weapon on any given target is [to-hit %] x [average shots] x [to-wound %] x [failed save %] x [average damage]. It doesn't matter what order those are in if the numbers are the same (basic transitive property) so if your math is saying a Heavy 1, Dd6 does less average damage than a Heavy d6, D1 with the other stats being equal then you've done something wrong. Since a Bolt Rifle is 2 shots, 1 damage and a Krak grenade is 1 shot, 2 damage average with the same AP then the only number that matters for average damage over time is the to-wound %, and I shouldn't have to spell out how an S4 and an S6 compare on that front to anyone here.
Im talking strictly with the krak vs 2 bolt shots scenario.
t4 the bolt is better even against multi wounds t5 the krak is better - t6 the bolts are better even though the average is about the same. t7 it's obvious the bolt is better.T8 krak is better. If you get to reroll wounds which I often am though. Bolts are always better.
Xenomancers wrote: Im talking strictly with the krak vs 2 bolt shots scenario.
t4 the bolt is better even against multi wounds t5 the krak is better - t6 the bolts are better even though the average is about the same. t7 it's obvious the bolt is better.T8 krak is better. If you get to reroll wounds which I often am though. Bolts are always better.
A wise man once said, "If you're good at something, never do it for free."
no one ever said you should do it for free. if you're sooo good at game design, put your money where your mouth is, design a game and publish it. it's easy eneugh to publish with digital distribution etc.
A wise man once said, "If you're good at something, never do it for free."
no one ever said you should do it for free. if you're sooo good at game design, put your money where your mouth is, design a game and publish it. it's easy eneugh to publish with digital distribution etc.
Even if we made a better rule set...you think it would catch on? If the answer is no - it is a waste of time. If GW paid me to do it I would.
Vs t4 with 2 shots wounding on 4s and 1 shot wounding on 3s you probability is identical to deal a wound. Plus there is a save also. So the opertunity to deal 2 wounds with a krak cant do. Your chance to do 1 wound is higher.
Xenomancers wrote: Forgive me. I do the calculations based on which is more likely to do at least one 1 damage with low % shots.
You really should clarify that. And what's the point of that calculation?
Krak Grenades vs T4 3+ have a 2/9 chance of doing a wound (at d3 damage). At T6 3+, it decreases to 1/6.
Percent values are 22.22% and 16.67%.
Bolt Rifles with two shots vs T4 3+ have a 30.56% and against T6 3+ have a 20.99%.
Minor improvements, but again-the d3 damage means that Krak performs better against almost any multiwound target. If you're firing at regular MEQs, then yeah, Bolt Rifles do better, but PMEQs suffer more from Kraking.
Xenomancers wrote: Forgive me. I do the calculations based on which is more likely to do at least one 1 damage with low % shots.
You really should clarify that. And what's the point of that calculation?
Krak Grenades vs T4 3+ have a 2/9 chance of doing a wound (at d3 damage). At T6 3+, it decreases to 1/6.
Percent values are 22.22% and 16.67%.
Bolt Rifles with two shots vs T4 3+ have a 30.56% and against T6 3+ have a 20.99%.
Minor improvements, but again-the d3 damage means that Krak performs better against almost any multiwound target. If you're firing at regular MEQs, then yeah, Bolt Rifles do better, but PMEQs suffer more from Kraking.
It performs better just about as often as it performs the same or worse - so less time wasted making a sperate roll with some upside in the rare situation where you get 2 bolt wounds compared to a krak wound that just deals 1 damage on a bad roll. Ill go with 2 shots. Also - apologies I should have clarified that. Before bolter disc the krak laucher was actually pretty cool. Now that its there - it has become even more niche which was my point.
Martel732 wrote:I think thunder hammers on infantry is stupid and unnecessary. I dont care how long its been.
You make Captain Titus of the Ultramarines sad.
Titus wasn't 1 shotting titans. Slaughtering hordes of orks and killing maybe 30 CSM in typically 1v1 and 1v2 combat is pretty reasonable. Plus if you make a mistake against a nob you get 1 shot by it. Also - if jump packs were as good as there were in "Space Marine" I don't think ASM would be avoided like the plague.
All I am saying is the parts in Space Marine where Captain Titus had a jump pack and thunder hammer were joy concentrated. To call that stupid and unnecessary makes the most awesome hero of the Ultramarines ever had sad. Like Sidonus dying sad. To hate the ability to jump like 50' into the air and smash filthy xenos with a giant maul of lightning upon returning to the ground in huge concussive blasts makes me question if said person even likes fun.
I don't think thunder hammers should 1 shot titans. I think few, or better yet, no weapon can 1 shot a titan. Of course, I support adding better or any suppression/pinning mechanics to make units less effective on the tabletop and not just outright removing them. I completely agree that jump packs should be a heck of a lot better. I have always gone for the jump pack over the bike for my Fast Attack choice and will continue to do so. Simply because the idea of leaping through the air like in Space Marine is far more visceral to me than zooming on a motorbike. Though, either should be workable depending on the player's disposition.
Haanz wrote: Is it just me that feels a little sad not to see ATSKNF on there?
Feel like that rule and the name of it is as iconic for Space Marines as the boltgun and chainsword.
Yeah I feel the same to be honest. I've always been tempted to start collecting marines, and I very nearly pulled the trigger but some Eldar wraithguard fell into my lap and I just did Craftworlds from there.
I hope the new marine codex does them some justice (of course nothing will be good enough for Dakka )
Ishagu wrote: I'm laughing at people like Martel saying it' easy to write rules for and publish the most expansive miniature wargame in the world.
Go on guys, write a better set of rules. I'm willing to buy it. Either put your money where your mouth is or shut it!
Not hard to make better rules than GW. If you just went and looked at their old editions, took some of the better rules and implemented them with a few balancing tweaks you would have a great 9th edition.
Most games try to slowly better their own rules each edition but GW isnt even trying. If something works perfectly in an edition and something else sucks its 50/50 on what rule will carry forward in their next iteration.
Like if terrain rules are perfect in X edition and most other things need some small tweaks to fit the good terrain rules. The obvious decision is to keep the terrain rules and then just tweak los and cover rules a bit in X+1. What does GW do? They fix the small tweaks so they would work perfectly with the old terrain rules but then also completely change how terrain works so now the terrain rules are bad and the cover and los rules suck too.
Their whoe design philosophy is built on change is good. Not "change what is bad to good".
Best example of in 8th I can think about is the ap system. They took the old fantasy way of having ap reduce instead of completely remove armor saves. But what did the old fantasy system have? 0+ and 1+ armor save so even against light ap they still got their 2+ saves. Why implement a better system but only half of it? With much more attacks reducing 2+ and 3+ saves you need to also increase the armor save on some of the supposed tough units like terminators and marines. Its so obvious and something GW themselves had as a rules system for years so their is no excuse. Took me like 30min to figure out after jumping in to 40k after a 6 year hiatus and playing a game.
Or suddenly you cant reroll thunderhammer or powerfist attacks due to how modifiers work. Probably their most misunderstood rules interaction ever. In an edition with Rerolls all over the place. Especially since they have had reroll to hit rules for decades that worked liked you would think they would work.
Any one who tries can write better rules than GW since they dont even try to write GOOD rules. Pointless to make new rules for 40k since no one will play them but to make them isnt hard. Especially if you dont do it from scratch but just improve the rules from what we already have. Could probably do it in less space than the current rules + FAQ/Errata even. Their way of having minimal core rules produces more headaches than if they were just 20-50% longer but better defined. Now we need extra documents just to clarify what they wrote in the first place instead of writing good rules from the start. This edition their whole goal was to have as little rules as possible even when just another 4-5 pages would have still made the core rules kept very short but also much more robust.
They didnt reduce the amount of rules and interactions as a whole to make the game better they just did it for PR so they could claim its easier than ever to get into it and then put all the rules in hard to get places for a normal player. Its harder than ever to read up on what other armies can do since they have no common USR or at least no common way of writing rules so its hard to get a good overview of what unit can Deepstrike etc. More units and weapons than ever even though lots of datasheets could be removed, like terminator variants or different power weapons, makes it hard to keep track of what is what and that is without getting to the stratagems. If you dont know all the stratagems your opponent have and how they interact with their traits/relics/units you could easily just lose to that out of no where.
The current 40k rules are the best they have probably ever been, and the success of the game is a testament to that.
You might not like them personally and that's absolutely fine. Not everyone likes the same thing, but those who dislike how things are going are a minority.
Ishagu wrote: The current 40k rules are the best they have probably ever been, and the success of the game is a testament to that.
You might not like them personally and that's absolutely fine. Not everyone likes the same thing, but those who dislike how things are going are a minority.
I dont really think how successful GW is now has anything at all to do with how good their rules are. They look really nice, simple and short at a first glance which makes it look enticing to get back into the game again for veterans and make it look less of a hurdle for new players to start. Couple that with their new presence in social media and you have a reason for their current success. How good the actual rules are doesn't really factor in to it since most people don't play it for the rules. They play it for the setting and for the chance to play against others.
None of the players I have played against in this edition actually think the current rules are good. I hear "Yeah this rule/unit is stupid and should be something else" almost every game. I have played 9 different players the last 2 months and they all think there are glaring problems with GWs rule set. But we all keep playing since we like to have fun with others and think moving small models is super awesome and most of us is used to these really crappy rules. Large part of playing a game is for most people just a way to socialize with people. If GW would have competition that split the market 50/50 over night then the bad rules would likely be their downfall since then players have options. Their dominance on the market is what leads them to not have to make good rules.
Just because something sells good doesn't mean it is good. We can still get enjoyment out of something bad while wishing it were better. Just look at movies. There are a lot of bad movies that earn a lot of money because people can forgive it for being bad if it also give us something we can't really get anywhere else. Transformers movies isn't make it's money on being good movies but from people who want to see big robots fight. GW isn't making money on making good rules but on good looking models that look awesome on the tabletop.
The number of players engaging in the game at all levels of play is at a record high.
The rules aren't the only thing to credit for this of course, but the general feedback is extremely positive.
Just because you don't think something is good doesn't mean it actually isn't good. Understand that you, as someone not enjoying the current state of the game and hobby, are in a small minority. There is no incentive for GW to try to make you happy and risk upsetting the vast majority of people. Your opinion and your desires are not more valuable than those of other people. You are free to vote with your wallet if you aren't happy and that is absolutely fine, but you'd lose that vote too as sales are generally trough the roof with new kits selling out regularly and backlogs or orders throughout.
Ishagu wrote: The current 40k rules are the best they have probably ever been, and the success of the game is a testament to that.
You might not like them personally and that's absolutely fine. Not everyone likes the same thing, but those who dislike how things are going are a minority.
All editions have had issues....8th is no exception
However IMO it is the best edition for a number of years:
For me the absolute and sheer awfulness of 6th and 7th can not be underestimated - god awful psychic phase of tedium, lack of balance, formations and units completely breaking the game etc etc
8th at least has regular faqs, mostly works on the table and we as a group have found good fun.
It still suffers from I go you go, alpha strike's and other issues - artillery hitting anything, anywhere at no penalty or with no requirments for one
Appoclaypse does seem to have some interesting ideas that might be able to transfer over to 40k - Alternating detachments, nothing dies until the end of the turn etc.
Ishagu wrote: The number of players engaging in the game at all levels of play is at a record high.
The rules aren't the only thing to credit for this of course, but the general feedback is extremely positive.
Just because you don't think something is good doesn't mean it actually isn't good. Understand that you, as someone not enjoying the current state of the game and hobby, are in a small minority. There is no incentive for GW to try to make you happy and risk upsetting the vast majority of people. Your opinion and your desires are not more valuable than those of other people. You are free to vote with your wallet if you aren't happy and that is absolutely fine, but you'd lose that vote too as sales are generally trough the roof with new kits selling out regularly and backlogs or orders throughout.
But is there really a risk in losing customers if they make me happy? And how do you know that the majority of players actually think the rules are good or not just good enough that its possible to play the game. I don't want a complete make over of the game or anything. Most changes I would make to the game would be in how the rules are written so they are more clear and easily understood for all players. I'm experienced in these kinds of games and only need to read most rules once to remember how they work for years after that so I can play well with badly written rules and not get crushed in a game due to misunderstanding rules interactions. But there is no need for it to be that way. You could have the game perform 99% like how it is now but clean up the core rules, erratas, faqs and armybooks. Then do a bit of toning down the lethality of the game so more stuff can survive a turn and do something. Even if you don't balance everything even bad units would be more fun to use if they actually survive a turn or 2 and get to do something before they die. Don't see how changing those things to make me happier could ever lose GW business.
I enjoy the hobby very much and one of the reasons that I do is that I do not take any Games Workshop game seriously due to how badly written their rules and balance is. I am a very competitive player playing anything else than GW games but I resigned from that over a decade ago and only play it because I think it's fun to talk with friends and pushing models around. Never in my life would I ever play the game against an AI or as a computer game with how bad the rules are. I can enjoy playing the game even though the rules suck and my one reason why it even bothers me is that it is such a waste of potential. GW has a huge opportunity to actually make well written and balanced rules if they wanted to. They obviously don't and that bothers me more than the actual state of the game.
Can you mention what is so good about the current rules and how they are written compared to earlier editions or other games? I can name a bunch of things that are bad and could change for the better without actually changing how the game is played or add 100 pages of rules text. Lets take a Transformers or Godzilla movie as an example. People don't go see them for their well written story but would the movies be worse if the story was actually well written and had god acting in them? Sure it would take a bit more effort in making them but would it really cost that much in making a better quality product? For GW it would probably be enough if they had one extra person just making sure the rules followed a codified standard of some sort and as a bonus they would have to do less FAQs and Erratas. Which might actually lead to more sold books since people wouldn't feel they were bad value like they do now that they need extra documents for them.
All editions have had issues....8th is no exception
However IMO it is the best edition for a number of years:
For me the absolute and sheer awfulness of 6th and 7th can not be underestimated - god awful psychic phase of tedium, lack of balance, formations and units completely breaking the game etc etc
This might be a reason for why people let 8th get away with so much. It is much better than what came right before it but that doesn't have to mean it is the best it has ever been. I missed 6th and 7th edition and came back for 8th and it feels like it has taken so many steps backwards from where it were in 4th and early 5th edition that it somehow has regressed for me while for those that suffered through 7th it feels like its an improvement.
I wonder if those that say 8th edition has good rules have actually played many other games and learned those rules well too and compared them? Just the clear writing in Warmachine and Magic is something that could be implemented in 40k and be a direct improvement to the game without actually changing how a single rule in the game works.
But the rules are pretty clear and simple in the vast majority of instances. Anything unclear typically receives an FAQ.
Your comments such as "I do not take any Games Workshop game seriously due to how badly written their rules and balance is" are frankly laughable hyperbole.
This game is not 100% balanced, but the variation in lists across tournaments is very impressive, and many factions are winning games in many different ways.
If you want mathematical perfection I suggest you seek another game or hobby. Maybe you'll find more joy in video games like StarCraft.
You want something hard to achieve, and your standards are unrealistic.Thankfully people like you are very much a minority the rest of us are enjoying the hobby whilst GW goes from strength to strength. Because of your hyperbolic statements, and the way you declare things as absolutes I can no longer take your opinion seriously, and neither should GW!
But the rules are pretty clear and simple in the vast majority of instances. Anything unclear typically receives an FAQ.
Your comments such as "I do not take any Games Workshop game seriously due to how badly written their rules and balance is" are frankly laughable hyperbole.
This game is not 100% balanced, but the variation in lists across tournaments is very impressive, and many factions are winning games in many different ways. If you want mathematical perfection I suggest you seek another game or hobby. Maybe you'll find more joy in video games like StarCraft.
You want something hard to achieve, and your standards are unrealistic.Thankfully people like you are very much a minority the rest of us are enjoying the hobby whilst GW goes from strength to strength. Because of your hyperbolic statements, and the way you declare things as absolutes I can no longer take your opinion seriously, and neither should GW!
The core rules are quite simple but that is because they are just a tiny part of the actual rules. Most of the rules are spread out between the different armies and how all those rules interact isnt obvious at all. Especially since everything is slightly different worded even at the times they mean the exact same thing. You can't seriously tell that the game would be worse of if those rules were worded the same in every instance or even had the same name like they used to. Having 50 different versions of "deploy anywhere 9+ inches from enemy" isnt good design at all.
It isn't hyperbole at all. I take a very casual approach to Games Workshop games because I know that there just are situation were unless you get turn 1 against certain lists on some missions/deployments/terrain you have lost unless your opponent rolls just ones and you sixes for the first turn or two. Some games can really depend on player skill and some games are decided before the first model has been moved. Not taking the game too seriously allows me to have fun anyway. I can be a sore loser in most other games since mostly its my own fault that I lost but in 40k it's often enough that it isnt my choices that decide the game that I have learned to take a step back and not get upset about it. Doesn't mean I don't try to win and have a fair game but sometimes you lose before it even gets your turn.
Played a tournament last week and got crushed so hard in game one that my opponent felt worse than I did about it. He let me kill a unit of grots so I at least got something to kill. My list didnt lose against his list due to matchup but we played on the board with the least terrain(none that blocked los to his morka/gorkanaughts and fliers due to their height) and he got turn 1 and rolled slightly above average on my exposed army and the match were decided right there. Since he won turn 1 with that terrain the whole match were pointless. It ended 39-4(itc scoring). On any other table 1 I would have stood a chance but ofc my list vs his list on that table with him getting turn 1 were probably the most predictable result of the whole tournament. Had nothing to do with either players skill and more loopsided than any match I ever had in Warmachine at a tournament. Taking the game seriously when things like that happen just spells disappointment.
I do not seek perfect balance. But I do wish more units were better. Do you know what my first 8th edition game looked like? I had a land raider with assault terminators, a predator, 3 tactical squads, MM attack bike, Assault marines, company veterans, company champion and some special characters. I met a medium hard UM list with G-man and got the worst beating I have ever had in a table top game. I had done a lot of research before so I knew the all the rules etc and had read about how bad some of the stuff I was fielding were but before actually playing a game in 8th I had no real experience to compare to so didnt think it was so bad. Luckily I'm not like some of my friends and quit on the spot and continue playing what ever I were playing before, after getting so trashed with my favorite army. Now a few months and tournaments later I don't think I could have done much better if I played that first match again. The internal balance is right now is so bad that there isnt much you can do if you have the wrong models. You will just lose. With a better rule set that isnt so much in favor of alpha striking and better internal balance you can make the game much less loopsided from how it can be right now. Going from 90/10 to 70/30 as a worst case scenario should be possible and really improve the experience of some games. It usually isnt fun for the victor in those games either.
We see a lot of different lists win and that is good but it also hides a deeper problem with the game. The game is bloated with too many options and gw has shown they can't balance them at all. Some units in each book are good and with allies you can win a big tournament including any force in it. But only perhaps the best 500points of units from a certain codex in a 2k imperial soup list were the other 1500pts are a good Astra Militarum List. But taking mainly units from the mid or bottom part of the internal ranking for a marine list for example is just gonna get you a bunch of boring games.
What I want isnt hard at all to achieve and I dont think I am using very hyperbolic statements. And if my standards are unrealistic then I must say I actually feel sorry for you and your narrowmindedness. My standards isnt unreachable since they are more or less what most other companies that make games put out. If almost every other game company with much smaller budgets and experiences can reach them why cant GW? If they just reached the same level as their competition I would shut up.
bullyboy wrote: yeah, Xeno, your math or logic is off. vs T7 multi-wound model, the krak is far better.
Against T7 (let's assume 3+ save)
Double tap Bolt Rifle:
.22 wounds
Krak Grenade:
.22 wounds
Yeah, far better...
Are you possibly confusing Krak grenades with the far stronger Krak missiles?
Funnily enough what started this whole strand of the conversation was me complaining that Frag Grenades weren't any better than the Bolt Rifle against T7 where most of the tanks are sitting, which is the one profile you really want some extra hitting power against.
Bharring wrote: I miss Krak being "Don't let a single Tac squad hang out near your vehicles".
I miss Melta being "This squad is a serious threat to even your heavy things".
It was part of what made Marines a shooty army with a CC threat.
How long was that rule being misinterpreted? Since 5th? 6th?
Using a single Melta Bomb on a tank in CC in 6th certainly wasn't "misinterpreted".
Neither was having 4 guys attack with basic weapons while one guy sticks a Krak up the tailpipe. S6 on an AV10 rear was not exactly a longshot.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In 6th, a 5-man squad vs a rear-armor AV10 tank:
If they maneuvered for rear armor shooting:
4x2x(2/3)(1/6) boltguns = 16/9 HP 1x1x(2/3)(1/6) glance = 1/9 HP 1x1x(2/3)(1/3) pen = 2/9 HP + pen effect
So that's a little more than 2 HP in shooting, plus a ~22% chance of a pen effect.
Then you Charge it. CC attacks instead of Boltguns, and again one Krak. So slightly higher damage (hit better, glance/pen on the same).
A naked 5-man Tac squad averaged 4 HP and nearly a 50/50 of a pen on most tanks in the game if they could shoot rear armor then charge. And most tanks had rear armor AV10 and 3 HP.
That's certainly debatable, but Tacs didn't need more than 1 Krak grenade to threaten most things. To reliably kill, sure, but we're talking about a solo, min, naked basic troop squad.
Tacs were still really bad in 6th/7th, though. I'm not sure this is the gold standard. Maybe they were better off than now. Who knows at this point? Rapid fire turning off assaulting was really dumb.
I only skimmed what you wrote because it's not worth my effort. You seem to be exaggerating problems. Frankly I'm amazed you're having so much difficulty with the rules. I haven't come across anything that caused more than a few seconds of discussion at most and I've evidently played a lot more than you against a wide variety of opponents.
You got beaten badly in your first game. So what? Learn from it, change your list, play with better terrain. You talk about bloat of units - I agree Astartes suffer from this. You're in luck because Primaris are a lot more streamlined.
If you think other companies are doing so much better feel free to leave 40k and move on to them. GW gain nothing by pandering to some minority opinions such as yours, and neither does to community.
Instead of complaining about this game, go praise a different game on it's associated forum.
Martel732 wrote: Tacs were still really bad in 6th/7th, though. I'm not sure this is the gold standard. Maybe they were better off than now. Who knows at this point? Rapid fire turning off assaulting was really dumb.
Forgot that bit. That brings it down to 30/9 HP - still more than 10% over what's needed to kill a 3HP vehicle. And still averaging nearly one pen every other time.
Wasn't claiming they were the gold standard. I'd go into how they weren't "really bad" in 6th/7th, but we've clogged enough threads with that nonsense.
The claim is that they *did* provide a threat to nearby vehicles. Even naked, alone, min, unsupported, they could kill the average tank on average dice in one round.
I only skimmed what you wrote because it's not worth my effort. You seem to be exaggerating problems. Frankly I'm amazed you're having so much difficulty with the rules. I haven't come across anything that caused more than a few seconds of discussion at most and I've evidently played a lot more than you against a wide variety of opponents.
You got beaten badly in your first game. So what? Learn from it, change your list, play with better terrain. You talk about bloat of units - I agree Astartes suffer from this. You're in luck because Primaris are a lot more streamlined.
If you think other companies are doing so much better feel free to leave 40k and move on to them. GW gain nothing by pandering to some minority opinions such as yours, and neither does to community.
Instead of complaining about this game, go praise a different game on it's associated forum..
I DON'T have a difficult time with understanding the rules. That doesn't mean they are written in a good way. You sure you would even have any opponents left or GW would be in a good state if everyone did what you just told me? Don't understand why you think the game is close to perfect and don't want it to get better than it is. With your attitude GW should never release an update because it would be pandering to the minority that want knew rules and updates. I still get a lot of enjoyment out of the game but that doesn't mean I don't want it to be better.
Unless you are trolling can you please tell me what GW would lose by "pandering" to my opinions? I know the forums doesn't reflect the community but at least here I don't think I'm a minority and where I am I know I'm not with this opinion. Who knows it isn't you that belongs to the minority of fan boys that defend everything? Who know how many who are like me who wish GW would write better rules for the game they spend so much time and money on?
If the other games I played wouldn't have died in my area I would probably still play them instead of 40k. I used to only play 40k in team tournaments back when I played Warmachine since Warmachine were the better game. Didn't mean I didn't enjoy 40k and I did and still do.
Edit: Damn, you really are condecending towards players. Bet you love stomping new players with competitive lists. Saying it's their fault they are playing with stuff they have payed hundreds of pounds for and spent hundreds of hours painting and should have bought better stuff to play this game. It isn't GW's fault for making imbalanced rules but the player using the wrong things, they should just get good and tailor the terrain and lists for their opponents so they have a chance. Now I'm being a bit hyperbolic but I'm just being it in kind.
Difference between you and me is that I enjoy more balanced games and both players having fun, winning or losing. A good and balanced rules set makes it easier to achieve that. A bad one makes it harder. GW has nog excuse for not doing that and you can't even come up with a reason to defend them. Warmachine/Horde got a lot of complaints due to being very brutal to new players and you think it is a good idea that uninformed or new 40k players get stomped if they have bought the wrong units.
Luckily I don't care too much if I lose hard sometimes and I do like the challenge of list building and finding out what works or not. Why I mentioned being stomped my first game wasn't because I felt bad about losing and thought it was unfair. Why I mentioned it is because that list was HORRIBLE and most of those units are now sitting on a shelf waiting for an update that might make them viable. I have shelved about 2000pts of Blood Angels out of my 3000pts in total. With a few new purchases and borrowing some models from other club members I have no problem with fielding a playable list. But just having 2k points sitting there almost worthless isn't a good feeling and screams of bad internal balance. Know of a few marine players who just don't think it's worth it to play anymore since most of their collection is quite garbage right now and rather do something else.
The wording change in 7th changed it. Multiple Kraks againt vehicles in CC was the correct interpretation from 4th through 6th at least. The change to 'single' was 7th. And terrible.
Intersting. I have jettisoned my 5th and 6th rulebooks, so i had no way to know for sure. Its definitely typical gw that ig has a way to throw multiple grenades, but marines cant ever.
Ishagu wrote: From what I read he lost a game badly. That's a poor reason to complain about a game two years on.
Probably projecting here on your part. I don't complain about me losing. Should probably have told the story in reverse just to make my point. Some of use can take losing and understand why we lost, if it is because we played bad or if there were something else. Since you probably are a really sore loser you think everyone else is too. You don't have any arguments and just strawman people.
Btw, I crushed the same opponent 2 weeks later with another BA list and it was 2 months ago.
Actually I don't care about winning at all outside of a tournament. I play and enjoy any type of game, from ITC to fun and random Maelstrom missions.
My experience with the game does not lead me to conclude it's broken. That's not to say that any list should be able to beat another - that would be stupid.
You lost your first match because the terrain was clearly not adequate and your list had no redundancy - that's a strategic failure and bad preparation on the part of both players.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Yeah you could've just used an Assault Squad to do that whole thing and had a LOT more success.
In charging a tank? sure.
In denying a small area - such as an objective or ideal firing position - to a tank? Nowhere close. With an Assault Squad, you were paying those points to hold a larger area. With a Marine squad, you were paying those points to carry a special/heavy, hold a point, engage infantry, and deny the zone to vehicles.
The two roles are very different. Using a unit like ASM to deny a critical point to vehicles was silly. You could do the same with Tacs, while also getting a lot more out of it. ASM were ideally used much more aggressively to bully the opponent.
Different squads with different uses. Either could deny space to most vehicles. Use the right tool for the job - ASMs were bullies, Tacs were board control.
Ishagu wrote: From what I read he lost a game badly. That's a poor reason to complain about a game two years on.
Probably projecting here on your part. I don't complain about me losing. Should probably have told the story in reverse just to make my point. Some of use can take losing and understand why we lost, if it is because we played bad or if there were something else. Since you probably are a really sore loser you think everyone else is too. You don't have any arguments and just strawman people.
Btw, I crushed the same opponent 2 weeks later with another BA list and it was 2 months ago.
Can I suggest you both just take some time off of this thread/eachother? You both seem like reasonable people, and you're both getting worked up.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Yeah you could've just used an Assault Squad to do that whole thing and had a LOT more success.
In charging a tank? sure.
In denying a small area - such as an objective or ideal firing position - to a tank? Nowhere close. With an Assault Squad, you were paying those points to hold a larger area. With a Marine squad, you were paying those points to carry a special/heavy, hold a point, engage infantry, and deny the zone to vehicles.
The two roles are very different. Using a unit like ASM to deny a critical point to vehicles was silly. You could do the same with Tacs, while also getting a lot more out of it. ASM were ideally used much more aggressively to bully the opponent.
Different squads with different uses. Either could deny space to most vehicles. Use the right tool for the job - ASMs were bullies, Tacs were board control.
Ishagu wrote: From what I read he lost a game badly. That's a poor reason to complain about a game two years on.
Probably projecting here on your part. I don't complain about me losing. Should probably have told the story in reverse just to make my point. Some of use can take losing and understand why we lost, if it is because we played bad or if there were something else. Since you probably are a really sore loser you think everyone else is too. You don't have any arguments and just strawman people.
Btw, I crushed the same opponent 2 weeks later with another BA list and it was 2 months ago.
Can I suggest you both just take some time off of this thread/eachother? You both seem like reasonable people, and you're both getting worked up.
Except Tactical Marines weren't a firing squad because 1 Lascannon or Grav Cannon for every 5-10 Marines fething sucks. Devastators and Assault Marines and Command Squads made them obsolete.
Don't even bother bringing up Objective Secured because it's such a non-rule.
Ishagu wrote: Actually I don't care about winning at all outside of a tournament. I play and enjoy any type of game, from ITC to fun and random Maelstrom missions.
My experience with the game does not lead me to conclude it's broken. That's not to say that any list should be able to beat another - that would be stupid.
You lost your first match because the terrain was clearly not adequate and your list had no redundancy - that's a strategic failure and bad preparation on the part of both players.
Not every list should be able to beat every list. That I agree on. But most lists with a little of everything should be able to beat most lists.
The terrain in the first match were good so no problem there. My problem is like you said no redundancy. No redundancy of good units. I was foolish enough to use 2 full tactical squads, Terminators in a Land raider and 10 Assault marines and some extras. Mephiston, Sanguinor and my 2 scout squads were the only good things in that list. I see no reason why this list shouldn't work under a good and well written rules set. I have both long range and short range fire support. Mobile units that hit hard etc. This kind of list worked OK in earlier editions and in Warmachine I could take almost anything and still win against most opponents as long as it wasn't all infantry, solos or warjacks. My list is the kind of list you see GW use in promotional photos of the game. And yet the internal balance for marines make most of it almost unplayable. Sure you can take one or two of those units in a good list but I had 1500pts of those bad units. It was like playing with a 500pts handicap and that is bad balance.
I have also had better lists than that face opponents were first turn really was crucial to who would win. Like knights list with just a cp battery or two. If I start and it's dawn of war deployment I can easily kill one of their knights in melee turn 1. If they start they kill of half my army. Those games all hinges on who gets first turn or a couple of saves turn 1. Goes really fast to decide a victor then and that is also bad game design I think. Having a 124pts model turn 1 kill a 704pts model in melee is balanced but I feel that it shouldn't be since it makes for very swingy and one sided games that it is even at all possible.
I'm not going to lie, given my proclivity for being flat out wrong on issues, I've learned to listen to the people who've learned a lot in this game, and played more than me.
I think Ishagu is right on this one. It sounds like you are demanding balance in order to obtain a win. Not to enjoy the game.
Now you might cvome back with, "Winning is fun". But to that I say you must live a very un-fun life, playing this terrible unbalanced game game as much as you claim to do. Take a step back, paint some models, read some fluff, or go outside and walk through the nearest park.
All are worth far more time than griping about the hobby you constantly play, but seem to hate.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Yeah you could've just used an Assault Squad to do that whole thing and had a LOT more success.
In charging a tank? sure.
In denying a small area - such as an objective or ideal firing position - to a tank? Nowhere close. With an Assault Squad, you were paying those points to hold a larger area. With a Marine squad, you were paying those points to carry a special/heavy, hold a point, engage infantry, and deny the zone to vehicles.
The two roles are very different. Using a unit like ASM to deny a critical point to vehicles was silly. You could do the same with Tacs, while also getting a lot more out of it. ASM were ideally used much more aggressively to bully the opponent.
Different squads with different uses. Either could deny space to most vehicles. Use the right tool for the job - ASMs were bullies, Tacs were board control.
Ishagu wrote: From what I read he lost a game badly. That's a poor reason to complain about a game two years on.
Probably projecting here on your part. I don't complain about me losing. Should probably have told the story in reverse just to make my point. Some of use can take losing and understand why we lost, if it is because we played bad or if there were something else. Since you probably are a really sore loser you think everyone else is too. You don't have any arguments and just strawman people.
Btw, I crushed the same opponent 2 weeks later with another BA list and it was 2 months ago.
Can I suggest you both just take some time off of this thread/eachother? You both seem like reasonable people, and you're both getting worked up.
Except Tactical Marines weren't a firing squad because 1 Lascannon or Grav Cannon for every 5-10 Marines fething sucks. Devastators and Assault Marines and Command Squads made them obsolete.
Don't even bother bringing up Objective Secured because it's such a non-rule.
For clarity, we were talking 6th/7th here, not 8th, in case that got missed.
You needed Troops regardless. Sure, Bike lists didn't need Tacs. But otherwise, it's Scouts or Tacs. Devs/ASM/CS couldn't replace all of them.
A single Lascannon had a smallish but not unreasonable chance of killing a Land Raider. But a Melta/CombiMelta had a good chance. And Plasma Guns hurt most things reliably. And Flamers weren't trash (although not particularly good then). Some people even used Combi-Gravs to great success, somehow.
Tacs could take a single Special more cheaply than a Command squad. They could Pod into position easily, unlike an ASM squad. They could eat your Troops slots instead of your FA/Elite/HS slots, unlike the Devs/ASM/CS. They were cheaper than CS or JP ASM. They didn't waste as much points on heavy weapons when shooting pistols than charging anything that got too close like Devs did.
If you wanted a backfield heavy fire support unit, you're right, Devs did better. If you wanted a bully that pushed fast and hard, ASM did it better. If you wanted a Melticide unit, Vets (of various flavors) did that better. But if you wanted a mainline combat unit, Tacs gave you more baseline midrange combat ability than any of the other options.
It's another case of use the right tool for the job.
Use Devs as frontline? If you have more Toys than Boys, you've got frontline troops in the 50ppm range - and will lose the engagement to most troops, including basic Tacs. And if you go more Boys than Toys, you have no HS slots left.
Use ASM as frontline? Get shot op by anything. Then lose out in CC to anything. So the opponent can go wherever they want. You're paying a ton for too much mobility and not enough staying/fire power.
CS or other Vets as frontline? You're bleeding points and slots to do a job Tacs do only marginally worse at.
Scouts? Cheap way to abandon the frontline. They're ideal if you're not intending to contest the frontline.
As for not mentioning ObSec, do you realize how many people won tournaments by dropping a gakton of PA ObSec and cheap/durable DTs on the board?
bullyboy wrote: yeah, Xeno, your math or logic is off. vs T7 multi-wound model, the krak is far better.
Against T7 (let's assume 3+ save)
Double tap Bolt Rifle:
.22 wounds
Krak Grenade:
.22 wounds
Yeah, far better...
Are you possibly confusing Krak grenades with the far stronger Krak missiles?
nah, I was doing my calculations with bolters, not bolt rifles so the -1 AP didn't come into it. With DW SIA it's an even better deal for the bolters but I'm typically using kraks on my Vanvet with SS. Plus you do have to consider that the potential for 3 wounds is always there with the krak (which is why I love them since I seem to always roll a 5 or 6 for damage.....unlike my lascannons where it is inevitably a 1 or 2).
bullyboy wrote: yeah, Xeno, your math or logic is off. vs T7 multi-wound model, the krak is far better.
Against T7 (let's assume 3+ save)
Double tap Bolt Rifle:
.22 wounds
Krak Grenade:
.22 wounds
Yeah, far better...
Are you possibly confusing Krak grenades with the far stronger Krak missiles?
nah, I was doing my calculations with bolters, not bolt rifles so the -1 AP didn't come into it. With DW SIA it's an even better deal for the bolters but I'm typically using kraks on my Vanvet with SS. Plus you do have to consider that the potential for 3 wounds is always there with the krak (which is why I love them since I seem to always roll a 5 or 6 for damage.....unlike my lascannons where it is inevitably a 1 or 2).
Oh yeah, Tacticals with Bolters are pretty terrible anyway so definitely talking Intercessors.
Also, bare in mind that there are a lot of 2W models out there, especially in the T5/6 sweet spot for Krak Grenades, which means you have to factor in against those targets that on a 3 you are losing a wound. Meaning average damage against those targets is 1.67 rather than 2.
Ishagu wrote: From what I read he lost a game badly. That's a poor reason to complain about a game two years on.
Probably projecting here on your part. I don't complain about me losing. Should probably have told the story in reverse just to make my point. Some of use can take losing and understand why we lost, if it is because we played bad or if there were something else. Since you probably are a really sore loser you think everyone else is too. You don't have any arguments and just strawman people.
Btw, I crushed the same opponent 2 weeks later with another BA list and it was 2 months ago.
I wouldn't engage anymore...I really don't think you guys are going to be changing any minds. You have already won the debate though - move on gracefully.
Ishagu wrote: From what I read he lost a game badly. That's a poor reason to complain about a game two years on.
Probably projecting here on your part. I don't complain about me losing. Should probably have told the story in reverse just to make my point. Some of use can take losing and understand why we lost, if it is because we played bad or if there were something else. Since you probably are a really sore loser you think everyone else is too. You don't have any arguments and just strawman people.
Btw, I crushed the same opponent 2 weeks later with another BA list and it was 2 months ago.
I wouldn't engage anymore...I really don't think you guys are going to be changing any minds. You have already won the debate though - move on gracefully.
So you think that the current rules are so broken the game cannot be played at all?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I'm not going to lie, given my proclivity for being flat out wrong on issues, I've learned to listen to the people who've learned a lot in this game, and played more than me.
I think Ishagu is right on this one. It sounds like you are demanding balance in order to obtain a win. Not to enjoy the game.
Now you might cvome back with, "Winning is fun". But to that I say you must live a very un-fun life, playing this terrible unbalanced game game as much as you claim to do. Take a step back, paint some models, read some fluff, or go outside and walk through the nearest park.
All are worth far more time than griping about the hobby you constantly play, but seem to hate.
I do not demand balance to win. I can do that just fine now that I have learned most codecies and how to build lists that can handle the different kinds of threats. Still lose a bit more than I win since there are still things I havent faced yet or misremember from earlier editions(lost my last game against necrons partly because I played around his 20+ destroyers having 36" range) but I'm confident that will soon turn around to more wins than losses even as a Marine/Blood Angels player.
Why I mentioned some of my losses weren't because I think I deserved to win but to show how 40k suffer from some very swingy matchups that can be furthet exasperated by having bad internal balance that make some army lists almost unplayable, especially if you have a bad matchup and get wiped turn 2. Not even my opponents looked like they had that much fun during those games. Now I play melee lists so I cant really table anyone before turn 3 so I cant tell about me doing the same but perhaps I should have lied and changed it to me wiping the opponent just to make sure people dont misunderstand my point.
I dont really mind the mindset of adapting since I love listbuilding and crunching numbers and trying to get the best usage out of a list. But having walked through most of my models both playing them and comparing them to other imperial options I could take instead I have found out that the internal balance is really bad. I have also spent a lot of time reading data sheets. Most of the data sheets and rules of the game in less than 2 months and have seen many units/stratagems/relics/traits that are just bad or the same ability that are exactly the same as another ability but just worded differently. While reading 3 books in a day and units in all books all have the same abilities but different name I cant not think of why they have done it that way instead of using a template of sorts or a universal name.
When I talk with friends we use old words for abilities when we talk about what units have. Like deepstrike, fnp, infiltrate, melta etc. Its much easier than each unit having a different unique word for deep strike.
I might be wrong on these 2 points for example and there is no way a multi million dollar company that works with this could do it better than how it currently is. Perhaps it is perfection and what most other companies do is inferior. All I have heard against these points is just that I'm a loser and that people would leave the game if the rules were better written and bad units werent so bad.
Ishagu wrote: From what I read he lost a game badly. That's a poor reason to complain about a game two years on.
Probably projecting here on your part. I don't complain about me losing. Should probably have told the story in reverse just to make my point. Some of use can take losing and understand why we lost, if it is because we played bad or if there were something else. Since you probably are a really sore loser you think everyone else is too. You don't have any arguments and just strawman people.
Btw, I crushed the same opponent 2 weeks later with another BA list and it was 2 months ago.
I wouldn't engage anymore...I really don't think you guys are going to be changing any minds. You have already won the debate though - move on gracefully.
So you think that the current rules are so broken the game cannot be played at all?
No one thinks they are broken so the game cant be played.
But there are certainly badly designed aspects of the game and some mechanics. Also some bad internal balance and bloat. Can still have really fun with it but it doesnt change that there are many things that could and should be improved.
Ishagu wrote: From what I read he lost a game badly. That's a poor reason to complain about a game two years on.
Probably projecting here on your part. I don't complain about me losing. Should probably have told the story in reverse just to make my point. Some of use can take losing and understand why we lost, if it is because we played bad or if there were something else. Since you probably are a really sore loser you think everyone else is too. You don't have any arguments and just strawman people.
Btw, I crushed the same opponent 2 weeks later with another BA list and it was 2 months ago.
I wouldn't engage anymore...I really don't think you guys are going to be changing any minds. You have already won the debate though - move on gracefully.
So you think that the current rules are so broken the game cannot be played at all?
Again - you are setting the bar really low there. I use to design little campaign mission in starcraft and have to decide on the unit stats. If I did a bad job balancing the stats the game wasn't fun because it was ether too easy or too hard but it was still playable without making the adjustments.
There shouldn't be a single example - as in not one example. Of a worse unit costing more than a better unit in the entirety of a rules set if you are to claim "the game is in a good state". These are objective statements. A Cultists is worse than a gaurdsmen and costs more. Then you space marine chapter tactics not aspplying to vehicals while almost ever other army has them apply. Do you seriously think it is hard to correct these issues? They have had about 2 years and I can't even count the number of FAQ and errata they have had oppertunities to fix the most glaring issues and they get ignored. Is there any excuse other than laziness for a multi million dollar company to have a scheduled balancing for their flagship game...and for some reason on 10% of the units recieve any attention? When clearly 50-60% of the models don't even get used their rules are so bad? My answer is no...then again I expect a little bit more out of GW than you do I susspect. You should. We make them rich.
Go ahead and design a better game with the same number of units and factions.
Let me know when it's ready.
In the meantime I'll continue to play this game which is not perfect, but certainly not broken or unplayable like some on this forum are claiming.
Fair and level criticism is perfectly valid, unfortunately most of the criticism we get around here is hyperbolic nonsense. The person I argued with literally said the game cannot be taken seriously or enjoyed because it's a complete mess, and no GW game has any value. With those kinds of absolutes being thrown around you can't say that's valuable criticism and will not be respected.
Fixing present flaws and tearing it down to the studs are two different propositions. There are quite a few point costs that just make no sense at all in the current structure. If we destroy the current structure, then everything can get recosted.
Ishagu wrote: Go ahead and design a better game with the same number of units and factions.
Let me know when it's ready.
In the meantime I'll continue to play this game which is not perfect, but certainly not broken or unplayable like some on this forum are claiming.
Why should we make a better game than a huge company when no one will play it.
But who except you is claiming that its unplayable. You are quite hyperbolic in your statement. The game is quite playable but certain aspects is pushed to the extremes is unplayable or close to it. Even you admit that marines are in a bad spot,think I saw you do that at least. Shouldnt we at least expect GW to do a bit more to fix that. They do change point costs now so no good reason for them not to do it to certain units and weapons.
Dont even have to make the choices equal to the best choices but not feeling punished for using a whirlwind over a wyvern/mortar would be a good start. Whirlwind is way worse against everything, something like 30-90% as effective per point depending on target. And since using loyal 32 already is an upside many times the whirlwind is barely a choice even without wyvern shooting twice and can get ap1 and ignore cover from the detachment.
Are we really going to spend pages arguing whether:
A) The game isn't so bad that it's unplayable,
or
B) The game is bad, but it's playable
?
I mean, it sounds like Ishagu and Klickor are making the same claim.
It sounds like any disagreement is over how easy it is to design a replacement. On that, I'll have to side with "Not as easy as most people think". Just cruise through any players' suggestions for how to balance the game. I don't think there's any one poster I'd trust to be able to do it better/faster than GW. Most would be much, much worse.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Yeah you could've just used an Assault Squad to do that whole thing and had a LOT more success.
In charging a tank? sure.
In denying a small area - such as an objective or ideal firing position - to a tank? Nowhere close. With an Assault Squad, you were paying those points to hold a larger area. With a Marine squad, you were paying those points to carry a special/heavy, hold a point, engage infantry, and deny the zone to vehicles.
The two roles are very different. Using a unit like ASM to deny a critical point to vehicles was silly. You could do the same with Tacs, while also getting a lot more out of it. ASM were ideally used much more aggressively to bully the opponent.
Different squads with different uses. Either could deny space to most vehicles. Use the right tool for the job - ASMs were bullies, Tacs were board control.
Ishagu wrote: From what I read he lost a game badly. That's a poor reason to complain about a game two years on.
Probably projecting here on your part. I don't complain about me losing. Should probably have told the story in reverse just to make my point. Some of use can take losing and understand why we lost, if it is because we played bad or if there were something else. Since you probably are a really sore loser you think everyone else is too. You don't have any arguments and just strawman people.
Btw, I crushed the same opponent 2 weeks later with another BA list and it was 2 months ago.
Can I suggest you both just take some time off of this thread/eachother? You both seem like reasonable people, and you're both getting worked up.
Except Tactical Marines weren't a firing squad because 1 Lascannon or Grav Cannon for every 5-10 Marines fething sucks. Devastators and Assault Marines and Command Squads made them obsolete.
Don't even bother bringing up Objective Secured because it's such a non-rule.
For clarity, we were talking 6th/7th here, not 8th, in case that got missed.
You needed Troops regardless. Sure, Bike lists didn't need Tacs. But otherwise, it's Scouts or Tacs. Devs/ASM/CS couldn't replace all of them.
A single Lascannon had a smallish but not unreasonable chance of killing a Land Raider. But a Melta/CombiMelta had a good chance. And Plasma Guns hurt most things reliably. And Flamers weren't trash (although not particularly good then). Some people even used Combi-Gravs to great success, somehow.
Tacs could take a single Special more cheaply than a Command squad. They could Pod into position easily, unlike an ASM squad. They could eat your Troops slots instead of your FA/Elite/HS slots, unlike the Devs/ASM/CS. They were cheaper than CS or JP ASM. They didn't waste as much points on heavy weapons when shooting pistols than charging anything that got too close like Devs did.
If you wanted a backfield heavy fire support unit, you're right, Devs did better. If you wanted a bully that pushed fast and hard, ASM did it better. If you wanted a Melticide unit, Vets (of various flavors) did that better. But if you wanted a mainline combat unit, Tacs gave you more baseline midrange combat ability than any of the other options.
It's another case of use the right tool for the job.
Use Devs as frontline? If you have more Toys than Boys, you've got frontline troops in the 50ppm range - and will lose the engagement to most troops, including basic Tacs. And if you go more Boys than Toys, you have no HS slots left.
Use ASM as frontline? Get shot op by anything. Then lose out in CC to anything. So the opponent can go wherever they want. You're paying a ton for too much mobility and not enough staying/fire power.
CS or other Vets as frontline? You're bleeding points and slots to do a job Tacs do only marginally worse at.
Scouts? Cheap way to abandon the frontline. They're ideal if you're not intending to contest the frontline.
As for not mentioning ObSec, do you realize how many people won tournaments by dropping a gakton of PA ObSec and cheap/durable DTs on the board?
You mean those 350+ points of free transports? Amazing how much better an army does when it gets FREE units, huh? ObSec spam hardly worked either once other codices were released for 6th in the same way Croissant Spam didn't work: everyone got updated.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh and a Lascannon hurting a Land Raider was unreasonable. That's. 23 HP removed per shot. I honestly stopped reading after that.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Yeah you could've just used an Assault Squad to do that whole thing and had a LOT more success.
In charging a tank? sure.
In denying a small area - such as an objective or ideal firing position - to a tank? Nowhere close. With an Assault Squad, you were paying those points to hold a larger area. With a Marine squad, you were paying those points to carry a special/heavy, hold a point, engage infantry, and deny the zone to vehicles.
The two roles are very different. Using a unit like ASM to deny a critical point to vehicles was silly. You could do the same with Tacs, while also getting a lot more out of it. ASM were ideally used much more aggressively to bully the opponent.
Different squads with different uses. Either could deny space to most vehicles. Use the right tool for the job - ASMs were bullies, Tacs were board control.
Ishagu wrote: From what I read he lost a game badly. That's a poor reason to complain about a game two years on.
Probably projecting here on your part. I don't complain about me losing. Should probably have told the story in reverse just to make my point. Some of use can take losing and understand why we lost, if it is because we played bad or if there were something else. Since you probably are a really sore loser you think everyone else is too. You don't have any arguments and just strawman people.
Btw, I crushed the same opponent 2 weeks later with another BA list and it was 2 months ago.
Can I suggest you both just take some time off of this thread/eachother? You both seem like reasonable people, and you're both getting worked up.
Except Tactical Marines weren't a firing squad because 1 Lascannon or Grav Cannon for every 5-10 Marines fething sucks. Devastators and Assault Marines and Command Squads made them obsolete.
Don't even bother bringing up Objective Secured because it's such a non-rule.
For clarity, we were talking 6th/7th here, not 8th, in case that got missed.
You needed Troops regardless. Sure, Bike lists didn't need Tacs. But otherwise, it's Scouts or Tacs. Devs/ASM/CS couldn't replace all of them.
A single Lascannon had a smallish but not unreasonable chance of killing a Land Raider. But a Melta/CombiMelta had a good chance. And Plasma Guns hurt most things reliably. And Flamers weren't trash (although not particularly good then). Some people even used Combi-Gravs to great success, somehow.
Tacs could take a single Special more cheaply than a Command squad. They could Pod into position easily, unlike an ASM squad. They could eat your Troops slots instead of your FA/Elite/HS slots, unlike the Devs/ASM/CS. They were cheaper than CS or JP ASM. They didn't waste as much points on heavy weapons when shooting pistols than charging anything that got too close like Devs did.
If you wanted a backfield heavy fire support unit, you're right, Devs did better. If you wanted a bully that pushed fast and hard, ASM did it better. If you wanted a Melticide unit, Vets (of various flavors) did that better. But if you wanted a mainline combat unit, Tacs gave you more baseline midrange combat ability than any of the other options.
It's another case of use the right tool for the job.
Use Devs as frontline? If you have more Toys than Boys, you've got frontline troops in the 50ppm range - and will lose the engagement to most troops, including basic Tacs. And if you go more Boys than Toys, you have no HS slots left.
Use ASM as frontline? Get shot op by anything. Then lose out in CC to anything. So the opponent can go wherever they want. You're paying a ton for too much mobility and not enough staying/fire power.
CS or other Vets as frontline? You're bleeding points and slots to do a job Tacs do only marginally worse at.
Scouts? Cheap way to abandon the frontline. They're ideal if you're not intending to contest the frontline.
As for not mentioning ObSec, do you realize how many people won tournaments by dropping a gakton of PA ObSec and cheap/durable DTs on the board?
You mean those 350+ points of free transports? Amazing how much better an army does when it gets FREE units, huh? ObSec spam hardly worked either once other codices were released for 6th in the same way Croissant Spam didn't work: everyone got updated.
I'm confused. Where did they get 350+ points of free transports before the Gladius came out later in 7th?
ObSec spam at the start of 7th was a difficult list to deal with. Gladius lists are certainly related, but put a lot more into firepower than ObSec spam lists did. And had a lot more non-ObSec stuff. Two related concepts, that look similar at first glance, but are built very differently, from a different time, and play differently. But again, another scenario where you'd use Tac Marines instead of ASM for some jobs (because you had 6 units of Tacs, and only 3 ASM).
Can we not rehash the "Gladius was OP in 7th edition" argument. I mean we're playing 8th edition after all and formations from 7th have no baring on the present edition. It goes nowhere.
Anyway for what it's worth I hope Angel's of death is the rework I've been preaching about for atsknf (roll 2 take the lowest for morale) plus something else since I assume additional rules would be needed to warrant a name change
As much as I wish it weren't the case, my money is on ATSKNF bolted on to bolter discipline. GW has been staring at the data for months and months and done very little meaningful for marines.
fraser1191 wrote: Can we not rehash the "Gladius was OP in 7th edition" argument. I mean we're playing 8th edition after all and formations from 7th have no baring on the present edition. It goes nowhere.
Anyway for what it's worth I hope Angel's of death is the rework I've been preaching about for atsknf (roll 2 take the lowest for morale) plus something else since I assume additional rules would be needed to warrant a name change
The relevance is what we want Marines to be.
I miss Marines being a threat-in-being to light vehicles that loiter too close. I'd argue that their rules in 6th were more than strong enough to make that a thing. And a single Tac Squad Lascannon having a ~4% chance of oneshotting or ~6-8% of rendering useless the largest uber-tank of the day certainly would be "small but not unreasonable". Higher than that would be silly.
The question is "What do we *want* Marines to do", and since my answer is "Generally, what they did in 6th/8th, outside the cheesier games", it's hard to discuss when a handful of people foam at the mouth at the idea that Marines were anything above absolute-trash. When discussing what they should be in the future, it's really hard to have a reasonable conversation when people shout down any reference to their past abilities not being worthless.
My play group wasn't putting heavies in tacs because of the lack of splitfire. Eventually, tacs just disappeared until gladius.
In my group, marines were being gunned down before any vehicle had a chance to loiter too close. That's kind of the point of ranged weapons, right?
I think marines need to be end of 3rd edition competent to be useful. Not beginning, as they were actually too good. That's my answer. Tacs were too weak for sure starting in the firepower fest of 5th and onward. In fact, to make tacs scary in 5th, they had to give them an extra attack base, and give them an extra attack when charged and call them grey hunters, and then give them cheapo drop pods.
Bharring wrote: Are we really going to spend pages arguing whether: A) The game isn't so bad that it's unplayable, or B) The game is bad, but it's playable ?
I mean, it sounds like Ishagu and Klickor are making the same claim.
It sounds like any disagreement is over how easy it is to design a replacement. On that, I'll have to side with "Not as easy as most people think". Just cruise through any players' suggestions for how to balance the game. I don't think there's any one poster I'd trust to be able to do it better/faster than GW. Most would be much, much worse.
This.
People speak like designing a game with this level of complexity is easy, but every time they try their hand at fixing even a small detail of it, they fail spectacularly.
This board needs to learn humility. They are the professionals with experience and numbers, you are the amateur.
When you disagree with something GW did, accept that you are by definition wrong until proven otherwise. And you will be proven wrong 95% of the times.
Bharring wrote: Are we really going to spend pages arguing whether:
A) The game isn't so bad that it's unplayable,
or
B) The game is bad, but it's playable
?
I mean, it sounds like Ishagu and Klickor are making the same claim.
It sounds like any disagreement is over how easy it is to design a replacement. On that, I'll have to side with "Not as easy as most people think". Just cruise through any players' suggestions for how to balance the game. I don't think there's any one poster I'd trust to be able to do it better/faster than GW. Most would be much, much worse.
This.
People speak like designing a game with this level of complexity is easy, but every time they try their hand at fixing even a small detail of it, they fail spectacularly.
This board needs to learn humility. They are the professionals with experience and numbers, you are the amateur.
When you disagree with something GW did, accept that you are by definition wrong until proven otherwise. And you will be proven wrong 95% of the times.
Being someone who works with numbers a lot, I find this highly unlikely. I don't consider GW a very professional organization in the first place. They have even admitted in the past the rules are just there to sell the models and don't get much scrutiny. Designing a good game is difficult, but GW's bar is very low. I'll be humble in the face of nobel laureates, not a bunch of lazy hacks like GW.
I get that they make money at this, but the rules side of gw is not conducted in a professional manner. Brilliant models, but they should really outsource the rules to a professional game studio. GW is an art studio, not a game studio.
Martel732 wrote: I get that they make money at this, but the rules side of gw is not conducted in a professional manner. Brilliant models, but they should really outsource the rules to a professional game studio. GW is an art studio, not a game studio.
Compared to whom?
Everything is easy, if you don't actually do it.
Tax rules should just be one page!
How hard can it be to build a website?
They're just digging a ditch - why do they need all this planning and paperwork?
How could anyone think 640k aught to be enough for anyone?
I get that GW is on the looser-rulesset side of things, but you're using "Professional" to mean "High quality dispasionate simulation-focused rules-writers". Deciding to maintain a rulesset that is more streamlined, or less serious, or more campy/zany doesn't make them "not professional".
As for complexity, there really isn't much to compare them to. Starcraft, MTG, and Warmahordes are all relatively low complexity, rules-wise. Better written by many standards, sure. Cover deeper tactical games, certainly. But they cover a lot less complexity and variance than 40k.
They make too many obvious mistakes to be considered professional. Thats my take on it. I know most will disagree. Thats fine. I consider them an art studio as i said.
Martel732 wrote: I get that they make money at this, but the rules side of gw is not conducted in a professional manner. Brilliant models, but they should really outsource the rules to a professional game studio. GW is an art studio, not a game studio.
What makes what they do not professional? And don't cite math of 4 ppm Guardsmen vs. Marines.
Martel732 wrote: They make too many obvious mistakes to be considered professional. Thats my take on it. I know most will disagree. Thats fine. I consider them an art studio as i said.
Put another way, Bethesda games back in the day were known for their defects, but still loved. Top-tier, professional games. Still riddled with mistakes.
Professionals make mistakes. Some professionals make lots more mistakes than other professionals. Number of mistakes doesn't define "professional" or not. It doesn't even directly define quality.
fraser1191 wrote: Can we not rehash the "Gladius was OP in 7th edition" argument. I mean we're playing 8th edition after all and formations from 7th have no baring on the present edition. It goes nowhere.
Anyway for what it's worth I hope Angel's of death is the rework I've been preaching about for atsknf (roll 2 take the lowest for morale) plus something else since I assume additional rules would be needed to warrant a name change
The relevance is what we want Marines to be.
I miss Marines being a threat-in-being to light vehicles that loiter too close. I'd argue that their rules in 6th were more than strong enough to make that a thing. And a single Tac Squad Lascannon having a ~4% chance of oneshotting or ~6-8% of rendering useless the largest uber-tank of the day certainly would be "small but not unreasonable". Higher than that would be silly.
The question is "What do we *want* Marines to do", and since my answer is "Generally, what they did in 6th/8th, outside the cheesier games", it's hard to discuss when a handful of people foam at the mouth at the idea that Marines were anything above absolute-trash. When discussing what they should be in the future, it's really hard to have a reasonable conversation when people shout down any reference to their past abilities not being worthless.
I want marines to put up a fight
On average most infantry is about 7 points or so. Marines are generally paying double for their infantry but they aren't getting double the performance per body.
So either the the floor needs to be raised or marines need to be improved to be worth their points. Frankly I'd say intercessors are the ideal result and they are only a little overpriced imo
I won't claim to be a game designer but I'd say if you're paying double the cost you should get double the output. The start of 8th was even more laughable when intercessors were 20ppm, 5x the cost of a guardsman (granted there's other trash infantry like Necrons but that's more from a mechanic)
Martel732 wrote: They make too many obvious mistakes to be considered professional. Thats my take on it. I know most will disagree. Thats fine. I consider them an art studio as i said.
Put another way, Bethesda games back in the day were known for their defects, but still loved. Top-tier, professional games. Still riddled with mistakes.
Professionals make mistakes. Some professionals make lots more mistakes than other professionals. Number of mistakes doesn't define "professional" or not. It doesn't even directly define quality.
GWs rulewriting still comes off as a half-ass attempt from a garage company. I dont want to debate the term professional. Their rules writing does not rise to the level i would expect of a professional game studio.
Crazy idea: What if the rules writers at GW are crunched just like Bethesda crunches their game devs? What comes out is a horrible buggy mess like 76. Same with GW. You get GK codex at the start, and SM, and a few others. Buggy crap. By all accounts the game plays relatively smoother now, and is enjoyable.
Insectum7 wrote: "Double the output" is highly contextual. That's a pretty difficult thing to quantify in terms of army vs. army.
Yes it incredibly hard to determine value since arguably you could say the game is more about staying power since you need to hold objectives to score point. Or say value is about killing power since they can't claim objectives if they're dead
That's why I won't let myself make radical claims beyond shaving of at most 2 points of intercessors or other units/wargear. Reducing something by 10 or so points can radically change a units effectiveness
fraser1191 wrote: Can we not rehash the "Gladius was OP in 7th edition" argument. I mean we're playing 8th edition after all and formations from 7th have no baring on the present edition. It goes nowhere.
Anyway for what it's worth I hope Angel's of death is the rework I've been preaching about for atsknf (roll 2 take the lowest for morale) plus something else since I assume additional rules would be needed to warrant a name change
The relevance is what we want Marines to be.
I miss Marines being a threat-in-being to light vehicles that loiter too close. I'd argue that their rules in 6th were more than strong enough to make that a thing. And a single Tac Squad Lascannon having a ~4% chance of oneshotting or ~6-8% of rendering useless the largest uber-tank of the day certainly would be "small but not unreasonable". Higher than that would be silly.
The question is "What do we *want* Marines to do", and since my answer is "Generally, what they did in 6th/8th, outside the cheesier games", it's hard to discuss when a handful of people foam at the mouth at the idea that Marines were anything above absolute-trash. When discussing what they should be in the future, it's really hard to have a reasonable conversation when people shout down any reference to their past abilities not being worthless.
I want marines to put up a fight
On average most infantry is about 7 points or so. Marines are generally paying double for their infantry but they aren't getting double the performance per body.
So either the the floor needs to be raised or marines need to be improved to be worth their points. Frankly I'd say intercessors are the ideal result and they are only a little overpriced imo
I won't claim to be a game designer but I'd say if you're paying double the cost you should get double the output. The start of 8th was even more laughable when intercessors were 20ppm, 5x the cost of a guardsman (granted there's other trash infantry like Necrons but that's more from a mechanic)
Really no. It needs to be more than double the output. Because. 1 Wound still kills you. Often even if you have 2 wounds 1 wound still kills you. More points per wound on a body puts you at a greater risk to heavier firepower. So in essence - that risk needs to give you more than just taking 2 bodies for the same cost. Right now per point you even get more output compared to an elite type infantry. This is true on the whole but mostly true with marines.
Martel732 wrote: I get that they make money at this, but the rules side of gw is not conducted in a professional manner. Brilliant models, but they should really outsource the rules to a professional game studio. GW is an art studio, not a game studio.
Compared to whom?
Everything is easy, if you don't actually do it.
Tax rules should just be one page!
How hard can it be to build a website?
They're just digging a ditch - why do they need all this planning and paperwork?
How could anyone think 640k aught to be enough for anyone?
I get that GW is on the looser-rulesset side of things, but you're using "Professional" to mean "High quality dispasionate simulation-focused rules-writers". Deciding to maintain a rulesset that is more streamlined, or less serious, or more campy/zany doesn't make them "not professional".
As for complexity, there really isn't much to compare them to. Starcraft, MTG, and Warmahordes are all relatively low complexity, rules-wise. Better written by many standards, sure. Cover deeper tactical games, certainly. But they cover a lot less complexity and variance than 40k.
My gosh dude. Don't compare actually complicated things like engineering and tax codex to making a competent rule set. It's not in the same ball park.
Martel732 wrote: I get that they make money at this, but the rules side of gw is not conducted in a professional manner. Brilliant models, but they should really outsource the rules to a professional game studio. GW is an art studio, not a game studio.
Compared to whom?
Everything is easy, if you don't actually do it.
Tax rules should just be one page!
How hard can it be to build a website?
They're just digging a ditch - why do they need all this planning and paperwork?
How could anyone think 640k aught to be enough for anyone?
I get that GW is on the looser-rulesset side of things, but you're using "Professional" to mean "High quality dispasionate simulation-focused rules-writers". Deciding to maintain a rulesset that is more streamlined, or less serious, or more campy/zany doesn't make them "not professional".
As for complexity, there really isn't much to compare them to. Starcraft, MTG, and Warmahordes are all relatively low complexity, rules-wise. Better written by many standards, sure. Cover deeper tactical games, certainly. But they cover a lot less complexity and variance than 40k.
My gosh dude. Don't compare actually complicated things like engineering and tax codex to making a competent rule set. It's not in the same ball park.
Certainly not, but they're all things people think are simple, if they've never had to actually do it.
starting from nothing is a lot more difficult than taking something that isn't perfect and perfecting it. I like in general the rule set. Except for a few interactions which I could go into detail with later. Mainly I am concerned with points costs. Points cost is not difficult. All units use the same stats and have projectable outcomes. These outcomes need to be close based on unit types.It's very easy to crunch some numbers like we do here often and use a little insight based on gaming experience to make these outcomes more equal.
In a game were a 2 damage weapon is common place and can be spammed. Is 2 wounds really that valuable? In a game where a 3+ save is often reduced to a 5+ where many even cheap units have 5++ saves...is a 3+ worth a lot compared to that 5++? Is a 5++ worth anything on a 2+ save? Ina game where you can deep strike a unit for 1 CP is 70 points a fair cost for a vehical thats only use is to deep strike a unit and then shoot a storm bolter?
That sure sounds reasonable, until my troops bounce off the Sv2+ 10ppm Tac marines or whatever other fix someone thought was "obvious".
As a system gets more complex, fixes have more and more unintended consequences. Try opening up an nontrivial codebase and make an "obvious" change. Odds are, you broke something.
"You're not allowed to criticize all the obvious individual issues with GW's rules because you haven't made your own system from the ground up."
This seems to be the main argument the last few pages, no? Its really easy for anyone in this thread to write a better ruleset than GW. Just copy and paste their current rules, and then fix any one of the multitude of issues, oversights, or broken units. Bam! Better ruleset. Heck, you could even fix TWO of the main issues.
Also, 5th was a much more solid rules set. The problems with 5th were mainly a lack of unit updates and by extension the meta, not problems with large sections of mechanics not fulfilling their role (8th ed morale system, etc.) 5th got boring, but the rules worked. The idea that the hobby is doing well in 8th because of the new system rules is absurd. Its doing well because of the new models, codices, events, better economy, and by virtue of not being 7th ed. 5th ed took place during a recession and mass shuttering of game stores, 8th is taking place at a time where a lot of these stores are coming back.
If we had 5th ed system rules with 8th codex and update release schedules, it'd be a far better game.
Drudge Dreadnought wrote: "You're not allowed to criticize all the obvious individual issues with GW's rules because you haven't made your own system from the ground up."
This seems to be the main argument the last few pages, no? Its really easy for anyone in this thread to write a better ruleset than GW. Just copy and paste their current rules, and then fix any one of the multitude of issues, oversights, or broken units. Bam! Better ruleset. Heck, you could even fix TWO of the main issues.
I'd think there are a number of "easy" fixes. But if you read half the suggestions the average poster brings up as those "easy" fixes, they sound terrible. 2+ saves for all Marines. 6ppm Guardsmen. Drop Pods cost 1CP and 0 pts. Remove Storm Guardians, Assault Marines, custom Captains and more from the game. These are all someone doing just a "fix any one of the multitude of issues, oversights, or broken units".
I do agree that criticism of GW is valid from everyone, but I disagree with people claiming they could easily make a better game, or their half-baked ideas are inescapably god-tier fixes for the game.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Crazy idea: What if the rules writers at GW are crunched just like Bethesda crunches their game devs? What comes out is a horrible buggy mess like 76. Same with GW. You get GK codex at the start, and SM, and a few others. Buggy crap. By all accounts the game plays relatively smoother now, and is enjoyable.
Probably because there are Grey Knights players who paid for their codex and don't want to be running a weak army. Crazy idea, right?
I'd argue that the earlier codexes showed more restraint, more skill. Auspex Scan seems much more situational, tactical, and fair than Forewarning, for example.
Bharring wrote: I'd argue that the earlier codexes showed more restraint, more skill. Auspex Scan seems much more situational, tactical, and fair than Forewarning, for example.
Yeah that's not how you should design rules. You ether release all the rules at once (also not hard) or you use the same restraint on every codex.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Crazy idea: What if the rules writers at GW are crunched just like Bethesda crunches their game devs? What comes out is a horrible buggy mess like 76. Same with GW. You get GK codex at the start, and SM, and a few others. Buggy crap. By all accounts the game plays relatively smoother now, and is enjoyable.
Probably because there are Grey Knights players who paid for their codex and don't want to be running a weak army. Crazy idea, right?
Basically this. People have paid for the work that goes into the design and creativity within the rule of a codex. They're not free rules, so of course people have the right to demand better writing or better balance. They don't want to feel that they got the inferior choice.
Bharring wrote: I'd argue that the earlier codexes showed more restraint, more skill. Auspex Scan seems much more situational, tactical, and fair than Forewarning, for example.
Indeed. Just look at ork chapter tactics compared to marine ones.
Salamanders, reroll one hit and wound (or something like that), only on infantry, bikes and dredds.
Deff skulls: reroll one hit wound and damage, any infantry get the obsec rule, get a 6++ save. This goes on all units in the codex
It barely compares. The rules after marines and chaos codex show no restraint.
Bharring wrote: I'd argue that the earlier codexes showed more restraint, more skill. Auspex Scan seems much more situational, tactical, and fair than Forewarning, for example.
Indeed. Just look at ork chapter tactics compared to marine ones.
Salamanders, reroll one hit and wound (or something like that), only on infantry, bikes and dredds.
Deff skulls: reroll one hit wound and damage, any infantry get the obsec rule, get a 6++ save. This goes on all units in the codex
It barely compares. The rules after marines and chaos codex show no restraint.
Exactly. Maybe in the new SM codex that comes out right before 9th edition we will get gladius formation and chapter tactics apply. Then Marines can be OP for like 3 months before a whole new edition starts but everyone can say marines weren't that bad in 8th.
I find it hilarious that people on this forum actually claim they can outright do better than GW, and also seem to actually misunderstand the meaning of the term "professional"
They also quote statements made in past editions as if they still apply now, even though GW playtests new units by dozens of testers over dozens of hours, and amends the game with FAQs after looking at player data over thousands of games.
The absolute lack of humility is staggering. I have many personal flaws but a distorted view of reality is not one of them. The lack of understanding of the sheer time it takes to get a book from concept to printing also shows how immature some of these "critics" are.
Btw just want to say I think the game in it's state is utter gak. 7th and 6th was bad but all before that was way more imersive and better. To any who claim that dissapointed players are in a minority... I think you live in a dream world. I've seen many jump ship in 8th. Life long collections of 14000pts sold because the game betrays the old fans. Communitys not shut down, but replaced. The spirit of the game has changed. Those that are fans now are mostly into the hardcore ITC competative side of the game. Rules are a mess and the disputes are almost inpossible to resolve. Ive had rules discussions where someone refered to warhammer tv as a source. Or fb posts...
Bharring wrote: I'd argue that the earlier codexes showed more restraint, more skill. Auspex Scan seems much more situational, tactical, and fair than Forewarning, for example.
Yeah that's not how you should design rules. You ether release all the rules at once (also not hard) or you use the same restraint on every codex.
Go and write a better codex, put your money where your mouth is. Show us how easy it is to do better!
Back on topic, though. I don't think we really need any super special rules to represent the abilities of the Space Marines. They're the go-to army for beginners so they should remain easy to understand. Better weaponry/armour or synergy would be a better fix, but Space Marines are far from the only unit that isn't accurately represented on the tabletop like they are in the lore. Heck, even in the stories Marines are represented vastly differently depending on the writer or era.
Gitdakka wrote: Btw just want to say I think the game in it's state is utter gak. 7th and 6th was bad but all before that was way more imersive and better. To any who claim that dissapointed players are in a minority... I think you live in a dream world. I've seen many jump ship in 8th. Life long collections of 14000pts sold because the game betrays the old fans. Communitys not shut down, but replaced. The spirit of the game has changed. Those that are fans now are mostly into the hardcore ITC competative side of the game. Rules are a mess and the disputes are almost inpossible to resolve. Ive had rules discussions where someone refered to warhammer tv as a source. Or fb posts...
You're wrong. The "many" you've seen are a tiny minority of disgruntled gamers who can't adapt to change.
The rules at the moment are infinitely better than they were in 6th and 7th. The game has a far more varied meta. You literally don't know what you're talking about.
But hey, if you really love vehicle facings and blast markers so much go play 30k.
Gitdakka wrote: Btw just want to say I think the game in it's state is utter gak. 7th and 6th was bad but all before that was way more imersive and better. To any who claim that dissapointed players are in a minority... I think you live in a dream world. I've seen many jump ship in 8th. Life long collections of 14000pts sold because the game betrays the old fans. Communitys not shut down, but replaced. The spirit of the game has changed. Those that are fans now are mostly into the hardcore ITC competative side of the game. Rules are a mess and the disputes are almost inpossible to resolve. Ive had rules discussions where someone refered to warhammer tv as a source. Or fb posts...
You're wrong. The "many" you've seen are a tiny minority of disgruntled gamers who can't adapt to change.
The rules at the moment are infinitely better than they were in 6th and 7th. The game has a far more varied meta. You literally don't know what you're talking about.
But hey, if you really love vehicle facings and blast markers so much go play 30k.
You're both wrong. It's very hard to judge player numbers based on anecdotes, and people are entitled to like/dislike whatever they want. There are perfectly valid reasons to like or dislike the current edition, and no one needs permission to have these positions.
It's very easy to judge player growth numbers actually. We have access to GWs profits and growth figures, and we have access to tournament involvement across the world.
Both are direct indicators of the popularity and growing participation. Of course, tournament players are only a small minority of the total hobbyists, meaning the growth is far greater still.
GW are literally selling out of kits month after month. That means lots of people are buying. Nothing anecdotal about it.
Ishagu wrote: It's very easy to judge player growth numbers actually. We have access to GWs profits and growth figures, and we have access to tournament involvement across the world.
Both are direct indicators of the popularity and growing participation. Of course, tournament players are only a small minority of the total hobbyists, meaning the growth is far greater still.
GW are literally selling out of kits month after month. That means lots of people are buying. Nothing anecdotal about it.
You are entirely incorrect. There are many players who do not attend Tournaments, or who already own most models (buying less). An increase in sales could easily represent newer players buying larger quantities of models. It doesn't show how many players who already owned armies or models stopped playing. Really, you're extrapolating your conclusion.
Because it's pretty obvious that more are. No, I don't have the numbers, GW don't have the numbers of individual hobbyist either. I just have the power of observation and common sense.
If your city is smoggy it typically means there are lots of cars on the road. If a game is selling more it typically means there are more people buying.
Ishagu wrote: It's very easy to judge player growth numbers actually. We have access to GWs profits and growth figures, and we have access to tournament involvement across the world.
Both are direct indicators of the popularity and growing participation. Of course, tournament players are only a small minority of the total hobbyists, meaning the growth is far greater still.
GW are literally selling out of kits month after month. That means lots of people are buying. Nothing anecdotal about it.
You are entirely incorrect. There are many players who do not attend Tournaments, or who already own most models (buying less). An increase in sales could easily represent newer players buying larger quantities of models. It doesn't show how many players who already owned armies or models stopped playing. Really, you're extrapolating your conclusion.
That actually makes his point stronger. If GW sold X more units last month than the month before and out of the total existing player base Y% sold out and/or stopped playing and Z% ran out of things to buy in the same timeframe, then it means that X units represents an increase in overall sales that would have been higher if Y% were still playing and Z% hadn't topped out. X basically swamped Y and Z put together.
Ishagu wrote: Prove to me that less people are playing.
Because it's pretty obvious that more are. No, I don't have the numbers, GW don't have the numbers of individual hobbyist either. I just have the power of observation and common sense.
If your city is smoggy it typically means there are lots of cars on the road. If a game is selling more it typically means there are more people buying.
I never said that less people were playing. Don't make a strawman. And saying that you just know there's more people playing the game isn't going to convince anyone you're right either.
Ishagu wrote: It's very easy to judge player growth numbers actually. We have access to GWs profits and growth figures, and we have access to tournament involvement across the world.
Both are direct indicators of the popularity and growing participation. Of course, tournament players are only a small minority of the total hobbyists, meaning the growth is far greater still.
GW are literally selling out of kits month after month. That means lots of people are buying. Nothing anecdotal about it.
You are entirely incorrect. There are many players who do not attend Tournaments, or who already own most models (buying less). An increase in sales could easily represent newer players buying larger quantities of models. It doesn't show how many players who already owned armies or models stopped playing. Really, you're extrapolating your conclusion.
That actually makes his point stronger. If GW sold X more units last month than the month before and out of the total existing player base Y% sold out and/or stopped playing and Z% ran out of things to buy in the same timeframe, then it means that X units represents an increase in overall sales that would have been higher if Y% were still playing and Z% hadn't topped out. X basically swamped Y and Z put together.
It represents an increase in sales. Players with more complete collections gave less incentive to buy. I'm not arguing about business obviously. It's better for Games Workshop as a company if more kits are selling, and players with more complete collections will never spend in the same way. An increase in sales does not necessarily correlate to increase in number of players playing the game. Plenty of people play with models they've owned for years, and buy less kits. New players buy more kits. I think 8th edition seen an influx of new players, but how many previous players stuck around is a little hard to judge.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I think it's pretty clear that Ishagu is just a Games Workshop Troll at this point. Just ignore him.
It doesn't matter. What I'm saying is that the hobby is more popular and more people are involved. It makes no difference if someone who completed his army 15 years ago is still playing or not.
Lol why am I a troll? Because the sky isn't falling in every one of my responses? Because I don't hate the hobby I chose to invest my time in? Wow, that's interesting.
Bharring wrote: I'd argue that the earlier codexes showed more restraint, more skill. Auspex Scan seems much more situational, tactical, and fair than Forewarning, for example.
Yeah that's not how you should design rules. You ether release all the rules at once (also not hard) or you use the same restraint on every codex.
Go and write a better codex, put your money where your mouth is. Show us how easy it is to do better!
No one plays Xeno's patch 40k. It doesn't matter if I write it. Do you disagree that Auspex scan and forwarding do the same thing and cost the same but forwarding is obviously better because it can be used on any target at any range and doesn't incure -1 to hits? If I suggest a change makes these 2 strats function in the same way and exchange the word farseer and eldar unit with captain and adept astartes unit. I have successfully created a better codex. It's an imaginary codex that no one will use but look. It's better than the GW trash. You can't dispute it. Was that difficult for me? Nope.
Ishagu wrote: I agree the game isn't completely balanced. I don't care because it gets updated often.
It gets updated often and leaves critical errors untouched. As a space marine player is there any justification that vehicals don't get chapter tactics? Is this a hard problem to solve? Is it unknown to general 40k that space marine tanks suck extra hard because they don't get chapter tactics? You literally just errata it to change the wording of chapter tactics. You don't even have to wait for a big errata to do it. It is a digital document. EASY, NOT HARD.
Ishagu wrote: It doesn't matter. What I'm saying is that the hobby is more popular and more people are involved. It makes no difference if someone who completed his army 15 years ago is still playing or not.
Lol why am I a troll? Because the sky isn't falling in every one of my responses? Because I don't hate the hobby I chose to invest my time in? Wow, that's interesting.
Besides the “This shows growth, but we can’t be sure scenario, but I’m pretty sure anyway” and the “show us how good you are and write a better rule set post,” among other things, make you sound like a troll.
If want to talk about rules qualities and such, we should probably look at various solutions proposed in the actual proposed rules forum. Some of them are bad, and some are good. I think a lot of people are hung up on when other people saying that “they could write better rules.” I believe most of these people think they can look at where GW has failed and rectify it to something satisfactory while maintaining the core we have. I think the hung up people are just getting pissy, especially when the idea of a counter is “oh yeah, go and make your own rule set.”
Whilst I agree that eight is the best edition of 40K ever, marines regardless are in a pretty bad spot. I am really looking forward to the new codex which seems pretty likely. I think marines were hurt by being so early in the editions when the writers were not yet so familiar with the quirks of the new system, so there is a good chance that a new codex will be a clear improvement. Though of course the most exiting thing will be the accompanying new Primaris models.
I don't have much hope in GW fixing marines in a significant way after the semi dud that was chaos 2.0 that was largely just a house keeping reprint that added new data sheets to the book and didn't do much else.
8th edition's core rules are the second best I've played under ( I personally preferred 5th edition since it had a good deal more nuance and complexity with movement, cover and vehicles). However my issue with 40k at this point is something that GW can't/won't fix because you can't put the knight/flier/primarch genie back in the bottle with out pissing off a lot of people.
40k in 8th tries to do to much and largely not successful at either being an a good skirmish game or large scale battle. I was hoping with the advent of Apoc as an entirely different gaming system that superheavies might be removed from base line 40k but that was a pipe dream.
That combined with the limits on stat differences using a d6 means that to many units are to close together in ability and makes it difficult to have real differences between things that should have a huge gap in ability.
My other main critique is the game favors offense way more than defensive abilities and that's one of the core reasons a vast majority of marine units are just flat out bad.
Gitdakka wrote: Btw just want to say I think the game in it's state is utter gak. 7th and 6th was bad but all before that was way more imersive and better. To any who claim that dissapointed players are in a minority... I think you live in a dream world. I've seen many jump ship in 8th. Life long collections of 14000pts sold because the game betrays the old fans. Communitys not shut down, but replaced. The spirit of the game has changed. Those that are fans now are mostly into the hardcore ITC competative side of the game. Rules are a mess and the disputes are almost inpossible to resolve. Ive had rules discussions where someone refered to warhammer tv as a source. Or fb posts...
You're wrong. The "many" you've seen are a tiny minority of disgruntled gamers who can't adapt to change.
The rules at the moment are infinitely better than they were in 6th and 7th. The game has a far more varied meta. You literally don't know what you're talking about.
But hey, if you really love vehicle facings and blast markers so much go play 30k.
You would seem more reasonable if you read the posts you are replying to. I in no way defended 6th or 7th, in fact they almost made me quit the game.
As to what i liked, no it's not blast markers or vehicle facings that I miss most. For my primary faction marines it's the lack of a sane design direction I miss in the faction rules. All rules push you into being a a statc gunline. Auras, heavy weapon penalties, the cost of transports, lack of ability to shoot out of said transport, lack of efficiency for short range weapons, even lack of damage on the melee weapons. Hell sergeants can do up to 6 dmg with power fists, but vs tansk his dmg is like 1 or 2 average while you loose entire squads going in. Also every targets marines face has gone up in durability (see ap rules change, monsterous creatures going from roughly 4-6 wounds to 10-12
The only way marines can pose a treat is by buying a heavy weapon and camp in a corner ruin. Gone are the days of drop pods, rhinos, usefull deep strike, marines actually killing stuff, and the movement phase. This is why the game sucks.
Also yes the sales have increased but the cost of every box is wqy high now. A box of intercessor costs a lot. Starting boxes are like 150% cost compared in content and price to just some years back. Your epic sales fugures might just be less people buying more expensive batches. Who knows?
Ishagu wrote: I find it hilarious that people on this forum actually claim they can outright do better than GW, and also seem to actually misunderstand the meaning of the term "professional"
They also quote statements made in past editions as if they still apply now, even though GW playtests new units by dozens of testers over dozens of hours, and amends the game with FAQs after looking at player data over thousands of games.
The absolute lack of humility is staggering. I have many personal flaws but a distorted view of reality is not one of them. The lack of understanding of the sheer time it takes to get a book from concept to printing also shows how immature some of these "critics" are.
Please, grow up.
Every damn thread on this board that has anything to do with marines has these two clowns derailing it as soon as they can.
They're so in tune with the trolling that not even ignoring them helps because they get multi-quoted to infinity.
It's really getting sad seeing the same argument and message from the same posters almost verbatim in every thread. "Waaaaahhhh I could do better".
Sadly the SM 2.0 probably will be reprint of the core codex + vigilus part + faq + new primaris. Much like chaos 2.0, because GW policy is to not completely invalidate old books now. So the strategems and statline will stay the same, but maybe we will get the crutch like the chaos get with their red corsairs to make army semi-competitive in one wierd way.
Overall I just wait 9ed.
*Starts spraying Anti-RAW spray**** GO! Git! Git! Shoo! No one wants to debate with you as to what the meaning of "is" is!
it won't be with me, I'll be too busy with my popcorn. I'm a good for the goose is good for the gander person. For the most part, I'll mirror whatever you want to do for rules flexibility.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: So should they:
A. Include every bit you could possibly use to kit out your squad in the kit - meaning a 10man Tac box includes:
D: Sell far more upgrade sprues so you can turn one Rhino Chassis into a Whirlwind, Predator, etc. buy buying one Rhino, and as many upgrade sprues as you want.
Which ones specifically? Cause I'm sure mortiarian can knock a knight out in melle in fluff and in game terms.
I consider CP free - because they are.
No they're not. Especially for Marines and elite armies. For Marines at 1500 points they cost about a third of your army you will have next to zero flexibility with during selection.
fraser1191 wrote: Any waaay do people think this new rule is just bolter discipline and atsknf rolled together or do you think there's an actual rule change?
I'd like to see one where marines always contest an object. Custodes have one to always control one so I figure marines should have one to contest it. Marine troop are generally out numbered on an objective unless there's a monster or something there which will just slice through regardless
Well this is Intercessors, who have that anyway.
But regardless, that probably wouldn't be handled as a datasheet ability - the Custodes one isn't.
The new ability isn't a datasheet rule. Its on the datasheet ant points to a global army rule you'll probably find in front of the data sheets
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: I think thunder hammers on infantry is stupid and unnecessary. I dont care how long its been.
Silver144 wrote: Sadly the SM 2.0 probably will be reprint of the core codex + vigilus part + faq + new primaris. Much like chaos 2.0, because GW policy is to not completely invalidate old books now. So the strategems and statline will stay the same, but maybe we will get the crutch like the chaos get with their red corsairs to make army semi-competitive in one wierd way.
Overall I just wait 9ed.
I would like to see one change to the Vigilus rules: Vexatrix Guard should not take up a slot when taken with either Calgar or Guilliman.
Xenomancers wrote: Also - if jump packs were as good as there were in "Space Marine" I don't think ASM would be avoided like the plague.
Its not the jump packs, its the close combat rules. They removed almost all the bonus attacks which were there to balance out the downtime between close combats vs the frequently available shooting.
The Newman wrote: Kraks are better against T3-T6 and T8-T11 multi-wound targets. That's actually quite a range in theory. In practice there aren't a lot of T4- multi-wound targets and a lot of armor is clustered at T7.
More shots is almost always better except in very nitch situations...basically t5. Even if you are getting a little better odds on a krak it's still practically better because you average more hits.
You are mistaken. All other things being equal a Heavy 1, Dd6 is mathematically identical to a Heavy d6, D1 provided you're shooting at something with more than one wound, and multi-wound targets are hardly a niche situation. The reason multi-shot weapons are considered better is that most of them are not over-paying for a high AP that they won't get to use on account of all the invuln saves and because you won't always have a target with more than one wound. More shots is better on average, but not due to any inherent mathematical advantage when calculating expected damage.
The average damage of any given weapon on any given target is [to-hit %] x [average shots] x [to-wound %] x [failed save %] x [average damage]. It doesn't matter what order those are in if the numbers are the same (basic transitive property) so if your math is saying a Heavy 1, Dd6 does less average damage than a Heavy d6, D1 with the other stats being equal then you've done something wrong. Since a Bolt Rifle is 2 shots, 1 damage and a Krak grenade is 1 shot, 2 damage average with the same AP then the only number that matters for average damage over time is the to-wound %, and I shouldn't have to spell out how an S4 and an S6 compare on that front to anyone here.
Not quite. The D D6 will do 3.5 on average. The D6 D1 will do 3.5 shots. So vs two wound models -say Intercessors, I'd rather shoot the D6 D1's and take out one and a half intercessors over REALLY taking out the one. Your theory is right, but you didn't account for multi-wound above the average wound characteristic. Vs a 20 wound tank model, you're right, it's 6 of one, half dozen of the other. When the wound number is lower than the average - not just 1 - there is a difference.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Haanz wrote: Is it just me that feels a little sad not to see ATSKNF on there?
Feel like that rule and the name of it is as iconic for Space Marines as the boltgun and chainsword.
I suspect we'll see it threaded. Angels of Death is ATSKNF and BD together, while some other unit - say Servitors just to pick something from a Marine Codex that isn't Marine - Might only get ATSKNF
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ishagu wrote: The current 40k rules are the best they have probably ever been, and the success of the game is a testament to that.
You might not like them personally and that's absolutely fine. Not everyone likes the same thing, but those who dislike how things are going are a minority.
The 2nd Ed Rules were probably the best they've ever been. 8th borrows from 2nd heavily. But I still miss the Swarming in close combat mechanic offsetting the Herohammer icons, and psychology. I miss psychology a lot.
Insectum7 wrote: "Double the output" is highly contextual. That's a pretty difficult thing to quantify in terms of army vs. army.
Yes it incredibly hard to determine value since arguably you could say the game is more about staying power since you need to hold objectives to score point. Or say value is about killing power since they can't claim objectives if they're dead
In a perfect world, it would be nice IF GW was able to balance it so the elite armies that lasted longer and the horde armies that kill faster end up getting to the objective scoring phase at the same time with the same potency. They haven't done that yet.
Marines get reroll morale (worst possible rule) while other armies get cool mechanics like orders, power from pain, dakka dakka etc on top of their " chapter tactics“ which by the way affect more units in the army (vehicles). Also mainly shooty armies like dark eldar, imperial guard etc have better melee than SpaceWolves for example, grotesques, bulgrins are better than wulfen/ thunderwolves point for point. I hope gw gives all marines a big boost because if you don't play guiliman you are pretty much autoloose against all other armies as a pure marine army (this is a fact not only in the competitive scene but also in casual games)
lonewolf81 wrote: Marines get reroll morale (worst possible rule) while other armies get cool mechanics like orders, power from pain, dakka dakka etc on top of their " chapter tactics“ which by the way affect more units in the army (vehicles). Also mainly shooty armies like dark eldar, imperial guard etc have better melee than SpaceWolves for example, grotesques, bulgrins are better than wulfen/ thunderwolves point for point. I hope gw gives all marines a big boost because if you don't play guiliman you are pretty much autoloose against all other armies as a pure marine army (this is a fact not only in the competitive scene but also in casual games)
Ishagu wrote: I find it hilarious that people on this forum actually claim they can outright do better than GW, and also seem to actually misunderstand the meaning of the term "professional"
They also quote statements made in past editions as if they still apply now, even though GW playtests new units by dozens of testers over dozens of hours, and amends the game with FAQs after looking at player data over thousands of games.
The absolute lack of humility is staggering. I have many personal flaws but a distorted view of reality is not one of them. The lack of understanding of the sheer time it takes to get a book from concept to printing also shows how immature some of these "critics" are.
Please, grow up.
Yeah, but in all honesty, this is a hobby marketed towards the over-priveldged....
lonewolf81 wrote: Marines get reroll morale (worst possible rule) while other armies get cool mechanics like orders, power from pain, dakka dakka etc on top of their " chapter tactics“ which by the way affect more units in the army (vehicles). Also mainly shooty armies like dark eldar, imperial guard etc have better melee than SpaceWolves for example, grotesques, bulgrins are better than wulfen/ thunderwolves point for point. I hope gw gives all marines a big boost because if you don't play guiliman you are pretty much autoloose against all other armies as a pure marine army (this is a fact not only in the competitive scene but also in casual games)
What kind of "casual" games do you play?
In my meta i mostly play against eldar ,dark eldar, imperial guard, orks... with my wolves. I must be really lucky not to get wiped of the board. If i go second and my opponets dont roll bad i will loose most of the time because they field more units than me.
Their lists got toned down by using highlander house rules so they cant spam their best units and to have more variety on the board but still an uphill battle simply because they have more effective units for less points
PS : i strongly believe that marines are not getting point decreases because of guiliman's reroll everything aura. The minute a unit gets cheaper, it will be spammed next to guiliman in the tournament scenes (which then affects everyone through FAQ changes etc). They should rework his aura to reroll 1s to wound and not every failed wound roll
Because we've got a Wolves player in my store and he kicks a pretty decent amount of butt.
We play 1500pt games where I field a single battalion
The core is
Hqs
Wolf Lord with jumpack (th/ss, wulfenstone)
The second Hq is either a battle leader (same gear as the wolf Lord) or a Runepriest with jumpack (armour of russ)
Troops are a mix of 5 man greyhunters and intercessors
A stormfang
5xlongfangs (4xlascannon or 4xplasma cannon)
Then I use either wulfen or thunderwolves (5 man squad)
Sometimes a ven dread with twin las/missile as support antitank or terminators with a mix of combi plasma stormshields and power fists
Sometimes I use 1-2 razorbacks
Does your friend use forge world or guard/Knight allies???
All in all I feel like I am missing 200-250 (1-2 units) points when I play with the current point cost against the armies I mentioned
The Newman wrote: Kraks are better against T3-T6 and T8-T11 multi-wound targets. That's actually quite a range in theory. In practice there aren't a lot of T4- multi-wound targets and a lot of armor is clustered at T7.
More shots is almost always better except in very nitch situations...basically t5. Even if you are getting a little better odds on a krak it's still practically better because you average more hits.
You are mistaken. All other things being equal a Heavy 1, Dd6 is mathematically identical to a Heavy d6, D1 provided you're shooting at something with more than one wound, and multi-wound targets are hardly a niche situation. The reason multi-shot weapons are considered better is that most of them are not over-paying for a high AP that they won't get to use on account of all the invuln saves and because you won't always have a target with more than one wound. More shots is better on average, but not due to any inherent mathematical advantage when calculating expected damage.
The average damage of any given weapon on any given target is [to-hit %] x [average shots] x [to-wound %] x [failed save %] x [average damage]. It doesn't matter what order those are in if the numbers are the same (basic transitive property) so if your math is saying a Heavy 1, Dd6 does less average damage than a Heavy d6, D1 with the other stats being equal then you've done something wrong. Since a Bolt Rifle is 2 shots, 1 damage and a Krak grenade is 1 shot, 2 damage average with the same AP then the only number that matters for average damage over time is the to-wound %, and I shouldn't have to spell out how an S4 and an S6 compare on that front to anyone here.
Not quite. The D D6 will do 3.5 on average. The D6 D1 will do 3.5 shots. So vs two wound models -say Intercessors, I'd rather shoot the D6 D1's and take out one and a half intercessors over REALLY taking out the one. Your theory is right, but you didn't account for multi-wound above the average wound characteristic. Vs a 20 wound tank model, you're right, it's 6 of one, half dozen of the other. When the wound number is lower than the average - not just 1 - there is a difference.
You must have missed the part where I explicitly said multi-wound models, and the implicit part where there aren't all that many multi-wound models that don't have six or more wounds outside of Marines.
And in-context were talking about a Dd3 weapon, so the average isn't more wounds than a Primaris Marine even I wasn't specifically talking about shooting tanks with the ruddy thing.
lonewolf81 wrote: Marines get reroll morale (worst possible rule) while other armies get cool mechanics like orders, power from pain, dakka dakka etc on top of their " chapter tactics“ which by the way affect more units in the army (vehicles). Also mainly shooty armies like dark eldar, imperial guard etc have better melee than SpaceWolves for example, grotesques, bulgrins are better than wulfen/ thunderwolves point for point. I hope gw gives all marines a big boost because if you don't play guiliman you are pretty much autoloose against all other armies as a pure marine army (this is a fact not only in the competitive scene but also in casual games)
What kind of "casual" games do you play?
In my meta i mostly play against eldar ,dark eldar, imperial guard, orks... with my wolves. I must be really lucky not to get wiped of the board. If i go second and my opponets dont roll bad i will loose most of the time because they field more units than me.
Their lists got toned down by using highlander house rules so they cant spam their best units and to have more variety on the board but still an uphill battle simply because they have more effective units for less points
PS : i strongly believe that marines are not getting point decreases because of guiliman's reroll everything aura. The minute a unit gets cheaper, it will be spammed next to guiliman in the tournament scenes (which then affects everyone through FAQ changes etc). They should rework his aura to reroll 1s to wound and not every failed wound roll
You can't spam unit anymore. Rule of 3.
Guilliman has a great aura but causes armies to be static. In the current meta he is not a top unit and lists around him don't work due to this.
I think you're stuck in the game from 18 months ago.
lonewolf81 wrote: Marines get reroll morale (worst possible rule) while other armies get cool mechanics like orders, power from pain, dakka dakka etc on top of their " chapter tactics“ which by the way affect more units in the army (vehicles). Also mainly shooty armies like dark eldar, imperial guard etc have better melee than SpaceWolves for example, grotesques, bulgrins are better than wulfen/ thunderwolves point for point. I hope gw gives all marines a big boost because if you don't play guiliman you are pretty much autoloose against all other armies as a pure marine army (this is a fact not only in the competitive scene but also in casual games)
What kind of "casual" games do you play?
In my meta i mostly play against eldar ,dark eldar, imperial guard, orks... with my wolves. I must be really lucky not to get wiped of the board. If i go second and my opponets dont roll bad i will loose most of the time because they field more units than me.
Their lists got toned down by using highlander house rules so they cant spam their best units and to have more variety on the board but still an uphill battle simply because they have more effective units for less points
PS : i strongly believe that marines are not getting point decreases because of guiliman's reroll everything aura. The minute a unit gets cheaper, it will be spammed next to guiliman in the tournament scenes (which then affects everyone through FAQ changes etc). They should rework his aura to reroll 1s to wound and not every failed wound roll
It's possible. Gman is still showing up in tournaments and doing better than any other marine config on average. Their design philosophy is very opaque, so we really can't tell for sure.
lonewolf81 wrote: Marines get reroll morale (worst possible rule) while other armies get cool mechanics like orders, power from pain, dakka dakka etc on top of their " chapter tactics“ which by the way affect more units in the army (vehicles). Also mainly shooty armies like dark eldar, imperial guard etc have better melee than SpaceWolves for example, grotesques, bulgrins are better than wulfen/ thunderwolves point for point. I hope gw gives all marines a big boost because if you don't play guiliman you are pretty much autoloose against all other armies as a pure marine army (this is a fact not only in the competitive scene but also in casual games)
What kind of "casual" games do you play?
In my meta i mostly play against eldar ,dark eldar, imperial guard, orks... with my wolves. I must be really lucky not to get wiped of the board. If i go second and my opponets dont roll bad i will loose most of the time because they field more units than me.
Their lists got toned down by using highlander house rules so they cant spam their best units and to have more variety on the board but still an uphill battle simply because they have more effective units for less points
PS : i strongly believe that marines are not getting point decreases because of guiliman's reroll everything aura. The minute a unit gets cheaper, it will be spammed next to guiliman in the tournament scenes (which then affects everyone through FAQ changes etc). They should rework his aura to reroll 1s to wound and not every failed wound roll
It's possible. Gman is still showing up in tournaments and doing better than any other marine config on average. Their design philosophy is very opaque, so we really can't tell for sure.
He's showing up, but he's not doing better. Blood Angels have won more events or performed better recently. Show me where you're getting your info.
If you actually knew anything about the meta you'd know that the hot new Astartes list involves Imperial Fist Centurions in their new Vigilus detachment.
lonewolf81 wrote: Marines get reroll morale (worst possible rule) while other armies get cool mechanics like orders, power from pain, dakka dakka etc on top of their " chapter tactics“ which by the way affect more units in the army (vehicles). Also mainly shooty armies like dark eldar, imperial guard etc have better melee than SpaceWolves for example, grotesques, bulgrins are better than wulfen/ thunderwolves point for point. I hope gw gives all marines a big boost because if you don't play guiliman you are pretty much autoloose against all other armies as a pure marine army (this is a fact not only in the competitive scene but also in casual games)
What kind of "casual" games do you play?
In my meta i mostly play against eldar ,dark eldar, imperial guard, orks... with my wolves. I must be really lucky not to get wiped of the board. If i go second and my opponets dont roll bad i will loose most of the time because they field more units than me.
Their lists got toned down by using highlander house rules so they cant spam their best units and to have more variety on the board but still an uphill battle simply because they have more effective units for less points
PS : i strongly believe that marines are not getting point decreases because of guiliman's reroll everything aura. The minute a unit gets cheaper, it will be spammed next to guiliman in the tournament scenes (which then affects everyone through FAQ changes etc). They should rework his aura to reroll 1s to wound and not every failed wound roll
You can't spam unit anymore. Rule of 3.
Guilliman has a great aura but causes armies to be static. In the current meta he is not a top unit and lists around him don't work due to this.
I think you're stuck in the game from 18 months ago.
You can't spam not troops.
I've seen way too many guardsmen spamming list and grot spamming lists to believe that spamming is dead, you just need actually worth their points troops, something that marines lack.
Also you keep saying just bring an appropriate list, how do you balance a list to give a casual marine list a non blow out game yet still actually having the right level of fist fight brawling units to take on IG lists, oh it's just a fluffy list, aye because 60 guardsmen 3 tank commanders stracken bullgryns and some sentinels really pulls a lot of power out of you mono codex list?
Marines and even choas marine's sufferer from GW fundamental failure to understand the consequential impacts of the deaign decisions they make.
The variability both within and between codex's is far to high for game to allow competitive lists and casual play 40k to be enjoyable.
You can say build a better list scrub or whatever witty dig I'm sure your going to post but the power per point spread in the game is currently a problem.
lonewolf81 wrote: Marines get reroll morale (worst possible rule) while other armies get cool mechanics like orders, power from pain, dakka dakka etc on top of their " chapter tactics“ which by the way affect more units in the army (vehicles). Also mainly shooty armies like dark eldar, imperial guard etc have better melee than SpaceWolves for example, grotesques, bulgrins are better than wulfen/ thunderwolves point for point. I hope gw gives all marines a big boost because if you don't play guiliman you are pretty much autoloose against all other armies as a pure marine army (this is a fact not only in the competitive scene but also in casual games)
What kind of "casual" games do you play?
In my meta i mostly play against eldar ,dark eldar, imperial guard, orks... with my wolves. I must be really lucky not to get wiped of the board. If i go second and my opponets dont roll bad i will loose most of the time because they field more units than me.
Their lists got toned down by using highlander house rules so they cant spam their best units and to have more variety on the board but still an uphill battle simply because they have more effective units for less points
PS : i strongly believe that marines are not getting point decreases because of guiliman's reroll everything aura. The minute a unit gets cheaper, it will be spammed next to guiliman in the tournament scenes (which then affects everyone through FAQ changes etc). They should rework his aura to reroll 1s to wound and not every failed wound roll
It's possible. Gman is still showing up in tournaments and doing better than any other marine config on average. Their design philosophy is very opaque, so we really can't tell for sure.
He's showing up, but he's not doing better. Blood Angels have won more events or performed better recently. Show me where you're getting your info.
If you actually knew anything about the meta you'd know that the hot new Astartes list involves Imperial Fist Centurions in their new Vigilus detachment.
Removed - BrookM
To be fair that was made specifically for a team tournament style event and not a singles tournament. The podcast interview with him has him even stating he wouldn't take it to a singles. You have to look at lists in respect to the tournament format it was made for.
lonewolf81 wrote: Marines get reroll morale (worst possible rule) while other armies get cool mechanics like orders, power from pain, dakka dakka etc on top of their " chapter tactics“ which by the way affect more units in the army (vehicles). Also mainly shooty armies like dark eldar, imperial guard etc have better melee than SpaceWolves for example, grotesques, bulgrins are better than wulfen/ thunderwolves point for point. I hope gw gives all marines a big boost because if you don't play guiliman you are pretty much autoloose against all other armies as a pure marine army (this is a fact not only in the competitive scene but also in casual games)
What kind of "casual" games do you play?
In my meta i mostly play against eldar ,dark eldar, imperial guard, orks... with my wolves. I must be really lucky not to get wiped of the board. If i go second and my opponets dont roll bad i will loose most of the time because they field more units than me.
Their lists got toned down by using highlander house rules so they cant spam their best units and to have more variety on the board but still an uphill battle simply because they have more effective units for less points
PS : i strongly believe that marines are not getting point decreases because of guiliman's reroll everything aura. The minute a unit gets cheaper, it will be spammed next to guiliman in the tournament scenes (which then affects everyone through FAQ changes etc). They should rework his aura to reroll 1s to wound and not every failed wound roll
You can't spam unit anymore. Rule of 3.
Guilliman has a great aura but causes armies to be static. In the current meta he is not a top unit and lists around him don't work due to this.
I think you're stuck in the game from 18 months ago.
Tell that to GW, they've posted a second g-man parking lot list that went 5-0 at a tournament. Two spearheads; one a Techmarine and three Heavy Bolter sponson Predators (?!?), the other a Techmarine, three squads of Elimininators and two dakka Repulsors, and g-man himself. Might have been another Captain in there somewhere.
Weird that GW is going out of their way to point out that g-man keeps featuring in tournament winning Marine lists but don't seem to notice that it indicates a balance issue.
lonewolf81 wrote: Marines get reroll morale (worst possible rule) while other armies get cool mechanics like orders, power from pain, dakka dakka etc on top of their " chapter tactics“ which by the way affect more units in the army (vehicles). Also mainly shooty armies like dark eldar, imperial guard etc have better melee than SpaceWolves for example, grotesques, bulgrins are better than wulfen/ thunderwolves point for point. I hope gw gives all marines a big boost because if you don't play guiliman you are pretty much autoloose against all other armies as a pure marine army (this is a fact not only in the competitive scene but also in casual games)
What kind of "casual" games do you play?
In my meta i mostly play against eldar ,dark eldar, imperial guard, orks... with my wolves. I must be really lucky not to get wiped of the board. If i go second and my opponets dont roll bad i will loose most of the time because they field more units than me.
Their lists got toned down by using highlander house rules so they cant spam their best units and to have more variety on the board but still an uphill battle simply because they have more effective units for less points
PS : i strongly believe that marines are not getting point decreases because of guiliman's reroll everything aura. The minute a unit gets cheaper, it will be spammed next to guiliman in the tournament scenes (which then affects everyone through FAQ changes etc). They should rework his aura to reroll 1s to wound and not every failed wound roll
You can't spam unit anymore. Rule of 3.
Guilliman has a great aura but causes armies to be static. In the current meta he is not a top unit and lists around him don't work due to this.
I think you're stuck in the game from 18 months ago.
Tell that to GW, they've posted a second g-man parking lot list that went 5-0 at a tournament. Two spearheads; one a Techmarine and three Heavy Bolter sponson Predators (?!?), the other a Techmarine, three squads of Elimininators and two dakka Repulsors, and g-man himself. Might have been another Captain in there somewhere.
Weird that GW is going out of their way to point out that g-man keeps featuring in tournament winning Marine lists but don't seem to notice that it indicates a balance issue.
What tournaments and what type of game was played? I've won a local 8 man even with Guilliman. Does that indicate anything?
Also why shouldn't Guilliman be a strong option? Lol are you upset that the Ultras are one of the better codex chapter options for the first time since prior to 6th edition?
He re-roll wounds aura rewards players for taking the wrong weapons for the targets.
Just more volume is better that's not a list that's a poor design choice and basic school maths.
They could have given him use 1 codex spacemarine strategum for free each turn and he would have been less broken.
And I say that as a now ex ultramarine player.
Ice_can wrote: He re-roll wounds aura rewards players for taking the wrong weapons for the targets.
Just more volume is better that's not a list that's a poor design choice and basic school maths.
They could have given him use 1 codex spacemarine strategum for free each turn and he would have been less broken.
And I say that as a now ex ultramarine player.
It's not just Gman. He amplifies the effect. But the onslought gatling series is way better vs IKs than many other weapons that should be better instead.
Ice_can wrote: He re-roll wounds aura rewards players for taking the wrong weapons for the targets.
Just more volume is better that's not a list that's a poor design choice and basic school maths.
They could have given him use 1 codex spacemarine strategum for free each turn and he would have been less broken.
And I say that as a now ex ultramarine player.
Codex space marines has trash stratagems. That is a bad example. The army basically has no chapter tactic. You have to give up good tactics to use him and it only makes sense to use him with high ROF weapons because for high str weapons a reroll 1's to wound bubble is just fine. Keep in mind - the army still isn't every good even with a reroll every aura. I agree that if marines price is being inflated by his aura that is is a bad design choice. Cause not even ultra marines are automatically going to be using his aura. They might not bring him and it's only 6".
Like seriously - you can't charge one unit more because another unit exists. You should charge each unit based on it's ability in a 2000 point game. I can assure you. At 400 point GMan is probably overcosted at 2k points. He was fine at 360.
SW honestly have some pretty dirty tricks using index units and cheap storm shields. I'm not sure if that's what is happening here. It's not enough in the competitive scene to really be a force, though.
lonewolf81 wrote: Marines get reroll morale (worst possible rule) while other armies get cool mechanics like orders, power from pain, dakka dakka etc on top of their " chapter tactics“ which by the way affect more units in the army (vehicles). Also mainly shooty armies like dark eldar, imperial guard etc have better melee than SpaceWolves for example, grotesques, bulgrins are better than wulfen/ thunderwolves point for point. I hope gw gives all marines a big boost because if you don't play guiliman you are pretty much autoloose against all other armies as a pure marine army (this is a fact not only in the competitive scene but also in casual games)
What kind of "casual" games do you play?
In my meta i mostly play against eldar ,dark eldar, imperial guard, orks... with my wolves. I must be really lucky not to get wiped of the board. If i go second and my opponets dont roll bad i will loose most of the time because they field more units than me.
Their lists got toned down by using highlander house rules so they cant spam their best units and to have more variety on the board but still an uphill battle simply because they have more effective units for less points
PS : i strongly believe that marines are not getting point decreases because of guiliman's reroll everything aura. The minute a unit gets cheaper, it will be spammed next to guiliman in the tournament scenes (which then affects everyone through FAQ changes etc). They should rework his aura to reroll 1s to wound and not every failed wound roll
You can't spam unit anymore. Rule of 3.
Guilliman has a great aura but causes armies to be static. In the current meta he is not a top unit and lists around him don't work due to this.
I think you're stuck in the game from 18 months ago.
Tell that to GW, they've posted a second g-man parking lot list that went 5-0 at a tournament. Two spearheads; one a Techmarine and three Heavy Bolter sponson Predators (?!?), the other a Techmarine, three squads of Elimininators and two dakka Repulsors, and g-man himself. Might have been another Captain in there somewhere.
Weird that GW is going out of their way to point out that g-man keeps featuring in tournament winning Marine lists but don't seem to notice that it indicates a balance issue.
What tournaments and what type of game was played? I've won a local 8 man even with Guilliman. Does that indicate anything?
Also why shouldn't Guilliman be a strong option? Lol are you upset that the Ultras are one of the better codex chapter options for the first time since prior to 6th edition?
2) I don't care if Ultramarines are good, I care if inter-faction balance is bad. G-man seems to be contributing to balance being bad because he's pretty good in a UM army and all the shared Marine units appear to be balanced around him, despite most factions not being able to fully benefit from taking him.
Full disclosure, I also have a problem with an army even appearing to be designed around a named character. They shouldn't be allowed anywhere outside of narrative games and definitely shouldn't be allowed in competitive events, especially in a game that encourages you to "roll your own" faction but forbids named characters if you do so. I don't think GW should even print point values for named characters.
Can anyone prove that Guilliman has any impact on the cost of units?
GW are not costing units around him. You're already paying for his aura with his substantial cost which is frankly stifling in any game at 2k or below.
It's one of these silly myths, same as the myth that transport capacity increases unit price, even though a Razorback chassis costs less than a Predator chassis.
The Space Marine books simply suffer from being the first books written for 8th edition. Nothing more.
Ishagu wrote: Can anyone prove that Guilliman has any impact on the cost of units?
GW are not costing units around him. You're already paying for his aura with his substantial cost which is frankly stifling in any game at 2k or below.
It's one of these silly myths, same as the myth that transport capacity increases unit price, even though a Razorback chassis costs less than a Predator chassis.
The Space Marine books simply suffer from being the first books written for 8th edition. Nothing more.
Ironic that as I recall various Marine focussed players stating that it must be so, Marines deserve it and F&%K anyone else who should merely wait quietly until all the important Marine dexes were done and be glad that there might be time for anyone else anyway.
The codexes were speedily pushed out- shame really as the rules could have remained in Index form with a regular update and the essential lore been in Campaign books and new faction Codexes.
So a Crusade Book and linked Index update book, same for Xenos races and Chaos Powers - but I guess they figured they could (and did) would sell the Codexes yet gain with mostly the same old fluff and art
Ishagu wrote: Can anyone prove that Guilliman has any impact on the cost of units?
GW are not costing units around him. You're already paying for his aura with his substantial cost which is frankly stifling in any game at 2k or below.
It's one of these silly myths, same as the myth that transport capacity increases unit price, even though a Razorback chassis costs less than a Predator chassis.
The Space Marine books simply suffer from being the first books written for 8th edition. Nothing more.
Ironic that as I recall various Marine focussed players stating that it must be so, Marines deserve it and F&%K anyone else who should merely wait quietly until all the important Marine dexes were done and be glad that there might be time for anyone else anyway.
The codexes were speedily pushed out- shame really as the rules could have remained in Index form with a regular update and the essential lore been in Campaign books and new faction Codexes.
So a Crusade Book and linked Index update book, same for Xenos races and Chaos Powers - but I guess they figured they could (and did) would sell the Codexes yet gain with mostly the same old fluff and art
Yeah, and they are wrong. The actual game testers themselves say that Guilliman is not connected to the pricing of other units and has potentially been costed too high (stated on the FLG podcast and Chapter Tactics).
What's your evidence to the contrary beyond a few frustrated players not happy with the performance of the codex? Or are you stating opinions as facts?
Ishagu wrote: Can anyone prove that Guilliman has any impact on the cost of units?
GW are not costing units around him. You're already paying for his aura with his substantial cost which is frankly stifling in any game at 2k or below.
It's one of these silly myths, same as the myth that transport capacity increases unit price, even though a Razorback chassis costs less than a Predator chassis.
The Space Marine books simply suffer from being the first books written for 8th edition. Nothing more.
Ironic that as I recall various Marine focussed players stating that it must be so, Marines deserve it and F&%K anyone else who should merely wait quietly until all the important Marine dexes were done and be glad that there might be time for anyone else anyway.
The codexes were speedily pushed out- shame really as the rules could have remained in Index form with a regular update and the essential lore been in Campaign books and new faction Codexes.
So a Crusade Book and linked Index update book, same for Xenos races and Chaos Powers - but I guess they figured they could (and did) would sell the Codexes yet gain with mostly the same old fluff and art
They are just looking for a reason why everything in the army is 20% overcosted compared to top units from other codex. I mean...I think with a buff like gmans it does make it more difficult to balance the army internally but the formula should be a high cost for gman himself which he already had. I think Gman probably has a lot to do with GW doing nothing to fix marines because they listen to a bunch of newbie fluff players that complain about people getting all the rerolls! "How can I beat a guy that gets to reroll everything?" - ofc the simple answer is to kill the fragile units gman is buffing and soon hes got nothing to buff anymore. They actually increased the cost on already bad units like TLAC razors and storm ravens just because "spacemarines" (+90 conscripts) could beat a few index armies early in the eddition. It was clear once IG codex was released that space marines were actually quite horrific. It's only gotten worse as more powerful armies keep coming out. Personally - I'd be happy with a complete redesign of space marines HQs/ LOW as long as most the bad units got fixed and put on par with IG/Admech stuff.
Ishagu wrote: Can anyone prove that Guilliman has any impact on the cost of units?
GW are not costing units around him. You're already paying for his aura with his substantial cost which is frankly stifling in any game at 2k or below.
It's one of these silly myths, same as the myth that transport capacity increases unit price, even though a Razorback chassis costs less than a Predator chassis.
The Space Marine books simply suffer from being the first books written for 8th edition. Nothing more.
Ironic that as I recall various Marine focussed players stating that it must be so, Marines deserve it and F&%K anyone else who should merely wait quietly until all the important Marine dexes were done and be glad that there might be time for anyone else anyway.
The codexes were speedily pushed out- shame really as the rules could have remained in Index form with a regular update and the essential lore been in Campaign books and new faction Codexes.
So a Crusade Book and linked Index update book, same for Xenos races and Chaos Powers - but I guess they figured they could (and did) would sell the Codexes yet gain with mostly the same old fluff and art
They are just looking for a reason why everything in the army is 20% overcosted compared to top units from other codex. I mean...I think with a buff like gmans it does make it more difficult to balance the army internally but the formula should be a high cost for gman himself which he already had. I think Gman probably has a lot to do with GW doing nothing to fix marines because they listen to a bunch of newbie fluff players that complain about people getting all the rerolls! "How can I beat a guy that gets to reroll everything?" - ofc the simple answer is to kill the fragile units gman is buffing and soon hes got nothing to buff anymore. They actually increased the cost on already bad units like TLAC razors and storm ravens just because "spacemarines" (+90 conscripts) could beat a few index armies early in the eddition. It was clear once IG codex was released that space marines were actually quite horrific. It's only gotten worse as more powerful armies keep coming out. Personally - I'd be happy with a complete redesign of space marines HQs/ LOW as long as most the bad units got fixed and put on par with IG/Admech stuff.
Compared to a command russ, most marine vehicles are way more than 20% off.
Ishagu wrote: Can anyone prove that Guilliman has any impact on the cost of units?
GW are not costing units around him. You're already paying for his aura with his substantial cost which is frankly stifling in any game at 2k or below.
It's one of these silly myths, same as the myth that transport capacity increases unit price, even though a Razorback chassis costs less than a Predator chassis.
The Space Marine books simply suffer from being the first books written for 8th edition. Nothing more.
Ironic that as I recall various Marine focussed players stating that it must be so, Marines deserve it and F&%K anyone else who should merely wait quietly until all the important Marine dexes were done and be glad that there might be time for anyone else anyway.
The codexes were speedily pushed out- shame really as the rules could have remained in Index form with a regular update and the essential lore been in Campaign books and new faction Codexes.
So a Crusade Book and linked Index update book, same for Xenos races and Chaos Powers - but I guess they figured they could (and did) would sell the Codexes yet gain with mostly the same old fluff and art
They are just looking for a reason why everything in the army is 20% overcosted compared to top units from other codex. I mean...I think with a buff like gmans it does make it more difficult to balance the army internally but the formula should be a high cost for gman himself which he already had. I think Gman probably has a lot to do with GW doing nothing to fix marines because they listen to a bunch of newbie fluff players that complain about people getting all the rerolls! "How can I beat a guy that gets to reroll everything?" - ofc the simple answer is to kill the fragile units gman is buffing and soon hes got nothing to buff anymore. They actually increased the cost on already bad units like TLAC razors and storm ravens just because "spacemarines" (+90 conscripts) could beat a few index armies early in the eddition. It was clear once IG codex was released that space marines were actually quite horrific. It's only gotten worse as more powerful armies keep coming out. Personally - I'd be happy with a complete redesign of space marines HQs/ LOW as long as most the bad units got fixed and put on par with IG/Admech stuff.
Compared to a command russ, most marine vehicles are way more than 20% off.
Ishagu wrote: Games Workshop aren't fixing Marines because they have a longer term plan with codex releases.
Guess we should all just wait to have a fair game until 2020? I think I understand now! I can just stomp kids with gman and knights until my ultras get fixed. Waits that is what I have been doing!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: I'd argue a predator might even be 50% off from a command russ. Battlecannons being 22 pts is fething absurd.
The exact same weapon is 90 points on a chaos knight lol. To be fair though - they have to spend at least 30 points there on a weapon so...it's really a 60 point weapon on that chasis.
Ishagu wrote: Games Workshop aren't fixing Marines because they have a longer term plan with codex releases.
Guess we should all just wait to have a fair game until 2020? I think I understand now! I can just stomp kids with gman and knights until my ultras get fixed. Waits that is what I have been doing!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: I'd argue a predator might even be 50% off from a command russ. Battlecannons being 22 pts is fething absurd.
The exact same weapon is 90 points on a chaos knight lol.
That might be a bit excessive, but it underscores what the hell is going on.
???