Martel732 wrote: They did. It's the same cost as the old repulsor, so maybe its a typo.
How dumb is GW? Probably take 3 weeks to fix this.
Whatchu mean 3 weeks? They just "fixed" it with this FAQ. As-in fixed it so that their sales get hurt so bad by it that the next Chapter Approved will drop the points for both Repulsor tanks (fingers crossed)
Martel732 wrote: They did. It's the same cost as the old repulsor, so maybe its a typo.
How dumb is GW? Probably take 3 weeks to fix this.
Whatchu mean 3 weeks? They just "fixed" it with this FAQ. As-in fixed it so that their sales get hurt so bad by it that the next Chapter Approved will drop the points for both Repulsor tanks (fingers crossed)
-
Your logic is sound when considering it is GW we are talking about Though ofc real business smarts would be to lower the things point cost on your new 100$ dollar tank. LOL.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: I'd bet some money that it was a cut and paste error.
I think this is actually the point where I stop playing 40k competitively in any sense and just find people to play by the rules I want to play (which are rules that don't suck complete ass). Sheer incompetent rules team. Shinning spears were literally undercosted for a year. They could have made a change like this at any point but didn't. Then we have an obviously overcosted model like the executioner...they release an in between nerf without even looking at tournament data or whatnot. I mean it's so effing baffling it is disgusting. I actually want to slap a person in the face for this. I spent 200$ and a ton of time getting 2 of these ready to play with even knowing they were going to underperform...then they nerf it? WOW.
Xenomancers wrote: I think this is actually the point where I stop playing 40k competitively in any sense and just find people to play by the rules I want to play (which are rules that don't suck complete ass). Sheer incompetent rules team. Shinning spears were literally undercosted for a year. They could have made a change like this at any point but didn't. Then we have an obviously overcosted model like the executioner...they release an in between nerf without even looking at tournament data or whatnot. I mean it's so effing baffling it is disgusting. I actually want to slap a person in the face for this. I spent 200$ and a ton of time getting 2 of these ready to play with even knowing they were going to underperform...then they nerf it? WOW.
It's always a risk with GW. But increasing a non-invuln platform by 30 pts is nuts.
It certainly may backfire on them as I went from "cool, deathwatch may now have a viable anti-armour choice so I can go pure DW" to "raised the points already? nah, I'll stick with a Krast knight thanks". Saved $200 right there in one quick post.
bullyboy wrote: It certainly may backfire on them as I went from "cool, deathwatch may now have a viable anti-armour choice so I can go pure DW" to "raised the points already? nah, I'll stick with a Krast knight thanks". Saved $200 right there in one quick post.
Well, there goes the brief moments of joy I felt when using two executioners at 2K games.
Even though target saturation is key to using high value unit, the points increase makes bringing even a single executioner a daunting challenge.
Let alone using two or more in the 2K list.
I might be biased, but it seems GW is strangely cautious about giving Space Marines cost effective units.
This and the new melee lieutenant without a real melee weapon has pretty drastically dampened my enthusiasm for the new marine codex. I really don't understand why GW is hell bent on making the marines utterly terrible.
One of the biggest problems is Guilleman. He skews so much of marine stuff that it's pointed in such a way to be mostly useless in other chapters. I just don't think GW can see this.
bullyboy wrote: One of the biggest problems is Guilleman. He skews so much of marine stuff that it's pointed in such a way to be mostly useless in other chapters. I just don't think GW can see this.
He needs to just only provide the LT buff. Bastard keeps breaking every fething marine release.
I really liked this unit, but at 31 points more it's not worth it. Up on the shelf it goes and back to normal Repulsors.
bullyboy wrote: One of the biggest problems is Guilleman. He skews so much of marine stuff that it's pointed in such a way to be mostly useless in other chapters. I just don't think GW can see this.
More or less I feel this is a myth. Gman has his own cost and isn't influencing anything in terms of cost on other models - those models are just overcosted on their own merits because GW sucks. Just look at this nerf to the executioner. It was obviously overcosted already. Indisputably so. If he is affecting other units that is a poor balancing decision realistically he is overcosted at 400 points and is more than covering the cost of his aura at the 2000 points level. At some point at like 3000 points plus he is extremely OP but the game is really meant to be played at 2000. At 2000 hes 1/5 of your army. However - fine with me. Redesign his rules and reduce the cost of all marine units. I'm more than happy to run Calgar and a lt if it didn't suck so hard. Basically the only way I can compete is to reroll wounds on buckets of dice right now. My army dies so fast I have to keep up the lethality.
Sagittarii Orientalis wrote: Well, there goes the brief moments of joy I felt when using two executioners at 2K games.
Even though target saturation is key to using high value unit, the points increase makes bringing even a single executioner a daunting challenge.
Let alone using two or more in the 2K list.
I might be biased, but it seems GW is strangely cautious about giving Space Marines anything that isn't complete garbage.
Fixed that for you.
Actually what probably happened is all the Primaris-only players ran out to buy two of the things because Primaris have [censored] for anti-armor and GW went "woah; look at those sales numbers, we must have under-priced this thing".
Sagittarii Orientalis wrote: Well, there goes the brief moments of joy I felt when using two executioners at 2K games.
Even though target saturation is key to using high value unit, the points increase makes bringing even a single executioner a daunting challenge.
Let alone using two or more in the 2K list.
I might be biased, but it seems GW is strangely cautious about giving Space Marines anything that isn't complete garbage.
Fixed that for you.
Actually what probably happened is all the Primaris-only players ran out to buy two of the things because Primaris have [censored] for anti-armor and GW went "woah; look at those sales numbers, we must have under-priced this thing".
They made a flying abrams tank...how are you not expecting to sell tons of these? I bought 2 on release thinking it was overcosted. Don't care. Flying abrams is cool.
Sagittarii Orientalis wrote: Well, there goes the brief moments of joy I felt when using two executioners at 2K games.
Even though target saturation is key to using high value unit, the points increase makes bringing even a single executioner a daunting challenge.
Let alone using two or more in the 2K list.
I might be biased, but it seems GW is strangely cautious about giving Space Marines anything that isn't complete garbage.
Fixed that for you.
Actually what probably happened is all the Primaris-only players ran out to buy two of the things because Primaris have [censored] for anti-armor and GW went "woah; look at those sales numbers, we must have under-priced this thing".
They made a flying abrams tank...how are you not expecting to sell tons of these? I bought 2 on release thinking it was overcosted. Don't care. Flying abrams is cool.
It is literally a Repulsor with 50% more turret. It does look better, but not that much better that everyone calling it a Repulsive went out and bought two.
Sagittarii Orientalis wrote: Well, there goes the brief moments of joy I felt when using two executioners at 2K games.
Even though target saturation is key to using high value unit, the points increase makes bringing even a single executioner a daunting challenge.
Let alone using two or more in the 2K list.
I might be biased, but it seems GW is strangely cautious about giving Space Marines anything that isn't complete garbage.
Fixed that for you.
Actually what probably happened is all the Primaris-only players ran out to buy two of the things because Primaris have [censored] for anti-armor and GW went "woah; look at those sales numbers, we must have under-priced this thing".
They made a flying abrams tank...how are you not expecting to sell tons of these? I bought 2 on release thinking it was overcosted. Don't care. Flying abrams is cool.
It is literally a Repulsor with 50% more turret. It does look better, but not that much better that everyone calling it a Repulsive went out and bought two.
I did but I am the only one at my shop that has any.
Sagittarii Orientalis wrote: Well, there goes the brief moments of joy I felt when using two executioners at 2K games.
Even though target saturation is key to using high value unit, the points increase makes bringing even a single executioner a daunting challenge. Let alone using two or more in the 2K list.
I might be biased, but it seems GW is strangely cautious about giving Space Marines anything that isn't complete garbage.
Fixed that for you.
Actually what probably happened is all the Primaris-only players ran out to buy two of the things because Primaris have [censored] for anti-armor and GW went "woah; look at those sales numbers, we must have under-priced this thing".
They made a flying abrams tank...how are you not expecting to sell tons of these? I bought 2 on release thinking it was overcosted. Don't care. Flying abrams is cool.
Technically they made a flying Merkava, due to the amount of weapons it has on it, and the 6 Man carry capacity.
I was looking forward to having 1-2 with my Deathwatch. Park a Watch Captain close by with Stormshield. If enemy has good AT, take Dominus Aegis for 5+ invuln on them. If not, Tome of Ectoclades for reroll 1s to wound vs whatever target (except transports) you wanted to kill. Seemed fairly flexible, but cost was prohibitive, even more so now.
Crimson wrote: This and the new melee lieutenant without a real melee weapon has pretty drastically dampened my enthusiasm for the new marine codex. I really don't understand why GW is hell bent on making the marines utterly terrible.
What if they aren't? What if they're building the foundation of 9th edition, where a lot of this stuff will be the new powerful options due to massively drastic changes in game play?
No one ever mentions that as a possibility. But I'd say that 9th could axe a ton of the old wargear and re-balance the new.
The game has too many options as it is, over 60% of the weapons in the game aren't worth taking, so lets just get rid of them and re-balance along a smaller pool of items.
On the bright side GW saved me $200 because I won't buy two now. I must admit this is largely out of just spite because like REALLY? Nerfing marines? Seriously dude?
Crimson wrote: This and the new melee lieutenant without a real melee weapon has pretty drastically dampened my enthusiasm for the new marine codex. I really don't understand why GW is hell bent on making the marines utterly terrible.
What if they aren't? What if they're building the foundation of 9th edition, where a lot of this stuff will be the new powerful options due to massively drastic changes in game play?
No one ever mentions that as a possibility. But I'd say that 9th could axe a ton of the old wargear and re-balance the new.
The game has too many options as it is, over 60% of the weapons in the game aren't worth taking, so lets just get rid of them and re-balance along a smaller pool of items.
Support 8th while it's active - don't abandon balancing in the game today because of an unannounced new edition.
If everyone emails saying the change was too much maybe they'll change it? I doubt it since that would set an example that the loudest voice will gets the attention
bullyboy wrote: One of the biggest problems is Guilleman. He skews so much of marine stuff that it's pointed in such a way to be mostly useless in other chapters. I just don't think GW can see this.
More or less I feel this is a myth. Gman has his own cost and isn't influencing anything in terms of cost on other models - those models are just overcosted on their own merits because GW sucks. Just look at this nerf to the executioner. It was obviously overcosted already. Indisputably so. If he is affecting other units that is a poor balancing decision realistically he is overcosted at 400 points and is more than covering the cost of his aura at the 2000 points level. At some point at like 3000 points plus he is extremely OP but the game is really meant to be played at 2000. At 2000 hes 1/5 of your army. However - fine with me. Redesign his rules and reduce the cost of all marine units. I'm more than happy to run Calgar and a lt if it didn't suck so hard. Basically the only way I can compete is to reroll wounds on buckets of dice right now. My army dies so fast I have to keep up the lethality.
It is a myth.
A captain and lieutenant have been mathematically proven to be just as useful as Gman, but with more points for other crap.
Crimson wrote: This and the new melee lieutenant without a real melee weapon has pretty drastically dampened my enthusiasm for the new marine codex. I really don't understand why GW is hell bent on making the marines utterly terrible.
What if they aren't? What if they're building the foundation of 9th edition, where a lot of this stuff will be the new powerful options due to massively drastic changes in game play?
No one ever mentions that as a possibility. But I'd say that 9th could axe a ton of the old wargear and re-balance the new.
The game has too many options as it is, over 60% of the weapons in the game aren't worth taking, so lets just get rid of them and re-balance along a smaller pool of items.
This thought process has come and gone through editions and it has largely never panned out.
Predators are more expensive than Rhinos for a reason. We may not like or agree with it, but there it is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: We need to as a community stop sucking so hard. We need to stop buying their stuff if we want them to listen to us.
I'd wager that there are more people who don't give a gak about the point change for this model than those who do.
And really - you guys need to stop and think that it got double tap as well. You know that wasn't coming for free, right?
A Captain and Lieutenant cannot be mathematically as useful as rowboat since rerolling failed to-wounds is inherently better than rerolling 1s and rerolling misses is better than rerolling 1s (or getting three CPs is better than spending CPs for Master of the Chapter).
Is that and being beastly in melee worth 200+ more points? Got me there. Throw in losing the Ravenguard trait and strats to get the full use out of him and I'd say no.
I don't know a single player that doesn't care about the point costs of their models. Like literally no one I know is like - oh this model went up 30 points - I think I'll go buy it. New player old player? Don't matter. This nerf is a legit mistake that will only serve to cost them money and nerfs the weakest faction in the game short of GK. It's a joke. Someone needs to admit to their mistake and fix it. Now.
Bharring wrote: But we do exist. I don't remember the last kit I bought where points costs were a factor.
Yet you always seem to have so much to add about the pointing of units. Be honest - you care a lot about how your army is costed.
Honestly, yes I do. My Dire Avengers were overcosted at 17ppm. But my current Dire Avenger Exarchs are undercosted at 11ppm. But neither case changed my purchase choices.
Both those concerns are substantially less impactful on my collection than "Do I want these models".
Believe it or not, most people have more than one concern. Some concerns are even less important than others. People are capable of such things.
I reallocated my Repulsor dollars to Moraix weaponry already, but that was happening even pre-nerf.
So I understand some frustration, but there is some silver linings with this.
WHile it might not have been the best call, it shows GW is trying.
Also it shows that GW is more willing to drop out changes when warrented (or unwarrented) there has been times where they wouldn't do this.
My Spacemarine budget just got reduced to 0 till the SM dex comes out. Clearly too much volitility there to make me comfortable buying. But the other side of it, is the Chaos Dex changes and the Moriax and Cerastus changes give me some places to put those dollars.
Reemule wrote: The Newman, he is speaking on a point per point basis. A Cap and LT provide roughly 1/2 as much use, but cost far less than 1/2 of Gman's points.
That might have been what he meant, but it's definitely not what he said. He said they were just as good and left more points for other stuff, not that they're as good for the points and 200 points of other stuff balances it out overall.
And to be fair I didn't even disagree about whether g-man was worth the points over the Cap'n / Leiutenant combo.
The Newman wrote: A Captain and Lieutenant cannot be mathematically as useful as rowboat since rerolling failed to-wounds is inherently better than rerolling 1s and rerolling misses is better than rerolling 1s (or getting three CPs is better than spending CPs for Master of the Chapter).
Is that and being beastly in melee worth 200+ more points? Got me there. Throw in losing the Ravenguard trait and strats to get the full use out of him and I'd say no.
Yes, Gman being better is just common sense. As to the value of the increase you need to look at what he is buffing. If I recall, the rough numbers are capt+lt buffs by 35% and Gman by 70% (depends on weapon, but let’s go with this 2x for 2x cost). So the question is what is 35% of what you will have in his bubble? In a 2000 pt list, this is likely to be more than 200pts, so Gman is worth the cost difference. If you were to keep all 1600pts inside, he’s worth it for buffs alone and the beatstick portion totally free.
That’s why he breaks marine pricing, with him everything is essentially 35% better than for chapters without him at a fixed rate tax that is too high in small games and too low at medium and larger.
And back to the tank, well, the nerf gets me off the fence of maybe getting any. Just not worth the cost in points or dollars now.
Guilliman breaking the codex is a joke when in fact he is one of the really good things in a rather lame codex. Looking at the cost of say Intercessors across all codices it is the same which shows GW does not cost them accounting for any buffs.
Reemule wrote: The Newman, he is speaking on a point per point basis. A Cap and LT provide roughly 1/2 as much use, but cost far less than 1/2 of Gman's points.
Right - if you're expecting your weapons to wound on 3s then Bobby only offers one extra pip. Marines already hit on 3s, so there is no variable gain there. If your strategy otherwise revolved around weapons that will wounds on 4s then Bobby might be better.
But I've hardly seen people pushing him forward like they should and most would be better served with an additional 270 points in some other unit(s).
He breaks it in the way you note, GW won’t reprice or buff units for lists that can’t run him. So anytime he isn’t around everything is overcosted.
...well, overcosted even worse since it’s not like Gman lists are dominating either. But I mean even if they were to do a whole new competitive marine dex, unless they give his buff to other chapters or change his, the best marine list will still almost certainly be a Gman list at 2000 pts.
The Newman wrote: A Captain and Lieutenant cannot be mathematically as useful as rowboat since rerolling failed to-wounds is inherently better than rerolling 1s and rerolling misses is better than rerolling 1s (or getting three CPs is better than spending CPs for Master of the Chapter).
Is that and being beastly in melee worth 200+ more points? Got me there. Throw in losing the Ravenguard trait and strats to get the full use out of him and I'd say no.
Yes, Gman being better is just common sense. As to the value of the increase you need to look at what he is buffing. If I recall, the rough numbers are capt+lt buffs by 35% and Gman by 70% (depends on weapon, but let’s go with this 2x for 2x cost). So the question is what is 35% of what you will have in his bubble? In a 2000 pt list, this is likely to be more than 200pts, so Gman is worth the cost difference. If you were to keep all 1600pts inside, he’s worth it for buffs alone and the beatstick portion totally free.
That’s why he breaks marine pricing, with him everything is essentially 35% better than for chapters without him at a fixed rate tax that is too high in small games and too low at medium and larger.
And back to the tank, well, the nerf gets me off the fence of maybe getting any. Just not worth the cost in points or dollars now.
You won't ever win games with your whole army within 6" of Bobby.
The perception problem starts here where everyone goes, "Oh look how much better bolters are with Bobby!" when that isn't the use case on the table.
Additionally he's a LOW, which means a whole other detachment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: I don't know a single player that doesn't care about the point costs of their models. Like literally no one I know is like - oh this model went up 30 points - I think I'll go buy it. New player old player? Don't matter. This nerf is a legit mistake that will only serve to cost them money and nerfs the weakest faction in the game short of GK. It's a joke. Someone needs to admit to their mistake and fix it. Now.
Why should a model get double tap for free? This is the paradox of the LRBT is it not?
I’m not saying you’d get to keep 1600pts in his bubble, the point is to illustrate how the bonus you’re getting scales with your army size and clumping so you can’t just compare a capt+lt body vs gmans statline and ask if you want to pay 200pts or 400pts.
And why are you assuming all your wounds will be on 3s so his bonus halts at 2x a lts? Lots wound on 4s and 5s and sniper rifles are tremendously better in his reroll.
bort wrote: I’m not saying you’d get to keep 1600pts in his bubble, the point is to illustrate how the bonus you’re getting scales with your army size and clumping so you can’t just compare a capt+lt body vs gmans statline and ask if you want to pay 200pts or 400pts.
And why are you assuming all your wounds will be on 3s so his bonus halts at 2x a lts? Lots wound on 4s and 5s and sniper rifles are tremendously better in his reroll.
That's just not how it bears out on the table. Units in his aura will die and when they die the pain is more apparent as you have less on the table and its nearly impossible to shift more units to the bubble, because you need to cover objectives.
If your use case for Bobby is stuff that wounds on 4s and up - he's going to do SOLID work, but when people come around and say how terrible a tank is (especially without bobby) that is almost exclusively wounding on 3s or better is just not a valid assessment.
Armies with bobby G aren't winning a damn thing, so the argument that he creates a broken codex is 100% false. If the codex WITH him is mediocre at best, what does it say about all the other chapters?
Kirasu wrote: Armies with bobby G aren't winning a damn thing, so the argument that he creates a broken codex is 100% false. If the codex WITH him is mediocre at best, what does it say about all the other chapters?
Hot garbage.
I don't think the argument is that he's too strong. I think the argument is that GW seem scared to give Marines anything that is in itself an efficient unit because it would hypothetically be too strong with Guilliman.
I think that's flawed logic though, and that power levels are more random than that.
Kirasu wrote: Armies with bobby G aren't winning a damn thing, so the argument that he creates a broken codex is 100% false. If the codex WITH him is mediocre at best, what does it say about all the other chapters?
Hot garbage.
I think that he breaks the codex in a way meaning where he alone makes the codex difficult to balance. Do you balance things for him thus meaning it is a strong, but no OP codex in tourny play? Do you balance things to be strong, but not OP at tourney play without him? If you do the former then everything other than builds using him suffer. If you do the latter then builds with him are too good. He is such a force multiplier that it throws off the balance of the codex.
I think if you put him with the majority of other armies and made his buffs work on them he'd be an absolute juggernaut. He is held back by being in the marine book. He breaks the codex not in terms of raw power, but rather balancing.
Kirasu wrote: Armies with bobby G aren't winning a damn thing, so the argument that he creates a broken codex is 100% false. If the codex WITH him is mediocre at best, what does it say about all the other chapters?
Hot garbage.
I don't think the argument is that he's too strong. I think the argument is that GW seem scared to give Marines anything that is in itself an efficient unit because it would hypothetically be too strong with Guilliman.
I think that's flawed logic though, and that power levels are more random than that.
Yeah I think it's really just incompetence on the part of GW rather than a precise and focused pricing method based around G man.
Kirasu wrote: Armies with bobby G aren't winning a damn thing, so the argument that he creates a broken codex is 100% false. If the codex WITH him is mediocre at best, what does it say about all the other chapters?
Hot garbage.
I don't think the argument is that he's too strong. I think the argument is that GW seem scared to give Marines anything that is in itself an efficient unit because it would hypothetically be too strong with Guilliman.
I think that's flawed logic though, and that power levels are more random than that.
Not true. I have personally spoken with play testers and the cost is not influenced by characters. Stop spreading opinions and theories as though they are factual information.
Kirasu wrote: Armies with bobby G aren't winning a damn thing, so the argument that he creates a broken codex is 100% false. If the codex WITH him is mediocre at best, what does it say about all the other chapters?
Hot garbage.
I think that he breaks the codex in a way meaning where he alone makes the codex difficult to balance. Do you balance things for him thus meaning it is a strong, but no OP codex in tourny play? Do you balance things to be strong, but not OP at tourney play without him? If you do the former then everything other than builds using him suffer. If you do the latter then builds with him are too good. He is such a force multiplier that it throws off the balance of the codex.
I think if you put him with the majority of other armies and made his buffs work on them he'd be an absolute juggernaut. He is held back by being in the marine book. He breaks the codex not in terms of raw power, but rather balancing.
Kirasu wrote: Armies with bobby G aren't winning a damn thing, so the argument that he creates a broken codex is 100% false. If the codex WITH him is mediocre at best, what does it say about all the other chapters?
Hot garbage.
I don't think the argument is that he's too strong. I think the argument is that GW seem scared to give Marines anything that is in itself an efficient unit because it would hypothetically be too strong with Guilliman.
I think that's flawed logic though, and that power levels are more random than that.
Yeah I think it's really just incompetence on the part of GW rather than a precise and focused pricing method based around G man.
This is seriously muddled thinking because the codex is not competitive versus top tier armies.
Why should a model get double tap for free? This is the paradox of the LRBT is it not?
It didn't. It got it for one single weapon.
It paid for it by being the same cost as a Repulsor baseline but with less carrying capacity and no hull weapon options.
So either transport capacity is free, so it doesn't matter what can transport things, or it isn't. I'd be inclined to say transport capacity costs something.
Xenomancers wrote: I think this is actually the point where I stop playing 40k competitively in any sense and just find people to play by the rules I want to play (which are rules that don't suck complete ass). Sheer incompetent rules team. Shinning spears were literally undercosted for a year. They could have made a change like this at any point but didn't. Then we have an obviously overcosted model like the executioner...they release an in between nerf without even looking at tournament data or whatnot. I mean it's so effing baffling it is disgusting. I actually want to slap a person in the face for this. I spent 200$ and a ton of time getting 2 of these ready to play with even knowing they were going to underperform...then they nerf it? WOW.
Having had several years of reading your posts under my belt now I can say with some confidence that you never played 40k competitively in any real sense.
There is generally no need to be upset. A new Astartes release is around the corner, the next codex is probably less than a month away.
Primaris are in Beta right now and not in a strong position. This may or may not change after the next codex. Let's wait and see.
In the meantime I'll be taking a Primaris focused list to a tournament this weekend, facing off against some of Britain's, America's and Canada's top players including many stars of the ITC. Win or lose it will be a fun learning experience and a test of tactical ability against the world's best (Unlike a lot of the vocal complainers on the forum I actually play the game at the highest level regularly with multiple factions). More people need to step back and consider the hobby this way.
Ishagu wrote: There is generally no need to be upset. A new Astartes release is around the corner, the next codex is probably less than a month away.
Primaris are in Beta right now and not in a strong position. This may or may not change after the next codex. Let's wait and see.
In the meantime I'll be taking a Primaris focused list to a tournament this weekend, facing off against some of Britain's, America's and Canada's top players including many stars of the ITC. Win or lose it will be a fun learning experience and a test of tactical ability against the world's best (Unlike a lot of the vocal complainers on the forum I actually play the game at the highest level regularly with multiple factions). More people need to step back and consider the hobby this way.
I wish more people had your additude man. seriously, you're generally positive and upbeat. it's a ncie change,
Ishagu wrote: There is generally no need to be upset. A new Astartes release is around the corner, the next codex is probably less than a month away.
Primaris are in Beta right now and not in a strong position. This may or may not change after the next codex. Let's wait and see.
In the meantime I'll be taking a Primaris focused list to a tournament this weekend, facing off against some of Britain's, America's and Canada's top players including many stars of the ITC. Win or lose it will be a fun learning experience and a test of tactical ability against the world's best (Unlike a lot of the vocal complainers on the forum I actually play the game at the highest level regularly with multiple factions). More people need to step back and consider the hobby this way.
Well Gen con and Warhammer fest? Day? Are both this week so I'm hoping we hear more than we did at the last event
Why? That's the correct position for GW to take on units.
Because its explicitly inconsistent with the way they've pointed units for all of 8th (looking at you CWE and Chaos), and implies that GW is deliberately pointing marine units to be inferior to other factions.
Why? That's the correct position for GW to take on units.
Because its explicitly inconsistent with the way they've pointed units for all of 8th (looking at you CWE and Chaos), and implies that GW is deliberately pointing marine units to be inferior to other factions.
In other words, its dumb.
That's the perception, yes. The actual gap between marines and other units is smaller than the forums might lead people to believe.
You're just not going to see them used heavily in top tables, because they do carry a liability against some matchups.
Why? That's the correct position for GW to take on units.
Because its explicitly inconsistent with the way they've pointed units for all of 8th (looking at you CWE and Chaos), and implies that GW is deliberately pointing marine units to be inferior to other factions.
In other words, its dumb.
And yet many units that are more efficient than the Repulsors, and much more easily "spammed" alongside Guilliman, have seen massive point reductions:
Predators
Contemptor Mortis
Sicaran Venator
Your conclusion is wrong based on these.
It's a case where we can't see the full picture yet - The pricing could be wrong, or there could be additional combos that bolster performance in the next book that we aren't aware of yet.
Ishagu wrote: There is generally no need to be upset. A new Astartes release is around the corner, the next codex is probably less than a month away.
Primaris are in Beta right now and not in a strong position. This may or may not change after the next codex. Let's wait and see.
In the meantime I'll be taking a Primaris focused list to a tournament this weekend, facing off against some of Britain's, America's and Canada's top players including many stars of the ITC. Win or lose it will be a fun learning experience and a test of tactical ability against the world's best (Unlike a lot of the vocal complainers on the forum I actually play the game at the highest level regularly with multiple factions). More people need to step back and consider the hobby this way.
I wish more people had your attitude man. seriously, you're generally positive and upbeat. it's a ncie change,
I appreciate that. We have to remember why we spend our money and time on this hobby, and not get carried away into spirals of negativity.
I appreciate that. We have to remember whey we spend our money and time on this hobby, and not get carried away into spirals of negativity.
That's my outlook anyway.
It's also pretty easy to forget that this is the most balanced the game has even been. If you told someone a year ago that literal Thousand Sons could win tournaments they would laugh at you.
Yes very true. It's why I find some of the hyperbolic comments so excessive.
There is great variation in army composition and lists at the highest level, and even though books like the Adeptus Astartes have indeed fallen behind, there are still many viable lists and combinations.
It must really be nice to live in a world where only the facts you like get considered. Aura pricing has been baked in the entirety of 8th, and CA2018 didnt change any of that.
If it did you wouldnt have situations where, say your beloved Predator was totally outclassed by a fake hovertank trundling about 20-30% cheaper for comparable output and significantly superior survivability.
It's a case where we can't see the full picture yet - The pricing could be wrong, or there could be additional combos that bolster performance in the next book that we aren't aware of yet.
This is a completely moronic argument. You don't break things in the short term because you have a plan to fix them in the long term. This isnt a software beta test in limited release to a few groups. This is the full, live product.
And thats being generous enough to assume there is a plan to fix them in the first place, which is never a given with GW rules writers.
I appreciate that. We have to remember why we spend our money and time on this hobby, and not get carried away into spirals of negativity.
That's my outlook anyway.
You're confusing negativity with incredulity at GWs stupidity. I'm playing on a weekly basis and having a great time, while running primarily a Marine army. I'm constantly (albeit slowly) growing my collections as my budget allows.
That doesn't mean im not going to take issue when GW does something blatantly dumb-fethed like raise the cost of an already overpriced unit.
You are wrong, as I said. The actual people who literally test the rules on behalf of GW are saying that the auras don't impact the cost.
It's the same way that relics, stratagems and craftworld/chapter/legion/ork clan tactics don't impact the cost of units.
Where is the additional cost piled on Eldar flyers for that Alaitoc trait?
You're angry, looking for things to point a finger at. In your mind you have exaggerated the problems. You are calling GW stupid despite the fact that they have created the most popular tabletop game and have just broken their profit records for a third year in a row.
I suggest you relax, and maybe take a break.
Wait until the next Marine book comes out at the least before calling people stupid. Let's review the army again at that point.
Ishagu wrote: You are wrong, as I said. The actual people who literally test the rules on behalf of GW are saying that the auras don't impact the cost.
Which brings us right back to the original conclusion that you drove right by: GW is deliberately pricing certain units to be inferior.
It's the same way that relics, stratagems and craftworld/chapter/legion/ork clan tactics don't impact the cost of units.
Where is the additional cost piled on Eldar flyers for that Alaitoc trait?
You're really gonna sit there with a straight face and say that particular aspect warriors and flyers havent been nerf-batted because of Alaitoc or Ynnari rulesets?
You're angry, looking for things to point a finger at. In your mind you have exaggerated the problems. You are calling GW stupid despite the fact that they have created the most popular tabletop game and have just broken their profit records for a third year in a row.
I suggest you relax, and maybe take a break.
The logical fallacy is strong with this one. If money was an indicator of product quality, big tobbaco must have had the best products in the world for a few decades despite the fact that they murdered tens of thousands of people.
Wait until the next Marine book comes out at the least before calling people stupid. Let's review the army again at that point.
I deal with the facts in front of me, not some pipedream of a perfect codex that'll never happen. If and when new rules are released, I'll re-evaluate my position. Precisely as I did yesterday when GW made their latest moronic rules decision.
Ishagu wrote: You are wrong, as I said. The actual people who literally test the rules on behalf of GW are saying that the auras don't impact the cost.
Ishagu wrote: You are wrong, as I said. The actual people who literally test the rules on behalf of GW are saying that the auras don't impact the cost.
So why is all marine stuff overcosted then?
bEcAuSe GaMeS wOrKsHoP hAs A sUpEr SeCrEt PlAn ThAt MaGiCalLy FiXeS eVeRyThIng
Ishagu wrote: Calm down, take a deep breath. No reason to be angry.
If you're not happy with the model or rules play something else.
For once can you not be a patronizing jackass? People are fully capable of playing, and being happy while playing, factions while recognizing the flaws in said factions, or others.
Ishagu wrote: You are wrong, as I said. The actual people who literally test the rules on behalf of GW are saying that the auras don't impact the cost.
So why is all marine stuff overcosted then?
Because the Marine books, all of them, were the first books written for 8th edition. The release schedule does not always reflect the completion schedule of the books. This was confirmed by the FLG guys directly. Sometimes there is over a year between a unit being tested and it's release. The same applies to a codex.
It's a case of 1st codex syndrome. Let's just wait for the next book and see what changes it brings. It's literally around the corner.
Reemule wrote: The Newman, he is speaking on a point per point basis. A Cap and LT provide roughly 1/2 as much use, but cost far less than 1/2 of Gman's points.
That might have been what he meant, but it's definitely not what he said. He said they were just as good and left more points for other stuff, not that they're as good for the points and 200 points of other stuff balances it out overall.
And to be fair I didn't even disagree about whether g-man was worth the points over the Cap'n / Leiutenant combo.
You still have to get 2 HQs with Gman if you want a batallion and the hq's really suck. It is more tax.
Ishagu wrote: You are wrong, as I said. The actual people who literally test the rules on behalf of GW are saying that the auras don't impact the cost.
So why is all marine stuff overcosted then?
Because the Marine books, all of them, were the first books written for 8th edition. The release schedule does not always reflect the completion schedule of the books. This was confirmed by the FLG guys directly. Sometimes there is over a year between a unit being tested and it's release. The same applies to a codex.
It's a case of 1st codex syndrome. Let's just wait for the next book and see what changes it brings. It's literally around the corner.
I'm not holding out much hope based on the Chaos Marine 2.0 Codex. There were more or less no balance changes, outside of better Havoc's and arguably worse (once points were confirmed) Obliterators.
Ishagu wrote: You are wrong, as I said. The actual people who literally test the rules on behalf of GW are saying that the auras don't impact the cost.
So why is all marine stuff overcosted then?
Because the Marine books, all of them, were the first books written for 8th edition. The release schedule does not always reflect the completion schedule of the books. This was confirmed by the FLG guys directly. Sometimes there is over a year between a unit being tested and it's release. The same applies to a codex.
It's a case of 1st codex syndrome. Let's just wait for the next book and see what changes it brings. It's literally around the corner.
Where is this corner, oh “I’ve talked to the playtesters” wise one?
Yeah people forget that by the time you bring Guilliman in you've typically spent near 600 points on three character and made your list very static on top.
I should mention that at the moment Astartes don't really have strats on the same level as some of the recent books. If the next codex fixes this issue we might see a requirement to bring in even more characters, and possibly reducing the value of Guilliman once abilities that affect movement or deployment become more common place. Will be interesting once it drops. I imagine we might hear something on Sat.
Not long ago I was told it would be September, which is possible if we have a few weeks of previews and pre-orders starting on the 3rd of August.
@ Crimson. To be honest I'm really not sure what happened in the case of the new Repulsor. Maybe the datasheet in the box was wrong, maybe this new one is wrong, maybe the various weapon upgrades will get cost reductions in the next codex, who knows?
It's very unlikely to be a balance update. It took GW over a year to address the Castellan for example, despite an outcry on a daily basis from all corners of the community. They are very slow to enact change like this if it's regarding pure balance adjustment.
The Newman wrote: A Captain and Lieutenant cannot be mathematically as useful as rowboat since rerolling failed to-wounds is inherently better than rerolling 1s and rerolling misses is better than rerolling 1s (or getting three CPs is better than spending CPs for Master of the Chapter).
Is that and being beastly in melee worth 200+ more points? Got me there. Throw in losing the Ravenguard trait and strats to get the full use out of him and I'd say no.
Yes, Gman being better is just common sense. As to the value of the increase you need to look at what he is buffing. If I recall, the rough numbers are capt+lt buffs by 35% and Gman by 70% (depends on weapon, but let’s go with this 2x for 2x cost). So the question is what is 35% of what you will have in his bubble? In a 2000 pt list, this is likely to be more than 200pts, so Gman is worth the cost difference. If you were to keep all 1600pts inside, he’s worth it for buffs alone and the beatstick portion totally free.
That’s why he breaks marine pricing, with him everything is essentially 35% better than for chapters without him at a fixed rate tax that is too high in small games and too low at medium and larger.
And back to the tank, well, the nerf gets me off the fence of maybe getting any. Just not worth the cost in points or dollars now.
You won't ever win games with your whole army within 6" of Bobby.
The perception problem starts here where everyone goes, "Oh look how much better bolters are with Bobby!" when that isn't the use case on the table.
Additionally he's a LOW, which means a whole other detachment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: I don't know a single player that doesn't care about the point costs of their models. Like literally no one I know is like - oh this model went up 30 points - I think I'll go buy it. New player old player? Don't matter. This nerf is a legit mistake that will only serve to cost them money and nerfs the weakest faction in the game short of GK. It's a joke. Someone needs to admit to their mistake and fix it. Now.
Why should a model get double tap for free? This is the paradox of the LRBT is it not?
The LRBT does fire twice for free though. GW even saw fit to drop tank commanders 25 points. There is a clear Astra militarum bias at GW.
Ishagu wrote: You are wrong, as I said. The actual people who literally test the rules on behalf of GW are saying that the auras don't impact the cost.
So why is all marine stuff overcosted then?
Because the Marine books, all of them, were the first books written for 8th edition. The release schedule does not always reflect the completion schedule of the books. This was confirmed by the FLG guys directly. Sometimes there is over a year between a unit being tested and it's release. The same applies to a codex.
It's a case of 1st codex syndrome. Let's just wait for the next book and see what changes it brings. It's literally around the corner.
I'm not holding out much hope based on the Chaos Marine 2.0 Codex. There were more or less no balance changes, outside of better Havoc's and arguably worse (once points were confirmed) Obliterators.
Choas space marines have some issues that need fixing. A lot of the same issues loyalist have - they are a much stronger army though because of good stratagems and psychic powers.
Ishagu wrote: Yeah people forget that by the time you bring Guilliman in you've typically spent near 600 points on three character and made your list very static on top.
I should mention that at the moment Astartes don't really have strats on the same level as some of the recent books. If the next codex fixes this issue we might see a requirement to bring in even more characters, and possibly reducing the value of Guilliman once abilities that affect movement or deployment become more common place. Will be interesting once it drops. I imagine we might hear something on Sat.
Not long ago I was told it would be September, which is possible if we have a few weeks of previews and pre-orders starting on the 3rd of August.
@ Crimson. To be honest I'm really not sure what happened in the case of the new Repulsor. Maybe the datasheet in the box was wrong, maybe this new one is wrong, maybe the various weapon upgrades will get cost reductions in the next codex, who knows?
It's very unlikely to be a balance update. It took GW over a year to address the Castellan for example, despite an outcry on a daily basis from all corners of the community. They are very slow to enact change like this if it's regarding pure balance adjustment.
Yeah I can't believe this was intentional. It was a mistake. They wont admit it's a mistake though and marine players will suffer.
It's actually likely that the new Executioner had a point increase because of the other chapters that just gained access:
Dark Angels stratagem - Weapons from the Dark Age.
This makes the tank very, very powerful, with 2D6 Str9 AP-4 3Damage shots.
Also the Malleus Doctrine and Furor Doctrine available to Deathwatch, it grant +1 to wound to a unit, making this tank incredibly damaging when targeting the right units. Wounding on a 4+ at worst with all those Gatling and heavy bolter shots against anything Troop, Heavy Support or LoW? The Laser wounding other tanks on a 2+ also as a result.
These are the likely culprits IF it is indeed a balance adjustment.
It's actually likely that the new Executioner had a point increase because of the other chapters that just gained access:
Dark Angels stratagem - Weapons from the Dark Age.
This makes the tank very, very powerful, with 2D6 Str9 AP-4 3Damage shots.
Also the Malleus Doctrine and Furor Doctrine available to Deathwatch, it grant +1 to wound to a unit, making this tank incredibly damaging when targeting the right units. Wounding on a 4+ at worst with all those Gatling and heavy bolter shots against anything Troop, Heavy Support or LoW? The Laser wounding other tanks on a 2+ also as a result.
These are the likely culprits if it is indeed a balance adjustment.
Gotta move dem goalposts somehow eh?
Following your logic, every Codex:SM unit available to Deathwatch should have their unit costs increased, and any plasma unit available to Dark Angels should also have their costs increased. Oh and every melee weapon should have its cost increased cause Blood Angels do the smashy smash. Lets also not forget that every Space Wolves available unit needs to be up-costed because they can get permanent cover and a -1 to hit.
It's so suspicious that it's the OLD cost. This screams cut and paste error. How many times have GW done this? Their editors probably don't play, and so they don't know when they are putting a BS value in a book or update.
Martel732 wrote: It's so suspicious that it's the OLD cost. This screams cut and paste error. How many times have GW done this? Their editors probably don't play, and so they don't know when they are putting a BS value in a book or update.
Yep. Didn't GW recently say that both tanks were ready at the same time but they decided to hold this one back?
It's actually likely that the new Executioner had a point increase because of the Dark Angels stratagem - Weapons from the Dark Age.
This makes the tank very, very powerful, with 2D6 Str9 AP-4 3Damage shots.
Also the Malleus Doctrine and Furor Doctrine available to Deathwatch, it grant +1 to wound to a unit, making this tank incredibly damaging when targeting the right units. Wounding on a 4+ at worst with all those Gatling and heavy bolter shots against anything Troop, Heavy Support or LoW? The Laser wounding other tanks on a 2+ also as a result.
These are the likely culprits if it is indeed a balance adjustment.
The DA codex is statistically the worse performing codex in the game right now. (https://www.40kstats.com/)
2d6 shots is very swingy and at 36" range, you will often have to move to get in range to use the gun... removing the ability to double shoot.
Only 1 unit in the entire army can benefit from the stratagem per turn. What's the point of giving out stratagems if you are just going to increase the cost of the units accordingly? If WotDA is overpowered increase it's cost. You say they are not costing units based on Guilliman's buffs but they are costing them based on DA and DW stratagems?
They have left Alaitoc Flyers, Disco lords, and Plaguebearers run around undercosted for the better part of a year but feel the need to nerf a unit based on the possibility that one of the worst codexes in the game might get a leg up for a few months?!?
And before you bring up the "mythical marine codex" coming soon(TM)... I have no guarantee that that codex will help Dark Angels, since they might not even be affected by that codex, and that codex is NOT coming out before NOVA for which I'm hoping to take my DA to but this nerf does apply to it.
Finally, get off your high horse, we don't have your amazing connections to nebulous beta-testers and inside information. We're stuck waiting for scraps of information and keep being disappointed by releases that do little to improve the deficiencies in our armies... This is the only balance update we have seen since chapter approved 2018, and it was a nerf. How can you act like it's not frustrating?
Ishagu wrote: If by high horse you mean I don't announce that the sky is falling every time I post something I think I'd rather stay on it lol
Nobody is saying the sky is falling. Folks are simply (and in this case justifiably) expressing confusion and dismay as to why GW make balancing decisions that make no sense.
They are the ones who want 100 USD for this thing. Pressure is on them. I guess they've got enough brainwashed fanbois that they don't have to care, though.
(And if the new marine codex truly fixes theses issues, I am more than happy to concede he was right. The recent reveals have not exactly filled me with confidence though.)
(And if the new marine codex truly fixes theses issues, I am more than happy to concede he was right. The recent reveals have not exactly filled me with confidence though.)
Define Fix.
Astartes as a mono faction have a 43% win rate, 44% as a Primary. If the win rate after the next book is 50% do you consider them fixed?
I currently have a win rate above 60% with my Astartes based on the last 5 GTs and Majors I attended and ran them. Do you think that being a faction many beginners use might have an impact on the figures?
I personally think the fix would be in having more dynamic ways to play, better chapter tactics, strats and psychic powers.
(And if the new marine codex truly fixes theses issues, I am more than happy to concede he was right. The recent reveals have not exactly filled me with confidence though.)
Define Fix.
Astartes as a mono faction have a 43% win rate, 44% as a Primary. If the win rate after the next book is 50% do you consider them fixed?
I currently have a win rate above 60% with my Astartes based on the last 5 GTs and Majors I attended and ran them. Do you think that being a faction many beginners use might have an impact on the figures?
I personally think the fix would be in having more dynamic ways to play, better chapter tactics, strats and psychic powers.
No I don't think that beginners are going to GT's. Space marines are just bad. The game literally revolves around invul saves / stratagem combos / spaming undercosted units. Space marines are bottom teir in all of these categories except for a relic levithan.
Ishagu wrote: Because the Marine books, all of them, were the first books written for 8th edition. The release schedule does not always reflect the completion schedule of the books. This was confirmed by the FLG guys directly. Sometimes there is over a year between a unit being tested and it's release. The same applies to a codex.
It's a case of 1st codex syndrome. Let's just wait for the next book and see what changes it brings. It's literally around the corner.
Last time I checked, DA were one of the last books released in 8th edition. Do they also caught this '1st codex syndrome'?
But ok, never mind the DA. What about Vanguard codex from this year and hilariously awful both rules and point costs it had? Lt who forgot his combat knife in chapter monastery? Literally the only SM captain in the game's entire existence who had his melee weapon privileges revoked? Badly overpriced troops with access to glorified bolters only, not even bolt rifles/carbines of other primaris, who would be mediocre even without considering the massive, nonsense D2 weapon proliferation making primaris pay premium in points over squatmarines for basically nothing in a lot of cases? Is this the '1st codex syndrome' too?
I don't know, I am not saying GW is stupid, but treatment of primaris (and kinda other SM, too) over last 2 years was so inept I frankly wouldn't be surprised if someone told me a GW writer hates the range and wants to sabotage them, from overpriced points and no options from one end, to making sure every other book in the game has cheap anti-primaris guns everywhere, even where it pees all over fluff and common sense (cough Kelly Sue of GSC banging together dark age of technology grade pistols out of scrap, in a cave cough)
Ishagu wrote: Because the Marine books, all of them, were the first books written for 8th edition. The release schedule does not always reflect the completion schedule of the books. This was confirmed by the FLG guys directly. Sometimes there is over a year between a unit being tested and it's release. The same applies to a codex.
It's a case of 1st codex syndrome. Let's just wait for the next book and see what changes it brings. It's literally around the corner.
Last time I checked, DA were one of the last books released in 8th edition. Do they also caught this '1st codex syndrome'?
But ok, never mind the DA. What about Vanguard codex from this year and hilariously awful both rules and point costs it had? Lt who forgot his combat knife in chapter monastery? Literally the only SM captain in the game's entire existence who had his melee weapon privileges revoked? Badly overpriced troops with access to glorified bolters only, not even bolt rifles/carbines of other primaris, who would be mediocre even without considering the massive, nonsense D2 weapon proliferation making primaris pay premium in points over squatmarines for basically nothing in a lot of cases? Is this the '1st codex syndrome' too?
I don't know, I am not saying GW is stupid, but treatment of primaris (and kinda other SM, too) over last 2 years was so inept I frankly wouldn't be surprised if someone told me a GW writer hates the range and wants to sabotage them, from overpriced points and no options from one end, to making sure every other book in the game has cheap anti-primaris guns everywhere, even where it pees all over fluff and common sense (cough Kelly Sue of GSC banging together dark age of technology grade pistols out of scrap, in a cave cough)
Yes, the DA codex was probably from roughly the same design time as the others. GW stagger the Astartes books because they can't just have a full year of Marine releases.
Let's wait to see how the new Astartes measure up.
But ok, never mind the DA. What about Vanguard codex from this year and hilariously awful both rules and point costs it had? Lt who forgot his combat knife in chapter monastery? Literally the only SM captain in the game's entire existence who had his melee weapon privileges revoked? Badly overpriced troops with access to glorified bolters only, not even bolt rifles/carbines of other primaris, who would be mediocre even without considering the massive, nonsense D2 weapon proliferation making primaris pay premium in points over squatmarines for basically nothing in a lot of cases? Is this the '1st codex syndrome' too?
Yep. This is the stuff that worries me. Sure, I get some old units in the first codex being bad. But new stuff made specifically for this edition being useless is just disheartening. I mean I have whined about the new Reiver Lt. a lot, but to me it really was the thing that made me pretty much lose the faith in them. Like who in their right mind thinks that a melee focused character without a melee weapon is acceptable? Utterly mind-boggling. I really like the Primaris look, and I want to be exited about the new models, but them being often so terrible in game is starting to suck the fun out of it. I mean I'm not a power gamer, I don't need them to be meta-shatteringly amazing, I'd settle for 'adequate.' But apparently having a simple power sword on a melee character is too much to ask for.
Ishagu wrote: Because the Marine books, all of them, were the first books written for 8th edition. The release schedule does not always reflect the completion schedule of the books. This was confirmed by the FLG guys directly. Sometimes there is over a year between a unit being tested and it's release. The same applies to a codex.
It's a case of 1st codex syndrome. Let's just wait for the next book and see what changes it brings. It's literally around the corner.
Last time I checked, DA were one of the last books released in 8th edition. Do they also caught this '1st codex syndrome'?
But ok, never mind the DA. What about Vanguard codex from this year and hilariously awful both rules and point costs it had? Lt who forgot his combat knife in chapter monastery? Literally the only SM captain in the game's entire existence who had his melee weapon privileges revoked? Badly overpriced troops with access to glorified bolters only, not even bolt rifles/carbines of other primaris, who would be mediocre even without considering the massive, nonsense D2 weapon proliferation making primaris pay premium in points over squatmarines for basically nothing in a lot of cases? Is this the '1st codex syndrome' too?
I don't know, I am not saying GW is stupid, but treatment of primaris (and kinda other SM, too) over last 2 years was so inept I frankly wouldn't be surprised if someone told me a GW writer hates the range and wants to sabotage them, from overpriced points and no options from one end, to making sure every other book in the game has cheap anti-primaris guns everywhere, even where it pees all over fluff and common sense (cough Kelly Sue of GSC banging together dark age of technology grade pistols out of scrap, in a cave cough)
There are two phases to GW units. The "early release that is not tied to a codex phase" and the "codex phase". It's pretty clear that people shat all over the chaos side of Shadowspear - and then the codex came out. Obliterators remain a hot button issue depending on how you view their use in games, but despite that CSM got some really, really great tools.
Add in to this the kits we get are often not equipped with all the weapons the full kit may grant (releases like the Executioner aside in that regard).
Irbis wrote: Last time I checked, DA were one of the last books released in 8th edition. Do they also caught this '1st codex syndrome'?
Point of order - assuming you're using DA to refer to Dark Angels, and that Wikipedia is accurate, you're way off the mark with DA being "one of the last books released".
Dark Angels is listed as a December 2017 release, alongside Blood Angels, with the two books being the 8th and 9th released for 8th edition - ahead of the likes of necrons, Dark Eldar and Orks.
Reemule wrote: The Newman, he is speaking on a point per point basis. A Cap and LT provide roughly 1/2 as much use, but cost far less than 1/2 of Gman's points.
That might have been what he meant, but it's definitely not what he said. He said they were just as good and left more points for other stuff, not that they're as good for the points and 200 points of other stuff balances it out overall.
And to be fair I didn't even disagree about whether g-man was worth the points over the Cap'n / Leiutenant combo.
You still have to get 2 HQs with Gman if you want a batallion and the hq's really suck. It is more tax.
I would point out that GMan brings three CPs just standing there and most of the other formations will give you at least one CP to cover the cost of the Auxillary Superheavy detachment so you don't need to worry as much about taking a Battalion. Techmarines are ... not exactly dirt cheap, but still pretty cheap and they do something GMan doesn't do so you're not wasting points on something redundant and taking a Spearhead, Vanguard, or Outrider means not paying the troop tax either.
I'd actually come out ahead taking Gman and a spearhead/vanguard/outrider since I almost always pay the 3 CP for Master of the Chapter because we always use the CoD rules and I'm usually looking at a -2 to-hit.
Reemule wrote: The Newman, he is speaking on a point per point basis. A Cap and LT provide roughly 1/2 as much use, but cost far less than 1/2 of Gman's points.
That might have been what he meant, but it's definitely not what he said. He said they were just as good and left more points for other stuff, not that they're as good for the points and 200 points of other stuff balances it out overall.
And to be fair I didn't even disagree about whether g-man was worth the points over the Cap'n / Leiutenant combo.
You still have to get 2 HQs with Gman if you want a batallion and the hq's really suck. It is more tax.
I would point out that GMan brings three CPs just standing there and most of the other formations will give you at least one CP to cover the cost of the Auxillary Superheavy detachment so you don't need to worry as much about taking a Battalion. Techmarines are ... not exactly dirt cheap, but still pretty cheap and they do something GMan doesn't do so you're not wasting points on something redundant and taking a Spearhead, Vanguard, or Outrider means not paying the troop tax either.
I'd actually come out ahead taking Gman and a spearhead/vanguard/outrider since I almost always pay the 3 CP for Master of the Chapter because we always use the CoD rules and I'm usually looking at a -2 to-hit.
I always take Tiggy and Telion Cause I need the CP to spam intercessor vetreens. It is true a full mech army doesn't even need CP Thats is the build that does best competitively.
Sir Fred wrote: “Last time I checked, DA were one of the last books released in 8th edition. Do they also caught this '1st codex syndrome'?"
Lol this just made my day!
To be fair - it's more of a later middle codex. It is not 1st codex syndrome. While Da might have the lowest winrate (they are all pretty low for SM chapters) IMO they have the best marine codex. They have good psychic powers / some actually usable stratagems / and azreal buff is even better than Gman buff. a 4++ bubble is really good.
Sir Fred wrote: “Last time I checked, DA were one of the last books released in 8th edition. Do they also caught this '1st codex syndrome'?"
Lol this just made my day!
To be fair - it's more of a later middle codex. It is not 1st codex syndrome. While Da might have the lowest winrate (they are all pretty low for SM chapters) IMO they have the best marine codex. They have good psychic powers / some actually usable stratagems / and azreal buff is even better than Gman buff. a 4++ bubble is really good.
I certainly don't enjoy dumping good-AP weapons into an Azrael bubble gunline surrounded by allied GEQ. But Gman's aura is usually well above double firepower, and a 4++ is at best a 50% durability increase (usually much less, especially in Marine dexes). I'm not saying DA are necessarily worse (in this context) - but I'm having a hard time believing Azrael's aura (while excellent) gets anywhere close to Gman's in value.
Sir Fred wrote: “Last time I checked, DA were one of the last books released in 8th edition. Do they also caught this '1st codex syndrome'?"
Lol this just made my day!
To be fair - it's more of a later middle codex. It is not 1st codex syndrome. While Da might have the lowest winrate (they are all pretty low for SM chapters) IMO they have the best marine codex. They have good psychic powers / some actually usable stratagems / and azreal buff is even better than Gman buff. a 4++ bubble is really good.
I certainly don't enjoy dumping good-AP weapons into an Azrael bubble gunline surrounded by allied GEQ. But Gman's aura is usually well above double firepower, and a 4++ is at best a 50% durability increase (usually much less, especially in Marine dexes). I'm not saying DA are necessarily worse (in this context) - but I'm having a hard time believing Azrael's aura (while excellent) gets anywhere close to Gman's in value.
But doesn't he also have the reroll all hits as a chapter master anyway, si it's really a trade off between 4++ in a book that heavily rewards plasma, vrs a reroll wounds bubble?
Not to mention the additional benifit of not being a LoW.
Azrael also gives a free CP and has a Warlord that's strictly better than the Ultramarines one. He's actually got quite a bit going for him and is only held back by Marine style writing in the rest of the army.
Sir Fred wrote: “Last time I checked, DA were one of the last books released in 8th edition. Do they also caught this '1st codex syndrome'?"
Lol this just made my day!
To be fair - it's more of a later middle codex. It is not 1st codex syndrome. While Da might have the lowest winrate (they are all pretty low for SM chapters) IMO they have the best marine codex. They have good psychic powers / some actually usable stratagems / and azreal buff is even better than Gman buff. a 4++ bubble is really good.
The DA codex might look good on paper but it is the worst-performing codex in the game in ITC rulesets, which is the only place we have any actual statistics from. If there is some way to actually use DA efficiently, I would love if someone can show me a list.
I've tried running Azrael Hellblaster castles, Ravenwing heavy fast lists, and Deathwing/Ravenwing/Greenwing balanced lists. Every time I've found the DA lack survivability and killing power. Even when I win It feels like I'm playing with a points handicap.
Which is why I'm frustrated the Executioner got a points increase at the same time it became possible to add it to a DA list.
Edit: If DA had access to centurion devastators I would rate Azreal much higher... right now he just does not have good targets for his 4++ and reroll hits bubble.
Dark Angels are lacking because of being written like Marines and pretending they have units that need to be balanced differently when in fact they don't.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Dark Angels are lacking because of being written like Marines and pretending they have units that need to be balanced differently when in fact they don't.
Can you elaborate? What units are being balanced differently? I feel like you have a point but I'm not quite grasping it.
Sir Fred wrote: “Last time I checked, DA were one of the last books released in 8th edition. Do they also caught this '1st codex syndrome'?"
Lol this just made my day!
To be fair - it's more of a later middle codex. It is not 1st codex syndrome. While Da might have the lowest winrate (they are all pretty low for SM chapters) IMO they have the best marine codex. They have good psychic powers / some actually usable stratagems / and azreal buff is even better than Gman buff. a 4++ bubble is really good.
The DA codex might look good on paper but it is the worst-performing codex in the game in ITC rulesets, which is the only place we have any actual statistics from. If there is some way to actually use DA efficiently, I would love if someone can show me a list.
I've tried running Azrael Hellblaster castles, Ravenwing heavy fast lists, and Deathwing/Ravenwing/Greenwing balanced lists. Every time I've found the DA lack survivability and killing power. Even when I win It feels like I'm playing with a points handicap.
Which is why I'm frustrated the Executioner got a points increase at the same time it became possible to add it to a DA list.
Edit: If DA had access to centurion devastators I would rate Azreal much higher... right now he just does not have good targets for his 4++ and reroll hits bubble.
Find it hard to believe hell blasters doesn't work. They are one of the highest damage output units in the game with their weakness being defense. A 4++ save is an amazing defensive stat. You have to go all in on infantry which isn't much fun but it is IMO the best you can do with marines. Gman is 400 points and the things hes buffing are made of glass. If you build your army right with just high str weapons being your damage dealers. The only advnatage gman gives over azreal is reroll 2's to wound. You really think that is worth 400 points?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Dark Angels are lacking because of being written like Marines and pretending they have units that need to be balanced differently when in fact they don't.
Can you elaborate? What units are being balanced differently? I feel like you have a point but I'm not quite grasping it.
Hes just responding to an earlier claim that the executioner was nerfed because of DA. It wasn't but that is what he is responding to.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Dark Angels are lacking because of being written like Marines and pretending they have units that need to be balanced differently when in fact they don't.
Can you elaborate? What units are being balanced differently? I feel like you have a point but I'm not quite grasping it.
Basically the codex already shares a bunch of units with the main Marine codex in all but name. They end up being priced differently because of this (Deathwing being the worst example), and therefore the more "Dark Angels" units don't perform up to par. Meanwhile, Greenwing is written like the main Marine codex, where all the units suffer not being under Roboute's aura.
Find it hard to believe hell blasters doesn't work. They are one of the highest damage output units in the game with their weakness being defense.
In a meta of rampant invulns and multiple to hit debuffs, utilizing plasma as your primary armament is a death sentence.
I don't disagree that -1 to hits are really aggravating with plasma. It should really only cause 1 mortal wound on an unmodified roll of a 1. I betcha if they made that rule marines in general would be doing a lot better.
Find it hard to believe hell blasters doesn't work. They are one of the highest damage output units in the game with their weakness being defense.
In a meta of rampant invulns and multiple to hit debuffs, utilizing plasma as your primary armament is a death sentence.
I don't disagree that -1 to hits are really aggravating with plasma. It should really only cause 1 mortal wound on an unmodified roll of a 1. I betcha if they made that rule marines in general would be doing a lot better.
Plasma overheat doing 1 mortal would also resolve the stupidity of tanks with a plasma cannons no one can OC and FW getting around it by creating 10 different special guns whose sole special rule is overheating for 1 mortal.
Hellblasters don’t compare very well damage wise unless you are assuming both rapid fire and overcharge, if you can do that, sure they are excellent. But that seems more like relying on your opponent messing up than the unit being generally good.
Find it hard to believe hell blasters doesn't work. They are one of the highest damage output units in the game with their weakness being defense.
In a meta of rampant invulns and multiple to hit debuffs, utilizing plasma as your primary armament is a death sentence.
I don't disagree that -1 to hits are really aggravating with plasma. It should really only cause 1 mortal wound on an unmodified roll of a 1. I betcha if they made that rule marines in general would be doing a lot better.
bort wrote: Plasma overheat doing 1 mortal would also resolve the stupidity of tanks with a plasma cannons no one can OC and FW getting around it by creating 10 different special guns whose sole special rule is overheating for 1 mortal.
Hellblasters don’t compare very well damage wise unless you are assuming both rapid fire and overcharge, if you can do that, sure they are excellent. But that seems more like relying on your opponent messing up than the unit being generally good.
The idea is the 4++ helps you get into rapid fire range.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Doesnt help vs -1 and -2 ap dam 2. Butcher cannons.
You are getting a better save than he is. He doesn't have any -1 to hits. Do DA have the primaris ancient?
Martel732 wrote: It is trivial to lay waste to hellblasters with suppressors, for example.
4++ works on iks, not t4 as much.
No argument here. Except helblasters are winning this matchup easily against suppressors. Unless they are out of range. Supressors in general are a better unit that hellblasters. If you could include more than 9 of them in an army. They would be great to spam around azreal to I think.
Except helblasters are winning this matchup easily against suppressors.
Not even close. They are points identical, but one has two times the movement, the capacity to give themselves a -1 to be hit while only sacrificing two shots, the capacity to fly, innately deep strike, can shut down Overwatch, full damage out to maximum range, a longer range, and doesnt kill itself to fire its weapon.
Literally the only thing that Hellblasters have going for them is the capacity to be taken in larger pods.
Find it hard to believe hell blasters doesn't work. They are one of the highest damage output units in the game with their weakness being defense.
In a meta of rampant invulns and multiple to hit debuffs, utilizing plasma as your primary armament is a death sentence.
I don't disagree that -1 to hits are really aggravating with plasma. It should really only cause 1 mortal wound on an unmodified roll of a 1. I betcha if they made that rule marines in general would be doing a lot better.
Find it hard to believe hell blasters doesn't work. They are one of the highest damage output units in the game with their weakness being defense.
In a meta of rampant invulns and multiple to hit debuffs, utilizing plasma as your primary armament is a death sentence.
I don't disagree that -1 to hits are really aggravating with plasma. It should really only cause 1 mortal wound on an unmodified roll of a 1. I betcha if they made that rule marines in general would be doing a lot better.
Find it hard to believe hell blasters doesn't work. They are one of the highest damage output units in the game with their weakness being defense.
In a meta of rampant invulns and multiple to hit debuffs, utilizing plasma as your primary armament is a death sentence.
This is absolutely my experience. I think hellblasters are one of the worst marine units actually.
It's true. I don't use them. It's mostly because they die easy in my opponents shooting phase though. At least DA can mitigate that with a 4++ save.
They don't die any easier than the rest of the Primaris line outside of Aggressors and Inceptors, why would them being fragile be a consideration?
I don't use them because a -1 to hit would be a nice chance of pace, I'm usually looking at -2 or -3.
That is gross dude. Why do you play marines against eldar? It's like auto lose.
Per point they are very fragile compared to intercessors.
I play Marines because it's what I own. Usually they're suffering the same -2 once the Reapers are dead, they don't like it either.
Sure Hellblasters are fragile per point compared to Intercessors, the same can be said of Devs and Tacs. Do you not play Devs?
No - I typically don't. Out of trial and error the only units that make the cut for me regularly are.
Intercessors
Primaris ancient
Relic levithan
Redemptor dread
Assorted HQ's based (usually special characters)
Eliminators
Venerable dreads with lascannons and rockets/auto cannons (dont have any contemptor mortis)
In larger games Plasma interceptors
Martel732 wrote: Suppressors are money. They have saved me so many times.
I like them but hard to fit into my lists. Can't drop eliminators for them or I auto lose to tau. Relic levi fills their roll just fine and does a lot more damage for his cost while also not being made of glass.
Lemondish wrote: I wouldn't say it's guaranteed that you need to rely on your opponent messing up unless you're also assuming that you're not very good.
I’m not super good, but come on, if plasma inceptors are too easily screened out of 18” to be considered viable, that same opponent can easily keep prime targets 21” away from the hellblasters already on the table. Or just kill them.
bort wrote: Plasma overheat doing 1 mortal would also resolve the stupidity of tanks with a plasma cannons no one can OC and FW getting around it by creating 10 different special guns whose sole special rule is overheating for 1 mortal.
You may want to check the rules, because I don't think there exists any plasma weapon that will kill a tank from OC.
The only kind of devs I play are the SW ones because they can deepstrike (outflank), take a storm shield/terminator, have built in re-roll 1's to hit, a strat to ignore all negative mods to hit and can re-roll all failed wounds for 1 cp.
Still costs 3 cp, come with a troop tax that I don't want to pay and die the turn after they land in any game that's close. Good news is they reliably delete their points +, bad news is they are expensive, slow, fragile, can't come in until t2 and take a lot of CP to work.
Marines having negs to hit after they move means you either start your devs in LOS (they die if you don't go first) or you try to move them from out of LOS (praying your enemy doesn't have non-LOS weapons, planes/flying tanks[ffs] that will get the angle, tall and mobile knights that can get LOS to pretty much everything on a board that isn't enclosed or movement shenanigans like da jump or warptime) and suffer the neg to hit and then they die the next turn.
Not every matchup, but enough of the in meta ones that once you win your first game you are looking at 50/50 chance of seeing something that will kill marines outside of transports (and the transports they are in) at a depressingly fast rate. The only way I can keep things alive is to deep strike them (DW/SW/BA) or put them in magic boxes (fully enclosed terrain and that falls apart against wyverns ignoring cover, firing twice getting ap -1 on 6s).
Notice that most of the good performing marine lists have as few marine bodies in them as possible. Marines die too fast, are too slow, have poor delivery options, carry over-costed weapons and when they get something that isn't complete garbage GW nerfs it faster than you can paint it.
Once you get past the mid-tables at a tournament you realize just how bad our best is compared to other factions (going 3-0 day one makes for a "fun" day two in my experience...)
Back on topic, it looks like it was an intentional nerf (hasn't be walked back yet). It seems like it could be related to marine vehicles getting CT but that seems to be more wishful thinking than anything else. It definitely wasn't outside of the existing power band for existing vehicles (tank commanders, knights, eldar flyers, custodes, ravagers, doomsday arks, tau stuff, chaos FW dreads) so I'm not sure why it was nerfed but I doubt GW is going to come out and tell us.
bort wrote: Plasma overheat doing 1 mortal would also resolve the stupidity of tanks with a plasma cannons no one can OC and FW getting around it by creating 10 different special guns whose sole special rule is overheating for 1 mortal.
You may want to check the rules, because I don't think there exists any plasma weapon that will kill a tank from OC.
Off the top of my head. Rhinos do. Primaris rhino. Landraider excelsior. Razorback with lasplas (I think this is still index allowed).
Lemondish wrote: I wouldn't say it's guaranteed that you need to rely on your opponent messing up unless you're also assuming that you're not very good.
I’m not super good, but come on, if plasma inceptors are too easily screened out of 18” to be considered viable, that same opponent can easily keep prime targets 21” away from the hellblasters already on the table. Or just kill them.
You can't really screen an 18" shooting unit on turn 2. That is not managable. That is why I use plasma interceptors over hell blasters. I don't have the option for 4++ hellbaslters though. I would take that option if it were available.
There’s also 2(?) AM tanks that can take plasma, though 1 again has its own special rule to not insta die. And Chaos did for the exploit of killing their own Rhinos to charge out of until that loophole was FAQed shut.
bort wrote: There’s also 2(?) AM tanks that can take plasma, though 1 again has its own special rule to not insta die. And Chaos did for the exploit of killing their own Rhinos to charge out of until that loophole was FAQed shut.
Yeah pretty funny huh? A POS lemonruss has plasma vents but the brand new Repulsor executioner doesn't? Whilst being twice the size and much more advanced. Stuff like this I just can't reconcile while considering the rules team is not just blatantly not out to make marines suck compared to Astra.
bort wrote: There’s also 2(?) AM tanks that can take plasma, though 1 again has its own special rule to not insta die. And Chaos did for the exploit of killing their own Rhinos to charge out of until that loophole was FAQed shut.
Yeah pretty funny huh? A POS lemonruss has plasma vents but the brand new Repulsor executioner doesn't? Whilst being twice the size and much more advanced. Stuff like this I just can't reconcile while considering the rules team is not just blatantly not out to make marines suck compared to Astra.
The macro plasma only does 1 MW on a 1. So I think it's on par with tanks designed centuries ago
bort wrote: There’s also 2(?) AM tanks that can take plasma, though 1 again has its own special rule to not insta die. And Chaos did for the exploit of killing their own Rhinos to charge out of until that loophole was FAQed shut.
Yeah pretty funny huh? A POS lemonruss has plasma vents but the brand new Repulsor executioner doesn't? Whilst being twice the size and much more advanced. Stuff like this I just can't reconcile while considering the rules team is not just blatantly not out to make marines suck compared to Astra.
The macro plasma only does 1 MW on a 1. So I think it's on par with tanks designed centuries ago
Rules wise no - cause a lemon commander can reroll it's own 1's. Executioner can't.
bort wrote: There’s also 2(?) AM tanks that can take plasma, though 1 again has its own special rule to not insta die. And Chaos did for the exploit of killing their own Rhinos to charge out of until that loophole was FAQed shut.
Yeah pretty funny huh? A POS lemonruss has plasma vents but the brand new Repulsor executioner doesn't? Whilst being twice the size and much more advanced. Stuff like this I just can't reconcile while considering the rules team is not just blatantly not out to make marines suck compared to Astra.
The macro plasma only does 1 MW on a 1. So I think it's on par with tanks designed centuries ago
Rules wise no - cause a lemon commander can reroll it's own 1's. Executioner can't.
Martel732 wrote: Devs have more range and dont kill themselves. Hellblasters are pure ass the way 8th ed is played.
Plasma is unfortunately the best weapon to give dev squads too. 25 point LC? 22 point rocket or MM at 22? 28 point gravcannon? or 16 point plasma cannon? You have only one choice here.
bort wrote: There’s also 2(?) AM tanks that can take plasma, though 1 again has its own special rule to not insta die. And Chaos did for the exploit of killing their own Rhinos to charge out of until that loophole was FAQed shut.
Yeah pretty funny huh? A POS lemonruss has plasma vents but the brand new Repulsor executioner doesn't? Whilst being twice the size and much more advanced. Stuff like this I just can't reconcile while considering the rules team is not just blatantly not out to make marines suck compared to Astra.
The macro plasma only does 1 MW on a 1. So I think it's on par with tanks designed centuries ago
Rules wise no - cause a lemon commander can reroll it's own 1's. Executioner can't.
Guess we gotta wait for Primaris Sgt chronus!
Yeah I bet you forgot he existed lol
Nah I put him in a stalker all the time - the ultimate eldar killer. Hits on 2's even vs aloitoc spears and still hits ground on 3+. I can't wait for priamris chronus! 400 point repulsor executioner is my kind of bag
I'm not gonna lie...I've never thought about him in a Stalker like that. That's not a bad setup to be honest. I've done the Auto-Las Pred before and wasn't terribly happy and the Whirlwind, ending up even less happy.
A Stalker is cheap and fulfills a purpose. I'm gonna have to think on that.
fraser1191 wrote: Wow, yeah I never thought of chronus in a stalker either. Well I guess I'll chew up my DE friend next game
eat venoms for breakfast.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I'm not gonna lie...I've never thought about him in a Stalker like that. That's not a bad setup to be honest. I've done the Auto-Las Pred before and wasn't terribly happy and the Whirlwind, ending up even less happy.
A Stalker is cheap and fulfills a purpose. I'm gonna have to think on that.
Hes okay in a pred. But costs a lot. Like you said stalkers are cheap. It's much tougher and he does really good against fly. Like most things he is too expensive but it does fill an hq requirement for cheap.
fraser1191 wrote: Wow, yeah I never thought of chronus in a stalker either. Well I guess I'll chew up my DE friend next game
eat venoms for breakfast.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I'm not gonna lie...I've never thought about him in a Stalker like that. That's not a bad setup to be honest. I've done the Auto-Las Pred before and wasn't terribly happy and the Whirlwind, ending up even less happy.
A Stalker is cheap and fulfills a purpose. I'm gonna have to think on that.
Hes okay in a pred. But costs a lot. Like you said stalkers are cheap. It's much tougher and he does really good against fly. Like most things he is too expensive but it does fill an hq requirement for cheap.
Being able to get a cheap Spearhead of him + 3 TFCs sounds tasty to me. Wouldn't know how to fit it in though.
bort wrote: There’s also 2(?) AM tanks that can take plasma, though 1 again has its own special rule to not insta die. And Chaos did for the exploit of killing their own Rhinos to charge out of until that loophole was FAQed shut.
Yeah pretty funny huh? A POS lemonruss has plasma vents but the brand new Repulsor executioner doesn't? Whilst being twice the size and much more advanced. Stuff like this I just can't reconcile while considering the rules team is not just blatantly not out to make marines suck compared to Astra.
The macro plasma only does 1 MW on a 1. So I think it's on par with tanks designed centuries ago
Rules wise no - cause a lemon commander can reroll it's own 1's. Executioner can't.
But that's not a feature of the tank - that's a feature of the character inside the tank. No different to having the appropriate re-roll aura covering the Repulsor.
After all, the same tank being played as a non-commander version suffers the same* ill effects as the Repulsor does.
* - I don't have either datasheet to hand, but I'm assuming MW on a 1, here.
bullyboy wrote: One of the biggest problems is Guilleman. He skews so much of marine stuff that it's pointed in such a way to be mostly useless in other chapters. I just don't think GW can see this.
Other than the rest of the Marine line not being priced based on what Gman does to Ultramarines, this is a great point.
bullyboy wrote: One of the biggest problems is Guilleman. He skews so much of marine stuff that it's pointed in such a way to be mostly useless in other chapters. I just don't think GW can see this.
More or less I feel this is a myth. Gman has his own cost and isn't influencing anything in terms of cost on other models - those models are just overcosted on their own merits because GW sucks. Just look at this nerf to the executioner. It was obviously overcosted already. Indisputably so. If he is affecting other units that is a poor balancing decision realistically he is overcosted at 400 points and is more than covering the cost of his aura at the 2000 points level. At some point at like 3000 points plus he is extremely OP but the game is really meant to be played at 2000. At 2000 hes 1/5 of your army. However - fine with me. Redesign his rules and reduce the cost of all marine units. I'm more than happy to run Calgar and a lt if it didn't suck so hard. Basically the only way I can compete is to reroll wounds on buckets of dice right now. My army dies so fast I have to keep up the lethality.
I already prefer to run Calgar and a LT. They can ride in transports. They can be healed by Apothecaries. They're not 12 feet tall.
Also the wound reroll is the stronger reroll of the two. That's the real benefit to Guilliman. He allows failed wound not 1 to wound rerolls. They should have split the rerolls up better. Chapter Master All failed Hits, Chaplain, All Failed Wounds. Captain, 1's to hit, Lieutenant 1''s to wound.
Sagittarii Orientalis wrote: Well, there goes the brief moments of joy I felt when using two executioners at 2K games.
Even though target saturation is key to using high value unit, the points increase makes bringing even a single executioner a daunting challenge.
Let alone using two or more in the 2K list.
I might be biased, but it seems GW is strangely cautious about giving Space Marines anything that isn't complete garbage.
Fixed that for you.
Actually what probably happened is all the Primaris-only players ran out to buy two of the things because Primaris have [censored] for anti-armor and GW went "woah; look at those sales numbers, we must have under-priced this thing".
They made a flying abrams tank...how are you not expecting to sell tons of these? I bought 2 on release thinking it was overcosted. Don't care. Flying abrams is cool.
It is literally a Repulsor with 50% more turret. It does look better, but not that much better that everyone calling it a Repulsive went out and bought two.
I did but I am the only one at my shop that has any.
I bought two. And I have two of the first one. But then I usually run two of the transport tanks (i.e. Land Raiders) if I run any at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Reemule wrote: I've not bought yet. Wanted to see what other goodies come out in the new marine dex.
Chances are I'll go from buying 2, to buying a regular repulsor and buying a third party turret to swap in and out.
Magnetize the top plate - meaning don't glue on the top plate yet.
A captain and lieutenant have been mathematically proven to be just as useful as Gman, but with more points for other crap.
Check your math. A Captain and a Lieutenant only allow rerolls on 1's. Gman rerolls all failed. Which - in addition to being more often - also works after Modifiers. Or doesn't. Maybe they changed it again. It's getting hard to keep up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ishagu wrote: I actually play the game at the highest level regularly with multiple factions). More people need to step back and consider the hobby this way.
What makes you think this tournament level of yours is the highest? Its a different level, I'll give you that. I don't think it's higher or lower, though. The people who work a friendly game army into something effective against another friendly game level army are potentially just as skilled as the tournament player who whips out a calculator to mathhammer their way into a min/max list.
Reemule wrote: The Newman, he is speaking on a point per point basis. A Cap and LT provide roughly 1/2 as much use, but cost far less than 1/2 of Gman's points.
That might have been what he meant, but it's definitely not what he said. He said they were just as good and left more points for other stuff, not that they're as good for the points and 200 points of other stuff balances it out overall.
And to be fair I didn't even disagree about whether g-man was worth the points over the Cap'n / Leiutenant combo.
You still have to get 2 HQs with Gman if you want a batallion and the hq's really suck. It is more tax.
Chronus and Telion are HQ's. And two of the cheapest (assuming you were already going to get some tanks Chronus could ride around in.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ishagu wrote: Yeah people forget that by the time you bring Guilliman in you've typically spent near 600 points on three character and made your list very static on top.
I should mention that at the moment Astartes don't really have strats on the same level as some of the recent books.
They don't have Strats on the same level in the SAME book. Astartes already struggle to generate CP, and have to spend one for the detachment, one per Intercessor squad they want to make Veteran, and then a CP to use the stratagem that requires a Veteran Intercessor. Guard, already swimming in CP, spend 1 to get the detachment, and 2 to use the stratagem. I'd take Emperor's Wrath Artillery Company over Indomitus Crusaders every day of the week, and at least twice on 2,000 Point Sunday.
Find it hard to believe hell blasters doesn't work. They are one of the highest damage output units in the game with their weakness being defense. A 4++ save is an amazing defensive stat. You have to go all in on infantry which isn't much fun but it is IMO the best you can do with marines. Gman is 400 points and the things hes buffing are made of glass. If you build your army right with just high str weapons being your damage dealers. The only advnatage gman gives over azreal is reroll 2's to wound. You really think that is worth 400 points?
Gman rerolls all failed wounds, not just 2's - sometimes not even 2's so that value scales - even more so depending on which side of the reroll before/after modifiers GW just flipped to. (Azrael doesn't reroll any wounds?) And the price difference between them isn't 400 points, adding a basic LT - it's close to 120 or so. Azrael's bubble only works on DA infantry and DA bikers, while GMan's is everything Ultramarine.
So Azrael can't even bubble the Repulsors anyway. Not sure why he was brought up. He did get a bit of a boost with the squatting of Templates and the boost to combi'weapons though. The 1 CP when Calgar gives 2 is a bit of a screw job. Calgar Grimnar, and Azrael were supposed to be equally strategic, while Dante was supposed to be less strategic (for some reason) but a better Leader which is why Strategy Rating 6 Ld 10 Calgar and Strategy Rating 6 Ld 10 Azrael or Grimnar, I forget by now, gave Strategy Rating 5 Ld 5 Dante overall command of the War for Armageddon.
GMan bonus is not when firing at something with a lower T value, it's when firing at something that has an equal or greater T value. It's like Doom on every enemy target being fired upon within his aura. There is no way people can seriously talk about how powerful Doom is, and then simply dismiss the effects of Gman or state that a Capt/Lt combo is better. In addition, with Doom, the Farseer has to get within 24" of the target, not so with the Gman bubble, screening will not prevent that.
Lemondish wrote: I wouldn't say it's guaranteed that you need to rely on your opponent messing up unless you're also assuming that you're not very good.
I’m not super good, but come on, if plasma inceptors are too easily screened out of 18” to be considered viable, that same opponent can easily keep prime targets 21” away from the hellblasters already on the table. Or just kill them.
The first part of your conclusion statement isn't true, so I can't see why the second part wouldn't also be incorrect.
bullyboy wrote: GMan bonus is not when firing at something with a lower T value, it's when firing at something that has an equal or greater T value. It's like Doom on every enemy target being fired upon within his aura. There is no way people can seriously talk about how powerful Doom is, and then simply dismiss the effects of Gman or state that a Capt/Lt combo is better. In addition, with Doom, the Farseer has to get within 24" of the target, not so with the Gman bubble, screening will not prevent that.
I think you're not talking to me - but the other people? But I can see where Cap/Lt is "better" than G-Man. For my preferences Calgar/LT is "better" I know Grandpappy Smurf's bubble is more potent, but with other considerations I find PapaSmurt/LT to be preferable - transports, medics, cost.
Lemondish wrote: I wouldn't say it's guaranteed that you need to rely on your opponent messing up unless you're also assuming that you're not very good.
I’m not super good, but come on, if plasma inceptors are too easily screened out of 18” to be considered viable, that same opponent can easily keep prime targets 21” away from the hellblasters already on the table. Or just kill them.
The first part of your conclusion statement isn't true, so I can't see why the second part wouldn't also be incorrect.
Even IF the first part is true, 3 inches in Diameter adds a ton of area to deny. πR² says an 18 inch circle is 254.34 square inches in area. a 21 inch circle is 346.185 square inches in area. A 3 man Inceptor Squad on 40mm bases (R=.7874) is about 6 square inches by the math, probably closer to 8-10 on the reality. Adding 3 inches to the radius of your needed Area Denial added about 10x as much area as what you're trying to deny takes up.
I’m not clear why that is suddenly controversial. You don’t see many lists with plasma inceptors or other jump plasma do you? Most opponents keep their knight/prime target screened if you have a reserve bomb. The marine thread alone has several posts advising against using them for this very reason. Any unit anywhere 9”-18” away from the knight keeps a reserve unit from dropping within 18” range. Between say a table edge in back and the rest of the army in front, lots of armies can make that denial area for a few turns.
To get back to hellblasters, this should also be clear here. You can see where the hellblaster unit is deployed (or where it could be deployed). You know their double tap threat range is 21”. Deployment zones are 18”+ apart, so even if those hellblasters are right on the line you only need to deploy 3” back and you’re out of that range for a turn you can use to kill them. Or, if they’re deployed out of sight, then still, you know where they are and can choose yourself whether to enter that threat range or not.
I’m not suggesting here that these units will have nothing to shoot or can’t single shot something. But you don’t take expensive plasma inceptors to shoot a screen and hellblasters firing single shots are outclassed and often outranged by several other AT options.
bullyboy wrote: GMan bonus is not when firing at something with a lower T value, it's when firing at something that has an equal or greater T value. It's like Doom on every enemy target being fired upon within his aura. There is no way people can seriously talk about how powerful Doom is, and then simply dismiss the effects of Gman or state that a Capt/Lt combo is better. In addition, with Doom, the Farseer has to get within 24" of the target, not so with the Gman bubble, screening will not prevent that.
I think you're not talking to me - but the other people? But I can see where Cap/Lt is "better" than G-Man. For my preferences Calgar/LT is "better" I know Grandpappy Smurf's bubble is more potent, but with other considerations I find PapaSmurt/LT to be preferable - transports, medics, cost.
Lemondish wrote: I wouldn't say it's guaranteed that you need to rely on your opponent messing up unless you're also assuming that you're not very good.
I’m not super good, but come on, if plasma inceptors are too easily screened out of 18” to be considered viable, that same opponent can easily keep prime targets 21” away from the hellblasters already on the table. Or just kill them.
The first part of your conclusion statement isn't true, so I can't see why the second part wouldn't also be incorrect.
Even IF the first part is true, 3 inches in Diameter adds a ton of area to deny. πR² says an 18 inch circle is 254.34 square inches in area. a 21 inch circle is 346.185 square inches in area. A 3 man Inceptor Squad on 40mm bases (R=.7874) is about 6 square inches by the math, probably closer to 8-10 on the reality. Adding 3 inches to the radius of your needed Area Denial added about 10x as much area as what you're trying to deny takes up.
The fact you listed them as an Apothecary target as a point of value is hilarious. If they're killed in one go around what are you gonna do? Nothing!
bort wrote: I’m not clear why that is suddenly controversial. You don’t see many lists with plasma inceptors or other jump plasma do you? Most opponents keep their knight/prime target screened if you have a reserve bomb. The marine thread alone has several posts advising against using them for this very reason. Any unit anywhere 9”-18” away from the knight keeps a reserve unit from dropping within 18” range. Between say a table edge in back and the rest of the army in front, lots of armies can make that denial area for a few turns.
To get back to hellblasters, this should also be clear here. You can see where the hellblaster unit is deployed (or where it could be deployed). You know their double tap threat range is 21”. Deployment zones are 18”+ apart, so even if those hellblasters are right on the line you only need to deploy 3” back and you’re out of that range for a turn you can use to kill them. Or, if they’re deployed out of sight, then still, you know where they are and can choose yourself whether to enter that threat range or not.
I’m not suggesting here that these units will have nothing to shoot or can’t single shot something. But you don’t take expensive plasma inceptors to shoot a screen and hellblasters firing single shots are outclassed and often outranged by several other AT options.
I see your issue here.
You need better screen clearing and redundancy in your AT options. Don't expect either unit to do the job for you all on their own without support.
That Knight isn't doing its job all in its own after all.
The fact you listed them as an Apothecary target as a point of value is hilarious. If they're killed in one go around what are you gonna do? Nothing!
If my character with all the protections characters get is killed in one round, what will I do? Probably try and play better than you do the next time? Remember the Apothecary can heal other stuff, but not Guilliman which makes Calgar/LT a better synergy with an Apothecary than Guilliman?
The fact you listed them as an Apothecary target as a point of value is hilarious. If they're killed in one go around what are you gonna do? Nothing!
If my character with all the protections characters get is killed in one round, what will I do? Probably try and play better than you do the next time? Remember the Apothecary can heal other stuff, but not Guilliman which makes Calgar/LT a better synergy with an Apothecary than Guilliman?
yeah man but if you took an apothary in the first place you didn't take one of the pre-approved meta lists and you should feel bad for not playing the same way some person on the internet tells you too!
Though 
